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.
There are other issues that can be addressed. One of them being low wages and underemployment. There's less disposable income and just less long-term job security now, which needs to be addressed by both parties.
Yes, underemployment is a big problem now.
In addition, the average income has gone down greatly over the past few years.
Dropping out of the labor force happens in any economy.
Uh, it appears you don't quite understand.
Your labor participation rate has gone from 67.3% to 64.0%.
True, it doesn't appear to be much, only a measly 3.3%, but that measly 3.3% just happens to be 5 Million people who have permanently now and forever lost their jobs and are not working and not paying taxes while simultaneously sucking up tax benefits.
Participating...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Unemployment is down because of people dropping out of the labor force. The unemployment rate will not be able to go much lower because, if the discouraged workers see the job market picking up, they will re-enter the labor force.
There still aren't enough jobs being created to really reduce unemployment.
Liberals usually spin it like this:
New York Times August 8, 2003
Employment grew by 126,000 jobs in October, the best showing in nine months, and job growth in August and September was stronger than the government initially estimated, the Labor Department reported yesterday. It was the greatest job growth over three months since late 2000. Still, the recent job gains remain modest by many measures. They are not large enough to keep up with the growth of the labor force over the long termand are far smaller than the average gain over the last 50 years when the economy was growing as rapidly as it has been recently. The economy must add about 150,000 jobs or more each month to keep up with population growth and bring down the jobless rate over a long period of time.
San Fransisco Chronicle, April 3, 2004
Total jobs outside the farm sector soared by 308,000, the Labor Department reported Friday, the biggest monthly gain since March 2000, when the air was just beginning to rush out of the Internet bubble. Still, some experts cautioned that one month of roaring payroll growth doesn’t mean that the labor market has been restored to full health. "It’s a bit too early to celebrate," said Wells Fargo economist Sung Won Sohn. "If you look at the average for the last eight months, it’s been only 95, 000 jobs per month. That’s far below the 150,000 to 200,000 we need to absorb the new entrants to the labor force."
Washington Post, September 4, 2004 Employers added 144,000 jobs to their non-farm payrolls in August on a seasonally adjusted basis, an improvement after two months in which job growth essentially stalled, but barely enough to keep pace with population growth. The nation needs to add about 150,000 jobs a month to keep pace with population growth, according to economists.
Los Angeles Times September 4, 2004
U.S. employers added a net 144,000 jobs to their payrolls in August and the nation’s unemployment rate dropped a notch to 5.4%. Employers need to add 125,000 to 150,000 net new jobs every month just to keep up with population growth, economists estimate.It would take even more growth to substantially reduce the unemployment rate, which climbed from 3.8% in April 2000 to a post-recession peak of 6.3% in June 2003.
The Boston Globe January 8, 2005 US employers boosted payrolls by 157,000 jobs in December, keeping the economy on a path of moderate expansion and completing the first year of job growth since 2000. The month’s job gains were slightly less than analysts expected, andjust enough to keep up with the natural growth of the labor force and prevent unemployment from rising.
I use a more conservative figure of 115,000 per month to absorb new entrants.
Even so (and this is just a very rough ball-park figure) you're looking at 332,000 jobs per month each and every month just to reduce unemployment to 5% and that would in theory happen in March 2017.
If the best you can do is 250,000 per month, then you'd be looking at July 2020.
Either way, the US is doomed.
Again, those are ball-park numbers. I periodically crunch the actual numbers, and I probably will do that here February 3 or so when the January numbers come out.
Anyway, we're right on track, uh, for failure, not success.
Ball-parking...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I intend to. The GOP has completely failed to bring in any worthwhile candidates.
Would you want to take command of a sinking ship? I can understand why people like Bobby Jindal politely declined. Still, they could have fielded better candidates.
I agree especially now I mean really Newt Gingrich I would never vote for the man period. Hopefully Florida will correct South Carolina's mistake and Mitt Romney can improve his message. I think he would make a better Predident than Obama.
Which of his many self-contradictory messages should Romney improve?
No, that's not true. Sorry. I don't even know what blogs and media you are talking about, and neither do you.
What did GOP declare as their #1 priority?
Answer: To make sure Obama is a one term president.
If that is the #1 priority then what do you expect them to do? Sling mud, and point fingers, and that is all they do.
Which is one reason the GOP deserves to lose. Sorry to see that you're still being reproached for being an Independent; three years of it must be getting hard to stomach. Well, you're always welcome in the "Big Tent."
Which is one reason the GOP deserves to lose. Sorry to see that you're still being reproached for being an Independent; three years of it must be getting hard to stomach. Well, you're always welcome in the "Big Tent."
Well, you know the GOP mentality: if you are not 100% with them, then you are the enemy. That kind of thinking makes independents their enemy. It is what it is, and not worth a second thought.
Unemployment is down because of people dropping out of the labor force. The unemployment rate will not be able to go much lower because, if the discouraged workers see the job market picking up, they will re-enter the labor force.
There still aren't enough jobs being created to really reduce unemployment.
Skilled trades and technology positions are still 2 jobs to every 1 worker to fill them.
We have jobs available, we need education to help fill them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Would you want to take command of a sinking ship? I can understand why people like Bobby Jindal politely declined. Still, they could have fielded better candidates.
Not volunteering...
Mircea
For all the love the Republican base claims to have for the country, and how the liberals are ruining the nation, you would think they would want to jump in harms way to save the nation from death.
But I think you state it correctly--they're rats abandoning a sinking ship.
The GOP is not a party of small government, and too many have woken up to the fact that the establishment has no intention of reducing the size of government. At best, they would grow it at a slightly slower pace than the Democrats. They want to control people's lives just as much as Democrats, just in different areas.
People are tired of the GOP. No lessons seemed to have been learned after the 8 disastrous years of Bush, and the best theme they could come up with for 2012 was just beat Obama.
I'm supporting Ron Paul because he is the only candidate who has a consistent track record of voting against government growth and interference in our lives. Yes I wish their was a candidate with Ron Paul's views who could lay them out more clearly in debates and interviews, but since their is not, I'm voting for principle over party. If RP doesn't get the nomination, I will be voting for him if he runs 3rd party or I will vote Gary Johnson. A Gary Johnson/Ron Paul ticket could be huge and might even get more votes than the GOP in some states, but Ron Paul most likely won't run 3rd party because he doesn't want to hurt Rand's chance of continuing the movement he began.
I could care less who wins between Obama vs Romney or Newt as they are all too much of the same.
Your labor participation rate has gone from 67.3% to 64.0%.
True, it doesn't appear to be much, only a measly 3.3%, but that measly 3.3% just happens to be 5 Million people who have permanently now and forever lost their jobs and are not working and not paying taxes while simultaneously sucking up tax benefits.
Participating...
Mircea
Uh, I understand it quite well and made exactly the point I was attempting to make. People drop out of labor pools all the time, and those numbers are accounted for in unemployment statistics all the time (it probably got lost somewhere in your condescension).
The labor participation rate is low but this is not without precedent, not even in the post-depression era. In fact, labor participation now is still higher now than it has been for much of the post-WWII era. We experienced a similar phenomenon in 1984 after a deep recession and after nearly 1 1/2 years of rising unemployment, and democrats were no doubt making the same kinds of arguments against Reaganomics prior to his re-election in November of that year. As I said, you can't just pick and choose when to use labor participation rate to make an argument about economic policies. Unemployment statistics take all of these things into consideration.
Uh, I understand it quite well and made exactly the point I was attempting to make. People drop out of labor pools all the time, and those numbers are accounted for in unemployment statistics all the time (it probably got lost somewhere in your condescension).
Those numbers are not "accounted for" in the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is the percentage of people who are in the labor force (meaning they either have jobs or are looking for jobs) who are out of work. If the number of people in the labor force was the same as the number a few years ago, unemployment would be over 10% (without factoring in those who are underemployed).
The unemployment rate is seasonally adjusted to account for temporary jobs during the holidays and the like, but that's something entirely different.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 01-28-2012 at 03:21 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.
