Interesting conversation with my Spanish friend

[TitanTiger 21,241]

She finally came online today, thank God. I was getting worried. She does take that train to Madrid pretty often, but hasn't been recently. Thanks for those of you who prayed.

But, onto our conversation. She was talking about the election over there and saying how everyone was happy with the conservative government until the bombing happened, but that "fear took over" (her words) and people went crazy in voting for the socialists. They have a much different system than we do. They elect their entire "congress" every four years (no rotating terms), and whichever party gets the majority of the seats gets to name the prime minister. It's not a separate election for that role like our President is.

One other thing. She asked about our election and I told her about how much of it was revolving around the economy and the jobs issue. When told that our unemployment rate was 5.6%, she couldn't believe it. She said they'd make anyone who could pull that off in Spain king for life. Their unemployment rate is 11.2%. She can't believe that we're able to sustain that kind of unemployment rate. She was even more shocked that the average rate over the decades is around 6 to 6.5%. That's just unheard of over there and she's a little dumbfounded that people are upset with that.

Interesting to hear another perspective.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

great to hear she's ok, TT.

pass along our thoughts & prayers to her and her countrymen as they continue to recover from the senseless loss suffered.

ct

[CShine 0]

Comparing America's unemployment rate to Spain's means nothing. Our government stops counting unemployed people the moment their unemployment compensation runs out. No other country does that. Our unemployment rate is always artificially low because of this.

Prime example: The economy added no new jobs in February but the U.S. unemployment rate still dropped because nearly 400,000 people exhausted their unemployment benefits and the gov't quit counting them. Same number of jobs + fewer people being counted = lower unemployment rate. Like Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The way our government figures unemployment is a joke. Pretty much every economist agrees that if our government actually counted ALL the people that are unemployed it would be around 8% at the very least.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Comparing America's unemployment rate to Spain's means nothing. Our government stops counting unemployed people the moment their unemployment compensation runs out. No other country does that. Our unemployment rate is always artificially low because of this.

Prime example: The economy added no new jobs in February but the U.S. unemployment rate still dropped because nearly 400,000 people exhausted their unemployment benefits and the gov't quit counting them. Same number of jobs + fewer people being counted = lower unemployment rate. Like Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The way our government figures unemployment is a joke. Pretty much every economist agrees that if our government actually counted ALL the people that are unemployed it would be around 8% at the very least.

So I'm guessing this is the same way they did it when Clinton was there?

[CarolinaTiger 0]

it's only a dumb way to do it when bush is in office, BS...c'mon man, get w/ the program!

[TitanTiger 21,241]

Comparing America's unemployment rate to Spain's means nothing. Our government stops counting unemployed people the moment their unemployment compensation runs out. No other country does that. Our unemployment rate is always artificially low because of this.

Prime example: The economy added no new jobs in February but the U.S. unemployment rate still dropped because nearly 400,000 people exhausted their unemployment benefits and the gov't quit counting them. Same number of jobs + fewer people being counted = lower unemployment rate. Like Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The way our government figures unemployment is a joke. Pretty much every economist agrees that if our government actually counted ALL the people that are unemployed it would be around 8% at the very least.

According to the Department of Labor website, this isn't the way they figure it:

...Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs.  But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits.  So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed...

...Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.  The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration project.  It has been expanded and modified several times since then.  As explained later, the CPS estimates, beginning in 1994, reflect the results of a major redesign of the survey...

...Who is counted as unemployed? 

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.  Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

Contacting:

                 An employer directly or having a job interview;

                 A public or private employment agency;

                 Friends or relatives;

                 A school or university employment center;

Sending out resumes or filling out applications;

Placing or answering advertisements;

Checking union or professional registers; or

Some other means of active job search...

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

This also doesn't take into account the number of self-employed people (which our current unemployment numbers invariably under counts):

Job Growth Description

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.                                         

Published 3/11/2004 12:06:21 AM                                                

...As for the economy, its robust growth suggests that job growth must be strong also. Yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes data declaring job growth is low, only 21,000 new jobs in February as opposed to the forecasted 125,000. Are these statistics sound? Senator Kerry does not ask that question, but some economists are asking it. One, Brian Wesbury, a man distinguished for his reading of economic trends and business achievement, has looked carefully at the economy and found job growth where others have failed to look.

Wesbury claims that in the New Economy, invigorated as it is by developments in software and technology that make founding small businesses more feasible, job creation is missed by the old way of measuring it. The old way was through the job survey called the Establishment Survey. The new way is through the survey called the Household Survey. The Establishment Survey takes into account business establishments nationwide by measuring payroll employment. "But," writes Wesbury in the April issue of The American Spectator, "payrolls are not where the action is today. The real growth is entrepreneurial. Self-employment and Limited Liability Corporations (LLC) are growing like weeds, and these types of employment do not fit into the normal payroll." They do fit into the Household Survey.

Whereas the Establishment Survey tells us that since the end of the recession in November 2001 payroll jobs have declined by 718,000, the Household Survey indicates 1.9 million jobs have been created. Naturally, Senator Kerry, the candidate of confusion, relies on the Establishment Survey. I doubt he has ever paid any attention to the Household Survey.

Wesbury believes that he should. It not only calculates job growth more accurately than the other survey it also has tracked a trend. For two decades self-employment has represented an ever larger percentage of post-recession job growth. In the months following the 1982 recession self-employment accounted for 5.4% of job growth. In the months following the 1991 recession it accounted for 9.3% of job growth. "Since the recession ended in November 2001," Wesbury writes, "total household employment has climbed 2.1 million and self-employment has grown by 644,000….31.1% of all job growth in the Household Survey."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6269

[Ranger12 53]

Good job TT. I was about to call bs on that also.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Good job TT. I was about to call bs on that also.

well if you are calling "bs" on other people's posts...you have to start calling me BG

[MDM4AU 338]

There will be no reply from the left on this! Except... maybe to say it is a "Bush Lie!"

[AUloggerhead 2,516]

Prime example: The economy added no new jobs in February ...

Speaking of damned lies, ... your "prime example" appears to be based on one. The US economy grew by +21,000 permanent and +32,000 temporary jobs in February 2004, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report dated March 5, 2004.

Do you know the definition of zero? (Here's a hint: it's 53,000 less jobs than were created in the US last month.)

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Do you know the definition of zero?

Don't ask them that Logger. If they can't define the word "is", the concept of the word zero will surely blow their mind.