Log in

View Full Version : U.S. adds 290,000 jobs in April but loses them again in May !!!



Pages : 1 [2]

threlayer
05-14-2010, 07:01 PM
Hmmm. Are you saying that prospective employers would prefer that you sit home and collect checks rather than work ? Wouldn't they be entitled to question your industriousness ? I'm trying to understand how you can advocate unemployment as a "career builder". Actually prospective employers could give "a rat's ass" about what a person has to do to stay above water. (Based on KS_Stevia's useful post.) They are ONLY concerned about your continuous employment in your chosen career and look with great suspicion on any gaps or deviations from the theoretical. Regardless of your reasons or needs for it.

Have you ever thought that people may have valid reasons that you don't know/understand?

What if you found a way to barely make it on $420/week, and you found a $450/week job and your commuting (etc) expenses were $50/week? And you are required to purchase tools, uniforms before you could start work? And you were probably still going to lose your house/the angry wife is talking divorce/with no health insurance you find heart is giving you lots of pain and your wife's diabetes now requires insulin?

When you have a prestigious professional career, such as a scientist, engineer, lawyer, reseaarcher, etc and you are laid off. How do you think it looks on your C.V. to work as a bank teller, burger slinger, stockboy, or in construction. When , if ever, work materializes that utilizes your hard-won knowledge and experiences, what will likely happen? I can see it now: "Hmm, you used to work in this field, but then you took several jobs at quite a lower level of skills. And how about this 14 month gap? Did you find your previous work too demanding and needed a rest or were your abilities not up to your previous employer's standards? Oh, it looks like been working long enough that you've 'been around for quite a while.' I'm sorry, but you don't seem to fit in with our operation here. Good luck." You ever been in that situation?

There is quite a bit more to it than laziness. How about depression also? Some people can't handle getting fired for faults other than their own, perhaps knowing that many lesser skilled people remain at their previous employer's business. There are many, many motives at work. Believe me, Larry Summers knows nothing about this. Nor cares. He's an insensitive, big picture man. Too.

threlayer
05-14-2010, 07:07 PM
When did I ever advocate anarchy ? I give up... When?
That is a diversion from my direct questions to you..


As Melonie has repeatedly pointed out, Stimulus money is borrowed and taxed and then given to government employees who pay part of it back in taxes. How is that efficient compared to private sector hires ? Debt is never efficient unless it pays back more than it costs (margin accounts etc). But at least those govt workers are not in the unemployment lines, and their pay goes into circulation just like everyone elses'.


Btw, except for Citicorp and AIG, all the banks have paid back TARP plus interest. And how do you think they were able to accomplish that? Possibly because they are now essentially government insured because they are "too big to fail"?

eagle2
05-14-2010, 07:45 PM
One reason Norway's oil biz and French trains run well is that they pay better than the private sector and NEITHER HAS ANY COMPETITION. Monopolies can be efficient.

Yes they do. Norway's state operated oil company must compete with private oil companies when they sell their oil on the open market.

France's high speed trains must compete against air travel, automobiles and buses.



Assuming I did not make myself sufficiently clear, my point about outside contractors was multi-fold : the low bidder is often not the most effective way to go; political considerations including subservience to unions and things like minority set asides promote inefficiency and cost overruns.

As for the "profitability" of foreign rail systems, including the French, there is an element of truth in what you posted with a gigantic BUT.
The Parisian Metro has a revenue to cost ratio of 50%. Fares only cover half its operating costs.
In 1997 the SNCF was $38 billion in debt. To comply with EU rules governing rail subsidies the French left the SNCF to operate its trains and created a new entity, the RFF to build and maintain track. It's true that the SNCF turned an operating profit but to date it hasn't paid down a sou ( excuse me, a single Euro ) on its debt of $38 billion. The RFF is run at an annual LOSS. The only profitable line in all of France is the TGV between Lyon and Paris.

Japan had only one profitable line in the entire country, Tokyo - Osaka. The JNR lost $20 bilion a year before it weas broken up into 7 private companies. A few of which are now showing a profit. But all were sold at deep discounts with the Japanese government eating billions in infrastructure costs.

I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, but according to this article, the TGV paid for itself (including construction costs) in only a decade. Perhaps your numbers are referring to Frances entire train system, rather than just their new high-speed lines.

http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/background.html

Spain's high speed rail system makes a profit

http://www.wftv.com/rail/22675441/detail.html

Even in the US, high speed rail is profitable. While Amtrak looses money overall, its Acela high-speed line operates at a profit.

threlayer
05-14-2010, 07:46 PM
...Leaving out the philosophical arguments about whether government ought to do some of things it does, the fact is that government spending has to be paid for. One way or the other. Somebody has to be TAXED to pay for it. Somebody's money has to be taken from them to pay the government's bills. My pocket doesn't get picked to pay for painting your fence or to clean your house. It does get picked to pay for Obama's fence and housecleaning. Both literally and metaphorically. That money taken from me cannot be spent by me....Really? Is that how it works?
I think you ignore that government spending is NOT just for salaries. And whatever the government spends, outside of gifts to foreign countries, goes directly back into the economy. Surely you see it needs to do that because currency is diverted for taxes from every legitimate transaction, and it needs to be put back into circulation, by providing funding for services and goods, or within a very few weeks the country would suffer an extremely serious depression and resultant pandemonium. What you might question instead is exactly what the government spends it tax money, not that it needs to spend money.


The other reason the two sectors spend differently is as I pointed out. The private sector is much more efficient. Well it used to be before the Feds started bailing out inefficiency and incompetence. But generally speaking, in a free market success survives and failure dies. One of many reasons why I opposed ALL the Federal bailouts and why I think Merkel was an idiot to listen to Obama and go big on the EU. bailout.

Please show me where the private sector punishes success and rewards failure ? I can cite you dozens of examples where the government does so.

Most importantly ( and getting back to the original point of this particular thread ) private sector workers are NOT paid with tax funds to provide private sector goods and services... The pay and benefit scale of private sector workers is lower and they work harder and longer than their public sector counterparts. When the government decides what to spend on what and where, it does NOT do so based on anything remotely resembling a rational economic calculus. Political considerations, including kowtowing to various unions, trump any considerations of true economic benefit. Preserving jobs in the local shipyard or defense plant trump rational national defense requirements.

OK. A lot of government spending is done at the behest of lobbyists and politicos not making wise decisions, but decisions based on increasing their wealth or power. Is is not that businesses ever do that. Right? Realize this.... The private sector is more efficient in creating things that increase their own private welfare, not the public welfare. Many of them don't care beans about the public welfare, and they take risks when they hope they will not get caught (eg BP). And when they make mistakes, sometimes they suffer, but by and large the public gets it in the end. The private sector also has many failings, though it is a quite a bit closer to survival of the fittest and the most cunning. YHe public sector is constitutionally required to spend its money on the public good, rather than increasing the private good.

About your not providing services idea. That is just wrong. A lot of valuable government services are provided, well beyond the military. I listed a few above.

You keep saying that government salaries are different. "paid with tax dollars and then is taxed on same as opposed to a UPS or Fed Ex worker." Govt employee dollars are of the same kind and used for the same purposes as everyone else's. WRONG. They are ONLY different because they originated from taxes primarily paid by the private sector. Otherwise they do exactly the SAME THING.

threlayer
05-14-2010, 07:48 PM
hence the difference i.e. the money being spent by public sector employees is actually money originally earned by private sector employees ... but money that could not be spent by private sector employees who were heavily taxed to pay for the public sector employee's paycheck in the first place. This is wealth TRANSFER not wealth creation.

How is wealth created? (Leaving out the fact that just printing money increases nothing in wealth's terms.) I submit that it is transferred as well from customers to businesses. and if those customers are also businesses and they did wise transactions, then their wealth "creation" in turn comes from their customers. So where is this wealth? It must be in non-cash assets (capital evaluation) because nowhere in this scenario are dollars "created."

threlayer
05-14-2010, 07:58 PM
^^^^ We have already been proven right. If the Keynsians ( including Bobby and Eagle ) were correct, then Obama's stimulus program would have resulted in (at least ! ) typical post-recession economic growth i.e. 7 to 8 % per annum. Instead it is wheezing along at 4 % , at best. You must realize that this financial institution-caused near depression will take more time than normally for the US to recover. And Eagles chart shows that Obama's strategy started working right after it was implemented.

Also GOLD == FEAR


Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland have followed the Keynesian socialist model to a "T" and all are going into the crapper . Without EU guarantees (" Le TARP" ) their debt would be far below investment grade. Japan's lost decade resulted despite trillions in government stimulus.
NO. J.M.Keynes did not promote outright gross printing of money for whims and foibles. He promoted its printing to prevent tight money policies that would cause stagnation because it would ignore actual productivity and population increases. This is NOT what those countries did. And it is not what Reagan and GWBush did, more than any other presidents in history and at a time when strongly indicated otherwise. Reagan's spending right after severe inflation during the Carter era, and GW's paying for a totally unnecessary war with only borrowed funds. Ridiculous! This had nothing to do with Keynes ideas. Nor does Obama's, except for the nation emergency created by GW's inept presidency.

threlayer
05-14-2010, 08:04 PM
If you are of the opinion that the US gov't printing up and selling new US treasury bonds in order to pay for the salaries of the 66,000 new US Census workers included in this month's unemployment statistics ... knowing that these 66,000 new public sector workers are going to lose their jobs in July or August but also knowing that US taxpayers will have to continue paying principal and interest obligations on those new US treasury bonds for many years to come ... then you are a true Keynesian !!!

Also, this little tidbit was just released that is due in part to hiring those 66,000 new public sector workers this month ...
Possibly you don't recall that every ten years a national census MUST BE DONE. It's Constitutional requirement. Yes, it requires temporary workers. How well would it be done if it depended entirely on volunteers? It isn't a new thing that Obama wanted to do in order to make the government bigger. And 66 kiloworkers is more or less just a drop in a huge bucket.

eagle2
05-14-2010, 08:07 PM
I think you took it a little too personally but since I never intended any personal insult, I apologize for any hurt feelings.

Can you point to one thing the government does efficiently ? Not even defense or Homeland Security is efficient afaic. Not when Springfield, Mass. gets the same proportionate share of funds to secure its mass transit system that NYC does. Not when we build weapons we don't need and keep open bases that ought to be closed.


Government brings clean water to homes and disposes of sewage from homes. Government safely runs our air traffic control system. Airline crashes are extremely rare. Government fire companies respond quickly to fires and put them out. Our government built the first nuclear bomb in just a few years. In less than ten years from the time President Kennedy declared we were going to land a man on the moon, our government was able to develop a rocket that could land a man on the moon and bring him back safely. Government-run VA hospitals are run more efficiently than private hospitals.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_29/b3993061.htm

The reason why we build weapons we don't need and unnecessarily keep some of our bases open has more to do with the type of government we have rather than the fact that the military is run by the government. Because we're a representative democracy, our representatives and Senators not only see our military as a means for defending our country, but also as a means for providing jobs to their constituents, which increases their likelihood of getting re-elected.

It's true that there are government agencies and programs that are run inefficiently and there are private enterprises that do things more efficiently than government, but just because its "government" doesn't automatically mean its inefficient or a waste of resources.

KS_Stevia
05-14-2010, 08:14 PM
So the jobs didn't go on your resume? Now it looks like you had a big ass gap of unemployment between jobs.

In Texas, the unemployment will be re-calculated by your last paying job.

I am sorry I brought this up because I really don't want to debate with you that will exhaust. Never mind anything I said. I am just happy that I've had unemployment to fall back on here and there.

threlayer
05-14-2010, 08:22 PM
ROTFLMAO ! ...In one of my past lives, I did a lot of work with contractors on Federal, state and municipal contracts. You've obviously never heard of "extras"; "weather days" and "change orders" . None of which are ever included in the original bid. Many of which are known about BEFORE the bids are made and are counted on by the contractors. Rarely are there penalties for delays or bonuses for finishing early. In New York, highway work contracts do not ever have delay penalties. That's one reason why projects are always late and over budget. There's also the Wick's law and Federal prevailing union wage guidelines.

In a few states the private sector pays better. It used to be that the Feds paid less in exchange for better benefits and job security. Over the past decade or so, the Feds and most states pay higher salaries AND have better benefits. Only 20% of private sector workers get fixed pensions. Most get 401K's. Almost all public sector workers get guaranteed pensions that they can often collect after as little as 20 years service...Most public workers do not pay anything for their own health care. Many private sector workers pay half the cost of their health insurance.

Europe and Japan have invested billions more in their passenger railroads than we have and many are run AT A LOSS . The Postal Service has NO COMPETITION for daily mail service.

I too have been involved in private sector contracts. Rarely were there penalties for delays or bonuses for finishing early. In NY there have been many recent incentived highway work contracts let; that's why ours have so few delays compared to downstate's. The USPS has no competition for daily mail service, as the private sector could/would not provide such a service. Nor would they provide service in areas where their services are not profitable on a locale basis, except for their franchises.

The basic problem with federal service is that the Civil Service rules, which the government controls, makes it difficult to provide a productive work environment. Denying and covering up errors and omissions, backstabbling, interdepartmental jealousies abound. As a result, they and many businesses hire more employees than they need due to these built-in inefficiencies. Some private businesses are adjusting their work environments to clean up this traditional work situations. (I worked with both kinds.) It is actually worse in many European countries.

The populists and louder congressional constituents eventually put a big damper on government salaries. They do tend to get good benefits, basically (IMO) to compensate for the deleterious work conditions.

threlayer
05-14-2010, 08:36 PM
Et tu Eagle ? I honestly thought you and I had reached the point of civil discourse where we could disagree without being disagreeable. It would help if you stopped confusing factual correction for condescension. For my part, I'll try to trim the sarcasm.

One reason Norway's oil biz and French trains run well is that they pay better than the private sector and NEITHER HAS ANY COMPETITION. Monopolies can be efficient.
...
I find it amusing to see flaws in these posts. How about the ROFLMAO apparently not being condescension and then admitting to sarcasm. (I admit, I do it too but just toward the argument and its presentation, not the person.) How about admitting that governments are monopolies too, as they must be?


Kudos for Norway and the "Boo of the Week" goes to BP. I hope BP has to pay every dime of clean up costs and that all off shore rigs are required to install acoustic blow out preventers. My understanding is that it would not necessarily have helped. that the BP blow out would have happened anyway.
I've posted elsewhere my (perhaps) original ideas about how this should have been handled and regulated. It would be a threadjack to repeat it here. Anyway it does show the government must have control over private enterprises, even if it takes some govt employees to do it.

threlayer
05-14-2010, 08:43 PM
Canada's economy is sound because they kept their banking industry heavily regulated. America followed conservative policies and de-regulated the financial sector. Look at the outcomes.
Slight correction is vitally needed.

IMO leaving the vital financial sector largely unregulated is not a conservative policy; it is a radical one. It might be a "Conservative" policy but it is by no means conservative. Not only is it foolhardy, idiotic, illegal, and dangerous, it is also treasonous. Heads should roll.

But of course they won't because we have such self-serving idealogues as Mitch McConnell in charge of such things.

Melonie
05-15-2010, 03:02 AM
How is wealth created? (Leaving out the fact that just printing money increases nothing in wealth's terms.) I submit that it is transferred as well from customers to businesses. and if those customers are also businesses and they did wise transactions, then their wealth "creation" in turn comes from their customers. So where is this wealth? It must be in non-cash assets (capital evaluation) because nowhere in this scenario are dollars "created."

Yes you are absolutely correct that a rising percentage of wealth 'transfers' have been taking place, both in terms of business transactions and individual transactions. When an ethanol refinery was built using gov't grant money and its workers' paychecks are partially funded by a 'kickback' of a 5.6 cent per gallon ethanol tax on blended gasoline, wealth transfer may exceed wealth creation. When an individual purchases a new car with the help of 'cash for clunkers' gov't subsidy money, with much of the other money needed to buy that car coming from a new home equity loan that will never be paid back, wealth transfer may exceed wealth creation.



Possibly you don't recall that every ten years a national census MUST BE DONE. It's Constitutional requirement. Yes, it requires temporary workers. How well would it be done if it depended entirely on volunteers? It isn't a new thing that Obama wanted to do in order to make the government bigger. And 66 kiloworkers is more or less just a drop in a huge bucket.

I'm glad that you brought this up, since it circles back to the original topic of this thread. I never argued that the hiring of temporary census workers was improper or unnecessary. My point, and the point of the authors of snippets posted earlier in this thread, is that gov't officials, mainstream financial news media, and others with an 'agenda' regarding the true state of the US economy have attempted to portray the newly created 66,000 temporary public sector jobs included in the April unemployment statistics as if those jobs were both permanent and 'self-funding' - and they are neither. It was that simple !

Indeed, while these 66,000 census worker jobs are a tiny drop in the proverbial bucket, their inclusion as permanent jobs 'gained' in the April unemployment report ( versus being treated with an *asterick* ) skewed the monthly report very significantly. This in turn allowed gov't officials, financial media talking heads, and others with an 'agenda' to tout economic improvement that doesn't really exist based on the skewed unemployment report.

~

threlayer
05-15-2010, 05:24 AM
The 66 kiloworkers would show up as a shift in the rising employment figures, it is true enough. But it is just one of many blips of workers getting laid off and workers getting hired. The chart only shows the net results of both processes. Still the curve has strongly reversed its course immediately after Obama came into office, even though the start of the shift was likely produced to an extent by the later term Bush administration. The pundits keep telling us that the last two recessions led to jobs seriously lagging the securities markets; however, jobs did return. Because of the massive globalization and the dollar's finding its rightful place finally in world currency evaluation, many of them likely won't be the same jobs.

Another shift yet to be encountered is the increase in government workers supervising the inspection of foreign-manufactured/processed goods. This is because those industries are not sufficiently regulated by the US government quality standards and in a shortsighted attempt to further increase profits the private companies importing these goods are not fulfilling their roles in quality inspections. This appears to be especially necessary in those Asian countries that have never had significant quality regulation issues within their own countries. IMO those importing companies need to hire additional inspectors. Since the public demands and has the right to consumer protection from shoddy or dangerous goods imported, in spite of the industry's lack of recognition/ethics on this subject, to the extent necessary those supervision jobs need to be borne by the public sector.

And this is yet another area where government employees provide valuable services to the public, though some here likely would foolishly argue to let the buyer beware. (Problem is the buyer might be dead.)

Eric Stoner
05-17-2010, 06:35 AM
Yes they do. Norway's state operated oil company must compete with private oil companies when they sell their oil on the open market.

France's high speed trains must compete against air travel, automobiles and buses.



I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, but according to this article, the TGV paid for itself (including construction costs) in only a decade. Perhaps your numbers are referring to Frances entire train system, rather than just their new high-speed lines.

http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/background.html

Spain's high speed rail system makes a profit

http://www.wftv.com/rail/22675441/detail.html

Even in the US, high speed rail is profitable. While Amtrak looses money overall, its Acela high-speed line operates at a profit.

Again, you are partially correct. France's ONLY profitable rail line is the TGV route between Paris and Lyon. The rest of the system loses money. The whole system would be a money loser had France not separated out track building and maintenance and put them under a separate money losing authority.

If Amtrak's only line were the ACELA run between Boston and D.C. it would show a modest operating profit. Overall, it's a money loser.

Eric Stoner
05-17-2010, 06:37 AM
Government brings clean water to homes and disposes of sewage from homes. Government safely runs our air traffic control system. Airline crashes are extremely rare. Government fire companies respond quickly to fires and put them out. Our government built the first nuclear bomb in just a few years. In less than ten years from the time President Kennedy declared we were going to land a man on the moon, our government was able to develop a rocket that could land a man on the moon and bring him back safely. Government-run VA hospitals are run more efficiently than private hospitals.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_29/b3993061.htm

The reason why we build weapons we don't need and unnecessarily keep some of our bases open has more to do with the type of government we have rather than the fact that the military is run by the government. Because we're a representative democracy, our representatives and Senators not only see our military as a means for defending our country, but also as a means for providing jobs to their constituents, which increases their likelihood of getting re-elected.

It's true that there are government agencies and programs that are run inefficiently and there are private enterprises that do things more efficiently than government, but just because its "government" doesn't automatically mean its inefficient or a waste of resources.

Those are all legitimate, Constitutional government functions.

Eric Stoner
05-17-2010, 06:45 AM
You must realize that this financial institution-caused near depression will take more time than normally for the US to recover. And Eagles chart shows that Obama's strategy started working right after it was implemented.

Also GOLD == FEAR


NO. J.M.Keynes did not promote outright gross printing of money for whims and foibles. He promoted its printing to prevent tight money policies that would cause stagnation because it would ignore actual productivity and population increases. This is NOT what those countries did. And it is not what Reagan and GWBush did, more than any other presidents in history and at a time when strongly indicated otherwise. Reagan's spending right after severe inflation during the Carter era, and GW's paying for a totally unnecessary war with only borrowed funds. Ridiculous! This had nothing to do with Keynes ideas. Nor does Obama's, except for the nation emergency created by GW's inept presidency.

Again, you are only telling half the story. You're leaving out the CRA, HUD, Fannie & Freddie, the Federal Tax Code, the Federal Reserve and the SEC. A big reason the banks were as careless and irresponsible as they were was the elimination of Glass - Steagall. Another was the ( fulfilled ) belief that, as with the S & L's and LTCM, they'd get bailed out by the Feds.

Zofia
05-18-2010, 04:28 PM
If Amtrak's only line were the ACELA run between Boston and D.C. it would show a modest operating profit. Overall, it's a money loser.The interstate highway system, the US highway system, state highways air traffic control and airport construction all cost far more than is ever recovered by the government. Amtrak helps reduce congestion and moves people more efficiently than automobiles or even buses. The fact of the matter is, we should spend less on interstate highways and move more people onto Amtrak, expand Amtrak and reduce our dependence on automobiles.

Z

threlayer
05-18-2010, 07:51 PM
The backbone of the Interstate Highway System was put in place by Eisenhower to allow much faster transport of troops and National Guard in case of national emergencies than was possible over country roads and congested city streets.

threlayer
05-18-2010, 08:00 PM
Again, you are only telling half the story. You're leaving out the CRA, HUD, Fannie & Freddie, the Federal Tax Code, the Federal Reserve and the SEC. A big reason the banks were as careless and irresponsible as they were was the elimination of Glass - Steagall. Another was the ( fulfilled ) belief that, as with the S & L's and LTCM, they'd get bailed out by the Feds.

CRA was much expanded by Bush. HUD, FRMC, FNMA were instituted to provide needed services, but were diverted under the Bush admin by management who were off the track. The Fed and SEC were supervised by people put in place because Bush wanted the financial banking industry to fluorish. Tax Code is a rats' nest of corporate-induced and liberal-induced legislation which is actually designed to both confuse and anger everyone who deals with it. The Bush admin has as much or more to do with the mess, by design, than Congress.

Melonie
05-19-2010, 01:14 AM
^^^ a fact check is in order ... Bill Clinton, Franklin Raines, Janet Reno, young attorney Barack Obama ...



Another was the ( fulfilled ) belief that, as with the S & L's and LTCM, they'd get bailed out by the Feds.

Thanks for steering us back to a financial issue. Indeed, the 'moral hazard' of implied US gov't guarantees ( which were later converted into actual gov't guarantees / bailouts ) resulted in mis-pricing of risk. This in turn affected risk management decision making in every major market, from real estate to equities to bonds.

Eric Stoner
05-20-2010, 10:16 AM
We told ya so; we told ya so. In today's news : New Unemployment claims up sharply. Dow down over 300 points.

Would the Keynesians please explain how this is part of Obama's recovery game plan ?

Melonie
05-20-2010, 01:28 PM
^^^ well, at the same time, the US congress approved yet another extension for federal unemployment benefits from now through the end of the year. This means that unemployed Americans are now eligible to collect 99 + 33 = 126 weeks worth of unemployment checks and Cobra health insurance buy-downs.

Hmmm let's see ... if a formerly highly paid ( union worker ) lost their job a year ago, and now faces the choice of taking a replacement job paying $15 an hour = $600 a week ( $500 after taxes ) or sitting home collecting $500 a week in unemployment benefits for the rest of the year, how motivated do you think that unemployed person is going to be to accept the $15 an hour replacement job ?!?!

threlayer
05-21-2010, 05:50 PM
How long were people unemployed during the Great Depression. Those figures will continue to vary (by such things as students looking for summer work) but the undisputable fact is that the numbers are turning the right way. Still there is tremendous under- and un-employment. You may choose to disbelieve that and find some rationale for your thinking, but facts are facts.

I'll find the sources (in time) stating the Bush admin greatly expanded the CRA. I highly doubt that a yound Obama affected much of this at all. You're grasping at straws in an effort to blame whatever you can on Obama. Slow down on that coffee.


^^^ well, at the same time, the US congress approved yet another extension for federal unemployment benefits from now through the end of the year. This means that unemployed Americans are now eligible to collect 99 + 33 = 126 weeks worth of unemployment checks and Cobra health insurance buy-downs.

... if a formerly highly paid ( union worker ) lost their job a year ago, and now faces the choice of taking a replacement job paying $15 an hour = $600 a week ( $500 after taxes ) or sitting home collecting $500 a week in unemployment benefits for the rest of the year, how motivated do you think that unemployed person is going to be to accept the $15 an hour replacement job ?!?!

Unemployment is not $500/week maybe in Hawaii or Alaska. That formerly highly paid union worker should be busting his butt trying to find a good job. Sitting at home or working at a semi-menial job prevents him from malking the rounds to find work in his class. Could be he's doing retraining. Could be a hundred other (hopefully) productive activities reasons.

I just do not see a reason why you denigrate unemployment benefits. Would you rather see that unemployed worker go on welfare, let his family starve and fend for themselves, turn to crime ? There is a very good reason for not letting millions of people become completely destitute. Or would you rather see the government not help and the society downgrade to a China-like existence? Thing again of the source of this downturn; was it the workers' faults that thje economy crashed? There are other places where heads should roll. But those people are now getting RICH. Where's the justice in that??

Melonie
05-22-2010, 01:16 AM
the undisputable fact is that the numbers are turning the right way. Still there is tremendous under- and un-employment. You may choose to disbelieve that and find some rationale for your thinking, but facts are facts.

Yes they are, but conclusions drawn from incomplete facts and/or 'models' and/or 'estimates' do not carry the weight of hard facts ! And here are some hard facts ...

- more people were without a job last month than they were in previous months. Yes the rate at which net jobs are being lost ( versus working age population ) is slowing but in point of fact it has not yet turned positive when a growing working age population is properly accounted for.

- LOTS more people will enter the working age population pool this month as a result of college graduations that were previously excluded from the official statistics

- something like 1 million temporary US Census Bureau jobs are already scheduled to 'evaporate' over the next 3 months or so. Yet these jobs appear in the official statistics as if they are permanent.

threlayer
05-24-2010, 07:47 PM
^^ The census jobs are about one third of the estimate; further, many of those workers are retired and afterward may not be looking for permanent work. Young adults and pre-adults are always looking for work this time of year, even in the best of times. Your statements need to be seasonally adjusted.

Melonie
05-25-2010, 03:06 AM
Your statements need to be seasonally adjusted

You're right ! Pay no attention to those 1.5 million new college graduates attempting to enter the US work force this month !

Eric Stoner
05-25-2010, 01:14 PM
You're right ! Pay no attention to those 1.5 million new college graduates attempting to enter the US work force this month !

And all the high school graduates this month and next.

threlayer
05-27-2010, 10:35 AM
Those new unemployed were not unexpected; it's not some new downturn due to some Obama oversight or shortcoming. That's what I'm saying.

You have to remember that Obama is trying to be the 'fixer' who's in charge of repairing the bad decisions left to us by the 'decider' and his cronies. This is the unexpected legacy left him which has practically short-circuited the administration plans on which he was elected. Remember that the last administration was the most incompetent and destructive in a century. It will take some read undoing to put things right again.

It would be much less confusing to readers if you didn't try to turn every change into the results of some nefarious plan hatched by the 'Obama commies.'