• 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!

US unemployment lowest in 4 years

It is the typical age for finishing HS and seeking full time employment for many.

...and this fact doesn't detract from the additional fact of juveniles 16 -17 periodically popping in and out to compete as well. Good point TTW! :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Per the 2010 Census, there are around 30,000 people aged 18-24. And nearly 50,000 people aged 62 and older.

The 18-24 cohort grew by 13% between 2000 and 2010. The 62+ cohort grew by 21%.

Unless I missed the "Baby Boom II" in the late 90s -- or, unless we have a major boost in younger employees due to immigration reform -- it's reasonable to expect the number of Americans in the workforce to continue declining.

So, where is this jobs deficit coming from again...?

You are making the assumption that entry level workers do not have to compete with those seniors for employment.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-09.pdf
 
This "trend" started long before Obama and is always exacerbated by the recessions that a parade of Republican administrations have given us. Republicans love recessions for that reason, it helps in their war against the middle class. The sooner we catch on the sooner we can have a real recovery. If you look closely at the chart you can see that the ONLY time the 2 lines are not converging is during the Clinton Administration.

I don't mean to be a pessimist, but I believe this is a trend. Yes, it started long before our current president but the trend towards good paying jobs (at least for the middle class) in this country looks bleak. I hope I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
People, ain't you realized yet? This man is from TEXAS! He has a six-gun loaded with statistics to back his play, and can shoot them faster than than lightning! Better be quicker on the draw or else! LOL ;)

One only has to pay attention to what they see around them to notice that many more seniors are now working and that the teen unemployment rate is far higher than the average. Employers want dependable, honest and easily trainable workers; often they will take a senior over a teenager based on those factors.
 
fredgraph.png


/end thread
 
One only has to pay attention to what they see around them to notice that many more seniors are now working and that the teen unemployment rate is far higher than the average. Employers want dependable, honest and easily trainable workers; often they will take a senior over a teenager based on those factors.

The proof.

fredgraph.png


Why yes, you should be saying. That is a nearly 50% drop.
 
One only has to pay attention to what they see around them to notice that many more seniors are now working and that the teen unemployment rate is far higher than the average. Employers want dependable, honest and easily trainable workers; often they will take a senior over a teenager based on those factors.

That seems to be the problem with liberalism today, it creates a permanent group of long term unemployed who aren't marketable or trainable because of screwed up priorities. The entitlement society created by liberalism has created a dependent class and is almost irreversible. Too many young people today lack the motivation, the work ethic, dedication, and desire to take any job to gain experience for THE job.

Amazing today what you see going into interviews for jobs that deal with the public. Too many have so little pride in themselves that they show up with an attitude that the company owes them something vs. the other way around. This is the new normal for liberalism, high unemployment, a dependent society that relies on liberalism to exist thus permanent power for liberals, either by design or a feeling that spending in the name of compassion is more important than generating compassionate results meaning less dependence on the govt. Where is that tough love when you need it?
 
Give me one good reason why the **** I would lie or would talk **** if I didn't know what I was talking about?

Who knows! Your entire existence here can be highlighted in the bold.
 
That seems to be the problem with liberalism today, it creates a permanent group of long term unemployed who aren't marketable or trainable because of screwed up priorities. The entitlement society created by liberalism has created a dependent class and is almost irreversible. Too many young people today lack the motivation, the work ethic, dedication, and desire to take any job to gain experience for THE job.

Amazing today what you see going into interviews for jobs that deal with the public. Too many have so little pride in themselves that they show up with an attitude that the company owes them something vs. the other way around. This is the new normal for liberalism, high unemployment, a dependent society that relies on liberalism to exist thus permanent power for liberals, either by design or a feeling that spending in the name of compassion is more important than generating compassionate results meaning less dependence on the govt. Where is that tough love when you need it?

It has nothing to do with long term unemployed people who are not marketable or trainable. That is a simplistic argument. We've lost 60% of mid-wage jobs during the recession and only recovered 22%. We lost about 21% of low wage jobs and now have grown 58% of these low wage jobs in this country. That means less jobs for middle income workers and many more to compete for in the low wage range. That is not people's fault!
 
It has nothing to do with long term unemployed people who are not marketable or trainable. That is a simplistic argument. We've lost 60% of mid-wage jobs during the recession and only recovered 22%. We lost about 21% of low wage jobs and now have grown 58% of these low wage jobs in this country. That means less jobs for middle income workers and many more to compete for in the low wage range. That is not people's fault!

You really don't understand leadership and incentive, do you? So we lost what you claimed, what did Obama do to regain it or replace it? Not a damn thing and in fact everything he has done destroys incentive and the private sector. Obama has no understanding of how the private sector works nor apparently do you.
 
You really don't understand leadership and incentive, do you? So we lost what you claimed, what did Obama do to regain it or replace it? Not a damn thing and in fact everything he has done destroys incentive and the private sector. Obama has no understanding of how the private sector works nor apparently do you.

How exactly did he destroy incentive in the private sector?
 
If you think the premise was accepted me as serious.....you go ahead and find the stats to prove your claim.

That should keep you busy.

No I never expected you to " accept as serious " ( WTH ? did you just warp into Yoda speak or something ? ) the premise that cities like Detroit could be compared to South East African Dictatorships.

The glaring and apparent similarities are far too damaging to your core principles for you to take notice of what amounts to the failures of Liberalism gone unchecked.

A Powerful Government controlling a stupid and uneducated mass for the purpose of extending power among the few. Call it want you want, but your side has been appealing to the lowest common denominator for decades.

It's incumbent upon you to accept that there are consequences for your political party doing just that and Ill even help you see the obvious, no charge.
 
It has nothing to do with long term unemployed people who are not marketable or trainable. That is a simplistic argument. We've lost 60% of mid-wage jobs during the recession and only recovered 22%. We lost about 21% of low wage jobs and now have grown 58% of these low wage jobs in this country. That means less jobs for middle income workers and many more to compete for in the low wage range. That is not people's fault!
What are mid-wage jobs? How many were there before the start of six bad months in the Bush administration?
What are low-wage jobs? How many were there before the start of six bad months in the Bush administration?

Why, after spending an extra trillion a year (in slush funds to keep unions whole) for five years, aren't we in the most robust recovery every seen?
 
good majority of those 18 year olds I imagine are not working through the summer, are going to college or already have a part time job established

Those 18 y/o can't get a job, because the jobs that they could get are filled with older, more qualified people.

The unemployment rate is down because fewer people are looking for jobs, not because more people are working.
 
How exactly did he destroy incentive in the private sector?

Why would any private business owner invest his own money or even try to start up a business today not knowing what the tax structure is going to be or what Obamacare is going to cost? Since you are such an expert why don't you do what you say others should do, take the risk that business owners take very day? As I stated you don't seem to have any concept as to what incentive is.
 
What are mid-wage jobs? How many were there before the start of six bad months in the Bush administration?
What are low-wage jobs? How many were there before the start of six bad months in the Bush administration?

Why, after spending an extra trillion a year (in slush funds to keep unions whole) for five years, aren't we in the most robust recovery every seen?

The time period is from 2008 until recent and the figues for low and middle wage jobs are described in this link: How the recession turned middle-class jobs into low-wage jobs

Overall, during the Bush era, private growth in jobs were at their worst since the Great Depression. It can be argued since the Clinton era, much of the productivity in the economy had to do with bubbles. Bruce Bartlett had a piece in which he stated that "Economists are still searching for answers to the slow growth of the United States economy. Some are now focusing on the issue of “financialization,” the growth of the financial sector as a share of gross domestic product." http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/financialization-as-a-cause-of-economic-malaise/?_r=0 and other piece done by Mother Jones which capitalizes on Bartlett's piece: The Financialization of America (and the World) | Mother Jones

All worth due examination. As far as your last statement, unions have had the lowest level of membership since the Depression so it could be argued that this is also part of the reason wages have stagnated for so long.
 
Why would any private business owner invest his own money or even try to start up a business today not knowing what the tax structure is going to be or what Obamacare is going to cost? Since you are such an expert why don't you do what you say others should do, take the risk that business owners take very day? As I stated you don't seem to have any concept as to what incentive is.

Proof that business needs government helping hand to start?
Here's mine that shows that is not necessarily true at all: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corporations.html?pagewanted=all
 
No I never expected you to " accept as serious " ( WTH ? did you just warp into Yoda speak or something ? ) the premise that cities like Detroit could be compared to South East African Dictatorships.

The glaring and apparent similarities are far too damaging to your core principles for you to take notice of what amounts to the failures of Liberalism gone unchecked.

A Powerful Government controlling a stupid and uneducated mass for the purpose of extending power among the few. Call it want you want, but your side has been appealing to the lowest common denominator for decades.

It's incumbent upon you to accept that there are consequences for your political party doing just that and Ill even help you see the obvious, no charge.
FFS Fenton, dictatorships are the nearly the total opposite of "liberalism", I think we have gone over that one a few hundred times. I'm glad you were able to see that I did not take the premise seriously, the question is, since we have gone over this numerous times, why you still do take the false rhetorical premise seriously. It is the stuff of Birchers....who are, ironically enough, close to dictators themselves.
 
The time period is from 2008 until recent and the figues for low and middle wage jobs are described in this link: How the recession turned middle-class jobs into low-wage jobs
I read the article and the underlying article it relied upon. Does it strike you as odd that they selected those particular values? Mid wage for example runs from $28,766 to $43,950. It is almost as if they had an agenda and backed into the categories that would "make it so."

Overall, during the Bush era, private growth in jobs were at their worst since the Great Depression.
Really? So that roughly 4-6% unemployment for 7.5 years out of his eight was pretty bad? And the roughly 8% unemployment throughout all of the Marxist's regime is no doubt much better, right?

The highest unemployment rate during President Bush’s entire eight years in office was his last month at 7.8%, compared to President Obama’s low of 7.6%. Of course it really helps to have the state-run media on your side.

It can be argued since the Clinton era, much of the productivity in the economy had to do with bubbles. Bruce Bartlett had a piece in which he stated that "Economists are still searching for answers to the slow growth of the United States economy. Some are now focusing on the issue of “financialization,” the growth of the financial sector as a share of gross domestic product."

We should try an experiment. Let's declare an end to ObamaCare and Frank-Dodd. Let's roll back all regulations to those written and approved in 2001. If the economy gets way better in four years, say unemployment back to 4.5% then let's eliminate the job killing regulations permanently. And let's quietly agree that we will never, ever again allow a Marxist back into the White House, even if we call him a liberal, a progressive or whatever new term people of his ilk use to hide behind. If it does not improve then...never mind. It will improve.

All worth due examination. As far as your last statement, unions have had the lowest level of membership since the Depression so it could be argued that this is also part of the reason wages have stagnated for so long.

Really? So public sector unions were not made whole for three years out of the so-called stimulus funds?
 
It has nothing to do with long term unemployed people who are not marketable or trainable. That is a simplistic argument. We've lost 60% of mid-wage jobs during the recession and only recovered 22%. We lost about 21% of low wage jobs and now have grown 58% of these low wage jobs in this country. That means less jobs for middle income workers and many more to compete for in the low wage range. That is not people's fault!
You have misunderstood.

This is not correct: " We've lost 60% of mid-wage jobs during the recession and only recovered 22%."

It is not even close. Correct is, "of the job losses 60% were mid wage where the numbers were pulled out of my, er, uh, hat at $28,766 to $43,950 in order to match my agenda."

Over half of the recovery has been for jobs earning less than $28,766. Can we all say thank you to the Marxist? He is creating equality of both opportunity and outcome as all Marxists do, at the low end.
 
Back
Top Bottom