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.
Well we could follow an old FED strategy. We need a new dept in the Fed Gov.
We can name it the Department of making sure everyone has a job.
We can pay for it by printing lots of new money.
We can raise taxes on those in the private sector.
The departments job will be to create more civil service jobs. These jobs will start at 40g a year with full benefits.
An example of the jobs created will be:
Pay people to go door to door and ask what color car the owners drive and what gas mileage it gets. We can then determine what color car gets the best gas mileage.
Then we hire people to paint cars so that all cars get better gas mileage.
This will create a demand for more paint. Paint factories will need to hire more paint mixers.
For every dollar paid in payroll it will only cost $10.00 per dollar to manage.
Then we can hire people to go door to door and verify it worked.
There was widespread weakness in the November jobs report with state and local government, factories and construction firms cutting positions, but the biggest surprise came from a decline in retail jobs.
Amid expectations of a better holiday season this year, economists were expecting retailers to ramp up hiring. But the Labor Department reported that on a seasonally adjusted basis the economy shed 28,000 retail jobs. The decline could be the result of retailers getting more sales growth from the Web, or a desire to do more with less in the face of squeezed margins.
There was widespread weakness in the November jobs report with state and local government, factories and construction firms cutting positions, but the biggest surprise came from a decline in retail jobs.
Amid expectations of a better holiday season this year, economists were expecting retailers to ramp up hiring. But the Labor Department reported that on a seasonally adjusted basis the economy shed 28,000 retail jobs. The decline could be the result of retailers getting more sales growth from the Web, or a desire to do more with less in the face of squeezed margins.
WSJ.com
No surprise at all. How can anyone not figure that one out?
UPS and Amazon.com added thousands of jobs. Everyone with a brain could have figured out why. More people shop on-line which would make you predict that stores would not need to hire too many people.
No surprise at all. How can anyone not figure that one out?
UPS and Amazon.com added thousands of jobs. Everyone with a brain could have figured out why. More people shop on-line which would make you predict that stores would not need to hire too many people.
This article makes interesting reading on the subject:
"While gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy, has recovered 84% of the output that was lost during the recession, but the labor market has recouped only 11% of the jobs that were lost"
"We're producing almost as much as we did before the recession, with 7.5 million less people," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of Economic Cycle Research Institute. "The difference is going into the productivity numbers and corporate profits."
The Obummer admin just shrugs this off as "the new normal" Like everything is ok. And of course it has nothing to do with Obama's failed policies. Of course when this bad news comes out, Obama isn't in the country to take his lumps....
Are you liberals actually happy with this? Is this new normal okay with you? Why are such low standards alright with you?
I thought the so-called "experts" were "expecting" a gain of approximately 150,000 jobs last month. Do these people ever get anything right?
This does not bode well for the Xmas shopping season.
Lets employ some of your typical logic shall we? Since the Republicans were voted into Congress, firms now have less faith in the economy and won't be hiring. Right? I mean, that's usually the gist of your arguments here on a daily basis.
Or has your economic point of view now changed that the Republicans were voted in as the majority?
Surely, as you've been claiming for the last couple of years, once the GOP takes control then the markets will rebound. Yet somehow the opposite is already happening based on the election results alone.
Now don't get all upset like you always do, I'm only using YOUR ARGUMENT here. It shall be fun to see you try and argue against it, and essentially yourself.
[quote=Waianaegirl;16872173]The Obummer admin just shrugs this off as "the new normal" Like everything is ok. And of course it has nothing to do with Obama's failed policies. Of course when this bad news comes out, Obama isn't in the country to take his lumps....
[quote]
If this is the new normal for Obama, he can kiss 2012 goodbye.....
Some people have finally jumped of the bandwagon but then you have those who will follow this fool into the river.
We are turning the corner and things are looking up.
The GOP takes control of the house soon and we can finally stop the Obama agenda of destruction of America.
Agreed, now how can we stop the GOP agenda of destruction? Most of them haven't wised up and changed their ways.
lower the debt, reduce the size of our Federal Government
In 2010, 51% of the US population is in the labor force. The population increases by 200,000 per month, which means the labor force needs to increase by 100,000 every month. Last month, jobs were created for less than half of them. In fact, our labor force increased by 60,000 idle and hungry workers for whom there is no job. In every month in which the number of jobs created is less than 6 figures, the situation becomes more dire.
Now, what is the answer to this question:
From 1950 to 1970, the labor force consisted of only 40% of the population. In 1980, it went to 45%, and since 1990, has been level at about 50%.
Why does it take 25% more workers now to produce all we need, compared to pre-1980? We have technology and digital speed to help our workers, and we import a great deal of what we consume, and and it still takes 25% more working bodies to produce what we demand, than was required 40 years ago.
Rhetorically, what happens at some future date when our labor force becomes 101% of our population, and still can't produce enough to satisfy our addiction to squandering money on toys and junk?
Last edited by jtur88; 12-03-2010 at 05:49 PM..
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.
