Politicians.
Passing laws forcing people to have jobs creates jobs. It works with health insurance too, for future reference.
Politicians.
Passing laws forcing people to have jobs creates jobs. It works with health insurance too, for future reference.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Educated, motivated and healthy kids create jobs. This is the way it's always been
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Even though Cain was being sarcastic, you both said the same thing.Politicians write the laws that can create an environment for educated and healthy young people, who then grow up to create an environment for opportunity and growth, which leads to new jobs?
Great sarcastic wit there. Oh wait, were you being serious?
You'd be better off saying good parents if you wanted to travel that road.
Actually, if you noticed, I put Cain and Minx quotes together to form a question that sounds like something a pundit would say.
Great sarcastic wit there
You'd be better off saying good parents if you wanted to travel that road.
I'm just tired of reading the same old crap, from the same old economists, partisan politicians, talking heads. Thought there might be more discussion about how much our economies have changed, and the same old tricks may not apply.
That's one side of the equation. You also need the capital to create jobs. And at lower levels of development, the capital is more important.
Hope is the denial of reality
Bump
So, where are the jobs? Between the back-and-forth about who creates jobs, or how they're created....nobody "with authority or power" seems to be doing much about it.
In fact, we've gotten so distracted by politicians politicking, policy-makers acting like public police or pre-pubescent popularity patrol, that JOBS got put on the back burner. Multi-national corporations don't care where the work is done, or who has a job, so long as they can sell their product at profit.
Just an example, and maybe not a great one, but here goes: Apple has about 20,000 US employees, but employs over 200,000 overseas assembly workers....so they can sell their iPads and iPods back to Americans (and others) at an affordable price. Including import/export tariffs, taxes, currency valuations, fuel costs, and moving product over oceans and back again. They also sell stock to the investment classes, which can means profit to anyone outside their actual product loop.
Those holding Apple stock paper profits don't look at that and say, "Gee, I'm holding a portion of profitable company's income, and my portfolio is looking pretty sweet! I'll go ahead and hire those few extra workers that could expand my business. I'll even follow Apple's business model of 'spending money to make money'.....or 'build it and they will come'."
No, more likely they'll look around at today's landscape and say, "Crap, my business can't expand if people don't have jobs and aren't spending money. I can't compete with the big guys who went through their expansion during previous bubbles and they're sitting pretty on tons of cash, but I have to borrow mine. Maybe putting my Apple shares up as collateral! Nooo, instead, I'll use my Apple stock for my own retirement, since my retirement is on the line now, too."
That's a different angle on what the mantra of business is sitting on the sidelines until their confidence is restored looks like. Waiting for the consumer to spend is more important than any government policy. Consumers won't spend when the JOBS picture is so bleak. Corporations won't HIRE when consumer spending is so weak.
Maybe Cain is right, and we have nowhere to go but down....or overseas.
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.
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?
Another way of posing the question:
Does "trickle down" wealth really translate to [American] jobs? This is the economic theory that the GOP keeps promising is real, for producing real JOBS. Maybe they left out an important part of their theory, that the real JOBS aren't created in the US but off-shore.
Those "artistic iPhone cases" can probably be produced in Taiwan, Korea, China, India....for pennies on the USD. Because those workers might think it's fantastic to toil 12 hours a day/seven days a week, in sweat shop conditions, to earn the US equivalent of $2/hour. Cheap labor is "cheap" for many reasons, but mostly by developed nations ignoring that developing nations are bearing the costs....in their endeavor to enter global capitalism and raise their poverty stricken people into "middle class".
What's that mean? A home that's more than a shanty lean-to or cardboard boxes, with sanitary water and septic sewerage, electricity, refrigerated or frozen foods they didn't have to grow themselves. Perhaps paying for decent roads that don't get flooded or washed out every rainy season. Or buying a car instead of pedaling bikes around. Or affordable public transit that doesn't mean packing hundreds of people on a rickety bus, with poultry livestock in cages as 'passengers', maneuvering dirt roads on mountainous terrain. Maybe it means affording basic health care, as in women having clean and safe environments to deliver their babies (instead of the Korean standard of poor women having to "pay costs" before they can take their babies home).
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.
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???
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.
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?
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.
here we go again
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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.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
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.
Somehow I suspect if Obama got nearly 90% of the votes next year you wouldn't be asking "where are all the Democrats".
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
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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.
but you just did
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.So how about we go with some facts?
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.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-25-2011 at 09:27 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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 statisticsSo how's UK doing lately---with new jobs, capacity utilization, all that?
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate...loyment-charts
Where? I said that the vast majority of the total population are employed. That is correct, 90.8% are.but you just did
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.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.
Comparing to the 1920s is ludicrous. Do you know what the participation rate was in the 1920s? Especially for women?
but like I already warned, you use vague wording so you don't have to own up to anything when challenged.Where?
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%.I said that the vast majority of the total population are employed. That is correct, 90.8% are.
Talk about a fucking spin.
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.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.
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.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-26-2011 at 03:28 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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?
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.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-25-2011 at 10:46 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
