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.
OK serious question here.....how do you get the lifespan is 10 years? Is that based on the common usage used to calculate savings/costs of tax changes? Or something else? On the face of it trying to get a lifespan number and then defining it is not going to be functional at all for a period of 10 years thats mixed with rising healthcare employment for people who are aging up as the baby boomers hit.
Federal projections are always 10 years.. Thats why the original projections were 5.6 M by 2020..
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
LOL, no not the website, but theres a ton of people involved in various parts of this. Whats the real number do you think of jobs created? 100K? 200K?
I actually believe it has negatively reflected the numbers.. Simply changing who takes the applications, doesnt increase jobs.. Previously the insurance companies would acquire the information, now the government does, thus the insurance companies dont need as many employees. When you take into account the business ramifications of having 50+ employees, and full time ones at that, then businesses have an incentive to not only lay off employees, but also reduce hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
and if 10 years from now theres 5.6 million more healthcare employees (which as indicated by your lik would happen with or without the ACA) are those what was used?
Nancy Pelosi said 400K IMMEDIATELY, and over 4M over 10 years, because of ACA directly, and this was because of all of the new patients that would have insurance..
If more patients with insurance = more jobs, then clearly less people with insurahce, (currently whats taking place), would have the opposite reaction, i.e. less jobs..
What happens to the UE rate when those millions start looking for a job?
Nothing.
Although it does vary from State to State, generally, you must seek work on a regular basis. Again, even though States vary in their definitions of "unemployed" the minimum requirement is equivalent to the federal definition of "unemployed."
Well, wait a minute....I suppose I should qualify that a bit.
So long as they continue to look for work the UE Rate will not change.
If they stopped looking for work, then they would effectively drop out of the Labor Force, and fall under one of the NLF categories.
That would lower the UE Rate. I suspect a good many of those people will drop out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
It does however have another link on the bottom.....
which says that healthcare will create 5.6 million jobs by 2020...
5.6 Million administrative jobs?
Gee...I thought the purpose of the ACA was to reduce administrative costs to make it, uh, you know, "affordable."
Or 5.6 Million wipers of other people's bottoms?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
and let me qoute from it:
And regardless of whether President Obama’s healthcare reform law makes it past the Supreme Court intact, employment in the industry will still boom, researchers said.
Need I say more?
The LA Times?
I see your LA Times article and raise it one...
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.
Honestly, I would rather the government just create another WPA or something to keep people engaged and employed.
Not possible.
The US today is nothing like the US of the 1930s.
If WW II happened right now, you'd fail.
Those of you who want to get a handle on the Big Picture need to start incorporating Geography into your thinking. You also need to learn how to view the Past in the Past, instead of viewing the Past from the Present, in order to eliminate anachronisms.
You rationed gasoline during WW II, since all petroleum was diverted to military, aviation, naval/marine, transportation, heavy industry and petroleum jellies and lubricants. But, that was okay, since Americans lived next-door to their employer, and could walk, bike or avail themselves of plentiful private mass transit.
Where are your employees today?
Scattered all over the place, with some commuting 20 minutes to 2 1/2 hours one-way to get to your manufacturing facility. That's just not going to work in the Present, and although public mass transit exists, it is not well-developed in key areas of the US. And don't forget that you were heavily reliant on rail, with practically no trucking system.
The other issue is your knowledge base and available skill-sets, which you'll see how that plays it in a second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr
I don't have a great deal of confidence in the private sector right to create the jobs necessary to restore employment numbers.
That's an impossibility, so no point in wasting money, time or energy on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr
We have given the banks unparalled access to cash to encourage lending and create growth.
That's not how business works.
Banks are fine for established businesses with track records, but for budding entrepreneurs, the only real option is private investors or venture Capitalists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr
Worse, to come into global equilibrium, US wages would need to fall by a great deal, that does not spell much in the way of future prosperity.
Wages will not "fall."
Some will. Some have and will continue. What will actually happen is stagnation and slow wage growth. Like if you're earning $15/hour now, then 10 years from now, you'll be earning $18/hour, then 10 years after that $20/hour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr
I think that we should invest in US infrastructure and the government should hire many of those who are unemployed and engage them in productive activity that benefits the country.
Not possible.
This speaks to the knowledge base and skill-sets that I mentioned earlier, and then of course, the, uh, you know, dreaded regulations.
In the 1930s and 1940s, I just said, "Yo, dude, take that dump truck out and dump the load, then when you come back, get on that grader."
Your world is not like that anymore. To even sit in a truck requires a medical physical, weeks and weeks of training, testing, certification and qualification. And then to carry liquids or colloids, hazardous material and such, it requires even more training, testing, certifying and qualifying.
That fails a Cost-Benefit Analysis. The cost -- including the time -- to train those people far outweighs any potential benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr
unfortunately, the far right can only dwell on "deficits", which don't mean a great deal when you are the global reserve currency.
There's no relationship between "deficits" and reserve currencies, and the far-right....uh, that would be me since there is no one to the left of me....dwells on federal debt, not deficits.
Debt Held by the Public: 12,309,395,899,151.39
Intragovernmental Holdings: 4,916,871,374,392.95
Total Public Debt Outstanding: 17,226,267,273,544.34
If you want to ensure that you have no Future Prosperity, then, please, by all means, run up your federal debt.
Notice that your Intra-governmental holdings have dropped below $5 TRILLION.
That's because you have continuously and repeatedly BOLO'd on Social Security and Medicare month after month after month necessitating the conversion of the IOUs out of the Trust Funds to Public Debt.
It's bad enough that your federal debt exceeds your GDP, but in short order, your Public Debt will exceed your GDP, and when it does, you will not be happy with the consequences of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr
We will inevitably lose that privilege, so we might as well try and build up our country and potential for future jobs and industry now while we have the privilege of borrowing unlimited amounts of cash. that would be far far more strategic than wasting time ranting about deficits that are essentially meaningless, but cause an enormous amount of needless suffering on the populace.
Your argument fails there, because it is predicated on Americans having minimum level Standard of Living.
Re-invent yourself, cast off the very poor attitude that you are "entitled" to things, and then get to work.
However the OP is correct, the problem is there are no jobs available. And while everyone makes this a political topic, I am not sure it is a political topic as much as folks think. Its a structural issue thats going to keep getting worse as automation and other job forces continue.
Unless politicians from both sides sit down together and work out the solutions to the structural challenges we as a nation face. That's what we sent them there to do.
There is soon going to be massive uprisings. You think your money is safe in the bank? Hah, you are a fool.
It is gonna get ugly. And there is not politician who is going to come with a cape to save you.
when you sweep it under the rug the rug will only get larger and more obvious.
we are watching a stage play of "the emporors new clothes". it began when banks started accepting imaginary deposits from the federal reserve. there is no recession and recovery, its a contraction of the economy, those jobs are gone and not coming back.
when you sweep it under the rug the rug will only get larger and more obvious.
we are watching a stage play of "the emporors new clothes". it began when banks started accepting imaginary deposits from the federal reserve. there is no recession and recovery, its a contraction of the economy, those jobs are gone and not coming back.
So you're one of those who think the entire nation went to the dogs in 1913 when the Fed was created?????
I would have never guessed. Ah well........too bad........so sad.........
1. The reason that "quantitative easing" has not stimulated the economy is that the banks (thank you Federal Reserve system) are using that cash to shore up their balance sheets.
Ostensibly, it is to prevent a "credit crunch," unless you prefer to have one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Given this, it is not being seen in the economy - this is why we have few jobs created and no inflation.
You have few jobs, because you cannot compete Globally.
The Labor Market is no longer the US; it is now the entire World.
And you do have inflation.
You have lots of Demand-pull Inflation due to shortages; Cost-push Inflation --which will worsen thanks to Obamacare; Interest Inflation because the government continues to back Student Loans and Mortgages; and then very mild Real Inflation that appears to be running about 1%-2%...which is good.
Typically, the US averages less than 3.5% annually for Real Inflation and only two States do better than the US, one being Switzerland, and the other is a Muslim oil nation in the South Pacific, the Sultanate of Brunei or something like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
2. US wages need to fall to reach a "global equilibrium"- not necessarily.
Yes, necessarily. The Laws of Economics control that. The days when Americans made $38.50/hour in wages and benefits while the rest of people on Earth earned $0.09/day for a 10-12 work day and no over-time are over.
The Laws of Competition:
1] You must produce a product or provide a service that is in demand; and
2] Your product or service must be of the highest possible relative quality; and
3] Your product or service must be marketed at the most competitive price.
Fail to do any one of those three, and your business fails. Sure, the government can step in and bank-roll you. And how exactly does the government do that? By bleeding other people dry and then throwing money at a failed effort that will never succeed, so long as its business model permits it to violate one (or more) of the three Laws.
Labor is no different:
1] The Labor you offer must be in demand; and
2] Your Labor must be of the highest possible relative quality; and
3] Your Labor must be marketed at the most competitive price.
"I'm a key-punch operator."
Sucks to be you...you failed the 1st Test.
In the united States, you have 1,539 separately functioning economies, with 1,539 Labor Markets.....wages for certain jobs are going to vary greatly, but that isn't the end of the story. Outside of the US, there are more than a million Labor Markets, and some of those Markets are in direct competition with certain skill-sets in US Labor Markets.
Your labor that competes globally is not competitively priced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Japan and Germany have high manufacturing wages and high union participation among their work force. What do they have that we do not?
I bet they don't have 50 Million Americans with MBAs and 50 Million Americans with BAs in GLBT Issues and $5 TRILLION in Student Loan debt.
You are free to compare Japan or Germany to California, or Florida, or Illinois, or Ohio or Arkansas, but comparing them to the US is absurd.
Japan and Germany are itty-bitty-teeny-tiny-teensy-weensy-lil' States.
You wanna know what they have that you don't? Labor Talent within arm's reach.
That would be a Geography-thing.
About 0.5% to 1% of your UE Rate is caused by skill-set/employee mismatch. Lots of jobs available, but no one qualified to work them, and the few who might be qualified, are on the other side of the US. Delaware to Minnesota would be one helluva commute.
And then of course, you're talking about high-tech/high-precision manufacturing. Why do you think France and Germany were so upset with the US invasion of Iraq? They were doing business there. The US just doesn't have the talent for that stuff. Sure, you have some private companies like X-Tek, but those are few and far between. Japan and Germany have niche manufacturing with narrow applications, but are in high demand nonetheless.
There's also business structure. Many of your Japanese and German companies (and other Euro-States) are private corporations, not publicly traded corporations.
As a private corporation, if I have a bad year, what happens? Nothing.
As a publicly traded corporation, if I have a bad year, what happens? The idiot McTraders with their McDells and McGateways in their McMansions panic and start selling off the stock....and then we get bought up by a foreign corporation and shut down....which is what happened to Zenith.
What is the only thing in this Universe that will stop an hostile take-over, leveraged buyout, forced merger or acquisition?
Cash....and lots and lots of it.
Why do you think US corporations are sitting on and hoarding cash?
Because they are freaking frightened out of their wits, that's why.
You're stock market is booming?
Really?
Are you sure?
You might want to look at who's buying those stocks. A lot of corporations are using the cash they have been hoarding to buy back their own stock, which does two things: gives them control, and drives up the price of the stocks, and both are hedges to prevent hostile take-overs, leveraged buy-outs, forced mergers and acquisitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
a. no NAFTA
b. no China most favored nation trade status
c. no corporate consumption tax
d. no corporate burden of healthcare
None of those things matter, and it's a very parochial outdated view.
If your world-view is that is the other 6.5 Billion people on Earth are obligated to buy goods from the US and from no other State, because God has so ordained that Americans should have a grotesquely higher Standard of Living than the rest of the world, then your failure will be spectacular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Unfortunately, with our weird Fed Reserve system, if we start cutting spending, we reduce the available cash in circulation, thus precipitating a recession/depression. What could be done?
Uh, that's not how it works. Your central bank does what all central banks on Earth have done, and cutting spending does not reduce the cash in circulation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
3. cut all income (including cap gains) to 20%
Optimum Capital Gains Tax Rate is 9.5%-10.2%. That will allow you to maximize the tax revenues.
Rates that are lower or higher cause the government to collect less in Capital Gains Tax Revenues.
The government has lost $3 TRILLION to $4 TRILLION in revenues over the last 30 years, because the Capital Gains Rate was set too high.
So – work for everyone? As always, the devil is in the details: more and more people are working for low wages. According to experts, this is one of the causes of the “job miracle”. The low-paid include both the hairdresser who cuts hair for five euros without social insurance and the warehouse worker subject to social security contributions who works for an hourly wage of nine euros gross.
Germany's low unemployment rate is the envy of much of Europe. Yet it masks the difficulties many working Germans have in making ends meet and their reliance on welfare benefits. The issue could become important as the election campaign heats up.
Report Cites Rise in Low Wage Workers Dependent on Welfare Benefits - SPIEGEL ONLINE German "mini-jobs" are just what it says on the tin: precarious employment for up to €400 (£315) per month, likely to be extended to €450 in 2013. Whether a "mini-job" is an additional or a main job, "mini-jobbers" are exempted from tax and social insurance payments for earnings of up to €400, and employers' social insurance contributions are considerably below those for equivalent regular jobs.
"Mini-jobbers" thus forgo core benefits of regular employment, such as building up pension claims. Beyond a basic threshold, income from "mini-jobs" also entails the reduction of unemployment benefit for recipients. In March 2012, an initiative, led by the social-democratic governed Länder in Germany's upper chamber in March 2012, to impose a limit of 12 weekly hours for "mini-jobbers" – and thus effectively a minimum hourly wage – failed.
Last month, the German trade union federation (DGB) published comprehensive statistics on employment trends in Germany from 1991 to 2011 in its monthly bulletin. These statistics reveal that the number of full-time jobs has declined from 29.3 million to 23.9 million in 20 years. During the same period, the number of part-time jobs rose from 5.7 million to 12.5 million.
Included within the category of part-time workers are so-called “atypical workers”. Their jobs are temporary, and they work only up to 20 hours a week, either as temporary workers or part-time employees. Their number has risen to 7.8 million.
when you sweep it under the rug the rug will only get larger and more obvious.
we are watching a stage play of "the emporors new clothes". it began when banks started accepting imaginary deposits from the federal reserve. there is no recession and recovery, its a contraction of the economy, those jobs are gone and not coming back.
Yes, the small mound of dirt under the rug has now become a mountain of debt. All of the rosy solutions of government sponsored 'job creation' have dissolved, and the plan now is to keep raising the debt ceiling cap - reminds me of the notion of robbing young Peter to pay old Paul, but Peter is on life support.
Fundamental change was needed and not provided, by Obama or Bush. Jobs outsourced by corporate CEOs needed to be brought back, or at least taxed so that the taxes can support and train the jobless. People received Welfare or SS disablity when many were capable of working, and should have been forced to do some kind of work, ie, staffing day-care for working mothers, staffing government shelters, low skill construction of shelters, etc. There is already a huge need for subsistence shelter, which will grow exponentially.
We wasted trillion on stupid wars, that persist. We cut deals with international terror sponsors like the Saudis because they are in effect propping up the dollar. No one believed that the mighty Roman empire could fall - we are on the verge.
There is soon going to be massive uprisings. You think your money is safe in the bank? Hah, you are a fool.
It is gonna get ugly. And there is not politician who is going to come with a cape to save you.
That will be hard on the liberals who view their politicians as messiahs that can save them.
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.
