Yeah, easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven, in accordance with the prophecy.

Karl Rove was at a Social Security promo yesterday, in accordance with the prophecy.

51% of the country says the country is on the wrong track? Do they know where the right track is? Can you find it on maps.yahoo.com if you enter "the right track" in the address field? I think that would help.

So, you think raising the minimum wage would lift people out of poverty? Wouldn't the folks who are on minimum wage continue to be on minimum wage, and by definition be living at poverty levels no matter if the minimum wage was $5/hr, $50/hr or $500/hr? Isn't it just a number for the lowest rung possible on the job ladder? Whatever number we assign to that lowest rung on the ladder, the higher rungs would get bumped up to compensate.

Germany has more social services like health care than we do here. And their unemployment rate is 12.4%, compared to the US 5.2%. Do you support raising the US unemployment rate to 12.4%? Is that part of "the right track" you propose?

I don't think so. Good luck running on that in 2006.

the trolls don't like their minority status, but they still lie. The polls have the wrong track number at around 59%.

Further proof the election was stolen.

Pride (or arrogance) comes before the fall.

Our unemployment is about 10-12%. We stop counting a person after 6 mos. Germany counts all of them.

Shitty part-time and low pay jobs are becoming the norm in the US. How to solve it? Spend $40,000. to get an education for a new job that doesn't pay well either, and doesn't include benefits. What happens if you get sick? Lose the job, go an medicaid and force the cost of healthcare even higher. Nice prescription there, muck.

Oh yeah. Back when minimum wage was a massive $1.70 an hour I could buy 5 gallons of gas for an hour of work. This tell me minimum wage should be closer to $11.50. Some economists agree with me you say? I know!

US unemployment is 12%, maybe higher. If Germany continues to think that it can reduce wages and increase hours and cut benefits then the race to the bottom has been joined. The problem is that the model being used, one developed for the industrial age, no longer works. All the production requirements of the world could be met with some one-fourth the work force. So, the US and Germany are going down and compete? Germany's going to compete with eastern Europe just as the northern US states competed with the south before the southern states started competing with Mexico which now finds itself competing with China which has some 50% unemployment as does most or all of Latin America. Hell maybe the minimum wage is too high. Bet that's the problem. How can America compete when we got people with families to support making $5.50 an hour who are too dumb to save 10% of their pay for retirement. What fool this who says US unemployment is 5.2 % when in just the last few days there have been numerous posting on the very websites known to be frequented showing that employment is just now equal 2001 values whilst population has increased some 16million and providing graphic display of a gap of 5% pulled during the Bush years? How poor the arithmetic of those who can't approximate the number of the population desiring work and calculate the ratio of those having jobs to those desiring jobs? If only they could get that far, maybe the could do the subtraction and per cent conversion.

US unemployment is 12%, maybe higher.

I only argue with this point because the best estimates are showing 10%, 11% at max, with a few points over that unemployed and not looking for nor desirous of a job. Another issue is marginal employment. You gotta say one thing for the chimporer, he created many shitty part-time jobs during his reign. Benefits are down and getting lower. But all is good, the top 20% are chugging right along. And health insurance? Who needs it! All a person needs is a catastrophic health care plan...which is health insurance with a big ass deductible. Oops! Sorry. Your catastrophic care plan doesn't cover pre-existing nor health related health needs. Only catastrophic needs unrelated to what you might have, or get. It's a major con right now.

The 2million jobs bush 'created' went ot low wage immigrants.

I took this look last Sept. Many another set of data show about the same.

How many of America’s estimated 290 million are unemployed? Supposing current unemployment really is 6 percent with some 131 million currently employed, there are some 8.4 million Americans unemployed. This isn’t really how many are unemployed, is it? Isn’t it really the number of jobs needed, those capable who need to work, less the number with jobs? The number of unemployed is the number of jobs needed less the 131 million Americans with jobs. In the 2000 census, there were some 166 million Americans between the ages of twenty and sixty-five plus some 20 million between fifteen and twenty. If 80 per cent of these 186 million Americans between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five are capable and seeking work, America needs some 149 million jobs. Our current 131 million jobs is some 88 per cent of these 149 million jobs needed meaning that actual current unemployment is 12 per cent. Some 21 million of the current 131 million jobs are part time. These underemployed are partially unemployed. When 20 per cent of the underemployed, 4 million, is added to the above 18 million unemployed, total unemployment is 15 per cent. Amongst those working are an estimated 6 to 8 million illegal immigrants. This forces citizen’ unemployment up another some 4 percent to 19 per cent. And, there are millions of seniors over sixty-five who need to work.

Alternatively: If we presume unemployment to have been 5 percent in 2000 with 140 million of 147 million employed and we now have 131 million employed, unemployment has increased by some 9 million to about 16 million of 147 million, or about 11 per cent. Again, using 147 million jobs needed, if we accept that only 1 million jobs have been lost and that the population growth demanded an additional 3 million more jobs; unemployment equals 7 million plus 1 million plus 3 million or 11 million of 150 million, or some 7.3 per cent. If, in fact, since 2000, unemployment increased by 9 million, i.e., 140 million less 131 million, and population growth increased the number of jobs needed by 3 million; unemployment is now 7 million plus 9 million plus 3 million or 19 million of 150 million, or some 13 per cent.

Currently, September 2004, unemployment is least 7.3 per cent. It is much more likely some 11 to 12 per cent. It may be as high as 18 per cent, or even higher. Seems hardly fair to arbitrarily lop those who have given up off the unemployed roles.

No need to guess or look for opinions on other blogs. The US unemployment rate is 5.2%.

Slick but not that slick. Using numbers from the link:

2000 - 2004
unemployment increase from 4.0% to 5.5%
population increase 5.2%
work force increase 3.5%
not in work force increase 8.3%

Where oh where did Elaine hide the 5%