In Towns Hit by Factory Closings, a New Casualty: Retail Jobs

[Port & Starboard]

My brother was a teacher in California. He use to teach auto shop and physics. Way before Obama, California began to phase out the industrial arts (auto/wood shop) type classes. They were replaced with artsy feel good classes.

I agree that many of today's kids don't want to do trades type work. That is an issue for the country. It is a sad state of affairs when some feel that an entry level job flipping burgers should provide a "living wage". There is nothing wrong working in the trades field.

Any kid who enters the trades will never have to stare at a 8 foot ceiling for the rest of his life unless he chooses to.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Being skilled in those fields pay good money as well.
I am thinking about taking a welding class if I can find one for free or something.

No matter what people will always need welders.

I've recently been learning some DIY stuff with an assortment of tools for a home project. Might sound weird, but I find it a lot of fun.

 

[blackjack50]

no, so that people can get trained for higher skilled jobs without being deterred by significant debt. you prefer paying on the back end in the form of public assistance?

View attachment 67219225

I prefer to not flood the market with irrelevant degrees. Do you realize how many jobs "require" a college education...but can easily be done if you had a 2 year college degree, or even just a high school diploma? If we actually had value to lower education...people wouldn't need to go into debt to get something they really don't need.

 

[pinqy]

Agreed.

Which is why I don't trust Unemployment Numbers, since I don't think those who were seeking unemployment payments in 2008/9/10 are doing so today. Where did they go?

Unemployment payments? You do realize that the unemployment numbers used to calculate the unemployment rate have nothing to do with Unemployment Insurance Benefits, right? The Unemployed are those who did not work during the reference week of the Current Population Survey (the week of the month that contains the 12th), actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks, and could have started work during the reference week if offered.

I think their lack of bonafide credentials ("whazzat"*?) forced them at the time to take either occassional jobs or start-up their own company. Either of which means they avoid the statistical machinations of the Census Bureau.

How do you figure? Occasional jobs and self-employment are both captured in the CPS.

At which the economy finally started (finally in 2014, because the Replicants refused any further Stimulus Spending) to create jobs - beginning the downward decent to the 4/5% level today. But, where today in the stats are those who were unemployed then? Between 2008 and 2014 the economy was not creating jobs - see BLS-series here.

That does not show the economy was not creating jobs until 2014...it shows that employment growth was not as fast as population growth until 2014. Look at the chart below: Red line is payroll jobs, Blue line is total employment. They started going up in February 2010. But not as fast as the growth of the adult civilian noninstitutional population.

 

[pinqy]

You may be right. But I 've yet to see any economic-research that supports the notion. (I've been through and through the BLS files.)

Research? It's the definitions found in the BLS Glossary:
Civilian noninstitutional population (Current Population Survey)Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states and the District of Columbia who do not live in institutions (for example, correctional facilities, long-term care hospitals, and nursing homes) and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.

Labor force (Current Population Survey)The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.

Employed persons (Current Population Survey)Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching.

So....by definition...anyone in the civilian noninstitutional population who is neither working nor looking for work is Not in the Labor Force. They'll be in the denominator of the Labor Force Participation rate and the Employment-Population ratio, but not in either numerator. And of course not in the Unemployment calculation at all.

In increase in retirees causes a downward push on the labor force and the labor force participation rate.

 

[mike2810]

Forget the teenagers working a McDonalds or any other food-outlet. They are likely middle-class kids looking for something to do interim.

I am focusing on the 43 million (or so) men, women and children living below the Poverty Threshold. (That's the combined population of the states of, say, California and Idaho (or some such).

The magnitude of which you seem to find derisive/forgettable/unimportant? Nonetheless, their lifestyle is determined by the MW in a great many circumstances.

Look, the MW is $7.25, which means $15K a year. The Poverty Threshold (for a family of four) is $24K a year. So, there is plenty of room for improvement ...

PS: A summary guide to the Wonderful World of Poverty Thresholds, provided by WikiP here.

You can't forget the teenagers. Seems they make up the majority of the entry level job in the fast food, movie theater, workers.

Are you all for eliminating food stamps type programs for those who make the new minimum wage, thereby reducing federal taxes?

How long has the US tried to eliminate poverty?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Any kid who enters the trades will never have to stare at a 8 foot ceiling for the rest of his life unless he chooses to.

Except for HVAC Techs and plumper's

 

[Lafayette]

Are you all for eliminating food stamps type programs for those who make the new minimum wage, thereby reducing federal taxes?

How long has the US tried to eliminate poverty?

If we raise the MW, yes we can eliminate food-stamps. (But, in fact, we already pay the lowest taxation for any developed nation. See here.)

The US has never tried hard enough to fight poverty. Wanna know why?

Because poverty contradicts the American Dream of unlimited success, and we can't have that can we ... ?

 

[Lafayette]

Unemployment payments? You do realize that the unemployment numbers used to calculate the unemployment rate have nothing to do with Unemployment Insurance Benefits, right? The Unemployed are those who did not work during the reference week of the Current Population Survey (the week of the month that contains the 12th), actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks, and could have started work during the reference week if offered.

For that to happen, they must have still acknowledged that they were "looking for work". I suspect by the second, third or fourth year many of the elderly but not yet arrived at the age of 65 simply gave up declaring they were looking for work. (Unless there was some incentive for them to do so.)

So, how are they now accounted, if the still have not found work (because they have experience but of the kind no longer needed in manufacturing) but are not yet at the retirement age?

They are indeed working, but below the radar. So they don't show up in the Employment to population ratio - because if this were the case who would admit to any authority that they were either seeking or working illegally? (That is, for either a daily or weekly cash settlement.)

Meaning these "Employed Unemployed" simply do not enter into the employment statistical counting ...

 

[Lafayette]

No one not looking for work is part of the labor force.

How can they be accounted (as "not part of the labor force") if they do not tell the statistics gathering agencies? They generate income but are not accounted for in the employment reports. Wow ...

 

[mike2810]

If we raise the MW, yes we can eliminate food-stamps. (But, in fact, we already pay the lowest taxation for any developed nation. See here.)

The US has never tried hard enough to fight poverty. Wanna know why?

Because poverty contradicts the American Dream of unlimited success, and we can't have that can we ... ?

Without saying it. but your link hints you want more taxes . Feel free to write the US Treasury a check for the additional amount you feel you should be paying to help your fellow human out.:mrgreen:

There are those who choose to have a lifestyle/location/type of work that be govt. definition results in them being "poor" and below the "poverty level".

 

[pinqy]

For that to happen, they must have still acknowledged that they were "looking for work". I suspect by the second, third or fourth year many of the elderly but not yet arrived at the age of 65 simply gave up declaring they were looking for work. (Unless there was some incentive for them to do so.)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you suspect some people are actually looking for work, but lying about it to Census? For what reason?

So, how are they now accounted, if the still have not found work (because they have experience but of the kind no longer needed in manufacturing) but are not yet at the retirement age?

Not looking for work is classified as "Not in the Labor Force."

They are indeed working, but below the radar. So they don't show up in the Employment to population ratio - because if this were the case who would admit to any authority that they were either seeking or working illegally? (That is, for either a daily or weekly cash settlement.)

Which is it? Not able to find work, or working under the table? And while sure some people are suspicious of any government agency, Census and BLS make it very clear when a household enters the survey that the information collected is solely for statistical purposes and cannot be divulged to any other government agency. You can tell the Census collector you're an illegal immigrant who makes $50,000 a month selling heroin and he can't tell DHS or IRS or DEA or anyone. That being it is not known how much off-the-books employment is captured.

I'm not sure how you think the collection works. The questions are basically:

• Do you own a farm or business? Yes = Employed. No = next question.
• Did you work last week? Yes = Employed. No = next question.
• Did you not work because you were temporarily absent from your regular job due to weather, illness, injury, vacation, strike? Yes = Employed. No = next question.
• What did you do to look for work in the last 4 weeks? Next question.
• Could you have started a job last week if offered? If yes AND had active job search = Unemployed. No, or no active job search = Not in the Labor Force.

Yes there are some other nuances, but I'm confused as to what you think the differentiations are.

Meaning these "Employed Unemployed" simply do not enter into the employment statistical counting ...

They do.

 

[pinqy]

How can they be accounted (as "not part of the labor force") if they do not tell the statistics gathering agencies? They generate income but are not accounted for in the employment reports. Wow ...

Who are "they?" Someone not working and not trying to work is "Not in the Labor Force." How do you think they're generating income?

 

[Helix]

I prefer to not flood the market with irrelevant degrees. Do you realize how many jobs "require" a college education...but can easily be done if you had a 2 year college degree, or even just a high school diploma? If we actually had value to lower education...people wouldn't need to go into debt to get something they really don't need.

we all benefit from a highly trained and educated population, so i support removing the paywall. as for high school, we should require graduation as a minimum for anyone capable. allowing 16 or 17 year olds to make a mistake and drop out has a significant and preventable societal cost. there's really no good reason that we shouldn't at least require that kids at least finish high school.

 

[James972]

we all benefit from a highly trained and educated population,

but not nearly as much as the person who is highly trained so let the highly trained person pay for his own training so I can have money to pay for mine.

 

[James972]

there's really no good reason that we shouldn't at least require that kids at least finish high school.

too bad we believe in freedom

 

[James972]

Who are "they?" Someone not working and not trying to work is "Not in the Labor Force." How do you think they're generating income?

many generate income from in cash jobs under the table, on the street selling drugs/guns/other stolen goods, or barter trading with friends or relatives

 

[James972]

The US has never tried hard enough to fight poverty. Wanna know why?

actually we have tried too hard by just giving money away and crippling people. This created more and more poverty. Look at Venezuela for latest example of sweet caring sensitive libsocialist govt trying too hard. An average person there has lost 17 lbs as caring liberal govt has tried to feed them from their oil riches

 

[Helix]

too bad we believe in freedom

allowing a kid to drop out of high school, a decision which significantly increases his or her chances of being on long term public assistance as an adult, doesn't sound much like "freedom" to me. neither does pricing kids out of education and job training, often resulting in the same outcome.

 

[James972]

allowing a kid to drop out of high school, a decision which significantly increases his or her chances of being on long term public assistance as an adult, doesn't sound much like "freedom" to me. neither does pricing kids out of education and job training, often resulting in the same outcome.

actually freedom allows everyone to make bad decisions too. Freedom is essential since it allows everyone to fail and thus allows everyone to learn from their mistakes. With libcommie elites making the "right" decisions for you the individual is not free to learn and thus ultimately is a robot too stupid for freedom or individual liberty.

 

[Helix]

actually freedom allows everyone to make bad decisions too. Freedom is essential since it allows everyone to fail and thus allows everyone to learn from their mistakes. With libcommie elites making the "right" decisions for you the individual is not free to learn and thus ultimately is a robot too stupid for freedom or individual liberty.

letting non-adults drop out of high school so that they can be on long term public assistance isn't freedom. do you have similar qualms about not allowing them to drop out before they complete ninth or tenth grade?

 

[James972]

letting non-adults drop out of high school so that they can be on long term public assistance isn't freedom. do you have similar qualms about not allowing them to drop out before they complete ninth or tenth grade?

We have to select an age and thus it will be arbitrary. If up to me it would be 22 years with 6 hours daily of serious classroom time and 3 hours of homework 6 days a week.

 

[Helix]

We have to select an age and thus it will be arbitrary. If up to me it would be 22 years with 6 hours daily of serious classroom time and 3 hours of homework 6 days a week.

i'd say a minimum of completion of secondary school with guidance into post secondary education or vocational training. the latter would ideally be as cost free to the student as the former, though optional.

 

[James972]

i'd say a minimum of completion of secondary school with guidance into post secondary education or vocational training. the latter would ideally be as cost free to the student as the former, though optional.

it does not matter what you and I say. It is a free country and we don't dictate. we understand the value of the freedom to fail.

 

[Helix]

it does not matter what you and I say. It is a free country and we don't dictate. we understand the value of the freedom to fail.

for adults. not when the rest of us have to pay for a preventable, stupid decision made by a kid. otherwise, why not let them drop out in fifth grade?