US unemployment lowest in 4 years

Misterveritis said:

Don't do "nothing". Roll back the massive bureaucratic state with its 100,000 regulations, 2.5 million busybody bureaucrats and the ninnies on the Potomic. Stop stealing property from those who created it. Get the government off the backs of the people and the businesses.

Click to expand...

Government is not stealing property. As a matter of fact, they are selling state and city assets to profiteers.

Papa bull said:

Yeah, like I said. The constitution says almost nothing about taxes. There are volumes of tax law, and only one blurb in the constitution about taxes, so someone as clever as you shouldn't be confused about why the details of corporate tax deductions aren't covered in the constitution since NONE of the actual tax law is in the constitution.

Click to expand...

I never stated there were tax laws in the Constitution. I merely brought up the fact that if 'Conservative' didn't think we should have taxes for things not specifically listed in the Constitution, he would have to apply that logic to private business too.

tech30528 said:

I fully expect the administration to take credit for creating millions of new jobs over the next year, and they will. But they are doing it by destroying full time jobs thru Obamacare and opening up lots of part time jobs. My local O'Reilly Auto Parts cut all of their full time positions (except for management) to part time and then hired more people to cover the hours. So now there are 2 full time employees and 30 part timers. Did those who had jobs keep them? Most did, yes, but now they are part time instead of full time. Does the store have more employees? Sure but most need a second job in order to make what they did last month and only 2 have health insurance.

Be careful interpreting the jobs numbers over the next year. Unemployment may appear to be down but so is average income. What we have essentially done was to redistribute work hours. The problem is at the end of the week most people are making less. In some cases that will mean more supplemental government assistance, just as planned. Making everyone more equal by lowering the bar is NOT progress no matter how the numbers are twisted.

Click to expand...

Additionally, the former head of the BLS stated that 97% of job gains in 2013 are part time jobs. That's got to be a record.

rabbitcaebannog said:

I never stated there were tax laws in the Constitution. I merely brought up the fact that if 'Conservative' didn't think we should have taxes for things not specifically listed in the Constitution, he would have to apply that logic to private business too.

Click to expand...

Someone must have hacked your account and posted this, then:

Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
The Constitution says nothing about tax breaks for business either.

Click to expand...

Like I said, that shouldn't be surprising since it says very little about taxes at all.

rabbitcaebannog said:

The irony is the copper mines were about the only thing that held up when the financial crisis took everything else down, so things could have been much worse. And, yes it is very comparable. Without adequate safety nets in place, half the country went into poverty in a very short time until they started to put back into place those safety nets. Lesson of the story is people lost their jobs and they had no where to turn and quickly went into poverty. That would happen here to.

Click to expand...

We have adequate safety nets in place and because we have a very diverse economy and 50 sovereign states there is no comparison between this country and Chile no matter how you want to spin it. Many banks did not want to take TARP loans and that speaks volumes about the real problem in this country, the inability to hold people accountable for poor choices. The fact remains liberalism has created a dependent society where there aren't consequences for failure. You prove that with every post.

pinqy said:

And how do you figure that someone not trying to work is able to work? How could they be working if they're not trying? By your standard, unemployed would include around 80 million adults who don't want a job.

Click to expand...

From dealing with people over my 35 years of business experience. There is a segment of the population that will take whatever they can get and lack the initiative to actually get a job. You seem very naive when it comes to actually dealing with people. You rely on a survey of people that designate them as Discouraged. What you fail to recognize is that survey is easily skewed by the answers people give but the real reality is that there are almost double the number of reported discouraged workers each month under the Obama Administration vs. the Bush Administration

This economic performance is terrible to say the least

Conservative said:

From dealing with people over my 35 years of business experience. ToThere is a segment of the population that will take whatever they can get and lack the initiative to actually get a job.

Click to expand...

And how many of them did you hire? None. How could you have? They weren't available for you to hire, anymore than any other person not trying to work. So when we're measuring people who could be working, you can't count them.

Yu seem very naive when it comes to actually dealing with people. You rely on a survey of people that designate them as Discouraged. What you fail to recognize is that survey is easily skewed by the answers people give

Click to expand...

No, I'm well aware of that. "Have you looked for work? What exactly have you done?" is relatively reliable. "You have not looked for work, would you take one if offered is less reliable. And therefore one of the reasons they're not included as unemployed, but tracked separately.

but the real reality is that there are almost double the number of reported discouraged workers each month under the Obama Administration vs. the Bush Administration

This economic performance is terrible to say the least

Click to expand...

Have I argued otherwise?

pinqy said:

No one has said otherwise. But let's re_examine what I said and you claim is false: "The people aren't available until they try to find work."
Ok, explain how. Person X has not so now anything to find a job since January. How could she have been hired in July?

Click to expand...

But the people ARE available, that is what you don't get, and they actually DO need jobs. Person X COULD have been hired in July IF the economy was creating enough jobs that she felt it was worthwhile to apply. Her apathy is commentary on the job market, not on her willingness to work.

But until they do, can they be hired?

Click to expand...

You fail to see the real issue here. Person X could spend every day reading job ads, but if they never find a job to apply for they don't show up on the U-3 statistics because they don't meet the criteria for "unemployed". It doesn't mean that person X isn't looking.

Not necessarily. Need and desperation aren't factors. Paris Hilton giving up looking for a tv job would make her discouraged.

Click to expand...

What percentage of unemployed people do you think fit your Paris Hilton example versus my example?

You'd win the Nobel Prize if you could figure out how to measure that.

Click to expand...

It's already tracked by BLS.

They're measured. But they're not unemployed.

Click to expand...

They are "marginally attached", meaning they are willing to work, have been actively looking in the last 12 months but didn't meet the "unemployment" criteria (ie. active in the Unemployment system) in 4 weeks. They are included in the U-6 numbers but not in the U-3 and therefore U-6 is a FAR better measure of how many jobs the country needs to create than is U-3.

It's not a qualitative measure...all it's supposed to measure is percent of people who could, in reality, have been working. That it doesn't measure something it's not supposed to isn't a flaw.

Click to expand...

And the "marginally attached" people "could have been working". The fact that U-3 ignores this group of people is why we can celebrate simply because it drops. It's like a refugee camp celebrating that there are fewer people in line for rice while ignoring that many people are too weak to get in line.

Right. But the U3 isn't meant to "measure the pain" it's meant to be an objective measure of the labor market....the U6 is very subjective.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that nobody should use U-3 to trumpet job market improvement? Are you saying that anyone trumpeting the U-3 numbers as a positive sign for the economy are using them wrong? Well, hello. Welcome to my friggin' point!

Wrong question. The analogous question is which one could reach the island.

Click to expand...

No, that is analogous to your silly argument of how U-3 numbers are used. In a round about way you agree with my point that the U-3 numbers are piss poor for tracking the actual pain in the job market, you are just too myopic to see that that is precisely how people try to use the U-3 number. My whole point is that if someone wanted to use a BLS statistic to actually track improvement in the job market then U-6 is a far more appropriate statistic.

pinqy;1062147882]And how many of them did you hire? None. How could you have? They weren't available for you to hire, anymore than any other person not trying to work. So when we're measuring people who could be working, you can't count them.

Click to expand...

You continue to miss the point, discouraged workers are people who have stopped looking for work based upon a survey. How do you know that survey is accurate and the reality is they are actually available for work but stopped looking because of laziness, lack of ambition, or the available funds from the taxpayers to keep food on the table?

No, I'm well aware of that. "Have you looked for work? What exactly have you done?" is relatively reliable. "You have not looked for work, would you take one if offered is less reliable. And therefore one of the reasons they're not included as unemployed, but tracked separately.

Have I argued otherwise?

Click to expand...

Point being that there are record numbers of Discouraged workers under this Administration which affects the unemployment rate and the more discouraged the better the rate looks. Regardless of whether or not people are discouraged or the numbers are being skewed by the Administration it is a serious problem that stems for poor leadership and poor economic policies.

jmotivator said:

But the people ARE available, that is what you don't get, and they actually DO need jobs. Person X COULD have been hired in July IF the economy was creating enough jobs that she felt it was worthwhile to apply. Her apathy is commentary on the job market, not on her willingness to work.

You fail to see the real issue here. Person X could spend every day reading job ads, but if they never find a job to apply for they don't show up on the U-3 statistics because they don't meet the criteria for "unemployed". It doesn't mean that person X isn't looking.

What percentage of unemployed people do you think fit your Paris Hilton example versus my example?

It's already tracked by BLS.

They are "marginally attached", meaning they are willing to work, have been actively looking in the last 12 months but didn't meet the "unemployment" criteria (ie. active in the Unemployment system) in 4 weeks. They are included in the U-6 numbers but not in the U-3 and therefore U-6 is a FAR better measure of how many jobs the country needs to create than is U-3.

And the "marginally attached" people "could have been working". The fact that U-3 ignores this group of people is why we can celebrate simply because it drops. It's like a refugee camp celebrating that there are fewer people in line for rice while ignoring that many people are too weak to get in line.

So you are saying that nobody should use U-3 to trumpet job market improvement? Are you saying that anyone trumpeting the U-3 numbers as a positive sign for the economy are using them wrong? Well, hello. Welcome to my friggin' point!

No, that is analogous to your silly argument of how U-3 numbers are used. In a round about way you agree with my point that the U-3 numbers are piss poor for tracking the actual pain in the job market, you are just too myopic to see that that is precisely how people try to use the U-3 number. My whole point is that if someone wanted to use a BLS statistic to actually track improvement in the job market then U-6 is a far more appropriate statistic.

Click to expand...

At the very LEAST the U-6 is more helpful. Even then it does not track the effects of all potential employees who are not too old, too young, or too disabled to work but for some reason have stated in the latest survey they are not seeking work. Discouraged worker figures only measure ex-job seekers after 12 months of not seeking, then they just drop into the 40 million or so persons the government estimates are "not seeking" work but are able and available for work.

BTW, welcome to the argument for reality, and not the fantasy many economic theorist's and our government want us to buy into.

Papa bull said:

Someone must have hacked your account and posted this, then:



Like I said, that shouldn't be surprising since it says very little about taxes at all.

Click to expand...

No, nobody hacked my account. I stated that to let him know he needs to apply that logic to business too. See above

rabbitcaebannog said:

No, nobody hacked my account. I stated that to let him know he needs to apply that logic to business too. See above

Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand what your taxes fund but more concerning is the fact that you appear to care more about what someone else or some business pays in Federal Income taxes as if we need a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt.

Conservative said:

We have adequate safety nets in place and because we have a very diverse economy and 50 sovereign states there is no comparison between this country and Chile no matter how you want to spin it. Many banks did not want to take TARP loans and that speaks volumes about the real problem in this country, the inability to hold people accountable for poor choices. The fact remains liberalism has created a dependent society where there aren't consequences for failure. You prove that with every post.

Click to expand...

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/19449.pdf

And, you are correct that our safety nets in place are much better than Chile's at the time of the crisis. They had pretty much privatized mostly everything and dismantled most of their safety nets. My concern is we are heading in that directions with warped attitudes.

Conservative said:

You don't seem to understand what your taxes fund but more concerning is the fact that you appear to care more about what someone else or some business pays in Federal Income taxes as if we need a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt.

Click to expand...

Keep changing the subject.:yawn:

rabbitcaebannog said:

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/19449.pdf

And, you are correct that our safety nets in place are much better than Chile's at the time of the crisis. They had pretty much privatized mostly everything and dismantled most of their safety nets. My concern is we are heading in that directions with warped attitudes.

Click to expand...

And my concern is that we are headed in the direction of the European Socialist model where Govt. spending is the largest part of GDP and that is a prescription for disaster.

rabbitcaebannog said:

Keep changing the subject.:yawn:

Click to expand...

You are the one that brought taxes into the discussion.

Conservative said:

And my concern is that we are headed in the direction of the European Socialist model where Govt. spending is the largest part of GDP and that is a prescription for disaster.

Click to expand...

Europe's only problem with it's economy is that in order to shift to whole new policies that dismantle the welfare state, eliminate trade unions and financialize the economy don't fit in with social contracts they so much once valued.... so neoliberal policies are crowding them out. Austerity will pretty much dismantle most of them.

If you have time: The contradictions of

rabbitcaebannog said:

Europe's only problem with it's economy is that in order to shift to whole new policies that dismantle the welfare state, eliminate trade unions and financialize the economy don't fit in with social contracts they so much once valued.... so neoliberal policies are crowding them out. Austerity will pretty much dismantle most of them.

If you have time: The contradictions of

Click to expand...

Austerity always will have a greater impact on countries dependent on govt. spending as the largest part of their GDP. Obama is trying to make that happen here with the growth of the entitlement mentality funded by the govt. through the taxpayers.

Conservative said:

Austerity always will have a greater impact on countries dependent on govt. spending as the largest part of their GDP. Obama is trying to make that happen here with the growth of the entitlement mentality funded by the govt. through the taxpayers.

Click to expand...

It's a false conclusion. Take Sweden and Ireland and compare the two countries. One spends far more on social spending and one far less. Whose economy is in dire straights? Loosening of financial regulations in the global economy was a bad idea. Using this economic meltdown as an excuse to restructure all countries economy is brillant. Only, real solutions are not being implemented in most places. Instead, privatization is taking place on a massive scale while many social contracts are being dismantled. The real issue was deregulations of the banks. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the meltdown didn't happen.

rabbitcaebannog said:

It's a false conclusion. Take Sweden and Ireland and compare the two countries. One spends far more on social spending and one far less. Whose economy is in dire straights? Loosening of financial regulations in the global economy was a bad idea. Using this economic meltdown as an excuse to restructure all countries economy is brillant. Only, real solutions are not being implemented in most places. Instead, privatization is taking place on a massive scale while many social contracts are being dismantled. The real issue was deregulations of the banks. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the meltdown didn't happen.

Click to expand...

Again, that is your opinion all countries dependent on the govt. are eventually going to run out of someone else's money to spend and therein lies the problem. This country is much less dependent on the govt. thus isn't as affected as others when cuts in govt. spending occurs. Oh, yes, you will here the whining from the elite but when 20% of our GDP is govt. spending leaving 80% for the other three components we are going to survive an austerity program.

This country was built on neighbor helping neighbor with that neighbor being the individual not the govt. A strong economy always leads to higher charitable giving and it will be charities not a govt. bureaucracy that provides the safety net for individuals. All social programs should be returned to the states, Medicare and SS should be taken off budget immediately and then we will get a very manageable less intrusive Federal Govt.

Conservative said:

Again, that is your opinion all countries dependent on the govt. are eventually going to run out of someone else's money to spend and therein lies the problem. This country is much less dependent on the govt. thus isn't as affected as others when cuts in govt. spending occurs. Oh, yes, you will here the whining from the elite but when 20% of our GDP is govt. spending leaving 80% for the other three components we are going to survive an austerity program.

This country was built on neighbor helping neighbor with that neighbor being the individual not the govt. A strong economy always leads to higher charitable giving and it will be charities not a govt. bureaucracy that provides the safety net for individuals. All social programs should be returned to the states, Medicare and SS should be taken off budget immediately and then we will get a very manageable less intrusive Federal Govt.

Click to expand...

We've gone full circle because we are back on topic to the OP. We are dependent on jobs. The fact that the trend is toward less middle wage income jobs being available and much more low wage ones is enough for alarm. Until we have better paying jobs in this country many more people will either have to depend on the welfare state to fill in the loss or we can dismantle it and we can just live with a large amount of poverty. The problem hasn't been addressed either way.

rabbitcaebannog said:

We've gone full circle because we are back on topic to the OP. We are dependent on jobs. The fact that the trend is toward less middle wage income jobs being available and much more low wage ones is enough for alarm. Until we have better paying jobs in this country many more people will either have to depend on the welfare state to fill in the loss or we can dismantle it and we can just live with a large amount of poverty. The problem hasn't been addressed either way.

Click to expand...

Do you have a solution? Mine is the free market and less govt. regulations as well as lower taxes creating an atmosphere for strong economic growth which will create demand for employees and that will drive up prices just like demand is driving up prices in North Dakota right now. Cutting the size of the govt. will allow for less spending on debt service and paying down the debt.

rabbitcaebannog said:

We've gone full circle because we are back on topic to the OP. We are dependent on jobs. The fact that the trend is toward less middle wage income jobs being available and much more low wage ones is enough for alarm. Until we have better paying jobs in this country many more people will either have to depend on the welfare state to fill in the loss or we can dismantle it and we can just live with a large amount of poverty. The problem hasn't been addressed either way.

Click to expand...

The problem is being addressed.Give more tif,/government subsidies to the likes of wal-mart and let their employees make JUST enough money to qualify for food stamps.Viola. winger heaven.:2wave:

Donc said:

The problem is being addressed.Give more tif,/government subsidies to the likes of wal-mart and let their employees make JUST enough money to qualify for food stamps.Viola. winger heaven.:2wave:

Click to expand...

Subsidies? Just like a typical liberal who believes that anything a company makes is the property of the govt. You are an example of what this country has become, brainwashed into believing the role of the govt. is to give you what you want. Companies keeping more of what they earned aren't subsidies.

Conservative said:

Do you have a solution? Mine is the free market and less govt. regulations as well as lower taxes creating an atmosphere for strong economic growth which will create demand for employees and that will drive up prices just like demand is driving up prices in North Dakota right now. Cutting the size of the govt. will allow for less spending on debt service and paying down the debt.

Click to expand...

What free market:roll: That word is based on ideology because no true free market exist. Time to look at reality and what we are really dealing with-Looking at Ireland, we see that low taxes did lead to economic growth until the financial bubble burst. They were banking (no pun intended) on growing their economy through financialization. We are a consumer base economy and we should use that to our advantage as far as having those service jobs pay well enough where employees are making a middle income living. I wish we had stronger unions to set a standard of wages in this country but we don't and probably won't with the new anti-union laws going through many states. I suppose we will have to depend on the government to set a standard because big business will not.