Denial isn't just a river in Egypt...

[Deleted]

If you to the link opt that average includes farm? Nonfarm goes down about 20k all inclusive and wage only is average 26 an hour. Not bad, but as it includes tech and non tech, it's likely that average represents a wide range.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2016 11:26:29 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Nov 28, 2016 11:03:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that was true during the 2012 election, but it is no longer true:

blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/05/11/just-how-good-or-bad-are-all-the-jobs-added-to-the-economy-since-the-recession/

I couldn't read your article,  required a log in or subscription. 

the basic gist of it is that the jobs added through 2012 were BELOW average wage, and the ones since then were ABOVE average.  the net effect is that in 2016, the AVERAGE worker is making more than in 2009.

[Deleted]

Nov 28, 2016 12:15:47 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Nov 28, 2016 11:54:48 GMT -5 oped said:

My point wasn't that mcdonalds was a better job. It was that, at higher costs, employers sometimes choose to invest more in automation and tech which requires fewer people. So, again, what you wish for is not incompatible with what Emma is saying, even if jobs 'come back' they aren't going to look the same... they will be more specialized and those people desiring them will need further training and education. They aren't going to necessarily serve the people you suggest might be looking for them. The disconnect needs to be addresssed or we'd just have even more high tech manufacturing jobs with no one to fill them...

We have that now. 

Yes, we've said that several times. What is Trump's plan to solve it? Because no one wanted to hear Clinton's...

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2016 11:44:59 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Nov 26, 2016 16:56:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think he INTENDED it to be about that.  but i think what it is actually about is the inability of voters to separate their feelings from the facts.

edit: it's Democratic Party, btw.  if you are going to go low, you might as well just call them democrats and make it obvious.

There is a somewhat faded sign in the center of the town of Mountain Home Arkansas.  (This is the town I visit most for shopping etc. population about 12,000)  This sign is above the storefront that the local Democrat  party has it's headquarters.  This is what it says on it in capital letters.  DEMOCRAT  PARTY.  You can try to direct a stance of me somehow "going low" and that's OK.  As long as you consider it OK that I direct a stance that the statement (bolded) from you, is more crazy talk from the land of fruits and nuts.

if you (and they) don't know, let me fill you (and them) in:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

[Deleted]

She didn't win. What is Trump's? What plan did you vote for? 

[Deleted]

www.npr.org/2016/09/05/492727584/clinton-promises-to-help-create-manufacturing-jobs-of-the-future

www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/manufacturing/

5. Invest in America’s manufacturing workforce to ensure that they will always be the best in the world. America has the potential to win the global competition for manufacturing jobs by harnessing the incredible talent and skills of its workforce. That is why Clinton’s plan will:

o Encourage proven, high-quality training and apprenticeships – including a $1,500 tax credit for every apprentice hired through a bona-fide apprenticeship program – while insisting on accountability for employment and earnings outcomes.

o Expand nationwide credentialing with strong industry input that can lead to more and better-paying jobs in every state in the union.

o Build on models that allow federal student aid to be used toward high-quality career and technical training programs with promising or proven records—including traditional career and technical education, and innovative, flexible online programs.

o Provide tuition-free community college, and reduce student debt by allowing students to refinance their loans.

[Deleted]

That's how he intends to 'bring jobs back'.... but who cares when no one is going to be qualified to do them.... the question was how does he address the disconnect that you admit Already exists in jobs Already available here.... 

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2016 12:31:59 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Nov 28, 2016 12:20:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if you (and they) don't know, let me fill you (and them) in:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

Over here it's the Democrat  Party.  Just filling you in. 

interesting.  so, do they have a separate line on the ballot?  because the national party is actually called the Democratic Party.

If you think it's an insult, along with anyone else, have at it.  I don't think it's an insult.  That's just crazy talk as far as those around here consider. 

i don't "think" it.  i know it.

Anything else is a restriction on the First Amendment.  Potato/pototo.  Tomato/tomoto.

don't give me the free speech bullshit.  that has nothing to do with it, and you know it.

you are free to say all the ignorant, wrongheaded crap you like in this country.  but don't expect to get away with it on a public board without being called out.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2016 12:44:46 GMT -5 oped said:

That's how he intends to 'bring jobs back'.... but who cares when no one is going to be qualified to do them.... the question was how does he address the disconnect that you admit Already exists in jobs Already available here.... 

is he going to start with the ones HE sent overseas?

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 26, 2016 3:55:44 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

That challenge answered... the question of "how is UE defined?" is still up in the air though. I believe that the bogus number that they are bandying about currently (whatever it is) does NOT include those that have given up looking for work nor does it include those that are underemployed and still on some form of assistance.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 28, 2016 11:07:03 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

In other words.... mfg in the US isn't dead.  It is changing and we'd be well smart to support it as it does.

The argument isn't that it's dead, it's that it's dying.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2016 12:56:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 26, 2016 3:55:44 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

That challenge answered... the question of "how is UE defined?" is still up in the air though. I believe that the bogus number that they are bandying about currently (whatever it is) does NOT include those that have given up looking for work nor does it include those that are underemployed and still on some form of assistance.

i already addressed "THAT".

[Deleted]

Ok then. 

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2016 13:05:38 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Nov 28, 2016 12:51:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

  that has nothing to do with it,

It has everything to do with it.  .

no, you are absolutely wrong.  i am not TELLING you what to do.  and, even if i WERE telling you what to do, i have no ability to enforce my will over you.

you are just whining like a petulant child, just like anyone who thinks they should say whatever they like without anyone else questioning it.

well, let met give you a little clue.  you don't live in that kind of world.  you live in a world where people can verify what you say.  for example, i can look up the official registry in Baxter County for party registration and see what the party calls itself (i did).  i can then report back to you that the billboard you cited is in error.  that sort of thing.

you have every right to say whatever you like, here, D23.  and i wouldn't want it any other way.  but if you lack an awareness of the etymology of your language, you will find lots of people that will point it out.  i am sure you know that.

saying bullshit things is free speech.  pointing them out is also free speech.

you going to deny my free speech, pal?

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 28, 2016 13:01:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 28, 2016 12:56:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

i already addressed "THAT".

Your response was "So use U6."

My response is "I want to use the LFPR."

You've made your presentiments about the LFPR well known in the past.

Let's move on to new ground.

If a government incurs $4.3 trillion in debt from stimulus funding that generates $1.2 trillion in total revenues from temporary new jobs, is the lower unemployment rate that results still "worth it"?

If Pres. Trump spends another $10 trillion on tax incentives, subsidies, stimulus, etc. to generate $2 trillion in total new revenue and lower unemployment by another 2%, should we conclude that the economy is steadily improving under his administration?

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2016 13:15:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 28, 2016 13:01:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i already addressed "THAT".

Your response was "So use U6."

right, because it overcomes this objection:

does NOT include those that have given up looking for work nor does it include those that are underemployed and still on some form of assistance

please stop it with the red herring arguing.  tyia.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 28, 2016 13:20:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 28, 2016 13:15:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Your response was "So use U6."

right, because it overcomes this objection:

does NOT include those that have given up looking for work nor does it include those that are underemployed and still on some form of assistance

please stop it with the red herring arguing.  tyia.

It doesn't, actually. It's limited to a particular age demographic, and like the U3 it has an "expiry date" beyond which chronically unemployed individuals are no longer considered part of the labour force and dropped from the statistic. It also relies on "birth-death adjustments" that add millions of jobs based on demonstrably false assumptions.

But I'm more interested in your answer to the questions I posed.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2016 13:45:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 28, 2016 13:20:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

right, because it overcomes this objection:

does NOT include those that have given up looking for work nor does it include those that are underemployed and still on some form of assistance

please stop it with the red herring arguing.  tyia.

It doesn't, actually. It's limited to a particular age demographic, and like the U3 it has an "expiry date" beyond which chronically unemployed individuals are no longer considered part of the labour force and dropped from the statistic. It also relies on "birth-death adjustments" that add millions of jobs based on demonstrably false assumptions.

But I'm more interested in your answer to the questions I posed.

that's nice.

so, let me ask you this: if you are having a discussion with someone about unemployment, and you want to use "X" as a basis of comparison, then what do you use?  LFP? 

[Miss Tequila]

Nov 26, 2016 0:05:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes?

when Obama took over, UE was running about 8%, and now it is 5%, NATIONALLY.  how is that not better?

but fine, you just voted that asshole into office, and i will GUARANTEE YOU, RIGHT NOW, that in (4) years, things WILL be worse.

then what?

i will tell you one thing, i won't be coming around and mocking you for being "in denial".

edit: and friends don't indulge the delusions of other friends, so stop claiming you are one. 

But what type of jobs? I ask because when Obama took office there were 32 million people receiving food stamps and it is around 43 to 44 million now.  So while there might be less people on UE that doesn't translate to a healthy economy with booming jobs. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 28, 2016 13:48:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 28, 2016 13:45:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It doesn't, actually. It's limited to a particular age demographic, and like the U3 it has an "expiry date" beyond which chronically unemployed individuals are no longer considered part of the labour force and dropped from the statistic. It also relies on "birth-death adjustments" that add millions of jobs based on demonstrably false assumptions.

But I'm more interested in your answer to the questions I posed.

that's nice.

so, let me ask you this: if you are having a discussion with someone about unemployment, and you want to use "X" as a basis of comparison, then what do you use?  LFP? 

ibid.:

But, despite all of the rhetoric, discussions, debates, excuses and finger-pointing in regards to the latest jobs report; there is only one chart of employment that truly matters: the number of full-time employees relative to the working age population. Full-time employment is what ultimately drives economic growth, pays wages that will support household formation, and fuels higher levels of government revenue from taxes.

Unfortunately, this metric isn't officially published by the US government. It has to be computed manually from other data they publish. The good news is that the authors of the cited article do just this:



Getting back to my questions, though...

[tallguy]

Nov 28, 2016 13:56:44 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Nov 26, 2016 0:05:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes?

when Obama took over, UE was running about 8%, and now it is 5%, NATIONALLY.  how is that not better?

but fine, you just voted that asshole into office, and i will GUARANTEE YOU, RIGHT NOW, that in (4) years, things WILL be worse.

then what?

i will tell you one thing, i won't be coming around and mocking you for being "in denial".

edit: and friends don't indulge the delusions of other friends, so stop claiming you are one. 

But what type of jobs? I ask because when Obama took office there were 32 million people receiving food stamps and it is around 43 to 44 million now.  So while there might be less people on UE that doesn't translate to a healthy economy with booming jobs. 

It is not simply a matter of that:

Food stamp participation increased almost non-stop between 2001 and 2013. Only 2007, which was the height of the last boom, showed a decline.

So, is this all the fault of a bad economy?

Breitbart attempts to say so in a recent article in which it pours cold water on Gallup's attempt to sing the praises of "the economic recovery." Breitbart is correct that the economy is hardly robust, but one of the biggest factors in the sky-high levels of food stamp participation is not the anemic economy, but the fact that the Bush administration and the Obama administration expanded the food stamp rolls via public policy.

As this article from The Washington Examiner explains, the food stamp program was heartily expanded under Bush in the 2002 Farm Bill, the 2008 Farm Bill, and in 2009 "stimulus" packages. Obama naturally did nothing to reverse these expansions:

The 2002 Farm Bill expanded eligibility to noncitizens, increased benefits for families with more children, adjusted benefits for inflation and made it easier to enroll. Further easing of eligibility requirements followed in the 2008 Farm Bill, which contained more than 30 provisions relating to food stamps, including higher minimum benefits. As the data show, spending after changes in eligibility grew by $185 billion between 2002 and 2008.

So, if you're wondering why food stamp participation increased during the Bush administration's boom period, the answer is: Bush signed those expansions into law.

It's just the latest reminder that when republicans control the White House, Senate, and House, they manage to massively increase the size of government.

Thanks, Bush and Obama: 1 in 7 Americans Were on Food Stamps in 2015

[Deleted]

Nov 28, 2016 13:57:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 28, 2016 13:48:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that's nice.

so, let me ask you this: if you are having a discussion with someone about unemployment, and you want to use "X" as a basis of comparison, then what do you use?  LFP? 

ibid.:

But, despite all of the rhetoric, discussions, debates, excuses and finger-pointing in regards to the latest jobs report; there is only one chart of employment that truly matters: the number of full-time employees relative to the working age population. Full-time employment is what ultimately drives economic growth, pays wages that will support household formation, and fuels higher levels of government revenue from taxes.

Unfortunately, this metric isn't officially published by the US government. It has to be computed manually from other data they publish. The good news is that the authors of the cited article do just this:



Getting back to my questions, though...

Lol. Demographics of the population contribute nothing to that huh...

[Miss Tequila]

Nov 28, 2016 14:13:38 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 28, 2016 13:56:44 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

But what type of jobs? I ask because when Obama took office there were 32 million people receiving food stamps and it is around 43 to 44 million now.  So while there might be less people on UE that doesn't translate to a healthy economy with booming jobs. 

It is not simply a matter of that:

Food stamp participation increased almost non-stop between 2001 and 2013. Only 2007, which was the height of the last boom, showed a decline.

So, is this all the fault of a bad economy?

Breitbart attempts to say so in a recent article in which it pours cold water on Gallup's attempt to sing the praises of "the economic recovery." Breitbart is correct that the economy is hardly robust, but one of the biggest factors in the sky-high levels of food stamp participation is not the anemic economy, but the fact that the Bush administration and the Obama administration expanded the food stamp rolls via public policy.

As this article from The Washington Examiner explains, the food stamp program was heartily expanded under Bush in the 2002 Farm Bill, the 2008 Farm Bill, and in 2009 "stimulus" packages. Obama naturally did nothing to reverse these expansions:

The 2002 Farm Bill expanded eligibility to noncitizens, increased benefits for families with more children, adjusted benefits for inflation and made it easier to enroll. Further easing of eligibility requirements followed in the 2008 Farm Bill, which contained more than 30 provisions relating to food stamps, including higher minimum benefits. As the data show, spending after changes in eligibility grew by $185 billion between 2002 and 2008.

So, if you're wondering why food stamp participation increased during the Bush administration's boom period, the answer is: Bush signed those expansions into law.

It's just the latest reminder that when republicans control the White House, Senate, and House, they manage to massively increase the size of government.

Thanks, Bush and Obama: 1 in 7 Americans Were on Food Stamps in 2015

www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Monthly.jpg

But the economy has to play a role in it.  Based on this chart (granted, I can't attest to the validity but it claims to be compiled from USDA data) there was an uptick in 2008 (assuming that's when the above Farm bill kicked in).  But from there is just kept rising.  At the beginning of 2009 there were about 31.5 million people on food stamps, 2010 38 million, beginning of 2011 43.5 million to a high of just under 48 million in 2013.  We are now between 43 and 44 million.  That can't all be because of a farm bill 6 years earlier or the impact would have hit at the get go.  Or am I missing something? 

ETA:  My research reports that Bush vetoed the bill and congress override his veto. 

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2016 13:57:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 28, 2016 13:48:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that's nice.

so, let me ask you this: if you are having a discussion with someone about unemployment, and you want to use "X" as a basis of comparison, then what do you use?  LFP? 

ibid.:

But, despite all of the rhetoric, discussions, debates, excuses and finger-pointing in regards to the latest jobs report; there is only one chart of employment that truly matters: the number of full-time employees relative to the working age population. Full-time employment is what ultimately drives economic growth, pays wages that will support household formation, and fuels higher levels of government revenue from taxes.

Unfortunately, this metric isn't officially published by the US government. It has to be computed manually from other data they publish. The good news is that the authors of the cited article do just this:



Getting back to my questions, though...

you didn't answer my question.  i didn't ask you about EMPLOYMENT.

you can't deduce the number of unemployed by looking at employment.

so, again, if you are having a discussion about UNEMPLOYMENT, what do you use?

regarding your "other questions", they are too complicated to answer on this thread.  please stop asking, or start another thread.

edit: even looking at this, Obama's second term appears to be better than any (4) year period in the last two decades.  oh, and Bush's first AND second terms were the worst terms in the entire review period (naturally, since he is the worst president since Harding).

[tallguy]

Nov 28, 2016 14:20:44 GMT -5 oped said:

Nov 28, 2016 13:57:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

ibid.:

But, despite all of the rhetoric, discussions, debates, excuses and finger-pointing in regards to the latest jobs report; there is only one chart of employment that truly matters: the number of full-time employees relative to the working age population. Full-time employment is what ultimately drives economic growth, pays wages that will support household formation, and fuels higher levels of government revenue from taxes.

Unfortunately, this metric isn't officially published by the US government. It has to be computed manually from other data they publish. The good news is that the authors of the cited article do just this:



Getting back to my questions, though...

Lol. Demographics of the population contribute nothing to that huh...

I'm wondering how I should take it that according to the chart, I would be considered a negative since I choose to only work part-time now?  

And how is it affected by older people who, because of debt, need to keep working rather than retire to open up those full-time jobs for younger people?  Does that affect it to any real degree? 

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2016 13:56:44 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Nov 26, 2016 0:05:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes?

when Obama took over, UE was running about 8%, and now it is 5%, NATIONALLY.  how is that not better?

but fine, you just voted that asshole into office, and i will GUARANTEE YOU, RIGHT NOW, that in (4) years, things WILL be worse.

then what?

i will tell you one thing, i won't be coming around and mocking you for being "in denial".

edit: and friends don't indulge the delusions of other friends, so stop claiming you are one. 

But what type of jobs? I ask because when Obama took office there were 32 million people receiving food stamps and it is around 43 to 44 million now.  So while there might be less people on UE that doesn't translate to a healthy economy with booming jobs. 

if you are claiming that the working poor are worse for an economy (and for themselves) than the unemployed, i am going to disagree with you, there.

[Miss Tequila]

Nov 28, 2016 14:29:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 28, 2016 13:56:44 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

But what type of jobs? I ask because when Obama took office there were 32 million people receiving food stamps and it is around 43 to 44 million now.  So while there might be less people on UE that doesn't translate to a healthy economy with booming jobs. 

if you are claiming that the working poor are worse for an economy (and for themselves) than the unemployed, i am going to disagree with you, there.

But we aren't talking about the economy.  We are talking about individual people.  There are now 11 or 12 million more people with household income that qualifies them for food stamps.  Do you think they believe they are better off now or when they didn't qualify for food stamps? 

[tallguy]

Nov 28, 2016 14:26:31 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Nov 28, 2016 14:13:38 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It is not simply a matter of that:
Thanks, Bush and Obama: 1 in 7 Americans Were on Food Stamps in 2015

www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Monthly.jpg

But the economy has to play a role in it.  Based on this chart (granted, I can't attest to the validity but it claims to be compiled from USDA data) there was an uptick in 2008 (assuming that's when the above Farm bill kicked in).  But from there is just kept rising.  At the beginning of 2009 there were about 31.5 million people on food stamps, 2010 38 million, beginning of 2011 43.5 million to a high of just under 48 million in 2013.  We are now between 43 and 44 million.  That can't all be because of a farm bill 6 years earlier or the impact would have hit at the get go.  Or am I missing something? 

ETA:  My research reports that Bush vetoed the bill and congress override his veto. 

But look at the year-over-year graph:

Basically all of the growth was in the immediate post-Great Recession period of 2009-2010.  It should not be hard to understand why.  The overall growth rate has been negative since 2013 and probably sometime in 2012.  

[Miss Tequila]

Nov 28, 2016 14:35:12 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 28, 2016 14:26:31 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Monthly.jpg

But the economy has to play a role in it.  Based on this chart (granted, I can't attest to the validity but it claims to be compiled from USDA data) there was an uptick in 2008 (assuming that's when the above Farm bill kicked in).  But from there is just kept rising.  At the beginning of 2009 there were about 31.5 million people on food stamps, 2010 38 million, beginning of 2011 43.5 million to a high of just under 48 million in 2013.  We are now between 43 and 44 million.  That can't all be because of a farm bill 6 years earlier or the impact would have hit at the get go.  Or am I missing something? 

ETA:  My research reports that Bush vetoed the bill and congress override his veto. 

But look at the year-over-year graph:

Basically all of the growth was in the immediate post-Great Recession period of 2009-2010.  It should not be hard to understand why.  The overall growth rate has been negative since 2013 and probably sometime in 2012.  

It is definitely declining but it is still nowhere near it was when Obama took office.  And that was after the Farm Bill kicked in.  The statement made was that people are better off now then the day Obama took office because the unemployment rates are down.  I'm saying that the food stamp rates are much higher now than the day that Obama took office.  So while unemployment rates are down so is household income...which says to me that people aren't doing as well as unemployment rates seem to indicate. 

[djAdvocate]

Nov 28, 2016 14:28:45 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 28, 2016 14:20:44 GMT -5 oped said:

Lol. Demographics of the population contribute nothing to that huh...

I'm wondering how I should take it that according to the chart, I would be considered a negative since I choose to only work part-time now?  

And how is it affected by older people who, because of debt, need to keep working rather than retire to open up those full-time jobs for younger people?  Does that affect it to any real degree? 

this chart is actually very confusing, in that it doesn't readily allow you to compare, on a moment by moment basis, the performance of a president, the economy, or anything else relative to previous periods.  it reminds me of Gurdjeiff.  he believed that language was so poisoned by misuse that the only option was to invent his own language to communicate his ideas.