• 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%

When posting job gains threads, also post job losses. Otherwise job gains are meaningless. Also a breakdown of job/pay quality on both sides. Who cares about the gross number, its all about net. Anyone with a brain can deduce that if the jobs increased by almost 200,000 and the unemployment rate stays the same, the added jobs were a wash at best.
 
The part daniel seems to miss, is that a sizable amount of generational welfare recipients will not, will never do what is necessary to make a living for themselves...Look at the attitude of people like daniel, Socialism? What is the main tennant of Socialism? 'From those who have, to those who have not'....That says nothing about a job.....

I believe our elected representatives to government should not have to be burdened with anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.
 
Really?

Well I still have no idea whether I disagree with you or not.

I believe our elected representatives to government should not have to be burdened with anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.
 
So, if I understand what you're getting at here, you think that to solve poverty, we should just print enough money to give everyone the average median income today...are you for real?

I believe our elected representatives to government should not have to be burdened with anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.
 
Assessing your goldbergian prose and indiscriminate capitalization as sufficient Proof of said intention to divert eyes from omitted Reason adds fortuitous credence to your Otherwise spurious postulate.

Clarity in communication implies intellect in ways exceeding expressions of supercilious sophistry.

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause? Why am I not surprised.

I believe our elected representatives to government should not have to be burdened with anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.
 
Nothing but fallacy for your Cause? Why am I not surprised.

I believe our elected representatives to government should not have to be burdened with anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.
In other words....You believe in welfare which would force employers to pay enough to entice people to work instead of collecting a check.
 
In other words....You believe in welfare which would force employers to pay enough to entice people to work instead of collecting a check.

My dear Comrade,

Don't you believe in the laws of demand and supply in our objective and market based political-economic reality?
 
My dear Comrade,

Don't you believe in the laws of demand and supply in our objective and market based political-economic reality?

FYI If you couldn't tell, I **HATE** deconstructionsim and modernism. They're nothing more than a way for pretend intellectuals to wrap up weak ideas in indecipherable language.

For example, what does the "our objective and market based political-economic reality" contribute to your idea? I It's like a language selfie. I mean, yes our political-economic reality is market based, but what does that have to do with objective? Obviously any reality would be by definition objective.

As for the Comrade quip, I'm just trying to figure out exactly what you're saying.
 
FYI If you couldn't tell, I **HATE** deconstructionsim and modernism. They're nothing more than a way for pretend intellectuals to wrap up weak ideas in indecipherable language.

For example, what does the "our objective and market based political-economic reality" contribute to your idea? I It's like a language selfie. I mean, yes our political-economic reality is market based, but what does that have to do with objective? Obviously any reality would be by definition objective.

As for the Comrade quip, I'm just trying to figure out exactly what you're saying.

Let me help you; Only true Communists don't believe in the laws of demand and supply.
 
When posting job gains threads, also post job losses. Otherwise job gains are meaningless. Also a breakdown of job/pay quality on both sides. Who cares about the gross number, its all about net. Anyone with a brain can deduce that if the jobs increased by almost 200,000 and the unemployment rate stays the same, the added jobs were a wash at best.
The "jobs gained" number IS the net change.
But that number is only non-farm payroll jobs from the Current Employment Statistics and are not used to calculate the unemployment rate.
The labor force numbers come from the Current Population Survey which measures employment, not jobs(yes they are different concepts), and uses that for the UE rate.
So, in February, there were 145,266,000 employed and 10,459,000 unemployed ( giving a labor force of 155,724,000*) and a UE rate of 10,459/155,724 = 6.7%. In March there were 145,742,000 employed and 10,486,000 unemployed (labor force of 156,227,00) and a UE rate of 10,486/156,227 = 6.7%
Here, read the www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm to learn about the difference between the surveys.
 
I believe our elected representatives to government should not have to be burdened with anything more complicated than a form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.
So you think that in all at-will employment areas, unemployment compensation should be given to anyone who is unemployed.

How is that related to minimum wage laws?

Nevermind.

Isn't that already the way things work?
 
So you think that in all at-will employment areas, unemployment compensation should be given to anyone who is unemployed.

How is that related to minimum wage laws?

Nevermind.

Isn't that already the way things work?
Only about 30% of the unemployed receive unemployment benefits (from state or Fed programs). Unemployed is defined as wants a job, could have started work the previous week, and actively looked for work in the last four weeks. Those on temporary layoff don't have to look.

Daniel has not given his definition yet, though he seems to think all unemployed are poor.
 
Only about 30% of the unemployed receive unemployment benefits (from state or Fed programs). Unemployed is defined as wants a job, could have started work the previous week, and actively looked for work in the last four weeks. Those on temporary layoff don't have to look.

Daniel has not given his definition yet, though he seems to think all unemployed are poor.
Everyone defined as unemployed by the government can apply and (most likely) get unemployment compensation, as I understand it.

Whether danielpalos agrees with the gov's definition of unemployment would be interesting to discover, but ultimately irrelevant.


Edit: Which is not to say that I agree with the gov's definition of unemployment.
 
fortunately for me, most of those of the opposing view, don't have a clue or a Cause regarding the concepts we are discussing.

Btw, you never answered my question to you...care to now?
 
Everyone defined as unemployed by the government can apply and (most likely) get unemployment compensation, as I understand it.
oh, no, not even close. Usually, to receive benefits, you must have been laid off for no fault of your own. If you quit, finished a temp job, looking for your first job, or re-entering the labor force you're not eligible. If you look at reason for being unemployed Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment you'll see only about 4.3 million of the over 10 million unemployed were laid off, and many of them would have been fired for cause.
 
Whether danielpalos agrees with the gov's definition of unemployment would be interesting to discover, but ultimately irrelevant.
Considering that he says that in every state but Montana all unemployed should get benefits, his definition is quite relevant. Does he really think 16 year old high school students looking for a part time job for extra money should receive full government support?


Which is not to say that I agree with the gov's definition of unemployment.
I hope this doesn't sound condescending, but do you understand the theory and reasons for the definition? It is meant to measure how many people tried and failed to work in that particular month…the number who could be working, but aren't.
 
Considering that he says that in every state but Montana all unemployed should get benefits, his definition is quite relevant. Does he really think 16 year old high school students looking for a part time job for extra money should receive full government support?



I hope this doesn't sound condescending, but do you understand the theory and reasons for the definition? It is meant to measure how many people tried and failed to work in that particular month…the number who could be working, but aren't.
I feel that the use of the word "unemployed" to reference that group is misleading.

In my mind, the "unemployed" are people who are capable of working but are not.
And that includes people who aren't looking for work.

IMO both numbers have meaning, though. Different meanings.
 
oh, no, not even close. Usually, to receive benefits, you must have been laid off for no fault of your own. If you quit, finished a temp job, looking for your first job, or re-entering the labor force you're not eligible. If you look at reason for being unemployed Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment you'll see only about 4.3 million of the over 10 million unemployed were laid off, and many of them would have been fired for cause.
Perhaps I'm wrong then...
 
So you think that in all at-will employment areas, unemployment compensation should be given to anyone who is unemployed.

How is that related to minimum wage laws?

Nevermind.

Isn't that already the way things work?

Why do you believe we should indulge the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

It could be a form of minimum wage for market based purposes to provide those metrics to the private sector.
 
I feel that the use of the word "unemployed" to reference that group is misleading.

In my mind, the "unemployed" are people who are capable of working but are not.
And that includes people who aren't looking for work.
How would classifying people who don't want to or need to work as unemployed tell us anything about the labor market? And how could we objectively determine "capable of working?"
 
How would classifying people who don't want to or need to work as unemployed tell us anything about the labor market? And how could we objectively determine "capable of working?"

Easy, work for assistance could a physical before receiving aid.
 
Only about 30% of the unemployed receive unemployment benefits (from state or Fed programs). Unemployed is defined as wants a job, could have started work the previous week, and actively looked for work in the last four weeks. Those on temporary layoff don't have to look.

Daniel has not given his definition yet, though he seems to think all unemployed are poor.

Many unemployed may be poor due to a simple lack of income that would otherwise be obtained in a more efficient market for labor.
 
Everyone defined as unemployed by the government can apply and (most likely) get unemployment compensation, as I understand it.

Whether danielpalos agrees with the gov's definition of unemployment would be interesting to discover, but ultimately irrelevant.


Edit: Which is not to say that I agree with the gov's definition of unemployment.

I believe in simplification of public policies. Either a person is gainfully employed in the private sector or they are not. If income is a consideration, then it really should be that simple.
 
Back
Top Bottom