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.
So prior to Obama, there were no retirees, students, and stay at home moms?
The real number that is important is the number of citizens not in the work force, which is at record highs. Why is this number important? Because those citizens are not contributing to the GDP of the nation and are not contributing nearly as much to the tax base as those employed.
The "unemployment number" (a contrived statistic in which the denominator is fudged) is meaningless. The number of citizens actually unemployed/employed are the important numbers.
First, there is no "real" number, just different statistics that measure different things. Fortunately, they tend to move together -- which means that we know if things are getting better or not.
Second, including students in HS and college who aren't looking for a job, retired seniors, mothers caring for infants, playboys of yachts, etc., makes no sense -- unless you intention is to paint a politically bleak picture.
If you think the number of employed s important, I agree this is the chart. But an number, which is the number of people not in the workforce -- regardless of whether they want to be in the workforce or not, is meaningless.
But you asked the question: "So prior to Obama, there were no retirees, students, and stay at home moms?"
That question related to the Labor Participation Rate, which peaked 15 years ago and has been dropping, generally for demographic reasons -- retiree. Here's the graph:
disagree. It's not more people if one looks at one company, it's less people. Companies have budgets which they try and stick to.
5 people at $8 an hour=40
4 people at $10 an hour =40
5 people spending 40 is the same as 4 people spending 40
Companies hire only the amount of people they need to perform work that they need done. If they could have done without that one person, they would have long ago. If they need that person to satisfy customer demand, they'll pay the extra two dollars.
That 94 million number includes retirees, students in school, parents staying home with children, playboys on yachts and others not looking for work. It is a particularly dishonest number.
True unemployed doesn't and shouldn't include those who don't want a job. Do you think grandma in the nursing home should be considered unemployed?
Thanks for the link. I'm one of the "unemployed" according to the Honorable Congresswoman from Tennessee, and my wife is, as well. We both retired in 2008, and haven't worked since. If the Honorable Congresswoman wants to think we're "on the sidelines" in terms of employment, well, with that kind of clear thinking, perhaps her constituents can manage to put her on the sidelines as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
The real number that is important is the number of citizens not in the work force, which is at record highs. Why is this number important? Because those citizens are not contributing to the GDP of the nation and are not contributing nearly as much to the tax base as those employed.
And more clear thinking.
Gross Domestic Product. The total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports. Source
We're retired - not dead. We no longer produce goods or services, BUT ... we pay the same rate of property tax as our working neighbors; the same rate of excise tax on our vehicles as our working neighbors; we pay federal and state income tax, sales tax, pretty much any kind of tax you can think of.
We've had electricians work on our house, and a plumber, and an HVAC guy, and we've had people do work on our roof, and cut down some trees, and install a new dock, etc., etc. We have been really good for the local economy, as we always try to buy local. (We also try to buy American, but that's getting more difficult by the day.)
One of the reasons - and by no means is it the only reason - that the number of people in this country not looking for work is so high is the high number of people who have retired recently, especially since 2011. Yes, we're talking about the Boomers, the oldest of whom turned 65 in 2011. We Boomers have been driving change in this country all our lives. It just makes sense that we'll continue that trend right up to and including our deaths.
So prior to Obama, there were no retirees, students, and stay at home moms?
The real number that is important is the number of citizens not in the work force, which is at record highs. Why is this number important? Because those citizens are not contributing to the GDP of the nation and are not contributing nearly as much to the tax base as those employed.
The "unemployment number" (a contrived statistic in which the denominator is fudged) is meaningless. The number of citizens actually unemployed/employed are the important numbers.
Do you realize that the number of people employed is also at record highs?
Thanks for the link. I'm one of the "unemployed" according to the Honorable Congresswoman from Tennessee, and my wife is, as well. We both retired in 2008, and haven't worked since. If the Honorable Congresswoman wants to think we're "on the sidelines" in terms of employment, well, with that kind of clear thinking, perhaps her constituents can manage to put her on the sidelines as well.
And more clear thinking.
Gross Domestic Product. The total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports. Source
We're retired - not dead. We no longer produce goods or services, BUT ... we pay the same rate of property tax as our working neighbors; the same rate of excise tax on our vehicles as our working neighbors; we pay federal and state income tax, sales tax, pretty much any kind of tax you can think of.
We've had electricians work on our house, and a plumber, and an HVAC guy, and we've had people do work on our roof, and cut down some trees, and install a new dock, etc., etc. We have been really good for the local economy, as we always try to buy local. (We also try to buy American, but that's getting more difficult by the day.)
One of the reasons - and by no means is it the only reason - that the number of people in this country not looking for work is so high is the high number of people who have retired recently, especially since 2011. Yes, we're talking about the Boomers, the oldest of whom turned 65 in 2011. We Boomers have been driving change in this country all our lives. It just makes sense that we'll continue that trend right up to and including our deaths.
Driving change true, good results, not really. GDP clear thinking, lmao. GDP is basically meaningless. GDP doesn't measure quality.
The Superconducting Super Collider estimated to cost 4 billion was scraped after 2 billion was spent since "re-estimated" costs put the final figure at close to 12 billion. Nothing of value came out of it. However jobs were created, manufacturing went up. GDP went up. Hip, Hip, Hurray, let the good times roll!!!!!!!
Companies hire only the amount of people they need to perform work that they need done. If they could have done without that one person, they would have long ago.
So companies never overhire because they expect demand to increase? Whomever taught you about how a business is run should be taken out back and beaten.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
If they need that person to satisfy customer demand, they'll pay the extra two dollars.
Because 4 receiving $10, can work just as well as well as 5 receiving $8 right? Have you ever seen an assembly line before? Physical labor digging ditches all day you can accomplish more than 5. Are you saying the 4 won't tire out quicker? You could be correct in a very small segment of jobs.
So no evidence that paying someone below minimum wage to do a job vs doing it yourself because the higher wage it isn't worth it. That never happens right? Someone wants to charge $30 to do my lawn, I'll do it. They want to charge $15, they're hired. Wages matter.
I know you mean well but, what is fair to you, might not be fair to me. Quit forcing your will on others when no ones rights have been violated. It's for my own good, right?
So companies never overhire because they expect demand to increase? Whomever taught you about how a business is run should be taken out back and beaten.
Because 4 receiving $10, can work just as well as well as 5 receiving $8 right? Have you ever seen an assembly line before? Physical labor digging ditches all day you can accomplish more than 5. Are you saying the 4 won't tire out quicker? You could be correct in a very small segment of jobs.
So no evidence that paying someone below minimum wage to do a job vs doing it yourself because the higher wage it isn't worth it. That never happens right? Someone wants to charge $30 to do my lawn, I'll do it. They want to charge $15, they're hired. Wages matter.
I know you mean well but, what is fair to you, might not be fair to me. Quit forcing your will on others when no ones rights have been violated. It's for my own good, right?
What if there is someone so desperate that they will do your lawn for $1. Will you pay them only a $1?
Nearly full employment. The sector dragging the jobs number don was weighted heavily in the oil drilling area, which stands to reason.
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.
What if there is someone so desperate that they will do your lawn for $1. Will you pay them only a $1?
Is your point you, as a third party with no skin in the game, you are going to decide for the two others involved in the contract what the minimum is, because you know what's best for both of us?
What if there is someone so desperate that they will do your lawn for $1. Will you pay them only a $1?
You have to then start by taking a risk that if they get hurt working for you that you get a large lawsuit.
The dollar isn't worth it for you and you are better off getting an insured legal business gardener.
I buy people in stress lunches and food or give some money if they appear not on some abusive thing.
Cheap is dear regarding your home though.
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.
Unemployment is 30%
