Net-Jobs

Snake007x · #1 08-15-2004, 01:54 AM

I kept hearing Krugman mention 10 million net-jobs being lost. What's the definition of this term?

Dutch · #2 08-15-2004, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snake007x:
I kept hearing Krugman mention 10 million net-jobs being lost. What's the definition of this term?

When Krugman says 'Net-Jobs' he is factoring in all the jobs, real or imaginary, that were lost due to George Bush not dropping dead, the wealthy not being slaughtered in their homes, and the little people in America not having their every thought and decision made for them by the more compassionate, tolerant, and understanding hand of the government.

Krugman is an imbecile that has no business speaking on economic matters. Nothing Krugman says can be taken seriously and it is best to do the exact opposite of what Krugman advises.

Snake007x · #3 08-15-2004, 09:15 AM

So net-job is a term Krugman made up, in short? I've never taken him seriously by the way, I just wanted to be better educated on economic matters so I asked for that simple reason.

Melissa · #4 08-15-2004, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snake007x:
So net-job is a term Krugman made up, in short? I've never taken him seriously by the way, I just wanted to be better educated on economic matters so I asked for that simple reason.

<font color="purple" c>I did a search and came up with this [img]graemlins/Laughing.gif[/img] </font c>

One World

RandomNY · #5 08-15-2004, 01:47 PM

Net jobs like NET PAy is after adjustments.. You earn your GROSS pay - TAxes = NET PAY

Jobs created - Jobs Lost = Net- jobs.. If that number is a positive number you can say NET-JOB increase, if the number is a negative number you can say Net-job loss...

Except there are 2 way the labor dept tracks jobs creation or loss.. When the LIBS are crying NET-JOB loss they aren't taking into account people who left the job place to start businesses at home or people who became day traders of the stock market and now don't techically have a job..

Under Clinton the LIBS looked at that number and claimed 22 million jobs created. That number is called the HOME INCOME survey.

dirtdart · #6 08-15-2004, 01:56 PM

I'm not up on this whole economic thing, but isn't Krugman (and a lot of other Democrats) claiming a net job loss because the actual figures haven't met the Republican's initial predictions for this year? That, in itself, sounds pretty fishy to me.

RandomNY · #7 08-15-2004, 08:37 PM

They are twisting it every way to Sunday...they are claiming 22 million jobs created under Clinton.. they never take into effect the INTERNET BUBBLE EXPLODING and most of the jobs went POOF*.. they also don't take into effect the effects of 9/11 and all the jobs lost because of the SHOCKWAVE that event sent through the economy.. The main reason is of course that productivity is through the roof that is why the job creation numbers aren't through the roof.

sju_pol16 · #8 08-16-2004, 01:05 PM

Out of curiosity, does anyone have the home income survey taken under Bush?

Taxman · #9 08-16-2004, 01:59 PM

This is probably what you're aking about: http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/personalincome.htm