Who Creates Jobs?

The Third Way looks like this:

By purchasing our [product] you are helping developing nations use their own resources to improve quality of life for their citizens: clean drinking water, basic health services, improved education, better roads and reliable electricity....

And all you have to do is keep buying our [over-priced] coffee or cosmetics or clothing. Indulge yourself without guilt. Pamper and spoil yourself, and leave the details to us. We'll make sure someone, somewhere, will be happy with your purchase. Don't worry that it may not benefit anyone in your home nation, even when about 20% of your fellow citizens are unemployed.

You are bringing barbarians and heathens into the 21st century, raising their standard of living to the stablemen that keep your horse barns clean, or the maids that brush your toilet bowls, or the people that park your cars. They will be grateful, and you don't even have to give them tips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Great! Then the explanation that "Business won't expand or hire during all this uncertainty from government policy" is just bogus excuses!

So, where are the jobs?

---

Uhh no. The jobs are buried in our broken tax code and demonization of business from some of our political leadership.

Or are the jobs hidden in someone's small bag of gold?

A big part of it could be the institutionalization of mega-corporations that have destroyed the competition and therefore can do as they please regarding their stupidity in how many or what type of people they hire. But again that just comes down to the broken banking system that still might not be lending as it should be, perhaps because of the job-stifling low FED interest rate???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Or they say, "I have a great idea: I can make really neat and artistic iPhone cases. I'm going to sell some of my Apple stock to buy some materials and have a go at this business."

Or they say, "I'm a retiree and I'm going to take some profits on that portfolio I've been watching for the past 30 years. Time to sell some and spend that money."

Or a million other things. Economies aren't zero-sum games.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Uhh no. The jobs are buried in our broken tax code and demonization of business from some of our political leadership.

Or are the jobs hidden in someone's small bag of gold?

---

Our tax code may be broken, but not for our example (selling Apple stock at 15% capital gains tax) to start a business or spend profits, putting that money back into the economy in a million other ways.

And (since you claimed in another thread that we don't really have party leadership) who are the political leadership "demonizing business"? We have hugely pro-business attitudes, with legislation that business leaders and lobbyists helped write. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

A big part of it could be the institutionalization of mega-corporations that have destroyed the competition and therefore can do as they please regarding their stupidity in how many or what type of people they hire. But again that just comes down to the broken banking system that still might not be lending as it should be, perhaps because of the job-stifling low FED interest rate???

---

That too. Broken banking/financial system and tax codes, with preferential treatment for The Bigs. Maybe it's not "demonizing business", as Dread says is our problem, but practically idolizing multi-national mega-corps and financial giants sitting on their cash. To the detriment of savers and small business that could grow? :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Great! Then the explanation that "Business won't expand or hire during all this uncertainty from government policy" is just bogus excuses!

So, where are the jobs?

---

Jobs are coming and going constantly. The vast, vast, vast majority of people have jobs. Open your eyes, look around you, and you'll see that almost every adult who really wants a job has one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

almost every adult who really wants a job has one.

---

:rolleyes: here we go again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Jobs are coming and going constantly. The vast, vast, vast majority of people have jobs. Open your eyes, look around you, and you'll see that almost every adult who really wants a job has one.

---

Depends on what you mean by "almost". Sure, those who have jobs outnumber those who don't, but that's employment rate--not UN-employment rate. Looking around isn't the best metric to use, but I do see plenty of Going Out of Business, Liquidations, shuttered storefronts, bankruptcy filings, sheriff's sales, auctions, lay-off announcements, temp agencies with more applicants than jobs, rising numbers applying for food stamps and unemployment insurance.

Very few Help Wanted signs or classified ads, most are for highly skilled and/or out of town positions. Our "real" unemployment is 20% now, what's yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

:rolleyes: here we go again

---

Like it or not, its true. What proportion of people do you think have a job who want one? 5%, 10%, 15% are employed in your eyes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Depends on what you mean by "almost". Sure, those who have jobs outnumber those who don't, but that's employment rate--not UN-employment rate. Looking around isn't the best metric to use, but I do see plenty of Going Out of Business, Liquidations, shuttered storefronts, bankruptcy filings, sheriff's sales, auctions, lay-off announcements, temp agencies with more applicants than jobs, rising numbers applying for food stamps and unemployment insurance.

Very few Help Wanted signs or classified ads, most are for highly skilled and/or out of town positions. Our "real" unemployment is 20% now, what's yours?

---

No, your unemployment rate is 9.2%

If you want to tweak it by arguing about this, that or the other - then I'd argue to adjust it in the opposite direction, to counter the fact many [I've never claimed all] in that 9.2% are unemployed by choice. I suspect you won't want to acknowledge that, so how about we use the real published figure? Which shows that not 5 in 10, not 6 in 10, not 7 in 10, not 8 in every 10 people ... [technically more than] 9 in ever 10 people have a job. You want to know where the jobs are, how about asking the [more than] 9 in every 10 people who quietly go to work every week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Like it or not, its true. What proportion of people do you think have a job who want one? 5%, 10%, 15% are employed in your eyes?

---

You have the same handicap that Lewk has. Repeating something over and over again without evidence, while sidelining, marginalizing, or flatout ignoring evidence to the contrary, does not make a statement fact. We went over this the last time you tried to pull this stupid stunt.
I suspect thats why you are now using such vague and unaccountable terms like almost and vast majority. While playing to the other extreme (5% emplyed :rolleyes:) when someone replies.

and Florida's unemployment is still over 10%, and thats before you factor in the people who still don't make enough to get off of government assistance, or the people who have stopped officially looking because they have become unemployable for various reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

You have the same handicap that Lewk has. Repeating something over and over again without evidence, while sidelining, marginalizing, or flatout ignoring evidence to the contrary, does not make a statement fact. We went over this the last time you tried to pull this stupid stunt.
I suspect thats why you are now using such vague and unaccountable terms like almost and vast majority. While playing to the other extreme (5% emplyed :rolleyes:) when someone replies.

and Florida's unemployment is still over 10%, and thats before you factor in the people who still don't make enough to get off of government assistance, or the people who have stopped officially looking because they have become unemployable for various reasons.

---

Its also before you factor in those in that 10% who aren't really trying, who don't turn up to interviews, who deliberately fail them, who walk away from a job. So how about we deal with the real facts? Over 10% in one state (its less than 10% nationally), still means its almost 90% employed in that state. Nice to concentrate on the extreme minority rather than the silent vast majority.

Somehow I suspect if Obama got nearly 90% of the votes next year you wouldn't be asking "where are all the Democrats".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Our "real" unemployment is 20% now, what's yours?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, your unemployment rate is 9.2%

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Its also before you factor in those in that 10% who aren't really trying, who don't turn up to interviews, who deliberately fail them, who walk away from a job.

---

and this is the stonewall baseless accusation that sunk the last conversation. Rand, through what has only been described as personal experiences thus far, believe thats, at minimum, 1 of every 2 under or unemployed people is that way because they want to be, or because they don't want to be bad enough:bored:

I'm not trying to state a proportion of people who that 9.2% are - I could and you could but we simply don't know. You are being incredulous if you seriously believe that nobody in that 9.2% unemployed falls under any of those categories.

So how about we go with some facts? The unemployment rate is 9.2%. Based on that, more than 90% of people are employed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I'm not trying to state a proportion of people who that 9.2% are

---

but you just did :bulb:

Quote:

---

So how about we go with some facts?

---

The "real employment" could be as high as 26% when counting the underemployed. It would be around 20% if we used the same measurement we used during our Great Depression.


Now what I'm curious about, in a discussion that involves job growth related to purchasing power and growth of the economy, how does the federal unemployment rate hold any weight? Companies, can and do, remove full time positions and replace them with an unbalanced (as in not 2 for 1) number of part time positions. So instead of one person requiring government assistance for health care and basic necessities, you end up with, at best 2 (especially in relation to health coverage).
Using that scenario (which I've seen personally) everything is peaches and cream in your world, but in reality, thats far from true.

BLS stopped measuring long-term discouraged job seekers in 1994. They do show some ugly low numbers about new jobs and job openings, though. Using their population numbers we're massively short, no way we can get out of this hole by creating 50,000 new jobs a month, while laying off government workers by almost as much. We're supposed to be making around 200,000 new jobs every month, but we're not.

We've done all this before, Rand....lies, damn lies and statistics :p So how's UK doing lately---with new jobs, capacity utilization, all that?

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate...loyment-charts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

but you just did :bulb:

---

Where? I said that the vast majority of the total population are employed. That is correct, 90.8% are.

Quote:

---

The "real employment" could be as high as 26% when counting the underemployed. It would be around 20% if we used the same measurement we used during our Great Depression.

Now what I'm curious about, in a discussion that involves job growth related to purchasing power and growth of the economy, how does the federal unemployment rate hold any weight? Companies, can and do, remove full time positions and replace them with an unbalanced (as in not 2 for 1) number of part time positions. So instead of one person requiring government assistance for health care and basic necessities, you end up with, at best 2 (especially in relation to health coverage).
Using that scenario (which I've seen personally) everything is peaches and cream in your world, but in reality, thats far from true.

---

I'm not bothered about so-called underemployment, we were talking about employment. You can try and spin it all you like, I'm sure those people choosing to do part time while the kids are at school etc, etc, etc are not really employed as far as you're concerned. :rolleyes:

Comparing to the 1920s is ludicrous. Do you know what the participation rate was in the 1920s? Especially for women?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

almost every adult who really wants a job has one.

---

---

but like I already warned, you use vague wording so you don't have to own up to anything when challenged.

Quote:

---

I said that the vast majority of the total population are employed. That is correct, 90.8% are.

---

and now I'm not sure you understand the stat you keep repeating. a 9.2% unemployment rate does not mean a 90.8% employment rate. It means the current federal measurement of unemployment according to the following guideline "when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks". Which brings up your continued problem of ignoring the difference between your sacred 9.2% and the rest of people who make of the claims that reach as high as 26%.
Talk about a fucking spin.

Quote:

---

I'm not bothered about so-called underemployment, we were talking about employment. You can try and spin it all you like, I'm sure those people choosing to do part time while the kids are at school etc, etc, etc are not really employed as far as you're concerned. :rolleyes:

---

No, you're talking about a strict sense of unemployment that has no relation to the thread topic, while everyone else seems to be talking with a little more sense in their head.

The U6 unemployment rating doesn't include parttimers who wish to stay parttime. It includes parttimers who are parttimers because of economic reasons. This is, again, you trying to whitewash the issue away.

Got no objection with the definition, nor does your federal government. You may be a conspiracy nut that its wrong or whatever but its not just official but appropriate.

Anyone who has not been actively looking for work for the past 4 weeks clearly doesn't really want a job do they? Or you think that people who aren't looking for a job want one and should be counted? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Anyone who has not been actively looking for work for the past 4 weeks clearly doesn't really want a job do they?

---

I know that one was going to distract you to easily :(

Took you a bit longer than expected to resort to this, but as I said earlier, you get hung up on the same problem that killed the last conversation on this topic. Not understanding those that don't fit what you think the correct answer is.

That's not my judgement, its your governments.

And our official U-6 was 16.4% for June. They don't count long-term discouraged, or when an employer goes out of business. 1/5 of all adult men are unemployed. I don't care how you want to spin those numbers---that's not good for a society.

Third time's a charm....How's the UK job scene looking, Rand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Our tax code may be broken, but not for our example (selling Apple stock at 15% capital gains tax) to start a business or spend profits, putting that money back into the economy in a million other ways.

And (since you claimed in another thread that we don't really have party leadership) who are the political leadership "demonizing business"? We have hugely pro-business attitudes, with legislation that business leaders and lobbyists helped write. :bored:

---

Except Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax on said Apple stock.

And my point about leadership is that our political parties are diffuse and given to handing a lot of power to individual members. The folks like Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader are subject to the whims of their legislative body. We all remember what happened to Newt. The exception is when a part controls the White House. The President does set the agenda more than a party leader can. Saying that Bachman is a "leader" of the GOP is simply false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Except Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax on said Apple stock.

---

Might make sense, especially for HFT and day traders that make profits by holding for seconds or minutes. Not even sure what the short-term rate is now. It's passive income and not like labor, anyway.

Quote:

---

And my point about leadership is that our political parties are diffuse and given to handing a lot of power to individual members. The folks like Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader are subject to the whims of their legislative body. We all remember what happened to Newt. The exception is when a part controls the White House. The President does set the agenda more than a party leader can. Saying that Bachman is a "leader" of the GOP is simply false.

---

Recent events seem to show it's the Tea Party freshmen in charge of the house GOP, yankin' Boehner's chain. :bored:

More on the Tea Party. They picked up lots of seats in the House of Representatives, because they ran on a platform of spending cuts and fiscal conservatism....as The Way to create jobs and growth. Right?

They've been in office since January 2010, almost 8 months now. First bills they introduced were related to social conservatism (DOMA, DADT, abortion, immigration). They filibustered almost every bill related to JOBS, including SBIR (small business innovation research). They won't support budget bills that include any revenue, because they interpret that as a violation of their "No Tax" pledge given to Norquist. They define "compromise" as a betrayal of their principles (instead of a prerequisite for governance).

They somehow manage to hamstring the entire GOP, Boehner more vulnerable than McConnell, but it's still obvious what's happened. Then what do they do when the debt ceiling negotiations fall apart, and the full faith and credit of the US is at stake? They add a constitutional amendment for balanced budgets, something that needs 2/3 of house and senate to approve and pass! Who are they kidding? Who ARE these yahoos, and why can't/won't the GOP "leadership" reel them in?

:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's not my judgement, its your governments.

---

The U3 has its uses, this thread is not one of them; and so far I haven't seen anyone from my government try to claim that a 9.2% unemployment rate means 90.8% employment and thus enough jobs for anyone who wants one bad enough. Only you've done that.

So where ARE the jobs? Even if one person lands employment, how many family members can that income support? Not by sending Western Union money orders over-seas or over the phone....but in sheltering and feeding relatives right here and now.

I've already answered in another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

They somehow manage to hamstring the entire GOP, Boehner more vulnerable than McConnell, but it's still obvious what's happened. Then what do they do when the debt ceiling negotiations fall apart, and the full faith and credit of the US is at stake? They add a constitutional amendment for balanced budgets, something that needs 2/3 of house and senate to approve and pass! Who are they kidding? Who ARE these yahoos, and why can't/won't the GOP "leadership" reel them in?

:mad:

---

My God, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget? A measure that resembles fiscal responsibility? In Washington?

You were right all along GGT. These Teabaggers are crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

My God, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget? A measure that resembles fiscal responsibility? In Washington?

You were right all along GGT. These Teabaggers are crazy.

---

Our house and senate hasn't passed a budget in what, over two years? Now, please tell me how a constitutional amendment for a balanced federal budget would look any different than....continued gridlock, or the same shit we see now.

Yes the Dems passed on a budget while they were in power (both houses) so they could foist it off for political cover.

Maybe a requirement for a balanced budget would be the blunt instrument needed.

Or both parties are just a bunch of twats. And can't be trusted to run something so big...so maybe we should shrink it????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Or both parties are just a bunch of twats. And can't be trusted to run something so big...so maybe we should shrink it????

---

They're a bunch of twits. Something quite wrong with "professional politicians". How about term limits and campaign finance reform?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

can't be trusted to run something so big...so maybe we should shrink it????

---

How long you been waiting to use this line? :haha:

but lets start with some baby steps first. I suggest a shrinkage on punctuation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Our house and senate hasn't passed a budget in what, over two years? Now, please tell me how a constitutional amendment for a balanced federal budget would look any different than....continued gridlock, or the same shit we see now.

---

Agreed. It's far too much to expect Congress to do actually do their job, let alone to do it well. That's why it's mind boggling that you keep looking to them to solve all of the countries woes. Sure, they can't be expected to pass a budget, let alone a sound budget, but by golly they'll be able to fix the healthcare system, poverty, social injustice; not to mention rheumatism, chilblains, inflammations, and everything else that ails you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Agreed. It's far too much to expect Congress to do actually do their job, let alone to do it well. That's why it's mind boggling that you keep looking to them to solve all of the countries woes. Sure, they can't be expected to pass a budget, let alone a sound budget, but by golly they'll be able to fix the healthcare system, poverty, social injustice; not to mention rheumatism, chilblains, inflammations, and everything else that ails you.

---

:mad:

What's your solution, Ghost? Have you called your US representative? Do you have Dick Lugar on speed dial?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

They're a bunch of twits. Something quite wrong with "professional politicians". How about term limits and campaign finance reform?

---

I thought the Tea Partiers we a bunch of Freshmen and not professional politicians? :)

But I get your point.

I'm leery of Term Limits. It's gotten mixed reviews/results here in Maine (State legislature)...and I really do not like telling the Idiots in CA that they can't keep voting for Pelosi. I don't feel I have the right to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

They're a bunch of twits. Something quite wrong with "professional politicians". How about term limits and campaign finance reform?

---

Term limits? I thought you didn't like lobbyists, and you similarly disliked non-elected interests being involved in writing legislation?

I was thinking of people like Byrd or Kennedy, the kind of guys that spend decades doing nothing but legislating and DIE in office. Jeeze, there's gotta be some balance there. Dontchathink? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Term limits? I thought you didn't like lobbyists, and you similarly disliked non-elected interests being involved in writing legislation?

---

Right, I don't like lobbyists buying legislation, and I don't like career politicians. They get too comfy together, scratching each other's backs. How was that not clear? :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

:mad:

What's your solution, Ghost? Have you called your US representative? Do you have Dick Lugar on speed dial?

---

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

I've only ever voted for people who have campaigned on balanced budgets and sound fiscal policy. Rarely has that been an (R) or a (D).

I don't blame you for anything ;) Not sure if you answered my question, though.....what's your solution for our problems? How can we create jobs?

Again...we (as in Government) don't.