• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Only 115,000 jobs added in April; unemployment rate dips to 8.1 percent

notquiteright said:
Yes there are many Americans are out of work, we came a curly hair from a complete train wreck.

I couldn't find less working than 30 years ago, did find less happy than 30 years ago, long hours, job uncertainty- Reuters 2007

Working 184 more hours a year with no real dollars increase in pay and fewer benefits- Mark Ames

Where did you hear about less working than 30 years ago? Odd considering there are now 87 million more Americans than 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

Unemployment rate at 8.1%, only 115K jobs added, participation rate shrinks again to new low « Hot Air

bls-part-rate-30yrs.jpg

Its a percentage, making obtuse arguments in a political debate just makes you look silly.
 
AdamT said:
Holy hell, how many times do we have to go over this? About half to two-thirds of the decline in the labor force participation rate is due to baby boomers reaching retirement age -- not the economy. As OC's graph indicates, the trend actually began in 2000 and it's accelerating as greater numbers of boomers hit 65.

http://chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2012/cflmarch2012_296.pdf

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

From your own article:
and what about the most recent downturn? Based on survey data, Maki found that about 35 percent of Americans who have dropped out of the labor force since the recession began in 2007 do want a job, but they have become too discouraged to fire off résumés. That’s a sign of a weak labor market. But the other 65 percent are people who have left the labor force and do not want a job. The biggest chunk of that group seems to be composed of baby boomers, those 55 and older, who have decided to retire early.

That suggests, Maki and his colleagues wrote, that unemployment will not necessarily start ticking up again as the economy keeps adding jobs, as many people expect.
Click to expand...

People retiring early because they have little to no choice in the matter isnt a good solution either and its not exactly what could be called voluntary. The problem that asserts itself is that the numbers being bandied about are not concrete or easily verified. It could be more, it could be less. We dont know. I would be willing to accept in the 50% range but 65% of the workforce dropoff is retirees? Im sorry, Im not buying into that so quickly.
 
AdamT said:
Holy hell, how many times do we have to go over this? About half to two-thirds of the decline in the labor force participation rate is due to baby boomers reaching retirement age -- not the economy. As OC's graph indicates, the trend actually began in 2000 and it's accelerating as greater numbers of boomers hit 65.

http://chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2012/cflmarch2012_296.pdf

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

According to the article you posted, the Chicago Fed puts the reduction in the labor force due to boomers retiring as about 25% of the drop. Most would agree that it is hard to measure, you should stop lying about this stuff or at least don't give us links that point out to us that you are lying.
 
Only 115,000 jobs added in April; unemployment rate dips to 8.1 percent
Click to expand...

Does anyone else know how meaningless these statistics are?

115,000 jobs per month X 12 months a year = 1.38 million jobs a year, so at this rate with a population of 311 million people it will take 225 years to have 100% employment.

Heck if we want to get rid of that 8.1% employment it will take only 18 years at this rate, yipdidoo, we're on the right track now, yesiree bob.

Of course those jobs could be anything from shoveling dogcrap to astronaut.
 
notquiteright said:
Actually business isn't investing right now. Cash on hand is very high, banks are stockpiling the Fed money partly because the banks fear more foreclosures will damage the bundled securities they still hold. Non-financial companies are holding record amounts of cash according to the Wall Street Journal. Companies don't need to spend their money when the Fed is damn near giving it away.

Investing in what right now?
Click to expand...

China, where labor rates are still 1/10th of what Americans earn

If they were to invest in anything it would stimulate the economy and it doesn't seem to be a high priority right now, more like a wait and see who wins the election and by all means let's not help the one not willing to let the foxes guard the hen house.

But none the less jobs are being added and compared to when Obama took over that alone should make the more moderate Americans hopeful.
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
So it comes back to it being the government's job to force private businesses to hire more workers...?
Click to expand...

Obama pushing his $800+ Billion dollar stimulus.......

More than 90 percent of the jobs created by this plan will be in the private sector. They're not going to be make-work jobs, but jobs doing the work that America desperately needs done: jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our dangerously deficient dams and levees so that we don't face another Katrina.

Transcript: Obama takes questions on economy - CNN.com
Click to expand...

He needs to get Holder off his dead ass and find out where all that money went and why it didn't create the jobs he said it would. Sounds like a whole lot of ripoffs went on. If he doesn't by November, it'll be bye bye Barry.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
why it didn't create the jobs he said it would. Sounds like a whole lot of ripoffs went on. If he doesn't by November, it'll be bye bye Barry.
Click to expand...

It should be obvious why it didn't create jobs. 1/3 was tax cuts which were relatively small. They failed to create jobs for the same reason Bush's 2008~2009 tax cuts didn't work: too small. Secondly, and more importantly, the rest of the money went as block grants to states to use for certain projects to which the states largely ignored. What states did was take federal money to fund their existing levels of spending which they couldn't do with their actual tax revenues. State spending for the most part stayed roughly flat. That alone saved millions of jobs. But it did not create jobs. States were largely able to escape the kind of layoffs the private sector saw because of stimulus money. We're seeing increases in layoffs in the public sector now primarily because stimulus money is drying up. The way the stimulus was structured makes sense why very few new jobs were created. But it makes sense why we didn't see massive job losses on top of what was already happening in 2009 and 2010. The stimulus essentially prevented a massive drop in demand. It didn't increase demand on top of baseline projections. It merely held it there. You don't create new jobs by keeping demand flat. But you do save a lot by keeping demand flat. What stimulus opponents fail (intentionally or simply due to being economically illiterate) is that without a stimulus, states would have resorted to massive cuts in 2009 at the same time the private sector was shedding jobs. The multiplier impact of that many direct job losses upon indirect spending would have been huge. Demand would literally go off the cliff. I've asked numerous people how they think demand going off a cliff is good for jobs and the economy and I have yet to get an answer. Heck I don't even get insults tossed at me. They just run.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
It should be obvious why it didn't create jobs. 1/3 was tax cuts which were relatively small. They failed to create jobs for the same reason Bush's 2008~2009 tax cuts didn't work: too small. Secondly, and more importantly, the rest of the money went as block grants to states to use for certain projects to which the states largely ignored. What states did was take federal money to fund their existing levels of spending which they couldn't do with their actual tax revenues. State spending for the most part stayed roughly flat. That alone saved millions of jobs. But it did not create jobs. States were largely able to escape the kind of layoffs the private sector saw because of stimulus money. We're seeing increases in layoffs in the public sector now primarily because stimulus money is drying up. The way the stimulus was structured makes sense why very few new jobs were created. But it makes sense why we didn't see massive job losses on top of what was already happening in 2009 and 2010. The stimulus essentially prevented a massive drop in demand. It didn't increase demand on top of baseline projections. It merely held it there. You don't create new jobs by keeping demand flat. But you do save a lot by keeping demand flat. What stimulus opponents fail (intentionally or simply due to being economically illiterate) is that without a stimulus, states would have resorted to massive cuts in 2009 at the same time the private sector was shedding jobs. The multiplier impact of that many direct job losses upon indirect spending would have been huge. Demand would literally go off the cliff. I've asked numerous people how they think demand going off a cliff is good for jobs and the economy and I have yet to get an answer. Heck I don't even get insults tossed at me. They just run.
Click to expand...

"Stimulus" was supposed to create private sector jobs. That's how Obama sold it. Not keep bloated state and federal governemnt payrolls intact.

He's either a liar, or a most incompetent jackass. As was the Democrat Congress that hoisted this giant turd on us.

I say that they are both liars and incompetent jackasses. And that those that support them do not care just so long as they get the gubmit teat to suckle.
 
obvious Child said:
It should be obvious why it didn't create jobs. 1/3 was tax cuts which were relatively small. They failed to create jobs for the same reason Bush's 2008~2009 tax cuts didn't work: too small. Secondly, and more importantly, the rest of the money went as block grants to states to use for certain projects to which the states largely ignored. What states did was take federal money to fund their existing levels of spending which they couldn't do with their actual tax revenues. State spending for the most part stayed roughly flat. That alone saved millions of jobs. But it did not create jobs. States were largely able to escape the kind of layoffs the private sector saw because of stimulus money. We're seeing increases in layoffs in the public sector now primarily because stimulus money is drying up. The way the stimulus was structured makes sense why very few new jobs were created. But it makes sense why we didn't see massive job losses on top of what was already happening in 2009 and 2010. The stimulus essentially prevented a massive drop in demand. It didn't increase demand on top of baseline projections. It merely held it there. You don't create new jobs by keeping demand flat. But you do save a lot by keeping demand flat. What stimulus opponents fail (intentionally or simply due to being economically illiterate) is that without a stimulus, states would have resorted to massive cuts in 2009 at the same time the private sector was shedding jobs. The multiplier impact of that many direct job losses upon indirect spending would have been huge. Demand would literally go off the cliff. I've asked numerous people how they think demand going off a cliff is good for jobs and the economy and I have yet to get an answer. Heck I don't even get insults tossed at me. They just run.
Click to expand...

The problem is the arena of deficit spending. We have been using it for so long its beginning to reach a no return point. I would argue every dollar the government taxes is a dollar that the provate sector can use more effectively and with better multipliers than the Fed. Using deficit spending to get around that economic reality is finally becoming untenable.

We have artificial demand propped up by government wages, programs because neither side of the aisle pays the least bit of attention to the Keynesian idea of cutting during boom and spending during bust, its spend no matter what the cycle is doing. That means we need to come up with another government spending model or just quit trying the one that is not working.

Are you suggesting that we should have been engaging in the Krugman school of thought that the stimulus should have been some monstrous 3 trillion dollar program? Because I dont think that would have passed politically on either side.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The problem is the arena of deficit spending. We have been using it for so long its beginning to reach a no return point. I would argue every dollar the government taxes is a dollar that the provate sector can use more effectively and with better multipliers than the Fed. Using deficit spending to get around that economic reality is finally becoming untenable.
Click to expand...

Listen.. the whole idea of deficit spending started in earnest with Reagan. It was among others, Cheney who laughed at the idea of a balanced budget when confronted with a large deficit in his own administration.

Deficit spending is not the end of the world, as long as it is not massive. The problem at the moment is that ... massive. But as long as deficit spending is under the annual inflation rate, then it is not that big of a problem.

But we also have to be realistic and ask why there is such a deficit, and as long as the right are in utter denial that their policies are a huge portion of the blame, then we can get anywhere.

Tax breaks for the rich... that costs money!
Unfunded programs and wars.. costs money!

We have artificial demand propped up by government wages, programs because neither side of the aisle pays the least bit of attention to the Keynesian idea of cutting during boom and spending during bust, its spend no matter what the cycle is doing. That means we need to come up with another government spending model or just quit trying the one that is not working.
Click to expand...

You dont have artificial demand propped up by government wages.. it is a fallacy of the grandest scale. It does not matter if the job is government or private sector, they both add to the over all growth in the economy. Now the question is how much should be in government and that is a whole other matter, but claiming that government jobs/wages create some sort of artificial demand is utter bullcrap.

As for the Keynesian idea of cutting during boom and spending during bust.. it is not only correct but logical. The problem as you correctly state, is that no one does that (well very few countries). One thing for sure, is never to cut government spending during a bust cycle since that would only make the bust cycle last longer and go deeper, as we saw with the great depression.

Are you suggesting that we should have been engaging in the Krugman school of thought that the stimulus should have been some monstrous 3 trillion dollar program? Because I dont think that would have passed politically on either side.
Click to expand...

That would have done wonders for the economy IF done right. Problem was/is that the right has seen an easy political gain by making the "debt" issue a major problem that must be tackled here and now at all costs. Now because of the lack of economic knowledge and the direct attempt by the right to paint this as a "kitchen table" economy, then people actually think that having high debt is bad and we must cut and cut and cut to fix things. Like it or not, a nations economy can in no way be compared to the financial situation of a single person or family.

Because of this idiotic focus on debt ratios, then everything else was put on a back burner. Instead of fixing things, the focus was on cutting. Instead of creating jobs and growth, people have been focusing on cutting and cutting... and this is disastrous for any economy.

Do we need new ideas? Yes, but first we have to get past the debunked economic ideas that lead to this points.. which are ideas that the right are still pushing as the solution... how sick is that? What I am trying to say... the right needs to admit its faults before we can move forward and find pragmatic solutions to the problems of the world economy.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
...................
But we also have to be realistic and ask why there is such a deficit, and as long as the right are in utter denial that their policies are a huge portion of the blame, then we can get anywhere.

Tax breaks for the rich... that costs money!
Unfunded programs and wars.. costs money! ...........
Click to expand...


If you want to be taken at your word, put down the Obama class-envy Kool-Ade.

The "Bush Tax Cuts", looking only at how much they reduced revenue (and ignoring any increase in taxable commerce they may have created) were worth about $300 billion per year in reduced revenue. Of that, about $270 B benefited those making less that $250 K per year, and only about $30 B from those "evil rich".

$30 billion. Even the Buffet tax, if implemented, is projected to increase revenue (ignoring any negative effects it has on taxable commerce) only $35-75 billion over 10 years. At the high end, that's $7 billion off of deficits of over one trillion.

Compare all this to deficits in $1.2 to 1.5 trillion per year. Trillion with a "T". :roll:

That puts raising taxes on the rich, or these imaginary "tax cuts" that the leftwads foment, way down the list of what is he cause of the yearly deficits. Everyone got tax cuts. The middle class tax cuts had 10-fold the reduction impact on revenue as the cuts for the rich.

So put down the Kool-Ade, and pick up the caffeinated coffee. The problem is not "the rich". It never has been.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
Listen.. the whole idea of deficit spending started in earnest with Reagan. It was among others, Cheney who laughed at the idea of a balanced budget when confronted with a large deficit in his own administration.
Click to expand...

Seems to me though that deficit spending as a percentage of GDP in the current administration has overshot any of the previous republican presidents that you list for specific partisan purposes here, combined.

Deficit spending is not the end of the world, as long as it is not massive. The problem at the moment is that ... massive.
Click to expand...

And the argument from the far left, progressives here and in the nation is that it wasn't "massive" enough. That's a problem, a failure.

But as long as deficit spending is under the annual inflation rate, then it is not that big of a problem.
Click to expand...

The inflation rates reports seem to be being produced by administration hacks, so are you arguing that we should just accept that everything is ok because the administration says so?

But we also have to be realistic and ask why there is such a deficit, and as long as the right are in utter denial that their policies are a huge portion of the blame, then we can get anywhere.

Tax breaks for the rich... that costs money!
Unfunded programs and wars.. costs money!
Click to expand...

Oh come on...This President came into office with a majority in congress, and senate. Obama extended the tax rates under Bush, increased the roles of the welfare state, and not only continued the war machine, including GITMO, but in fact surged in Afghanistan. What the hell are you talking about here?

You dont have artificial demand propped up by government wages.. it is a fallacy of the grandest scale.
Click to expand...

I remember the reports when the vaunted stimulus money was being spent on projects, that a person could be hired for example to hold that stop sign at a construction project, and it lasted say for a day, or a week, then the job was done and the person was let go again, yet the job was counted in the monthly reporting to "Sherriff Joe" as a job created. Then a week later the same person working for the same company does another stimulus job somewhere else within town for a week, and another job reported....

The numbers out of this band of crooks is a pure lie.

It does not matter if the job is government or private sector, they both add to the over all growth in the economy. Now the question is how much should be in government and that is a whole other matter, but claiming that government jobs/wages create some sort of artificial demand is utter bullcrap.
Click to expand...

By that reasoning, then every job should be a 'government job'.... Is that how you feel Pete?

As for the Keynesian idea of cutting during boom and spending during bust.. it is not only correct but logical. The problem as you correctly state, is that no one does that (well very few countries). One thing for sure, is never to cut government spending during a bust cycle since that would only make the bust cycle last longer and go deeper, as we saw with the great depression.
Click to expand...

Please explain.

That would have done wonders for the economy IF done right. Problem was/is that the right has seen an easy political gain by making the "debt" issue a major problem that must be tackled here and now at all costs. Now because of the lack of economic knowledge and the direct attempt by the right to paint this as a "kitchen table" economy, then people actually think that having high debt is bad and we must cut and cut and cut to fix things. Like it or not, a nations economy can in no way be compared to the financial situation of a single person or family.

Because of this idiotic focus on debt ratios, then everything else was put on a back burner. Instead of fixing things, the focus was on cutting. Instead of creating jobs and growth, people have been focusing on cutting and cutting... and this is disastrous for any economy.

Do we need new ideas? Yes, but first we have to get past the debunked economic ideas that lead to this points.. which are ideas that the right are still pushing as the solution... how sick is that? What I am trying to say... the right needs to admit its faults before we can move forward and find pragmatic solutions to the problems of the world economy.
Click to expand...


:roll: Oh please...So the only thing that has hampered a recovery in your eyes, is that 'stupid, hyperpartisan, republican idiots' have not allowed Obama to get his way in every way?

give me a break.


j-mac
 
PeteEU said:
Listen.. the whole idea of deficit spending started in earnest with Reagan. It was among others, Cheney who laughed at the idea of a balanced budget when confronted with a large deficit in his own administration.

Deficit spending is not the end of the world, as long as it is not massive. The problem at the moment is that ... massive. But as long as deficit spending is under the annual inflation rate, then it is not that big of a problem.

But we also have to be realistic and ask why there is such a deficit, and as long as the right are in utter denial that their policies are a huge portion of the blame, then we can get anywhere.

Tax breaks for the rich... that costs money!
Unfunded programs and wars.. costs money!



You dont have artificial demand propped up by government wages.. it is a fallacy of the grandest scale. It does not matter if the job is government or private sector, they both add to the over all growth in the economy. Now the question is how much should be in government and that is a whole other matter, but claiming that government jobs/wages create some sort of artificial demand is utter bullcrap.

As for the Keynesian idea of cutting during boom and spending during bust.. it is not only correct but logical. The problem as you correctly state, is that no one does that (well very few countries). One thing for sure, is never to cut government spending during a bust cycle since that would only make the bust cycle last longer and go deeper, as we saw with the great depression.



That would have done wonders for the economy IF done right. Problem was/is that the right has seen an easy political gain by making the "debt" issue a major problem that must be tackled here and now at all costs. Now because of the lack of economic knowledge and the direct attempt by the right to paint this as a "kitchen table" economy, then people actually think that having high debt is bad and we must cut and cut and cut to fix things. Like it or not, a nations economy can in no way be compared to the financial situation of a single person or family.

Because of this idiotic focus on debt ratios, then everything else was put on a back burner. Instead of fixing things, the focus was on cutting. Instead of creating jobs and growth, people have been focusing on cutting and cutting... and this is disastrous for any economy.

Do we need new ideas? Yes, but first we have to get past the debunked economic ideas that lead to this points.. which are ideas that the right are still pushing as the solution... how sick is that? What I am trying to say... the right needs to admit its faults before we can move forward and find pragmatic solutions to the problems of the world economy.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't just tax cuts for the rich -- it's tax cuts in general + overspending on defense and entitlements. Republicans whine that 47% of Americans aren't paying FIT, but it is their policies that produced that result. Amazingly, when you lard the tax code up with enough tax cuts and tax credits, you eventually end up in a situation where people aren't paying any taxes at all. Now if we can just get it to where the rich aren't paying any taxes at all our deficit problems will be solved! Conservative "logic". :lol:
 
j-mac said:
Seems to me though that deficit spending as a percentage of GDP in the current administration has overshot any of the previous republican presidents that you list for specific partisan purposes here, combined.
Click to expand...
Spending as a portion of GDP has undoubtedely increased under Obama, but your claim is demonstrably and obviously false.

PF4.png
 
Last edited:
Hare said:
Spending as a portion of GDP has undoubtedely increased under Obama, but your claim is demonstrably and obviously false.
Click to expand...

Moreso, because I do better with actual numbers rather than graphs, to the extent that they are on a pedestrian level, tell me, what was the amount of deficit spending with Reagan, and Bush in relation to percentage of GDP?


j-mac
 
Dittohead not! said:
Amazing, just amazing all of the right wingers who expect government to be the solution to the problem. Change the president, and unemployment will drop, and we'll all live happily ever after.

The country is in deep doo doo, no question. Unemployment is much higher than advertised. Fewer than half of recent college grads have jobs that reflect their level of education. The rest are either unemployed or flipping burgers (or similar). The high school dropouts, and there are a lot of them, are pretty much unemployable. What are they doing? Meanwhile, since fewer are paying taxes, being unemployed and all, and since the feds have been on a spending spree for decades now, we seem to be acquiring something of a debt.

The Congress is dysfunctional, totally tied up in knots with hyperpartisan lack of willingness to do anything that makes the dreaded other side look good, regardless of what is needed for the country.

and we're looking for a superman to ride his white horse into the White House and set it all right. It ain't gonna happen, folks. No one person is going to get us out of the doldrums we're in now.
Click to expand...
Both parties screwed this nation over and their blind myopic supporters continue to play their retarded "our morons are better than YOUR morons" game and because there are so many of them, we simply continue to get status quo. Its not going to change for the better. Its going to get worse.
 
Hare said:
jmac said:
Seems to me though that deficit spending as a percentage of GDP in the current administration has overshot any of the previous republican presidents that you list for specific partisan purposes here, combined.
Click to expand...
Spending as a portion of GDP has undoubtedely increased under Obama, but your claim is demonstrably and obviously false.

View attachment 67127000
Click to expand...

Hare, that's a pretty impressive fail on your part.

1. your graph demonstrates a significant as Obama took over in government spending as a % of the economy.
2. jmac was discussing deficit spending as a % of the economy... and you responded with government spending as a % of the economy...

the Bi-Partisan Hall of Shame:

deficit.gif
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Holy hell, how many times do we have to go over this? About half to two-thirds of the decline in the labor force participation rate is due to baby boomers reaching retirement age -- not the economy. As OC's graph indicates, the trend actually began in 2000 and it's accelerating as greater numbers of boomers hit 65.

http://chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2012/cflmarch2012_296.pdf

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post
Click to expand...
Here is the latest t01 chart from the BLS: Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

And here is a 2010 chart of U.S. population by age: U.S. Population by Sex and Age, Census 2000 — Infoplease.com

The t01 chart shows that Civilian nonintitutional population continues to rise. That figure includes retirees, the overwhelming vast majority of whom are not institutionalized in rest homes. Thus births are continuing to out pace deaths, and indeed any chart of U.S. population growth validates that, as we're currently just a little under 1.0%, still a significant net rate for a population over 313 million.

The population by age chart shows that in 2010 those entering the work force, minimum age 16 and more practically around 16 through 24 were considerably higher in number/age than those likely entering retirement, 62-64, and even if you include forced retirement from lack of work from age 55, it's still smaller than the number/age of those entering the work force.

The reduction in the Civilian labor force can't be attributed to Boomers taking normal retirement.

People being forced into "retirement" and living off IRAs prior to age 62.5 is simply a technical form of unemployment, where they are unable to find work and are, at best, "employed" by their IRAs from an income sense. The great many of these without adequate personal retirement income are truly unemployed, even if they want to ratioalize that they are "retired".

Percentages are meaningless. What matters is the actual net number of new jobs and the actual net number of increase in people available to do those jobs. The available population is still increasing beyond the available jobs increase.

And, of course, none of this speaks to whether the jobs people are getting nowadays are living-wage jobs.

When you look at the average age of those who would be entering the work force, 16-24, that's around 4.3 million/age.

When you look at the average age of those who would normally be entering retirement, 62-64, that's around 3.36 million/age.

Thus we're still bringing more into the work force than we're normally retiring.

When you look at all the ages in the 2010 census, it's pretty clear we're bringing more in than are retiring. So those aged birth-16 is much greater than those those aged retiring and still slightly higher than those masses 45-54 waiting in the wings to retire when you factor in the higher mortality rates of those compared to the birth-16 age group.

Thus boomer retirement simply isn't an issue with regard to the BLS numbers.

What is much more likely is the increasing number of unemployed in the "discouraged worker" category that are simply unaccounted for, the current figure likely being only 60% of the true total of unemployed "discouraged workers" according to one BLS agent with whom I spoke.

Indeed, in a population of 313 million with the BLS citing 242.8 million non-institutionalized, that means the BLS would have us believe that there are 70.2 million people in America in the military, prisons, mental institutions and geriatric convalescent hospitals, a whopping 22.4 percent of our population institutionalized, nearly one in every four people! That can't be a seriously accurate figure.

Here's a chart - Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year — Infoplease.com - that shows that in 1945 - 1950 the Boomer birth rate increase, and that things remained fairly flat after that, until a post-Boomer drop off in the birth rate of their kids, but their kids' kids taking off again in the past twenty years who are now entering the work force in comparative numbers to their grandparents, the Boomers, retiring. Thus we're still increasing our population to this day.

And, we still need more jobs.

So where is our real unemployment problem?

It's really pretty obviously simple: American jobs outsourced to other countries wage-slavers and in-sourced mostly to illegals.

Solve those two obvious problems, and we will not only increase the number of living-wage jobs for American citizens, but we will reduce our unemployment problem to next to zero.
 
Kushinator said:
Ahhh, the faith based approach. Please explain how cutting government spending will boost both consumer and investment demand.
Click to expand...

Reducing the portion of resources being funneled through less productive venues and moving them to more productive uses increases net productivity.

:) glad to help.
 
iguanaman said:
1/3 of all layoffs in 2011 were Govt. jobs and they are still declining. Romney promises to cut more govt. jobs and workers pay too. Is that what you mean by getting out of the way?
Click to expand...

absolutely. let's take those workers and put them to work increasing wealth rather than draining it.
 
cpwill said:
Reducing the portion of resources being funneled through less productive venues and moving them to more productive uses increases net productivity.

:) glad to help.
Click to expand...
LOL...as if "resources" are in limited supply at this time.

Wrong tool for the problem.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL...as if "resources" are in limited supply at this time.

Wrong tool for the problem.
Click to expand...

:doh

Resources being finite and having alternative potential uses, your post is Comprehension Fail.


Let me put it this way: let us say that in your gas tank, you put gasoline as prescribed by law, but also butter. Now, let us pretend that your can can survive and run with the butter occasionally squirting through the pipes, but only so long as it remains below a certain critical mass. Regardless of the cars' continued function, it's efficiency will degrade as you increase the portion of the gas tank that you fill with butter, and its' efficiency will increase on the inverse.

When government is a larger percentage of GDP, it means that more of our resources are going towards government - it means that more of our resources are being used in less productive ways.

When government is a smaller percentage of GDP, it means that less of our resources are going towards government - more of our resources are being used in more productive ways.

Both within lateral limits, of course - anarchy works little better than communism. Both in this case represent the failure of the car to maintain function.

:) Got it?
 
cpwill said:
Hare, that's a pretty impressive fail on your part.

1. your graph demonstrates a significant as Obama took over in government spending as a % of the economy.
2. jmac was discussing deficit spending as a % of the economy... and you responded with government spending as a % of the economy...

the Bi-Partisan Hall of Shame:

deficit.gif
Click to expand...
Oops, Completely misread J-Mac's statement, my fault entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom