Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-05-2008, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,772,693 times
Reputation: 36643

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post


There are outliers in (almost) any data set. If they are numerous or exaggerated in their effect, you can develop rules to exclude them. For the most part, they are swamped by the trends occurring in the non-outlier data. As long as you have a large enough sample size (two households isn't large enough), you should end up with results that are statistically significant...
I'm not talking about outliers, though. I used that only as an illustation. The reality is that every single one of those 6.1% unemployed could be put to work tomorrow morning, replacing a two-job person working a second job, creating an instant 0% unemployment rate without creating a single job. Or at worst, replacing the spouse of a person already earning a good income. When you have millions of families with two wage-earners, each of them represents at least one job that could be done by a head of household who has no income. Remember, also, that the number of houselods requiring at least one job is much smaller than the total. Many households consist of one or two retirees, living on their pension, with nobody in the household who is a member of the labor force. So the number of jobs needed is quite a bit smaller than the number of households.

Our economy has done its job, by creating more jobs than households. Any household that does not have one, is being robbed by a household that has grabbed two or more jobs. In such a lopsided environment, how many more jobs have to be created, for every household to see one trickle down to it? Here is the classic picture of greedy families grabbing all the jobs, gaining handsomely as a result, and then begrudging a bit of public assisance to those who didn't get one.

Last edited by jtur88; 09-05-2008 at 05:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2008, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,496 posts, read 33,233,414 times
Reputation: 7609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luiso View Post
-------------

Are you telling me that chanting "USA USA" like they did at GOP convention won't fix the problems we have?
Chaning "change change" like they did at the Democratic convention won't fix the problems we have, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2008, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,402,231 times
Reputation: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I'm not talking about outliers, though. I used that only as an illustation. The reality is that every single one of those 6.1% unemployed could be put to work tomorrow morning, replacing a two-job person working a second job, creating an instant 0% unemployment rate without creating a single job. Or at worst, replacing the spouse of a person already earning a good income. When you have millions of families with two wage-earners, each of them represents at least one job that could be done by a head of household who has no income. Remember, also, that the number of houselods requiring at least one job is much smaller than the total. Many households consist of one or two retirees, living on their pension, with nobody in the household who is a member of the labor force. So the number of jobs needed is quite a bit smaller than the number of households.

Our economy has done its job, by creating more jobs than households. Any household that does not have one, is being robbed by a household that has grabbed two or more jobs. In such a lopsided environment, how many more jobs have to be created, for every household to see one trickle down to it? Here is the classic picture of greedy families grabbing all the jobs, gaining handsomely as a result, and then begrudging a bit of public assisance to those who didn't get one.
the thing is, you do not want 0% unemplyment, it is called stagnation. It is actually bad, and will not allow a soicety to grow. where is the money going to come from to pay these people put to work by the government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2008, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,772,693 times
Reputation: 36643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
the thing is, you do not want 0% unemplyment, it is called stagnation. It is actually bad, and will not allow a soicety to grow. where is the money going to come from to pay these people put to work by the government?
They would not be paid by the government. They would be paid by the employers who are currently paying other people who are doing those jobs as moonlighters. I apologize for not making that clear enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2008, 10:07 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,772,693 times
Reputation: 36643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Chaning "change change" like they did at the Democratic convention won't fix the problems we have, either.
What could people chant that would fix the problems we have? Would the police know that it is OK to chant whatever you suggest?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2008, 06:44 AM
 
7,381 posts, read 7,679,484 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
What could people chant that would fix the problems we have? Would the police know that it is OK to chant whatever you suggest?
How about "No Minimum Wage!!". Its no coincidence that the unemployment rate went up aftet the Minimum Wage was increased, as we conservatives predicted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2008, 07:21 AM
 
5,762 posts, read 11,616,036 times
Reputation: 3870
What's interesting is how these unemployment numbers were released shortly after the news that GDP had grown over 3% during the last quarter. This could mean several things, or perhaps all of them at once:

-Last quarter's GDP growth was an artificial product of borrowed capital from China or other nations

-The economy is sorting itself out by producing gains in healthy sectors while also shedding jobs in unproductive ones, and it just so happens that the economic gains overwhelm the job losses

-The economy itself is changing because companies, through technology and advances in efficiency planning, can get more productivity out of fewer employees - thus, fewer people are needed to sustain America's economy or GDP.

The last one is the most troubling, because it would mean that we are slowly moving toward a system where certain types of labor simply aren't required, and if you don't have special skills, nobody will ever need to hire you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2008, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,943 posts, read 17,218,782 times
Reputation: 4686
Quote:
Originally Posted by S6Sputnik View Post
The U.S. unemployment rate unexpectedly shot up to 6.1 percent in August, the highest in nearly five years, as employers cut payrolls for an eighth straight month and a decline in labor markets accelerated.
84000 jobs were lost in August!!!!!

I WANT CHANGE NOW NOT IN 4 YEARS
VOTE FOR CHANGE!

OBAMA 08
With Obama, prepare to see double digit unemployment, rising to near 20%. Raising taxes during a severe recession such as this is the absolute worst thing you can do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2008, 10:25 AM
 
Location: The Planet Mars
2,159 posts, read 2,579,045 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by S6Sputnik View Post
The U.S. unemployment rate unexpectedly shot up to 6.1 percent in August, the highest in nearly five years, as employers cut payrolls for an eighth straight month and a decline in labor markets accelerated.
84000 jobs were lost in August!!!!!

I WANT CHANGE NOW NOT IN 4 YEARS
VOTE FOR CHANGE!

OBAMA 08
This has truly been the jobless recovery.. The number or jobs created during the so-called 'recovery' of the Bush years pales in comparison to prior recoveries.

When are people going to understand that the current policies that we have in place only benefit the very few at the top of the economic pyramid.

Everyone else gets shafted...

Think about this when you vote in November...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2008, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,402,231 times
Reputation: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
How about "No Minimum Wage!!". Its no coincidence that the unemployment rate went up aftet the Minimum Wage was increased, as we conservatives predicted.
I had heard a news story that congress was discussing a rebate for businesses that were hurt by the rising in the min. wage.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:44 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top