U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Independence Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [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 06-09-2020, 11:47 AM
 
1,963 posts, read 503,478 times
Reputation: 3165

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ondoner View Post
The fed has failed in its mandate. It was never meant to prop the stock market.
The stock market is the fears, whims and beliefs of 250 million investors. I don't think it can be propped, meaningfully; if the mob thinks we're hip-deep in roses and cognac, up go the indicators. If they think we're about to drown in bovine excrement, down they go. I don't remember the last time such thought-izing matched reality.

"It's the end of the world as we know it, and my 401(k)'s doin' fine..."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-09-2020, 12:28 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
30,210 posts, read 66,715,215 times
Reputation: 35671
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
So my question is, is it necessary at all to re-employ the 35 million unemployed?
Their being employed is about having enough of something constructive positions
for them to rotate through so they aren't doing something destructive somewhere else.
And the affected number is a lot higher than just that 35M. Closer to 90M.

Quote:
It does not seem like their jobs matter and we can do fine without them.
With a bit of adjustment in all sorts of things... sure. How long you figure that will take?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2020, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Ohio
22,065 posts, read 15,418,972 times
Reputation: 18516
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
Stock markets are near or at all-time highs despite labor force participation rate at an 50 year low and unemployment at a 70 year high.

So my question is, is it necessary at all to re-employ the 35 million unemployed? It does not seem like their jobs matter and we can do fine without them.
Comrade redguard57, when you grow up and leave the collective farm to study economics, you will find that stock markets have nothing to do with employment or unemployment.

You will learn that only 3% of US businesses are legally allowed to sell stocks and they employ only 5.6% of the work-force.

Just in case you don't get it, and I'm not sure you do....

97% of US businesses do not sell stocks and they employ 94.4% of the work-force.

It is necessary to re-employ those 35 Million or whatever because they are a big chunk of your economic activity.

Roughly 72% of your GDP is government, healthcare, hospitality, retail and restaurant.

Among those ~35 Million are government employees at the municipal, county and State level that were furloughed because there wasn't sufficient tax revenues to keep them employed.

It also includes a large number of healthcare workers who were laid-off because they're clueless about upper respiratory infections and severe acute respiratory syndromes and they'd kill far more patients than they'd cure.

And then retail and restaurant.

Of course, I'm assuming you don't want to sit home and stare at your spouse all night because there are no restaurants or shops, or maybe shoppes, open.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2020, 01:00 PM
 
1,963 posts, read 503,478 times
Reputation: 3165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Comrade redguard57, when you grow up and leave the collective farm to study economics, you will find that stock markets have nothing to do with employment or unemployment..
Da fuq how do you connect the parts of this sentence?

I've pegged you as a windy buffoon whose education stopped about 1975, but this doesn't even rise to the level of nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2020, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Bellevue
1,124 posts, read 1,464,135 times
Reputation: 781
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
Stock markets are near or at all-time highs despite labor force participation rate at an 50 year low and unemployment at a 70 year high.

So my question is, is it necessary at all to re-employ the 35 million unemployed? It does not seem like their jobs matter and we can do fine without them.
It's a recession when everybody else loses their job.
It's a depression when you lose yours.

Me? I'm retired, so I don't count.
Don't tell your wife/spouse. She already works at home. Cooking, cleaning, washing, nursing, never done.

Time for the 35 million recently unemployed to get back to work. They need to pay their OASDI taxes, pay for Social Security, Medicare. They need to work 35+ years to earn benefits.

The most dumb thing is for the Government to say their jobs do not matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2020, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Colorado
3,580 posts, read 2,983,325 times
Reputation: 2816
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
there is more than a trillion dollars in income generated in our under ground economy ...people not showing working on the books tend to have other sources off the grid .

people find a way to do what they have to do
This is a key fundamental. The bottom end is not as bad as income tax receipts would suggest it is. Unemployment and underemployment are mentioned often, but there's a lot of lousy people out there who are overemployed and there's a lot of people who are working more than their desired amount. The aggregate stats are rough and don't capture the entire picture, but things now are better than they were in 2009-10, you can just tell, despite what the "rate" may suggest.

Unemployment is mentioned so often because it's seen as an easier structural fix than enhancing productivity or spawning innovation. Putting an unemployed person to work shifts them from a net liability on the system to a net asset, a benefit 2 ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2020, 04:20 PM
 
1,963 posts, read 503,478 times
Reputation: 3165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
Unemployment and underemployment are mentioned often, but there's a lot of lousy people out there who are overemployed and there's a lot of people who are working more than their desired amount.
[...]
Putting an unemployed person to work shifts them from a net liability on the system to a net asset, a benefit 2 ways.
So, which is it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2020, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
6,383 posts, read 4,326,658 times
Reputation: 11068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
Da fuq how do you connect the parts of this sentence?

I've pegged you as a windy buffoon whose education stopped about 1975, but this doesn't even rise to the level of nonsense.
I posted in this in part to solicit interesting replies, and that was certainly one!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2020, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
6,383 posts, read 4,326,658 times
Reputation: 11068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeko156 View Post
Many companies are realizing they can "make do" with fewer employees and will not go back to full staff. This is not a new concept, but is frequently seen after hiring freezes, when places realize they were able to meet their goals despite not going back to full staff (many of us have experienced this first hand in both the public and private sectors).

This is why many jobs won't return. Contrary to what many in the GOP believe, UE is not high because people are sitting home collecting PUE. Yes, there are folks that are receiving more in PUE, but this cannot account for the entire UE number.
This is definitely what I'm seeing. Both my and my wife's employers have laid off big percentages and they are figuring out they can force those of us remaining to do a lot more for the same money. Or maybe a little more money, but certainly much less than the salary and benefits of another worker.

They just did buyouts for early retirement at my work and now I'm going to get to do about 20% of my former colleague's job. The other 80% split among the rest of us remaining.

In the meantime we work non-stop when we "work from home." I'm putting in more hours at home than I ever put in the office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2020, 07:51 PM
 
5,572 posts, read 1,600,245 times
Reputation: 6574
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
Stock markets are near or at all-time highs despite labor force participation rate at an 50 year low and unemployment at a 70 year high.

So my question is, is it necessary at all to re-employ the 35 million unemployed? It does not seem like their jobs matter and we can do fine without them.
I think the only thing the above statements may assert is that full employment is not necessarily a requirement of stock markets being at an all time high.

Stock markets being at an all time high doesn't put food on the table for 35 million unemployed, though.
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

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 > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top