Thursday, November 04, 2004



I see I've been informed that a dip in jobless claims is good. I'm glad to have found a Bush supporter. (Off-color joke: Would that be a panty-waist?)

Y'see, Mr. Axe, I need evidence that a reported dip in jobless claims is good. I am skeptical that it is.

First, there are those who have been forced -- because they have mortgages and other annoying expenses like property taxes, utility bills, and grocery bills (particularly those hardliners who don't believe in birth control and abortion) -- to take a job that pays less than their last job. They're off the unemployment rolls.

Second, there are those who used to earn a little money to help out. Working mothers, perhaps, who can no longer work. They're eventually off the unemployment rolls.

Third, there are those who just give up, figure they'll never work again, and go to live (if they're lucky) with a relative, or (if they're not) on the street or in their car. After 39 or 52 or 65 weeks, they're off the unemployment rolls.

There are some who go back to work after being outsourced, dumped, fired, or otherwise separated from their previous employer who manage to make a salary equivalent (or sometimes better) than their previous salary. Good for them.

So, the way I see it, there's a 1-in-4 chance that the dip in jobless claims is good. But then, it's a government statistic, and we should trust it, shouldn't we, just as we should trust that the CIA, the FBI, the armed forces, and the Congress are all doing the right thing for us.

Yeah, right.

Trudeau's Doonesbury weighs in.

Tina Brown puts her $#@$#@ two cents in.

1 comment:

Brian Lehrhoff said...

How many Democratic Congressmen does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. They outsourced the job.