The National Debt: The Heroin Addiction of the American People

cpwill said:

I think that the large numbers of working-age males who have dropped out of the count because they are no longer looking for work is something that deserves to be captured and discussed. That doesn't make me a nut, it makes me someone who appreciates the social capital generated by employment.

Click to expand...

Well, of course it should. But is it really that large?
37.2 million men (age 16+ not in prison or an institution) who are neither working nor looking for work.
34.6 million of them do not want a job at this time.
2.6 million say they do want a job now, but 1.5 million have done absolutely nothing in the last year: not a single resume, ad, phone call, application, asking friends or family etc.
So, 1.1 million men who looked for work in the last year, but not the last month..."stopped looking."
203,000 say they could not start work now if offered a job.
Of those who are available now, but who just haven't started looking for work yet, 33,000 stopped looking for family reasons, 92,000 went back to school or entered training, 66,000 were sick, injured, or disabled and 376,000 for other personal reasons (lack of child care or transportation etc).

So no one is ignoring any groups.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not the unemployment rate is manipulate. I don't know of anyone, certainly no economist, that claims the U-3 encompasses the entire labor market situation.

Crovax said:

But the number isn't manipulated nor politically manipulated, the u3 has been calculated like that for a long time.

Click to expand...

Since 1994 I believe...not that long.

And how long something has been a certain way has ZERO to do with how good or bad it is.

Slavery went on for a LONG time...does that mean it was a good idea?


And of course the number is politically manipulated. It was decided on by politicians...that makes it politically manipulated.

The Clinton administration wanted the official unemployment rate to look lower than it was...so they just got the BLS to change the way they tabulated it to make it seem lower. And it worked. The U-3 is a joke - even the Fed has virtually given up using it as a reliable employment indicator. The U-6 is a FAR better means to determine the real unemployment rate.

BTW, the Obama administration relatively recently did the same thing with the GDP - except make it look larger than it really is.

pinqy said:

Well, of course it should. But is it really that large?
37.2 million men (age 16+ not in prison or an institution) who are neither working nor looking for work.
34.6 million of them do not want a job at this time.
2.6 million say they do want a job now, but 1.5 million have done absolutely nothing in the last year: not a single resume, ad, phone call, application, asking friends or family etc.
So, 1.1 million men who looked for work in the last year, but not the last month..."stopped looking."
203,000 say they could not start work now if offered a job.
Of those who are available now, but who just haven't started looking for work yet, 33,000 stopped looking for family reasons, 92,000 went back to school or entered training, 66,000 were sick, injured, or disabled and 376,000 for other personal reasons (lack of child care or transportation etc).

So no one is ignoring any groups.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not the unemployment rate is manipulate. I don't know of anyone, certainly no economist, that claims the U-3 encompasses the entire labor market situation.

Click to expand...

Roughly 7 million men aged 24 to 54 are no longer even looking for work. That's not insignificant, especially as it exacerbates a reduction in workforce participation that was already baked in the cake by the Boomer demographics.

DA60 said:

Since 1994 I believe...not that long.

And how long something has been a certain way has ZERO to do with how good or bad it is.

Slavery went on for a LONG time...does that mean it was a good idea?


And of course the number is politically manipulated. It was decided on by politicians...that makes it politically manipulated.

The Clinton administration wanted the official unemployment rate to look lower than it was...so they just got the BLS to change the way they tabulated it to make it seem lower. And it worked. The U-3 is a joke - even the Fed has virtually given up using it as a reliable employment indicator. The U-6 is a FAR better means to determine the real unemployment rate.

BTW, the Obama administration relatively recently did the same thing with the GDP - except make it look larger than it really is.

Click to expand...

Yes the u3 has been used since 1994 but they also changed hoe the survey was done too. The used the u5 before that but with the changes tp the survey the new u3 more accurately captured what the old u5 was.

Not I never said it was good, only that it wasnt politically manipulated. Not sure why you brought slavery into this...

cpwill said:

I think that the large numbers of working-age males who have dropped out of the count because they are no longer looking for work is something that deserves to be captured and discussed. That doesn't make me a nut, it makes me someone who appreciates the social capital generated by employment.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make you crazy or angry or horrified that working age males are dropping out because they are no longer looking for work?

When I think of SSE, I think, boy, I bet that model sure works well for criminals. You know, you've got to spend money to make money. Any scam will tell you that's how to pull yourself up by your bootstrap.

Who's going to save the economy, the guys with the jobs who are already working, or the guys without the jobs who could be doing more? Do you really think that hiring is "putting someone to work?" No, workers work of their own volition. Teachers teach of their own volition. Leaders do not lead because someone made them lead. You or I can hook someone up with the most minute amount of effort. It's the least we can do to get young men back to work, for America.

Celebrity said:

It doesn't make you crazy or angry or horrified that working age males are dropping out because they are no longer looking for work?

Click to expand...

It makes me worried. Disconnection from the workforce comes with, exacerbates, and produces a host of other economic and social problems. It also irritates me when they refuse to support themselves because they know they can simply take advantage of public largesse.

When I think of SSE, I think, boy, I bet that model sure works well for criminals. You know, you've got to spend money to make money. Any scam will tell you that's how to pull yourself up by your bootstrap.

Click to expand...

This does not make sense. SSE argues from the assumption that you have to produce in order to spend, save, or invest.

Who's going to save the economy, the guys with the jobs who are already working, or the guys without the jobs who could be doing more?

Click to expand...

No one is going to "save the economy".

Do you really think that hiring is "putting someone to work?" No, workers work of their own volition. Teachers teach of their own volition. Leaders do not lead because someone made them lead. You or I can hook someone up with the most minute amount of effort.

Click to expand...

Think through the implications of what you just pointed out. If people are not working because they choose violitionally not to, then getting them a job is not going to be minimal in effort, because we have to get them to want to work. That requires changing incentive structures, which is difficult.

During the past 7 1/2 years, Obama's malignant socialist policies has replaced good paying manufacturing jobs, for example with fast food jobs.

But Obama and Crooked Hillary think that making hamburgers is a manufacturing job, IE manufacturing a hamburger, so to them, they think the economy is going great because the unemployment stats are low.

Many private sector jobs have been replaced with government union white collar jobs - these type of jobs detract from our economy, never enhance it.

Also a large number of those who used to work a solid 40 hour work week, are now condemned to a 30 hour work week because of obamacare rules.

Also, many have given up looking for work, and they fall off the employment rolls which doesn't get factored into the unemployment stats...all of which mentioned keeps the unemployment rate artificially low as far as what it is really supposed to represent. A low unemployment rate used to mean prosperity, now it means deception for the most part.

But the Obama/Hillary loving minions still believe that the economy is going great, because the Democratic Party tells them it's going great - quite pathetic.

cpwill said:

Roughly 7 million men aged 24 to 54 are no longer even looking for work. That's not insignificant, especially as it exacerbates a reduction in workforce participation that was already baked in the cake by the Boomer demographics.

Click to expand...

Male Labor Force Participation has been declining since 1948. While of some concern for long term planning, it does not indicate any current weaknesses in the labor market.

cpwill said:

Roughly 7 million men aged 24 to 54 are no longer even looking for work. That's not insignificant, especially as it exacerbates a reduction in workforce participation that was already baked in the cake by the Boomer demographics.

Click to expand...

"Who are America’s new cadre of prime-age male unworkers? They tend to be: 1) less educated; 2) never married; 3) native born; and 4) African-American."

Always leave it to cp to provide the white, American Enterprise Institute editorial viewpoint.

Gimmesometruth said:

"Who are America’s new cadre of prime-age male unworkers? They tend to be: 1) less educated; 2) never married; 3) native born; and 4) African-American."

Always leave it to cp to provide the white, American Enterprise Institute editorial viewpoint.

Click to expand...

Trust Gimme to insist that Math Is Racist :roll:


Throw your troll-bait elsewhere, gimme. No one gave a crap about race in the context of this discussion until you brought it up.

cpwill said:

Trust Gimme to insist that Math Is Racist :roll:

Click to expand...

Wow, I'm not the one posting links to AEI editorials, that is not supporting its "math"....or its arguments about lazy blacks....with any sort of comprehensive documentation....but then, that is not what editorials do....neither do they include socio-economic studies for the persistently higher levels of black unemployment, because that would lead to all sorts of historical evidence of discrimination. Of course, it CAN be explained away via genetic inferiority, but then the mere mention of Murray & Company causes you to exhibit symptoms of the vapors.

Stephen50right said:

You're confusing someone else's post with mine.

Click to expand...

No I'm not.

>>I never use despicable words such as that.

Which words?

>>Paulson has endorsed Crooked Hillary Clinton - that's all I need to know about Paulson's book and his interpretations.

Yes, willful ignorance. That's the issue with yer take on all of this.

DA60 said:

too many people are too ignorant or too lazy

Click to expand...

Yes, the rise of teabuggerism has done a lot of damage to our political system.

cpwill said:

they refuse to support themselves because they know they can simply take advantage of public largesse.

Click to expand...

Which largess is that? Can you give me a phone number for the public largess office? I'm tired of working to support myself.

Stephen50right said:

During the past 7 1/2 years, Obama's malignant socialist policies has replaced good paying manufacturing jobs, for example with fast food jobs.

Click to expand...

Which policies are those? And what evidence can you offer to support yer claim?

Employment in manufacturing in Feb 2010 was 11,543,000. In July, it was 12,295,000, up 6.5%. The big drop occurred 2001-09. I guess that was 43's malignant socialist policies.



The decline in manufacturing employment in the US over recent decades, and it's definitely there when measured as a percentage of the number employed, is attributable to large increases in productivity resulting from automation and to low-wage foreign competition. Free-market capitalism, not malignant socialism.

Employment in the fast food industry grew by 3.9% 2011-16. (source)

>>But Obama and Crooked Hillary think that making hamburgers is a manufacturing job

BS.

>>they think the economy is going great because the unemployment stats are low.

You don't know what yer talking about.

>>Many private sector jobs have been replaced with government union white collar jobs - these type of jobs detract from our economy, never enhance it.

Gubmint employment is down 3.9% under the Kenyan (source), while private sector jobs are up 12.9% (source).

>>a large number of those who used to work a solid 40 hour work week, are now condemned to a 30 hour work week because of obamacare rules.

Just more BS. FT employment is up 12.5% (source), while PT is down 2% (source).

>>many have given up looking for work, and they fall off the employment rolls which doesn't get factored into the unemployment stats

Why should people who aren't looking for work and who tell BLS that they don't want a job be counted as unemployed?

>>A low unemployment rate used to mean prosperity, now it means deception for the most part.

There is no deception. You simply imagine that there is.

>>the Obama/Hillary loving minions still believe that the economy is going great

Liberals/Democrats think the economy is doing OK, much better than it was when the Right was controlling things.

>>because the Democratic Party tells them it's going great

We go by the evidence. You go by what the Clown tells you.

>>quite pathetic

RW BS sure is.

mmi said:

Which largess is that? Can you give me a phone number for the public largess office? I'm tired of working to support myself.

Click to expand...

That would be government social safety net programs, a field in which I believe you work

cpwill said:

That would be government social safety net programs, a field in which I believe you work

Click to expand...

No, I collect economic data for the US Department of Commerce. Again, which "government social safety net program" will pay my bills? I'd like to retire and get away from obnoxious, self-important business creeps.

Fwiw, yer participation in this section is very much welcome. What's the point of arguing with the fools who represent the Right around here?

mmi said:

No, I collect economic data for the US Department of Commerce. Again, which "government social safety net program" will pay my bills? I'd like to retire and get away from obnoxious, self-important business creeps.

Click to expand...

I would say that the most widely abused programs is probably SSDI, but that there are a variety of programs that those who want to live largely or entirely at public expense can do use. I would point to things like Maine's results when they put in work requirements for able-bodied adults without children for food stamps as indicative that this populace might be not insignificant.

Fwiw, yer participation in this section is very much welcome. What's the point of arguing with the fools who represent the Right around here?

Click to expand...

Well, personally, I'll say it's embarrassing and frustrating. I don't know if 2016 just hates me, or if I'm a bit more aware this year, but it seems like my side is getting dumber .

cpwill said:

I would point to things like Maine's results when they put in work requirements for able-bodied adults without children for food stamps as indicative that this populace might be not insignificant.

Click to expand...

Did the stripping of thousands of citizen from SNAP cause an increase in job availability/creation?

Stephen50right said:

During the past 7 1/2 years, Obama's malignant socialist policies has replaced good paying manufacturing jobs, for example with fast food jobs.

Click to expand...

Not really. While manufacturing has dropped some under Obama (less than 5%), restaurant jobs have gone up a lot more. So it's not a simple replacement.

But Obama and Crooked Hillary think that making hamburgers is a manufacturing job, IE manufacturing a hamburger, so to them, they think the economy is going great because the unemployment stats are low.

Click to expand...

Ummm no...fast food jobs would not be considered manufacturing, and how industries are classified has nothing to do with the unemployment rate.

Many private sector jobs have been replaced with government union white collar jobs - these type of jobs detract from our economy, never enhance it.

Click to expand...

Private Sector:
January 2009 = 111,474,000
August 2016 (preliminary) = 122,385,000
Change +10,911,000

Federal Government (excluding USPS, CIA, NSA, DIA, and NGA):
January 2009 = 2,059,500
August 2016 = 2,177,900
change: +118,400

State Government
January 2009 = 5,206,000
August 2016 = 5,120,000
change: -86,000

Local Government
January 2009 = 14,587,000
August 2016 = 14,303,000
change: -284,000

So where did you get the idea that government went up at the expense of private sector?

Also a large number of those who used to work a solid 40 hour work week, are now condemned to a 30 hour work week because of obamacare rules.

Click to expand...

I have seen no evidence of that. What is yours?

Also, many have given up looking for work, and they fall off the employment rolls which doesn't get factored into the unemployment stats...all of which mentioned keeps the unemployment rate artificially low as far as what it is really supposed to represent.
The unemployment rate is supposed to represent the portion of those available to work who are not working. People not looking for work are not available for work. (they are not participating in the labor market). So how does not including people who say they have given up (that's around half a million, btw)

A low unemployment rate used to mean prosperity, now it means deception for the most part.

Click to expand...

And what do you think the difference is? And keep in mind that the Labor Force Participation, and the Employment to Population ratio were a lot lower in the 1950's than they are now.

Click to expand...

Gimmesometruth said:

Did the stripping of thousands of citizen from SNAP cause an increase in job availability/creation?

Click to expand...

:shrug: nothing was stripped. They chose not to do anything.

cpwill said:

:shrug: nothing was stripped. They chose not to do anything.

Click to expand...

Maine chose not to remove thousands from SNAP rolls? Weird, that was the basis of yer argument:


I would point to things like Maine's results when they put in work requirements for able-bodied adults without children for food stamps as indicative that this populace might be not insignificant.

mmi said:

No I'm not.

>>I never use despicable words such as that.

Which words?

>>Paulson has endorsed Crooked Hillary Clinton - that's all I need to know about Paulson's book and his interpretations.

Yes, willful ignorance. That's the issue with yer take on all of this.



Yes, the rise of teabuggerism has done a lot of damage to our political system.



Which largess is that? Can you give me a phone number for the public largess office? I'm tired of working to support myself.



Which policies are those? And what evidence can you offer to support yer claim?

Employment in manufacturing in Feb 2010 was 11,543,000. In July, it was 12,295,000, up 6.5%. The big drop occurred 2001-09. I guess that was 43's malignant socialist policies.

View attachment 67207550

The decline in manufacturing employment in the US over recent decades, and it's definitely there when measured as a percentage of the number employed, is attributable to large increases in productivity resulting from automation and to low-wage foreign competition. Free-market capitalism, not malignant socialism.

Employment in the fast food industry grew by 3.9% 2011-16. (source)

>>But Obama and Crooked Hillary think that making hamburgers is a manufacturing job

BS.

>>they think the economy is going great because the unemployment stats are low.

You don't know what yer talking about.

>>Many private sector jobs have been replaced with government union white collar jobs - these type of jobs detract from our economy, never enhance it.

Gubmint employment is down 3.9% under the Kenyan (source), while private sector jobs are up 12.9% (source).

>>a large number of those who used to work a solid 40 hour work week, are now condemned to a 30 hour work week because of obamacare rules.

Just more BS. FT employment is up 12.5% (source), while PT is down 2% (source).

>>many have given up looking for work, and they fall off the employment rolls which doesn't get factored into the unemployment stats

Why should people who aren't looking for work and who tell BLS that they don't want a job be counted as unemployed?

>>A low unemployment rate used to mean prosperity, now it means deception for the most part.

There is no deception. You simply imagine that there is.

>>the Obama/Hillary loving minions still believe that the economy is going great

Liberals/Democrats think the economy is doing OK, much better than it was when the Right was controlling things.

>>because the Democratic Party tells them it's going great

We go by the evidence. You go by what the Clown tells you.

>>quite pathetic

RW BS sure is.

Click to expand...

Let me guess, the same type of sources who claim that global warming is our biggest national security threat. Liberals can spin stats in every which way. Those such as Obama and Hillary are skilled liars. We all know the economy stinks - no stats are needed to tell us that which we can see for ourselves.

Gimmesometruth said:

Maine chose not to remove thousands from SNAP rolls?

Click to expand...

No, Maine put in a work requirement for able-bodied adults with no children, and many chose not to meet those requirements. It wasn't worth it to them to get a job, do volunteer work, etc.

DA60 said:

I don't have the attention span at this moment to read the OP.

...

But too many people are too ignorant or too lazy

Click to expand...

Completely off topic, but I found that amusing.

cpwill said:

No, Maine put in a work requirement for able-bodied adults with no children, and many chose not to meet those requirements.

Click to expand...

That was the point, it is the point made, Maine, ie LePage, reintroduced the work requirement that caused thousands to be stripped of SNAP benefits.

It wasn't worth it to them to get a job, do volunteer work, etc.

Click to expand...

Three of Maine’s 16 counties, home to about 100,000 of its 1.3 million residents, are designated “labor surplus areas” by federal labor market monitors. That means there is a serious imbalance between the number of people willing to work and the number of jobs available — an imbalance that stripping away food assistance will do nothing to correct.
Just as reinstating the work rules doesn’t create job opportunities out of thin air, waiving the 20-hour weekly work requirement rule does not mean allowing indolent people to get food without lifting a finger. SNAP recipients in waiver states still have to comply with a variety of rules regarding their willingness and ability to work. They must accept any reasonable job offer, they may not quit an existing job without good cause, and they must register with state jobs databases, for example.
Similar decisions by political leaders in Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Delaware have put tens of thousands more people on the chopping block. Two governors who have exited the SNAP waiver program early are facing lawsuits. New Mexico Gov. Susanna Martinez (R) decided to reconsider her work requirements push in light of a court challenge, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) is being accused of violating his poorest citizens’ civil rights by allowing waivers to continue in rural, mostly-white counties but ending them in the urban counties that house most of his state’s minority population.
These disputes offer a preview of a broader pattern of SNAP cutoffs that will hit across most of the country in 2016. While the leaders in this handful of states are declining to take a waiver that could shelter vulnerable residents from hunger, improving economic conditions around the nation will drastically shrink the list of states that are eligible for the waivers next year. As a result, work requirements will be reinstated for a majority of America’s poor.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that a full 1 million Americans will lose their food stamps due to reinstated work rules sometime in fiscal year 2016. “Even SNAP recipients whose state operates few or no employment programs for them and fails to offer them a spot in a work or training program — which is the case in most states — have their benefits cut off after three months irrespective of whether they are searching diligently for a job,” the left-leaning policy group wrote. Those flaws in the design of SNAP rules mean that the so-called work requirements function more as a strict time limit on benefits than as a mechanism to link people’s willingness to work with their ability to collect anti-poverty benefits.

https://thinkprogress.org/maine-has...ps-so-far-this-winter-cd5ba5fb5b17#.jnz4tjczw


Again, I'll repeat the question from before, how does forcing, stripping people from SNAP cause the creation of jobs?

Gimmesometruth said:

That was the point, it is the point made, Maine, ie LePage, reintroduced the work requirement that caused thousands to be stripped of SNAP benefits.

Click to expand...

No, the refusal of able-bodied, childless adults to do a minimum of work caused them to no longer be eligible for SNAP benefits. And that's a good thing - we shouldn't be taking money from those who work to give to those who refuse to do so when they can. In this case, when they were told they would have to put forth minimal effort, many chose instead to leave the program, providing significant savings to the government.

Three of Maine’s 16 counties, home to about 100,000 of its 1.3 million residents, are designated “labor surplus areas” by federal labor market monitors. That means there is a serious imbalance between the number of people willing to work and the number of jobs available — an imbalance that stripping away food assistance will do nothing to correct.
Just as reinstating the work rules doesn’t create job opportunities out of thin air

Click to expand...

Gosh. Gee. It seems like they should have included other options, then, if you couldn't get a job. You know, things like taking provided training, or performing some kind of community service.

Oh. Wait. Yup. They made that count as part of the program. As it so happens



The minimum requirement to stay on the program was 6 hours of volunteer work a week. For able-bodied adults who aren't engaged in raising children. 6 hours a week. That's it.

Now comes the part where you either A) reconsider whether or not your source was upfront with you about the full nature of the program or B) choose to be a partisan and dishonestly ignore this. Gosh. I wonder which you will pick

Again, I'll repeat the question from before, how does forcing, stripping people from SNAP cause the creation of jobs?

Click to expand...

:shrug: in this case, in incentivizes people to go get them. That, however, is only one of several benefits.

cpwill said:

No, the refusal of able-bodied, childless adults to do a minimum of work caused them to no longer be eligible for SNAP benefits.

Click to expand...

I don't quite understand this absolute refusal to understand that you already accepted the fact that Lepage did change his states' SNAP work requirements to pre-recession standards. But then you have to do this to make the argument about blaming those on SNAP, that they are responsible for the level of opportunities they have.

And that's a good thing - we shouldn't be taking money from those who work to give to those who refuse to do so when they can. In this case, when they were told they would have to put forth minimal effort, many chose instead to leave the program, providing significant savings to the government.

Click to expand...

That is the bottom line, LePage wanted to strip thousands off the SNAP rolls, it succeeded wonderfully, the state is not spending SNAP dollars!

Gosh. Gee. It seems like they should have included other options, then, if you couldn't get a job. You know, things like taking provided training, or performing some kind of community service.Oh. Wait. Yup. They made that count as part of the program. As it so happens
and for those ABAWD recipients who cannot find immediate employment, Maine offers both training and community service slots. In response to the new work requirement, however, most ABAWDs in Maine refused to participate in training or community service, despite vigorous outreach efforts by the government to encourage participation. When ABAWD recipients refused to participate, their food stamp benefits ceased. The minimum requirement to stay on the program was 6 hours of volunteer work a week. For able-bodied adults who aren't engaged in raising children. 6 hours a week. That's it. Now comes the part where you either A) reconsider whether or not your source was upfront with you about the full nature of the program or B) choose to be a partisan and dishonestly ignore this. Gosh. I wonder which you will pick :shrug: in this case, in incentivizes people to go get them. That, however, is only one of several benefits.

Click to expand...

I understand that Heritage has all sorts of statistics on how lazy the poor are, that wasn't the question, the question was......has the stripping of the poor from SNAP (or TANF) caused the creation of jobs?

Perhaps the reason you keep avoiding answering is that AEI, Heritage, or Murray-ites are not providing you with that sort of data.