• 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!

Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

apdst said:
Probably zero.
Click to expand...

So you think that if we can't build the pipeline we will just let the oil sit there? Or are you suggesting that the pipeline will be no more efficient than shipping it by truck or rail?

I can't imagine that we would just let the oil stay in the ground just because we don't have a pipeline, I mean we are already pumping it out and shipping it by rail and truck, I can't imagine why we would stop.

And if the pipeline is no more efficient that truck or rail, then what's the point of the pipeline? Why would we need one?
 
imagep said:
So you think that if we can't build the pipeline we will just let the oil sit there? Or are you suggesting that the pipeline will be no more efficient than shipping it by truck or rail?

I can't imagine that we would just let the oil stay in the ground just because we don't have a pipeline, I mean we are already pumping it out and shipping it by rail and truck, I can't imagine why we would stop.

And if the pipeline is no more efficient that truck or rail, then what's the point of the pipeline? Why would we need one?
Click to expand...

The oil is in Canada and the Canadians will fund a new customer. That's what will happen.
 
imagep said:
Here's a start:

income-inequality-2.png


Now notice the peaks of the top 10% in 1928, 2001 and 2007? What events correlated to those peaks?

Also notice that the income of the top 10% is nearly a perfect inverse of the bottom 90%, sort of like a mirror. some people will claim that there is nothing zero sum in economics, but the percentage distribution of anything is indeed zero sum, even if the pool that is being distributed from grows or shrinks.

The reality is that when wealthier folks acquire a larger percentage of our wealth and income, then less wealthy folks will have a smaller percentage. Wealthy people tend to buy about the same amount of stuff all of the time. Someone like Bill Gates doesn't have to wait to get a raise before he can buy a new car. And wealthy people tend to save a very large percent of their income, sometimes close to 100%. Any time that income is shifted from the non-wealthy to the wealthy, demand realized at the cash register will not be as strong as it otherwise would be, and businesses either contract, fail to expand, or at least don't expand as fast as they could. When businesses aren't expanding, new jobs aren't being created.
Click to expand...

FaceofBachmann said:
Best post on this thread!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is yet another instance of correlation without causation. The years preceding the Great Depression and Recession also saw massive credit expansion, i.e. money created out of nothing through low interest rates and/or trading on the margin. Easy money and loose credit restrictions always create the boom-that-causes-the-bust, and it is always those who are already at the top of the money period who are able to ride the wave from the very beginning. When they all decide to get off, the ride is over, and whoever is still on it is left holding the bag (at this point, it is invariably the middle class).

Who’s Afraid of Income Inequality? - Ludwig von Mises Institute Canada
Money acts as a medium of exchange but is not neutral in its effects on receivership. Those first receivers are able to bid up the price of goods before any other market participants. As the newly created money flows into the economy, the general price level rises to reflect the new volume of currency. In practice, credit expansion which brings about a reduction in interest rates also increases the amount of time businesses can go without making deductions for depreciation on their balance sheets as they purchase capital goods. Because investment tends to go toward durable goods during periods of credit expansion, there is less funds left over to devote to labor. Profits end up being recorded while wages sag behind. Since credit expansion and inflationary policy go hand in hand in distorting relative prices and must eventually come to an end, the bust that occurs reveals wasteful investment. Recession sets in shortly thereafter.
Click to expand...

Wealthier folks acquire a larger percentage of total income when conditions allow them to (i.e. easy credit). They don't actually cause the following recession, they just cash in on it early and get out while the gettin' is good. Can you blame them?

If either of you have any link or explanation or argument as to how the wealth gap actually causes recessions, please feel free to post that so we can discuss it.
 
imagep said:
I'm all for the pipeline, but as far as jobs go, how many long term jobs will be lost because we are no longer transporting that oil by rail or truck?
Click to expand...


How many jobs do you think requires to build and repair that pipeline?

You do realize truckers need to bring in those pipes and people need to dig those trenches and after a few years repairs will need to be made (among other things)..

Infrastructure does not go uncorrupted forever..
 
apdst said:
The oil is in Canada and the Canadians will fund a new customer. That's what will happen.
Click to expand...

It still has to be transported. Anyhow, we seem to have our own oil these days.
 
Mr.Nick said:
How many jobs do you think requires to build and repair that pipeline?

You do realize truckers need to bring in those pipes and people need to dig those trenches and after a few years repairs will need to be made (among other things)..

Infrastructure does not go uncorrupted forever..
Click to expand...

Not nearly as many truckers which are needed to transport the oil by truck, and they will need to be done for as long as oil is being produced.
 
imagep said:
Not nearly as many truckers which are needed to transport the oil by truck, and they will need to be done for as long as oil is being produced.
Click to expand...

The theory is, higher efficiency can lead to lower prices for consumers, which serves as an income effect. The question remains, will the pipeline really have a measurable impact on energy prices?
 
Kushinator said:
It is sources such as these that limit the strength of your arguments. What is an unfunded liability? Why is it erroneous to consider it in the same light as debt?
Click to expand...

Didn't you know? Every state in the union is trillions in debt due to the unfunded liabilities of paying for infrastructure improvement and educating the young. Kush man...you really need to understand government finances... *sarcasm*
 
iliveonramen said:
Didn't you know? Every state in the union is trillions in debt due to the unfunded liabilities of paying for infrastructure improvement and educating the young. Kush man...you really need to understand government finances... *sarcasm*
Click to expand...

I do find it entertaining that members who spout off unfunded liability projections (they are actuarial projections after all!) that only employ the future value of the projected gap. It's akin to comparing the cost of a burger now with the cost 50 years from now. Never, not even once, have these sources discounted the future value to the present, which would allow for a relevant account of how much is owed.

Take the example of a home loan for $240 thousand. The future value of the loan assuming 30 years of monthly (on time) payments @ 3.8% is something like $540 thousand. Discounting it back to the present value assuming 2.5% inflation (which implies a sunk cost) shows a present value of $257 thousand. The home, in terms of current (not future) income will cost $257 thousand. The future unfunded liability in this regard, is the difference between the FV and PV, or $283 thousand. The present unfunded liability is $17 thousand.

The partisan right uses big numbers to scare people, not to inform them.
 
Kushinator said:
It is sources such as these that limit the strength of your arguments. What is an unfunded liability? Why is it erroneous to consider it in the same light as debt?
Click to expand...

For the purpose of objectivity I posted three different sources Kush.
 
iliveonramen said:
Didn't you know? Every state in the union is trillions in debt due to the unfunded liabilities of paying for infrastructure improvement and educating the young. Kush man...you really need to understand government finances... *sarcasm*
Click to expand...


California has debt issues above and beyond unfunded liabilities.

Chasing away their tax base and Bussinesses is only going to these issues worse.
 
Fenton said:
For the purpose of objectivity I posted three different sources Kush.
Click to expand...

All three sources used unfunded future values as a means to scare the uninformed. You have already been given a clear and cut example why it is erroneous to do so.

Assuming a geometric average inflation rate of 2.5% (which is more conservative than needs be) gives $181 trillion in future unfunded liabilities a PV of about $24 trillion. Or an additional cost of $990 billion a year, for 80 years, in terms of 2014 dollars.

Not so scary after all!
 
Last edited:
Kushinator said:
The partisan right uses big numbers to scare people, not to inform them.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that even retail investors who are supposedly more knowledgeable in finance lack an understanding of basic concepts such as the time value of money (e.g., http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2012/917-financial-literacy-study-part1.pdf, pp.vii-viii). Therefore, they don't understand the terms that are actually being discussed.

Another problem is that media reports often focus on headline figures without going into much detail, providing contex or concept definitions, little or no discussion about assumptions, no explanation of differences between actual outcomes and past assumptions, etc.
 
Fenton said:
California has debt issues above and beyond unfunded liabilities.

Chasing away their tax base and Bussinesses is only going to these issues worse.
Click to expand...

Why did the articles you presented abuse actuarial figures? Political scare tactics?
 
Fenton said:
California has debt issues above and beyond unfunded liabilities.

Chasing away their tax base and Bussinesses is only going to these issues worse.
Click to expand...

Last year job growth was up by 2.8%. California accounts for 12 percent of the population but experienced 17.5% of the nations job growth. It seems like the exodus of jobs and businesses from California is "common knowledge" by some people on this site but it sure isn't reflected in California job or economic numbers.
 
Kushinator said:
All three sources used unfunded future values as a means to scare the uninformed. You have already been given a clear and cut example why it is erroneous to do so.

Assuming a geometric average inflation rate of 2.5% (which is more conservative than needs be) gives $181 trillion in future unfunded liabilities a PV of about $24 trillion. Or an additional cost of $990 billion a year, for 80 years, in terms of 2014 dollars.

Not so scary after all!
Click to expand...



I never said it was scary.

Just that it was a substantial issue given California's habit of chasing away their tax base and wealth creation.

And California has been #1 on the list for States with the Highest Total debt.

So they're hardly " swimming in dough " as the previous poster mentioned.

Ignoring their debt issues is one thing, but tackling their debt via Liberal narratives put into action is just stupid.
 
The 5.9 percent unemployment rate comes from the Household Survey that Labor hires Census to conduct. There are big concerns about the truthfulness of the jobless rate, especially since this is the last report before the November congressional elections.
For instance, in September the rate fell to 5.9 percent mainly because 315,000 more people told Census they stopped looking for a job.
In fact, about a third of the recent decline in the unemployment rate can be attributed to a decline in the so-called Labor Participation Rate, which is now at a 36-year low. Ninety-six million Americans no longer consider themselves in the labor force.
Some think there is a logical explanation for this: baby boomers who are leaving the workforce because they simply don’t want to work anymore. But the data doesn’t bear that out.
There were 230,000 more workers aged 50 or older in the Household Survey released Friday. So how did the workforce decline by 315,000 people, if aging baby boomers were increasingly looking for jobs?
It’s either a miracle or someone’s pulling our leg
 
iliveonramen said:
Last year job growth was up by 2.8%. California accounts for 12 percent of the population but experienced 17.5% of the nations job growth. It seems like the exodus of jobs and businesses from California is "common knowledge" by some people on this site but it sure isn't reflected in California job or economic numbers.
Click to expand...


Good, maybe they can pay back that 9 Billion dollar loan they took out from the Federal government for Unemployment benefits.

Federal Unemployment benefit extensions to the other 49 States added up to 7 Billion.

It makes sense because California has the Highest poverty rate in the Country.
 
iliveonramen said:
Last year job growth was up by 2.8%. California accounts for 12 percent of the population but experienced 17.5% of the nations job growth. It seems like the exodus of jobs and businesses from California is "common knowledge" by some people on this site but it sure isn't reflected in California job or economic numbers.
Click to expand...

Anytime that real life metrics disprove a conservatives point, they will argue that "Obama is cooking the books - the REAL unemployment rate for California is 97%."
 
Simon Feltser said:
...
For instance, in September the rate fell to 5.9 percent mainly because 315,000 more people told Census they stopped looking for a job....
Click to expand...

Where is that number coming from? I've seen several posters citing it, but I didn't see it in the report. Do you have a source?
 
Fenton said:
Good, maybe they can pay back that 9 Billion dollar loan they took out from the Federal government for Unemployment benefits.

Federal Unemployment benefit extensions to the other 49 States added up to 7 Billion.

It makes sense because California has the Highest poverty rate in the Country.
Click to expand...

Wow...you just throw out everything you can and wait to see what sticks don't you?
 
Simon Feltser said:
The 5.9 percent unemployment rate comes from the Household Survey that Labor hires Census to conduct. There are big concerns about the truthfulness of the jobless rate, especially since this is the last report before the November congressional elections.
For instance, in September the rate fell to 5.9 percent mainly because 315,000 more people told Census they stopped looking for a job.
Click to expand...
Not quite. While the number of those Not in the Labor Force increased by 315,000, the Labor Force decreased by only 97,000
So it's not the 315,000 more people said they STOPPED looking, but rather 315,000 more said the DID NOT look. Not the same thing.


In fact, about a third of the recent decline in the unemployment rate can be attributed to a decline in the so-called Labor Participation Rate, which is now at a 36-year low. Ninety-six million Americans no longer consider themselves in the labor force.
Click to expand...
92.6 million, not 96, and it's not "no longer" as many of them were never in the labor force to begin with.

The population used is age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution. So a 15 year old who does not have a part time job turns 16...1 more person Not in the Labor Force.

Some think there is a logical explanation for this: baby boomers who are leaving the workforce because they simply don’t want to work anymore. But the data doesn’t bear that out.
There were 230,000 more workers aged 50 or older in the Household Survey released Friday. So how did the workforce decline by 315,000 people, if aging baby boomers were increasingly looking for jobs?
Click to expand...
A good way to look at it is Labor force status flows by sex, current month
Looking at the Seasonally Adjusted data, we see that 4,164,000 people left employment in late August and did not start looking for work in early September. Some are retired, some don't want another job, some just haven't started looking yet.
2,193,000 looked for work in late July/early August, but not in late August/early September.
And 301,000 people entered the population (by turning 16, discharge from the military, immigrating to the U.S., or being released from prison or an institution.
So that's 6,659,000 who became Not in the Labor Force
At the same time, of those who were Not in the Labor Force in August...3,814,000 found jobs by September and another 2,337,000 had started looking. And 193,000 left the population: Death, leaving the country, joining the military, going to jail, getting committed. That's 6,344,000 out of not in the labor force.
6,659,000-6,344,000 = 315,000


It’s either a miracle or someone’s pulling our leg
Click to expand...
Or you don't understand the data.
 
imagep said:
Where is that number coming from? I've seen several posters citing it, but I didn't see it in the report. Do you have a source?
Click to expand...

It's not the drop in the Labor Force...they're citing the increase in "Not in the Labor Force" and claiming it's all people dropping out. The Labor Force dropped 97,000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom