I doubt it.Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
I doubt it.
Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
--Albert J. Nock
I would have to ask tho, it says "new" applications, OK, maybe more people aren't applying, but does that mean the amount of people who are already getting them has gone down?
Think about it, I'll keep the numbers small, but let's say you have a population of 10 people, 1 of them doesn't work, and 1 just lost his job. So 1 person applies, now over 3 weeks the 3rd, 4th, 5th person loses their job, and they apply, and it's an explosion, but the other 5 are in good fields and still have their jobs.
So, the week after the 5th person applied there will be a "big dropoff" in the claims, but you still have half your population not working.
Zip, read the title of your thread. "Applications for unemployment aid plunge....etc."
Why would he do that? He has never let what he said before (or what his predecessors on that account have said that he didn't know was said) get in the way of his attempts to put over his propaganda. Why would he start now?
New applications for unemployment is a measure of how many people lost their jobs this week (or whatever time period). Total unemployment is all those who lost jobs, are looking for a new one, and haven't been able to find one yet. They are different figures. A person can be unemployed but not on unemployment insurance as long as you are still looking for a new one. Jobs lost are also offset by new jobs being created. If 300,000 new jobs were created and 250,000 were laid off, that would mean a net change in total unemployed of minus 50,000.
Shovel ready jobs I'm sure.
The Creature from Jekyll Island:
We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!
Unless, of course, it was temporary work of less than six months duration, in which case there is no unemployment application.
And they can still be 'unemployed' as opposed to 'someone who gave up' only if they get called for the survey...
Much simpler, and more accurate to stand by the entrance of your local supermarket and ask shoppers if they are employed and covering their bills.
That however wouldn't paint the picture desired.....
First time claims. In other words, corporations have cut to the bone and can't cut any more without it being unprofitable.
"The journalist is one who separates the wheat from the chaff, and then prints the chaff." - Adlai Stevenson
“I tell you that virtue does not come from money: but from virtue comes money and all other good things to man, both to the individual and to the state.” - Socrates
Or compare receipts on the days food stamp/SSI is distributed to the rest of the month...I reckon my method is a tad more scientific, but I'm not an expert in statistics.
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us