U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-10-2012, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Colorado
274 posts, read 415,126 times
Reputation: 454

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I know several people who went out of work over the last few years, not ONE of them are still out of work, and most of them took about 30 days to find a new job..

If you cant do it in two fricken years, its not the economys fault.
pqhquest - On June 30, 2004 I lost my job after 16 years ... on August 19, 2004 I found another job (without ever collecting unemployment) which I lost on Feb. 29, 2012................ still unemployed (and collecting unemployment for the first time in my life) ........... there are too many people fighting for that one open position available .... also in June, 2004 I was making 24/hr ... in August, 2004 ..16/hr .... now what I see is 10-11/hr ....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-10-2012, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Alaska
6,342 posts, read 4,361,393 times
Reputation: 3765
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewYorkGuy View Post
Bad news for Republicans and others who are betting against America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed from California View Post
Ho on earth is that "bad news for republicans"? Are you not capable of critical thinking or even basic reading comprehension?
I know what you mean.. I laugh more these days than anything when I read some of the posts on here. I really don't think critical thinking or basic comprehension is on his radar. If he even has radar. Rep point for you..

The sad part is that these are the people that put Obama in office and shows the thought process involved with putting him there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2012, 10:56 AM
 
Location: North America
19,634 posts, read 12,409,768 times
Reputation: 8282
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl View Post
Only a paltry 95,000 jobs were created last month. 150,000 is considered the break even point needed to begin to lower the unemployment rate. Yet the government reports the rate is lower by two ticks! They just take people off the "looking for jobs" category to make the number look like it is improving. It will surely show a number below 8% before the election no matter what happens to the economy. The labor participation rate is the lowest since Jimmy Carter's economy!
New Jobs at 96,000, Rate Hits 8.1%, Missing Expectations - US Business News - CNBC

The "real" unemployment numbers have always been higher. It's not a new occurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2012, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,763 posts, read 14,174,683 times
Reputation: 15954
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrClose View Post
Out of an estimated 310 million people in this country .. almost 90 million are not working.

Throw in the mOOchers whom the government doesn't want to count and .. We are in a World of hurt!
Uh, your demographics are rectangular, meaning that ~ 1/3 of your population is under 16 years and ~1/3 is over 65 years.

So what's the problem?

Wondering...


Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Dude, do you realize just how ignorant that statement is?
It's about as ignorant as this statement...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
More people exhausted their unemployment and fell off the list that is counted.
You're not exactly competent matters of employment/unemployment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
8.1% is now collecting unemployment benefits.
That is a false statement.

There is no relationship between the Unemployment Rate and Unemployment Benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
It is all manipulation of the numbers, to fool the ignorant. It sounds like you bought it, too.
That's probably because you don't understand how unemployment is calculated.

Any person who has looked for work in the 4 week period prior to the survey conducted on the 12th of each month is considered unemployed.

The fact that the person is collecting unemployment benefits is totally irrelevant. The fact that the person is not collecting unemployment benefits is totally irrelevant.

All that matters is that the person looked for work at least once in the last 4 weeks.

Have you sought work in the last 4 weeks? Yes.

Okay, then you're unemployed and no one gives a damn if you're collecting UE benefits or not.

Procedurally...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don9 View Post
The only reason why the rate is lower is because team Obama is cooking the books and claiming thousands more are no longer interested in working and gave up which is a huge lie and ridiculous to even suggest.
Nobody is cooking the books.

The US DOL contracts a company to conduct a survey on the 12th of each month. That company is very likely Gallup.

The survey of 60,000 households asks questions:

1) Do you want to work? If the answer is "No" then that person is classified as Not in Labor Force.

Who would not want to work? People who are retired. Students. Women or men who are staying at home to care for infants or elderly parents or other families. Or people who just don't want or need to work.

2) Are you available to work? If you are incarcerated, then you are not available and you are not counted as part of the hint....hint...hint...Non-institutionalized Civilian Population.

If you are in a physical rehab center, a substance abuse rehab center, an hospital or a mental insitution, then hint....hint...hint...you are not part of the Non-institutionalized Civilian Population.

3) Have you looked for work in the last 4 weeks? If the answer is "Yes" and you are available to work then you are "unemployed."

If the answer is no, then the next question is...

4) Have you looked for work in the last 12 months? If the answer is "Yes" then you end up on U-6.

As everyone can plainly see, nobody gives a damn if they're collecting UE benefits or not.

How is a kid who has 16 years and has quite school and looking for working drawing UE benefits?

He isn't. But he is part of the Non-institutional Civilian Population and if he looked for work in the last 4 weeks then he is unemployed.

Why would a college graduate who never worked be drawing UE benefits? They wouldn't but if they are available to work, and they desire to work, and they have looked for work in the last 4 weeks, then they are unemployed.

If you don't know what you're talking about, then ask questions instead of screaming "conspiracy."

Statistically...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebrehm View Post
Ronald Reagan thought that 9.8% unemployment in 1983 was a "minor recession."
It was.

All recessions are caused by gross economic inefficiency.

The key to understanding the recession, and formulating economic and social policies related to the recession is to understand where the gross economic inefficiency lies.

Reagan understood -- Obama is clueless.

The series of recessions starting in 1925 and continuing through 1949 [the Great Depression] were caused by labor inefficiency, namely, a surplus of labor.

Here's what's happening in America. You have Henry Ford who introduces the assembly line method of production, you have electricity, and you have the longer lasting light-bulb, plus cars and trucks. All of those things, plus the fact that people are completing the 6th Grade, and more are completing the 8th Grade and then lots of people are being graduated from high school results in a smarter more efficient work-force....but it also creates a surplus of labor through the gains in production efficiency.

Now you have this gigantic surplus of labor. FDR understand that and tries to use the WPA to get people back to work, but it doesn't really help. What does help is the production of war materiel. The Germans, Japanese, Brits, Italians, French, Soviets and everyone else is buying military hardware from the US, especially ships (and especially corvettes and frigates). But that is still not enough to absorb all of the surplus labor. Then comes WW II and you have 6 million men under arms in the army (including the army air corps), navy and marines.

When the war ends, you go right back into a recession. Why? Because you never solved the original problem....a surplus of labor.

What saves you is that Europe is destroyed and the US is now the sole super-power. The US starts manufacturing for the entire world, and that is what absorbs all the surplus labor.

That's very different from the recession in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Here, the issue is not a surplus of labor, rather it is the reallocation of Capital, and a wholesale shift of that Capital from various regions in the US to other regions in the US. For example, textile mills in the New England States shut down and move to the Southeast. Manufacturing in the Midwest shuts down and moves to the South and Southwest. Technology shuts down on the East Coast and moves to the West Coast.

The recession lasts only until all Capital has been shifted and relocated regionally. Reagan understood that and created policies to expedite this shift in Capital to end the recession sooner. Simultaneously, Reagan and Volker dealt with the issue of Real Inflation by getting the excess money out of the system and also ramping up GDP by expediting the Capital shift.

Same thing in 1991. Bush the Elder unilaterally (without any treaties) orders the withdraw and destruction of all battlefield tactical nuclear weapons and theatre nuclear weapons. He also agreed in 1989 with Gorbachev to withdraw US troops from Germany (specifically the US VII Corps).

That signaled a reduction in defense spending and "things military."

Investors pulled their Capital out of the defense sector of the economy and reallocated it to other sectors of the economy.

This transition...the reallocation of Capital (by the 1%) caused the recession, which lasted only until the Capital was reallocated and those sectors of the economy injected with new Capital expanded.

The important thing here is Bush's tax policies. Had Bush done nothing, this transitional reallocation of Capital would have taken place at a slower rate, avoiding a recession. But Bush's tax policies caused this reallocation of Capital to take place very rapidly. Why? He raised the Capital Gains tax rate from 20% to [I think] 32%.

If I don't want to lose money, then I need to sell my stocks now....before the tax rate increases, I need to shift my investments now.....before the tax rate increases.

Which brings us to your last recession and your current recessionary state.

What caused the recession?

A surplus of labor.

What can you do about that? Well, short of starting WW III, absolutely nothing.

Why do you have a surplus of labor? Because you should have always had a surplus of labor. US Foreign Policy barred other countries from developing....and they would have competed against the US creating a surplus of labor.

The situation now is that BRIC is developing the countries the US refused to develop, and those countries are competing against the US and causing a surplus of labor in the US. The US has neither the power, the clout or the money to stop BRIC.

As a result, an American violating the Laws of Economics by earning $22.50/hour operating his MAZAK machine pressing bearings on 8 parts an hour is competing against another guy in another country who is 100% compliant with the Laws of Economics earning $1.70/hour operating his MAZAK machine pressing bearings on 8 parts an hour.

B-b-b-b-b-but those are "slave wages."

Wrong.

12 years ago, the average Romanian made $300/month. Now they make $500/month.

So, what, you thought 23 Million starving scarecrows were homeless and lived in the streets?

Or did you think that 15 Million starving scarecrows lived in cardboard boxes and the rest were homeless?

No, they live in apartments and houses.

How can they afford to live on $500/month?

Wrong question.....the question is Why can't you live on $500/month?

Those people that you think are getting paid "slave wages" are, in nearly every instance, 100% compliant with the Laws of Economics. They are getting paid exactly what the Market says they should be paid, given the economic conditions of the region and the specific conditions in the local labor market at this point in time.

Cost-of-living is relative. There are people making $500/month whose life-style is the same as yours, 1 or 2 steps better than yours or 1 or 2 steps under yours.

Never forget that.

Anyway, Obama doesn't understand the problem, and because he doesn't, he cannot possibly "fix" it. The cause of your problem....surplus labor.....is largely external. This is something that has been happening for some time. Since July 2000 during the Clinton Administration, the US has lost 7.1 Million jobs. That is more than the 5 Million I predicted, but we're not exactly done yet. I suspect that over time, you'll eventually absorb those 2 Million jobs and will have only permanently lost 5 Million (as I predicted).

You need to accept the fact that those jobs are gone and will never come back anytime soon, so paying people UE Benefits for 99 weeks was a totally stupid thing to do.

His "shovel-ready" jobs was another really stupid thing to do.

Had Obama introduced a national policy goal of shifting 85% of your freight from over-the-road trucking to railroad in 8 years, right now, you'd have 2 Million people working really good jobs from yard apes to senior management and everything in between and you'd pick up another 1 Million over the next 4 years, without losing any jobs.

But Obama isn't that smart.

Maybe in 2016 you'll have a chance to elect an intelligent president.

Economically...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceg0720 View Post
pqhquest - On June 30, 2004 I lost my job after 16 years ... on August 19, 2004 I found another job (without ever collecting unemployment) which I lost on Feb. 29, 2012................ still unemployed (and collecting unemployment for the first time in my life) ........... there are too many people fighting for that one open position available .... also in June, 2004 I was making 24/hr ... in August, 2004 ..16/hr .... now what I see is 10-11/hr ....
But, of course!

Why wouldn't your wages decline? You're over-paid in the first place.

Realistically...

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:09 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top