• Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

San Diego County's unemployment rate was 4.2 percent in February, down from a revised 4.5 percent in January, according to the state's Employment Development Department.

The county did much better than the state (5.2 percent) and the nation (4.9 percent) during the period.

Non-farm jobs rose by 6600 during February. Professional and business services jobs rose by 3300 — the biggest portion of the gain. Government added 4200 jobs.

  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

JustWondering March 24, 2017 @ 1:12 p.m.

Wait, I'm confused. But I'll admit that happens all to often now-a-days.

If professional and service jobs rose by 3300, and government jobs rose by 4200, which is 900 more, how could the former be biggest portion of the gain, and aren't the two combined more than 6600 "non-farm" jobs?

Or are these job numbers, or the so-called unemployment numbers kinda phony? Seems like these numbers are always being manipulated by the party in power. Mainly, I'll add, (if you'll pardon the pun) to serve their narrative or agenda rather than giving the voters a factual accounting.

1

Don Bauder March 24, 2017 @ 2:08 p.m.

JustWondering: Government was 2400 jobs. My bad. Are the unemployment numbers rigged? I don't think so, although consumer inflation numbers do get massaged downward.

Certainly, unemployment numbers get more attention than they deserve. Median household income is a better measure of the health of the middle class, for example. Best, Don Bauder

1

AlexClarke March 24, 2017 @ 4:25 p.m.

I wonder how many workers in San Diego City/county also qualify for welfare?

0

Don Bauder March 26, 2017 @ 4:52 p.m.

Flapper: U-2? You are too young to remember the U-2. Best, Don Bauder

0

Flapper March 27, 2017 @ 9:10 a.m.

Aw contrarie. I once saw it take off. About 1955, if I remember correctly. That's all I can tell you.

But THANKS for the compliment!

0

Don Bauder March 28, 2017 @ 7:27 a.m.

Flapper: In 1955 I was a sophomore in college. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder March 24, 2017 @ 8:10 p.m.

AlexClarke: I don't know the answer to that. Best, Don Bauder

0

swell March 24, 2017 @ 4:26 p.m.

Don't unemployment numbers come from the Unemployment Insurance department? When someone's insurance runs out, they are no longer counted; whether or not they are employed. Many people have been in that category for years (long-term unemployed). Thus the numbers have no relationship to the number unemployed; only to those currently receiving benefits. Help me with this Don, is this true?

Then there are the under employed- people who lost a good job and now struggle on minimum wage doing menial labor. And don't forget the graduates of Trump University (and Bridgepoint, etc) who owe thousands and are unemployable in the real world… They never qualified for Unemployment Insurance and cannot be counted either.

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain (and others).

2

Don Bauder March 25, 2017 @ 9:40 p.m.

swell: The California unemployment figures are compiled by the Employment Development Department. The monthly national numbers come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is based on a survey of employers and a survey of 60,000 households.

The unemployment number is based on the labor force. People who are not working and not looking for a job are not in the labor force. The percentage of people in the labor force has been dropping over a long period of time. Best, Don Bauder

0

Visduh March 24, 2017 @ 7:39 p.m.

A brief review of economic commentary now reveals the high number of people, but notably males in the prime earning years of life, who are out of the labor force. The figures are just off the scale as compared to even twenty years ago. Sociologists recognize the facts, but there is massive disagreement as to the cause. But know what? Regardless of the cause, there are millions of those who "should" be employed or looking for work and are not. So, this level of unemployment isn't as good as it should be, and doesn't reflect reality.

But as to the role of UI in determining these stats, as I understand it, UI filings have just about nothing to do with the measure. Long ago it was determined that they failed to measure reality and were replaced with other measures.

0

Don Bauder March 25, 2017 @ 9:42 p.m.

Visduh: Among other things, people working off the books would not be considered in the labor force. People in the underground economy, such as drug dealers and those working off the books, tend to swell the number who are not in the labor force. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder March 28, 2017 @ 7:30 a.m.

Visduh: Again, the sociologists should look at the underground economy. But PhD economists and sociologists don't seem to recognize illegal activities. Best, Don Bauder

0

Flapper March 24, 2017 @ 8:29 p.m.

Where will these numbers go when all the federal budget cuts hit the fan?

0

Don Bauder March 25, 2017 @ 9:53 p.m.

AlexClarke: Yes, unemployment will go up and median household income will go down if Trump gets his budget through. Incomes of the top 2 percent would soar upward. However, I doubt that budget will go through -- even in increments. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder March 25, 2017 @ 9:54 p.m.

Murphyjunk: Yes. Ugh. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder March 25, 2017 @ 9:50 p.m.

Flapper: The proposed federal budget cuts would swell the unemployment rate considerably. Trump wants to cut more than 30 percent of those in the State Department and EPA, for example. Some will be able to retiree, but others will simply be out of work. And there will be a negative ripple effect from such slashes.

However, I do not think Trump will get this budget through. His approval rate is in the 30s and he has not been on the job long. More tax cuts for the rich will have a difficult time, if his opposition is smart enough to advertise this dubious strategy. I don't know that the Mexican wall will get through if, say, 24 million people are cut out of a healthcare program. The big defeat of Trump's healthcare program is definitely a setback for him. Best, Don Bauder

0

Flapper March 25, 2017 @ 10:48 p.m.

Trouble is, Trump's voters actually BELIEVE he will cut THEIR taxes.

1

Don Bauder March 26, 2017 @ 8:52 a.m.

Flapper: You are correct. Trump's base is largely uninformed voters. They are not keeping track of his obvious (and frequent) lies, his narcissistic and paranoid personality, and his asinine proposals, such as the wall. Best, Don Bauder

0

Flapper March 26, 2017 @ 3:20 p.m.

The coming gummint shutdown will "take care" of that!

0

Don Bauder March 26, 2017 @ 4:39 p.m.

Flapper: It's clear the nationalists around Trump, such as Bannon and Miller, are in the camp that wants to reduce the government down to the size of a bathtub, then drain it. Why do you think all those posts have not been filled?

This will not fly with the broad population. Wait until Social Security checks are delayed for long periods and Medicare paperwork goes undone. The extreme right radicals to whom Trump is listening have no idea how the republic runs. Best, Don Bauder

0

swell March 26, 2017 @ 4:03 p.m.

BELIEVE is a key word. It is a near religious obsession for Trump voters. No amount of logic or factual information will sway them.

0

Don Bauder March 26, 2017 @ 4:49 p.m.

swell: Yes, but these radicals have no idea how much they rely on government. Remember the Tea Party picketers who were carrying signs saying "Save Our Medicare" and "Save Our Social Security." They had no idea that these are government programs.

Here are some interesting numbers: There were 100 hearings, roundtables, and walkthroughs over Obamacare. There were zero for Trumpcare. There were 147 Republican Obamacare amendments. There have been zero Democratic amendments for the defeated Trumpcare. There were 25 legislative days on the floor for Obamacare. There was one legislative day on the floor for Trumpcare.

The Trump administration has utterly no idea how to run a government. This becomes more obvious every day. Best, Don Bauder

0

MURPHYJUNK March 25, 2017 @ 7:53 a.m.

the figures never indicate the multitude of persons working off the books for cash

0

AlexClarke March 25, 2017 @ 9 a.m.

The figures are for political purposes not reality.

1

Don Bauder March 25, 2017 @ 9:58 p.m.

AlexClarke: The unemployment numbers are more accurate that consumer inflation numbers. But they only tell part of the story. Again, median household income is a better figure. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder March 25, 2017 @ 9:56 p.m.

Murphyjunk:True. The underground economy is not measured, generally. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder March 26, 2017 @ 8:54 a.m.

Murphyjunk: True. Back in the 1960s, some economists were talking about a "cashless society." They didn't consider the underground economy. Best, Don Bauder

1

Flapper March 27, 2017 @ 9:13 a.m.

The biggest problem in the world is the inability to distinguish THINKING from BELIEVING.

1

AlexClarke March 28, 2017 @ 6:24 a.m.

Thus the vast number of religious people.

1

Don Bauder March 28, 2017 @ 7:36 a.m.

AlexClarke: Karl Marx called it the opiate of the masses. However, attempts by Soviet and Russian leaders to stamp out religion have failed.

That's good. While I don't take things on faith, I believe the government has no right to force atheism or agnosticism on the population. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder March 28, 2017 @ 7:33 a.m.

Flapper: Excellent point. That is why I do not take things on faith. Best, Don Bauder

0

Flapper March 28, 2017 @ 8:49 a.m.

Thinking COULD be TAUGHT in schools. Believing certainly is.

1

Don Bauder March 31, 2017 @ 8:08 a.m.

Flapper: Yes, all the way through high school, students are rewarded for expressing faith -- in the efficacy of government, in a supreme being, in the importance of sports, etc. At the college level, professors generally encourage thinking, although some colleges and universities are notorious for hammering faith into students. Best, Don Bauder

0

Flapper April 3, 2017 @ 2:22 p.m.

Encourage all universities certainly do. But they also teach facts, rather than how to actually think. The lack of understanding the crucial distinction between thinking and believing is widespread, even dominant in everyday discourse and social intercourse, and the actual teaching of what thinking is is rare to nonexistent.

The common expression, "Nobody's gonna tell me how to think" is a good example. Unfortunately, that has long been taken literally. Compare to "Nobody is going to tell me what to believe."

What I'm getting at is that children and students at all levels should be actually taught that crucial distinction. Clearly, they are not, debating classes and clubs notwithstanding (which are, by the way, commonly more about selling a belief than intellectual discipline).

0

Don Bauder April 6, 2017 @ 8:43 a.m.

Flapper: In Gilbert & Sullivan's "HMS Pinafore," the Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Porter, K.C.B., First Lord of the Admiralty, sings a marvelous song telling how he rose up the ranks of a law firm, and eventually was named head of Navy.

"I grew so rich that I was sent, by a pocket borough into Parliament. I always voted at my party's call. I never thought of thinking of myself at all. I thought so little, they rewarded me, by making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navy." Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment