Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
How many jobs were added last month?
|
Zero.
In fact, in the last 120 days, you've lost
2,425,000 jobs, including most importantly
2,177,000 full-time jobs.
You do understand that BLS adjusts its numbers in January to track with real population data, right? But even before the adjustment, you had lost 979,000 jobs, including 966,000 full-time jobs from October to December.
Your job growth average 139,000/month for 2012.
That is just not going to get it. At that rate, based on your population growth, your Employment to Population Ratio will be 58.4%.
You have about 2-3 years to get your E-Pop Ratio to 62+% and if you don't.....then you fail as a country.
You cannot fund Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid or Obamacare or any of your other pipe-dreams with an E-Pop Ratio of less than 62% or a Labor Force Participation Rate less than 66.5%.
And the only way you could possibly attempt to fund them, is to raise taxes, and when you do, you lose even more jobs --permanently.....as in forever --- which necessitates raising the tax rate, which results in more lost jobs, which requires you to raise the tax rate, which causes further job loss....and you will repeat that scenario, until you reach an equilibrium between jobs/economy/tax rate.
Obama screwed you really bad.
The 2.0% FICA tax cut was the dumbest thing ever.
You had to deficit spend to make up the [2%] difference for Social Security, and then your economy was operating on false pretenses. The jobs you gained due to the 2.0% FICA tax cut will be erased in short order over the next 120-160 days or so. In the end, it was 2 years squandered -- well, 4 actually since his whole first term was a total waste.
Austerityâ„¢ is coming and you cannot stop it.
Watch what happens....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorqual
Can we compare government spending in the Reagan and FDR eras (for boosting jobs) with the Obama era?
|
No.
During the Great Depression, you had surplus labor and no place for it to go....until WW II started (the build-up, and then actual war in Europe and then your time). And then in the post-WW II Era you had the Bretton Woods Agreement and the Marshall Plan, plus US Imperial Expansion to absorb the surplus labor.
The Carter-Reagan Recession had nothing to do with surplus labor. Here, you have a regional shift in Capital: unions and oppressive taxation and bureaucracy at the State and local level drives the textile industry out of New England into the Southeast (Georgia and the Carolinas mainly); then you unions and oppressive taxation and bureaucracy, plus energy costs driving industry out of the Rust Belt (the Midwest) to the South and Southwest; and then you had the computer industry pack up and abandon the East Coast for the West Coast (mostly that had to do with logistics/supply chain etc).
This shift in Capital took time, but then that's what happens.
The Great Recession -- which in hindsight will be labeled as the Silent Depression and last as long or longer than the Great Depression (1925-1948) -- is very much like the Great Depression.
You have surplus labor and no place for it to go.
Like the period leading into the Great Depression, you had advances in manufacturing processes and methods that created greater efficiency, but resulted in the need for less labor. Even in the service sector there have been changes in policies, procedures, processes and methods that allow for greater efficiency and productivity, requiring less labor.
Like the Electromechanical Industrial Revolution displacing workers leading up to the Great Depression, you have technology displacing workers. The only real difference here is the rate at which technology displaces workers. The Electromechanical Revolution was one giant massive tsunami, but technology trickles out in waves.
And then global competition. You cannot compete globally. Foreign workers earn less than Americans. Foreign workers are earning exactly what the Laws of Economics say they should earn, so idiotic ideas like forcing other countries to pay their workers more fails, because they only that would happen is it would induce Wage Inflation, prices would spiral out of control and their economies would collapse.
You can scream "
Slave Wages! Slave Labor!" all you want, but it changes nothing. The people I know earn anywhere from $2.15/hour up to a little over $4/hour. That might be slave wages to you, but to those people those primo top-dog to-die-for wages. How can that be? Easy if you understand Economics, and if you don't then easier if you live there. The question isn't how can they afford to party all the time on $3/hour, the question is why can't
you live on $3/hour?
Anyway, you have surplus labor and short of starting WW III and drafting 8 Million Americans, there's nothing you can do....but wait.....about 30-40 more years.
So the smart thing to do, instead of claiming jobs can be created, when in reality none can be created, and instead of wasting $TRILLIONS trying to create jobs that can never be created, and then blaming others for not permitting the waste of $TRILLIONS more, would be get the financial house in order in preparation for the coming storm, and to induce people to change how they live.
Instead of encouraging and enticing people to buy homes, you need to be encouraging them not to buy homes. You need to alter the tax code so that single households pay a penalty, while multiple households and multi-generational households get a tax break.
And that same principle needs to be applied to HUD. Single households funded by HUD should have their benefits cut, while multiple households get more money. Same with Food Stamps.
Or you can just sit around and wait until Austerityâ„¢ stomps your guts out.
Your choice, choose wisely.
Economically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR
|
Economy: So the economy created 157,000 new payroll jobs in January. Wow. At this rate, we might actually get back down to Bush-era unemployment rates sometime, oh, within the next 100 years.
No kidding...tell me something I don't know that I didn't already tell people.....06-07-2011, 02:24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Yes, although I'm not a conservative, rather I'm an ultra-conservative. Some of the more salient points I've made over the last 5 years here can be summed up:
1] Your economy will continuously erode over the next 12-14 years (through 2022)
2] The BLS Labor Projections published in 2008 for the 10-year period 2008-2018 only projected 466,000 jobs per month, and that by their own projections, 67% of those jobs would not be newly created jobs, rather they would be job openings that existed because Baby Boomers retired
3] The BLS Labor Projections were overly optimistic, because as numerous people here suspected, the Birth/Death Model used by BLS was flawed. We now have proof it is flawed, and BLS has so much as admitted it is, and from what I can tell (and I do have a BA in Economics), 138,000 jobs per month from 2008-2018 would have been an outstanding stellar performance.
4] Even so, the reality is that you need to be adding 150,000 to 200,000 jobs per month to absorb new entrants and returning entrants to the work-force. New entrants are those people who are graduated from high school, technical/vocational schools or universities. Returning entrants are those who voluntarily quit their jobs to raise children, care for elderly or ill family members, or who took advanced training or education to get better jobs or better paying jobs.
5] Based on the original projections by BLS, it would take 78 months, from January 2010 to through June 2017 in order to return the unemployment rate to 5%. Historically, creating 466,000 jobs per month for 78 straight months is unprecedented in US history. The likelihood that it would happen is nil.
6] Based on the modified BLS projections of 138,000 jobs per month, it will take 373 months, or 31 years or through 2042 to return the unemployment rate to 5% (I used the low end of 150,000 new entrants each month to the work force instead of the high end at 200,00).
7] I said in 2008 that it matters not if you elect McCan't or Osama, your economic and unemployment conditions will remain unchanged.
8] I will tell you now that it matters not who you elect in 2012, your economic and unemployment conditions will not change then either.
9] I will also tell you now that you can elect Babar the Elephant, or Kim Kardassian or anyone else you want in 2016, and your economic and unemployment conditions will not change.
10] I told you 5 years ago that the world was changing (for the better); that those changes were inevitable; that you cannot stop those changes; that you would lose jobs; that those jobs would never come back (and here "never" means "at no time ever")'; and that your standard of living would decline (although it will still be comparatively superior to any number of other countries); that you would need to radically alter your life-style; and that you should get used to things like "House-Husbands" because there just aren't going to be any jobs and very few households will have two wager earners. In fact, the government, as a matter of policy, may have to levy a "marriage penalty tax" of 70% on households with two incomes to force one person in the household to voluntarily surrender their job to allow another household where no one is working to have a chance at a job.
|
Say it ain't so,
Joe....
Mircea
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.
Obama's jobless "recovery" continues....
