Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
The Labor department said the improvement in the jobless rate was due to people leaving the labor force.
|
BLS had originally projected in 2008 that 67% of all jobs would be, um, "created" by retiring Boomers through 2018.
You got 7 more years of waiting for Boomers to retire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
Regardless of who is president, I want the jobs situation to continue to improve.
|
Then you must focus on reality.
The reality is that your global work-force cannot compete against the global work-forces of other countries, especially those in developing nations. It would be fool-hardy and a waste of time, money and resources to continue pursuing that avenue.
You need to expand your domestic work-force, but if all you're going to do is create more consumer/service oriented jobs, then you'll ultimately lose at that game as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
Most economists say the US needs to add 250,000 jobs per month to really make a dent on unemployment.
|
Then might I suggest that whatever you're reading, stop, because those numbers aren't even close.
At that rate, it would be October 2018, seven years from now when your unemployment rate returns to 5%.
At the current rate of 117,000 it never changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
Imagine what could be done if the GOP would work at helping rather than preventing.
|
Still wearing blinders.
Your unfunded liabilities are $108 TRILLION through 2050, plus another $94 TRILLION at the municipal and State level through 2050.
Your economy needs to grow at 6% per quarter every quarter through 2050 in order to pay for those unfunded liabilities.
And no, that does not include the cost of Obamacare, which is continually growing, now estimated by the CBO to be $1.3 TRILLION per year and it isn't even 2014 yet.
Since that is an impossibility, which of the many parts of your fantasy life-style to do you wish to forfeit?
Taxing the "rich" isn't going to pay for that. Even if you confiscated 100% of their wealth and assets it wouldn't pay for that.
So when do you plan to embrace reality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by calipoppy
I've always found it quite ironic that the same people (especially the poor White and working class) complaining about President Obama and job creation stood by impotently and cheered on the Republicans and Corporate America as American jobs were shipped to Mexico, the Phillipines, India, Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka and other points unknown all for the sake of short term profits by cutting their labor costs from liveable wages to slave wages. So how did these American companies think that these jobless American people (who they laid off to reap profits from cheap foreign labor) could continue to afford to buy their products without jobs?
|
Because they aren't so short-sighted and ignorant of reality as you are.
Like it or not, it's a global economy. Like it or not, US corporations must compete against foreign corporations in the global economy.
Why don't you explain to everyone how a US company selling its widgets at $49 each can compete against foreign competitors selling their widgets at $29 each?
Seriously. Show us the math.
Show us how US corporations can capture 80% of the global market share, selling their goods and services at twice the price of their foreign competitors.
Well, we're waiting.....
While you're at it, why don't you show everyone how US corporations can fend off hostile takeovers and leveraged buyouts by foreign competitors.
Oh, I get it, you want US corporations to be taken over by foreign competitors through hostile take-overs and leveraged buyouts, because then those foreign corporations would close the totally useless and unprofitable US production plants they now own through their hostile take-overs and leveraged buyouts, put millions of Americans out of work and just import their products.
Well, gosh, Callipoppy, your strategy is just so brilliant you deserve the Nobel Prize in Economics.
Maybe you just want to consider the possibility that shipping jobs overseas in the long terms saves at least some jobs in the US.
Now you have something new to think about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icy Tea
Next week they'll have adjusted the jobs number down by 10,000, correcting discrepancies.
|
No, they won't do that until the next data release.
What BLS does is conduct a survey, then apply the numbers to their incredibly faulty Birth/Death Population Model and then the unemployment numbers magically appear.
It's only after they get the hard data do they know the actual numbers (that stuff has to be reported to the Department of Commerce among things).
That's why they keep having to make revisions.
I'll also believe their survey method is faulty. For example, when they revised 54,000 jobs down to 25,000 jobs, I believe that survey was done mostly in those cities/regions that are not so greatly affected by the economy and have low unemployment rates. There are some States, cities and MSAs that only a 5%-6% unemployment rate which of course is below the national average.
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.
