Re: BBC Puzzle

>> snipped-for-privacy@sushi.com wrote:
>> > >> >> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:26:56 GMT, Joerg >> >> >> wrote: >> >>> Jim Thomps>> >>>>> "Jim Thompson" wrote in >> >>>>> messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com... >> >>>>>> Why does the BBC report that the US jobless rate at 5.1% represents >> >>>>>> "serious recession", while reporting the UK rate _increasing_ to 5.5% >> >>>>>> means the good times are here ?:-) >> >>>>> Well jobless rate and recession aren't the same thing. Recession, in

the UK

> >>>>> at least, is considered to be the case when we have two successive

quarters

> >>>>> where economic growth is negative (or not positive?), I'm sure US is

similar

> >>>>> if not the same. >> >>>>> The BBC shouldn't be reporting it in that manner, where did you see it? >> >>>> "Latest Headlines" section of Firefox... >> >>>> >> >>>> which quotes Europeon banks... I find it hilarious that they bought >> >>>> bad US mortgage paper ;-) >> >>> They are just as guilty as many of ours. It boils down to a blatant lack >> >>> of due diligence. If I had been that negligent during corporate >> >>> aquisitions some companies would have me flogged. >> >>>> Then I googled on "jobless rate" UK and got the 5.5% number. >> >>> Don't know how it is in the UK but you can't always compare those >> >>> numbers. AFAIK in the US someone whose unemployment runs out isn't >> >>> counted anymore while in many European countries they can be on the dole >> >>> for several years. Probably they were referring to the increase from 4.8%. >> >> In the US "unemployed" refers to those seeking a job... if you sit on >> >> your hands you cease to get benefits and go off the unemployment >> >> rolls. At least in Arizona (it varies state-by-state) you must report >> >> weekly asking for a job placement, or you're history. >> >> >> ...Jim Thompson >> >> -- >> >> | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | >> >> > You more or less answered your own question. The unemployment rate in >> > the US is not a true measure of unemployment. In Europe, they have >> > more accurate statistics since their benefits don't expire. >> >> Usually the do expire as well, just not as fast as here. Sometimes two >> years, sometimes maybe longer. Afterwards they usually have to go on >> welfare and I don't know if they'd still be counted as unemployed. >> Probably yes since the governments in Europe won't just dole out welfare >> when someone is able but not willing to work. >> >> > There is some magic number of jobs that needs to be created each month >> > just due to the growth of the country. So when the number of jobs >> > declines, it is actually much worse than it sounds. >> >> Not necessarily in every country. AFAIK the population in Germany is >> slowly shrinking. Not enough kids. >> >> > Funny how the H1B parade seems to go on uninterrupted as the economy >> > sinks further in the GOP-created mire. It was less than two weeks ago >> > that Bush was saying "tax cuts work." >> >> H1B parade? >> >> -- >> Regards, Joerg >> >>
formatting link
> >The economy has been contracting, yet H-1B visas are still being >issued. As you know, many politicians are bought and paid for to keep >the H-1B parade in motion. Diane Feinstein for one. Anna Esh0o for >another.

H-1B is probably a net plus for the US economy. We're importing the best talent to work here, and depriving potential competitors of that same talent. Importing one brilliant programmer or engineer or scientist may save a dozen US jobs.

The H-1B brain-drain likely also reduces outsourcing. It's the import of low-skilled labor, usually illegal, that negatively impacts employment of US citizens, especially the young and minorities.

John