Who Creates Jobs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Again irrelevant as before this recession/depression, people didn't/couldn't move willy nilly as you seem to imply.

Also (again), there are THREE grade schools in my town, but I don't have a choice which one my little booger goes to..

---

Willy nilly moving? :rolleyes: Not at all, what makes you say that? During the housing boom people were moving from starter homes to family homes, based on schools for their kids. Better districts attracted higher income couples, more expensive houses, higher taxes, better schools. Rinse, repeat.

Look, I understand you don't like your "designated school", but you made that choice when buying in that location, knowing full well vouchers weren't offered and the school probably "sucked", right? Didn't matter so much when you were DINKY, or didn't plan on being a parent, I have no idea....

You're both well employed, you do have the option of selling and moving to get into the district you like, but the housing market sucks (in most areas) and not enough people have jobs and income to kick it back into gear. Not sure how going off on the voucher tangent matters here, except for unemployed or poor families who still want their kids in good schools, and are stuck in their shitty neighborhoods/school districts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Willy nilly moving? :rolleyes: Not at all, what makes you say that? During the housing boom people were moving from starter homes to family homes, based on schools for their kids. Better districts attracted higher income couples, more expensive houses, higher taxes, better schools. Rinse, repeat.

Look, I understand you don't like your "designated school", but you made that choice when buying in that location, knowing full well vouchers weren't offered and the school probably "sucked", right? Didn't matter so much when you were DINKY, or didn't plan on being a parent, I have no idea....

You're both well employed, you do have the option of selling and moving to get into the district you like, but the housing market sucks (in most areas) and not enough people have jobs and income to kick it back into gear. Not sure how going off on the voucher tangent matters here, except for unemployed or poor families who still want their kids in good schools, and are stuck in their shitty neighborhoods/school districts.

---

I'm not saying my school sucks, or I don't like it. I haven't even been in it yet as school has not started. It is still being built, so physically, it will probably be great.

And no, wrong again: up until last month I though he was going to go to school A, but with the new school being built I was told that he is going to go to B instead. So factor that in your 'you made that choice' haughtiNess.

And again, why should people be force to MOVE (all that disruption, stress, and other crap) about to get their kids the education they want? Why not just let adults make the adult decision?

Anyway...we are not gonna change each other minds on this, so I'll drop it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

so I'll drop it.

---

I'm actually severely confused here. I don't see GGT telling you that you are wrong, and I don't know what you might be wrong about... I don't even know what you're arguing about. :P

It seems like GGT is just describing your current situation and you're complaining about school districting, so I guess you would like school vouchers (or at least, being able to pick your school from a list of those in your own city!) but I don't see GGT saying school vouchers (or picking your own from those in your city) are/is bad or good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Chinese labor may be cheap, but so is some unskilled labor here, willing to work at minimum wage at McDonald's. When 10,000 people apply for 2,000 burger flipping jobs, that should be seen as trouble ahead.

---

Not even remotely. Never mind the fact that minimum wage in the US is dozens of times higher than average wages for unskilled labor in other countries (that are seeing job growth), wages aren't even the only cost of doing business in the US. Payroll taxes, (SS, medicare/caid "contributions," etc.,) benefits and regulatory compliance costs mean that in unskilled labor, the wages a business pay are less than half the cost of employing a laborer. Even if a business could get away with paying an American drop out 2 bucks a day, they'd still have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes and bureaucratic costs, which is why, actually, unskilled labor in America (and other developed countries) is actually the most expensive type of labor to employ (in relative or marginal terms). At least when you hire a skilled professional, those taxes and benefits and compliance costs work out to a fraction of the wages paid - with some entry level, minimum wage wage job, those costs can easily exceed the wages paid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

The "cost" of millions of unemployed Americans is fairly steep.

---

A) No it's not.
B) Corporations don't (and shouldn't) give a shit about that anyway. They're not charities; they exist to make money. In our current regulatory and judicial circumstances, that means employing the absolute minimum number of people they can get away with. The robot working on the assembly line, or server doing financial math (etc, machines) don't require the corporation pay a 15% SS tax, 2 weeks paid vacation, sick days, health insurance, a 401k, affirmative action/"equal rights" employment considerations, can't unionize or sue, and only cost what they cost, plus ~$0.15/kWh, which is why companies are automating everything they possibly can - because it's just too expensive to hire Americans, especially Americans with no skills to speak of... and that's largely thanks to our legislators, though I can't resist pointing out that if your job can be done by a brainless machine and a few lines of code, you probably don't deserve to be employed anyway. Learn a useful skill, dropout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That's not a leftie bitch du jour, but something even righties acknowledge, related to patriotism or national pride. USA #1! It's a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. If more people were working and making a living wage, finding $1 toothpaste (with melamine) or $3 shitty t-shirts (that fall apart in the washing machine), or 0.50 ramen soup....wouldn't be necessary to make ends meet.

---

And, ironically, those cheap mass-produced, available at Walmart products you bitch about... are bought by the poor, marginally employed people you're trying to "help." (Or whom you're ranting about getting the short end of the stick, at least.) Do away with those, and it's the people making the least money who suffer the most. *I* sure as hell wouldn't notice, since I rarely shop at Walmart, or buy low-end anything, but the moron making $5.15 an hour somewhere would sure be hurting if the price of his goods doubled or tripled (or even more) because they're not being made by some kid in Indonesia for 7 cents an hour anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Of course, we can keep doing what we're doing, and begin to look more third world. Crumbling roads, tenement housing or tent cities, wandering hobos and street beggars, people leaving the country to find work, falling even lower down the scale of quality education and competition. Maybe once we're desperate enough, and folks will work for $2/day, the tide will swing back our way? yay

---

Maybe when people stop trying to meddle in matters they have no understanding of, there will be fewer reasons for business and entrepreneurs to avoid America.

Case in point, government regulations cause mine owner to shut down, up to 100 jobs (at $50,000 to $150,000/yr) vanish into thin air.

Thank you, government, for protecting us all from the horrors of employment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

It seems like GGT is just describing your current situation and you're complaining about school districting, so I guess you would like school vouchers (or at least, being able to pick your school from a list of those in your own city!) but I don't see GGT saying school vouchers (or picking your own from those in your city) are/is bad or good.

---

Kinda the problem, there. She's dancing around, ranting about this and that, with no clear... anything... like she doesn't even know what discussion she's having, let alone what side (if any) she's on, which makes it all but impossible to discuss anything with her. If she doesn't seem to know what she's talking about, how the hell is anyone else supposed to figure it out, let alone respond to whatever it is she's trying to say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Not even remotely. <snip>

---

It's not good when 10,000 people apply for 2,000 burger flipping jobs. It's not good when job hunters outnumber available positions 5:1.

Quote:

---

A) No it's not.
B) Corporations don't (and shouldn't) give a shit about that anyway. They're not charities; they exist to make money. <snip>

---

Yes, the "costs" of high unemployment are steep, socially and financially. If corporations want to pay less taxes and make more money, it behooves them to give a shit about employment vs the welfare state. Growing numbers of people needing subsidies for food/shelter, education for that 'dropout to learn a useful skill' have a financial cost. Not to mention the social costs of decline and decay of communities.

Quote:

---

And, ironically, those cheap mass-produced, available at Walmart products you bitch about... are bought by the poor, marginally employed people you're trying to "help." <snip>

---

Walmart execs want federal minimum wage raised so their customers have more money to spend, and to pay their workers a bit more (without unionization). I'm not a fan of Walmart by any means, but they do provide cheap stuff for poor people. It can also be a bad sign when a Walmart comes to town, promising new jobs and low priced goods. It's often done by under-cutting Mom 'n Pop shops or small local business owners, who then have to close and fire their workers....who then go to work at Walmart. That kind of closed-loop-retail-services isn't sustainable, or anything close to a Jobs Plan.

Quote:

---

Maybe when people stop trying to meddle in matters they have no understanding of, there will be fewer reasons for business and entrepreneurs to avoid America.

Case in point, [right-out-of-atlas-shrugged-hear-an-exasperated-alabama-businessman-tell-the-feds-im-just-quitting] government regulations cause mine owner to shut down, up to 100 jobs (at $50,000 to $150,000/yr) vanish into thin air.[/URL]

Thank you, government, for protecting us all from the horrors of employment.

---

What a load of bunk. We all know you hate anything related to gummint, even when regulations are for rational and acceptable reasons like protecting Common Goods---air and water quality especially. It's the 21st century and we're a first world nation, not Chile or China. Your good ole Alabama boy can't exploit an impoverished area with high unemployment, promising his coal mine will put people to work, if he can't meet safety or clean water standards. Coal mining companies already tried that decades ago, and it doesn't "work". :donkey:

Quote:

---

Kinda the problem, there. She's dancing around, ranting about this and that, with no clear... anything... like she doesn't even know what discussion she's having, let alone what side (if any) she's on, which makes it all but impossible to discuss anything with her. If she doesn't seem to know what she's talking about, how the hell is anyone else supposed to figure it out, let alone respond to whatever it is she's trying to say?

---

If I'm "dancing around" it's because of the many tangents; school vouchers, legislation, the electorate, stupid people, mini-tutorials on economic theory, meddling regulators and teh evil gummint.... I didn't expect this to turn into a debate about why I'm wrong to suggest a Jobs Plan or solution could come from our business leaders. It's one thing to say you know how jobs are made, or lost, so where are the ideas to get us our of slump? BLS revised GDP, job growth, and wage income down, way down.

Where are the JOBS?

The cost of a failing economy, like the one you constantly push for, is even steeper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The cost of a failing economy, like the one you constantly push for, is even steeper.

---

I'm not pushing for a failing economy. Where'd you come up with that? :confused: I'm recognizing our economy is already failing, the symptoms are clearly there.

Every "cure" you suggest would severely undermine the economy, creating inefficient firms that could maintain a high level of employment only through increasing government subsidies and lower profits (with the latter eventually forcing a lower level of employment).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Every "cure" you suggest would severely undermine the economy, creating inefficient firms that could maintain a high level of employment only through increasing government subsidies and lower profits (with the latter eventually forcing a lower level of employment).

---

That's not the "cure" I've suggested. I've said those best able to begin breaking the negative cycle are business leaders, corporate CEOs and industry executive planners. There's no reason they can't voluntarily come together, network with ideas and vision, and Just Do It. That's what entrepreneurs and innovators supposedly do, right? Being efficient and making money, while also being civically minded and giving a shit about our nation's progress, isn't an impossible dream.

The subsidies during the long slog would be for unemployment benefits, food stamps or housing assistance, jobs training, vo-tech education. Big Oil and Ethanol corn farmers won't need tax break subsidies if the tax code is revamped, Import/Export would be better if trade gaps were addressed, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That's not the "cure" I've suggested. I've said those best able to begin breaking the negative cycle are business leaders, corporate CEOs and industry executive planners. There's no reason they can't voluntarily come together, network with ideas and vision, and Just Do It.

---

Yes, there is. There are plenty of reasons, in fact, that this is not a viable proposal, not the least of which is that we don't live in a fucking Disney film where we can expect good to triumph over evil in a bloodless confrontation and be rewarded with mana from heaven by the convenient arrival of a deus ex machina. :|

Plenty of other reasons too, but until we can agree that life is not the same as a trite cartoon plot, there's no point in even bringing those up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That's what entrepreneurs and innovators supposedly do, right? Being efficient and making money, while also being civically minded and giving a shit about our nation's progress, isn't an impossible dream.

---

Again, businesses are not charities. Nor are they philanthropic foundations dedicated to the advancement of God's Chosen People, the average American asshat. The reason business are not investing in our economy is that they think it is an unwise risk that will lead to losses, rather than profits. The last time we incentivized/forced businesses to invest in a losing proposition, we ended up with a multi-trillion dollar real estate bubble, and the mess we're in right now. And yet, your solution seems to be to do it all over again. And thanks for reminding us of the very definition of insanity, by the way.

You've been told by multiple people, in multiple posts, what it will take to get businesses to invest in America's economy again, but, much like the public at large, choose to ignore rational, viable solutions in favor of fairy tales and repeating the mistakes of the [very near] past. So, to put it bluntly, you, and the countless millions of people who think like you, are the problem with the economy. Stop thinking you can force people to invest in losing bets as a means of growing the economy, and stop electing socialist pieces of shit into office to take that approach to economic growth and we might get somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Yes, there is. There are plenty of reasons, in fact, that this is not a viable proposal, not the least of which is that we don't live in a fucking Disney film where we can expect good to triumph over evil in a bloodless confrontation and be rewarded with mana from heaven by the convenient arrival of a deus ex machina. :|

Plenty of other reasons too, but until we can agree that life is not the same as a trite cartoon plot, there's no point in even bringing those up.

---

Just because something like that may not be on your list of priorities doesn't mean it can't be a matter of importance for others. It's relatively small in scale right now, but I can see where "ethics" of business might include a patriotic or nationalist motive. One of the first (in my memory) was Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream. They used local dairy products and fruit flavorings as a priority, something like a Vermont "cooperative". They decided early on that executives and managers shouldn't earn any more than 30% of their lowest paid employee. (I think that was the number....) People said they'd never be able to sell ice cream cones above what a quart would cost at the grocery, but their critics were proven wrong. Not only did they do quite well, but they expanded and grew their franchise, and retired multi-millionaires. Sure, they ended up selling their business, which is also a "capitalistic" notion. But their franchise still works, employs plenty of "local" labor, buys tons of "local" ingredients....and they didn't have to resort to slave wages or exploitation of anyone (beyond those of us who'd pay $5 for a pint of ice cream).

Quote:

---

Again, businesses are not charities. Nor are they philanthropic foundations dedicated to the advancement of God's Chosen People, the average American asshat. The reason business are not investing in our economy is that they think it is an unwise risk that will lead to losses, rather than profits. The last time we incentivized/forced businesses to invest in a losing proposition, we ended up with a multi-trillion dollar real estate bubble, and the mess we're in right now. And yet, your solution seems to be to do it all over again. And thanks for reminding us of the very definition of insanity, by the way.

You've been told by multiple people, in multiple posts, **what it will take to get businesses to invest in America's economy again**, but, much like the public at large, choose to ignore rational, viable solutions in favor of fairy tales and repeating the mistakes of the [very near] past. So, to put it bluntly, you, and the countless millions of people who think like you, are the problem with the economy. Stop thinking you can force people to invest in losing bets as a means of growing the economy, and stop electing socialist pieces of shit into office to take that approach to economic growth and we might get somewhere.

---

Bullshit. Seems to me you are ignoring reality. Google has more cash on hand than our entire federal government, corporate profits are the highest they've EVER been, and over $2 TRILLION is sitting around idle. Not only does corporate America have all the money, they also pull more weight with lobbyists and legislators. They're also the morons waiting around for "confidence to be restored" before they'll decide to invest in America? :rolleyes:

** They don't have to lose money, act as an economic national "charity", or even try to "buy" preferential legislation. They don't have to be "forced or incentivized" by the government. All they have to do is look around and ask if THIS is what the proverbial American Dream should look like: prolonged high unemployment, shrinking middle-wage and middle-class, disintegrating educational success, outrageously expensive healthcare, a two-tiered society of very comfortable Haves and struggling Have-Nots, with the Have-Nots growing exponentially.

If they don't care, then fine by me if they move to Shanghai or Phuket and take their business with them. They can hire housekeepers, drivers, nannies, chefs, and tutors for domestic needs, paying each a pittance. They can hire accountants, lawyers, marketers, and financial analysts for pennies on our dollar. Their business can hire 12 yr olds or elderly for $2/day to work in sweat shops, and sell their shit to Americans at Walmart. And they might say, Wow, what a deal! Or finally wake up and say something has to change. :rolleyes:

But for those business people who remain in the US and actually care about our nation's future.....then what's wrong with wondering where the hell they are, when they can begin to change things up right away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Just because something like that may not be on your list of priorities doesn't mean it can't be a matter of importance for others.

---

Right back at ya.

By the way, business is about making money. Not about whatever nutty philanthropic concerns you might want to attach to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Bullshit. Seems to me you are ignoring reality.

---

Look, you're about the last person who should be talking about reality in an authoritative fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Google has more cash on hand than our entire federal government, corporate profits are the highest they've EVER been, and over $2 TRILLION is sitting around idle. Not only does corporate America have all the money, they also pull more weight with lobbyists and legislators. They're also the morons waiting around for "confidence to be restored" before they'll decide to invest in America? :rolleyes:

---

Good plan. Let's demonize them; that'll make them want to do business here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

** They don't have to lose money, act as an economic national "charity", or even try to "buy" preferential legislation. They don't have to be "forced or incentivized" by the government. All they have to do is look around and ask if THIS is what the proverbial American Dream should look like: prolonged high unemployment, shrinking middle-wage and middle-class, disintegrating educational success, outrageously expensive healthcare, a two-tiered society of very comfortable Haves and struggling Have-Nots, with the Have-Nots growing exponentially.

---

What the fuck are smoking, and where can I get some? Businesses do not exist to forward the American Dream (in itself, a disturbingly ego-centric term thrown around by morons who feel entitled to luxury and success by nature of their birth location). They exist to make money. If the government squeezes out profitable opportunities, then they make business go elsewhere, where conditions are more conducive to turn a profit. If you don't like it, maybe you should direct your rants at the things making America an unprofitable environment for business, rather than at the only rational actors left. :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

If they don't care, then fine by me if they move to Shanghai or Phuket and take their business with them. They can hire housekeepers, drivers, nannies, chefs, and tutors for domestic needs, paying each a pittance. They can hire accountants, lawyers, marketers, and financial analysts for pennies on our dollar. Their business can hire 12 yr olds or elderly for $2/day to work in sweat shops, and sell their shit to Americans at Walmart. And they might say, Wow, what a deal! Or finally wake up and say something has to change. :rolleyes:

---

So, now your proposal is to just drive all the businesses away, and rely on... the magical job fairies to employ people? I'm sure that'll work out great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

But for those business people who remain in the US and actually care about our nation's future.....then what's wrong with wondering where the hell they are, when they can begin to change things up right away?

---

The exact same thing that's wrong with wondering why the ancient Assyrian gods of skilled tradesmen aren't changing the economic situation for the better. The more time you waste on delusional fantasies, the less time you have for reality, and changing it for the better. Or maybe your approach is right, and the problem with our economy is that we don't have enough Americans wishing really hard for things to change, and offering up burnt sacrifices to the job gods. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

It's not good when 10,000 people apply for 2,000 burger flipping jobs. It's not good when job hunters outnumber available positions 5:1.

---

That's BS logic.

No, its not a problem. In fact 5:1 is a fairly low ratio.

You think you can add up the number of applications to all jobs and that's the number of people applying for jobs is it? :rolleyes:

Ever consider the possibility that people may apply for more than one job simultaneously? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

What the fuck are smoking, and where can I get some? Businesses do not exist to forward the American Dream (in itself, a disturbingly ego-centric term thrown around by morons who feel entitled to luxury and success by nature of their birth location). They exist to make money. If the government squeezes out profitable opportunities, then they make business go elsewhere, where conditions are more conducive to turn a profit. If you don't like it, maybe you should direct your rants at the things making America an unprofitable environment for business, rather than at the only rational actors left. :|

---

Obviously businesses are making money, profits (and cash holdings) at all time highs. The gov't 'squeeze' and conditions for profit aren't affecting everyone negatively, and I've already done my rants about needed IRS and trade changes. Since our consumer-based society makes up ~70% of our economy, I'd say that American Dream matters quite a bit to business making money. Whether selling goods or services, that's where their profit lies, and it makes a difference when unemployment is high, wages stagnant, and consumption slows or stops. Business needs people with jobs and money to spend.

You keep repeating that lower taxes and less gummint regulation will attract business and new jobs. That's your recipe? Taxes are at 50 year lows, the Bush tax cuts in '01 and '03 didn't create any new jobs (but sure did add to our debt), all the deregulation of the last decade ended in multiple crises (oil spills, sub-prime mortgage debacle, financial melt-down), special tax forgiveness for repatriating foreign funds in the 90's didn't result in any job expansion either....so explain how doing the same thing, that didn't work then, would work now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's BS logic.
No, its not a problem. In fact 5:1 is a fairly low ratio.
You think you can add up the number of applications to all jobs and that's the number of people applying for jobs is it? :rolleyes:
Ever consider the possibility that people may apply for more than one job simultaneously? :rolleyes:

---

If it's BS logic, then blame BLS or any other agency collecting data for job openings and job seekers. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's BS logic.

No, its not a problem. In fact 5:1 is a fairly low ratio.

You think you can add up the number of applications to all jobs and that's the number of people applying for jobs is it? :rolleyes:

Ever consider the possibility that people may apply for more than one job simultaneously? :rolleyes:

---

I doubt it's 5:1. More like 100:1. A lot of job listings are actually expired/gone (but you can still apply!), and there are countless duplicates, especially with the proliferation of recruiting companies re-posting jobs. Some companies post job listings because HR needs to looks busy (so HR doesn't get fired).

Should we save our breath? Rand doesn't seem to believe the US has an employment problem, but he also won't talk about the UK's employment problem. So much easier to hang onto the rigid belief that jobs are plentiful, for those who truly want to work. And if people can't find a job, it's because they're just not trying hard enough. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Should we save our breath? Rand doesn't seem to believe the US has an employment problem, but he also won't talk about the UK's employment problem.

---

What employment problem?

Quote:

---

So much easier to hang onto the rigid belief that jobs are plentiful, for those who truly want to work. And if people can't find a job, it's because they're just not trying hard enough. :rolleyes:

---

Versus your rigid belief of WHERE ARE ALL THE JOBS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

What employment problem?
Versus your rigid belief of WHERE ARE ALL THE JOBS?

---

Wait, let me get this straight. Are you saying the US does not have an unemployment problem? Are you truly hanging onto your opinion that Americans who can't find a job just aren't trying hard enough? Seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Obviously businesses are making money, profits (and cash holdings) at all time highs. The gov't 'squeeze' and conditions for profit aren't affecting everyone negatively, and I've already done my rants about needed IRS and trade changes. Since our consumer-based society makes up ~70% of our economy, I'd say that American Dream matters quite a bit to business making money. Whether selling goods or services, that's where their profit lies, and it makes a difference when unemployment is high, wages stagnant, and consumption slows or stops. Business needs people with jobs and money to spend.

---

No it's not, and no they don't. Government expenditures make up more than 30% of our economy, leaving far less than 70% for domestic consumer spending, and as a result of the exponential growth in government scale and spending, businesses can do just fine without selling a thing to American consumers. If you want individual consumers to have more of an impact on the economy, maybe you should advocate that the government take less of their money, which would free up consumers to actually spend it themselves. :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You keep repeating that lower taxes and less gummint regulation will attract business and new jobs. That's your recipe? Taxes are at 50 year lows, the Bush tax cuts in '01 and '03 didn't create any new jobs (but sure did add to our debt), all the deregulation of the last decade ended in multiple crises (oil spills, sub-prime mortgage debacle, financial melt-down), special tax forgiveness for repatriating foreign funds in the 90's didn't result in any job expansion either....so explain how doing the same thing, that didn't work then, would work now?

---

Well, as usual,, you don't actually know what you're talking about, which is he root of our disagreement. Taxes are not, in fact, at 50 year lows, unless you do some clever semantic wordplay to reclassify the heaviest taxes as something else... "contributions" seems to be the popular word, like I have a fucking choice that the government takes 30% of my net salary for their Ponzi scheme, or another 10-15% for health services I neither use nor want.

All of which is beside the point, because those are taxes on individuals, not taxes on businesses. As to to taxes on businesses, the US has the world's 2nd highest corporate tax rate [on profits], without even addressing mandatory payroll taxes, forced "contributions" and regulatory compliance costs. Our [federal] government has never actually tried anything resembling "deregulation" or [significant] tax cuts for business, so you can't actually claim that we've tried it before, and it hasn't worked.

And, just to throw another inconvenient fact into your populist rant, the "oil-spills," sub-prime mortgage crisis and financial meltdown were all the result of government legislation, not a result of removing it. For the oil spill, you can thank the federal law limiting oil company liability to $25 million (designed to encourage an increase in off-shore drilling), for the sub prime crisis, you can thank Congress for forcing Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac to underwrite junk mortgages (which was the only reason those mortgages were issued in the first place), and the financial meltdown was predicated largely on that toxic debt the government forced the market to absorb, by promising to cover any losses, and then going back on their word (surprise, surprise).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Versus your rigid belief of WHERE ARE ALL THE JOBS?

---

Yes, you both have embarrassingly absurd beliefs on the current economic situation. I'm not sure which is worse, your belief that there are 20 million American workers who want to be jobless, or GGT's belief that all we need is more nationalism and more losing investments to solve the problem.

Let's just leave leave it at you're both so wrong that it's embarrassing, absurd, and painful, OK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Let's just leave leave it at you're both so wrong that it's embarrassing, absurd, and painful, OK?

---

Is that like another post of yours, claiming it'd be less painful to kick your own balls? I'd rather like to see a man do that, kick his own balls. :haha:

Why not cut to the chase, and say exactly what your solution is for the US unemployment problem. Cutting taxes or regulations is just more of the Trickle Down theory that's been proven wrong, time and again. Criticizing other ideas isn't the same as offering your own. But I'm not seeing much from you, other than hating on pretty much everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Is that like another post of yours, claiming it'd be less painful to kick your own balls? I'd rather like to see a man do that, kick his own balls. :haha:

---

But that was rather the point, wasn't it? Kicking myself in the nuts would be difficult and challenging... and not boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Why not cut to the chase, and say exactly what your solution is for the US unemployment problem. Cutting taxes or regulations is just more of the Trickle Down theory that's been proven wrong, time and again. Criticizing other ideas isn't the same as offering your own. But I'm not seeing much from you, other than hating on pretty much everything.

---

Well, ignoring everything I've said, mischaracterizing my position and repeating the same fallacious drivel ad infinitum is a great way to encourage me to spend time and effort educating you.

Let me know when your nationalistic job deities arrive to summon jobs out of thin air into a hostile and unprofitable economic enivornment, though, because I'd definitely like to meet them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

But that was rather the point, wasn't it? Kicking myself in the nuts would be difficult and challenging... and not boring.

Well, ignoring everything I've said, mischaracterizing my position and repeating the same fallacious drivel ad infinitum is a great way to encourage me to spend time and effort educating you.

Let me know when your nationalistic job deities arrive to summon jobs out of thin air into a hostile and unprofitable economic enivornment, though, because I'd definitely like to meet them.

---

But you're not "educating" me at all. You're simply repeating the same drivel of academic economists (who, by the way, have routinely been proven wrong, and now even admit they have no idea what's going on now, in these uncharted waters). By all means, "educate" me. Enlighten all of us. Where are the jobs going to come from, and who will make them?

Right, I'd forgotten about how you only respect or consider ideas from ignorant morons who have no clue what they're talking about. :rolleyes:

Anyway, the jobs come from j00s. Currently, the j00s are hoarding the Amerikan jobs they've stolen, so to get the jobs back, we simply need to round up the evil, job-stealing j00s and repatriate the jobs they have locked away. It's hard to say exactly where the j00s are hiding these hoarded, ill-gotten jobs, but by searching the most common hiding places, we should be successful in getting enough jobs back. Inside the freezer, behind the toilet tank, false bottoms in cabinets/drawers, and of course, concealed behind the j00 gold in their safes and safety deposit boxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Right, I'd forgotten about how you only respect or consider ideas from ignorant morons who have no clue what they're talking about. :rolleyes:

Anyway, the jobs come from j00s. Currently, the j00s are hoarding the Amerikan jobs they've stolen, so to get the jobs back, we simply need to round up the evil, job-stealing j00s and repatriate the jobs they have locked away. It's hard to say exactly where the j00s are hiding these hoarded, ill-gotten jobs, but by searching the most common hiding places, we should be successful in getting enough jobs back. Inside the freezer, behind the toilet tank, false bottoms in cabinets/drawers, and of course, concealed behind the j00 gold in their safes and safety deposit boxes.

---

Fuck off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Maybe Cain is right, and we have nowhere to go but down....or overseas. :(

---

Or under the sea. ;)

Hi there aoshi, long time no see, over the sea, sea, see. :heart:

So, what is your solution to bring back jobs, CitizenCain, re: taxes/regulations/government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Yes, you both have embarrassingly absurd beliefs on the current economic situation. I'm not sure which is worse, your belief that there are 20 million American workers who want to be jobless, or GGT's belief that all we need is more nationalism and more losing investments to solve the problem.

Let's just leave leave it at you're both so wrong that it's embarrassing, absurd, and painful, OK?

---

Firstly the US jobless rate is 9.2% and the total stands at 14.1 million, which is not 20 million.

Secondly and most importantly a large number of people (not all) who are unemployed today are so temporarily for a variety of reasons. Even during periods of "full employment" there is always still some unemployment. I believe that finding, having and keeping a job is work, I have never said it can magically happen overnight.

Of the 14.1 million currently unemployed, what proportion do you think will still be unemployed 12 months from now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aoshi

Or under the sea. ;)

---

Man if I could get a job there.... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Firstly the US jobless rate is 9.2% and the total stands at 14.1 million, which is not 20 million.

Secondly and most importantly a large number of people (not all) who are unemployed today are so temporarily for a variety of reasons. Even during periods of "full employment" there is always still some unemployment. I believe that finding, having and keeping a job is work, I have never said it can magically happen overnight.

Of the 14.1 million currently unemployed, what proportion do you think will still be unemployed 12 months from now?

---

Ah, so sometimes BLS numbers matter after all? :p Do you know the percentage of people unemployed longer than 99 weeks? The percentage of discouraged job seekers who plumb gave up, or the numbers of near-62-65 age group reluctant to retire?

Our U-6 unemployment number is closer to 19-20%. Using U-3 data sounds better, and that's where the 9.2% figure comes from, with 14 million unemployed. The reality is more like 20 million unemployed, even more are underemployed. Part-time temp jobs can skew the stats, and plenty of folks are working two part-time temp jobs.

12 months from now, IMO we'll see even more unemployed. Cisco, Merck, Credit Suisse, and GE are planning thousands of lay-offs in the next few months. There are more that I can't recall right now, but it's not a pretty picture.

What do you think, Rand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Firstly the US jobless rate is 9.2% and the total stands at 14.1 million, which is not 20 million.

---

No it's not. The U3 unemployment rate may only be 9.2%, but the actual number of jobless people is much higher, somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. And I specifically used the term jobless so you couldn't pull that disingenuous U3 official figures crap, which everyone knows is a political figure that's deliberately extremely low. Regardless, whether it's 20 million, 30 million or 14 million, your assertion that this many Americans don't have jobs because they don't want them is ridiculous. Might be the case over on your little island, where one can actually live on the dole for 40 years and raise one's horrid, bastard chav spawn to do the same, but that's not how it works over here, where it's neither possible nor socially acceptable to live one's entire adult life on welfare benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Secondly and most importantly a large number of people (not all) who are unemployed today are so temporarily for a variety of reasons. Even during periods of "full employment" there is always still some unemployment. I believe that finding, having and keeping a job is work, I have never said it can magically happen overnight.

---

Oh, so now you're trying to conflate frictional and structural unemployment into 30 million out-of-work folk? No, we know what those rates are, thanks to the e-commerce boom of the 90's, and combined, they're less than 5%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Of the 14.1 million currently unemployed, what proportion do you think will still be unemployed 12 months from now?

---

Well, given that 20-30 million of the 14.1 million unemployed folk are jobless at present, it's rather hard to say what that will be in 12 months from now, but based on the way thing are looking now, it's more likely to be worse than better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catgrrl

Man if I could get a job there.... ;)

---

"Darlin' it's better, down where it's wetter..." :yum:

Quote:

---

No it's not. The U3 unemployment rate may only be 9.2%, but the actual number of jobless people is much higher, somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. And I specifically used the term jobless so you couldn't pull that disingenuous U3 official figures crap, which everyone knows is a political figure that's deliberately extremely low. Regardless, whether it's 20 million, 30 million or 14 million, your assertion that this many Americans don't have jobs because they don't want them is ridiculous. Might be the case over on your little island, where one can actually live on the dole for 40 years and raise one's horrid, bastard chav spawn to do the same, but that's not how it works over here, where it's neither possible nor socially acceptable to live one's entire adult life on welfare benefits.

---

I'm sticking with the official figures unless you explain how others are better. I don't care if people who aren't trying to find a job don't have one - by definition they at least share a large portion of the responsibilty. Perhaps you think I'm ridiculous thinking people need to take some responsibility for themselves? You'd be happier if the federal government looked after them from cradle to grave?

Quote:

---

Oh, so now you're trying to conflate frictional and structural unemployment into 30 million out-of-work folk? No, we know what those rates are, thanks to the e-commerce boom of the 90's, and combined, they're less than 5%.

---

I said a portion, not all. 5% is more than half of the existing 9.2%. Frictional factors would get worse in a slowdown rather than the heady 90s boom.

Quote:

---

Well, given that 20-30 million of the 14.1 million unemployed folk are jobless at present, it's rather hard to say what that will be in 12 months from now, but based on the way thing are looking now, it's more likely to be worse than better.

---

That's not the question. The question is how many unemployed TODAY already will still be unemployed 12 months from now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I'm sticking with the official figures unless you explain how others are better. I don't care if people who aren't trying to find a job don't have one - by definition they at least share a large portion of the responsibilty.

---

No, we can use official figures. Let's use 16.7%, or about 25 million people. Official U6 number for June of this year. And, more importantly, like all the unemployment figures, been on the rise since 2008, and staying constant-ish near or above historic highs... or just 40 year highs if you accept recent measuring revisions (and don't apply those same revisions to historical data). What's your theory on that spike? In 2008, all of a sudden, millions of American workers spontaneously decided they didn't want employment? Must be something in the water. :downcast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Perhaps you think I'm ridiculous thinking people need to take some responsibility for themselves? You'd be happier if the federal government looked after them from cradle to grave?

---

No, you're being ridiculous by claiming that everyone who wants a job (or is looking for a job), has one. Pointing out that there are fewer jobs than job-seekers in the current economy is simply a statement of fact, that you seem to be rejecting for irrational, ideological reasons. Saying there aren't enough employment opportunities isn't the same thing as advocating the welfare state. In fact, if anything, it's an argument against the welfare state, given the dampening effect the welfare state has on the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I said a portion, not all. 5% is more than half of the existing 9.2%. Frictional factors would get worse in a slowdown rather than the heady 90s boom.

---

And the other millions you can't jam into frictional or structural unemployment? Oh, but that's the problem. They're not unemployed because of a lack of employment opportunities for them, they're unemployed because they don't actually want to work... which is interesting, given that they have to be looking for work to end up included in U3. So, according to you, we have millions of people, who don't want jobs, that are simultaneously looking for jobs.

Yeah, what possible reason could I have to consider that a ridiculous position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's not the question. The question is how many unemployed TODAY already will still be unemployed 12 months from now?

---

That's a crap question, and you know it. By definition, anyone unemployed for 12 months is no longer counted in the official statistics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

No, we can use official figures. Let's use 16.7%, or about 25 million people. Official U6 number for June of this year. And, more importantly, like all the unemployment figures, been on the rise since 2008, and staying constant-ish near or above historic highs... or just 40 year highs if you accept recent measuring revisions (and don't apply those same revisions to historical data). What's your theory on that spike? In 2008, all of a sudden, millions of American workers spontaneously decided they didn't want employment? Must be something in the water. :downcast:

---

No u6 is a silly one to use. Part-time workers deserve respect and are not unemployed, those who are not looking for work have no reason to have a job.

Quote:

---

No, you're being ridiculous by claiming that everyone who wants a job (or is looking for a job), has one. Pointing out that there are fewer jobs than job-seekers in the current economy is simply a statement of fact, that you seem to be rejecting for irrational, ideological reasons. Saying there aren't enough employment opportunities isn't the same thing as advocating the welfare state. In fact, if anything, it's an argument against the welfare state, given the dampening effect the welfare state has on the economy.

---

I NEVER said that! I said that the majority of people who want a job, will get one.

Quote:

---

And the other millions you can't jam into frictional or structural unemployment? Oh, but that's the problem. They're not unemployed because of a lack of employment opportunities for them, they're unemployed because they don't actually want to work... which is interesting, given that they have to be looking for work to end up included in U3. So, according to you, we have millions of people, who don't want jobs, that are simultaneously looking for jobs.

---

Some people don't want to work.

Quote:

---

That's a crap question, and you know it. By definition, anyone unemployed for 12 months is no longer counted in the official statistics.

---

I don't think you understand me.

There are a certain number of people unemployed, whether you think its 14 or 25 million. Of those 14/25 million unemployed today how many do you think will still be unemployed six months from now? 12 months from now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Some people don't want to work.

---

Because if they wanted to work, they'd have jobs? Don't you think your logic is a little circular there? Oh wait, you short-circuit it being circular logic because you just make the blanket assumption *despite it being totally ignorant, unsubstantiated, irreconcilable with available evidence, and all around dumb* that there is a job available for anyone who is interested in working. Absolutely no one could ever have problems securing employment that they're genuinely seeking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Some people don't want to work.

---

Because if they wanted to work, they'd have jobs? Don't you think your logic is a little circular there? Oh wait, you short-circuit it being circular logic because you just make the blanket assumption *despite it being totally ignorant, unsubstantiated, irreconcilable with available evidence, and all around dumb* that there is a job available for anyone who is interested in working. Absolutely no one could ever have problems securing employment that they're genuinely seeking.

---

How many times do I need to say the same thing again and again.

You quoted in that quote the word some. I don't mean to be facetious but you do know what the word some means right? Yet your words are absolutes, again not to be facetious but you are aware of the difference between some and an absolute right?

You're both wrong, I think...

"Some people don't want to work."

"Most people who want to work can't find a job."

..... that's not mutually exclusive. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

You're both wrong, I think...

"Some people don't want to work."

"Most people who want to work can't find a job."

..... that's not mutually exclusive. :)

---

That is not mutually exclusive and would agree to it with a caveat.

I would say "Most people who want to work can't find a job ... right now/easily, but will eventually."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

How many times do I need to say the same thing again and again.

You quoted in that quote the word some. I don't mean to be facetious but you do know what the word some means right? Yet your words are absolutes, again not to be facetious but you are aware of the difference between some and an absolute right?

---

Ok, how's this. The number of people who are uninterested in working is unlikely to actually INCREASE in bad economic times and/or after a jobless "recovery.". It is NOT a reasonable group of people to refer to when unemployment is actually higher than normal. Your constant reference to such people in these threads, whether you refer to them as some, many, or all of the unemployed, is a red herring at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No u6 is a silly one to use. Part-time workers deserve respect and are not unemployed, those who are not looking for work have no reason to have a job.

---

Then use U4 or U5. Hell, you could use U1 for all the difference it makes. Whatever numbers you use, you have to explain a spike in unemployment... and with your rational, the explanation is that 3 years ago, millions of Americans spontaneously decided they don't want to work, which is a completely insane theory on what happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I NEVER said that! I said that the majority of people who want a job, will get one.

---

The hell you didn't. I remember it well, because I rolled my eyes so hard they hurt. You were discussing the topic with OG, and were making him look like the level-headed voice of reason. Not that it really matters all that much, because it's also pretty crazy to blame a lack of desire to work for the majority of unemployment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Some people don't want to work.

---

Well, in this country, that is a vanishingly small figure, particularly for the age ranges covered by employment statistics, and they don't get counted in the unemployment figures anyway - because they're not actively seeking work, remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I don't think you understand me.

There are a certain number of people unemployed, whether you think its 14 or 25 million. Of those 14/25 million unemployed today how many do you think will still be unemployed six months from now? 12 months from now?

---

147% of them. :rolleyes:

I do understand the question, and it's irrelevant. The figure you want isn't measured or recorded by anyone, and has no bearing on whether unemployed people want jobs or not. :|