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.
Obama's idea of employment is having a part time job (less than 30 hours a week). But real employment is having a full time job. So really, the unemployment rate is 20%+. This is a way Obama has pandered the numbers just so he can look somewhat decent. Lost most respect for this man (even though there was barely any from the beginning).
I don't understand those whom, I guess deliberately, refuse to fully understand the labor participation rate.
Sure, some people have simply 'given up' looking for a job. But then again, a lot of us Baby Boomers are retiring. I will join that rank in 6 years 6 months.
Of my three sisters: one (47) is a stay-at-home mom, hence not in the labor force.
The second (62) has been on disability for 20+ years, so is not in the labor force.
The third (64) is content to live off of widow's benefits, and so is not in the labor force.
No doubt, many other families have people 'not in the labor force'. Look around here on CD, at those who post 10,000 times per year on this one website alone. You can't tell me that they are 'in the labor force'.
My argument will remain the same should Mr. Trump ascend to the office of President. He will not be able to 'improve' the labor participation rate, given our lower birthrate (pointed out by another poster), and the Baby Boomers retirement.
I think many ideologues were convinced civilization would collapse of Obama took over. When he proved to be a very good president byvall objective measures, they had to dig deep to keep painting him as a failure and not admit defeat.
Well informed people know that, with the largest cohort retiring now, economists have known for decades we'd see this happen. 2/3 of the non labor participants are retirees. Most of the rest are young adults in school. Some are newly on disability (less than 1%).
Not that big of a deal but this is why it's so hard to take these doomsayers seriously with their endless outrage.
Obama's idea of employment is having a part time job (less than 30 hours a week). But real employment is having a full time job. So really, the unemployment rate is 20%+. This is a way Obama has pandered the numbers just so he can look somewhat decent. Lost most respect for this man (even though there was barely any from the beginning).
Full time employment is rising. Part time employment is falling. I don't know where you got your misinformation.
95 million unemployed people out of a population of 320 million is 30% unemployment.
Our politicians use phony math to make themselves look less horrible than they really are.
So let's look at the USA breakdown.
9 people
1 works for government eating tax dollars leaving
8 people
3 are not in the work force leaving
5 people
2.5 out of 9 are on public assistance (110 million) leaving
2.5 people out of 9 paying for all the others.
So we have only 28% of the people not connected to government taking taxes who are only paying taxes.
That is why we doubled the national debt under Obama.
We are living today in a Great Depression with social programs.
Wow. You literally have no idea how the economy works or how it's measured.
You anti-family people sicken me, suggesting patents raising their kids full time are unemployed. Suggesting people who earned their retirement and time with their grandkids are unemployed.
Shame on yiu. No excuse for posting this ignorance when the truth is at your fingertips. Shame on you.
Romney actually said "over a period of four years...we get the unemployment rate down to 6 percent, or perhaps a little lower."
5.1% is not a little lower than 6%.
It's not an assumption - it's what the man actually claimed to be able to accomplish.
The fact is that he claimed to be able to accomplish a task that was superceded by reality.
6% unemployment was reached in September 2014, 27 months before Romney's goal. That's less than half the time Romney claimed that it would take.
5.1% unemployment was reached in August 2015, more than "a little lower" than Romney's goal. And it's still 16 months earlier than Romney claimed that it would take to get to 6% "or perhaps a little lower".
If you can't concede that, then you're in denial of the historical record. Or simply refusing to face reality.
So its your argument that Romney objected to lowering the unemployment rate faster than 4 years?
Last edited by CaseyB; 09-08-2015 at 09:32 AM..
Reason: rude
Obama's idea of employment is having a part time job (less than 30 hours a week). But real employment is having a full time job. So really, the unemployment rate is 20%+. This is a way Obama has pandered the numbers just so he can look somewhat decent. Lost most respect for this man (even though there was barely any from the beginning).
The U6 unemployment number that treats part time workers as unemployed was 10.3 in Aug 2015. In Aug 2014 it was 12.0. It has been declining over 1% a year since 2011.
I could say the same to your business tutors. If a company was expecting future demand for skilled labor, like programmers, they might over-hire. But for minimum-wage workers, there is no need to hire in advance as they can easily be hired when needed.
Of course there is a need. One can argue about how long in advance they need to be hired or that the training period is short but yes one does hire in advance. Why would anyone with half a brain want to take the chance and wait until the last minute? Because there is no need to train and all minimum wage workers work the same?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
If you read back, you are making my argument -- that the employer would not lay-off a worker that was productive just to save on the wages of a minimum wage earner. The research confirms this. Employers would reduce employment either negligibly or not at all.
No the research doesn't confirm this. Logic and reason tells one that amount or quality of work the higher paid worker is doing compared to the lower paid worker is what matters. A $10 an hour worker has to be 25 percent more productive than an $8 an hour worker. That's it. That's the big formula needed to figure it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Of course there is wage elasticity. However, your "I'll do it myself and not hire someone," is not realistic for the vast majority of jobs. The President of McDonalds isn't going to start flipping burgers himself because he thinks the minimum wage is too high.
lol you didn't even try on this one. Unskilled construction workers never run into this? Or is it that this only applies to minimum wage and no other wage level?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
It's not for your good specifically, although having a higher paid society has macro benefits. In a sense, the benefit to taxpayers is, getting people out of poverty through higher wages gets them off of programs like SNAP and Medicaid, which we taxpayers pay the bill. We are subsidizing low wages. There is no good reason why employer's compensation should be subsidized by taxpayers. I'd rather employers pay their workers enough.
So costs rising for the goods you purchase doesn't bother you because it creates jobs? Granted only in that specific field since my dwindling money supply can't be spent elsewhere? So more money spent for less goods can a positive?
Your way creates less options for me. I can buy apples and oranges but can't afford bananas. I'm going to spend my money, that's what Americans do well. Yet you want to limit on who gets it, for the greater good. Never mind one segment of industry won't receive my money.
I can have 4 out of 5 things in my house fixed if I pay higher prices vs getting all 5 things fixed if I pay lower prices. One is left out in the cold by your method. You should be president the way you pick the winners and losers for me.
The part of the equation that you leave out, at what cost to the forgotten industry?
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.
