Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The drop in unemployment may be neither good nor bad, as you know.
That's absurd; of course it's good, no matter how you slice it. Remember, the article stated it wasn't just hospitality jobs.
Quote:
As for the last comment, again, that was pointed at a post after yours asking AN's motive. Hardly a straw man when the allegation is he is trying to prevent people from moving here.
Please. That AN has an agenda is no secret. If Asheville were a fraction as bad as AN has made it out to be, he would be long gone.
Are you suggesting that one ore more posters here has an ulterior motive as well?
I am suggesting we have a group of cheerleaders, a group of people waiting for the comet to whisk them away to an asteroid before the planet implodes from ground zero, which is Asheville (in their view) and a bunch in between.
How many times have we seen people advise posters who were considering moving here without a job and without any realistic idea how they were going to survive to "come on down, the water's fine?" That's just as bad as discouraging people who would seem to have their ducks in a row.
In the end, the best service we can provide is to point out the strengths and weaknesses, tell people to do their own due diligence and by all means, come for a visit before they make up their own minds.
But I digress. As for a drop in employment being not good nor bad unless it is viewed in comparison to something (an average for the same month, last year during the same month, etc), it is definitely not absurd. You point out it was not just hospitality jobs, but construction jobs also pick up when the weather turns and are thus also seasonal. And let's not forget such occupations as landscaping, which also booms in spring.
Again, numbers without some benchmark to compare them with are just noise.
I am suggesting we have a group of cheerleaders, a group of people waiting for the comet to whisk them away to an asteroid before the planet implodes from ground zero, which is Asheville (in their view) and a bunch in between.
No one on this thread has made anything remotely resembling those comments, so why interject it into thread that was simply about a dip in the unemployment rate?
One person commented that they are perfectly content to live on less in return for the pleasure of living in Asheville, and another commented that she has had no problem finding work. These are simply direct experiences from folks who actually live here. So why bring up these hyperbolic comments that no one has actually said?
Quote:
How many times have we seen people advise posters who were considering moving here without a job and without any realistic idea how they were going to survive to "come on down, the water's fine?"
I've never heard anyone say any such thing. Regardless, it's irrelevant to the undeniable good news that the unemployment rate dropped.
Quote:
But I digress.
Indeed you do.
Quote:
Again, numbers without some benchmark to compare them with are just noise.
Here's a benchmark for you: there are a lot more people with jobs today than there were last month. I don't care if those jobs are waiting tables, building homes or commercial buildings, or picking up trash along the side of the road . . . compared to last month (which is what people who have families to feed and kids to clothe care about), there are fewer unemployed people.
Does that mean that sky has opened up and the almighty creator has declared that perfection shall now reign in the great city of Asheville from here on forward? Well, no, but then nobody has claimed that . . . but then nobody has claimed a lot of the things put forward in this thread.
If those people were going to be put to work regardless of whether the economy got better, worse or stood still, it is neutral news. If they were going to be put to work irregardless and were not, that is very bad news. If more of them were put to work than normally would have or were last year at the same time, that is good news.
Anyone with a passing knowledge of economics understands why even the government compares numbers to "the same period last year." To do otherwise allows cherry picking numbers and time periods to engineer a desired conclusion.
Given your position, things could be going straight down the tubes but as long as some number of the usual seasonal people were hired, even far less than the averages or even the same period the year before, it is good news. If the normal number hired is roughly 1,000, 700 got hired last year and 125 actually get hired this year, you would apparently classify that as good news. Sorry, I disagree.
With that, I'm done with you on this. Let's just say our definition of good news is different and leave it at that.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 05-05-2010 at 11:39 AM..
Reason: Deleted unnecessary personal comment
Given your position, things could be going straight down the tubes but as long as some number of the usual seasonal people were hired, even far less than the averages or even the same period the year before, it is good news. If the normal number hired is roughly 1,000, 700 got hired last year and 125 actually get hired this year, you would apparently classify that as good news. Sorry, I disagree.
Hmmm . . . so according to your logic, having fewer people out of a job than last month is not good news. Wow.
Of course, you could interpret everything as being negative relative to some other time period. You could compare last quarter's GDP numbers with 1998's GDP numbers and conclude that that they are bad in comparison. But that really wouldn't be fair given that we are coming out of one of the worst recessions in our nation's history, now would it? Talk about cherry picking.
The bottom line is that more people are employed this month than last month, and to those folks who now have jobs and can put food on the table, it is undeniably good news.
As to whether or not the unemployment numbers will continue to drop, we'll just have to wait and see. And if next year at this time the unemployment rate is 7%, I'm sure AN and others will find something negative in that as well.
But I digress. As for a drop in employment being not good nor bad unless it is viewed in comparison to something (an average for the same month, last year during the same month, etc)
According to these numbers, the unemployment rate is slight above what it was last year at this time: 8.9 vs. 8.7 (which considering that we're coming out of one of the worst recessions in our nation's history, is not terrible). However, the percentage drop from the previous month is much greater this year than in previous years.
For example, this year there was a .8% change from Feb to March.
Last year, there was only a .2% change from Feb to March.
In 2008, it was only .1%.
In 2007, it was .5%.
In 2006, it was .5%.
IOW, if you want to argue that the March jump is due to seasonal fluctuations, and you want to compare this year's seasonal fluctuations to past years, then you must conclude that there were significantly more jobs created this year than in past years.
Of course, there are still more people unemployed today than last year at this time, but the fact that the decrease is considerably higher on a percentage basis this year than in years past is pretty significant (and dare I say "good"), isn't it?
Finally, we have something to compare it to! And you can pop that cork now.
Like you said, the increase over last year's March raw unemployment number is about a push when factored against a more robust spring hiring and the fact that the economy worsened from March 2009 to February 2010 overall, meaning it was starting in a deeper hole from which to dig out of.
Now that wasn't all that hard, was it?
And before somebody says it, none of it means things are rosy and we are suddenly in the midst of a bull-charging recovery. But it does mean that those hiring are apparently more optimistic than they were in 2008 by a noticeable amount, and at least marginally more optimistic than they were in 2007 and 2006.
One reason, especially in the tourism industry, for that optimism could be that people nationally still aren't throwing money around and may never return to the spending habits of previous years. That means when they plan a vacation, destinations like Asheville look pretty good when compared to Europe or more exotic and expensive locations. I was expecting some of that to give things a boost last year but never saw any numbers about whether or not it actually happened. Many may have just foregone vacations in 2009 (the so called "staycation").
Armed with that new information, I think it is time for a glass of wine!
Something to remember about unemployment numbers,it doesn't count anyone no longer receiving unemployment benefits or those who are not eligible to receive benefits...
Well that is how the fedgov. skews the figures to make things look rosy.
Something to remember about unemployment numbers,it doesn't count anyone no longer receiving unemployment benefits or those who are not eligible to receive benefits...
Well that is how the fedgov. skews the figures to make things look rosy.
That's true, but the relevant point here is not the numbers, but the percentages. Regardless of what the actual unemployment number is, we have seen a significant drop in the percentage.
On a larger scale, the reality is that the economic numbers have been foreboding a recovery for some time now, perhaps even a V-shaped recovery. All of the leading indicators have pointing in that direction. And remember that unemployment is a severely lagging indicator.
Here's a reasonable, research and fact-based analysis by Liz Ann Sonders, who is consistently right on target.
Well the percentage of people on unemployment will go down as those people run out of benefits,as far as the gov. is concerned,you are no longer unemployed.
So as time goes on,unemployment numbers will go down,because people will simply not be getting any benefits.
This is not a V shaped recession in my opinion,there is no reason for things to get better,we haven't come up with a new 'bubble'.
The US economy has been based on 'bubbles' for decades,we have run out of 'bubbles'.
By the way,if you actually use U-6 figures,things are absolutely horrible in this country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
