• 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!

Employment Situation Report for October

apdst said:
Jobs do nothing for our economy?
Click to expand...

How many permanent jobs does the keystone provide the US as it transports all the Canadian oil to ships taking from our shores?

apdst said:
Offshore drilling at an all time high? Link?
Click to expand...

Oil Companies Go Deep
Defying predictions after BP's huge spill in 2010, offshore drilling has taken off​
 
WallStreetVixen said:
Maybe you should show me that 'wage/productivity disconnect since 1980' chart so I can show you why its wrong.
Click to expand...
No, you go ahead and show your graph to prove you are correct. I'll play the debaser today.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
My beliefs are not relevant to the discussion, unless I make them relevant.
Click to expand...

No chit Sherlock, and you once again prove you are not interested in debate, only debasing contrarianism.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No chit Sherlock, and you once again prove you are not interested in debate, only debasing contrarianism.
Click to expand...

Debates require claims and propositions to support those claims, which is what I have made so far.

I claim that the amount of jobs is not important relative to the type of jobs that are being created. I also assert that average hourly earnings is an important indicator as to the types of jobs the market is creating.

You can either agree or disagree with my assessment. Other than that, I'm not required to divulge my 'beliefs.'
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, you go ahead and show your graph to prove you are correct. I'll play the debaser today.
Click to expand...

fredgraph.png
 
poweRob said:
Yeah I was gonna say... Maybe construction growth compared to this month last year but expecting construction growth to increase in winter over the summer... that's a rough expectation.
Click to expand...

Plans and permits are big now. Last time we get to look at the ground before we finalize the plan. With the exception of some water movement studies in spring, this is where we button the last shots so we can get the plans drawn over the winter. We hope the plans are finalized and reviewed by February, bidded and we can get construction going again in March.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
a graph
Click to expand...
Oh...wages and salaries of all divided by productivity. Uh, doesn't show wage gains of low/mid workers in relation to their productivity, the context of the argument.

Again, not debating in good faith, using stats to hide the issue....a typical day in vixenland.
 
Blue_State said:
Plans and permits are big now. Last time we get to look at the ground before we finalize the plan. With the exception of some water movement studies in spring, this is where we button the last shots so we can get the plans drawn over the winter. We hope the plans are finalized and reviewed by February, bidded and we can get construction going again in March.
Click to expand...

Awesome! Good luck man.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
Debates require claims and propositions to support those claims, which is what I have made so far.

I claim that the amount of jobs is not important relative to the type of jobs that are being created. I also assert that average hourly earnings is an important indicator as to the types of jobs the market is creating.

You can either agree or disagree with my assessment. Other than that, I'm not required to divulge my 'beliefs.'
Click to expand...
No, that is the point, "average" wages and salaries hides whether low/medium wage workers have and are seeing wage gains matching their increased productivity.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh...wages and salaries of all divided by productivity. Uh, doesn't show wage gains of low/mid workers in relation to their productivity, the context of the argument.
Click to expand...

You asked for a chart that tracked wages and productivity. I gave you one. Where exactly did you ask for anything in relation to low/mid wage workers?

Again, not debating in good faith, using stats to hide the issue....a typical day in vixenland.
Click to expand...

What isn't typical is you moving the goalpost when you are proven wrong or about to be.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, that is the point, "average" wages and salaries hides whether low/medium wage workers have and are seeing wage gains matching their increased productivity.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Average Hourly Earnings also takes into account industry and sector earnings, as well as nonsupervisory employees. That already gives you an idea of the types of jobs that are seeing steady income gains, and how that effects average hourly earnings.

And if you are going to look at average hourly earnings, it must take into account all for all wage workers, not just the ones who matter most to you.
 
That makes nine straight months of job growth over 200,000. Over 10 million jobs created since the recession ended.

Gee, if only the Democrats had a broad, winning issue they could have run on. Hmm.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
You asked for a chart that tracked wages and productivity. I gave you one. Where exactly did you ask for anything in relation to low/mid wage workers?What isn't typical is you moving the goalpost when you are proven wrong or about to be.
Click to expand...
Um, the context was low/mid wage workers:

WallStreetVixen said:
But increasing the minimum wage does exactly that. Unless wages above the minimum get an raise (provided that their productivity justifies their income), those jobs become the new minimum wage jobs.
Click to expand...
Gimmesometruth said:
I hate to break it to you, but the productivity-wage gain link was broken back @ 1980.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

WallStreetVixen said:
No, it doesn't. Average Hourly Earnings also takes into account industry and sector earnings, as well as nonsupervisory employees. That already gives you an idea of the types of jobs that are seeing steady income gains, and how that effects average hourly earnings.

And if you are going to look at average hourly earnings, it must take into account all for all wage workers, not just the ones who matter most to you.
Click to expand...
BS, not only is the current context low/mid wage earners and the disconnect between their gains and their productivity, but wage gains since 1980 have been skewed to upper earners. Sure, "average" wages have increased....but not for the workers under discussion. If anyone is moving goal posts, it is the poster who cannot remember what their own context was and wants to discuss all wages.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, the context was low/mid wage workers:
Click to expand...

That is a completely different conversation. The minimum wage has nothing to do with whether or not wages keeps up with productivity. If you wanted productivity/wage gains relative to low wage workers, you should have asked for it.

You didn't, and now you are moving the goalpost in attempt to save face for a bad argument.

BS, not only is the current context low/mid wage earners and the disconnect between their gains and their productivity, but wage gains since 1980 have been skewed to upper earners. Sure, "average" wages have increased....but not for the workers under discussion. If anyone is moving goal posts, it is the poster who cannot remember what their own context was and wants to discuss all wages.
Click to expand...

When you measure productivity relative to wages, you look at all wages. That's not debatable.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
That is a completely different conversation. The minimum wage has nothing to do with whether or not wages keeps up with productivity. If you wanted productivity/wage gains relative to low wage workers, you should have asked for it.You didn't, and now you are moving the goalpost in attempt to save face for a bad argument.
Click to expand...
No dear, it is the same conversation, it lead to you trying to show that wages have kept pace with productivity for low/mid workers. Again, you can't keep the context in mind in any debate we have, it is a recurring issue for you.





When you measure productivity relative to wages, you look at all wages. That's not debatable.
Click to expand...
You look at wages for the groups under discussion, not averages that have been skewed by top wages. You want to discuss an average wage, not a median worker's wage.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No dear, it is the same conversation, it lead to you trying to show that wages have kept pace with productivity for low/mid workers. Again, you can't keep the context in mind in any debate we have, it is a recurring issue for you.
Click to expand...

If you wanted statistics about mid/low wage workers, you should have asked for it. It is really not my fault you can't convey your thoughts in a coherent manner. You should really be more accountable for the words that you write.

You look at wages for the groups under discussion, not averages that have been skewed by top wages. You want to discuss an average wage, not a median worker's wage.
Click to expand...

Average hourly earnings is a measure of the typical worker's income, not the top or mid/low income worker. That is also not debatable. This is important because this reflects the types of jobs being created, within the economy and within each industry.
 
apdst said:
Well, so far, nothing the Liberals have done has worked. How do you explain the failure of the Liberal agenda to encourage economic growth?
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. Would you rather have taken Europe's path where austerity has caused a double dip recession and continued double digit unemployment? Sometimes I believe you do. Recession are Republicans biggest "contribution" to the economy and you are jealous of the job conservatives have done there.

the recession began on President George W. Bush's watch, and it was a consequence of the sort of lax financial regulation that Republicans (including the Reagan-appointed Fed chief, Alan Greenspan) promoted for years and, amazingly, still promoted. Some Democrats deserve blame, too--notably the Clinton-era treasury secretaries Larry Summers and Robert Rubin. But it was Republicans who pushed deregulation hardest, and who most fervently resisted extending regulatory governance to newly-evolving corners of finance. (This latter strategy, which the political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson call "drift," has been crucial in reducing regulation generally, because in Washington it is always easier to prevent something from happening than it is to create new policy.)
Click to expand...

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/104068/republican-recession
 
Last edited:
WallStreetVixen said:
If you wanted statistics about mid/low wage workers, you should have asked for it.It is really not my fault you can't convey your thoughts in a coherent manner. You should really be more accountable for the words that you write.
Click to expand...
Shifting the burden once again, I'm supposed to ask you to keep the debate within its context. Forget that, it is up to you keep the debate within the context....and guess what...I AM TELLING YOU TO DO SO.



Average hourly earnings is a measure of the typical worker's income, not the top or mid/low income worker.
Click to expand...
No, the typical worker would be the median of the population.
That is also not debatable.
Click to expand...
I have proven it is.
This is important because this reflects the types of jobs being created, within the economy and within each industry.
Click to expand...
Except that....you have already conceded that the jobs being created currently are not "average wage" jobs...that is unless your argument is so deluded to believe that new employment is paying @ $24.00 per hr.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Shifting the burden once again, I'm supposed to ask you to keep the debate within its context. Forget that, it is up to you keep the debate within the context....and guess what...I AM TELLING YOU TO DO SO.
Click to expand...

No one asked me to show anything regarding mid or low wage workers. As far as I'm concerned, the debate is in context. If you wanted that information, ask for it.

No, the typical worker would be the median of the population.
Click to expand...

How would the typical be the median? The median just means that half of a data sample is higher and the other half is lower. The average takes all numbers in the data set and divides it. That provides a closer representation of what the typical person is actually like. That is why it is called the 'average.'

I have proven it is.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't. The rest of us (economist, financial analyst and basically anyone with any economic understand) understand that average hourly earnings is benchmarked to wages, and is what we look at when determining the health of the labour market.

I'm sorry, but we're not going to dumb down the data just so people like you will have an easier time understanding it. Just because you can't understand the data doesn't mean that the date is wrong.

Except that....you have already conceded that the jobs being created currently are not "average wage" jobs...that is unless your argument is so deluded to believe that new employment is paying @ $24.00 per hr.
Click to expand...

That is why you look at earnings growth, you rather incompetent individual. That is what I did on my very first post in this discussion.

WallStreetVixen said:
Average hourly earnings: +0.03
Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees: +0.04
Annualised Growth: 2%
Click to expand...

I would really explain what this means if I honestly thought you were capable of understanding it.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
No one asked me to show anything regarding mid or low wage workers. As far as I'm concerned, the debate is in context. If you wanted that information, ask for it.
Click to expand...
Again, the context is low/mid workers, you began this portion of the debate discussing them, I responded, the burden is upon you to show that these workers wages have indeed kept up with productivity. I have even allowed the argument to shift to median wage after your objections to min wage. You refuse to support your contention that low/mid or median workers wages have kept pace with productivity gains.



How would the typical be the median?
Click to expand...
Really? The median wage earner, in the middle of that population group, would not be "typical"? How would they not?



No, you haven't. The rest of us (economist, financial analyst and basically anyone with any economic understand) understand that average hourly earnings is benchmarked to wages, and is what we look at when determining the health of the labour market.
Click to expand...
Except that again, the context you laid out was not of "average wages/salaries", but of low/mid wage workers. You were discussing them....now you don't want to.

I'm sorry, but we're not going to dumb down the data just so people like you will have an easier time understanding it. Just because you can't understand the data doesn't mean that the date is wrong.
Click to expand...
I believe dumbing it down is to talk about "average wages" when most of the population or the population of workers you originally mentioned....is not making an "average wage". It is your usual statistical sleight of hand.



That is why you look at earnings growth, you rather incompetent individual. That is what I did on my very first post in this discussion.
Click to expand...
We are not debating your first post, we are debating posts #32/37.



I would really explain what this means if I honestly thought you were capable of understanding it.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you are looking for any means to avoid the failure of defending #32/#37
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, the context is low/mid workers, you began this portion of the debate discussing them, I responded, the burden is upon you to show that these workers wages have indeed kept up with productivity. I have even allowed the argument to shift to median wage after your objections to min wage. You refuse to support your contention that low/mid or median workers wages have kept pace with productivity gains.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Gimmesometruth said:
Yes, really....and anytime you want to show that since 1980 wages have tracked productivity...by all means...do so.
Click to expand...

I don't see where mid or low wage workers were involved in that statement.

Really? The median wage earner, in the middle of that population group, would not be "typical"? How would they not?
Click to expand...

Did you attend public school? That is a real question, because I find it difficult to believe that someone doesn't understand something as basic as this.

The median wage earner is not the typical wage earner. It's the wage earner where half of the population makes more and less than that person. Average is the method of selecting a "typical" value for data, meaning it takes into account ALL wage earners income, and divide that by the number of workers in the economy. The median income earner doesn't capture the typical income earner. That's really basic.

Except that again, the context you laid out was not of "average wages/salaries", but of low/mid wage workers. You were discussing them....now you don't want to.
Click to expand...

I didn't lay out anything. From the beginning, I have always mentioned average hourly earnings.

I believe dumbing it down is to talk about "average wages" when most of the population or the population of workers you originally mentioned....is not making an "average wage". It is your usual statistical sleight of hand.
Click to expand...

Calculating the average wages is not meant to reflect what most people are making. It reflects the typical. Basic arithmetic should be able to tell you why.

We are not debating your first post, we are debating posts #32/37.
Click to expand...

You're debating that post. Not me. You asked a question and I answered it. It's really not my fault you don't like the answer.

I'm sure you are looking for any means to avoid the failure of defending #32/#37
Click to expand...

You wanted to know how wages have tracked productivity gains, and I showed you. Again, it really isn't my fault you don't like the answer.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
How many permanent jobs does the keystone provide the US as it transports all the Canadian oil to ships taking from our shores?



Oil Companies Go Deep
Defying predictions after BP's huge spill in 2010, offshore drilling has taken off​
Click to expand...

1) How many permanent jobs do roads a bridges create? Seems to me, any job is a good job.

2) Do you have a link I don't have to subscribe to, to read?
 
iguanaman said:
That's your opinion. Would you rather have taken Europe's path where austerity has caused a double dip recession and continued double digit unemployment? Sometimes I believe you do. Recession are Republicans biggest "contribution" to the economy and you are jealous of the job conservatives have done there.



The Republican Recession | New Republic
Click to expand...

It was the Dems that forced the community reinvestment act onto the country and the recession happened on the Demcrats's watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom