Federal jobless numbers

[Value Buy]

Jobless rate is at a fifty year low.
Lowest number since 1969.
Booyah!

[Deleted]

Financed with a deficit approaching 1 Trillion annually. That’s Trillion, with a T.

GOP response in 2016= Deficit spending out of control
GOP response 2018: Deficits don’t matter.

www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/money/5484463/budget-deficit-your-investments

“The U.S. budget deficit, exacerbated by the Trump Administration’s 2017 tax cuts, is set to pass the $1 trillion mark in 2019”

“If you look at low unemployment rates around the world, the best part of the recovery is behind us. And we didn’t use that recovery to repair balance sheets. Global sovereign debt is in worse shape than it was in 2007. The problem for the U.S. is that we have a current account deficit, so if we continue to borrow excessively, at some point that could hurt the value of the dollar. “

[Value Buy]

This is about jobless numbers, not the deficit.
We all know the deficit is here to stay and neither party will stop the carnage there.

[Tennesseer]

What....no MAGA! in the opening post?

[Value Buy]

Jan 24, 2019 13:47:03 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

What....no MAGA! in the opening post?

Tennesseer, I promised to be less confrontational at the first of the year. I am just happy so many people who are no longer jobless!   

Here it is January 24th, and I am sort of still good on my pledge, imho

[Tennesseer]

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2019 13:45:02 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

This is about jobless numbers, not the deficit.
We all know the deficit is here to stay and neither party will stop the carnage there.

The jobs number and deficit walk hand in hand, why doesn’t the tea party mobilize now to challenge the deficit like it did during the previous administration?

The deficit isn’t here to stay, the issue will eventually be forced by rising interest rates.

We got out from under it after WW 2, we can do it again.

[andi9899]

Are the people who are furloughed counting as employed? Are they really employed if they aren't working?

[NastyWoman]

Jan 24, 2019 13:47:03 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

What....no MAGA! in the opening post?

There is also no mention of whether all these jobs we have are PAYING jobs...

[Tiny]

Jan 24, 2019 13:45:02 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

This is about jobless numbers, not the deficit.
We all know the deficit is here to stay and neither party will stop the carnage there.

But it is kind of about the deficit... 

Shouldn't all those people with jobs be spending money (buying stuff) which would improve the economy?   

Shouldn't an improving economy effect the deficit in a positive way (ie it gets smaller)? 
 
Isn't that how Trump was going to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy? 

Not to mention the gorilla in the room - if so many people are working why aren't they spending money on things that grow the economy      Or maybe they just aren't spending money on high end stuff (Macy's, Tiffany, Nordstrom's , etc didn't meet 4th quarter expectations) 

[NastyWoman]

Jan 24, 2019 14:32:36 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Jan 24, 2019 13:45:02 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

This is about jobless numbers, not the deficit.
We all know the deficit is here to stay and neither party will stop the carnage there.

But it is kind of about the deficit... 

Shouldn't all those people with jobs be spending money (buying stuff) which would improve the economy?   

Shouldn't an improving economy effect the deficit in a positive way (ie it gets smaller)? 
 
Isn't that how Trump was going to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy? 

Not to mention the gorilla in the room - if so many people are working why aren't they spending money on things that grow the economy      Or maybe they just aren't spending money on high end stuff (Macy's, Tiffany, Nordstrom's , etc didn't meet 4th quarter expectations) 

see post #8 → working alone doesn't cut it. You need to get paid before you start spending. And with all that is going on right now, I suspect that quite a few people who do have money to spend are "hoarding" (aka saving) it, since they are seeing once again first hand what happens if the paycheck goes bye-bye even temporarily.

[Tiny]

Here's an article:

www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/off-the-charts-holiday-heartbreak-for-retailers/ar-BBSGV0I?li=BBnb4R7


Guess all the employed people are spending their $$ at the Dollar Store.

[Tiny]

Jan 24, 2019 14:36:15 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Jan 24, 2019 14:32:36 GMT -5 Tiny said:

But it is kind of about the deficit... 

Shouldn't all those people with jobs be spending money (buying stuff) which would improve the economy?   

Shouldn't an improving economy effect the deficit in a positive way (ie it gets smaller)? 
 
Isn't that how Trump was going to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy? 

Not to mention the gorilla in the room - if so many people are working why aren't they spending money on things that grow the economy      Or maybe they just aren't spending money on high end stuff (Macy's, Tiffany, Nordstrom's , etc didn't meet 4th quarter expectations) 

see post #8 → working alone doesn't cut it. You need to get paid before you start spending. And with all that is going on right now, I suspect that quite a few people who do have money to spend are "hoarding" (aka saving) it, since they are seeing once again first hand what happens if the paycheck goes bye-bye even temporarily.

I know how it works.      Being happy about low unemployment is good and all but it doesn't really indicate much of anything  by itself.     It doesn't take in to account the cost of living, or inflation or if wages are good or bad (as has been pointed out). 

After all - wasn't it  the GOP  getting all  vocal/dramatic  about how the government skewed the unemployment numbers to make them look better under Obama?   You know the old unemployment is over 15%!!! (or some other lofty number)  when the government was reporting  5 to 6% unemployment rates. 

[weltschmerz]

Jan 24, 2019 13:34:59 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jobless rate is at a fifty year low.
Lowest number since 1969.
Booyah!

I keep asking and asking, but no republican has ever answered.
Are these full-time or part-time jobs?
Are these people making enough to support their families, or is it two days a week for minimum wage?

[laterbloomer]

To be clear, the furloughed workers are considered to have jobs right?

[mmhmm]

Jan 24, 2019 15:39:03 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

To be clear, the furloughed workers are considered to have jobs right?

Yes. They'd be considered to be employed.

[NastyWoman]

Jan 24, 2019 15:39:03 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

To be clear, the furloughed workers are considered to have jobs right?

Yes they are and we (the Trump admistration) do all we can to make sure they don't get paid:

www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article224723765.html

"The Trump Administration has told California and seven other states that they cannot offer unemployment benefits to federal workers who aren’t getting a paycheck.

Gov. Gavin Newsom last week encouraged thousands of California workers furloughed due to the federal government shutdown to apply for unemployment insurance, vowing that “we’ll cover you – we have your back.”

But Wednesday, the California Employment Development Department was among those sent a memo from the Department of Labor which states that federal employees who are working without pay “are not unemployed and are, therefore, not eligible for UCFE” (Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees). ..."

[weltschmerz]

Jan 24, 2019 15:16:00 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jan 24, 2019 13:34:59 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jobless rate is at a fifty year low.
Lowest number since 1969.
Booyah!

I keep asking and asking, but no republican has ever answered.
Are these full-time or part-time jobs?
Are these people making enough to support their families, or is it two days a week for minimum wage?

I guess no answer is forthcoming, yet again.

[bean29]

Jan 24, 2019 15:16:00 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jan 24, 2019 13:34:59 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jobless rate is at a fifty year low.
Lowest number since 1969.
Booyah!

I keep asking and asking, but no republican has ever answered.
Are these full-time or part-time jobs?
Are these people making enough to support their families, or is it two days a week for minimum wage?

And do these jobs provide affordable health insurance for the workers and their families?

[NastyWoman]

Jan 24, 2019 17:11:04 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Jan 24, 2019 15:16:00 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I keep asking and asking, but no republican has ever answered.
Are these full-time or part-time jobs?
Are these people making enough to support their families, or is it two days a week for minimum wage?

And do these jobs provide affordable health insurance for the workers and their families?

well for some of the "employed" there may be at least a partial issue:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four U.S. senators expressed concern on Wednesday that federal employees affected by the partial government shutdown could lose their dental and vision health insurance benefits if they are unable to pay their premiums.

In a letter to the government’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Democratic Senators Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Chris Van Hollen and Ben Cardin said forcing workers to pay the premiums during the shutdown would be “unacceptable.”

www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shutdown-benefits/furloughed-federal-workers-may-lose-some-health-benefits-u-s-senators-idUSKCN1PI04H

Maybe the next advice will be that they should barter there kidneys for insurance coverage?

[tbop77]

Jan 24, 2019 13:41:42 GMT -5 @aj said:

Financed with a deficit approaching 1 Trillion annually. That’s Trillion, with a T.

GOP response in 2016= Deficit spending out of control
GOP response 2018: Deficits don’t matter.

www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/money/5484463/budget-deficit-your-investments

“The U.S. budget deficit, exacerbated by the Trump Administration’s 2017 tax cuts, is set to pass the $1 trillion mark in 2019”

“If you look at low unemployment rates around the world, the best part of the recovery is behind us. And we didn’t use that recovery to repair balance sheets. Global sovereign debt is in worse shape than it was in 2007. The problem for the U.S. is that we have a current account deficit, so if we continue to borrow excessively, at some point that could hurt the value of the dollar. “

Every year!  And the horror when President Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus during the worst downturn in modern history. 

Do we know what comes after a Trillion? 

[dezii]

Jan 24, 2019 13:41:42 GMT -5 @aj said:

Financed with a deficit approaching 1 Trillion annually. That’s Trillion, with a T.

GOP response in 2016= Deficit spending out of control
GOP response 2018: Deficits don’t matter.

www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/money/5484463/budget-deficit-your-investments

“The U.S. budget deficit, exacerbated by the Trump Administration’s 2017 tax cuts, is set to pass the $1 trillion mark in 2019”

“If you look at low unemployment rates around the world, the best part of the recovery is behind us. And we didn’t use that recovery to repair balance sheets. Global sovereign debt is in worse shape than it was in 2007. The problem for the U.S. is that we have a current account deficit, so if we continue to borrow excessively, at some point that could hurt the value of the dollar. “

Booyah!....Lets throw in a whoohoo too...

[dezii]

Jan 24, 2019 13:50:52 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jan 24, 2019 13:47:03 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

What....no MAGA! in the opening post?

Tennesseer, I promised to be less confrontational at the first of the year. I am just happy so many people who are no longer jobless!   

Here it is January 24th, and I am sort of still good on my pledge, imho

Fact is...the Man is just not up to being POTUS....Harder then he thought...not the same as being a big realtor....going with "gut feeling" just isn't cutting it... …..that my friend is fact.

[dezii]

Jan 24, 2019 17:53:32 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

Jan 24, 2019 13:41:42 GMT -5 @aj said:

Financed with a deficit approaching 1 Trillion annually. That’s Trillion, with a T.

GOP response in 2016= Deficit spending out of control
GOP response 2018: Deficits don’t matter.

www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/money/5484463/budget-deficit-your-investments

“The U.S. budget deficit, exacerbated by the Trump Administration’s 2017 tax cuts, is set to pass the $1 trillion mark in 2019”

“If you look at low unemployment rates around the world, the best part of the recovery is behind us. And we didn’t use that recovery to repair balance sheets. Global sovereign debt is in worse shape than it was in 2007. The problem for the U.S. is that we have a current account deficit, so if we continue to borrow excessively, at some point that could hurt the value of the dollar. “

Every year!  And the horror when President Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus during the worst downturn in modern history. 

Do we know what comes after a Trillion? 

I believe government got a good part of that back from companies that were bailed out...not all of it but a lot of it...

Believe they [pubs] criticized Roosevelt too during the great Depression when he formed the CCC to put folks...young adults...to work building parks and stuff....Many of those still with us today almost a hundred years later..."Sleeping Giant State Park " in Hamden, CT.for one...plus that neat stone tower and road to it...Granted SCOTUS  stopped all that but then WW2 came along and put them all to work ...

[djAdvocate]

Jan 24, 2019 13:45:02 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

This is about jobless numbers, not the deficit.
We all know the deficit is here to stay and neither party will stop the carnage there.

what was the deficit in 2000?

what was UE?

to say that you can't have one without the other is ridiculous.

edit: since nobody will answer, it was $18B, or about 0.1% of GDP, and UE was 4%.

we can do this.  it is actually not that hard.  if we cut spending during economic expansion and raised taxes, we would have surpluses within a decade.

but that is never going to happen, so long as our politicians are bought by the folks (and corporations that employ them) that pay most of the taxes.

and so falls an empire.

[OldCoyote]

Jan 24, 2019 14:36:15 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Jan 24, 2019 14:32:36 GMT -5 Tiny said:

But it is kind of about the deficit... 

Shouldn't all those people with jobs be spending money (buying stuff) which would improve the economy?   

Shouldn't an improving economy effect the deficit in a positive way (ie it gets smaller)? 
 
Isn't that how Trump was going to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy? 

Not to mention the gorilla in the room - if so many people are working why aren't they spending money on things that grow the economy      Or maybe they just aren't spending money on high end stuff (Macy's, Tiffany, Nordstrom's , etc didn't meet 4th quarter expectations) 

see post #8 → working alone doesn't cut it. You need to get paid before you start spending. And with all that is going on right now, I suspect that quite a few people who do have money to spend are "hoarding" (aka saving) it, since they are seeing once again first hand what happens if the paycheck goes bye-bye even temporarily.

You do suppose that is cause some of us have learned to live within our means,, spend less than we make?

[Value Buy]

Jan 27, 2019 7:49:44 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Tax the Rich.  Feed the poor.  Till there are no poor no more.


And the budget is balanced.

Yep. Look how many black professional sport players, singers, and entertainers who are going to get hit with the 70% tax rate after $10.000,000. Looks as if the democrats will be hitting a higher percentage of black millionaires versus white millionaires based on their percentage numbers of the population a whole.

Watch for these groups to start implementinging employments contracts with long deferred years in the contracts topping earnings in the ten million dollar range.
The people making 50 million a year do not worry, but people in the ten to twenty million dollar range will get hurt by this tax plan.
Also watch the NYC and west coast housing market to fall tremendously because no one will continue jacking up prices evey year after implementing these tax rates. Guess who that hurts the most. The local taxing units who will be lowering property values on all the highend housing, thus lowering tax receipts, which means a higher levy implementation hurting the lower classes pocketbook.

[kadee79]

There was an article yesterday on MSN that is no more & I can't find it any place either....

Retailers are cutting both workers & hours.  Someone who WAS working 25-30 hrs. a week now may be down to 8.5 hrs.

Soooo, unemployment may be down, but at what costs to those who are "classified" as employed?  Just how much is THAT going to do for the economy?  Just how is that going to pay for their insurance/medical costs, housing & buy food too?


Let me know when we have FULL -  FULL TIME employment...then we can talk! 


ETA...found the link in VB's other thread about Amazon....it's the article I was talking about at the top of this post.

[kadee79]

Jan 27, 2019 11:29:48 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Again, I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  Many of those retail/ service jobs really suck, for anyone trying to make a full time wage.  They are low pay of course, with no benefits, and no sick time.  They are very part time as you point out, and they often demand availability at all hours- day, night, weekend, holiday.  Someone has to cobble together two or three of them to get a full pay week, and that means time for travel, down time between jobs, etc.  Job schedules often change week to week, and are often posted with little notice from week to week.  


Low pay, stress, no job security, no margin for error, and no backup.  

Yes, all true...BT/DT in the past, thank goodness don't ever have to do it again!
Oh, and retail management jobs are no "roll in the hay" either...when someone calls in at the last minute & you can't find anyone else to cover...guess who may work a 16 or 20 hr. day depending on the retail store hours!!  BT/DT too!

[Opti]

Jan 27, 2019 11:19:42 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

There was an article yesterday on MSN that is no more & I can't find it any place either....

Retailers are cutting both workers & hours.  Someone who WAS working 25-30 hrs. a week now may be down to 8.5 hrs.

Soooo, unemployment may be down, but at what costs to those who are "classified" as employed?  Just how much is THAT going to do for the economy?  Just how is that going to pay for their insurance/medical costs, housing & buy food too?


Let me know when we have FULL -  FULL TIME employment...then we can talk! 


ETA...found the link in VB's other thread about Amazon....it's the article I was talking about at the top of this post.

Just read that article earlier today. Not sure how it will impact employment numbers, but it really hurts people to go from 35 hrs. a week to 8 hrs. then 15 hrs. the next week. 

There is binge and purge in healthcare but usually not so dramatic.