While our job situation is DEFINITELY improving, the story neglects to detail what is the FAR bigger factor reducing our unemployment -- people are giving up looking for work.
But look at the numbers. The story is there.
According to this article, 3,100 net new April jobs dropped the unemployment rate a remarkable ,7% to 7.0%. Current county unemployment (after the new jobs were added) is 111,900. If 3,100 jobs reduces the county's unemployment .7%, then 31,000 new jobs would reduce the county unemployment to ZERO! But 111,900 minus 31,000 is a tad higher than zero.
Come on, KPBS, check with someone who comprehends junior high math.
Anon, the "insurance" was for 26 weeks. And any private company this issued such an ill-funded "policy" would be both out of business, and their management in jail for fraud for running a Ponzi scheme a la Bernie Maddof.
But it gets worse. NOW the payments are for 73 weeks -- and has been as high as 99 weeks. There was no "unemployment insurance" promised for these extra weeks and ZERO funding for this giveaway.
That, my friend, is NOT insurance. The sequester funding cut affects only that amount above 26 weeks.
No Anon11, unemployment is NOT self funded. It's SUPPOSED to be, but by extending the benefits from 26 weeks to as much as 99 weeks, it's FAR from it.
The CA fund is broke, and has borrowed billions from the feds which will never be repaid. As I recall, the CA payment to the feds ALONE is over $500 million in 2011. And each year, we go DEEPER into the hole. http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2010/ss...
It's likely saying that social security is self funded. It is, until it goes broke -- a date we move closer to with each passing year.
Pay people to be unemployed, and you'll get more unemployment. It's amazing how many people find a job (often not their IDEAL job) the day their unemployment runs out.
And let's not forget the folks working "off the books" in the underground economy. For them, reporting their income often is the same has having a 100% income tax bracket. So they have a strong incentive to not work for a conventional salary.
Unemployment in several states is under 5%, but paying people not to work reduces labor mobility. No one should be surprised.
Now now, JeanMarc -- let's not use all those numbers. That's just plain MEAN.
I might note that you grossly UNDERSTATED the scenario -- you budgeted ZERO for the operating costs, and ZERO for the interest on the bonds. And then there are those pesky, inevitable SURPRISE! cost overruns to consider.
Finally there's the fiction (the REQUIREMENT in the prop that was passed) that the train make the run in 2 hours and 40 minutes. Not gonna happen. Not even close.
But trust me. HSR fans are undeterred by such trifling details. Forward!!!!!!
Mass transit jobs are NOT necessarily green jobs. Often such trains pollute more per passenger mile than modern cars and buses. That's because most of the time the trains are sparsely used, yet cost essentially the same to run whether full or empty.
And then there is the total cost per passenger mile of rail to consider, but we don't care about costs in California.
There's a misconception in this story. The "2.7 years" is supposed to be the AVERAGE experience of the city council at a POINT IN TIME. Most city council members stay for two full terms -- eight years.
Many wrongly will assume this figure means the average time each city council critter STAYS in office is 2.7 years.
That being said, clearly we need more experience in office -- "institutional memory" and all that. For proof, simply look at how well this has worked in Congress.
62° Mostly Cloudy
San Diego Unemployment Drops To 7 Percent
While our job situation is DEFINITELY improving, the story neglects to detail what is the FAR bigger factor reducing our unemployment -- people are giving up looking for work.
But look at the numbers. The story is there.
According to this article, 3,100 net new April jobs dropped the unemployment rate a remarkable ,7% to 7.0%. Current county unemployment (after the new jobs were added) is 111,900. If 3,100 jobs reduces the county's unemployment .7%, then 31,000 new jobs would reduce the county unemployment to ZERO! But 111,900 minus 31,000 is a tad higher than zero.
Come on, KPBS, check with someone who comprehends junior high math.
May 18, 2013 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
Anon, the "insurance" was for 26 weeks. And any private company this issued such an ill-funded "policy" would be both out of business, and their management in jail for fraud for running a Ponzi scheme a la Bernie Maddof.
But it gets worse. NOW the payments are for 73 weeks -- and has been as high as 99 weeks. There was no "unemployment insurance" promised for these extra weeks and ZERO funding for this giveaway.
That, my friend, is NOT insurance. The sequester funding cut affects only that amount above 26 weeks.
April 30, 2013 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
No Anon11, unemployment is NOT self funded. It's SUPPOSED to be, but by extending the benefits from 26 weeks to as much as 99 weeks, it's FAR from it.
The CA fund is broke, and has borrowed billions from the feds which will never be repaid. As I recall, the CA payment to the feds ALONE is over $500 million in 2011. And each year, we go DEEPER into the hole.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2010/ss...
It's likely saying that social security is self funded. It is, until it goes broke -- a date we move closer to with each passing year.
April 30, 2013 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
OOPS. Didn't add the link mentioned above. Sorry.
http://www.edd.ca.gov/unemployment/Fe...
April 29, 2013 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
According to this link, the current maximum time one receives unemployment benefits is 73 weeks. That's one year, five months!
People sometimes say that government doesn't work. But it does. Pay people not to work, and too many will choose remain unemployed.
April 29, 2013 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sequestration Shrinks Unemployment Benefits For 400,000 Californians
Pay people to be unemployed, and you'll get more unemployment. It's amazing how many people find a job (often not their IDEAL job) the day their unemployment runs out.
And let's not forget the folks working "off the books" in the underground economy. For them, reporting their income often is the same has having a 100% income tax bracket. So they have a strong incentive to not work for a conventional salary.
Unemployment in several states is under 5%, but paying people not to work reduces labor mobility. No one should be surprised.
April 29, 2013 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
California Leads Nation In Creation Of Green Jobs
Now now, JeanMarc -- let's not use all those numbers. That's just plain MEAN.
I might note that you grossly UNDERSTATED the scenario -- you budgeted ZERO for the operating costs, and ZERO for the interest on the bonds. And then there are those pesky, inevitable SURPRISE! cost overruns to consider.
Finally there's the fiction (the REQUIREMENT in the prop that was passed) that the train make the run in 2 hours and 40 minutes. Not gonna happen. Not even close.
But trust me. HSR fans are undeterred by such trifling details. Forward!!!!!!
March 7, 2013 at 6 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
California Leads Nation In Creation Of Green Jobs
Mass transit jobs are NOT necessarily green jobs. Often such trains pollute more per passenger mile than modern cars and buses. That's because most of the time the trains are sparsely used, yet cost essentially the same to run whether full or empty.
And then there is the total cost per passenger mile of rail to consider, but we don't care about costs in California.
March 7, 2013 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rail Authority Wants Private Sector To Connect San Diego
Hilarious. Some business model!
Are the PROPONENTS -- who often make fine salaries to promote, or hope to make billions off the project as vendors -- investing THEIR money into HSR?
Of course not. They may be HSR enthusiasts, but they aren't dumb.
April 2, 2012 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
S.D. Council Members Have Large Budgets, Short Stays In Office
There's a misconception in this story. The "2.7 years" is supposed to be the AVERAGE experience of the city council at a POINT IN TIME. Most city council members stay for two full terms -- eight years.
Many wrongly will assume this figure means the average time each city council critter STAYS in office is 2.7 years.
That being said, clearly we need more experience in office -- "institutional memory" and all that. For proof, simply look at how well this has worked in Congress.
Never mind.
February 7, 2011 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )