Unemployment increased 1.7 pct to 12.9% in Colombia

juancegomez says on Nov 2, 2006, 08:44:

cali373 For all we know, which is little, the number could also be lower than that. A lot of it depends on methodological details, which are rather subjective.

The methodology is constantly being modified here and there, sometimes for the better and other times not.

Official numbers may both underestimate *and* overestimate the figures, depending on the methodology involved. Not to mention any possible errors.

One thing that seems to be true, though, is that there's a growing unemployment trend, but whether it started just now or sometime ago, for example, is debatable.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

mcraig says on Nov 2, 2006, 10:25:

When Carter was president in the US We had nearly 10% unemployment an interest rates on homes was
17%. Its a starting block

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Nov 2, 2006, 11:36:

What is a starting block? And what does your historical fact aid in the discussion about the colombian economy. I also have to mention that you left out that there was a recession partly due to the fact that the vietnam war was over, which means less government spending on contracts and discharged soldiers now looking for work. Inflation was rampant due to the Oil crisis and the federal reserve (because they care more about inflation than jobs) headed by Volker? PURPOSELY created a recession to stop the sky-rocketing inflation. I was reading how the DIAN in colombia mostly does their analysis using data from cities which leaves out most of the countryside. Are Colombians trustworthy of DIAN statistics?

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

mcraig says on Nov 2, 2006, 12:24:

give it rest I was just making a joke like we all have been through it !

An my education back ground or degrees is in international Economics
from Texas Tech University so there is no need to inform me on any historical economic facts thank you.

Plus , Ford handed over to Jimmy Carter a stable economy for which Jimmy Carter an an democratic house an senate changed the economic structure by going to tax an spend economics whcih drove this country to nearly being bankrupt for the second time in our 250 year history. What the IRS tazed as being rich was up 85% of there income so we had the rich not investing in or creating jobs. TAX an Spend democratic policy has never worked one time in our countries history. The last time it was tried for one year year under Clinton in 1993 the largest tax increase ever the economy was sinking an cost us jobs . One year later Clinton lowered Taxes to save us from going into complete recession if you recall.

I could continue but its kinda like speaking down to someone on this subject an I dont want to insult anyone.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Nov 3, 2006, 13:14:

You my feel like you are Your postings always seem to have holes in them. 1982 had the biggest increase by signed by Ronald Reagan, taking back his huge tax cut passed the year before. This tax increase, which in my opinion was a smart move or else we would have a larger public debt, it was the only smart monetary policy by the Reagan presidency. If you think you are still talking down then perhaps you should take on a philosophy of enlightening us ignorant Americans, because there are millions of us and we are getting more stupid by the second. P.S. I agree that the Clinton tax increase was too much, but it included investment tax credits and capital gains deductions that obviously provided a boost to the economy. He also left with a surplus during a time of prosperity which I do not believe has been accomplished since before World war II. By the way Uribe has also taxed the well off and Colombia has supposedly enjoyed economic growth since he took office.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Nov 3, 2006, 18:51:

cali373 Yes, but the government (Uribe or no Uribe) still hasn't taxed the wealthiest enough, and needs to do several other things (like updating the "catastro" and other databases) in order to do so efficiently.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Nov 6, 2006, 08:39:

More taxes on the rich will not be the solution either unless the givernment is going to invest the money wisely into the Colombian economy. The goal is to get people with money to invest in Colombia and expand the middle class. Not only create jobs but jobs that pay a fair wage so that these people can contribute to the economy. Taking the entire Colombian economy into perspective a job that only allows a person to stay alive is not beneficial to the economy.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cam0940 says on Nov 6, 2006, 09:54:

Sure it is, cali373. Even if the worker is barely "staying alive" you still get the income multiplier. BTW, the only noteworthy reason there was a surplus under Clinton is because of the windfall tax revenues created by the speculative fervor surrounding new technologies.

Please note: I didn't write that to pick an argument with you, I was just pointing out...

Lastly, someone talked about the accuracy of DANE statistics. Less than half the Colombian population is even in the labor force, to be counted as "looking for a job and unable to find one". This is 3-4% less of the population as compared to say... the United States. Seemingly small discrepancies, but they make a huge difference in the quality of life. Also note, to give credit to cali373, underemployment (those who are making less than what they could or ought to earn) don't show up in unemployment numbers. Take mototaxis for example. These guys are only allowed to drive every other day in CTG. So, they make about half of what they could or ought to make. But they don't get counted as "unemployed". So practically speaking, apart from the 12.9% of the labor force that is unemployed, you almost suredly have another 12.9% or more who are underemployed, making the drag on the economy far worse. That's why when you travel to some neighborhoods you'd think surely the rate was around 50%.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Nov 6, 2006, 10:17:

I'm not saying that it will be "the solution" for everything But it can be one part of it. No more, no less. I do know that "undertaxation" is not going to lead to miracles though.

cali373 has a point, but private investment, in itself, doesn't necessarily lead to more well-paying jobs. It depends on what kind of jobs are needed by the new investments, and that's not always clear.

I agree with cam0940 as far as underemployment is concerned. In fact, that seems to be a conservative estimate.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Nov 6, 2006, 10:43:

Which one is more complex? Trying to dissect Colombia's economy or it social conflict? Que mierdero que nos metimos!

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Nov 6, 2006, 11:04:

Beats me Both are pretty complex. Definitivamente, que entre el diablo y escoja.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Nov 10, 2006, 11:14:

I agree with Cali. I also have to believe the 12 or 13% unemployement rate is grossly low. My fiancee's family is probably about 75% unemployed. She can't find work, her 19 year old brother can't find work, cousins, etc. The few people that do work seem to take care of the whole family. I was amazed at how they (family) seem to get by on the little income they have coming in. Of course, everyone of them have new cell phones, like RAZRs and Slivers.

He who farts in church, sits in his own pew.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

hunjb224 says on Nov 10, 2006, 12:54:

The funny (not literal) thing is... That colombia is one of the better latin american countries with regard to economy. Go to Nicaragua, Peru, Honduras, or even Mexico, and poverty there is so much worse than in colombia, but...they are all very bad. The most interesting thing to me, is all the people I've met in my travels to latin american countries are always smiling and friendly, even in some of the poorest pueblos. The US may have good pay and good money, but we are so focused on what we don't have that it makes many of us miserable.

0 funny, 0 helpful.