• 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 Jobs Report: U.S. Adds 288,000 Jobs; Unemployment Rate Drops to 6.3%

News flash! The labor participation rate started to drop in 2001.

It's basically falling because:
1) The Baby Boomers are starting to retire
2) More people are going on disability.

In terms of 2), there was a big run-up that started in 2000, and it jumped again a few years ago. Nor, as far as I recall, has the Obama administration changed disability eligibility or requirements.

The recession accelerated these trends, but they were already in progress.
 
Lutherf said:
How much do you want to bet that those over 55 are taking part time positions?
Click to expand...

The biggest gaining cetegories were in the lowest paying fields: Education and Health, Retail Trade, Temp Help & Leisure, and Hospitality which had a total gain of 126.5k.

The smallest gains were in the two best paying fields: Financial Services and Information which saw a combined 3K jobs added between them.

The median wage professional/business services category had the single biggest gain of 51k.
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
All sounds like the middle-class marching backwards that we've heard so much about. Only way to fix that is to drive the job demand through the roof, and having the job market dictate premium salaries, kinda like it was back in the go-go 90's.
Click to expand...
Yeah, too bad wages have been stagnant since the 1970s, and that the middle class is also "evaporating" because of the massive increase in income/wealth inequality, which distorts income measures.

Employers have also spent the last 5 years doing everything they can to reduce their staffing to the barest minimum, and cut wages to the bone for everyone except the top ranks.

The job market has dictated wages -- which, again, is why wages have been stagnant since the 1970s. Only 1.6 million people -- or 1% of the labor force -- are minimum wage workers.

Finally, there haven't been any substantive restrictions placed on wages or the job market since the 90s. The minimum wage hasn't even kept up with inflation since the 90s.

So... got another strategy to offer? ;)
 
Visbek said:
News flash! The labor participation rate started to drop in 2001.

It's basically falling because:
1) The Baby Boomers are starting to retire
2) More people are going on disability.

In terms of 2), there was a big run-up that started in 2000, and it jumped again a few years ago. Nor, as far as I recall, has the Obama administration changed disability eligibility or requirements.

The recession accelerated these trends, but they were already in progress.
Click to expand...

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics LFPR

For sure. But its not a problem according to the administration. Cherry picking data can always make crap smell like a rose. We aren't even into the heftiest groups of boomers retiring yet.
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
News flash! The labor participation rate started to drop in 2001.

It's basically falling because:
1) The Baby Boomers are starting to retire
2) More people are going on disability.

In terms of 2), there was a big run-up that started in 2000, and it jumped again a few years ago. Nor, as far as I recall, has the Obama administration changed disability eligibility or requirements.

The recession accelerated these trends, but they were already in progress.
Click to expand...

You are half right...the Fed itself said in a report that 1/2 leave for retirement/disability AT MOST. The rest leave mostly because they can't find work.
 
Visbek said:
Yeah, too bad wages have been stagnant since the 1970s, and that the middle class is also "evaporating" because of the massive increase in income/wealth inequality, which distorts income measures.

Employers have also spent the last 5 years doing everything they can to reduce their staffing to the barest minimum, and cut wages to the bone for everyone except the top ranks.

The job market has dictated wages -- which, again, is why wages have been stagnant since the 1970s. Only 1.6 million people -- or 1% of the labor force -- are minimum wage workers.

Finally, there haven't been any substantive restrictions placed on wages or the job market since the 90s. The minimum wage hasn't even kept up with inflation since the 90s.

So... got another strategy to offer? ;)
Click to expand...

I don't want to get into the weeds on this but it's lunacy to suggest the middle class has been squeezed because the minimum wage is stagnant. It's also lunacy to suggest wages have been stagnant since the 1970's. It is true that wages have not kept pace recently with increases in consumer goods, many of them goods essential to a comfortable life, but that's not all the fault of wages and often the fault of overregulation in government, most recently in the artificial increase in the costs of energy due to a desire in some parts to bankrupt the economy and people's lives in order to "save the planet" when it's debatable whether human arrogance is needed to save something that's been around for eons.

The minimum wage is basically irrelevant to this discussion and simply feeds into the nonsense out of this White House that hasn't a clue what it's doing and won't listen to anyone who may be able to help.
 
Visbek said:
Yeah, too bad wages have been stagnant since the 1970s, and that the middle class is also "evaporating" because of the massive increase in income/wealth inequality, which distorts income measures.
Click to expand...

Someone who is determined to disbelieve something can manage to disregard an Everest of evidence for it. So Barack Obama will not temper his enthusiasm for increased equality with lucidity about the government’s role in exacerbating inequality.
. . . .
The welfare state, primarily devoted to pensions and medical care for the elderly, aggravates inequality. Young people just starting up the earnings ladder and families in the child-rearing, tuition-paying years subsidize the elderly, who have had lifetimes of accumulation. Households headed by people age 75 and older have the highest median net worth of any age group.

In this sixth year of near-zero interest rates, the government’s monetary policy breeds inequality. Low rates are intended to drive liquidity into the stock market in search of higher yields. The resulting boom in equity markets — up 30 percent last year alone — has primarily benefited the 10 percent who own 80 percent of all directly owned stocks. Charles Wolf writes in the Weekly Standard: “The financial sector’s profits rose from 18 percent of total corporate profits preceding the recession in 2007 to 23 percent in 2013.”
Click to expand...
George Will: Democrats’ policies make income inequality worse - The Washington Post

I'd have to agree with George on this one. A government that can give you all you want, can also take all you have. I don't see this as government's role. Further, when government takes on this role, it doesn't make things better, it makes things worse.

Visbek said:
Employers have also spent the last 5 years doing everything they can to reduce their staffing to the barest minimum, and cut wages to the bone for everyone except the top ranks.

The job market has dictated wages -- which, again, is why wages have been stagnant since the 1970s. Only 1.6 million people -- or 1% of the labor force -- are minimum wage workers.
Click to expand...

Information technologies and automation have made significant inroads and have impacted earning potential for many. You sure make it sound like it's the 'bad mean old businessman', and I don't agree. It it the average businessman's fault that there is a glut of labor? Supply and demand says when there is a glut, the prices drop. It's one of those reality based rules.

Visbek said:
Finally, there haven't been any substantive restrictions placed on wages or the job market since the 90s. The minimum wage hasn't even kept up with inflation since the 90s.

So... got another strategy to offer? ;)
Click to expand...

Need to light the turbo chargers for this economy, rather than regulate it to death. It's a demand problem. Everyone is still very much cash strapped, and isn't spending like they used to. Kinda happens after a financial collapse.

So how can you cheaply and effectively stimulate demand?

Keystone Pipeline: Yes! (No cost to government)
Off shore drilling: Yes! (No cost to government)
Government land drilling: Yes! (No cost to government)
Franking: Yes! (No cost to government)

Just a few ideas, no doubt there are lots more.

Why are we missing out on the American fossil fuel Renaissance? A positive force in the economy would be to allow the fuel prices to drop below $4 / gallon. Just think of how much money that would save the common man commuting from home to work and back.

Oh wait. Can't have that.

Yeah, we have the economy that we voted for. So now you're saying you don't like it?
 
JRSaindo said:
1 million dropped out of the labor force.
Click to expand...
How did 800,000 get increased to 1 million, if that is really the case, since righties are calling the 288,000 # a lie?
Kind of like increasing an average loss of 740,000 jobs for six straight months, ending 5 years ago, to 1 million each month.
Meaning the 4.4 million number lost in 6 months should have been rounded to 6 million, 1 million a month .
 
NIMBY said:
How did 800,000 get increased to 1 million, if that is really the case, since righties are calling the 288,000 # a lie?
Kind of like increasing an average loss of 740,000 jobs for six straight months, ending 5 years ago, to 1 million each month.
Meaning the 4.4 million number lost in 6 months should have been rounded to 6 million, 1 million a month .
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't want to type out 800,000. Whats a couple hundred thousand at those levels anyway? Nitpick much?

288k isn't lying, its misleading, that's all. But hey, believe the hype if you must. Here is your recovery as jobs go.

At the peak of the recession in February 2010, the job number dropped to 129.7 million. Since then, the average monthly number of job adds is 172K.

Guess the average monthly number of people who dropped out of the labor force since February 2010? 175K.

SUCCESS! If you call more lower paying jobs success.
 
Last edited:
The missing point here remains the discouraged workers and the reality that we still have over a million less people working today than we had when the Recession began in December 2007 and we are almost 7 years later. Discouraged workers and people dropping out of the labor force always make the unemployment numbers look better than they are. There is a reason Obama has such a low JAR and it the reality of his economy, stagnant economic growth, massive govt. dependence, low job creation, discouraged workers, high debt thus high debt service, more regulations, wealth redistribution. Obama is a disaster so let's be honest for a change.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't want to get into the weeds on this but it's lunacy to suggest the middle class has been squeezed because the minimum wage is stagnant. It's also lunacy to suggest wages have been stagnant since the 1970's.
Click to expand...
Uh-huh...

Gimmesometruth said:
Repost:

change-in-real-family-income-by-quintile-and-top-5-percent-1947-1979.png


Versus....



change-in-real-family-income-by-quintile-and-top-5-percent-1979-2009.png
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh-huh...
Click to expand...

What is the minimum wage in your world and why is it the government's responsibility to tell a small private business owner with their own money invested in the business what to pay their workers? You don't seem to understand who makes minimum wage no matter how many times it is posted plus the reality that many making minimum wage aren't in poverty because they have very limited financial obligations.
 
Conservative said:
What is the minimum wage in your world and why is it the government's responsibility to tell a small private business owner with their own money invested in the business what to pay their workers? You don't seem to understand who makes minimum wage no matter how many times it is posted plus the reality that many making minimum wage aren't in poverty because they have very limited financial obligations.
Click to expand...
Poor con, can't understand that the response to the Canuck was a counter to the claim that one "has to be insane to believe that wages have been stagnant since the 1970's". It wasn't referencing MW specifically.

I'll tell you who is a typical MW worker, she is a Hispanic woman working as a waitress in Texas making less than MW, thank you Herman Cain.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Poor con, can't understand that the response to the Canuck was a counter to the claim that one "has to be insane to believe that wages have been stagnant since the 1970's". It wasn't referencing MW specifically.

I'll tell you who is a typical MW worker, she is a Hispanic woman working as a waitress in Texas making less than MW, thank you Herman Cain.
Click to expand...

Yep, and happy to have a job and happy to live in TX with the low cost of living rather than being like far too many getting an unemployment check from those of us paying taxes and doing so for almost 2 years. Poor Gimme, out of touch with reality, the cost of living, and understanding of personal responsibility
 
Conservative said:
Yep, and happy to have a job and happy to live in TX with the low cost of living rather than being like far too many getting an unemployment check from those of us paying taxes and doing so for almost 2 years. Poor Gimme, out of touch with reality, the cost of living, and understanding of personal responsibility
Click to expand...
Um, hate to break it to you, but even in TX when one is making less than MW...they are in poverty.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, hate to break it to you, but even in TX when one is making less than MW...they are in poverty.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, how do you know what the expenses are of that minimum wage worker? Living below the reported poverty level doesn't mean one is living in poverty but I don't expect people who have no problem spending someone else's money to understand that.
 
Conservative said:
Living below the reported poverty level doesn't mean one is living in poverty..
Click to expand...
Wow, it only took you three responses to me to create a complete self contradiction, nearly worth adding to some of your more memorable quote below.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Wow, it only took you three responses to me to create a complete self contradiction, nearly worth adding to some of your more memorable quote below.
Click to expand...

Guess another subject you know nothing about is profit demand. Not surprising but that doesn't stop you from spending someone else's money. Are your over 16 kids living at home making minimum wage living in poverty?
 
Conservative said:
The missing point here remains the discouraged workers and the reality that we still have over a million less people working today than we had when the Recession began in December 2007 and we are almost 7 years later. Discouraged workers and people dropping out of the labor force always make the unemployment numbers look better than they are. There is a reason Obama has such a low JAR and it the reality of his economy, stagnant economic growth, massive govt. dependence, low job creation, discouraged workers, high debt thus high debt service, more regulations, wealth redistribution. Obama is a disaster so let's be honest for a change.
Click to expand...



You're right. The GW Bush (the First torturor) Great Depression caused by GW Bush lies and wars and Repukelicans/Dumbocrats stupidity continues. Vote any third Party. It can't get any worse.
 
Conservative said:
over 16 kids living at home making minimum wage
Click to expand...
...are a very small part of MW workers, aka not typical.

Funny how you keep saying that others know nothing about MW workers....while you keep missing the mark. And again, the quote you originally responded to had little to do with MW...but then context is a concept totally foreign to your posts.
 
DaveFagan said:
You're right. The GW Bush (the First torturor) Great Depression caused by GW Bush lies and wars and Repukelicans/Dumbocrats stupidity continues. Vote any third Party. It can't get any worse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it can, look at how successful third party elected officials have been at the state and local levels. First step is term limits for Federal Politicians.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
...are a very small part of MW workers, aka not typical.

Funny how you keep saying that others know nothing about MW workers....while you keep missing the mark. And again, the quote you originally responded to had little to do with MW...but then context is a concept totally foreign to your posts.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. Don't you think you should find out how many are in that category, how many are first time job owners, how long they make minimum wage instead of broad brushing everything like you do. Still waiting for why you think it is right for you or anyone else demand that a private business pay their workers a certain wage? It isn't your money you are spending on those employees
 
CanadaJohn said:
I can tell from your comments above that you must be a teenager or early 20s, likely still in school, with zero concept of what living on your own in the real world is all about. To think that you need a gross income of $200,000 a year to be able to afford to have a family is just asinine unless you spend like a drunken sailor with an incredible "me-now" instant gratification mentality. Young people coming out of school these days think they can demand 6 figure salaries as an entitlement of breathing, with a nice condo and a BMW and lots of vacations and nice clothes, etc. etc. It's all about expectations in life and yours seem a little high.
Click to expand...

My math spidey senses are tingling. If you make 20 bucks an hour and work 50 hours a week, you make 1000 before taxes. If you get two weeks of paid time off, you are looking at banking $52,000 a year. Where did $200,000 come from? If they are making 52K, which anyone leaving college with a bachelors degree would be pumped about, I hope they aren't living in NYC, Boston, DC or CT. Taxes will kill you. I am not saying they can't live and have some nice things, because they can...but 52K is a far far far way from 200k.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
...are a very small part of MW workers, aka not typical.

Funny how you keep saying that others know nothing about MW workers....while you keep missing the mark. And again, the quote you originally responded to had little to do with MW...but then context is a concept totally foreign to your posts.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked no one held a gun to anyone's head to stay in a job that wasn't rewarding them for their worth or maybe, just maybe they are being rewarded for what they are worth. You seem to have found the answer, start your own business with the incredible education and experience you have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom