The good news is, and the bad news is:

Agreed that is not part of the article, but it is well known fact that many are spending longer times (some more than a year) trying to find a job before giving up PLUS the number of the un & underemployed is growing (that includes women).

It is simple logic built on this fact at the new mothers still going out seeking a job will be less inclined to breast feed (Hence my estimate that only 10% of them breast feed) AND logical that those who have given up trying to find a job will breast feed more as it is cheaper (hence my estimate for them at ~20% breast feed at home)

It is not bad form to comment on the implications of an article - in fact it is bad form (IMHO) to simply reproduce part of an article with no comments added.

I noted the article only went to end of 2008. Perhaps the middle class was still growing in 2008, but is certainly is not now. It is shrinking. My comments were not just to quote the article, but to extend it (by speculation) to the present.

My speculation: "more new mothers now must work, often several part time jobs, to keep the family economical solvent." is based on fact middle class salaries are down 7.7% and food cost are up at least 4% annually now. Do you want to argue that my speculation is false, ill founded?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Assuming you are talking about the United States (your post didn't specify, and you link discussed many countries), that is false. Both the unemployment and underemployment rates have been falling for a while now.

You should rely less on your "well known facts," and instead try to actually look at data and check your biases. This habit of sloppy reasoning and outright conjuring of convenient "facts" on your part is exactly why I complained about the lack of citations or support. At this point, you have expounded a sufficient number of incorrect bits of "well known facts" that you have lost credibility, and so need to actually cite sources for your assertions. Readers cannot be confident that you aren't just pulling incorrect data out of your ass (indeed - there is now a positive preumption that you are doing so).

And since the "fact" you started from is incorrect, the simple logic based on them misleads.

The relevant point is that it is bad form to post unsubstantiated assertions. Doubly so when they turn out to be factually incorrect. It is even worse form to respond to complaints about said lack of substantiation with yet more incorrect, unsubstantiated assertions. The right response is to provide citations that back your assertions, or admit that they were wrong and withdraw them. This habit of yours of trying to bluster your way out of admitting obvious, factual errors is dishonorable.

And it's pretty facepalm that I'd need to explain this to a moderator.

Got a citation for that? If not, I demand that you retract that assertion.

Heck, I don't even see where we've even agreed on a definition of "middle class."

And yet you didn't bother to include any examination of what the relevant data has done in the meantime. Just a lot of handwaving, absent any citations.

For now, I'm going to stick to pointing out that you did not provide any source for your assertions (where did this salary and food cost data come from?), so we can't know that the premises are true. Even if they are, you've provided nothing to substantiate the various links involved - that increased economic pressure is expressed as women working, that they didn't want to work in the first place, that they're working several part-time jobs, etc.

I.e., I'm not interested in addressing your idle speculations. If you can't be bothered to present a serious chain of reasoning based on accurate, cited facts, then you don't merit a serious rebuttal. All that is required is to point out that you're doing the intellectual equivalent of playing with dolls here. You're going to have to do your homework if you want to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, let's note that you are explicitly disagreeing with the article you did link to. They cite the growth of the middle class as the main driver of baby formula sales, and you are arguing that the destruction of the middle class is driving baby formula sales. So why don't you start by telling us exactly how the article you chose to support came to the exact opposite conclusion as you did, and why you think they're in error.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes I spoke of the USA. Do you have support for your claim? Specifically data showing that in 2012 the "unemployment and underemployment rates have been falling for a while now" I.e. current data now vs. their values a few years (or more) ago showing a decrease in these un-official unemployment rates (not the governments official rates that fall when more give up even looking for a job).

No I said that probably of those women still going out to seeks jobs, only about 10% were breast feeding and of those who had given up looking for a job probably 20% were breast feeding as it was cheaper. That is not "arguing that the destruction of the middle class is driving baby formula sales." You are trying to put words in my mouth I never said - I did not even estimate if the economic troubles in the US were increasing or decreasing the total sales of formula.

Also you are mis quoting the article. Here is what it said about the effect of growing populations on sales of formula:

"... In emerging markets, particularly in Asia and South America, birth rates surpass the US by an average of 37.7% among the dozen largest nations in these regions. That factor along with increasing urbanization and a burgeoning middle class support further growth in sales of infant formula. ..."

Yes they cite the "growth of the middle class as the main driver of baby formula sales" in Asia & S. America, not in the USA that I spoke of.

Thus I have no contradiction with the article. In fact I agree 100% with this with this article. - Why several months ago I bought shares in NJM (maker of enfamil) when it was beaten down due to a false contamination death scare in the US. I knew that it had rapidly growing sales in China especially after China really did have several babies killed by adulterated milk and with the Chinese masses having rapidly growing real increases in their salaries.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153161/unemployment-february.aspx

See how easy that was? Now maybe you can do the same for all the times I've asked you to support your claims?

That "probably" qualifier - should we read that as indicating that you have no support for your numbers, and are simply pulling them out of your ass wholesale?

 

That graph at your link is zero data on the un & under employed you spoke about in post 62.

Here is your link´s graph:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and clearly is a graph of the official US unemployment rate (not the one you spoke of)

Also gallup´s opinion polls are not valid economic data, but if you want to use them at least use the graph that does refer to the un & underemployed. i.e. this graph:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

which does confirm my 18 to 20% are un or under employed:

Of course my 10 & 20% estimates are not exact that I can give references for. They only helped me illustrate the different effects of still seeking, or having give up seeking a job, has on women from the 14% average use of breast feeding the article states is average. My point was that it is very difficult to know how the current job shortage is effecting the total US sales of baby formula as it makes some buy more and others buy less. My post certainly did not say the words you stuffed in my mouth. I.e. I never said:

I never said that. Stop stuffing words in my mouth. Again, what I said was: those who have give up looking for a job are more likely to be breast feeders than the 14% breast feeding as it is cheaper and they are staying at home; while those still going out trying to find a job probably do use formula more than the 14% average as they can not be always home when baby needs to be feed. Also stop misquoting the article:

Unlike you who in almost ever post attacks me personally, I almost never do that, but argue against the data and conclusion they make, but your stuffing words in my mouth I never said, and dishonestly trying to support your false POV with unrelated graphs, and mis quoting the article to make it apply to the US sales, has pushed me too far, so I now say it is you who are dishonest, and lack basic understanding - not me as you have frequently said.

 

Well, that's a lie. You go on to post exactly that information in that same post. What's wrong with you?

I don't know what you imagine I "spoke of." The data you see there is what I've had in mind throughout.

And that graph is not the "official" unemployment rate - it's one measured independently by Gallup polling. The fact that it is closely aligned with the official unemployment rate goes to show how reliable both of those statistics are - they serve as independent cross-checks on one another.

Those aren't "opinion" polls. And you've given no reason that they are not valid economic data. In any case, they're vastly more valid than your exercises in hand-waving, redefining common words, and simply making statistics up whole cloth.

I referred you to exactly that data. Why are you trying to act like I was somehow hiding it? Who do you think you are fooling?

Sure - and it also refutes your repeated assertion that the underemployment rate is growing. The trend on that graph is slightly negative, or at most flat. So I look forward to your apology for having advertized unsourced assertions that turned out to be false.

They aren't even "estimates." They're just guesses, pulled out of your ass for convenience, with nothing of any substance to back them. You should stop using them unless you can support them.

So your position is now that you have no idea what is really going on with the US baby formula market, nor how it relates to any of these economic indicators you keep bringing up. I'm glad that's settled, and look forward to you dropping this issue.

You already complained about that, and I already dropped that question. Which is why you're having to go back to old posts to dig up something to complain about. Why are you still hectoring me about it? It's a dead issue, especially since you have disclaimed any stance whatsoever on this issue you brought up. Which, thanks a lot for wasting our time with this pointless discursion, by the way.

That's great and all, so long as you stick with your admission that you have no real idea what the trends are there, how they relate to the economy or anything else, etc.

I didn't misquote the article in the first place, and the post you are responding to made no mention of it whatsoever. Why are you digging in to earlier posts and then insisting that they're some kind of continuing issue? This is just asinine. Obviously you are just being defensive because you are embarassed that I called you out publicly on your bullshit tactics and behavior.

Except right there, of course.

The reason you come in for so much personal criticism is that you are unable to engage this subject honorably (and insist on dragging every thread in this subforum back to this topic, to boot), but instead resort to bullshit tactics. To respond to that as if it were a good-faith debate is to validate and empower your cowardly, dishonest approach. So I don't do it. Instead I am forced to continually highlight the myriad ways in which you repeatedly undermine any such honest exchange, and demand that you cease. I'd be perfectly happy to take you on in a reasoned, honorable exchange, because you're a fool who would lose very badly - as you always do, even if you won't ever learn from it. But we can't do that, because you'll never admit you're wrong and will instead perform ridiculous feats of semantic gymnastics and revisionism to pretend otherwise, and then simply reboot the same issue in a different thread the moment I disengage.

Since I don't pull that kind of bullshit - I admit when I've made an error, and I support my assertions - you're in no position to complain about me. So the fact that I complain about you, but not vice-versa, is not some indictment of my behavior. It's simply a reflection of the fact that you constnatly engage in bullshit.

Ineffectively, and using dishonorable bullshit tactics, that is.

Not that you can "argue against" data. Data is just that. What you describe there is a direct admission of dishonesty and resistance to simple facts.

That is a bullshit accusation - and a personal attack - that I demand you retract and apologize for.

Or don't - you're proving my point about your inability to ever admit error and, so, engage in an intellectually honest, scientific manner.

More bullshit.

The point there is that you are pursuing a double-standard: when women in the USA return to work after giving birth, you trumpet it as indicating economic decline and families living on the brink of financial ruin being forced into work they don't want to do. When women in China return to work after giving birth, you trumpet the growth of their middle class and cite it as evidence of economic ascendence. Which one is it?

Say whatever you want - you're clearly talking out of your ass, and nobody is going to be impressed by your lashing out at me from a place of obvious insecurity and defensiveness. You've demonstrated a serious inability to accurately determine what I'm even saying, let alone what I understand, so who cares about your opinion of such? As usual, you're just describing to us what the inside of your ass looks like.

You want this place to be your personal echo chamber for your pet crackpot fantasies, and for the rest of us to pretend that this amounts to serious economic analysis that we should pay attention to, and you're mad that I won't play along and instead knocked over your sandcastle. You're like a little kid throwing a playground tantrum because the other kids won't let him have the slide all to himself. Grow up and try to act like a mod, instead of making this subforum into your annoying crackpot blog.

 

Just as a test case, before making further reply, where did you “provided you a very clear, definitive citation that unequivocably shows that food stamp costs stopped rising last year.” That contradicts the government´s own data quoted with source referenced above?

Or if you don´t have reference that you claimed, where is your retraction about “cost of food stamps stopped rising last year” you say you always give when in error?

 

The good news:

Gas prices have fallen, saving us all some money.

The bad new:

Falling oil prices may indicate slowing global demand and growth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...d-news-for-consumers-bad-news-for-the-economy

 

The bad news is that GDP growth was reported as -0.1% for last quarter of 2012.
The good news is that GDP growth was corrected to +0.1% for last quarter of 2012
The bad news is that GDP growth is 90 times less than China has.

 

Wrong Billy T, last year China’s GDP grew by 7.8%. US GDP grew 2.2% last year. That is nowhere close to 90 fold faster. It’s more like 3.5 times faster.

What I think you are trying to do is to use preliminary data for very small period of time to make a comparison. And that is wrong for several reasons. One, the data you are using is preliminary. It was revised once and will likely be revised again. Two, the sample size is too small. Three China is a developing economy and the US is a developed economy. It's like comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare US GDP growth you should compare it with that of other developed economies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate_(latest_year)#List

 

I wonder if Gallup use the same poll questions they use in Australia (from at least 10 years ago) to calculate the base unemployment rate before the number is 'seasonally adjusted'?

(1) Did you work one hour or more in the current or previous week?
(2) Will you work one hour or more in the next two weeks?

So, if you work one hour in a month you are considered employed. The only people who can survive on one hour of work a month are usually wanted by the police though.

 

Who cares what questions Gallup asks in respect to unemployment? Gallup does not compile or produce unemployment numbers for the US.

 

Posts # 64 and #65 in this thread have references to Gallup unemployment poll results and 'unemployment' figures usually depend on how you define unemployment.

 

The official unemployment numbers are published every month by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

The BLS data is sourced from the Current Population survey conducted by the US Census Bureau. It is a weekly survey.

Below is a Q&A page from the US BLS that should answer your questions about how the survey is conducted and how employed and unemployed people are defined. I imagine Gallup would use similar measures. Gallup does the daily tracking poll but it is not as extensive as the BLS/Census Bureau survey nor is it official or the record of reference.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where

The unemployment number is a point in time measure. It doesn't care if you were employed yesterday or a month ago. The question is are you currently employed? Either the respondent is employed or not. I imagine Gallup would use the BLS definitions else their survey would be absoutely meaningless.

 

From that question (and US population data) they can compute the fraction of the population employed, but not the unemployment rate.

For that they need to know the size of the labor force, AS THEY DEFINE IT. I.e. the BLS is not counting those who want to work but were not actively looking for a job as in some cases they looked for more than a year, with costs of transportation to interview, new shoes, etc. and finally realized the modern, nearly stagnant US economy had no job for them (or a machine was now doing it) so the stopped wasting their time and money looking. Some then went back to school, hopefully a trade school, but other could not afford to or were more suicidal with little hope left. Others made the own job - in some cases a legal one but more often not as only a cheap hand gun was required.

Also with 10,000+ baby boomers leaving the labor force each day now and for nearly a decade, the ratio of employed to labor force increases to give a false index of the jobs picture improving. The fact is that US is not yet producing the ~300,000 new jobs each month that is required just to keep up with the population growth of people who need jobs to pay their rent and student loans etc. so they move back in with their parents, delay marriage, and put their feet under their father´s dining room table at dinner time. These are signs of a sick economy, not the healthy one the BLS wants to display with its carefully defined measure of who is in the labor force.

 

lol

 

I think that says it all.

 

If that is refering to post 75, please tell what is funny / wrong in it. I think the current economy is quite sad, especially for the deep in debt just graduated student who can´t even get a MacJob and has moved back home instead of marry his gal and starting a family. Student debt just passed the 1 billion dollar level and total credit card level was passed a few years ago - they are still growing, like the US debt is. Who do you think will pay it and the growing cost of Social Security and health services for the rapidly aging US population?

 

I suppose they'd both do whatever they do in a sample survey. You are absoutely correct, whatever that means.

So if you did work one hour in the week of the survey and were phoned up you would be considered employed for that week.

 

For purposes of unemployment, it doesn’t matter how much or how little you worked in the hours or days preceding the question. What matters is the respondent’s status as either employed or unemployed at the time the question is asked. It really is simple. It is like being pregnant. Either you are pregnant or you are not. It’s the same way for employment, either you are employed or you are not employed when surveyed.