Record low for euro jobless rate

[Maximus Zeebra]

So here's the 64,000 question...

If the US, with a population of 300 million, has a labor force of 149.3 million, then why does the EU, with a population of 495 million, only have a labor force of 218 million?

Almost a full 50% of our population serves as part of the labor force, and yet we still manage to have 4.4% unemployment.

Only 44% of your population even participates in that labor force, and of that number, more than 8% can't even find a job.

I'll let you mull that over for a few minutes and think about why there might be such a great disparity between the percentages of the population in the labor force. When you get an idea, come back here and we can discuss it further.

The US number include unemployed, the EU number doesnrt.

 

[RightinNYC]

Yeah; maybe I should remind you of the US recorvery in the 90, wow how insane?? How ignorant you come off in this comment man. You simply dont see that a rapidly falling unemployment rate and positive economic trends arze agood things? The Unemployment rate has fallen at least 0.1% in average for 3 years now, every month, thats a trend. A one month fall in the US is not a trend, but hey, you are smart it spears so you will understand that. Or will you?

Diminishing returns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope that helps explain my point.

I know anything of European success is difficult to swallow for you Americans, especially since our econoomy is larger thah your and is set to outgrow your from this year and forward. In combination with falling unemployment and a currency that is taking over more and more of the "dollar market" its easy to see American bitterness about it..
In addition to all this, European values and ways ofg doing things are far superior to American ways, and Europe is just far more respected around the world, something that contributes to fall of American influence and power, this is obviously unbareable to Americans who think the US is a main world power and will remain so for very long.

But hey, I am happy European unemployment fell from 10% to 7% in less than 3 years. I am also happy our growth is approaching 3.5% and possibly on its way to 4-5% growth by 2010. But hey, thats just me, thats nothing posoitive right, because its European.

I have nothing against European growth at all - in fact I think its a good thing. What gets irritating is your constant trolling about how the european economy is supposedly much better than the US economy and how it means the US has lost its position in the world, despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[RightinNYC]

The US number include unemployed, the EU number doesnrt.

Thats the best response you could come up with?

Okay, lets adjust for that. The US has 149.3 million, including 4.4% unemployment. Remove that 4.4% (6.5 m), and you have 142.8 million. Divided by 300 million still gives you 47.6% of the population as part of the fully employed labor market.


So again, I ask if you can explain the disparity to me. Why does the EU have a significantly smaller percentage of their population in the labor market?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Diminishing returns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope that helps explain my point.

No it doesnt. You think a European recovery is bad, while a US one in the 90s was a good thing.. ?

I have nothing against European growth at all - in fact I think its a good thing. What gets irritating is your constant trolling about how the european economy is supposedly much better than the US economy and how it means the US has lost its position in the world, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Well, I am not saying the European economy is far better, I am just saying that the American is not better like Americans believbe. I am also saying the trends in the European economy is far more favorable than the trends in the American economy. Not only that but the investment climate in Europe is just sunhot compared to a dry US market. The opporutunity to make big money in Europe at this time is greater than anywhere else if you have the brains.


The US have lost its position in the world, by this I mean that most people dont like the US anymore, and that the respect for the things the US does is non existant. i am just saying that a military alone will not carry the US forward. Before you also had wordwide respect and most people liked the US. US actions and ways of doing things just seems completely retarded to the rest of the world at the moment. And no, I dont mean every person in the US, I mean your govbernment and their actions. your government comes off as a bunch of thugs, they would be selling Burgers or be in prison if they were trying the same in other countries.

Imagine Bush, Rice, Chaney, Rumsfeld or anyone in the US cabinet being in European politics. They just wouldnt be listened to, they would be conceived as crazy, a bunch of tards, they wouldnbt be politicians at all.

 

[RightinNYC]

No it doesnt. You think a European recovery is bad, while a US one in the 90s was a good thing.. ?

No, it means I recognize that as things improve, there is a natural flattening of the improvement curve, hence the diminishing returns. You seem to disregard that concept with your claim of "if this keeps up....."

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Thats the best response you could come up with?

Okay, lets adjust for that. The US has 149.3 million, including 4.4% unemployment. Remove that 4.4% (6.5 m), and you have 142.8 million. Divided by 300 million still gives you 47.6% of the population as part of the fully employed labor market.


So again, I ask if you can explain the disparity to me. Why does the EU have a significantly smaller percentage of their population in the labor market?

I dont know, many possible explenation. Lower pension age is one explenation. In France people usually stop working around in the 50s.

Another explenation is that labor life start later?

Anyuways, the difference is not much, so what is your reeal point here?

That the Americans are best because their 47.6% population work as compared to 45% of Europeans?

 

[Synch]

It may be a normal part of the political business cycle; there's nothing to be optimistic about seeing that this occurrence lacks any policy change to account for the decrease in unemployment.

If Segolene becomes elected you're going to see unemployment skyrocket again in France.

 

[RightinNYC]

I dont know, many possible explenation. Lower pension age is one explenation. In France people usually stop working around in the 50s.

Another explenation is that labor life start later?

Anyuways, the difference is not much, so what is your reeal point here?

That the Americans are best because their 47.6% population work as compared to 45% of Europeans?

Having people who are capable of being in the labor pool but who are not is a serious concern. Unemployment is calculated as the # of people actively trying to find work who cannot. If, because of economic conditions or societal factors, those people give up on trying to find a job and leave the labor force, they are no longer considered unemployed. This makes the statistics look better, but in actuality highlights a significant underlying weakness of the economy. To some degree, this is what happens in the EU. Portions of it can be blamed on cultural differences, but by no means all of it.

If the European population participated in the labor force at the same rate as Americans, there would be an additional 17.8 million people in your labor force without the jobs for the. That would make your unemployment rate 14.8% and drive down average wages at the low end of the spectrum significantly. That's a problem.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

It may be a normal part of the political business cycle; there's nothing to be optimistic about seeing that this occurrence lacks any policy change to account for the decrease in unemployment.

If Segolene becomes elected you're going to see unemployment skyrocket again in France.

Its not business cycles. Europe is the best market to invest in right now, by far. Of course I am optimistic, every single indicator is positive, except consumer spending and confidence which is sluggish. Production prices in Europe is at a standstill(1%) while in the US production price index is 7% which means that producing something in the US is getting expensive fast. Industrial production is growing, slowly like in the whole industrial world, but at least its growing. Export is growing despite a highly valuable Euro.
Business confidence and investment climate is skyrocketing, while GDP growth is steadily improving. Unemployment is falling at a very good pace.
The whole mood is optimistic, so of course I am optimistic. The only worry is consumer confidence and spending which is only VERY slowly improving.

Segolene Royal, yes, she will not be elected. If she is its a crisis for France, which will also affect the Eurozone and somewhat the European Union.
I dont really have much hope for Sarkozy, but I do believe he will take some necessary steps, but he is far from any revolutionist.
I am pinning my hope on the centrist Bayrou to be elected, i think that will be most positive for France and especially Europe, but I dont believe the chance of him being elected is that great.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Having people who are capable of being in the labor pool but who are not is a serious concern. Unemployment is calculated as the # of people actively trying to find work who cannot. If, because of economic conditions or societal factors, those people give up on trying to find a job and leave the labor force, they are no longer considered unemployed. This makes the statistics look better, but in actuality highlights a significant underlying weakness of the economy. To some degree, this is what happens in the EU. Portions of it can be blamed on cultural differences, but by no means all of it.

If the European population participated in the labor force at the same rate as Americans, there would be an additional 17.8 million people in your labor force without the jobs for the. That would make your unemployment rate 14.8% and drive down average wages at the low end of the spectrum significantly. That's a problem.

Anyway, that problem is exactly the same in the US.. So whats your point?

I am sure the REAL amount of unemployed in Europe is not 17 million, but around 40 million, and I am sure the real amount of unemployed in the US is not 7 million but 20-25 million.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Anyway, that problem is exactly the same in the US.. So whats your point?

I am sure the REAL amount of unemployed in Europe is not 17 million, but around 40 million, and I am sure the real amount of unemployed in the US is not 7 million but 20-25 million.

Sure of that huh? :roll: Why do you just make up statistics?

 

[PeteEU]

Having people who are capable of being in the labor pool but who are not is a serious concern. Unemployment is calculated as the # of people actively trying to find work who cannot. If, because of economic conditions or societal factors, those people give up on trying to find a job and leave the labor force, they are no longer considered unemployed. This makes the statistics look better, but in actuality highlights a significant underlying weakness of the economy. To some degree, this is what happens in the EU. Portions of it can be blamed on cultural differences, but by no means all of it.

Wow hold a sec. The whole definition of "actively trying" to look for work is so different when looking at the EU (even between countries) and the US. In the US if you have not had a job in 3 years you fall off the statistics. I dunno whats more stupid than having people "drop off" the statistics because they have not found work after 3 years and living in the bliss that they dont exist anymore (but hey we got a lower unemployement rate!) or living with a more realistic (tongue in mouth, as it aint no where near perfect) statistic of the EU. In the EU we have, like according to the ILO guidelines, a requirement of "actively seeking" for work.. we dont have a deadline before you are considered "dead" to the system.

The problem is pure and simple.. there might be guidelines from the ILO that make it easier to compare countries, but those guidelines are not used by all, and the US is especially "limited" to its usuage.

I think this explains quite a bit

http://www.bls.gov/fls/flsestpr.htm

The foreign country data are adjusted as closely as possible to U.S. concepts. Although the U.S. lower age limit is 16 years, the age limit for other countries varies from 15 to 16 years. Differences in the concept of employment relate mainly to treatment of the Armed Forces, layoffs, and unpaid family workers. Adjustments are made where necessary to exclude the Armed Forces. No adjustment is made for the treatment of layoffs. For some countries, no adjustment is made for the treatment of unpaid family workers. Differences in the concept of unemployment relate mainly to persons waiting to start a new job and passive jobseekers. In the United States, persons waiting to start a new job are unemployed only if they were actively seeking work; otherwise, they are not in the labor force. In the other countries, persons waiting to start a new job are generally counted as unemployed. In the United States, job search must be active, such as placing or answering advertisements; simply reading ads is not enough to qualify as active job search. Canada and the European countries classify passive jobseekers as unemployed. An adjustment is made to exclude them in Canada, but not in the European countries, where the phenomenon is less prevalent. Australia and Japan exclude passive jobseekers, in accordance with the U.S. concept. These unadjusted differences have a negligible effect on the comparisons.

In other words, US statitics are cherry picked. They dont follow the agreed standards and rather arrogantly say that the US method is better. Funny how they take the word of a survey over factual numbers... but hey... whats next, we elect our leaders via polls? US numbers dont include US armed forces.. whats that 1 to 2 million people? Does that include or exclude people under Homeland Security or? The US sets a limit on how long you can "actively" be seeking a job and after that, you are kicked off the statistics. Fine, but that also means US statitics are under reported. Question because they are not actively seeking work (gone over the deadline) do they also drop out of the labour force?

If the European population participated in the labor force at the same rate as Americans, there would be an additional 17.8 million people in your labor force without the jobs for the. That would make your unemployment rate 14.8% and drive down average wages at the low end of the spectrum significantly. That's a problem.

No one of the problems is unequal definitions of what "labour force" is, plus various other issues on both sides of the pond. For example the EU says people over 15 and non retired are part of the "labour force" The US says over 16 and about retired part.. I aint too sure frankly looking at the numbers. US labour statistics are confusing as hell (the web designer should be fired over there).

Population 300 million, 153 in the labour force, 78 million outside the labour force.. what about the remaining 70 million? That retired people?.. then what are the 78 million outside the labour force? Kids? I cant find any definitions what so ever.. (granted pretty tired atm so )

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

While the US claims to have more accurate numbers and all that chest thumping ... where are they? Thier definitions are not even close to international standards on many areas.

The EU has very exact statitistics compared to the US if you ask me. 380.3 million EU citizens are considered in the labour force. The remaining are either retired or under the age of 15. That sounds about right, we have a lot of elderly people and there are of course kids..

Of the 380.3 million 197.5 million are employed, 19.5 million unemployed, and 163 million inactive persons.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-NK-06-013/EN/KS-NK-06-013-EN.PDF

The stats are even cut up into under catagories.

Now one could ask, what are the 163 million inactive persons? Well according to that 146 million do not wish employment? Oh, well in the US statistics said people are "slackers" and kicked out of the statistics...the 70 million or the 140 million? who knows. Of the EU numbers 77 million are retirements.. hmm what does that mean? People who retired before the age of 64 I bet. Technically they still part of the work force according to the age rules set down by the ILO. What about the US? dunno cant find similar statistics easily. Does the US count such people as retired and hence not part of the labour force or not?

Point is to compare numbers we need a standardised set of numbers, and there are not that many around.. so you or anyone else can throw around numbers but dont expect them to be near the truth. The 163 million inactive persons is a good example.. we count them as part of the labour force, the US does not.

 

[RightinNYC]

Anyway, that problem is exactly the same in the US.. So whats your point?

I explained this above, but I'll do it again. Slower.

It's not the same as in the US. Facts:

-47.6% of the US population is fully employed.

-44% of the EU population is fully employed.

-If the EU were to have the same % of people participating in the workforce as the US does, there would be an additional 17.8 million people looking for jobs.

-The fact that the equivalent of 17.8 million additional people are declining to participate in the EU labor force is a sign of an underlying problem with the economic situation.

I am sure the REAL amount of unemployed in Europe is not 17 million, but around 40 million, and I am sure the real amount of unemployed in the US is not 7 million but 20-25 million.

And US growth next year will be 11% and unemployment will drop to 3.2%.

Look ma, I can pull numbers completely out of my *** too!:lol:

 

[RightinNYC]

Wow hold a sec. The whole definition of "actively trying" to look for work is so different when looking at the EU (even between countries) and the US. In the US if you have not had a job in 3 years you fall off the statistics. I dunno whats more stupid than having people "drop off" the statistics because they have not found work after 3 years and living in the bliss that they dont exist anymore (but hey we got a lower unemployement rate!) or living with a more realistic (tongue in mouth, as it aint no where near perfect) statistic of the EU. In the EU we have, like according to the ILO guidelines, a requirement of "actively seeking" for work.. we dont have a deadline before you are considered "dead" to the system.

How many people do you think fall into the category of being someone who is unemployed despite actively seeking for THREE YEARS? I can't imagine it being more than a couple thousand. Regardless, it's certainly not 17.8 million.

The problem is pure and simple.. there might be guidelines from the ILO that make it easier to compare countries, but those guidelines are not used by all, and the US is especially "limited" to its usuage.

I think this explains quite a bit

In other words, US statitics are cherry picked.

Not really. They plainly state that adjustments are made to make the systems comparable. The differences are minor and nowhere near significant enough to cover this massive difference.

They dont follow the agreed standards and rather arrogantly say that the US method is better. Funny how they take the word of a survey over factual numbers... but hey... whats next, we elect our leaders via polls?

:lol: Do you know what the BLS payroll survey is? It's the most accurate method of surveying this stuff and tracking the month to month changes that there is. Please, if there is a more accurate way I'd love to see it.

US numbers dont include US armed forces.. whats that 1 to 2 million people? Does that include or exclude people under Homeland Security or? The US sets a limit on how long you can "actively" be seeking a job and after that, you are kicked off the statistics. Fine, but that also means US statitics are under reported. Question because they are not actively seeking work (gone over the deadline) do they also drop out of the labour force?

No, actually that means our unemployment numbers are OVERREPORTED. Think about it - they don't count the military. So assume we have two million soldiers in the military, all of whom are fully employed.

Using example numbers:

Without soldiers being counted (current system): 95m employed, 5m unemployed. 2m soldiers not counted. This results in an unemployment rate of 5%.

With soldiers being counted (alternate system): 97m employed, 5m unemployed. 2m soldiers counted. This results in an unemployment rate of 4.9%.

So, you can clearly see how if we were to count military personnel in the survey, it would make the US numbers even better. And as you pointed out, because the US military is so much larger than other countries, the change in the reporting system that you propose would benefit our numbers greater than anyone else.

Good idea!:2razz:

No one of the problems is unequal definitions of what "labour force" is, plus various other issues on both sides of the pond. For example the EU says people over 15 and non retired are part of the "labour force" The US says over 16 and about retired part.. I aint too sure frankly looking at the numbers. US labour statistics are confusing as hell (the web designer should be fired over there).

......

Point is to compare numbers we need a standardised set of numbers, and there are not that many around.. so you or anyone else can throw around numbers but dont expect them to be near the truth. The 163 million inactive persons is a good example.. we count them as part of the labour force, the US does not.

This whole section is irrelevant. We're not talking about the definition of the term "labor force," because it has no impact. We're simply looking at the % of people who are participating. 149m/300m vs. 212m/395m.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Sure of that huh? :roll: Why do you just make up statistics?

No im not sure, I am just guessing based on real unemployment levels rather than official registerred ones.. But hey of course in the US there are nobody unregistered without a work, thats just in Europe.

The theory of unregistered unemployed only applies to Europe, just to make people in the US feel better since it of course doesnt apply to them.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

I explained this above, but I'll do it again. Slower.

It's not the same as in the US. Facts:

-47.6% of the US population is fully employed.

-44% of the EU population is fully employed.

-If the EU were to have the same % of people participating in the workforce as the US does, there would be an additional 17.8 million people looking for jobs.

-The fact that the equivalent of 17.8 million additional people are declining to participate in the EU labor force is a sign of an underlying problem with the economic situation.

You dont know anything about the underlying economics of Europe, OBVIOUSLY. I would say for Europe, it would be very easy to raise pension age to stop the "disasterous" problem of the labor force. It would also be easy to just organize immigration. It would be easy to extened work hours. None of those can be done in the EU. If we did that, per capita GDP would be far higher than that of the US. The Eurozone is in reality the most solid economy in the world, and is underpinned by a 1 trillion annual German export(more than the US). Much of that is export to other Eurozone countries, but the Eurozone external export is 1.3 trillion. There are a number of things the Eurozone easily can do to be as effective of more effective than the US.

And US growth next year will be 11% and unemployment will drop to 3.2%.

Look ma, I can pull numbers completely out of my *** too!:lol:

I am not taking numbers out of the air you fool. I am taking them from statistics and likely continuation of those statistics.
Since you have no clue about economics I doubt you can read the link I am sending you, but it would certainly help your ignorance about the European economy..
EUROPA - Eurostat - Eurostat: Document Details sw3d
I chew these for breakfast every 3 months when they come out.

So please, tell me again that I am taking numbers out of my ***, just to repeat what kind of person you are and what kind of way you debate..

Thanks.

 

[RightinNYC]

You dont know anything about the underlying economics of Europe, OBVIOUSLY. I would say for Europe, it would be very easy to raise pension age to stop the "disasterous" problem of the labor force. It would also be easy to just organize immigration. It would be easy to extened work hours. None of those can be done in the EU.

Uh....what? You're saying that it would be "very easy" to do all these things, but then in the next sentence say that "none of them can be done." Which is it? Can't be both.

If we did that, per capita GDP would be far higher than that of the US.

Source?

The Eurozone is in reality the most solid economy in the world, and is underpinned by a 1 trillion annual German export(more than the US). Much of that is export to other Eurozone countries, but the Eurozone external export is 1.3 trillion. There are a number of things the Eurozone easily can do to be as effective of more effective than the US.

Again, if you can do them so easily, why don't you?

I am not taking numbers out of the air you fool. I am taking them from statistics and likely continuation of those statistics.
Since you have no clue about economics I doubt you can read the link I am sending you, but it would certainly help your ignorance about the European economy..
EUROPA - Eurostat - Eurostat: Document Details sw3d

Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

You make an absolutely ridiculous claim about how the EU and US calculations of unemployment are drastically wrong, and how you know the true numbers.

I point out that you have nothing to back that up.

You respond by furiously ranting about how smart and up to date you are on the figures, throw out meaningless platitudes that sound like intro to business 101, and then purportedly back up your claim by providing a link to a 230 page pdf that completely contradicts your claim.

Your claim:

I am sure the real amount of unemployed in the US is not 7 million but 20-25 million.

Your PDF:

US Seasonally adjusted unemployment - 6.7 million

:lol: Embarrassing.

I chew these for breakfast every 3 months when they come out.

Maybe you should chew a bit more before you swallow, so you avoid choking.

So please, tell me again that I am taking numbers out of my ***, just to repeat what kind of person you are and what kind of way you debate..

Thanks.

Alright. You made those numbers up, which is a consistent habit for you. Nothing you say is believable, you come across as incredibly close-minded, and you have an almost uncanny ability to incorrectly quote other people. Did I miss anything?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

How many people do you think fall into the category of being someone who is unemployed despite actively seeking for THREE YEARS? I can't imagine it being more than a couple thousand. Regardless, it's certainly not 17.8 million.



Not really. They plainly state that adjustments are made to make the systems comparable. The differences are minor and nowhere near significant enough to cover this massive difference.



:lol: Do you know what the BLS payroll survey is? It's the most accurate method of surveying this stuff and tracking the month to month changes that there is. Please, if there is a more accurate way I'd love to see it.



No, actually that means our unemployment numbers are OVERREPORTED. Think about it - they don't count the military. So assume we have two million soldiers in the military, all of whom are fully employed.

Using example numbers:

Without soldiers being counted (current system): 95m employed, 5m unemployed. 2m soldiers not counted. This results in an unemployment rate of 5%.

With soldiers being counted (alternate system): 97m employed, 5m unemployed. 2m soldiers counted. This results in an unemployment rate of 4.9%.

So, you can clearly see how if we were to count military personnel in the survey, it would make the US numbers even better. And as you pointed out, because the US military is so much larger than other countries, the change in the reporting system that you propose would benefit our numbers greater than anyone else.

Good idea!:2razz:





This whole section is irrelevant. We're not talking about the definition of the term "labor force," because it has no impact. We're simply looking at the % of people who are participating. 149m/300m vs. 212m/395m.

How come you want to avoid facts to glorify the US?

"And as you pointed out, because the US military is so much larger than other countries"

Now, are you sure about that? What about China and Russia for example? Europe also have more military men than the US, those men will eventually be under a unified military system.
The US armed forces is about half of that of China, and the potential manpower is about 1/5th.

 

[RightinNYC]

How come you want to avoid facts to glorify the US?

"And as you pointed out, because the US military is so much larger than other countries"

Now, are you sure about that? What about China and Russia for example? Europe also have more military men than the US, those men will eventually be under a unified military system.
The US armed forces is about half of that of China, and the potential manpower is about 1/5th.

1) Because its completely incidental to the topic at hand, which is the significantly higher percentage of the US population participating in the labor force.
2) Because we're talking about the EU and the US, not China. Stop dancing off topic every time you lose an argument.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Uh....what? You're saying that it would be "very easy" to do all these things, but then in the next sentence say that "none of them can be done." Which is it? Can't be both.

None of those can be done in the US. Sorry about that, lets focus all the energy on spelling errors.

Source?

Per hour worked GDP per person in the Eurozone is higher than that of the US.

Again, if you can do them so easily, why don't you?

I am sure it will be done when its necessary.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

You make an absolutely ridiculous claim about how the EU and US calculations of unemployment are drastically wrong, and how you know the true numbers.

I point out that you have nothing to back that up.

You respond by furiously ranting about how smart and up to date you are on the figures, throw out meaningless platitudes that sound like intro to business 101, and then purportedly back up your claim by providing a link to a 230 page pdf that completely contradicts your claim.

Your claim:

Your PDF:

:lol: Embarrassing.

And you start manipulations of the thread, how nice. you have no answer and no clue about economics so why discuss it then. Look at the employment part of that PDF document to get the full picture..

40 million and 20-25 million was just a guess based on your silly way of measuring unemployment. But of course in your mind only in the EU are there non-registrred unemployed. So your claim is that unemployment in the EU is 40 million while its 7 million in the US.

If you want me to I will start reading and answering every thread of yours and pick apart your avoidant behaviour and get you to answer every question I ask, and be responsible for every of your claims. You will see who are right. You put words in my mouth that I never said..

Where did I put this PDF up to back up the claim that the EU total unemployed is 40 million and that of the US is 20 million? Maybe its time you start reading my posts instead of just thinking of how to glordify the US.

I put that PDF up for you to learn about the European economy..

Maybe you should chew a bit more before you swallow, so you avoid choking.

Maybe you should stop avoiding what is talked about and stop your silly retoric. Maybe you should start listening to others instead of only yourself?

Alright. You made those numbers up, which is a consistent habit for you. Nothing you say is believable, you come across as incredibly close-minded, and you have an almost uncanny ability to incorrectly quote other people. Did I miss anything?

Yeah of course, everything I say is made up while everything you say are facts that other have to swallow.. What a lousy attitude you have. You are so completely not worthy having an adult debate with, this is why I am out of this thread with you..

Read the PDF I linked to please before starting to debate European economics with me..

Nor am I willing to start debating mathematics with someone in kindergarten.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

1) Because its completely incidental to the topic at hand, which is the significantly higher percentage of the US population participating in the labor force.
2) Because we're talking about the EU and the US, not China. Stop dancing off topic every time you lose an argument.

Yea, sure I am the one dancing around the real issues here not you :roll:

 

[RightinNYC]

None of those can be done in the US. Sorry about that, lets focus all the energy on spelling errors.

This doesn't even make sense. Why couldn't those be done in the US, and why does it matter?

Per hour worked GDP per person in the Eurozone is higher than that of the US.

Source? And regardless, doesn't mean **** if you're not working the same # of hours.

I am sure it will be done when its necessary.

Great answer.:lol:

And you start manipulations of the thread, how nice. you have no answer and no clue about economics so why discuss it then. Look at the employment part of that PDF document to get the full picture..

I just did, and showed you to be a liar. Of course, if you want to correct me, lets see the specific data that backs you up.

40 million and 20-25 million was just a guess based on your silly way of measuring unemployment. But of course in your mind only in the EU are there non-registrred unemployed. So your claim is that unemployment in the EU is 40 million while its 7 million in the US.

....Uh, no, that's not what I claimed. Work on your reading comprehension.

If you want me to I will start reading and answering every thread of yours and pick apart your avoidant behaviour and get you to answer every question I ask, and be responsible for every of your claims. You will see who are right. You put words in my mouth that I never said..

Hell, I'll settle for you just backing up your claims with actual data.

Where did I put this PDF up to back up the claim that the EU total unemployed is 40 million and that of the US is 20 million? Maybe its time you start reading my posts instead of just thinking of how to glordify the US.

I put that PDF up for you to learn about the European economy..

Oh, gee, that's so sweet of you. From now on, how about you actually try to back up your claims with a source, and let me worry about what I know about economics.

Yeah of course, everything I say is made up while everything you say are facts that other have to swallow.. What a lousy attitude you have. You are so completely not worthy having an adult debate with, this is why I am out of this thread with you..

Read the PDF I linked to please before starting to debate European economics with me..

Nor am I willing to start debating mathematics with someone in kindergarten.

:lol: Good answer dude. You make a ridiculous claim, I call you out, you post a source that you claim backs you up, I show how you're lying, you then claim that the source wasn't intended to do that, and then say that I'm too dumb to be worth your time.

Guess I'll just take my kindergarten educated *** and move on from this thread, if you don't have anything else to offer.:2wave: Toodles.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

:lol: Good answer dude. You make a ridiculous claim, I call you out, you post a source that you claim backs you up, I show how you're lying, you then claim that the source wasn't intended to do that, and then say that I'm too dumb to be worth your time.

Guess I'll just take my kindergarten educated *** and move on from this thread, if you don't have anything else to offer.:2wave: Toodles.

Man, I never said that. You are not dumb, if you were dumb you wouldnt be on a debateforum in the first place, you would sit and watch tv and drewl on your hands.

I am just saying I am not interested in debating anything concerning European economics with you until you actually know something about it. I am not about to educate you about European economics when you are this stubborn and always claiming US superiority as the answer.

 

[RightinNYC]

Man, I never said that. You are not dumb, if you were dumb you wouldnt be on a debateforum in the first place, you would sit and watch tv and drewl on your hands.

I am just saying I am not interested in debating anything concerning European economics with you until you actually know something about it. I am not about to educate you about European economics when you are this stubborn and always claiming US superiority as the answer.

I know plenty about European economics. I know that the unemployment total in Europe is 17 million, unlike you who claimed its actually closer to 40 million. You don't need to worry about teaching me anything, just try to rebut my arguments. If you can't, that's fine, but stop retreating to the tired out platitude of "oh you just think the US is superior."

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

I know plenty about European economics. I know that the unemployment total in Europe is 17 million, unlike you who claimed its actually closer to 40 million. You don't need to worry about teaching me anything, just try to rebut my arguments. If you can't, that's fine, but stop retreating to the tired out platitude of "oh you just think the US is superior."

:2funny:


Again with your sillyness. You were the one who claimed it was 40 million, by a different method.

I have always claimed it was officially 17 million and shrinking. Then you said "the REAL level of unemployment in Europe is probably far higher", and I agreed and made an estimation that it was 40 million.

This is not the same as me claiming its 40 million. You pathetic way of twisting everything I say is getting annoying.

No, you think the US is superior, and any attacks on the US will be defended by silly retoric and personal attacks. You will use unfactual basis and avoid the real debate to make the US seem better than others. Just like when you said that real unemployment is probably higher than 17 million in Europe like I claimed based on official numbers.

Then I said, well, the same applies in the US. the real number might be 20 million. This you completely ignored as if only in Europe there are unofficial unemployment numbers.:2wave: :shock: :roll: