2016 Election
Quote: Twirdman
Is science so arrogant that it cannot admit that evil leprechauns just might be the cause of Alzheimer. No its just that that is a freaking useless route to go down. Sure it might be correct just like intelligent design might be right, but you cannot test it cannot disprove it and so it is not science.
I GOT IT! You are saying what we know as science is all there is to science and no way we will learn anything new. Carry on!
Quote:So your admitting you actual have no idea how they account for these things or how accurate it really is but by golly you must definitely be right and those scientist just don't know what they are talking about. Argument from incredulity isn't a good look on you.
I am stating that as an intelligent person I know there is no way you can look at a tree ring and then a thermometer and have a valid comparison. So thus I am not buying what they are selling, and any thinking person should ask the same questions instead of just lapping it up.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhen science figures out why life "just happened" then they can say so. Meantime we say, "this is one idea among many we have now."
Do you consider each such idea equivalent in likelihood? I hope not, because it's precisely that philosophy that gives the Flying Spaghetti Monster an equal seat at the table. Do you consider your ideas about the origin of life equivalent to "the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by the Flying Spaghetti Monster"? If not, why not?
Quote: AZDuffmanIs science so arrogant that they cannot admit that intelligent design just *might* be the correct answer?
To what? Everything? Why is the sky blue? Why does the moon face the Earth all the time? Why does it hurt when I drop a rock on my toe? Why does bamboo explode when you burn it? Why did I study Chaucer in college? Do you think intelligent design is the correct answer for all those questions?
The false assumption underlying your statement is that "intelligent design" is one consistent theory. From what I've seen over the decades, what started as "creationism" and that has now morphed into "intelligent design" is actually multiple, ever-changing notions, always seeking to monopolize the still-unexplained while casually waving off any objections from the advance of observed knowledge. That's not intellectually honest. There are about five or six different flavors of creationist, all with different beliefs (the Earth actually *was* created in six days just like the Old Testament actually says, vs. no, it's been millennia and we believe in carbon dating), so at a minimum anyone espousing "intelligent design" should do so with more precision than just the label "intelligent design."
If you mean "intelligent design" to be your catch-all for everything that hasn't been explained yet, then as science expands the scope of human knowledge, what's left under the umbrella of "intelligent design" is necessarily shrinking. That's a sad theology and hardly inspiring. "Yeah, I still believe in my deity. I used to think he was responsible for twenty unexplained things, but then science found explanations for nineteen of them that were reproducible in the lab so now I only think he's responsible for this one other unexplained thing."
And if you think "intelligent design" is only really directed to the origin of life -- what will you say when biochemists successfully create living cells from lifeless organic compounds in a lab?
Also, if you're a male over aged 50, you have to agree that no intelligent designer would ever wrap the prostate around the urethra. Do you want to believe in an intelligent designer that would do that to you on purpose?
Quote: MathExtremistDo you consider each such idea equivalent in likelihood? I hope not, because it's precisely that philosophy that gives the Flying Spaghetti Monster an equal seat at the table. Do you consider your ideas about the origin of life equivalent to "the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by the Flying Spaghetti Monster"? If not, why not?
Not quite sure why you are bringing up something about a spaghetti monster. I am just stating that science proved that life cannot spontaneously generate. Yet at the same time it did on earth. Which is it? Or can the science folk give up the hate for a few moments and explain that there could be a power out there driving us, and no matter how much the haters deny it, the belief in this has popped up in every disparate society in history. After all, anthropology is science.
No it didn't. Science disproved the Aristotelian theory of "spontaneous generation" as a way to explain the reproduction of tiny organisms like yeast or fleas or maggots. Humanity understands how yeast, fleas, and maggots reproduce now, but that has nothing to do with abiogenesis, or the origin of microbiotic life from non-living matter.Quote: AZDuffmanI am just stating that science proved that life cannot spontaneously generate.
In other words, what you think the science means isn't what it actually means. That's a very, very common mistake, especially among those predisposed to fall back on supernatural explanations for the unknown.
If you've been laboring under the mistaken impression that Louis Pasteur conclusively proved that no life whatsoever can be created from non-living matter, he didn't. Here's what he did prove:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.php
Quote: AZDuffmanI GOT IT! You are saying what we know as science is all there is to science and no way we will learn anything new. Carry on!
I am stating that as an intelligent person I know there is no way you can look at a tree ring and then a thermometer and have a valid comparison. So thus I am not buying what they are selling, and any thinking person should ask the same questions instead of just lapping it up.
No I'm saying that science changes by making hypothesis and testing them. You are the one claiming that X cannot be explained so science will never explain it therefore God did it or magic zebras did it or whatever else junk you want to plug in did it.
Yeah argument from incredulity. I could say there is no way you can look at the HIV virus and an AIDS patient and say the first caused the second and I'd be wrong, but there are plenty of "intelligent" people out there who say it. I could say there is no way you could take aluminum and an oxidizer and make rocket fuel yet they do. Other then a gut feeling which is worthless for anything other then telling you if you are hungry or not what reason to you have to believe you're right when everyone else says you are wrong.
"Americans Not In The Labor Force Rise To Record 93,194,000"
"...with the result being a participation rate of 69.45 or just above the lowest percentage since 1977..."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-08/americans-not-labor-force-rise-record-93194000
One side will harp on how they've lowered unemployment to 5.4%; the other side will need to make the whole story come out...we've reduced unemployment but we've also reduced wage growth and reduced participation. There are a whole lot people sitting this one out and it has a huge impact on a myriad of things.
We need to truly do things to get America back to work and off the sidelines...
Quote: RonCThis should be a major issue in the coming election; we'll all lose if the candidates are able to focus on issues like gay marriage and abortion instead of the really large issues that impact everyone in the country in some way...
"Americans Not In The Labor Force Rise To Record 93,194,000"
"...with the result being a participation rate of 69.45 or just above the lowest percentage since 1977..."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-08/americans-not-labor-force-rise-record-93194000
One side will harp on how they've lowered unemployment to 5.4%; the other side will need to make the whole story come out...we've reduced unemployment but we've also reduced wage growth and reduced participation. There are a whole lot people sitting this one out and it has a huge impact on a myriad of things.
We need to truly do things to get America back to work and off the sidelines...
Well, if one side would quit claiming there is some "war on women" and talk about what matters.............
I really keep wondering about these numbers. For example, oil and gas has lost 100K+ jobs plus the last few months, which is huge. Might be why the downward revision from prior months.
The "dropouts" always confound me. While since 2009 we have seen record numbers on disability or other assistance, how do you totally drop out? If I side-hustle a few gigs, where do I show up? As a 1099er, where do I show up? If I can get steady work, I would rather freelance the rest of my life. I now a few people like this. I wonder where we are classified?
Quote: RonCThis should be a major issue in the coming election; we'll all lose if the candidates are able to focus on issues like gay marriage and abortion instead of the really large issues that impact everyone in the country in some way...
"Americans Not In The Labor Force Rise To Record 93,194,000"
"...with the result being a participation rate of 69.45 or just above the lowest percentage since 1977..."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-08/americans-not-labor-force-rise-record-93194000
One side will harp on how they've lowered unemployment to 5.4%; the other side will need to make the whole story come out...we've reduced unemployment but we've also reduced wage growth and reduced participation. There are a whole lot people sitting this one out and it has a huge impact on a myriad of things.
We need to truly do things to get America back to work and off the sidelines...
The labor participation rate is going down because old people are retiring. The math on this makes sense World War II ended in 1945 so there was a large number of births around 9 months after that time add 62 years to that, the normal age for retirement and you get 2008 interestingly enough you notice around 2008 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 the labor participation rate starts going down. Also the participation rate is 62.8% not 69 but you are right that it is the lowest rate since 1977. It is also disingenious to say it has anything to do with the policies of Obama since as you can see it started falling in 2008 before he took office; doesn't have anything to do with Bush either just a matter of demographics.
It is true the recession did lead to some people retiring earlier then they normally would have like a guy in his late 50s getting fired and deciding to retire rather then looking for new work. Also actually I was being slightly generous when i said 2008 was the start of the declining technically that was the start of the major declining and it actually hit its peak during Clinton's second term and started declining under Bush again because of demographic factors.
As for wage stagnation that is happening but has been happening for decades http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ real wages were actually going down during Reagan's term.
I mean the GOP could and probably will trot out those numbers and arguably since what they care about is winning that is what they should do. It is however incredibly disingenuous to claim that it has anything to do with Obama rather then demographics for the first and incredibly complex confluence of issues for the second.
In these charts, it appears the participation rate goes up for older workers and down for younger ones between 2002 and 2012. The "whole numbers" aren't shown, so it could be that the older folks have more of an impact on the overall number than the younger ones BUT shouldn't we be concerned that younger people aren't participating in as high of numbers?
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm
So what if wage stagnation and all of these things have been going on throughout both the Bush and Obama eras; the point is we need people to make things better, not finger-pointing at who did what in the past.
Making it more valuable to work and contribute than to do nothing and collect would be an important part of any plan.
Would they still be saying this if gay marriage opposition was still at 2004 levels? HELL NO.
Bush squeaked out a win in 2004 in large part because he used gay marriage as a wedge issue.
I see absolutely no reason why democrats shouldn't be able to do the same thing in reverse for as long as it works in their favor.
Quote: RonCMaking it more valuable to work and contribute than to do nothing and collect would be an important part of any plan.
True, but the underlying assumption is that it will always be possible to have full employment. I'm not convinced that is true going forward, given the hyperproductivity that stems from automation and computerization. If the collective employers in the US only want to employ 75% of the available domestic workforce, what do you suggest should be done for the other 25%?
In other news, Nike announced today that if the TPP passes, it would establish a US-based supply chain that would create up to 10,000 US-based manufacturing jobs and another 40,000 supply-chain jobs.
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/threads_and_laces/2015/05/if-trade-deal-passes-nike-us-manufacturing-jobs.html
Quote: RonCIt isn't always about the GOP making something an issue just to make it an issue; sometimes it is about making an issue out of something that needs to be an issue...and then hearing both sides present ideas for solving it.
In these charts, it appears the participation rate goes up for older workers and down for younger ones between 2002 and 2012. The "whole numbers" aren't shown, so it could be that the older folks have more of an impact on the overall number than the younger ones BUT shouldn't we be concerned that younger people aren't participating in as high of numbers?
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm
So what if wage stagnation and all of these things have been going on throughout both the Bush and Obama eras; the point is we need people to make things better, not finger-pointing at who did what in the past.
Making it more valuable to work and contribute than to do nothing and collect would be an important part of any plan.
The reason for lower participation in younger aged workers is a multipronged thing. One of the reasons is increased number of jobs requiring college degrees leading more people to go to college and not work as well as making younger people who do not have college degrees having difficulty in finding jobs. This doesn't necessarily requiring fixing in all parts but one thing that could be done is more vocational training schools and more regulation on for profit schools which are shown to be ineffectual. Also companies should be encouraged to train new hires. It used to be that companies did take relatively new people with no experience and teach them, but that doesn't really happen anymore. People going to college is not a bad thing if that is what they want so no reason to try and change that. The other thing is old people are taking jobs that were normally done by younger workers and just in general staying in jobs longer. That last one could be helped by lowering the age for retirement.
Wage stagnation is an incredibly complex thing. It is related to lowered union participation which has been shown to lead to lower wages, theoretically this problem can be attributed to states instituting at work policies along with simply changing structures. There is also less push to try to get full employment which decreases inflation but also decreases wage growth if you want closer to full employment we could build more infrastructure and possibly incentivise private companies hiring people. There is the fact minimum wage is very rarely raised in fact the tipped minimum wage which hasn't been raised since 1991. Along with this there is a decrease in worker benefits like overtime since increasingly employees are being categorized as managers even though they do not earn a significant if at all higher wage then non managers and really don't have many managerial duties with most of their work being similar to that of non managers. The other has to deal with an increasingly globalized economy with large amounts of outsourcing leading to what should be high paying jobs being moved to other countries, this one is an arguably bad thing it benefits the countries where it's moved to but hurts the US policies to reduce it would include tariffs and other disincentives for outsourcing.
These are important issues and complex to fix, but it isn't the GOP who looks like they are even trying to do anything about them. In fact they are trying to do things that any legitimate economist says will hurt it even more. Union participation has been shown to increase wages but GOP tries to destroy unions since they hurt corporations. Raising minimum wage has been shown to increase real wages with only minor effects on unemployment but GOP refuses to raise it and even attempts to get rid of it. None of what the GOP does or tries to do seems to be attempting to benefit those who are not already making like 1 million plus a year.
Quote: MathExtremistIf the collective employers in the US only want to employ 75% of the available domestic workforce, what do you suggest should be done for the other 25%?
We do not have to "suggest" anything. Said 25% need to figure out a way to make a living.
Quote: AZDuffmanWe do not have to "suggest" anything. Said 25% need to figure out a way to make a living.
So it is your position that if the collective employers of the country only need to hire 75% of the available workforce, the government should do nothing for the remaining 25%? You would leave it to private society, charitable organizations, and the unemployed 25% to figure it out?
Quote: MathExtremistSo it is your position that if the collective employers of the country only need to hire 75% of the available workforce, the government should do nothing for the remaining 25%? You would leave it to private society, charitable organizations, and the unemployed 25% to figure it out?
The GOPs solution to the poor and unemployed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYHmQT_7a2c
Quote: MathExtremistTrue, but the underlying assumption is that it will always be possible to have full employment. I'm not convinced that is true going forward, given the hyperproductivity that stems from automation and computerization. If the collective employers in the US only want to employ 75% of the available domestic workforce, what do you suggest should be done for the other 25%?l
We don't necessarily need full employment but we also can't support an unlimited number of people staying out of the work force. I think we can come up with good policies to increase participation to the best level it possible.
The problem we have is that everyone is entrenched in GOP or Democrat ideas; listening to each other and working together is now a foreign concept.
I think we should do away with many tax loopholes and, if we give tax breaks at all, they should be for activities that increase employment. They should also be limited in scope and have sunset provisions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the question of keeping limited issues "limited", like gay marriage...the point that I may not be making very well is that I don't really give two shits if Obama won on supporting it after he was against it OR that Bush won because he was against it...the issue impacts a lot less people than the economy; it should get the amount of attention warranted for the size of the issue.
Both parties tend to build up those issues as larger than they are and we all lose.
If you blame it all on one party, then you aren't really looking at it honestly.
We heard the same propaganda going into Nafta, and how's that working out?Quote: MathExtremistIn other news, Nike announced today that if the TPP passes, it would establish a US-based supply chain that would create up to 10,000 US-based manufacturing jobs and another 40,000 supply-chain jobs.
Quote: MathExtremistSo it is your position that if the collective employers of the country only need to hire 75% of the available workforce, the government should do nothing for the remaining 25%? You would leave it to private society, charitable organizations, and the unemployed 25% to figure it out?
Pretty much, yes. If a private employer has no need to hire you then it is up to you to create your own job instead of looking for one. there is *always* some way to hustle in the USA.
Quote: TwirdmanThe GOPs solution to the poor and unemployed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYHmQT_7a2c
Better than anything liberals propose.
Quote: AZDuffman
Funny joke but are you honestly suggesting let them starve is a better alternative then trying to not have them starve? I mean seriously the GOP solution has become screw the poor as much as possible and the Democratic party responds maybe we should at least not let them starve in the streets and yet the GOP thinks the country has gotten more liberal and more socialist. Mind freaking blown.
One can only imagine the source of those figures and talking points. Here is official picture of the current abysmal situation:Quote: MathExtremistSo it is your position that if the collective employers of the country only need to hire 75% of the available workforce, the government should do nothing for the remaining 25%? You would leave it to private society, charitable organizations, and the unemployed 25% to figure it out?
"In what was an "unambiguously" unpleasant April jobs payrolls report, with a March revision dragging that month's job gain to the lowest level since June of 2012, the fact that the number of Americans not in the labor force rose once again, this time to 93,194K from 93,175K, with the result being a participation rate of 69.45 or just above the lowest percentage since 1977." Charts etc.
Quote: SanchoPanzaOne can only imagine the source of those figures and talking points. Here is official picture of the current abysmal situation:
"In what was an "unambiguously" unpleasant April jobs payrolls report, with a March revision dragging that month's job gain to the lowest level since June of 2012, the fact that the number of Americans not in the labor force rose once again, this time to 93,194K from 93,175K, with the result being a participation rate of 69.45 or just above the lowest percentage since 1977." Charts etc.
Where the hell are you getting 69.45 I'm sorry I refuse to trust a site that cannot read a freaking graph or chart. The rate is 62.8% the rate you said would literally make it the best point achieved in recent history since the actual record since 1950 was 67% roughly in the very early 2000. It has been falling ever since then. This was also already discussed as having to do with baby boomers aging into a age brackets with lower participation rates then the previous bracket they were in. I literally went over this like 5 post ago. No matter how many times you repeat this "fact" it is disingenuous.
Quote: TwirdmanQuote: AZDuffman
Funny joke but are you honestly suggesting let them starve is a better alternative then trying to not have them starve? I mean seriously the GOP solution has become screw the poor as much as possible and the Democratic party responds maybe we should at least not let them starve in the streets and yet the GOP thinks the country has gotten more liberal and more socialist. Mind freaking blown.
This basically sums up the left vs. right argument.
The right only cares about tax cuts for rich people who don't need them.
Poor people are takers, lazy, "thugs," etc.
"The 157,072,000 who participated in the labor force was 62.8 percent of the 250,266,000 civilian non-institutional population, which matches the 62.8 percent rate in April, May, June, and October of 2014 and February of 2015 as well as the participation rate in March of 1978. The participation rate hit its lowest level since February 1978 (62.7 percent) in September and December of 2014 and March of 2015."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/unemployment-rate-drops-april-even-labor-force-increases
Quote: TwirdmanQuote: AZDuffman
Funny joke but are you honestly suggesting let them starve is a better alternative then trying to not have them starve? I mean seriously the GOP solution has become screw the poor as much as possible and the Democratic party responds maybe we should at least not let them starve in the streets and yet the GOP thinks the country has gotten more liberal and more socialist. Mind freaking blown.
Yeah funny joke, its friday and I can't get all I need to done from home.
You are incorrect. The GOP solution is to have limited welfare, like the Gingrich reform of 1996 that limited payments to two years. Conservatives also believe in private charities, it has been proven time and time again conservatives give more than liberals to such charity.
What needs to be stopped is thus "way of life" mentality. Remember the "99ers" of the early Obama years and how we heard people would be starving in the streets if we didn't extend unemployment benefits yet again? We didn't, and they didn't.
People get creative to work when they have to. Today in depressed areas the effort is too often put into finding another program to qualify for instead of finding work.
Oh, and the USA has for sure gotten more liberal and socialist. Been doing so since the late-1990s as has much of the world. This my be shifting, but can't confirm yet.
Quote: ams288Quote: TwirdmanQuote: AZDuffman
Funny joke but are you honestly suggesting let them starve is a better alternative then trying to not have them starve? I mean seriously the GOP solution has become screw the poor as much as possible and the Democratic party responds maybe we should at least not let them starve in the streets and yet the GOP thinks the country has gotten more liberal and more socialist. Mind freaking blown.
This basically sums up the left vs. right argument.
The right only cares about tax cuts for rich people who don't need them.
Poor people are takers, lazy, "thugs," etc.
That is not true one iota. There are real debates between who should care for the poor. The left IMO thinks it is the governments responsibility and it should be funded by taxpayer dollars, the people on the right think it should be funded by charitable donations and one should not be forced to pay into it if they so choose not to. There are many homeless shelters or food pantries throughout this country that are funded by private donations, or as a subset of donations to their church, heck, I volunteer at one of those such places. But to dismiss one as merely saying he is against the homeless merely because one does not want their tax dollars funding them is ludacris. i donate my time and money to them, I don't want the government do it for me. Plus, if you have ever entered into any government office, they are monuments to inefficiency and waste. I could do a whole diatribe on the ills of base-line budgeting but I won't get into that here.
Quote: RonCThe participation is WORSE than the original link I posted...so here is another one:
"The 157,072,000 who participated in the labor force was 62.8 percent of the 250,266,000 civilian non-institutional population, which matches the 62.8 percent rate in April, May, June, and October of 2014 and February of 2015 as well as the participation rate in March of 1978. The participation rate hit its lowest level since February 1978 (62.7 percent) in September and December of 2014 and March of 2015."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/unemployment-rate-drops-april-even-labor-force-increases
Just another perspective, but I read that the labor participation rate is the fraction of those working out of those who want to work, as opposed to unemployment, which is the fraction of those who aren't working out of all workers, though I think in recent years they gamed that by crossing out lots of people from the all workers list.
So, the other perspective -
you have more people trying to work because the jobs available no longer support a single breadwinner family. if fewer people had to work because they were being supported by the other member of their family, then the labor participation rate would look better. Is that because there are fewer jobs available, or because the cost of living has gone up faster than wages?
Quote: Dalex64Just another perspective, but I read that the labor participation rate is the fraction of those working out of those who want to work, as opposed to unemployment, which is the fraction of those who aren't working out of all workers, though I think in recent years they gamed that by crossing out lots of people from the all workers list.
Unemployment is the portion of those looking for work but not working. Mathematically:
(those looking for work)/(those looking for work + those working) * 100.
I have looked but cannot find what makes the "labor force." I would think you drop off of it at retirement age but cannot find it one way or the other as to that.
Quote: AZDuffmanPretty much, yes. If a private employer has no need to hire you then it is up to you to create your own job instead of looking for one. there is *always* some way to hustle in the USA.
25% hustling for odd jobs would drive down the wages of the same 25% as they would be desperate. Buyers market. Assuming you're against minimum wage for 25% their wages should be pretty bleak.
Quote: Gabes22Quote: ams288Quote: TwirdmanQuote: AZDuffman
Funny joke but are you honestly suggesting let them starve is a better alternative then trying to not have them starve? I mean seriously the GOP solution has become screw the poor as much as possible and the Democratic party responds maybe we should at least not let them starve in the streets and yet the GOP thinks the country has gotten more liberal and more socialist. Mind freaking blown.
This basically sums up the left vs. right argument.
The right only cares about tax cuts for rich people who don't need them.
Poor people are takers, lazy, "thugs," etc.
That is not true one iota. There are real debates between who should care for the poor. The left IMO thinks it is the governments responsibility and it should be funded by taxpayer dollars, the people on the right think it should be funded by charitable donations and one should not be forced to pay into it if they so choose not to. There are many homeless shelters or food pantries throughout this country that are funded by private donations, or as a subset of donations to their church, heck, I volunteer at one of those such places. But to dismiss one as merely saying he is against the homeless merely because one does not want their tax dollars funding them is ludacris. i donate my time and money to them, I don't want the government do it for me. Plus, if you have ever entered into any government office, they are monuments to inefficiency and waste. I could do a whole diatribe on the ills of base-line budgeting but I won't get into that here.
We've seen private charities are not sufficient though. They have never been able to keep large groups of people from starving on the street. Private charities existed before social security was created yet old people were still starving in the streets.
Quote: AZDuffmanUnemployment is the portion of those looking for work but not working. Mathematically:
(those looking for work)/(those looking for work + those working) * 100.
I have looked but cannot find what makes the "labor force." I would think you drop off of it at retirement age but cannot find it one way or the other as to that.
Nope you do not drop over when you are over retirement age http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm . Anyone over the age of 16 is part of the labor force. Again that is why my explanation and the explanation of any serious economist makes sense. The labor force participation rate is going down because baby boomers are reaching retirement age.
Quote: rxwine25% hustling for odd jobs would drive down the wages of the same 25% as they would be desperate. Buyers market. Assuming you're against minimum wage for 25% their wages should be pretty bleak.
Seriously? So you are saying what? That only 50% of the population should work so they can have super-high wages and make enough to pay taxes to support the other 50%?
There has almost always been and will remain a concept called "surplus labor." But that surplus labor has to find some other market for their labor. Yes, odd jobs if need be. There are 1000 ways to hustle a buck in the USA. People make a living cleaning dog crap from other people's yards for crying out loud.
Part of the problem is imagination. I was on YT once, watched a video from my subscription on dressing for job interviews. Some kid was asking how to even get the interview. We chatted and I gave him several ideas like cleaning cars or walking dogs. The kid was amazed and said he never even thought of building a route cleaning cars or walking dogs. Everyone in his life said to "get an hourly job at a good place."
Now, maybe he does it and maybe he will not. But the point is you can't wait for the "right" job. You must jump in and make your way in the world, and sitting on your tail on assistance will not get you to that. It will actually trap you and your kids, like a serf in Europe who gave his freedom and his children's and theirs to the Lord.
Quote: TwirdmanQuote: SanchoPanzaOne can only imagine the source of those figures and talking points. Here is official picture of the current abysmal situation:
"In what was an "unambiguously" unpleasant April jobs payrolls report, with a March revision dragging that month's job gain to the lowest level since June of 2012, the fact that the number of Americans not in the labor force rose once again, this time to 93,194K from 93,175K, with the result being a participation rate of 69.45 or just above the lowest percentage since 1977." Charts etc.
Where the hell are you getting 69.45 I'm sorry I refuse to trust a site that cannot read a freaking graph or chart. The rate is 62.8% the rate you said would literally make it the best point achieved in recent history since the actual record since 1950 was 67% roughly in the very early 2000. It has been falling ever since then. This was also already discussed as having to do with baby boomers aging into a age brackets with lower participation rates then the previous bracket they were in. I literally went over this like 5 post ago. No matter how many times you repeat this "fact" it is disingenuous.
Quote: AZDuffmanSeriously? So you are saying what? That only 50% of the population should work so they can have super-high wages and make enough to pay taxes to support the other 50%?
Pretty sure that's not the only other option.
Quote:There has almost always been and will remain a concept called "surplus labor." But that surplus labor has to find some other market for their labor. Yes, odd jobs if need be. There are 1000 ways to hustle a buck in the USA. People make a living cleaning dog crap from other people's yards for crying out loud.
Part of the problem is imagination. I was on YT once, watched a video from my subscription on dressing for job interviews. Some kid was asking how to even get the interview. We chatted and I gave him several ideas like cleaning cars or walking dogs. The kid was amazed and said he never even thought of building a route cleaning cars or walking dogs. Everyone in his life said to "get an hourly job at a good place."
Now, maybe he does it and maybe he will not. But the point is you can't wait for the "right" job. You must jump in and make your way in the world, and sitting on your tail on assistance will not get you to that. It will actually trap you and your kids, like a serf in Europe who gave his freedom and his children's and theirs to the Lord.
Sure you can scoop poop. But we are talking about a labor force where a good job goes away, and someone still has house, car payments, and children to feed. And the people they owe money to expect to be paid.
Yeah, a single hobo, can hit the road. That's what I picture in your scenario. Something out of the 30s.
Asked by a poster who avoids giving any sources for the numbers he offers. And the BLS figures for April 2015 do NOT repeat five-year-old talking points, as was self-admittedly done in this thread.Quote: TwirdmanWhere the hell are you getting 69.45 I'm sorry I refuse to trust a site that cannot read a freaking graph or chart.
Quote: rxwinePretty sure that's not the only other option.
Sure you can scoop poop. But we are talking about a labor force where a good job goes away, and someone still has house, car payments, and children to feed. And the people they owe money to expect to be paid.
Yeah, a single hobo, can hit the road. That's what I picture in your scenario. Something out of the 30s.
This is why we have unemployment but also why we limit it. If "Men at Work" is still on Netflix it is something you should watch. Yuppie loses his job and has to take a labor job which was actually half a favor to get. But it takes him some time to realize, "hey, your old job does not exist, you had better find another!"
Scooping poop is actually a smart way to go, you have 50 employers not just one!
Quote: AZDuffmanUnemployment is the portion of those looking for work but not working. Mathematically:
(those looking for work)/(those looking for work + those working) * 100.
I have looked but cannot find what makes the "labor force." I would think you drop off of it at retirement age but cannot find it one way or the other as to that.
I found a definition of 'participation rate' here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/participationrate.asp
I'm not sure if that answers your question about 'labor force' though.
Quote: AZDuffmanSeriously? So you are saying what? That only 50% of the population should work so they can have super-high wages and make enough to pay taxes to support the other 50%?
25% of the population should work, so that they can support their wives (25%) and two children (50%)
Quote: Dalex64I found a definition of 'participation rate' here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/participationrate.asp
I'm not sure if that answers your question about 'labor force' though.
Yeah, this is kind of all I found.
As to the blaming it on retiring boomers, there are more than that number of millennials and immigrants replacing those that retire by choice, so I am not buying it wholesale just yet.
Its the 55-69 year old slice of workers that are getting the majority of the jobs. Those in their prime working years 25-54 are losing out. [zh]Info on labor force participation rate; http://www.zerohedge.com/search/apachesolr_search/
Quote: Dalex6425% of the population should work, so that they can support their wives (25%) and two children (50%)
Who supports the elderly, the single moms, the widows, the widowers the people whose parents have passed and countless other things? The reality of the situation is that there are very few one income families because incomes haven't crept up at the same rates as taxes, housing, insurance, transportation, food, electricity, communication and a host of other things. Having a one income family so one person can raise the kids and tend to the house is ideal, but it is not the reality of the world in which we live in
Quote: AZDuffmanYeah, this is kind of all I found.
As to the blaming it on retiring boomers, there are more than that number of millennials and immigrants replacing those that retire by choice, so I am not buying it wholesale just yet.
Which is why number of jobs is increasing. Participation rate is a percentage. So say 10 million people hit working age at 16 and say even 100% of them find a job now 10 million boomers retire. Say our labor force before this change was 200 million people and say 70% so we had 140 million people employed after the change we have 140 million people employed with 220 million people leading to a participation rate of 63.6%. Hell even if we are generous and say 20 million people replace the 10 million boomers and all get a job we'd have 150 million jobs for 220 million people for a participation rate of 68% still lower then we had before the boomers start retiring.
That is a problem with participation rate people only leave the labor pool when they die. I mean claiming boomers don't have an effect on labor participation rate is literally just denying math.
Quote: SanchoPanzaAsked by a poster who avoids giving any sources for the numbers he offers. And the BLS figures for April 2015 do NOT repeat five-year-old talking points, as was self-admittedly done in this thread.
I did provide my numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The participation rate is even lower then you said it was which you admitted after I mentioned how the numbers quoted in your link were wrong. You could also see the numbers were wrong by simply looking at the graph on the page. I have no idea how he could interpret that graph to say 69.45 or say that is the lowest number since 1970s since neither of those are true. Also what exactly is wrong with what I'm saying. I mean are people legitimately arguing that retiring people don't bring down labor participation rates? This is really what we're going to argue. Basically everyone who studies the economy admits the drop in participation rate has to do with more people retiring then normal because baby boomers are aging out of the work force. They are aging into brackets that have lower participation rates.
Here is partial list of 6300 corporate fines for malfeasance. How are normal working people supposed to get their voices heard in this kleptocracy? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t0Tb5H7V_OkOuLM9kaiPmszXb3L5wS2g7Tc5dG7v9yM/edit?pli=1#gid=0Quote: AZDuffmanThis is incorrect. A corporation is not "a stack of papers." It is a group of people. And corporations nowhere have the "right to vote." All letting corporations participate does is let people pool resources.
Why are you so against free speech?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-06/corporate-kleptocracy-6300-examples-americas-malignant-malfeasance#comments
"No tbtf bankers have been charged for collapsing the world economy". And these corporations and financial institutions is who employs the politicians who have granted them favors when they exit the "revolving door".
Quote: petroglyphHere is partial list of 6300 corporate fines for malfeasance. How are normal working people supposed to get their voices heard in this kleptocracy? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t0Tb5H7V_OkOuLM9kaiPmszXb3L5wS2g7Tc5dG7v9yM/edit?pli=1#gid=0
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-06/corporate-kleptocracy-6300-examples-americas-malignant-malfeasance#comments
"No tbtf bankers have been charged for collapsing the world economy". And these corporations and financial institutions is who employs the politicians who have granted them favors when they exit the "revolving door".
7 of the 10 richest counties in the USA are within a 100 mile radius of Washington, DC. That should tell you all you need to know about what the #1 business in America truly is. Many politicians will rant and rail on bankers or insurance companies or stock brokers. It's all in effort to change the subject from the people who are really fleecing you
Quote: TwirdmanI did provide my numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The participation rate is even lower then you said it was which you admitted after I mentioned how the numbers quoted in your link were wrong. You could also see the numbers were wrong by simply looking at the graph on the page. I have no idea how he could interpret that graph to say 69.45 or say that is the lowest number since 1970s since neither of those are true. Also what exactly is wrong with what I'm saying. I mean are people legitimately arguing that retiring people don't bring down labor participation rates? This is really what we're going to argue. Basically everyone who studies the economy admits the drop in participation rate has to do with more people retiring then normal because baby boomers are aging out of the work force. They are aging into brackets that have lower participation rates.
When using data from the BLS, I think it is always pertinent to add a foot note for "birth death adjustments?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/seasonal-and-birth-death-adjustments-add-429000-statistical-jobs All job numbers are manipulated as are inflation numbers.
See Clintons BLS "hedonic adjustments" https://priceillusion.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/manipulating-the-consumer-price-index-hedonic-quality-adjustments/
Excellent point.Quote: SanchoPanzaWe heard the same propaganda going into Nafta, and how's that working out?
Obama is asking for fast track authority for the TPP. It will be the final nail in the middle class coffin. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-08/president-obama-explains-how-tpp-means-more-us-made-sneakers-live-feed
"Barack Obama is secretly negotiating a global economic treaty which would destroy thousands of American businesses and millions of good paying American jobs. In other words, it would be the final nail in the coffin for America’s economic infrastructure. Obama knows that if the American people actually knew what was in this treaty that they would be screaming mad, so the negotiations are being done in secret. "
Another trade deal negotiated in secret, by unnamed lobbyists. My understanding is a treaty supercedes the constitution and once this passes it cannot be unwound, much like Nafta, which in O's first campaign he promised to renegotiate.
He is touting Nike making thousands of jobs. I worked in Beaverton Ore. in the 80's. At that time the workers were making Nike shoes and receiving 14 dollars per hour, and Nike's cost 40 dollars per pair.
The last I saw, Nikes are 1-2 hundred dollars and the workers make 3 dollars per day. A few years back Michael Jordan got more money for being the face on their commercials than ALL of their employees combined.
This bullcrap is not a benefit for Americans. They were paid to offshore, they will be paid to inshore, and the taxpayers get took on every trade. What has leaked about the TPP is horrible, with foreign company's allowed to sue America if they don't like our restrictions.
