• 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!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

AlabamaPaul said:
So, give us a number. How much should an employer be expected to pay for each employee and how much should each individual be expected to pay as a percentage of wages (FYI: Our employees currently pay nothing)...
Click to expand...

I expect it to be paid in taxes. You lose wages because your employer picks up your cost. he could pay you move if he wasn't paying your insurance. So, you don't really pay nothing. That's a slight of hand many miss.

The exact numbers of what it might cost are not readily available, but I've looked up and posted how it would be before. The point is, the cost would be more evenly divided, and as it would function like an insurance, the larger pool would help negate costs. Every single payer system in the world, the great ones and the not so great, all pay less than we do.
 
Boo Radley said:
I expect it to be paid in taxes. You lose wages because your employer picks up your cost. he could pay you move if he wasn't paying your insurance. So, you don't really pay nothing. That's a slight of hand many miss.

The exact numbers of what it might cost are not readily available, but I've looked up and posted how it would be before. The point is, the cost would be more evenly divided, and as it would function like an insurance, the larger pool would help negate costs. Every single payer system in the world, the great ones and the not so great, all pay less than we do.
Click to expand...

There is no slight of hand. Many employers require their employees to contribute to their insurance costs. There are also many employers not providing insurance. I've asked this same question numerous times, and, as from you, I never get an answer other than it would cost less with no supporting evidence...
 
ocean515 said:
:thumbs:

Hope that leg is coming along...
Click to expand...

:thanks: Doing great! Plus, with the titanium metal that's now incorporated in it, it's worth more in dollars than the other leg! :lamo:

Just doing my part to improve the economy! :think:
 
ocean515 said:
I'm sorry, but from the examples I've seen, your remedy has not born the fruit the theory promised.

Spending on education is substantial, and the manufacturing sector has certainly taken a beating as a result of union actions.

I think the gulf between our two opinions is rather vast.
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't really call that my opinion, it's more of an empirically derived statement that's backed up by the evidence.

The Gini Index is reasonable approximation of wages / productivity. It's pretty clear that unemployment rises when productivity outpaces wages.

state_unemployment_increase_by_gini_coefficent.jpg
 
DA60 said:
Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?
Click to expand...
That's a "you clearly do have a problem with it". I've already answered your question multiples times...well, I answered it once and then re-posted the same answer. Maybe one of these days you'll figure it out.
 
Erod said:
No, they haven't. Businesses are best built on full-time commitment, and always have been. The conversations being had in executive meetings are different than anything I've heard in the past 15 years, and my industry colleagues are saying the same. This is unchartered territory.
Click to expand...

No, they are not. We've been moving toward part time employment since the 80s.


In a few cases, American companies reacted by simply shutting down and moving their factories elsewhere -- an option that became increasingly easy as trade and tax laws changed in the 1980s and 1990s. Many others continued to operate, but the paternalistic system began to fray. Employers felt they could no longer make lifetime commitments to their workers. To boost flexibility and reduce costs, they made greater use of temporary and part-time workers. Temporary-help firms supplied 417,000 employees, or 0.5 percent of non-farm payroll employment, in 1982; by 1998, they provided 2.8 million workers, or 2.1 percent of the non-farm work force.

Outline of the U.S. Economy

What the growth of contract and part-time work, and other forms of contingent employment mean to individuals and companies.

http://www.cognitionnet.com/member/resources/summaries/Personnel_HR/New_American_Workplace.pdf
 
AlabamaPaul said:
There is no slight of hand. Many employers require their employees to contribute to their insurance costs. There are also many employers not providing insurance. I've asked this same question numerous times, and, as from you, I never get an answer other than it would cost less with no supporting evidence...
Click to expand...

Cost depends on specifics. I can't guess what system they will adopt. But when you pay nothing, that only means your employer is paying all of it, or you don't have insurance. You don't get it for free. And he has always deferred his costs by hiring less people full time.

So, that money now paid, by you one way or another, is the same money that would be paid by taxes, likely less due to fewer administrative costs. Surely you understand what is being said?
 
Conservative said:
Perhaps you can address the stagnant labor force growth during the Obama term as well as the high numbers of discouraged workers during his term? Trumpeting 195000 jobs created without context is what ideologues do. How anyone can continue to support this empty suit is beyond comprehension.
Click to expand...

Labor force stagnation would be a reality no matter who was elected president. Macroeconomic policy on the basis of party politics simply does not cut it, and therefore little can be gained from your posts on this matter.

The U.S. and the majority of the developed world are in a period of extreme economic healing. The effects of a "balance-sheet recession" can last for more than a decade. As the graph depicts, the ratio between the U.S. Federal Reserve balance and the broad money supply has increased dramatically and persists to this day.

fredgraph.png


It is not about who is President.... To ignore the lasting psychological impact of extreme losses in wealth while constantly blathering on about the President accomplishes zero. The U.S. is primarily a market economy (meaning the president is not responsible for private sector management decisions).
 
Boo Radley said:
Cost depends on specifics. I can't guess what system they will adopt. But when you pay nothing, that only means your employer is paying all of it, or you don't have insurance. You don't get it for free. And he has always deferred his costs by hiring less people full time.

So, that money now paid, by you one way or another, is the same money that would be paid by taxes, likely less due to fewer administrative costs. Surely you understand what is being said?
Click to expand...

Health care costs in the country are estimated to be approximately 1/6 of the US economy or about $2.4T/year. That would be a lot of taxes...
 
ocean515 said:
Gee whiz truth, you've done nothing by obfuscate and claim the other poster is a bad employer, and likes to use clubs on other people.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for your finding me saying this

I've mearly (sic) tried to engage in some rational debate. As usual, I see that is a great challenge with you.
Click to expand...
No, personal attacks and false premise is not rational debate.



Perhaps you could offer some ideas of your own, rather than personal attacks and judgements. (sic)

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
I have offered plenty in this thread, you ignore it while you continue on with false premises.

By the way, do you have any thoughts about the amount of gross revenue the average business needs to generate to cover a $50k job w/benefits?
Click to expand...
We already went over this, and doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.... is not rational.....just the opposite.

Really anxious to learn from your perspective.
Click to expand...
Again with the false premise.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Health care costs in the country are estimated to be approximately 1/6 of the US economy or about $2.4T/year. That would be a lot of taxes...
Click to expand...
Are you assuming that the cost of going to the ER will be the same as going to a primary care Dr.?

Yes, you are.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Are you assuming that the cost of going to the ER will be the same as going to a primary care Dr.?

Yes, you are.
Click to expand...

There is only one thing I assume relating to your posts, but I'd get infracted for posting it....
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Are you assuming that the cost of going to the ER will be the same as going to a primary care Dr.?

Yes, you are.
Click to expand...

Better yet, how much of aggregate health care expenditure is currently funded by tax dollars?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
There is only one thing I assume relating to your posts, but I'd get infracted (sic) for posting it....
Click to expand...
Another conservative that can't argue the point but wants to engage in ad hominems.

Hint: Those who had no insurance and were using the ER for primary care will have lower medical costs.
 
Kushinator said:
Labor force stagnation would be a reality no matter who was elected president. Macroeconomic policy on the basis of party politics simply does not cut it, and therefore little can be gained from your posts on this matter.

The U.S. and the majority of the developed world are in a period of extreme economic healing. The effects of a "balance-sheet recession" can last for more than a decade. As the graph depicts, the ratio between the U.S. Federal Reserve balance and the broad money supply has increased dramatically and persists to this day.

fredgraph.png


It is not about who is President.... To ignore the lasting psychological impact of extreme losses in wealth while constantly blathering on about the President accomplishes zero. The U.S. is primarily a market economy (meaning the president is not responsible for private sector management decisions).
Click to expand...

The one thing you and others never factor in are the effects of quality positive leadership on the economy and personal behavior. Obama has shown absolutely no leadership thus the reason for the very slow recovery. compare his leadership style to Reagan and you will understand the difference. Reagan believed in the American people, Obama believes that govt. is the answer. The govt. is never the answer on economic issues other than if you want negative results. The way to recovery is by promoting the private sector not demonizing it. You don't put roadblocks in the way and then blame the slow recovery on a "balanced sheet" recession
 
Conservative said:
The one thing you and others never factor in are the effects of quality positive leadership on the economy and personal behavior. Obama has shown absolutely no leadership thus the reason for the very slow recovery. compare his leadership style to Reagan and you will understand the difference. Reagan believed in the American people, Obama believes that govt. is the answer. The govt. is never the answer on economic issues other than if you want negative results. The way to recovery is by promoting the private sector not demonizing it. You don't put roadblocks in the way and then blame the slow recovery on a "balanced sheet" recession
Click to expand...
And yet you keep bringing this up, and I asked you to provide any objective measure to support it....nothing is shown.

Reagan spent his way out with massive military buildup, tripling the debt....we just went over this point.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
And yet you keep bringing this up, and I asked you to provide any objective measure to support it....nothing is shown.

Reagan spent his way out with massive military buildup, tripling the debt....we just went over this point.
Click to expand...
Don't bother with facts, reasoning and logic to those who are not interested in it. Republicans/conservatives just want to bash Obama, regardless of how accurate their statements are.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
And yet you keep bringing this up, and I asked you to provide any objective measure to support it....nothing is shown.

Reagan spent his way out with massive military buildup, tripling the debt....we just went over this point.
Click to expand...

I posted the chart showing govt. expenditures and tax revenue during the Reagan term. Further since I lived and worked during both the Reagan term and the Obama term I speak from experience. The fact will always be that the American people spending their own money will generate the job creation and economic growth for a prosperous economy. Not only did GDP double, but tax revenue increased by about 60% with those tax cuts including significant growth in income tax revenue. No liberal in this thread has explained how that happened.

The objective measure comes from bea.gov. as well as personal experience that shows personal behavior is never accurately explained by textbooks.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Don't bother with facts, reasoning and logic to those who are not interested in it. Republicans/conservatives just want to bash Obama, regardless of how accurate their statements are.
Click to expand...

Right economic results from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Treasury are irrelevant in today's world of American Idol where rhetoric and symbolism trump actual results. Please explain what facts I have posted that are wrong or that you refute?
 
Conservative said:
I posted the chart showing govt. expenditures and tax revenue during the Reagan term. Further since I lived and worked during both the Reagan term and the Obama term I speak from experience. Not only did GDP double, but tax revenue increased by about 60% with those tax cuts including significant growth in income tax revenue. No liberal in this thread has explained how that happened.

The objective measure comes from bea.gov. as well as personal experience that shows personal behavior is never accurately explained by textbooks.
Click to expand...
I asked you to show the relative increases in spending between Reagan and Obama, you did not do that.....at all.

This is the reality:

government-spending-investment-first-terms.jpg



average-government-spending.jpg


Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?



The fact will always be that the American people spending their own money will generate the job creation and economic growth for a prosperous economy.
Click to expand...
The problem still is that those with the massive reserves are not investing, those that usually spend their incomes are not able to because of income/wealth declines.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
I asked you to show the relative increases in spending between Reagan and Obama, you did not do that.....at all.

This is the reality:

government-spending-investment-first-terms.jpg



average-government-spending.jpg


Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?
Click to expand...

Is that why Obama has added 6.2 trillion to the debt vs Reagan's 1.7 trillion? How many jobs has Obama created, 17 million like Reagan? You have a very poor memory of what happened during the Reagan term because you probably weren't old enough to know what happened. I was there during both and old enough during both. Let me know when Bush had a 3.5-3.6-3.7 trillion dollar budget? Any idea what the Reagan budgets were?
 
polgara said:
:thanks: Doing great! Plus, with the titanium metal that's now incorporated in it, it's worth more in dollars than the other leg! :lamo:

Just doing my part to improve the economy! :think:
Click to expand...

Hmmm.

So you're into metal. :rock
 
Conservative said:
A growing vibrant economy can support govt. spending and growth in that spending. The GDP doubled during the Reagan term and govt. revenue increased 60% due to over 17 million new jobs created. Too bad you have such a short memory. Any idea what the debt service is on the 1.7 trillion Reagan debt vs. the 6.2 trillion Obama debt?
Click to expand...

During Reagan's term is when the US went from a creditor nation to a debtor nation and the debt tripled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom