Another Disappointing Jobs Report: +115,000 (Participation Rate Lowest in 30 years) (gallon, salaries, gasoline)

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

UK Total government spending in billions from 2000 through 2011 and 2011 is more than 100% over 2000

Well, that will certainly make things interesting.

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Not according to the Cameron government:

"Both Cameron’s Conservative Party and Clegg’s Liberal Democrats suffered heavy losses in local elections, as voters punished them for spending cuts that are seeing welfare payments trimmed and about 700,000 public sector jobs axed."

That only proves what we already knew: Voters are dumb and stupid.

Every form of government tends to perish by excess of its basic principle...even democracy ruins itself by excess–of democracy.


Its basic principle is the equal right of all to hold office and determine public policy. This is at first glance a delightful arrangement; it becomes disastrous because the people are not properly equipped by education to select the best rulers and the wisest courses.

"As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them" (Protagoras, 317); to get a doctrine accepted or rejected it is only necessary to have it praised or ridiculed in a poplar play (a hit, no doubt, at Aristophanes, whose comedies attacked almost every new idea).


Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course. The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd so loves flattery, it is so "hungry for honey," that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the "protector of the people" rises to supreme power.

Plato rules...

Mircea

Originally Posted by buzzards27

yet we have been relying on the U3 number for years.

To your own detriment.

The U6 gives you the real picture of unemployment. Had you been watching U6 in 2005-2006 (like I was), you would have seen problems (like I did) and then you would have known the US was heading for recession and a really weak job market (like I did).

Not that you could have done anything about it, but maybe people could have been better prepared.

That's the problem with governments: they lie and then they start to believe their own lies.

Originally Posted by buzzards27

The only reason you'd lile to suddenly change to U6 is to place an explanation point on the problem. If only the media would use the U6 number in the run up to this election so, so, transparent.

Why not? If it was good enough for Blow Job Bill, then it's good enough for America. The only reason he pressured the changes is because unemployment was climbing and he didn't want "It's the economy, stupid!" thrown back into his face.

Christ-on-his-throne, as soon as the changed requirement to "sought work in the last four weeks" they just dumped a few hundred thousand people into the Netherworld.

Originally Posted by buzzards27

You ever get tired of short selling and wishing America and our government fails?

No.

It's in your own best interest. You know, when you fail, you have to step back a minute and do some soul-searching to see where you went wrong, and then re-invent yourself so you can do better and not fail in the future.

Originally Posted by buzzards27

FACT, There was a well documented spike in early retirees in 2009. I jump of over 20% from the prior year.

No kidding. I take you still haven't read the BLS Job Projections for 2008-2018.

67% of all jobs in that 10 year period were expected to be caused by Boomers creating job vacancies, except that isn't happening. And even that wouldn't be so bad, but you can't even hit the mark for the measly 139,000 newly created jobs that were supposed to have been created.

Originally Posted by buzzards27

Seems the boomers aren't waiting til 66, they're jumping into SS at 62 in record numbers.

Then there should be job openings a-plenty, right?

Originally Posted by buzzards27

FYI, those stats wouldn't include early retirees like me, seeing that I'm too young for even the 62 early exit. I'm set, may wait til 66 and draw down the 401k a bit with the low cap gain rates....

Oh yeah? Well, you're going to be in for a bit of a surprise.

When Social Security was initiated, there were 42 workers per retiree. That ratio had dropped to 16-to-1 by 1950. As of 2010, there were 2.8 workers per retiree. The ratio is excepted to be 2.0 workers per retiree in 2050.

Social Security will require major reforms, in addition to the elimination of the cap, and increasing the FICA rate to a minimum of 9.00% (now, as in like yesterday).

You don't see a problem there?

Want me to spell it out for you?

Okay, there are 141,995,000 Americans employed and as of March 2012 there were 61,273,000 Social Security recipients.

Do I have to do the freaking math?

I guess I do.

141,995,000 / 61,273,000 = 2.3 workers per retiree.

Oooops.

That 2.8, well, you need that, you need it now, not 12 years from now. You need every swinging dick out working and then some, or both Social Security and Medicare will go belly up far earlier than any of you could have possibly imagined.

That's why I keep saying, over, and over, and over, and over like bad Compact Disc that if your labor participation rate is not greater than 66.5% then it doesn't freaking matter what your unemployment rate is.

4.1% unemployment with a labor participation rate of 65.8% is a TOTAL FAIL.

And right now, your labor participation rate is 63.4%.

And you will know austerity. It will be all over you like white on rice.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by buzzards27

So at one end you have boomers exiting and at the other end you have people like my daughter delaying employment and staying in school into her thirties. One BS, two Masters and half way thru a PhD.

Delaying employment? Are you serious? Where'd you get that idea? Obamabot Talking Points E-Mail?

When your daughter finishes, make sure you give her a few pointers on how to interview for Fast-Food jobs, or maybe you could get her a pair of Versace designer cotton work gloves, so she can assemble parts as a temporary laborer (them metal burs will tear your hands up).

If you don't have a financial planner, you need to get one, and if you have one, you need fire him and find another, because you ain't sitting too pretty right now.

Advising....

Mircea

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

So, what is wrong with looking at change in private sector payroll instead? It is that this thread is about, no?

100 federal employees leave by attrition or get canned, and they are replaced by 100 private contractors.

And what, that's a good thing? You did finish the 6th Grade, didn't you?

+100
-100
-----
ZERO

See, even one of them "you-Harvards" like Obama could figure it out.

And no, this thread is about the fact that your economy and job market really suck, and it ain't even bad yet.

Smarter than a you-Harvard....

Mircea

Originally Posted by MTAtech

It's not just "even" Robert Reich. Most Keynesians, including Krugman and Stiglitz are frustrated with government inaction.

Yeah, so?

That dead possum in the road? Well, it's dead. You can scream at, have Anthony Robbins come give it a motivational lecture, and throw a few $1 TRILLION at it and at the end of the day, that dead possum is still dead. That's pretty much how your economy is, but no one has the guts to admit it.

No reason to be frustrated...

Mircea

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

Your post did not refute my statement. Government spending in Britain has increased EVERY year for at least a decade.

They can call it "austerity" all they want, but they are spending more every year.

UK Total government spending in billions from 2000 through 2011 and 2011 is more than 100% over 2000;


338.07
362.57
384.93
415.21
451.50
488.31
502.56
543.96
575.68
621.51
660.60
683.43

At my request, Paul Krugman weighs in on this discussion, here.

[buzzards27]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

At my request, Paul Krugman weighs in on this discussion, here.

LOL, the usual suspects, I wonder who Krugman was thinking of, someone here????

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by buzzards27

LOL, the usual suspects, I wonder who Krugman was thinking of, someone here????

The usual suspects, like CATO and Heritage, who our usual suspects read.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Mircea

100 federal employees leave by attrition or get canned, and they are replaced by 100 private contractors.

And what, that's a good thing? You did finish the 6th Grade, didn't you?

+100
-100
-----
ZERO

I can tell now that you did. Now, back to my point you used to prove your mathematical abilities:

So, what is wrong with looking at change in private sector payroll instead? It is that this thread is about, no?

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

At my request, Paul Krugman weighs in on this discussion, here.

Did you hear? There is no austerity in place in the EU or UK. They continue to spend, just like obama.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

The usual suspects, like CATO and Heritage, who our usual suspects read.

Good ole "Very Serious Sam" from (your favorite place to claim as the epitome of the welfare state) Germany answered Mr. Fugman quite succinctly.

I am a German, english is not my native language. Maybe that's why I seem to have a different understanding of 'austerity' than you.

For me, it means, not to spend any money one doesn't have. For you (and the political 'elite') it seems to be to spend less of the money one doesn't have.

So in my understanding, austerity means to deleverage debt or even build up savings. In yours (and the political 'elite') it apparently still means to increase debt, just by a lesser rate.

[MTAtech]

Well Sam,

Austerity means reduce spending. Your implication is that by reducing spending you will reduce debt.

I've been trying to explain to the dense-sculled that's precisely what does not work in a liquidity trap. Cutting spending increases joblessness, which reduces demand and reduces government revenue and increases social spending. Thus, it neither improves the economy nor helps reach your debt reduction target.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Well Sam,

Austerity means reduce spending. Your implication is that by reducing spending you will reduce debt.

I've been trying to explain to the dense-sculled that's precisely what does not work in a liquidity trap. Cutting spending increases joblessness, which reduces demand and reduces government revenue and increases social spending. Thus, it neither improves the economy nor helps reach your debt reduction target.

Not if you cut spending that doesn't effect the US economy..like the $1 billion we give to Egypt each year to maintain an army.

There's plenty of fat in government spending that can be cut that has no affect on American jobs.

[BigJon3475]

LOL,

Increase debt to get debt in control. Apparently the fact that there's no more money left and you're leveraged to the hilt with [u]all[u] of your welfare programs is something quite hard for the liberal mind to comprehend.