Griswold
Posts: 2739
Joined: 2/12/2007 Status: offline
|
I'm confident Popeye or any number of folks like him will pop in to tell me that the world is going to hell in a handbasket (which it may very well be), and I'm equally confident this topic will turn into a tirade of any number of people with the best of intentions using wildly innacurate data to "prove" their point, however....I'm quite serious in my search for an answer on this subject. Just yesterday the jobs report came out that we've (the US) created 166,000 new jobs in the last month. The consensus was in the neighborhood of 60,000. Now, owning both a national construction company as well as a local one, I'm probably more aware of where federal and state money goes than most people. As it so happens, I'm particularly aware that federal money has been pouring into state coffers for longer than 20 months for infrastructure projects (sewers, roads, etc.) and that the TEA (Transportation Act money) has been growing by 25% annually for the last 2 years, largely going to union pay scales (thanks to the Davis Bacon Act) which tends to get spent rather rapidly in the economy (God bless the unions), ergo....it bumps the economic numbers. I personally don't think the unemplyment figures accurately reflect what's going on in our country, nor do I feel it accurately reflects middle America. Indeed, I think they (the unemployment numbers) have been bastardized by every President over the last 30 or so years...hence my question: I sure wish there was somebody, or a website that could tell me what the REAL unemployment rate (jobs created) was, based on formulas that didn't include changes made to same in the Reagan I, Reagan II, Bush I, Clinton I and II, and Bush II (1 & 2) regimes...ALL of which (I believe) have been incrementally adjusted in some form to reflect the numbers they wanted to see (or portray). I believe the numbers are in the neighborhood of 2 - 3 points higher. I wish someone had that number (broken down by each Presidency). (Now....THAT would be telling).
|