• 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

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

First hand accounts are the best source of information. I have a few illegals right here locally that I intend to follow and send the plumbing inspector over to pay a visit to. It won't stop them from doing substandard work and undercutting legitimate contractors but it will move them down the road to the next town or city. Unfortunately our government doesn't care about the citizens in this country or when I turn them in they would remove these cancers from our country. Of course that would require our government to do their job. Good luck with that.
 
Supply-side economics.



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.


If your "no problem" reply was so, then why make a point of it? By any measure, an unnecessary statement by it's own point. Argue the points of the subject at hand. Go ahead and granulate. You are straying from a subject where we are most likely in greatest agreement. and argue for what, I don't know. Come back to the questions at hand. I really don't think there is much argument there.
 
If your "no problem" reply was so, then why make a point of it?

A point? So unless something is a problem, it doesn't make sense to comment on it? And when I do comment on it, I'm somehow making a "big deal" out of it?

>>By any measure, an unnecessary statement by it's own point.

"By its own point"? I don't know what you mean, but I assume yer continuing this nonsense about me somehow overreacting to yer rather strangely worded enquiries where you ask, "Isn't x true?" and "Doesn't y indicate z?," and then say you haven't expressed any belief in x or z.

>>Argue the points of the subject at hand.

I have. I've asked for evidence that immigration increases unemployment and/or lowers wages.

>>Go ahead and granulate.

What does that mean here? Yer not suggesting that I should go all to pieces, are you? ☺

>>You are straying from a subject where we are most likely in greatest agreement.

So do you agree that there doesn't seem to be any evidence indicating that immigration increases unemployment and/or lowers wages?

>>and argue for what, I don't know.

Oh, I argue in my sleep. I argue with myself all the time, and I see to it that I always win! :cool:

>>Come back to the questions at hand.

It seems to me we got sidetracked when you started asking why I was assuming you have views that logically follow from statements you made.

>>I really don't think there is much argument there.

Sounds good.

Not on an anonymous online debate forum.

I've posted my name, but I suppose no one's interested in my wonderful collection of anecdotal evidence. E.g., did you know that coonhounds are God's greatest creation and that life is really just one &^^%#$^&* after another?
 
Last edited:
At times, but it depends on the source.

When you see it first hand and you know the people whose livelihood was destroyed by these criminals you start to realize how dangerous these criminals really are. I was lucky to work in the plumbing business that requires a licensed professional. I take my hat off to the inspectors in Texas who did care and shut down jobs being bootlegged by these illegal aliens. They had the electric, gas, and water meters pulled until permits were obtained by licensed, insured, and bonded professionals.

If you went behind these bootleggers and seen the potentially deadly situations they created because they have no idea what they are doing you would want them imprisoned.
 
Not on an anonymous online debate forum.

I can give my first hand accounts and let everyone make up their mind what they believe. These illegals are a menace and a serious danger to everyone they work for. Trust me they are not licensed and do not know what they are doing. Protect yourself and always ask for a license and make sure a permit is pulled for any major work. Otherwise you may not wake up one day thanks to substandard construction which does kill people every day. These illegal aliens are notorious for not following the codes. Most don't even know the codes.
 
I can give my first hand accounts and let everyone make up their mind what they believe.

People will believe what they want to believe. Some random guy on the internet making claims isn't a valid argument that will sway an intelligent and objective individual.

These illegals are a menace and a serious danger to everyone they work for.

Uh huh.

Trust me they are not licensed and do not know what they are doing.

Uh huh.

Protect yourself and always ask for a license and make sure a permit is pulled for any major work. Otherwise you may not wake up one day thanks to substandard construction which does kill people every day. These illegal aliens are notorious for not following the codes. Most don't even know the codes.

Cutting corners is not exclusive to foreign labor, illegal or not. This sensationalist nonsense won't fly here.
 
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.



That depends on what kind of math you use.



??



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.

In the past (pre Obama) 6% or lower unemployment meant everyone who wanted a job had one or was short term between jobs.

Not even Obama himself claims that to be true today. The millions of Americans unemployed so long they have given up looking and are no longer counted is the biggest single reason for today’s 4some% U3 unemployment.

The fact is the American worker has done nothing but suffer because of Obama.

Obamacare turning single full time jobs into mulit part time jobs is not job creation.
 
In the past (pre Obama) 6% or lower unemployment meant everyone who wanted a job had one or was short term between jobs.
The number has never been agreed. And just wanting a job without doing anything about it has never been part of the equation. There are 159,640,000 people doing something about work. 7,529,000 are unsuccessful.

The millions of Americans unemployed so long they have given up looking and are no longer counted is the biggest single reason for today’s 4some% U3 unemployment.
Millions? Can you provide any evidence at all that there are millions who specifically "gave up" looking (as opposed to never having looked, stopped looking for some other reason, or are unable to work)? 94% of those not working and not looking for work don't want a job. https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm


Obamacare turning single full time jobs into mulit part time jobs is not job creation.

The number of people working multiple part time jobs has gone up by 255,000 since Obamacare was enacted in March 2010. Full time employment has gone up 13,086,000 since then.
 
A point? So unless something is a problem, it doesn't make sense to comment on it? And when I do comment on it, I'm somehow making a "big deal" out of it?

>>By any measure, an unnecessary statement by it's own point.

"By its own point"? I don't know what you mean, but I assume yer continuing this nonsense about me somehow overreacting to yer rather strangely worded enquiries where you ask, "Isn't x true?" and "Doesn't y indicate z?," and then say you haven't expressed any belief in x or z.

>>Argue the points of the subject at hand.

I have. I've asked for evidence that immigration increases unemployment and/or lowers wages.

>>Go ahead and granulate.

What does that mean here? Yer not suggesting that I should go all to pieces, are you? ☺

>>You are straying from a subject where we are most likely in greatest agreement.

So do you agree that there doesn't seem to be any evidence indicating that immigration increases unemployment and/or lowers wages?

>>and argue for what, I don't know.

Oh, I argue in my sleep. I argue with myself all the time, and I see to it that I always win! :cool:

>>Come back to the questions at hand.

It seems to me we got sidetracked when you started asking why I was assuming you have views that logically follow from statements you made.

>>I really don't think there is much argument there.

Sounds good.



I've posted my name, but I suppose no one's interested in my wonderful collection of anecdotal evidence. E.g., did you know that coonhounds are God's greatest creation and that life is really just one &^^%#$^&* after another?


“A point? So unless something is a problem, it doesn't make sense to comment on it?”

No.

“ And when I do comment on it, I'm somehow making a "big deal" out of it?”

In this case, relatively speaking, yes.

“"By its own point"? I don't know what you mean, but I assume yer continuing this nonsense about me somehow overreacting to yer rather strangely worded enquiries where you ask, "Isn't x true?" and "Doesn't y indicate z?," and then say you haven't expressed any belief in x or z.”

If I said “Wouldn’t eating less beef reduce carbon emissions?” That does not mean I have taken the position that less beef consumption would mean fewer cattle grown means fewer cow farts and thus less carbon emission. Supreme Court Justice often ask such questions where for one to conclude it gives away their opinion would be a misread. Just because I ask, "Isn't x true?" and "Doesn't y indicate z?," does NOT mean I have given my belief one way or the other in x or z. I’m asking questions to gain more information to form my opinion and make a decision on same. Do you often go around telling people what they think then say they’re wrong when they disagree?

“>> Argue the points of the subject at hand.

“I have. I've asked for evidence that immigration increases unemployment and/or lowers wages.”
Indeed. And, in this case, I agreed with you.

>> Go ahead and granulate.

“What does that mean here? Yer not suggesting that I should go all to pieces, are you? ☺”

No, Smiley, not at all. It just means go ahead and be as granular as you like, if that serves for better debate/discussion.

>> You are straying from a subject where we are most likely in greatest agreement.

“So do you agree that there doesn't seem to be any evidence indicating that immigration increases unemployment and/or lowers wages?”

You know, I could be missing something here, but I thought I already agreed with you on this. More so than doesn’t “seem”, there just is no evidence known. Unemployment went up regardless of immigration. When unemployment started to go down, immigration was still on the way up until recently. Even with our nearing “full employment”, immigration is still on its way down and doesn’t even have any “common sense” 1 + 1 logic that immigration will cause any increase in unemployment.

>> and argue for what, I don't know.

“Oh, I argue in my sleep. I argue with myself all the time, and I see to it that I always win! ”

Yup. I love playing Devil’s Advocate.

>> Come back to the questions at hand.

“It seems to me we got sidetracked when you started asking why I was assuming you have views that logically follow from statements you made.”

I agree. However, I’m not going to let go of when I am told what I’m thinking and said to be wrong when I disagree. Regardless of spin, there is no interpretation of what I posed that can be conclusively said is my opinion of the matter. I’m asking questions for more information that may have bearing on my decision of what my opinion will be.

>> I really don't think there is much argument there.

“Sounds good.”

Yup.
 
The millions of Americans unemployed so long they have given up looking and are no longer counted is the biggest single reason for today’s 4some% U3 unemployment.
Yeah, not so much.

The "shadow economy" - workers who want a job, but have quit actively looking for one -- is actually a small percentage of the people who have quit the labor force. Most people who left the workforce retired, or are spending more time in school, or are taking care of a family member.

Capture.jpg


The fact is the American worker has done nothing but suffer because of Obama.
Yeah, not so much. Or, y'know, not at all.

The recession was relatively mild for everyone who had a college education. It was bad for those who only had a high school education, and a disaster for those who did not finish high school:

chartofweek_080114.png



Obamacare turning single full time jobs into mulit part time jobs is not job creation.
Yeah, thing is? That didn't happen.

Donald Trump wrongly claims there are many more part-time jobs because of health care law | PolitiFact Arizona


In fact, it doesn't seem like there was a major shift to part-time work.

fredgraph.png
 
Yes, we all know about the BLS "statistics" that say the unemployment rate is "very low".

But why is Sears and K-Mart -- cheap-price stores -- closing so many stores if there are supposedly so many employed Americans with money to spend?

And why is Macy's -- medium-price stores -- closing so many of their stores now if there are supposedly so many employed Americans with money to spend?

And, of course, why is the left so adamant that the minimum wage be raised and shored up, you know, the minimum wage, the wage paid to part-time considerably less than 40-hours/week employees?

Could it be that the vast majority of the new jobs under Obama paid considerably less money than the old job the person previously had?

Could it be that the vast majority of the new jobs under Obama were .. wait for it .. .. part-time jobs?

Hmmmm ...

6335d47efbf1e6324ced080362e93a74.png


The Ratio of Part-Time Employed Remains High, But Improving - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

This chart proves that the 'recovery' was a part time one.

Even now, despite MASSIVE government stimulus with huge deficits, billions in QE and ZIRP...the economy still has a ratio of part time to full time that is FAR worse than the norms before the Great Recession.

This is what Krugmanites do not understand...stimuli does NOT build long term, solid jobs. It builds short term, temp/part time jobs because it invites short term thinking as the economy becomes completely dependant on government stimulation.
THis should be obvious to them. BUt it is not.

Instead, they ignore the data they do not like, peddle out the BLS, government controlled/manipulated data that even the Fed no longer values. And they learn nothing.

If you do not have an open mind about the economy, you learn nothing and are doomed to continue the same mistakes.
Even now, they will look atthe about chart and instead of learning from it, they will probably try and find some way to either discredit it, ignore it or trundle out some meaningless statistic that they think counters it. They have factual data staring them square in the face and they simple refuse to learn by it. They just put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and call out 'Obama is right, Obama is right, Obama is right.'.


'Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

Albert Einstein
 
Last edited:
6335d47efbf1e6324ced080362e93a74.png


The Ratio of Part-Time Employed Remains High, But Improving - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

This chart proves that the 'recovery' was a part time one.

Even now, despite MASSIVE government stimulus with huge deficits, billions in QE and ZIRP...the economy still has a ratio of part time to full time that is FAR worse than the norms before the Great Recession.

This is what Krugmanites do not understand...stimuli does NOT build long term, solid jobs. It builds short term, temp/part time jobs because it invites short term thinking as the economy becomes completely dependant on government stimulation.
THis should be obvious to them. BUt it is not.

Instead, they ignore the data they do not like, peddle out the BLS, government controlled/manipulated data that even the Fed no longer values. And they learn nothing.

If you do not have an open mind about the economy, you learn nothing and are doomed to continue the same mistakes.


'Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

Albert Einstein

I don't believe you are reading the chart correctly.... it is a bit of an odd chart. But, if you look, full time employment is now 82% compared to 83% at the start of the recession. I would say that is full recovery.

BTW.... a keysesian stimulus is just that, a stimulus. It is analogous of a spark plug to an engine, it does not build long term things, it merely restores confidence to the economy so that the private sector is willing to invest.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe you are reading the chart correctly.... it is a bit of an odd chart. But, if you look, full time employment is now 82% compared to 83% at the start of the recession. I would say that is full recovery.

BTW.... a keysesian stimulus is just that, a stimulus. It is analogous of a spark plug to an engine, it does not build long term things, it merely restores confidence to the economy so that the private sector is willing to invest.

I do not think you read what I typed.

a) please look at the chart...full time to part time employment - despite 8+ years of MASSIVE government/Fed stimulus - even now is still nowhere near the ratio norm before the Great Recession. Plus, if you look closely, the ratio is getting worse lately - which suggests the ratio is as good as it is going to get under this 'recovery system'.

b) I said nothing of Keynes or Keynesianism. I said 'Krugmanites'.
 
Last edited:
That chart does not mean what you think it means.

In 2009, in the wake of the recession, part-time employment shot up to 20%. It has been falling ever since.

In 2009, in the wake of the recession, full-time employment plummeted to 80%, and has been gaining ever since.


Even now, despite MASSIVE government stimulus with huge deficits, billions in QE and ZIRP...the economy still has a ratio of part time to full time that is FAR worse than the norms before the Great Recession.
That's not right either.

• The stimulus wasn't that big.
• QE wasn't a jobs program. Its purpose was to thaw lending, which was frozen solid after the wake of the recession.
• The ratio is only off by about 0.5 to 1%.


This is what Krugmanites do not understand...stimuli does NOT build long term, solid jobs.
Yeah, thing is? Keynesian stimulus isn't supposed to directly create permanent jobs.

During a downturn:
• People are out of work
• Investment slows dramatically, because everyone is too scared and has no idea what can provide a decent return
• No one wants to lend either, because everyone is too scared and has no idea what can provide a decent return

Stimulus puts people to work on a short-term basis, so that a) they get back to work, and b) money circulates through the economy. In addition, the government borrows heavily, because investors and lenders regard government debts as far more secure than, say, a small business.

And with 2008, investors were shoveling money at the federal government at near-zero interest rates, because they were so terrified that they'd lose money if they invested it anywhere else. They were willing to take a small loss, rather than gamble any investment.

As the economy improves, you don't WANT those employees to have permanent jobs. You don't WANT stimulus jobs to compete with private sector jobs. You WANT the stimulus employment to phase out.

That's why you don't hear Krugman yelling for more fiscal stimulus. While we can benefit from improving infrastructure, the window for getting the biggest economic kick out of it has closed. He and other neo-Keynesians prefer that the federal government wait for another downturn -- keep the powder dry for when you really need it.


Instead, they ignore the data they do not like, peddle out the BLS, government controlled/manipulated data that even the Fed no longer values. And they learn nothing.
And what data is Krugman ignoring? Can you cite the articles he's written where he ignores data?


Even now, they will look atthe about chart and instead of learning from it, they will probably try and find some way to either discredit it, ignore it or trundle out some meaningless statistic that they think counters it.
Oh, the irony...

There's nothing wrong with the data. What's wrong is your interpretation of it. You don't understand what it's telling you, namely that the number of part-time employed has been dropping since the start of 2010, and is getting back to normal.
 
I do not think you read what I typed.

a) please look at the chart...full time to part time employment - despite 8+ years of MASSIVE government/Fed stimulus - even now is still nowhere near the ratio norm before the Great Recession.
81.7% is nowhere near 83%??? I'd say it's very near.


Plus, if you look closely, the ratio is getting worse lately - which suggests the ratio is as good as it is going to get under this 'recovery system'.
81.93 to 81.68 is hardly "getting worse." It's been bouncing up and down a little...nothing significant.

Now, I'm wondering why you trust the chart when the data come from BLS. Oh, and you stated that the FED "no longer values" BLS data. Could you quote from the most recent meeting between the Federal Open Market Committee and the Board of Governors that shows any distrust or lack of value for any of the multiple BLS statistics they cite? I didn't think so. You'll read this, realize you screwed up, and then just post that you have me on ignore, I'm totally biased and you didn't bother to read my post.
 
I can give my first hand accounts and let everyone make up their mind what they believe. These illegals are a menace and a serious danger to everyone they work for. Trust me they are not licensed and do not know what they are doing. Protect yourself and always ask for a license and make sure a permit is pulled for any major work. Otherwise you may not wake up one day thanks to substandard construction which does kill people every day. These illegal aliens are notorious for not following the codes. Most don't even know the codes.

I don't know about you, but I tend to find the subject "These people" is usually followed by a bigoted remark.
 
I do not think you read what I typed.

a) please look at the chart...full time to part time employment - despite 8+ years of MASSIVE government/Fed stimulus - even now is still nowhere near the ratio norm before the Great Recession. Plus, if you look closely, the ratio is getting worse lately - which suggests the ratio is as good as it is going to get under this 'recovery system'.

b) I said nothing of Keynes or Keynesianism. I said 'Krugmanites'.

If you really look at the chart, the economy behaved exactly as you would expect in a recession: people lose their jobs, they take part time work until the economy firms up, as it firms up, full time jobs become available again. That is exactly what is shows.

What is misleading about the chart is that it really makes a big deal out of a couple of percentage points. It shows only a 3% swing from pre-recession through recession and post recession. Frankly, I would have expected a bigger swing. What the chart does show is a recovery and thus does not make your point. Try again.

Paul Krugman is a keynesian.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/why-am-i-a-keynesian/

Substantially all of america's top economist says the stimulus worked.

Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post
Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post
Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/end-of-great-recession.pdf
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw5O9LNJL1oz4Xi
http://economics.mit.edu/files/7102
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-stimulus-worked-20140228-story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/what-the-stimulus-accomplished.html?_r=0

So, unless you sport a PhD in Economics from a top school, you really have some work to do to make a point other than the stimulus worked.
 
Last edited:
If you really look at the chart, the economy behaved exactly as you would expect in a recession: people lose their jobs, they take part time work until the economy firms up, as it firms up, full time jobs become available again. That is exactly what is shows.

What is misleading about the chart is that it really makes a big deal out of a couple of percentage points. It shows only a 3% swing from pre-recession through recession and post recession. Frankly, I would have expected a bigger swing. What the chart does show is a recovery and thus does not make your point. Try again.

If you cannot see what is right in front of your face, that is your problem, not mine.

Paul Krugman is a keynesian.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/why-am-i-a-keynesian/

Substantially all of america's top economist says the stimulus worked.

And btw, this 'recovery' came with record stimulus. Massive government deficits, record QE and ZIRP for years.And still the economy 'recovered' at an INCREDIBLY slow pace.

Yet, look at the 1920/21 Depression? It as FAR worse than the 'Great Recession' and yet the American economy recovered from it in less then four years. How? By balancing the budget, lowering taxes and generally letting the economy fix itself.

Government stimulus does not increase recovery speed...it retards it.

Of course, that concept seems to be - no offense - completely over your head.

Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post
Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post
Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/end-of-great-recession.pdf
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw5O9LNJL1oz4Xi
http://economics.mit.edu/files/7102
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-stimulus-worked-20140228-story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/what-the-stimulus-accomplished.html?_r=0

So, unless you sport a PhD in Economics from a top school, you really have some work to do to make a point other than the stimulus worked.

LOL...and most economists - especially Keynesians - completely miscalled both the dot.com crashes and the housing crash (including the Fed, btw). I am a nobody and I completely liquidated my portfolio in late summer '07 because it was ridiculously obvious to me (and had been for years) that the market was a mess and ripe to fall. Many others saw as I did.

Most economists are macroeconomic ignoramuses. If they were SO great at calling the markets, they would be billionaires, not economists desperately trying to get face time on CNBC.

The Fed have more Ph. D's. in economics than almost anyone - and they COMPLETELY missed the housing crash...even their own minutes prove it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/business/federal-reserve-2008-transcripts.html

You cannot learn how to be a great investor in university (I went to university for economics and learned NOTHING that has helped me in the real world) - you either understand human instincts and can keep an open mind about facts/data...or you can't. The Fed has proven time and again that it can't.
Economics is about emotions...not theories.

Clearly, you do not understand the chart or Krugmanism and seem to have closed minds on both.

I generally do not waste my time on closed minded people.


We are done here.

Good day.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about you, but I tend to find the subject "These people" is usually followed by a bigoted remark.

You are right about that. I do not like these criminals.

I have Hispanic, Asian, and Black members of my family in the way of sister-in-laws, 2nd cousins, nephews and nieces. I have hired and helped many people from Mexico, Columbia, and other Central American countries. They are my best friends and workers. I helped renew their work visas and wrote many letters on their behalf to not only allow them to stay in this country but become citizens.

But I have absolutely no respect for criminals entering this country illegally. Cutting wages by working for cash, not paying taxes, and every other thing they do to undermine a livable wage, safe working conditions, licensing and everything else we have fought for in this country. Sorry but the citizens of the country have decided how many people should enter this country not lawless border jumping criminals.

I support law abiding people immigrating into this country not lawless A-holes with no respect for our laws or the citizens of this country. There are millions of good people who respect our laws waiting patiently to immigrate to this country legally. It is pathetic in my opinion that they are not being let in because people believe those that break our laws and cut in line deserve it more. We are telling people all over the world that if you want to come to this country to hell with our immigration policy and our laws we like lawless criminals over good decent people.
 
The number has never been agreed. And just wanting a job without doing anything about it has never been part of the equation. There are 159,640,000 people doing something about work. 7,529,000 are unsuccessful.

Millions? Can you provide any evidence at all that there are millions who specifically "gave up" looking (as opposed to never having looked, stopped looking for some other reason, or are unable to work)? 94% of those not working and not looking for work don't want a job. https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm

You just made my point, most of that 94% have been unemployed so long they pretty much cant work and are fully adjusted to living on welfare.
 
You just made my point, most of that 94% have been unemployed so long they pretty much cant work and are fully adjusted to living on welfare.
Where on earth did you get that idea? There's no way to get that out of anything I wrote or posted. There are 50 million disabled, 65 and older or both, 14 million full time students age 16-24. and then add in the stay home moms (about 8-9 million), and a few million other non-working spouses. Do you need the links to back those up?

But you want to claim that there are more people who have been out of work for so long they gave up and are living off of welfare than all the retirees, students, stay home spouses, independently wealthy, and potheads living in their parents' basement . I'd love to see you try to back that up.
 
If you cannot see what is right in front of your face, that is your problem, not mine.

LOL...and most economists - especially Keynesians - completely miscalled both the dot.com crashes and the housing crash (including the Fed, btw). I am a nobody and I completely liquidated my portfolio in late summer '07 because it was ridiculously obvious to me (and had been for years) that the market was a mess and ripe to fall. Many others saw as I did.

Most economists are macroeconomic ignoramuses. If they were SO great at calling the markets, they would be billionaires, not economists desperately trying to get face time on CNBC.

The Fed have more Ph. D's. in economics than almost anyone - and they COMPLETELY missed the housing crash...even their own minutes prove it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/business/federal-reserve-2008-transcripts.html

You cannot learn how to be a great investor in university (I went to university for economics and learned NOTHING that has helped me in the real world) - you either understand human instincts and can keep an open mind about facts/data...or you can't. The Fed has proven time and again that it can't.
Economics is about emotions...not theories.

Clearly, you do not understand the chart or Krugmanism and seem to have closed minds on both.

I generally do not waste my time on closed minded people.


We are done here.

Good day.

Let's try this another way: How is a 1% change between % of employed, employed as full-time versus employed as part time a big deal? The article that contains these graphs offers no opinion, and if you read down, explains some (if not all of the change) with demographic shifts -- more in the work force over 55, that tend more toward part-time work.

".....The two charts above are seasonally adjusted and include the entire workforce, which the CPS defines as age 16 and over. A problem inherent in using this broadest of cohorts is that it includes the population that adds substantial summertime volatility to the full-time/part-time ratio, namely, high school and college students. Also, the 55-plus cohort includes a subset of employees that opt for part-time employment during the decade following the historical peak earning years (ages 45-54) and as a transition toward retirement...."


Talk about closed mind, you seem fixated on the notion this graph is telling us something grand, while the rest of us are say "so what?".. so explain yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom