• 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!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

danielpalos said:
Full employment could be anything less that one percent unemployment under our current metrics. Individual Liberty should encourage individual responsibility through market based metrics from a form of minimum wage that could clear our poverty guidelines as unemployment compensation; thus, anyone not wanting to stay poor on an at-will basis could become more marketable and compete for a potential, efficiency wage in the market for labor.
Click to expand...

Woah! What gives you or anyone else the right to tell a private business what they should pay their employees and where did you ever come up with 99% being full employment? You talk about individual liberty but then want the govt. to provide wages out of someone else's pocket to fund that individual liberty. Your consistency is quite staggering.
 
AlbqOwl said:
This is the part neither the MSM nor most on the left side of the aisle or our leftist friends here at DP are willing to admit, discuss, or even look at. The fact that maybe the highest percentage of Americans ever are out of the work force now, that has been the case for months, and that percentage has been steadily increasing under Obama's economic policies. That makes the recent good new jobs report look less positive as do the 388,000 new unemployment claims this week. The real unemployment rate--not the officially published public one--is something between 12 and 15 percent.

And why isn't it getting better? For exactly the reasons you listed. Business owners are simply not willing to risk their finite investment capital when they don't KNOW what their liabilities are going to be and don't have a reasonable expectation for a reasonable return on their investment.
Click to expand...

What people are going to buy, the uneducated ones, the low information voters, is the 6.3% unemployment rate not the fact that approximately 800,000 dropped out of the labor force last month. You are right on with regards to the real unemployment rate and what people should be looking at is the historically low labor participation rate but you aren't going to get Obamabots to do that
 
The Mark said:
At first glance your statement makes no sense.

If I'm translating correctly, however, I suspect you're confirming my statement as an accurate summation of your position.

Am I correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, a form of minimum wage is a market based metric under any form of Capitalism.

you are welcome to re-state your position.
 
Conservative said:
Woah! What gives you or anyone else the right to tell a private business what they should pay their employees and where did you ever come up with 99% being full employment? You talk about individual liberty but then want the govt. to provide wages out of someone else's pocket to fund that individual liberty. Your consistency is quite staggering.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean; we would no longer need statutory minimum wage laws that tell employers how much the have to a minimum.

anything less than one percent could be considered a form of full employment through our form of statism; but, it would be much more accurate.

0.0 to 0.99 could still be classed as less than one percent or zero point something percent. it should be that simple.
 
ticks just INSIST on sucking the blood of their hosts. that's what ticks do/are.
 
danielpalos said:
We are solving for poverty when due to a simple lack of income from gainful employment. A form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed in any at-will employment State in our republic. Any questions?
Click to expand...

Yes. Does this mean that anyone no longer working then gets minimum wage (based on 40 hours/week) and, if so, for how long?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes. Does this mean that anyone no longer working then gets minimum wage (based on 40 hours/week) and, if so, for how long?
Click to expand...

It should be unemployment compensation for being unemployed in our at-will employment States, that simply clears our poverty guidelines. two birds with one stone, since supply side economics is supposed to be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

from a philosophical point of view, no true social safety net should end while it is still needed or it merely sacrifices the end; contrary to the dictates of "plain reason and legal axioms". in any case, most people may want to quit being poor on an at-will basis if all they need to is become more marketable, sufficient to command an efficiency wage in the market for labor.
 
Slyfox696 said:
No, the economy was +192,000 jobs. When you take all the jobs which were added and remove the ones which were subtracted, you're left with 192,000.

The reason for the unemployment rate not changing is generally due to a change in the number of people in the labor force (in this case, more people in the labor force).
Click to expand...

Labor force lost almost 1 million at the same time. So yeah, it boosts the unemployment rate because the BLS official rate is only calculated with people in the labor force. Check the true U-6 unemployment rate. Kind of scary. I would hardly call the gain awesome. This needs to be a continuing trend. All to often we see seasonal job gains and the politicians jump all over it, but fail to report how many people drop out of the labor force as well. Sure there are lots of boomers now, but 1 million in a month?

The gains were all from the age 55-69 group. Workers younger than 55 lost 259k jobs. So having gains in only the top age group is also telling that these are probably not great jobs with awesome bennies.
 
danielpalos said:
It should be unemployment compensation for being unemployed in our at-will employment States, that simply clears our poverty guidelines. two birds with one stone, since supply side economics is supposed to be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

from a philosophical point of view, no true social safety net should end while it is still needed or it merely sacrifices the end; contrary to the dictates of "plain reason and legal axioms". in any case, most people may want to quit being poor on an at-will basis if all they need to is become more marketable, sufficient to command an efficiency wage in the market for labor.
Click to expand...

While I realize that you love to spew your general philosophy, the simple question asked in my post, to which you responded with quote, required a simple yes or no answer and, if yes, a period of time.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
While I realize that you love to spew your general philosophy, the simple question asked in my post, to which you responded with quote, required a simple yes or no answer and, if yes, a period of time.
Click to expand...

What part of the concept and legal doctrine in American law regarding employment at will, do you have any difficulty with?

in any case, most people may want to quit being poor on an at-will basis if all they need to is become more marketable, sufficient to command an efficiency wage in the market for labor.
 
Last edited:
JRSaindo said:
Labor force lost almost 1 million at the same time. So yeah, it boosts the unemployment rate because the BLS official rate is only calculated with people in the labor force. Check the true U-6 unemployment rate. Kind of scary. I would hardly call the gain awesome. This needs to be a continuing trend. All to often we see seasonal job gains and the politicians jump all over it, but fail to report how many people drop out of the labor force as well. Sure there are lots of boomers now, but 1 million in a month?

The gains were all from the age 55-69 group. Workers younger than 55 lost 259k jobs. So having gains in only the top age group is also telling that these are probably not great jobs with awesome bennies.
Click to expand...

When there are mega millions more people out of work than there are jobs for them, it is definitely a buyers market for employers. When there is full employment--generally believed to be the case when the REAL unemployment rate is at or below 4%--it is a sellers market for the workers. Employers have a much smaller available work force to choose from, and will have to offer top wages to get the best people.

In such an economy as we have now, employers are less willing to take a chance on the untried, untrained, young and will of course hire the older, more experienced worker who has already demonstrated his skill sets and work ethic. And older workers who have fewer options will take those jobs while the young fall back on their parents to continue to support them.
 
Last edited:
JRSaindo said:
Labor force lost almost 1 million at the same time.
Click to expand...
No, it didn't. You're confusing April's report with March's. This thread was about March. In March, labor force participation went up.
 
danielpalos said:
Yes, a form of minimum wage is a market based metric under any form of Capitalism.

you are welcome to re-state your position.
Click to expand...
A simple yes would have sufficed.
 
Slyfox696 said:
No, it didn't. You're confusing April's report with March's. This thread was about March. In March, labor force participation went up.
Click to expand...

Oops, my mistake. Saw it on the top so thought it was this month. I knew it was 288k too, just dumb on my part. :) Still, jobs gains mean diddly when people are dropping out of the labor force in droves each month.
 
JRSaindo said:
Oops, my mistake. Saw it on the top so thought it was this month. I knew it was 288k too, just dumb on my part. :)
Click to expand...
No problem, mistakes happen to everyone.

Still, jobs gains mean diddly when people are dropping out of the labor force in droves each month.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, it always depends on why they are dropping out.
 
Its not all from retiring.
 
JRSaindo said:
Its not all from retiring.
Click to expand...
No, but it's not all because they can't find jobs either. It's also kids staying in school longer, adults going back to college, etc. But retirees do make up a significant portion of those leaving the labor force, we've known it was going to happen for decades.
 
danielpalos said:
anyone who doesn't want to stay poor on an at-will basis.
Click to expand...

But according they're not "poor" anymore if they are provided an income that clears the poverty guidelines. So, I don't have to work, and I clear poverty guidelines, so again, why work?
 
Slyfox696 said:
No, but it's not all because they can't find jobs either. It's also kids staying in school longer, adults going back to college, etc. But retirees do make up a significant portion of those leaving the labor force, we've known it was going to happen for decades.
Click to expand...

You could be right to a certain extent. But the administration is not helping itself by not explaining this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom