• 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!

WAL-MART CEO: Things Aren't Getting Better For America's Middle Class

JasperL said:
I agree, but the last big changes were in the early 1990s, Greenspan/Clinton.
Click to expand...
Agreed.



I figured - this kind of thing is a ZH special. Been seeing it for years, which is why I now ignore them on employment reports. Calculated Risk does a good job analysing the reports each month, and he has no partisan bias that I can see.

And I could follow your numbers fine - A-8 and A-9. My point was those figures make no sense. From Feb to May, part time workers went all the way from 27,330 to 27,219 (minus 111 thousand, over 3 months, almost no monthly change). Then from May to June, went from 27,219 to 28,018 (up 799k in one month). We can't know what the actual numbers are, but that's just not a believable series. Finally, almost all that change is due to part time for NONeconomic reasons - 840k more WANTED to work part time in June versus May.

So it's noise. Whether the numbers were too low for the past few months, this month's numbers have some weird flaw, something is distorting the month to month comparison, which is why the short term variations are often not much use. If the number stays high next month, and in August, we have a trend. For now, who the heck knows....
Click to expand...

I agree that the numbers are weird.

But I am only using them since the masses, government, media use them (BLS numbers).

So when the headline reads 288,000 new jobs (using the non-household survey numbers) and 'isn't it wonderful?'...then I have to use the same source to point out that no, the numbers are not 'wonderful'.
 
DA60 said:
Agreed.

I agree that the numbers are weird.

But I am only using them since the masses, government, media use them (BLS numbers).

So when the headline reads 288,000 new jobs (using the non-household survey numbers) and 'isn't it wonderful?'...then I have to use the same source to point out that no, the numbers are not 'wonderful'.
Click to expand...

We basically agree. My gripe with ZH is, for example, for April 2014, there were per the Household Survey +412 new jobs, and -398k part timers, so net new full time jobs was +810. I briefly looked and saw this noted nowhere at ZH - their stories on the report only mentioned that involuntary part time was 'little changed.' But when the part timers increase, well THAT needs to be shouted from the rooftops, because that fits their BLS is garbage, Obama sux, sky is falling, day to day outlook.

And it's too bad. Paul Craig Roberts had something published in ZH that pointed out the June 800k new part timers, and I agree with a lot of his message, especially about 'free trade' and the collapse of our economic core, but when it's buried in a bunch of crap about the jobs report that I know is crap, and is so easily proved crap by the BLS report itself, he undermines his message. Roberts blames the increase in part timers on employer firing full time workers, but the increase is nearly all in VOLUNTARY part timers, which he doesn't mention.

Anyway that's my problem, but I'm not defending the people who only look at U-3. What one CAN do and what Calculated Risk does, is go into the details but without a bias that you know going in means ZH and who they put on the front page will put the most negative possible spin on the report. In my experience, if CR says it's a good report, it's a good report. Where the numbers look squishy or unreal, he says so. If not, he doesn't search for something. If it's bad, he says the report is bad, and why.
 
JasperL said:
We basically agree. My gripe with ZH is, for example, for April 2014, there were per the Household Survey +412 new jobs, and -398k part timers, so net new full time jobs was +810. I briefly looked and saw this noted nowhere at ZH - their stories on the report only mentioned that involuntary part time was 'little changed.' But when the part timers increase, well THAT needs to be shouted from the rooftops, because that fits their BLS is garbage, Obama sux, sky is falling, day to day outlook.

And it's too bad. Paul Craig Roberts had something published in ZH that pointed out the June 800k new part timers, and I agree with a lot of his message, especially about 'free trade' and the collapse of our economic core, but when it's buried in a bunch of crap about the jobs report that I know is crap, and is so easily proved crap by the BLS report itself, he undermines his message. Roberts blames the increase in part timers on employer firing full time workers, but the increase is nearly all in VOLUNTARY part timers, which he doesn't mention.

Anyway that's my problem, but I'm not defending the people who only look at U-3. What one CAN do and what Calculated Risk does, is go into the details but without a bias that you know going in means ZH and who they put on the front page will put the most negative possible spin on the report. In my experience, if CR says it's a good report, it's a good report. Where the numbers look squishy or unreal, he says so. If not, he doesn't search for something. If it's bad, he says the report is bad, and why.
Click to expand...

ZH is clearly VERY biased.

However, I find their stats are usually accurate - their other information or interpretations sometimes not so much.

Plus, they often report things that major media sources do not - the 799K/523K thingy is a great example.


As an initial source of under-the-radar information, I think they are great...one should always double check what they say though and take their conclusions with a huge grain of salt.
 
poweRob said:
I'd personally like to thank walk marts CEO for suppressing the economic recovery because instead of spending money on infrastructure and creating more jobs, we are instead all forced to pay for his employees food stamps and other subsidies because they pay their employees so poorly.
Click to expand...

Complete Bull ****!

1. Walmart's CEO personally has less to do with suppressing the so called recovery than America's CEO does.

2. It is not up to a business CEO's to "spend money on infrastructure" That is done through taxes, and fees, which Walmart pays...

3. Walmart is the largest employer in the United States. I'd say they've created jobs.

4. Poor salaries, Walmart offers a job at a salary. That doesn't mean you have to work for that. My son works for Walmart (as a second job, he also works for FedEx) at that Walmart job he makes $11.72 per hour...plenty fair wage for what he does.

Progressives have some awfully strange ideas about what corporate responsibility should be in this country.
 
DA60 said:
ZH is clearly VERY biased.

However, I find their stats are usually accurate - their other information or interpretations sometimes not so much.

Plus, they often report things that major media sources do not - the 799K/523K thingy is a great example.

As an initial source of under-the-radar information, I think they are great...one should always double check what they say though and take their conclusions with a huge grain of salt.
Click to expand...

I follow them on Twitter, have them bookmarked and read them for a contrary opinion on things, and for their sometimes very interesting insights on trading etc. That's what they are good at.

I can tell you with certainty they don't know squat about the BLS, how data works, how sampling works, and on the jobs reports are frequently just making crap up that is just not correct or is misleading to the point of being false. Just as one example, if they mention the birth/death adjustments, ignore. They don't understand it, how it's calculated, and don't seem to grasp that the data has a KNOWN error - the birth/deaths of companies not in the sample because by definition they can't BE in the sample. So to correct his KNOWN error, the gearheads estimate that error, and that estimate is the B/D adjustments. Well, they pretend it's just a phantom number, made up to make the data look pretty, but that's just not true. Sure, it's an estimate, but I prefer a gearhead's estimate to my own ignorant guess, and prefer an estimate based on their considerable expertise than accepting a known error in the data that will nearly always in an expanding economy understate jobs created, and then that gets corrected in one BIG adjustment in April or whenever for the previous year. Spreading it out over 12 months improves the value of the information. But they won't EVER admit it, it seems....

Anyway, I generally like their stuff, or at least find it interesting, except their employment 'analysis.' Just my opinion....
 
j-mac said:
Complete Bull ****!

1. Walmart's CEO personally has less to do with suppressing the so called recovery than America's CEO does.

2. It is not up to a business CEO's to "spend money on infrastructure" That is done through taxes, and fees, which Walmart pays...

3. Walmart is the largest employer in the United States. I'd say they've created jobs.

4. Poor salaries, Walmart offers a job at a salary. That doesn't mean you have to work for that. My son works for Walmart (as a second job, he also works for FedEx) at that Walmart job he makes $11.72 per hour...plenty fair wage for what he does.

Progressives have some awfully strange ideas about what corporate responsibility should be in this country.
Click to expand...

Progressives do? lol

Here you are defending a company whose designed a business model that leans heavily on having their employees need food stamps and medicaid. That's the kind of jobs you seem to be cheering for... yeah... it's not progressives with the strange ideas on corporate responsibility. At least we want corporations to take some responsibility instead of pushing off for their business models expenses on the taxpayer.
 
DA60 said:
I don't think the government is lying (they are too smart for that)...but I think they are knowingly tabulating and presenting the numbers (both the CPI and the U-3) in a way that provides a greatly distorted view of the reality on Main Street.

The CPI as an inflation indicator is a joke....it is at best an inflation/cost-of-living hybrid.

And the unemployment rate is falling because people are leaving the workforce...period.

Just look at last month...288,000 jobs created.
But look at the household survey numbers and you see that 799K part time jobs were created but 523K full time jobs were lost for a net loss in total hours worked. So it was a negative report but is reported as a good one.

The U-3 is the same...it's a joke because it ignores discouraged workers.

I ignore the headline numbers and the major media reports (they are clueless, IMO) and read the fine print...that is where the story is.


It seems clear to me that this is a Mercedes/McDonald's recovery - with little in between; the Fed is indirectly pumping up the stock markets (GREATLY helping the rich) and gov't./Fed programs are causing rises in crappy jobs for a reduction in solid jobs (quantity over quality).

So the rich get richer and the economy looks decent because the U-3 does not count discouraged workers AND part time jobs are counted equal to full time jobs.

And the masses/media are too naive and/or too ignorant and/or too partisan to notice.
Click to expand...

Of course the government is lying. It is surprising that you would think anything different. How many examples of dishonesty and corruption does one need?
 
iacardsfan said:
It is not the role of the government to "recover" the economy...
Click to expand...

Says who?

I figure the role of the government is to do and be whatever those who are in power desire it to be. If it is a dictator who desires to behead people, then that's it's roll. If it is a democracy or representitive democracy operating under a constitutional framework (a republic), then it's the roll of government to do whatever the representatives of the people desire it to be.

You sound like you are reading from a book entitled "The Roll of Government Checklist".
 
joG said:
Not necessarily. If the US structures to be more competitive it would gain.
Click to expand...

I personally don't desire an America that pays third world wages.
 
Things aren't getting better for America's middle class.
Water is wet.
It's generally colder in the winter than in the summer.

Some things are obvious and indisputable, perhaps even self evident.

And the role of the government is outlined in the Declaration of Independence "It is for the preservation of these rights that governments are instituted among men...."

Not to guarantee a living wage for everyone.

Now let's see... the solution to this problem is, what then?
 
Ray410 said:
Of course the government is lying. It is surprising that you would think anything different. How many examples of dishonesty and corruption does one need?
Click to expand...

I don't think the BLS is lying...why should they?

All they have to do is legally skew the numbers so they make their bosses happy.

Why risk legal problems when you don't have to?


You wanna think otherwise, go ahead.
 
imagep said:
I personally don't desire an America that pays third world wages.
Click to expand...

Oh. You would prefer our low-skill low-education workforce remain unemployed?


The issue is not how low wages can go but whether or not and how high people can climb.
 
DA60 said:
I don't think the BLS is lying...why should they?

All they have to do is legally skew the numbers so they make their bosses happy.

Why risk legal problems when you don't have to?


You wanna think otherwise, go ahead.
Click to expand...

Failure to present an entire truth is....LYING. "Legally skew numbers so they make their bosses happy" Lying is lying.

Do you understand that the written law was never intended to define standards of morality? The written law only sets out a level below which your behavior may not fall or you will be punished. BIG difference, but very important for moral and honorable people to understand.

It's important to try not to get too cute. People lose respect for you.
 
**** Walmart's CEO. I don't care what he says. He can blow me.
 
Ray410 said:
Failure to present an entire truth is....LYING. "Legally skew numbers so they make their bosses happy" Lying is lying.

Do you understand that the written law was never intended to define standards of morality? The written law only sets out standards below which your behavior may not fall or you will be punished. BIG difference, but very important for moral and honorable people to understand.

It's important to try not to get too cute.
Click to expand...

Fine, so when you get proof, call the media...power to you.

Until then, I don't much care.


Good day.
 
imagep said:
I personally don't desire an America that pays third world wages.
Click to expand...

Then don't drive a BMW nor t-shirts made outside the usa.
 
poweRob said:
Progressives do? lol

Here you are defending a company whose designed a business model that leans heavily on having their employees need food stamps and medicaid. That's the kind of jobs you seem to be cheering for... yeah... it's not progressives with the strange ideas on corporate responsibility. At least we want corporations to take some responsibility instead of pushing off for their business models expenses on the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

More BS Rob...

1. Progressives would love nothing more than to see Walmart close its doors. Which would ensure that ALL their employees instantly become welfare recipients.

2. "Cheering for"? If you mean that I support a company that gives people a start in the job market by offering employment vs. having them stay on welfare generationally speaking, then yes, I suppose you could say that.

As I said earlier in the thread, I have a son that works for Walmart, and has for sometime now. It's a second job now, so the pay is not his sole source of income, but he likes the people he works with, and makes nearly $12 per hour.

Walmart's model, much like McDonald's, or Grocery stores, or any number of entry level jobs were never designed to offer career employment to everyone it hires. They are ENTRY level jobs meant for teens to get some job experience, learn how to work before they hit their career path.

Not to mention Walmart is offering America more financial aid through their pricing of goods, than Obama has done. Obama is actually causing prices in this country to rise through regulation that squeezes business out.

Energy is one sector of this, Transportation another.

So, your left wing meme makes for a nice political sound bite, but it is complete Bull, and you know it.
 
imagep said:
I personally don't desire an America that pays third world wages.
Click to expand...

More BS rhetoric....I swear, you progressives are just all about the bumper sticker slogans aren't you? Get a clue dude.
 
j-mac said:
More BS rhetoric....I swear, you progressives are just all about the bumper sticker slogans aren't you? Get a clue dude.
Click to expand...

C'mon

Hope and Change

Yes We Can

Those didn't inspire you?

The fact is that there are two kinds of people in the world.

Those that sit around and bitch all day long, waiting for someone else to take care of them and those that see the world for what it is and make the necessary adaptations to maximize their own welfare and happiness.
 
imagep said:
Says who?

I figure the role of the government is to do and be whatever those who are in power desire it to be. If it is a dictator who desires to behead people, then that's it's roll. If it is a democracy or representitive democracy operating under a constitutional framework (a republic), then it's the roll of government to do whatever the representatives of the people desire it to be.

You sound like you are reading from a book entitled "The Roll of Government Checklist".
Click to expand...
Says the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does Congress or the President get the power to recover the economy? They don't. We are a nation that is supposed to be governed by this sacred document, and yet we trample on it over and over again.
 
DB20 said:
C'mon

Hope and Change

Yes We Can

Those didn't inspire you?

The fact is that there are two kinds of people in the world.

Those that sit around and bitch all day long, waiting for someone else to take care of them and those that see the world for what it is and make the necessary adaptations to maximize their own welfare and happiness.
Click to expand...


Sheese! Ain't that the truth....
 
iacardsfan said:
Says the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does Congress or the President get the power to recover the economy? They don't. We are a nation that is supposed to be governed by this sacred document, and yet we trample on it over and over again.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for making that point about the illusion advanced by the media and politicians in this country for so long, that the President's job is to somehow control the economy. So much malarkey, but the average American buys into it because they've been told that for so many years now.

The President's job is clearly described in Article II of the Constitution, and nowhere in there does it say a word about controlling or regulating the economy. His job is to see that the laws of the country are faithfully enforced, and a few other specified duties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom