Unemployment Rate at ALL-TIME LOW

[dukestreetking]

unemployment rate down to 5 percent, the lowest in nearly four years. 2nd lowest ever I believe

Of course we have John Kerry to thank for this.

And I'm not sure but maybe you'll get Springsteen to comment on how great this is for the working class.

Just another doomsday Dem prediction up in smoke....

DSK

[myhometown]

yep, thank God for all those $8 an hour Walmart jobs.

[Daddy-O]

I usually stay out of these political debates. I have no idea why I'm responding to this thread....but here goes.

Look, I think the Republicans do some things pretty good, and the Democrats do some things pretty good, and both of em F a lot of stuff up. And they ALL talk way too damn much. I am so tired of the RUDENESS on both sides. John Kerry lost the election almost a year ago...how much fun can it be to keep kicking the corpse? That is a question that is not in search of an answer, thanks. :rolleyes:

Here's my take of our recent history: when the economy went in the tank under Jimmy Carter, Reagan got elected and the economy went up. Republicans cheered. And later the economy went in the tank under Reagan/Bush Sr. Everyone bitched about it and Clinton was elected. Then the economy soared and Democrats cheered. Then later still the economy effin imploded, everyone bitched about it and Bush Jr was elected. Now the economy is doing "well" and employment is at an all-time low. Republicans cheer again.

Does anyone besides me see a pattern here?

THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THAT BIG AN IMPACT ON THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY, NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL. He (whoever he is) gets too much credit when it's good and too much blame when it's bad. The economy, including the unemployment rate, is cyclical. It goes up for a while, then it goes down for a while. (Because if it went up forever, we would all be multi-billionaires and a piece of gum would cost $100,000.) And whoever is lucky enough to be in power when it goes up look like F'ing geniuses, at least until it goes down again when they look like F'ing morons.

You know what befuddles me? Historically, during a time of war, the economy soars based on domestic production. But we don't produce anything anymore. Where are the jobs coming from? If it is a combination of many unemployed people STOPPING their job searches (as I've read) and an increase of $8/hr Walmart jobs, we are smoking the primo schit and when the buzz wears off, it won't be pretty.

Anyway, that's it for my rant. I'm going back downstairs now to the Bruce topics.

P.S. Have a nice day.

[Travelling Slim]

Anyway, that's it for my rant. I'm going back downstairs now to the Bruce topics.

Thank you, Daddy-O, for an awesome post. As for me, I'm heading west on the NYS Thruway in a couple hours for the Buffalo show.

[BrlDsguise]

If it is a combination of many unemployed people STOPPING their job searches (as I've read) and an increase of $8/hr Walmart jobs, we are smoking the primo schit and when the buzz wears off, it won't be pretty.

It would also explain why the labor force participation rate (the amount of us employed divided by the number of adults in the population) is at a 15 year low.

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/ppb/2005/ppb052.htm

As explained by the US Dept of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics:

In June, 1.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, compared with 1.5 million a year earlier. These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 476,000 discouraged workers in June, essentially the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million marginally attached had not searched for
work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm


Wayne

[HeldUp]

Great post, Daddy-O. You know what's funny (peculiar, not humorous)? LD will let you IGNORE posts by selected LD members but not their threads. Why is that?

[Paulie]

Gee, a deceptive thread title, an attempt to mislead and spread misinformation, from one of W's defenders.

Shocking.

I believe the Twain quote that would fit here would be, "Lies, damned lies and statistics"...or something very close to that.

Paulie

[mhafinancial]

Before your woody breaks off, here are the historical monthly numbers going back to 1969.

1969 01 3.4
1969 02 3.4
1969 03 3.4
1969 04 3.4
1969 05 3.4
1969 06 3.5
1969 07 3.5
1969 08 3.5
1969 09 3.7
1969 10 3.7
1969 11 3.5
1969 12 3.5
1970 01 3.9
1970 02 4.2
1970 03 4.4
1970 04 4.6
1970 05 4.8
1970 06 4.9
1970 07 5.0
1970 08 5.1
1970 09 5.4
1970 10 5.5
1970 11 5.9
1970 12 6.1
1971 01 5.9
1971 02 5.9
1971 03 6.0
1971 04 5.9
1971 05 5.9
1971 06 5.9
1971 07 6.0
1971 08 6.1
1971 09 6.0
1971 10 5.8
1971 11 6.0
1971 12 6.0
1972 01 5.8
1972 02 5.7
1972 03 5.8
1972 04 5.7
1972 05 5.7
1972 06 5.7
1972 07 5.6
1972 08 5.6
1972 09 5.5
1972 10 5.6
1972 11 5.3
1972 12 5.2
1973 01 4.9
1973 02 5.0
1973 03 4.9
1973 04 5.0
1973 05 4.9
1973 06 4.9
1973 07 4.8
1973 08 4.8
1973 09 4.8
1973 10 4.6
1973 11 4.8
1973 12 4.9
1974 01 5.1
1974 02 5.2
1974 03 5.1
1974 04 5.1
1974 05 5.1
1974 06 5.4
1974 07 5.5
1974 08 5.5
1974 09 5.9
1974 10 6.0
1974 11 6.6
1974 12 7.2
1975 01 8.1
1975 02 8.1
1975 03 8.6
1975 04 8.8
1975 05 9.0
1975 06 8.8
1975 07 8.6
1975 08 8.4
1975 09 8.4
1975 10 8.4
1975 11 8.3
1975 12 8.2
1976 01 7.9
1976 02 7.7
1976 03 7.6
1976 04 7.7
1976 05 7.4
1976 06 7.6
1976 07 7.8
1976 08 7.8
1976 09 7.6
1976 10 7.7
1976 11 7.8
1976 12 7.8
1977 01 7.5
1977 02 7.6
1977 03 7.4
1977 04 7.2
1977 05 7.0
1977 06 7.2
1977 07 6.9
1977 08 7.0
1977 09 6.8
1977 10 6.8
1977 11 6.8
1977 12 6.4
1978 01 6.4
1978 02 6.3
1978 03 6.3
1978 04 6.1
1978 05 6.0
1978 06 5.9
1978 07 6.2
1978 08 5.9
1978 09 6.0
1978 10 5.8
1978 11 5.9
1978 12 6.0
1979 01 5.9
1979 02 5.9
1979 03 5.8
1979 04 5.8
1979 05 5.6
1979 06 5.7
1979 07 5.7
1979 08 6.0
1979 09 5.9
1979 10 6.0
1979 11 5.9
1979 12 6.0
1980 01 6.3
1980 02 6.3
1980 03 6.3
1980 04 6.9
1980 05 7.5
1980 06 7.6
1980 07 7.8
1980 08 7.7
1980 09 7.5
1980 10 7.5
1980 11 7.5
1980 12 7.2
1981 01 7.5
1981 02 7.4
1981 03 7.4
1981 04 7.2
1981 05 7.5
1981 06 7.5
1981 07 7.2
1981 08 7.4
1981 09 7.6
1981 10 7.9
1981 11 8.3
1981 12 8.5
1982 01 8.6
1982 02 8.9
1982 03 9.0
1982 04 9.3
1982 05 9.4
1982 06 9.6
1982 07 9.8
1982 08 9.8
1982 09 10.1
1982 10 10.4
1982 11 10.8
1982 12 10.8
1983 01 10.4
1983 02 10.4
1983 03 10.3
1983 04 10.2
1983 05 10.1
1983 06 10.1
1983 07 9.4
1983 08 9.5
1983 09 9.2
1983 10 8.8
1983 11 8.5
1983 12 8.3
1984 01 8.0
1984 02 7.8
1984 03 7.8
1984 04 7.7
1984 05 7.4
1984 06 7.2
1984 07 7.5
1984 08 7.5
1984 09 7.3
1984 10 7.4
1984 11 7.2
1984 12 7.3
1985 01 7.3
1985 02 7.2
1985 03 7.2
1985 04 7.3
1985 05 7.2
1985 06 7.4
1985 07 7.4
1985 08 7.1
1985 09 7.1
1985 10 7.1
1985 11 7.0
1985 12 7.0
1986 01 6.7
1986 02 7.2
1986 03 7.2
1986 04 7.1
1986 05 7.2
1986 06 7.2
1986 07 7.0
1986 08 6.9
1986 09 7.0
1986 10 7.0
1986 11 6.9
1986 12 6.6
1987 01 6.6
1987 02 6.6
1987 03 6.6
1987 04 6.3
1987 05 6.3
1987 06 6.2
1987 07 6.1
1987 08 6.0
1987 09 5.9
1987 10 6.0
1987 11 5.8
1987 12 5.7
1988 01 5.7
1988 02 5.7
1988 03 5.7
1988 04 5.4
1988 05 5.6
1988 06 5.4
1988 07 5.4
1988 08 5.6
1988 09 5.4
1988 10 5.4
1988 11 5.3
1988 12 5.3
1989 01 5.4
1989 02 5.2
1989 03 5.0
1989 04 5.2
1989 05 5.2
1989 06 5.3
1989 07 5.2
1989 08 5.2
1989 09 5.3
1989 10 5.3
1989 11 5.4
1989 12 5.4
1990 01 5.4
1990 02 5.3
1990 03 5.2
1990 04 5.4
1990 05 5.4
1990 06 5.2
1990 07 5.5
1990 08 5.7
1990 09 5.9
1990 10 5.9
1990 11 6.2
1990 12 6.3
1991 01 6.4
1991 02 6.6
1991 03 6.8
1991 04 6.7
1991 05 6.9
1991 06 6.9
1991 07 6.8
1991 08 6.9
1991 09 6.9
1991 10 7.0
1991 11 7.0
1991 12 7.3
1992 01 7.3
1992 02 7.4
1992 03 7.4
1992 04 7.4
1992 05 7.6
1992 06 7.8
1992 07 7.7
1992 08 7.6
1992 09 7.6
1992 10 7.3
1992 11 7.4
1992 12 7.4
1993 01 7.3
1993 02 7.1
1993 03 7.0
1993 04 7.1
1993 05 7.1
1993 06 7.0
1993 07 6.9
1993 08 6.8
1993 09 6.7
1993 10 6.8
1993 11 6.6
1993 12 6.5
1994 01 6.6
1994 02 6.6
1994 03 6.5
1994 04 6.4
1994 05 6.1
1994 06 6.1
1994 07 6.1
1994 08 6.0
1994 09 5.9
1994 10 5.8
1994 11 5.6
1994 12 5.5
1995 01 5.6
1995 02 5.4
1995 03 5.4
1995 04 5.8
1995 05 5.6
1995 06 5.6
1995 07 5.7
1995 08 5.7
1995 09 5.6
1995 10 5.5
1995 11 5.6
1995 12 5.6
1996 01 5.6
1996 02 5.5
1996 03 5.5
1996 04 5.6
1996 05 5.6
1996 06 5.3
1996 07 5.5
1996 08 5.1
1996 09 5.2
1996 10 5.2
1996 11 5.4
1996 12 5.4
1997 01 5.3
1997 02 5.2
1997 03 5.2
1997 04 5.1
1997 05 4.9
1997 06 5.0
1997 07 4.9
1997 08 4.8
1997 09 4.9
1997 10 4.7
1997 11 4.6
1997 12 4.7
1998 01 4.6
1998 02 4.6
1998 03 4.7
1998 04 4.3
1998 05 4.4
1998 06 4.5
1998 07 4.5
1998 08 4.5
1998 09 4.6
1998 10 4.5
1998 11 4.4
1998 12 4.4
1999 01 4.3
1999 02 4.4
1999 03 4.2
1999 04 4.3
1999 05 4.2
1999 06 4.3
1999 07 4.3
1999 08 4.2
1999 09 4.2
1999 10 4.1
1999 11 4.1
1999 12 4.0
2000 01 4.0
2000 02 4.1
2000 03 4.0
2000 04 3.8
2000 05 4.0
2000 06 4.0
2000 07 4.0
2000 08 4.1
2000 09 3.9
2000 10 3.9
2000 11 3.9
2000 12 3.9
2001 01 4.2
2001 02 4.2
2001 03 4.3
2001 04 4.4
2001 05 4.3
2001 06 4.5
2001 07 4.6
2001 08 4.9
2001 09 5.0
2001 10 5.3
2001 11 5.6
2001 12 5.7
2002 01 5.7
2002 02 5.7
2002 03 5.7
2002 04 5.9
2002 05 5.8
2002 06 5.8
2002 07 5.8
2002 08 5.7
2002 09 5.7
2002 10 5.7
2002 11 5.9
2002 12 6.0
2003 01 5.8
2003 02 5.9
2003 03 5.8
2003 04 6.0
2003 05 6.1
2003 06 6.3
2003 07 6.2
2003 08 6.1
2003 09 6.1
2003 10 6.0
2003 11 5.9
2003 12 5.7
2004 01 5.7
2004 02 5.6
2004 03 5.7
2004 04 5.5
2004 05 5.6
2004 06 5.6
2004 07 5.5
2004 08 5.4
2004 09 5.4
2004 10 5.5
2004 11 5.4
2004 12 5.4
2005 01 5.2
2005 02 5.4
2005 03 5.2
2005 04 5.2
2005 05 5.1
2005 06 5.0

[pinky]

Yeah, note that DSK added the word "almost" in his post, so we can't really call him out on it. :rolleyes:

[mhafinancial]

You will notice, but refuse to acknowledge, that the longest stretch in unemployment figures being under 5% was when Bill Clinton was president.

[HeldUp]

David, to be fair, I'm not sure you can use the same numbers from the sixties with the nineties, unless they are pro-rated. A few years ago, they changed how they count unemployment statistics (I think they no longer count those who stopped looking). But I could be wrong.

[mhafinancial]

David, to be fair, I'm not sure you can use the same numbers from the sixties with the nineties, unless they are pro-rated. A few years ago, they changed how they count unemployment statistics (I think they no longer count those who stopped looking). But I could be wrong.
That's OK. How about we start from when Reagan was president.

He took office in January 1981, and unemployment was at 7.5%. December 81 it was 8.5%. During the remainder of his first term, unemployment reached a high of 10.8% in November and December 1982 (Happy Holidays), and a low of 7.2% in June and November 1984. During his 2nd term the low unemployment figure was 5.3%, and the high was 7.4%. Bush Sr. saw a low of 5.0% in March 1989 shortly after taking office, which crept up to a high of 7.8% in June 1992, 5 months before losing re-election. It's the economy, stupid. The highest rate during Clinton's 8 years in office was when he was first sworn in in January 1993, when unemployment stood at 7.1%, and the nation enjoyed almost four years of sub-5% unemployemnt under his tenure.

A far cry from Dukie's assertion.

That having been said, I do agree somewhat with Daddy-O's assertion. Economies do tend to travel in cycles, and a president can catch an upswing or a downswing. It is how that president reacts to the trends that might have a bearing on the length and amplitude of the swings.

[mhafinancial]

So Dukie, you made an assertion and were shown to be wrong. How unusual. No mea culpa?

[TIES2]

Gee, a deceptive thread title, an attempt to mislead and spread misinformation, from one of W's defenders.

Shocking.

I believe the Twain quote that would fit here would be, "Lies, damned lies and statistics"...or something very close to that.

Paulie

Hey, Paulie --

Did you know Twain is no longer being taught in our schools....considered too racist...

[mhafinancial]

Hey, Paulie --

Did you know Twain is no longer being taught in our schools....considered too racist...
What schools? Red states or blue?

[TIES2]

What schools? Red states or blue?

Every year, the classic novels of Mark Twain show up on the "most banned books of the year" list put out by the National Library Association. Schools regularly strike Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer, and Puddin'head Wilson from their curricula, largely because of their controversial depiction of African-Americans. Scholar Jocelyn Chadwick makes the case that these novels are critical reading for American youth, precisely because of their treatment of race. Chadwick describes the program she has developed to help teachers understand how they can use Twain's racially charged material as a productive tool in understanding American history.

[mhafinancial]

Sounds like a national tragedy to me regardless of which political side one favors.

[mhafinancial]

Here is the Top 100 of that subversive crap. I can't wait for our local burning party:

1. Scary Stories (Series) by Alvin Schwartz
2. Daddy’s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
3. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
4. The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
6. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
7. Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
8. Forever by Judy Blume
9. Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
10. Alice (Series) by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
11. Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
12. My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
13. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
14. The Giver by Lois Lowry
15. It’s Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris
16. Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine
17. A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Newton Peck
18. The Color Purple by Alice Walker
19. Sex by Madonna
20. Earth’s Children (Series) by Jean M. Auel
21. The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
22. A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle
23. Go Ask Alice by Anonymous
24. Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers
25. In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
26. The Stupids (Series) by Harry Allard
27. The Witches by Roald Dahl
28. The New Joy of Gay Sex by Charles Silverstein
29. Anastasia Krupnik (Series) by Lois Lowry
30. The Goats by Brock Cole
31. Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane
32. Blubber by Judy Blume
33. Killing Mr. Griffin by Lois Duncan
34. Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
35. We All Fall Down by Robert Cormier
36. Final Exit by Derek Humphry
37. The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
38. Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George
39. The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison
40. What’s Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras
41. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
42. Beloved by Toni Morrison
43. The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
44. The Pigman by Paul Zindel
45. Bumps in the Night by Harry Allard
46. Deenie by Judy Blume
47. Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
48. Annie on my Mind by Nancy Garden
49. The Boy Who Lost His Face by Louis Sachar
50. Cross Your Fingers, Spit in Your Hat by Alvin Schwartz
51. A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein
52. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
53. Sleeping Beauty Trilogy by A.N. Roquelaure (Anne Rice)
54. Asking About Sex and Growing Up by Joanna Cole
55. Cujo by Stephen King
56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
57. The Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell
58. Boys and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy
59. Ordinary People by Judith Guest
60. American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis
61. What’s Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras
62. Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume
63. Crazy Lady by Jane Conly
64. Athletic Shorts by Chris Crutcher
65. Fade by Robert Cormier
66. Guess What? by Mem Fox
67. The House of Spirits by Isabel Allende
68. The Face on the Milk Carton by Caroline Cooney
69. Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
70. Lord of the Flies by William Golding
71. Native Son by Richard Wright
72. Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women’s Fantasies by Nancy Friday
73. Curses, Hexes and Spells by Daniel Cohen
74. Jack by A.M. Homes
75. Bless Me, Ultima by Rudolfo A. Anaya
76. Where Did I Come From? by Peter Mayle
77. Carrie by Stephen King
78. Tiger Eyes by Judy Blume
79. On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
80. Arizona Kid by Ron Koertge
81. Family Secrets by Norma Klein
82. Mommy Laid An Egg by Babette Cole
83. The Dead Zone by Stephen King
84. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
85. Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison
86. Always Running by Luis Rodriguez
87. Private Parts by Howard Stern
88. Where’s Waldo? by Martin Hanford
89. Summer of My German Soldier by Bette Greene
90. Little Black Sambo by Helen Bannerman
91. Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett
92. Running Loose by Chris Crutcher
93. Sex Education by Jenny Davis
94. The Drowning of Stephen Jones by Bette Greene
95. Girls and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy
96. How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
97. View from the Cherry Tree by Willo Davis Roberts
98. The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Keatley Snyder
99. The Terrorist by Caroline Cooney
100. Jump Ship to Freedom by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier

[TIES2]

The list is interesting...as it's a definite combination of red state/blue state views and values...or representative of the national divide!

[Paulie]

Hey, Paulie --

Did you know Twain is no longer being taught in our schools....considered too racist...

Isn't that absolutely absurd??!!! Utterly ridiculous.

Glancing through the list MHA posted, I agree Madonna's book should be banned just for being excrutiatingly bad!!!

Paulie

[TIES2]

Isn't that absolutely absurd??!!! Utterly ridiculous.

Glancing through the list MHA posted, I agree Madonna's book should be banned just for being excrutiatingly bad!!!

Paulie


Yes, I agree. The list is purely political...some of the titles hardly qualify as literature, not to mention great literatue....

You know, I read The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton when it first came out (probably dating myself something fierce!). It was not on any required reading list, to new to yet be a classic, but it is a fantastic book...all these years later I can remember it vividly...(along with Lord of the Flies, To Kill a Mockingbird, Member of the Wedding, etc.) wonder if some of the other titles will leave an equally lasting impression on this generation.

[pinky]

Apparently, To Kill a Mockingbird won't, since it's on the list. :rolleyes:

I can readily understand some of these titles not being worth inclusion on a curriculum list; but others ought to be REQUIRED reading.

As an aside, I wonder why the What's Happening to My body for girls is banned more often than the one for boys?

[TIES2]

Apparently, To Kill a Mockingbird won't, since it's on the list. :rolleyes:

I can readily understand some of these titles not being worth inclusion on a curriculum list; but others ought to be REQUIRED reading.

As an aside, I wonder why the What's Happening to My body for girls is banned more often than the one for boys?

And so is Lord of the Flies, so what's your point? That you have a reading comprehension problem? :rolleye2: I'm wondering if what's left behind (and I'm not talking about the book!), but what's currently out there on library shelves, the volumes that are still considered acceptable reading, if these books will leave as lasting an impression as such classics as Catcher in the Rye...To Kill a Mockingbird...Lord of the Flies.

[pinky]

Gee, so I guess if I don't hang on your every word, then I have a reading comprehension problem? :rolleyes:

I merely skimmed the list, and I also merely skimmed your post. Get over yourself. Not everything you say is worth my time studying it.

[TIES2]

Gee, so I guess if I don't hang on your every word, then I have a reading comprehension problem? :rolleyes:

I merely skimmed the list, and I also merely skimmed your post. Get over yourself. Not everything you say is worth my time studying it.

It is if you're going to be critical :laugh: I was just tryng to clarify myself....

[pinky]

You also apparently need a thicker skin, as I wasn't being critical. I was merely commenting, and, for once, actually agreeing with you.

But then again, when you're wrong as often as you are, I guess it's natural to assume that every comment is a criticism. :p

[TIES2]

You also apparently need a thicker skin, as I wasn't being critical. I was merely commenting, and, for once, actually agreeing with you.

But then again, when you're wrong as often as you are, I guess it's natural to assume that every comment is a criticism. :p


Yes, we were agreeing, weren't we? I get beat up around here often enough that if I could not take it I would have been long gone (I suspect my hasty departure is just one of many reasons why I am taken to task so often!).

But why do I want to go hang out somewhere where everyone thinks pretty much along the same general lines as I do? No, it's much more fun here...two conservatives can't really get into a good row...but a conservative in a sea of liberals...all I have to do is breathe and someone starts complaining :)