• 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!

Economists React to the December Jobs Report: ‘Very Close to Full Employment’ WSJ

I have idea what yer talking about, and it's probably not worth going over.

>>What was my claim?

You said:



I assume yer saying that a much more restrictive immigration policy would lower the unemployment rate.

>>I was not confused as you say. … I am not offended.

Well, I don't mean to … offend you, but you clearly were confused. You responded to my excerpts from a previous post of yers as if they were my comments.

>>On my part, there is no… "ignoring the idea that immigrant labor provides support to American jobs that wouldn't otherwise exist." Where did you get that from?

Ahh, from yer argument that a more restrictive immigration policy would lower unemployment.


“I assume yer saying that a much more restrictive immigration policy would lower the unemployment rate.”

I’m not saying anything. I’m asking a question. Your assumption is correct in the question. That does not mean it is my position. If that assumption were not in the question, then the wording of the question would have to be such that it would have to be another question.

I didn’t say that a more restrictive immigration policy would lower unemployment. I raised the question of it and asked your input. It was in respect of you your viewpoint. Now diminishing.
 
Real Time Economics - WSJ creation slowed in December but other details pointed to a tightening labor market. The economy added 156,000 jobs last month, while the jobless rate rose slightly to 4.7% as more Americans entered the labor force. Workers’ hourly wages grew 2.9% over the past 12 months, the strongest yearly gain in more than seven years. Here’s how economists and analysts reacted to Friday’s report.

“For the year, the economy averaged job creation of about 180,000 per month—a solid result, but one that represents the slowest pace since 2012. While this is partially reflective of the slowdown in the pace of economic growth, it also reflects a labor market that is increasingly tight. Employers are simply having a harder time filling open positions as the economy nears full employment.“—Jim Baird, Plante Moran Financial Advisors Economists React to the December Jobs Report: ?Very Close to Full Employment? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

If we are at full employment, wages are rising, and the people who have dropped out of the work force still aren't coming back in, does it still make sense to gut our budget with tax cuts for the wealthy to spur job growth, try to balance the trade deficit with tariffs, and spend a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending we will have to borrow when the economy isn't really in need of the boost? I say no. There's a lot of good in Donald Trump's vision. Western universalism is a failed policy. We should start looking out for our own interests first and let go of trying to westernize China, Russia, and Islam. But with Trump's lack of ability to admit when he's wrong and lack of trust in official figures and academic analysis, I don't see how this ends well. It seems like we will have a Fed increasingly trying to counteract ill advised, inflationary moves by Trump.

We'll all know soon enough. I just hope it won't be too hard to correct what the past several years have done to us. :doh:
 
In all fairness, that can't really be blamed on Trump, since he hasn't even taken office yet.

It was in jest. You can't attribute the stock market rise to Trump's election win, and partition it from employment gains following the election. If anything, this is going to be a fun 4 years, provided people don't ban themselves out of the conversations.
 
If the numbers were as good as he and you want to claim Hillary would have won the WH. I voted for Change and am looking forward to it

This is false. Hillary won the popular vote, and lost the E.C. It wasn't as though Trump dominated her... he won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by a combined 107105 votes. In reality, the election numbers are not as good as you want to believe, nor do they support your position.
 
I'm not saying anything. I'm asking a question.

OK. But fwiw, I find that somewhat disingenuous. You asked:

If workers are eliminated, where else have the employers to go for workers?

This leads me to believe that you think more native-born workers would get hired if immigration policy is made more restrictive.

You also asked:

Trump’s immigration policy, doesn't that improve the unemployment rate simply by eliminating the competition

The use of "doesn't" suggests to me that you think we could "improve the unemployment rate simply by eliminating the competition." I would equate "does it not" with "is it not true that."

>>It was in respect of you your viewpoint. Now diminishing.

Oh well.

>>I didn’t say that a more restrictive immigration policy would lower unemployment. I raised the question of it and asked your input.

I'd say the wording of these questions clearly indicates that you believe "a more restrictive immigration policy would lower unemployment." Otoh, it really doesn't much matter, does it? If you wanna say that you do not believe that, or if you simply want to say that you have not expressed a view one way or the other, I have no problem allowing you such latitude.

I just hope it won't be too hard to correct what the past several years have done to us.

What is that those years have "done to us" that concerns you?

this is going to be a fun 4 years

I figure it could turn out to be rather unpleasant.

the election numbers are not as good as you want to believe

Here comes a lesson in civics for ya.
 
Last edited:
Just so i have this straight... you consider the stock market a major metric of economic prosperity?

If so, you must worship the ground Obama walks on.

fredgraph.png


The next four years will be just too easy. :lamo

Feel free to point out the Obama programs that actually improved the economy? The limited economic good news we had over the last 8 years were in spite of not because of Obama.

Low fuel prices are what has kept us afloat over the last few years. But that was from Fracking, Pipelines like Keystone and private land oil drilling. All things Obama opposes.
 
point out the Obama programs that actually improved the economy

CBO says the ARRA added five million jobs and 6.2% to GDP 2010-2013.

The GOP leadership failed to strand up to the Eff Up caucus, making it very difficult for the Negro to get much of what he wanted to do through Congress.
 
CBO says the ARRA added five million jobs and 6.2% to GDP 2010-2013.

The GOP leadership failed to strand up to the Eff Up caucus, making it very difficult for the Negro to get much of what he wanted to do through Congress.

Why the Racism mmi? You just made my point: you cant point to an Obama policy that improved the economy and the GDP was on average the lowest of any president.
 
you cant point to an Obama policy that improved the economy

He gave an example. You've neglected to respond because it negates your false premise.

the GDP was on average the lowest of any president.

The Obama administration inherited the impact of a once in a generation financial crisis. Consider the enormous strain the housing crisis placed on the consumer, and how that impacted long term consumption and investment decisions in the U.S..

fredgraph.png


MW-ES393_forecl_20160725155230_MG.jpg


I will chalk your previous statements in this thread up to innocence of the data. Going forward, you will not receive the same consideration.
 
CBO says the ARRA added five million jobs and 6.2% to GDP 2010-2013.

The GOP leadership failed to strand up to the Eff Up caucus, making it very difficult for the Negro to get much of what he wanted to do through Congress.

The sad, pathetic lament of race-cardist. Sigh.....
Give it up, that sh$t went out in 2008.
 
These jobs reports are complete rubbish.

There's no definition of what a "job" is in relation to the qualifications of the people taking them. There's no accounting for the folks that just drop out of the job market altogether in frustration.

The economy and job market is crap. That's largely why Trump won. Capiche?

What's especially predictable is that liberals will gladly and unashamedly take credit for this recent boom since the election, despite knowing the truth that it's a repudiation of them altogether.

If liberal ways worked, they wouldn't have only 28 percent of the legistlative positions and governorships in the country right now. And falling.
 
These jobs reports are complete rubbish.

There's no definition of what a "job" is in relation to the qualifications of the people taking them.
Because that would be impossible to do. How on earth do you think that could be done?


There's no accounting for the folks that just drop out of the job market altogether in frustration.
Of course there is. As of December, there are approximately 426,000 people who want a job, could have started a job in December if offered, and had looked for a job sometime between December 2015 and early November 2016 but stopped looking because they believed they would be unsuccessful because there was "no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination

The economy and job market is crap. That's largely why Trump won. Capiche?
Please show your evidence.
 
Why the Racism

What racism?

>>you cant point to an Obama policy that improved the economy

I did — the ARRA. What happened that you couldn't read that?

>>the GDP was on average the lowest of any president.

False. As of the end of Q2, he had the same average annual growth rate as 43 — 1.76%. With things picking up in the second half of last year (3.5% in Q3 and the consensus for Q4 now above two percent), he will now edge out Bubba's well-intentioned but misguided successor.

31 out of 96 is not "almost all."

That depends on what kind of math you use.

The sad, pathetic lament of race-cardist.

??

There's no definition of what a "job" is in relation to the qualifications of the people taking them.

What evidence do you have that recent hires are any more overqualified than those in the past? Here's what a business survey in MN found a few months ago:

More than three-fourths of surveyed firms report a "good match" between the education level of their employees and that which is required for their jobs. Very few firms think their workers are overqualified for their jobs, and 16 percent of firms believe their employees are underqualified. (source)​

Let's remember that there's more to employment than yer level of compensation. And as more and more people acquire higher levels of education, the labor market will become increasingly characterised by overqualified workers until the economy can adapt to provide appropriate employment opportunities.

The percentage who had completed an associate’s or higher degree increased from 33 percent in 1995 to 46 percent in 2015. Similarly, the percentage who had completed a bachelor’s or higher degree increased from 25 percent in 1995 to 36 percent in 2015, and the percentage who had completed a master’s or higher degree increased from 5 percent in 1995 to 9 percent in 2015. (source)​

How quickly will the blessed private sector respond to this development? We'll see. And in the meantime, let's hope Frumpy can succeed in the RW effort to eliminate the federal Department of Education. Otherwise, we'll continue to be faced with facts that can easily get in the way of convenient truthiness.

>>There's no accounting for the folks that just drop out of the job market altogether in frustration.

False. Sad that you have such concern for yer fellow Americans while remaining ignorant of the way the labor market is analysed by the gubmint.

>>The economy and job market is crap. That's largely why Trump won. Capiche?

Too many voters don't know what the eff is going on around them. That's why the lying, defrauding Pig got elected. Get it?

>>liberals will gladly and unashamedly take credit for this recent boom since the election

Ya mean the fifteen million full-time, private-sector jobs paying average wages added since Dec 2009?

>>despite knowing the truth that it's a repudiation of them altogether.

It's very important to distinguish between "truthy" and "truth." Try working on that.

>>If liberal ways worked, they wouldn't have only 28 percent of the legistlative positions and governorships in the country right now.

Any source for that statistic? Did ya get it from the lying RW media hate machine? There's no doubt we're in the minority. We'll just continue to work hard to help people get their head out of their ass.
 
Last edited:
I figure it could turn out to be rather unpleasant.

Likely not. Trump isn't a social conservative, and has an economic agenda that translates into years of trillion dollar deficits. If anything, it won't be fun for the people who voted for him, believing he was going to drain the swamp, bring manufacturing jobs back from the developing world, etc....
 
Any source for that statistic? Did ya get it from the lying RW media hate machine? There's no doubt we're in the minority. We'll just continue to work hard to help people get their head out of their ass.

Republicans now dominate state government, with 32 legislatures and 33 governors

Republicans control both chambers in 32 states, including 17 with veto-proof majorities. Those 32 states cover 61 percent of the U.S. population. Democrats, meanwhile, control the legislature in just 13 states, amounting to 28 percent of the country’s population; only four of those chambers have veto-proof majorities.

Plus, 33 Republican governors, 16 Democrats, 1 independent.

And the House, the Senate, and the presidency.

That is a HUGE repudiation of liberalism and Obama.
 
What evidence do you have that immigration lowers wages?

>>It could actually improve GDP per capita

Or that it diminishes per capita GDP?

I saw it first hand. over and over in many different parts of the country.

First fact is they work for cash so they do not have to pay taxes, be licensed, be bonded, be insured, pay unemployment compensation, follow OSHA job and worker safety guidelines, pay workman's compensation, pay minimum wage or overtime to employees or any other requirements legitimate businesses have to follow. They are undermining everything our unions have fought over 100 years for. We might as well get rid of child labor laws as well for these people have no respect for them as well.


This allows them to easily undercut legitimate businesses forcing them to cut wages also, no longer comply with our laws, or go out of business. I have seen this in the roofing industry, landscaping, and even the plumbing and electrical businesses. I turn them in when I can but they just move on to the next city doing substandard work even jeopardizing the safety of the people stupid enough to hire them.

I have been in many different aspects of the construction business my entire life and have seen this first hand so many times it is pathetic. Good hard working citizens forced out of business or who either no longer can make an honest living for an honest days work because of lawless criminals who should not even be in this country. I could give you hundreds if not thousands of first hand examples anytime you want one.
 

The subject was the state of the economy.



These jobs reports are complete rubbish.

There's no definition of what a "job" is in relation to the qualifications of the people taking them. There's no accounting for the folks that just drop out of the job market altogether in frustration.

The economy and job market is crap. That's largely why Trump won. Capiche?

What's especially predictable is that liberals will gladly and unashamedly take credit for this recent boom since the election, despite knowing the truth that it's a repudiation of them altogether.

No, you know what's actually "especially predictable"? That your brand of conservative will deny that evidence exists even while starting at it with eyes wide open, if that evidence happens to contradict their implacable and blind hatred of "teh left". It's especially predictable because it happens every damn time.
 
CBO says the ARRA added five million jobs and 6.2% to GDP 2010-2013.

The GOP leadership failed to strand up to the Eff Up caucus, making it very difficult for the Negro to get much of what he wanted to do through Congress.

Almost a trillion dollars on debt is a lot of spending for those results. Don't you think?
 
Republicans now dominate state government, with 32 legislatures and 33 governors

You said "28 percent of the legistlative positions and governorships." That article refers to "28 percent of the country's population."

Try reading it again.

Republicans control both chambers in 32 states, including 17 with veto-proof majorities. Those 32 states cover 61 percent of the U.S. population. Democrats, meanwhile, control the legislature in just 13 states, amounting to 28 percent of the country’s population; only four of those chambers have veto-proof majorities.​

Notice that 61 and 28 don't total to 100. Eleven percent of the population lives in states where each party controls one chamber. In any event, these are population percentages, not legislative seats.

>>That is a HUGE repudiation of liberalism and Obama.

And yet the Negro has a 56-40 favourability while The Pig is underwater, 44-48, and Clinton won the popular tally by three million votes. Where's the YUGE repudiation?

I saw it first hand. over and over in many different parts of the country. … I could give you hundreds if not thousands of first hand examples anytime you want one.

Enh. I'd say don't bother. Yer anecdotal ramblings aren't worth much of anything.

Almost a trillion dollars on debt is a lot of spending for those results. Don't you think?

The spending was about half that amount — a lot went to tax cuts. And without it, it's hard to say what might have happened. The bleeding was stopped, avoiding a potential decline into a worldwide depression. How much of a deficit should we have run in 1930 to avoid the Great Depression that allowed the Nazis to come to power?
 
You said "28 percent of the legistlative positions and governorships." That article refers to "28 percent of the country's population."

Try reading it again.

Republicans control both chambers in 32 states, including 17 with veto-proof majorities. Those 32 states cover 61 percent of the U.S. population. Democrats, meanwhile, control the legislature in just 13 states, amounting to 28 percent of the country’s population; only four of those chambers have veto-proof majorities.​

Notice that 61 and 28 don't total to 100. Eleven percent of the population lives in states where each party controls one chamber. In any event, these are population percentages, not legislative seats.

>>That is a HUGE repudiation of liberalism and Obama.

And yet the Negro has a 56-40 favourability while The Pig is underwater, 44-48, and Clinton won the popular tally by three million votes. Where's the YUGE repudiation?



Enh. I'd say don't bother. Yer anecdotal ramblings aren't worth much of anything.



The spending was about half that amount — a lot went to tax cuts. And without it, it's hard to say what might have happened. The bleeding was stopped, avoiding a potential decline into a worldwide depression. How much of a deficit should we have run in 1930 to avoid the Great Depression that allowed the Nazis to come to power?

The question is, whether we didn’t continue it too long. We are now faced with a huge debt, large deficits of budget and merchandise trade and a Fed that is still overextended in all its tools.
 
The question is, whether we didn’t continue it too long.

I figure the thing that was continued too long was the GOP Great Wall of Opposition to efforts by the Democrats to get the economy moving faster through smart investments in education, infrastructure, and R&D. The Negro kept spending flat 2010-14 while tax receipts recovered, but economic output has struggled along.

>>We are now faced with a huge debt, large deficits of budget and merchandise trade and a Fed that is still overextended in all its tools.

Well, my thought is that we should stop applying the GOP SSE policies that created all that debt.
 
I figure the thing that was continued too long was the GOP Great Wall of Opposition to efforts by the Democrats to get the economy moving faster through smart investments in education, infrastructure, and R&D. The Negro kept spending flat 2010-14 while tax receipts recovered, but economic output has struggled along.

>>We are now faced with a huge debt, large deficits of budget and merchandise trade and a Fed that is still overextended in all its tools.

Well, my thought is that we should stop applying the GOP SSE policies that created all that debt.

SSE? Which? There are lots of meaning to that acronym
 
OK. But fwiw, I find that somewhat disingenuous. You asked:



This leads me to believe that you think more native-born workers would get hired if immigration policy is made more restrictive.

You also asked:



The use of "doesn't" suggests to me that you think we could "improve the unemployment rate simply by eliminating the competition." I would equate "does it not" with "is it not true that."

>>It was in respect of you your viewpoint. Now diminishing.

Oh well.

>>I didn’t say that a more restrictive immigration policy would lower unemployment. I raised the question of it and asked your input.

I'd say the wording of these questions clearly indicates that you believe "a more restrictive immigration policy would lower unemployment." Otoh, it really doesn't much matter, does it? If you wanna say that you do not believe that, or if you simply want to say that you have not expressed a view one way or the other, I have no problem allowing you such latitude.



What is that those years have "done to us" that concerns you?



I figure it could turn out to be rather unpleasant.



Here comes a lesson in civics for ya.


“OK. But fwiw, I find that somewhat disingenuous.”

You may have found what you were looking for. You look at something long enough, it will become what you’re looking for.

“This leads me to believe that you think more native-born workers would get hired if immigration policy is made more restrictive.”

I was thinking of that possibility, on which I’ve not concluded. I’m still not sure that there would be any significant increase in percentage of native-born workers. Native born workers already make up the greater majority of the lower-paying “less desirable” jobs as it is.

“I'd say the wording of these questions clearly indicates that you believe "a more restrictive immigration policy would lower unemployment." Otoh, it really doesn't much matter, does it? If you wanna say that you do not believe that, or if you simply want to say that you have not expressed a view one way or the other, I have no problem allowing you such latitude.”

For having “no problem” you sure make a big deal out of allowing me the latitude of setting the context of my own speech, while going against your own clear understanding of the matter.
 
SSE? Which? There are lots of meaning to that acronym

Supply-side economics.

For having "no problem" you sure make a big deal out of allowing me the latitude of setting the context of my own speech

Did I make a big deal of anything? I'd say no. Tbh, I feel yer seriously challenged when it comes to expressing yerself coherently. You don't seem to have any idea how yer "speech" will be interpreted by others.
 
Back
Top Bottom