Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is never going to happen.
Border states are highly dependent on that trade to boost their economies.
And, a lot of Americans do get jobs as a result on both sides of the borders.
"Texas has become the first state to exceed $10 billion in monthly surface trade with Mexico ..."
The unadjusted data shows a UE Rate of 7.7% with a Labor Participation Rate of 63.4%.
That is insufficient to fund Social Security and Medicare, and will cause their collapse sooner. It also shows a reduction in tax revenues across all levels of government (but we already knew that).
Even if the unemployment rate would 0%, so long as the participation rate is below 66.5% there is no way to fund social welfare programs (or any other programs) without raising taxes on everyone.
The results will not be pleasant.
Laboriously...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
But even at plus 115,000 and the other revisions (The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February was revised from +240,000 to +259,000, and the change for March was revised from +120,000 to +154,000,)it's sure better than the Europeans, who have embraced austerity -- exactly what the GOP wanted here.
You will be "embracing" austerity as well, whether you want to or not. If you don't have the money, then you don't have the money. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
To do that, we have to stop firing teachers and police.
Well, then you need to start raising taxes, except that you cannot.
And when the FICA tax holiday ends, that will be just that much more the States cannot collect in revenues, and when the Bush Tax Cuts finally die, and they will, States will be in even worse shape.
You'll have to cut federal spending to bankroll Social Security and Medicare, and that won't tickle.
All roads lead to austerity.
You'll figure that out when you finally arrive there.
Austerely...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
It would seem you should object to the political propaganda that the economy is doing great and the chronic unemployment of Americans is no longer an issue.
It is not an issue, but then I'm assuming people don't want Social Security or Medicare.
Chronically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Protectionism doesn't work. It was one of Hoover's chief responses to the Great Depression and it resulted in a trade war that deepened the effects of the depression so that it spread elsewhere.
Wow, you got it right. Also don't forget that the Republican-controlled House and Senate also levied what was then the largest personal income tax increase ever. That, in conjunction with the oppressive tariffs, almost instantly trashed the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Beyond that, none of what you're discussing above really is at the root of the problem. The problem is that the base of consumption -- the life's blood of a strong, vibrant capitalist system -- is not nearly as strong as it was in the past.
But there was less consumption in the past.
In the past, it was impossible to get a mortgage with 0% down. In fact, it was impossible for nearly all to get a mortgage without at least 20% down.
In the past, it was impossible to buy a car without putting at least 10% down, and finance terms were 1 year, maybe 24 months if you were really lucky and had perfect credit.
And Americans did not have 4-5 cars. America did not become a 2-car family until the mid-1970s when the majority of Americans owned at least 2 cars.
And homes were smaller, 800 sq feet to maybe 1,700 square feet, not 4,400 sq ft McMansions.
In the past, people under 25 years did not get credit cards, although they might have been able to get a charge card (there is a very legal difference as well as a very contractual difference between a charge card and a credit card). Some 18 year olds were lucky to get an oil company charge card, and then maybe after a few years of good payment history could get a store charge card, like Sears or J C Penny, Montgomery Ward etc, but you had to be on the same job for 5 years and the same residence for 7 years or the same job for 7 years and same residence for 5 years to get a VISA or MasterCard credit card.
So one reason Americans consumed less in the past was due to the fact that you were mostly a cash economy, instead of a credit economy. I attribute many of your economic problems now due to the fact that your society is too overly reliant on credit and has way too much credit available, plus that credit is way too cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Maybe one day republitards and libertardians will begin to understand that you actually need people with steady incomes in order for capitalism to work, not an increasingly select group of elite profiteers at the top of the food chain who stash their gambling winnings in offshore accounts.
That's an absurd statement. You don't need steady incomes for Socialism or Communism? Of course you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
People aren't spending because they don't have enough income, and even those who do have some income don't have access to credit.
Ah, credit.
I would suggest you do have enough income, however you are spending it all wrong.
There is reason why you are the Stupid Class: the dumbest most ignorant Middle Class to ever exist in the history of the Universe (including parallel and multiple universes which theoretically may or may not exist).
The Stupid Class will purchase a $250,000 McMansion with 0% down at 6.5 % for 30 years and as a consequence of their stupidity, desire for instant self-gratification, and refusal to make a short-term sacrifice for a long term gain, and they will pay....
$318,000 in interest.
Then in their ignorance, they will whine and cry like small children claiming they were "oppressed" because they voluntarily of their own free will gave $318,000 to the top 1% of all Americans.
Then later they will try to sell the McMansion for $650,000 because they have to get at least $568,000 in order to make any semblance of a profit, and when the McMansion is only valued at $450,000 and they're poised to take a huge loss, they will blame everyone but themselves for their ignorance, short-sightedness, lack of intelligence and lack of self-discipline.
Is any of this ringing a bell?
The financially mature and intelligent person would put 25% to 35% down on their $250,000 McMansion and pay only $79,956 in interest. The intelligent person can then sell the home later for $450,000 which is the same price the Stupid Class idiot has his McMansion for sale, and still make a profit of...
....$120,044, while the Stupid Class idiot takes a loss of $118,000.
More than that, the Intelligent Class has then taken the $238,905 in savings in interest from their home purchase and parlay that into $762,505 through investments, and $762,505 is what you would get by just putting the money into a very simple uncomplicated investment vehicle like a pass-book savings account.
So the intelligent person ends up with $120,044 plus $762,505 or $882,549 in profits while the Stupid Class slob has take a loss of $356,905.
Again, you do have the money, and you also have a disease that other generations of Middle Class Americans did not have, and that is instant-feel-good-self-gratification.
Previous generations were saddled with car payments every month from the time they were 18-20 years until they retired?
No.
Previous Middle Class Americans saved up their money, put 10% down on the car, financed it for maybe 24 months at most and then drove it for 8-10 years.
They did not buy a new car every 2 years, and they did not have 3 and 4 and 5 cars.
In typical liberal fashion, you blame all of your short-comings on everyone but yourself.
No one held a gun to your head and forced you to buy a $250,000 McMansion with no money down. You all did that on your own, instead of doing what all previous generations did, which is save money, make a down-payment on a modest, um, you know, "starter home" and then sell the starter home for a profit and use the profits plus additional savings to purchase the home you really want.
Don't fault the rest of the world for your childish financial stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
You may not want to admit it, but the reality is that we are increasingly facing a crisis of capitalism. People are beginning to lose faith in it. The problem is that most people are confused about how to make it work again, which gives off the impression that the cure is even worse than the disease itself.
That's because propaganda artists like yourself constantly spread disinformation.
Capitalism is a Property Theory.
Capitalism plays no role whatsoever in determining the prices of goods and services. The price of a bushel of corn is the same whether you are using Capitalism, Socialism or Communism.
Why? Because the Market sets the price based on Supply & Demand. If you interfere with Supply or Demand or Prices, then you cause problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
And moreover, we need a mandate that promotes more collectivist goals.
In a heterogeneous society?
You obviously don't understand what a nation is.
A nation is any group of people who are homogenous:
1] having a common ancestry
2] having a common culture
3] having a common language
4] worshiping the same god
5] revering the same heroes
6] having the same history
7] celebrating the same holidays
8] and sharing the same music, poetry, art and literature
Norwegians are a nation; Americans are not.
Because the nation of Norwegians fills the entire politically demarcated boundary, Norway is a nation-State. The US consists of hundreds of nations, and no one nation fills the entire area up to the boundaries and also has control.
A nation-State can have collectivist goals, but a country cannot, because the overwhelming force is centrifugal. It requires institutions such as schools, universities, government, the military etc etc etc to apply a centripetal force against the centrifugal force exerted by the many nations within a country to keep the country together.
No doubt, you're a little weak on your political science, but then you can blame liberals from removing that from your high school curriculum in favor of, um, you know, "UN studies" or some other nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Yet here we have a president with no clear direction in which to govern.
That's because he's pathetic.
First, he has failed to understand the problem, which is simply this: the American global work-force cannot compete against the global work-forces of other countries, especially the developing States.
Of the following, who is the most productive:
1] A US union worker paid $48/hour operating a $3.1 Million Mazak Machine
2] A Romanian worker paid $2.11/hour operating a $3.1 Million Mazak Machine
3] A Nicaraguan worker paid $0.75/hour operating a $3.1 Million Mazak Machine
They are all equally productive. The $3.1 Million Mazak Machine goes only as fast it can possibly go and no faster doing whatever it does. Let's say it presses bearings onto the drive-axles for right-hand drive front-wheel drive vehicles and does 32 units per hour.
That's it. It does 32 units/hour and no more.
So in terms of production, it doesn't matter what you pay the worker. What does matter is costs. The US union worker probably gets an hour paid lunch and to 30 minute paid breaks and then screws off for 3 hours and ends up only producing 96 units in an 8 hour shift instead of 256 units like the Nicaraguan and Romanian.
See how stupid Obama really is?
How do you fix it? You cannot. As I have said repeatedly, you will just have to wait until there is an equilibrium between the wages of all global work-forces, and that will be achieved when US wages decline sufficiently to meet the rising wages of the global work-force. Since wages generally double every 10 years for developing States (but not for post-Industrialized States), I figure around the year 2040 you should start to be competitive again.
The solution is to build the domestic work-force and the best way to do that is to embark on a plan to shift 85% of all freight from over-the-road trucking to rail.
There are millions of miles of unused rail/track lying about. Tens of thousands of laborers are needed to clear away the weeds, remove the track if it will not be used in the Master Plan, or refurbish the tracks if they will. Tens of thousands of other workers will be needed to make diesel/electric train engines, flat cars, tank cars, hopper cars, box cars, and numerous types of specialty cars (like for rolled steel, various types of vehicles etc etc etc), and tens of thousands more needed to refurbish and improve rail-road crossings.
More workers will be needed for management, supervision, IT, clerical, data entry, operations, logistical support, maintenance, finance, investment, insurance, legal, customer support, software design, etc etc etc.
And States, counties and cities, instead of wasting money installing sound barriers on major interstates and constantly repairing and repaving roads only to be damaged again by over-the-road trucks, can divert that money elsewhere to be better spent.
Reduced pressure on diesel will result in lower diesel prices, which translate into lower costs for farmers, which means lower food costs for consumers, combined with lower transportation costs, resulting in lower prices on all consumer items to the benefit of consumers.
As you can see, Obama is one clearly lacking in vision, probably because he spends most of his time smearing his head with butter and ramming it up the asses of Teamster's Union bosses, except when he's kow-towing to the American Hospital Association, and when he's not doing that, he's dreaming about his legacy.
Directionally...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
26 months in a row growth...
On what Planet?
2010
Jan 136809
Feb 137203
Mar 137983
Apr 139302
May 139497
Jun 139882
Jul 140134 Aug 139919 Job Loss
Sep 139715 Job Loss
Oct 139749 Nov 139415 Job Loss
Dec 139159 Job Loss
2011 Jan 137599 Job Loss
Feb 138093
Mar 138962
Apr 139661
May 140028
Jun 140129
Jul 140384 Aug 140335 Job Loss
Sep 140502
Oct 140987
Nov 141070 Dec 140681 Job Loss
2012
Jan 139944
Feb 140684
Mar 141412
Apr 141995
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
.... nearly all the jobs lost under Bush/Cheney have now been recovered. Yep, just awful news.
In July 2006...
...there were 145,606,000 Americans employed.
As of now, there are 141,995,000 Americans employed.
Are you really gonna make me do the 6th Grade Math on this?
Now, logically explain these numbers (average growth in private sector payroll per month) to the best of your capacity
They are BS.
2001: -192.7K
2000 136891 2001 136933
-------------------
420,000 net increase in jobs
2002: -64.8K
2001 136933
2002 136485
--------------------
448,000 net loss in jobs
2003: 10.5K
2002 136485
2003 137736
--------------------
1,251,000 increase in jobs
2000 136891
2003 137736
-------------------
845,000 net increase in jobs
2004: 159.2K
2003 137736
2004 139252
------------------
1,516,000 increasein jobs over 2003
2000 136891
2004 139252
------------------
2,361,000 net increase since 2000
2005: 192.7K
2004 139252
2005 141730
-------------------
2,478,000 increase in jobs
2006: 154.9K
2005 141730
2006 144427
-------------------
2,697,000 increase in jobs
2007: 67.7K
2006 144427
2007 146047
-------------------
1,620,000 increase in jobs
2008: -315.2K
2007 146047
2008 145362
-------------------
685,000loss in jobs
2009: -415.3K
2008 145362
2009 139877
------------------
5,485,000 loss in jobs
2010: 104.0K
2009 139877
2010 139064
-------------------
813,000 loss in jobs
2011: 174.3K
2010 139064
2011 139869
-------------------
805,000 increase in jobs
2011 139869
2012 141995
------------------
2,126,000 increase in jobs
2007 146047
2012 141995
------------------- 4,052,000 = current net job loss
Assuming no one else attempts to enter the work-force, at a rate of 115,000 jobs it will take 35 months to get pack to the work-force that existed in 2007.
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73
Einstein's Ghost lost quite a few dozen IQ points through the whole body to spirit transformation process.
I've been dying to challege your BS for some time.
Next time you use Talking-Points, make sure they are properly vetted.
Debunking...
They are BS.
2001: -192.7K <- Private Sector Payroll, Payroll survey
2000 136891 2001 136933 <- Private Sector + Government employment, household survey?
-------------------
420,000 net increase in jobs
:
Debunking...
Mircea
Or, was there a net increase in payroll size in private sector by 420K in 2001 (an average growth of 35K/month)?
Debunked.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 05-04-2012 at 12:19 PM..
The unadjusted data shows a UE Rate of 7.7% with a Labor Participation Rate of 63.4%.
That is insufficient to fund Social Security and Medicare, and will cause their collapse sooner. It also shows a reduction in tax revenues across all levels of government (but we already knew that).
Even if the unemployment rate would 0%, so long as the participation rate is below 66.5% there is no way to fund social welfare programs (or any other programs) without raising taxes on everyone.
The results will not be pleasant.
Laboriously...
Mircea
You will be "embracing" austerity as well, whether you want to or not. If you don't have the money, then you don't have the money. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Well, then you need to start raising taxes, except that you cannot.
And when the FICA tax holiday ends, that will be just that much more the States cannot collect in revenues, and when the Bush Tax Cuts finally die, and they will, States will be in even worse shape.
You'll have to cut federal spending to bankroll Social Security and Medicare, and that won't tickle.
All roads lead to austerity.
You'll figure that out when you finally arrive there.
Austerely...
Mircea
It is not an issue, but then I'm assuming people don't want Social Security or Medicare.
Chronically...
Mircea
Wow, you got it right. Also don't forget that the Republican-controlled House and Senate also levied what was then the largest personal income tax increase ever. That, in conjunction with the oppressive tariffs, almost instantly trashed the economy.
But there was less consumption in the past.
In the past, it was impossible to get a mortgage with 0% down. In fact, it was impossible for nearly all to get a mortgage without at least 20% down.
In the past, it was impossible to buy a car without putting at least 10% down, and finance terms were 1 year, maybe 24 months if you were really lucky and had perfect credit.
And Americans did not have 4-5 cars. America did not become a 2-car family until the mid-1970s when the majority of Americans owned at least 2 cars.
And homes were smaller, 800 sq feet to maybe 1,700 square feet, not 4,400 sq ft McMansions.
In the past, people under 25 years did not get credit cards, although they might have been able to get a charge card (there is a very legal difference as well as a very contractual difference between a charge card and a credit card). Some 18 year olds were lucky to get an oil company charge card, and then maybe after a few years of good payment history could get a store charge card, like Sears or J C Penny, Montgomery Ward etc, but you had to be on the same job for 5 years and the same residence for 7 years or the same job for 7 years and same residence for 5 years to get a VISA or MasterCard credit card.
So one reason Americans consumed less in the past was due to the fact that you were mostly a cash economy, instead of a credit economy. I attribute many of your economic problems now due to the fact that your society is too overly reliant on credit and has way too much credit available, plus that credit is way too cheap.
That's an absurd statement. You don't need steady incomes for Socialism or Communism? Of course you do.
Ah, credit.
I would suggest you do have enough income, however you are spending it all wrong.
There is reason why you are the Stupid Class: the dumbest most ignorant Middle Class to ever exist in the history of the Universe (including parallel and multiple universes which theoretically may or may not exist).
The Stupid Class will purchase a $250,000 McMansion with 0% down at 6.5 % for 30 years and as a consequence of their stupidity, desire for instant self-gratification, and refusal to make a short-term sacrifice for a long term gain, and they will pay....
$318,000 in interest.
Then in their ignorance, they will whine and cry like small children claiming they were "oppressed" because they voluntarily of their own free will gave $318,000 to the top 1% of all Americans.
Then later they will try to sell the McMansion for $650,000 because they have to get at least $568,000 in order to make any semblance of a profit, and when the McMansion is only valued at $450,000 and they're poised to take a huge loss, they will blame everyone but themselves for their ignorance, short-sightedness, lack of intelligence and lack of self-discipline.
Is any of this ringing a bell?
The financially mature and intelligent person would put 25% to 35% down on their $250,000 McMansion and pay only $79,956 in interest. The intelligent person can then sell the home later for $450,000 which is the same price the Stupid Class idiot has his McMansion for sale, and still make a profit of...
....$120,044, while the Stupid Class idiot takes a loss of $118,000.
More than that, the Intelligent Class has then taken the $238,905 in savings in interest from their home purchase and parlay that into $762,505 through investments, and $762,505 is what you would get by just putting the money into a very simple uncomplicated investment vehicle like a pass-book savings account.
So the intelligent person ends up with $120,044 plus $762,505 or $882,549 in profits while the Stupid Class slob has take a loss of $356,905.
Again, you do have the money, and you also have a disease that other generations of Middle Class Americans did not have, and that is instant-feel-good-self-gratification.
Previous generations were saddled with car payments every month from the time they were 18-20 years until they retired?
No.
Previous Middle Class Americans saved up their money, put 10% down on the car, financed it for maybe 24 months at most and then drove it for 8-10 years.
They did not buy a new car every 2 years, and they did not have 3 and 4 and 5 cars.
In typical liberal fashion, you blame all of your short-comings on everyone but yourself.
No one held a gun to your head and forced you to buy a $250,000 McMansion with no money down. You all did that on your own, instead of doing what all previous generations did, which is save money, make a down-payment on a modest, um, you know, "starter home" and then sell the starter home for a profit and use the profits plus additional savings to purchase the home you really want.
Don't fault the rest of the world for your childish financial stupidity.
That's because propaganda artists like yourself constantly spread disinformation.
Capitalism is a Property Theory.
Capitalism plays no role whatsoever in determining the prices of goods and services. The price of a bushel of corn is the same whether you are using Capitalism, Socialism or Communism.
Why? Because the Market sets the price based on Supply & Demand. If you interfere with Supply or Demand or Prices, then you cause problems.
In a heterogeneous society?
You obviously don't understand what a nation is.
A nation is any group of people who are homogenous:
1] having a common ancestry
2] having a common culture
3] having a common language
4] worshiping the same god
5] revering the same heroes
6] having the same history
7] celebrating the same holidays
8] and sharing the same music, poetry, art and literature
Norwegians are a nation; Americans are not.
Because the nation of Norwegians fills the entire politically demarcated boundary, Norway is a nation-State. The US consists of hundreds of nations, and no one nation fills the entire area up to the boundaries and also has control.
A nation-State can have collectivist goals, but a country cannot, because the overwhelming force is centrifugal. It requires institutions such as schools, universities, government, the military etc etc etc to apply a centripetal force against the centrifugal force exerted by the many nations within a country to keep the country together.
No doubt, you're a little weak on your political science, but then you can blame liberals from removing that from your high school curriculum in favor of, um, you know, "UN studies" or some other nonsense.
That's because he's pathetic.
First, he has failed to understand the problem, which is simply this: the American global work-force cannot compete against the global work-forces of other countries, especially the developing States.
Of the following, who is the most productive:
1] A US union worker paid $48/hour operating a $3.1 Million Mazak Machine
2] A Romanian worker paid $2.11/hour operating a $3.1 Million Mazak Machine
3] A Nicaraguan worker paid $0.75/hour operating a $3.1 Million Mazak Machine
They are all equally productive. The $3.1 Million Mazak Machine goes only as fast it can possibly go and no faster doing whatever it does. Let's say it presses bearings onto the drive-axles for right-hand drive front-wheel drive vehicles and does 32 units per hour.
That's it. It does 32 units/hour and no more.
So in terms of production, it doesn't matter what you pay the worker. What does matter is costs. The US union worker probably gets an hour paid lunch and to 30 minute paid breaks and then screws off for 3 hours and ends up only producing 96 units in an 8 hour shift instead of 256 units like the Nicaraguan and Romanian.
See how stupid Obama really is?
How do you fix it? You cannot. As I have said repeatedly, you will just have to wait until there is an equilibrium between the wages of all global work-forces, and that will be achieved when US wages decline sufficiently to meet the rising wages of the global work-force. Since wages generally double every 10 years for developing States (but not for post-Industrialized States), I figure around the year 2040 you should start to be competitive again.
The solution is to build the domestic work-force and the best way to do that is to embark on a plan to shift 85% of all freight from over-the-road trucking to rail.
There are millions of miles of unused rail/track lying about. Tens of thousands of laborers are needed to clear away the weeds, remove the track if it will not be used in the Master Plan, or refurbish the tracks if they will. Tens of thousands of other workers will be needed to make diesel/electric train engines, flat cars, tank cars, hopper cars, box cars, and numerous types of specialty cars (like for rolled steel, various types of vehicles etc etc etc), and tens of thousands more needed to refurbish and improve rail-road crossings.
More workers will be needed for management, supervision, IT, clerical, data entry, operations, logistical support, maintenance, finance, investment, insurance, legal, customer support, software design, etc etc etc.
And States, counties and cities, instead of wasting money installing sound barriers on major interstates and constantly repairing and repaving roads only to be damaged again by over-the-road trucks, can divert that money elsewhere to be better spent.
Reduced pressure on diesel will result in lower diesel prices, which translate into lower costs for farmers, which means lower food costs for consumers, combined with lower transportation costs, resulting in lower prices on all consumer items to the benefit of consumers.
As you can see, Obama is one clearly lacking in vision, probably because he spends most of his time smearing his head with butter and ramming it up the asses of Teamster's Union bosses, except when he's kow-towing to the American Hospital Association, and when he's not doing that, he's dreaming about his legacy.
Directionally...
Mircea
On what Planet?
2010
Jan 136809
Feb 137203
Mar 137983
Apr 139302
May 139497
Jun 139882
Jul 140134 Aug 139919 Job Loss
Sep 139715 Job Loss
Oct 139749 Nov 139415 Job Loss
Dec 139159 Job Loss
2011 Jan 137599 Job Loss
Feb 138093
Mar 138962
Apr 139661
May 140028
Jun 140129
Jul 140384 Aug 140335 Job Loss
Sep 140502
Oct 140987
Nov 141070 Dec 140681 Job Loss
2012
Jan 139944
Feb 140684
Mar 141412
Apr 141995
In July 2006...
...there were 145,606,000 Americans employed.
As of now, there are 141,995,000 Americans employed.
Are you really gonna make me do the 6th Grade Math on this?
2000 136891 2001 136933
-------------------
420,000 net increase in jobs
2002: -64.8K
2001 136933
2002 136485
--------------------
448,000 net loss in jobs
2003: 10.5K
2002 136485
2003 137736
--------------------
1,251,000 increase in jobs
2000 136891
2003 137736
-------------------
845,000 net increase in jobs
2004: 159.2K
2003 137736
2004 139252
------------------
1,516,000 increasein jobs over 2003
2000 136891
2004 139252
------------------
2,361,000 net increase since 2000
2005: 192.7K
2004 139252
2005 141730
-------------------
2,478,000 increase in jobs
2006: 154.9K
2005 141730
2006 144427
-------------------
2,697,000 increase in jobs
2007: 67.7K
2006 144427
2007 146047
-------------------
1,620,000 increase in jobs
2008: -315.2K
2007 146047
2008 145362
-------------------
685,000loss in jobs
2009: -415.3K
2008 145362
2009 139877
------------------
5,485,000 loss in jobs
2010: 104.0K
2009 139877
2010 139064
-------------------
813,000 loss in jobs
2011: 174.3K
2010 139064
2011 139869
-------------------
805,000 increase in jobs
2011 139869
2012 141995
------------------
2,126,000 increase in jobs
2007 146047
2012 141995
------------------- 4,052,000 = current net job loss
Assuming no one else attempts to enter the work-force, at a rate of 115,000 jobs it will take 35 months to get pack to the work-force that existed in 2007.
I've been dying to challege your BS for some time.
Next time you use Talking-Points, make sure they are properly vetted.
Debunking...
Hogwash ... the numbers are being manipulated by Obama's team ... remember, Obama put key people in charge of these agencies and they make sure the agency sings the Obama song.
Right you are, heard this today, the analysts were talking about how the numbers are not correct. Too many unemployed have just given up on looking, and are not counted in those numbers, no surpirse with this administration.
Stop smoking whatever it is most of you are smoking, everyone i know is cocern about the employment issue everyone, not only dems. Put it in your pipe, that everyone cares.
I know 4 people who last week, had jobs, here we go again think your job is safe, think again. Two managers and two supervisors gone, very sad, the women has been a faithful employee for over 10 yrs. Sad thing is her husband is fighting cancer, and her health is questionable. Now she is gone, hard for me to understand, what the hell she is now going to do, i know her, and she is a hard working wormen never beleive in taking anything from anyone, but doing for herself. That is sad. Not part of the give me you owe me crowd.
We all care, so stop, your crap that is what it is crap. Unless you know all Americans, from both party's don't claim to speak for those of us you really sincerely, honestly don't know, because you would speaking of lies!
We do know how easily some are brainwahsed.
Any jobs report that does not look like 2009 (-5,000,000 or so) is an improvment in my book.
IMHO If we had taken the austerity some economists and other RWNJ's wanted in 2009 we would have repeated that loss or more for each of the last four years. The economy is not booming, and it should not, but it is making steady gains. Growth without bubbles is the goal.
Obama is an idiot and these numbers should convince everyone of that.
fact is, a lot of people WANT this to happen. the utter distruction of the American econonmy will allow for the rebuilding of America with a socialist utopia.
Welcome Cloward and Pivin... and the DNC and the Democrat wing of the Democrat party.
Any jobs report that does not look like 2009 (-5,000,000 or so) is an improvment in my book.
IMHO If we had taken the austerity some economists and other RWNJ's wanted in 2009 we would have repeated that loss or more for each of the last four years. The economy is not booming, and it should not, but it is making steady gains. Growth without bubbles is the goal.
Pres Obama gets my approval and vote.
Same here...statistics are too easily manipulated by the unscrupulous.
Obama is an idiot and these numbers should convince everyone of that.
fact is, a lot of people WANT this to happen. the utter distruction of the American econonmy will allow for the rebuilding of America with a socialist utopia.
Welcome Cloward and Pivin... and the DNC and the Democrat wing of the Democrat party.
This is what Obama is.
And this is what right wing idea of intellect is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
