Who Creates Jobs?

[CitizenCain]

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.

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%.

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.

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

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

[RandBlade]

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?

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.

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?

[CitizenCain]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[RandBlade]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

[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?

[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.

[RandBlade]

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."

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

[CitizenCain]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[GGT]

Rand, the BLS doesn't count those not looking for work in their numbers. Once people get discouraged or stop looking (or retire, for that matter), that actually makes the employment rate look better.

[GGT]

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.
I NEVER said that! I said that the majority of people who want a job, will get one.
Some people don't want to work.
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?

Rand, part-time workers are included as "employed". Not 'fully employed' if they what they really want/need is a full-time job, and they may be 'under-employed' as well. But those things are only reflected in broader measures the U-3 doesn't count.

I think you're wrong saying that the majority of people who want a job, will get one. Our long-term unemployment numbers are horrible; something around half of all out-of-work job seekers exceed the 99 week unemployment benefit limit.

Some claim that's a reflection of our unemployment insurance "scheme"---when a salaried worker who used to earn $50,000/year won't take a burger-flipping job at $15,000/year AND lose their unemployment benefits; that they'll wait until benefits run dry to actually accept a job that pays less than the insurance product they bought.

There is probably some truth to that. How long can pride, personal expectations, and UI keep an unemployed person going before they finally cave, and take any damn job offered? Depends on things like age, marital status, if they rent or own (a mortgage, possibly underwater), or have dependent children. Depends on their health status and if they're insured, or not. Depends on if they have extended family who can take them in, or not. And it also depends on if they have assets to draw from while they look for the next job, like their previous employer's 401-K, stocks or bonds, their retirement "nest egg".

I've seen enough reports on [previously] middle-class, unemployed professionals 'borrowing' from their 401-K, drawing down retirement funds, cashing out mutual funds, trying to sell their homes at a loss....just to stay afloat. To say the picture is quite ominous is probably an understatement.

[RandBlade]

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.

No you pig-headed idiot. My explanation is that jobs come and jobs go, c'est la vie. 3 years ago more jobs went than came.

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.

Is it? You got proof for that? Anyway, I don't blame a lack of desire, I blame more than anything else time. As I have said repeatedly it takes time and effort to find a job.

147% of them.

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.

Are you sure its not? How certain?

In the UK we get figures on how many people are "long-term unemployed" (1 year and longer) and how many are unemployed. I've not worked it out, but I would have thought if you look at this month last years total unemployment figures, and this months long-term unemployment figures, it shouldn't be too hard for someone of reasonable intellect to work out how many of last years unemployed found a job.

[RandBlade]

The US economy added 117,000 new jobs in July.

WHERE ARE ALL THE JOBS

[Loki]

http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacy...KISS-final.pdf

We need that many new jobs each month just to keep the unemployment rate from increasing.

[RandBlade]

I know that.

[CitizenCain]

So you're being obtuse and disingenuous on purpose, then?

[GGT]

No you pig-headed idiot. My explanation is that jobs come and jobs go, c'est la vie. 3 years ago more jobs went than came.
Is it? You got proof for that? Anyway, I don't blame a lack of desire, I blame more than anything else time. As I have said repeatedly it takes time and effort to find a job.
Are you sure its not? How certain?

In the UK we get figures on how many people are "long-term unemployed" (1 year and longer) and how many are unemployed. I've not worked it out, but I would have thought if you look at this month last years total unemployment figures, and this months long-term unemployment figures, it shouldn't be too hard for someone of reasonable intellect to work out how many of last years unemployed found a job.

Sure, jobs come and go, creative destruction, more efficiency and productivity, and all that jazz. We've got a new economy now, and that Time element would ideally be producing new jobs, but it's not. (Also sounds like you're backtracking now, when earlier you said those who want a job can find one, if they just try hard enough.)

I'm not sure how UK does its figures, but the US stops counting people as unemployed once they stop looking for work. That means our long-term unemployed numbers could go down and appear those people found a job....when in reality maybe they decided to be a stay-home-parent, start a new business as self-employed, or simply retire.

[RandBlade]

So you're being obtuse and disingenuous on purpose, then?

Nope, this hysteria present here seems to think there are no new jobs, no churn in employment. Instead once again hundreds of thousands of jobs are being churned every single month. That is about one and a half million new jobs every year. Yet there's hystrionics if 100 people get laid off.

GGT: There won't be a nation in the world I suspect that counts people not trying to find work as unemployed. I respect those who've chosen to be stay at home parents (my mum was one for many but not all years), those who choose to retire (my granparents all have) etc - if you think my mum was unemployed then I think she'd be quite offended by that statement.

[agamemnus]

The US economy added 117,000 new jobs in July.

WHERE ARE ALL THE JOBS

I'm not sure. I keep looking behind various boulders and trees... not there, apparently.

[RandBlade]

I suppose OG, GGT etc will agree with this then, their slogan appears to be throughout on the cards

[CitizenCain]

Nope, this hysteria present here seems to think there are no new jobs, no churn in employment.

GGT being hysterical and/or ridiculous is no excuse to paint everyone with that same brush, nor is it an excuse to be obtuse and/or disingenuous with the rest of us.

I'm not sure. I keep looking behind various boulders and trees... not there, apparently.

I told you so. J00s don't hide things behind trees or under rocks. You have to think like a j00, and look where they'd hide things. If you're not going to take my advice and even try to look for stolen j00 jobs, you really don't have any right to complain about not finding any.

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.

[RandBlade]

GGT being hysterical and/or ridiculous is no excuse to paint everyone with that same brush, nor is it an excuse to be obtuse and/or disingenuous with the rest of us.

I'm not being obtuse. How many times have I said in this thread that I don't think everyone can easily get a new job like a snap of their fingers? I keep having to defend against things I didn't say.

[Ominous Gamer]

Is Rand's old shell of "enough jobs for everyone who wants one bad enough" starting to crack? Even as he continues to hid behind taking a 9.2% unemployment rating out of context?

[GGT]

Nope, this hysteria present here seems to think there are no new jobs, no churn in employment. Instead once again hundreds of thousands of jobs are being churned every single month. That is about one and a half million new jobs every year. Yet there's hystrionics if 100 people get laid off.

GGT: There won't be a nation in the world I suspect that counts people not trying to find work as unemployed. I respect those who've chosen to be stay at home parents (my mum was one for many but not all years), those who choose to retire (my granparents all have) etc - if you think my mum was unemployed then I think she'd be quite offended by that statement.

That's why our unemployment is 9.2% though....people still wanting and looking for jobs but can't find them, because the jobs are not available. It's not because people aren't trying hard enough, or being patient enough, as you said.

And I'm not hysterical about this at all, just reading the writing on the wall. Take off those rose-colored glasses.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I suppose OG, GGT etc will agree with this then, their slogan appears to be throughout on the cards

It's 1 and a half year till elections.

[Ominous Gamer]

It's 1 and a half year till elections.

Don't mean jack. We're already breaking stories on the crazy shit we should expect on mystery funding this year. Like companies being created and dissolved at will so they can make 7 figure Super PAC donations.

[CitizenCain]

Good thing that campaign finance reform went through, and kept corporate money outta politics, right?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Greatest Democracy in the World! Yeah baby!

[CitizenCain]

In Soviet Rusmerica, jobs increase down!

The White House and much of the chattering class cooed on Friday when unemployment dropped to 9.1 percent and 117,000 jobs were reportedly created in July. But these numbers, upon closer inspection, show no progress on the jobs front.

Buried in the job stats was a number—193,000—that dwarfed all the rest. That is the number of workers who left the job market. If 193,000 left and only 117,000 jobs were added, we lost 76,000 jobs. Moreover, this is not an aberration.

So much for adding enough jobs to tread water... sounded too good to be true anyway.