Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 43 of 43

Thread: May's Job Numbers

  1. #26
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    Apparently it should be left to those 'beneficient' corporations to stimulate the economy. Because the government can do nothing right and corporations can do nothing wrong.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  2. #27
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Many economists have argued for repeal of the Home Mortgage Interest deduction for the very reason that it distorts otherwise rational economic behavior.
    Many economist have argued many things for many years. One thing they agree on is that tax laws do affect the economy in a way nothing else does. If private individuals give up the home mortgage deduction, which is massive, then businesses should give up some of their many massive deductions such as accelerated depreciation on capital goods and deductions for interest on business expenses. Those things also 'distort' the economy, just a different segment of it.

    Why is it that conservatives are always willing for the public to give up things that the conservatives are not willing to give up for corporations? Is there not an ulterior motive here?

    Example: maybe it is a worthwhile goal for people to have significant ownership in the areas where they live so that the areas will not decay due to lack of caring. Such as absentee-landlord ghetto areas. Maybe an incentive for home ownership has significant implications in that arena. Or maybe you don't believe that. Maybe we could all just rent and let the renter beware. Maybe that way corporations could just buy out those areas and turn them into parking lots or cheap strip malls with lots of dollar stores, liquor stores, payday loan shops, and pawn shops.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  3. #28
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by threlayer View Post
    Many economist have argued many things for many years. One thing they agree on is that tax laws do affect the economy in a way nothing else does. If private individuals give up the home mortgage deduction, which is massive, then businesses should give up some of their many massive deductions such as accelerated depreciation on capital goods and deductions for interest on business expenses. Those things also 'distort' the economy, just a different segment of it.

    Why is it that conservatives are always willing for the public to give up things that the conservatives are not willing to give up for corporations? Is there not an ulterior motive here?

    Example: maybe it is a worthwhile goal for people to have significant ownership in the areas where they live so that the areas will not decay due to lack of caring. Such as absentee-landlord ghetto areas. Maybe an incentive for home ownership has significant implications in that arena. Or maybe you don't believe that. Maybe we could all just rent and let the renter beware. Maybe that way corporations could just buy out those areas and turn them into parking lots or cheap strip malls with lots of dollar stores, liquor stores, payday loan shops, and pawn shops.
    Successful home ownership programs in blighted areas ( and there are such programs ) actually had relatively tough lending standards like NYC's program and semi-private programs like Nehemiah. What they were NOT doing was selling and financing more house than people could afford.

    I've repeatedly argued that we'd be better off repealing the Corporate Income Tax entirely.

  4. #29
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by threlayer View Post
    Apparently it should be left to those 'beneficient' corporations to stimulate the economy. Because the government can do nothing right and corporations can do nothing wrong.
    That is not the reason. Rather it is because free market capitalism promotes greater economic growth and wealth creation than government programs. FDR's "alphabet soup " of programs retarded economic growth and prolonged the Depression. Johnson's "Great Society" created as much poverty as it alleviated.

    A free market disciplines corporations by punishing their errors. Instead we have been bailing them out.

  5. #30
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    Lots of lenders would have, and did write "NINJA" loans without selling them to Fannie and Freddie. Are you aware that over half of all mortgages were sold to private enterprises, not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? There seems to be a common misconception among conservatives that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the only enterprises that buy mortgages.

    State governments did try to pass anti-predatory lending laws to prevent such types of risky loans from being made, but the federal government, under George W. Bush overruled the states and prevented them from passing these laws.
    True but incomplete. Those loans were written because Wall St. institutions like Bear Strearns, Lehman Brothers , Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs were clamoring for "product" i.e. real estate loans that they could securitize and sell or keep in their own accounts.

    It wasn't only Bush that interfered with state efforts to regulate lending. It is also questionable how effective SOME of the proposed legislation would have been. In any event you are correct that Dum Dum and the Republicans bear a fair share of the blame. As do the Dems. There is more than enough blame to go around.

    Let me ask you something : Leaving out Bush's tax cuts, do you seriously think that if Clinton had been President from 2000 to 2008, that we would have avoided the real estate bubble and its bursting ? Careful now. Clinton didn't do anything to avoid the Tech Bubble or its bursting, did he ? Rubin, Summers and Geithner helped create this mess, didn't they ?

    I'll agree with you this far : Bush was so wounded by the Iraq fiasco and so ill equipped ( by his nature ) to understand,explain and deal with the economic mess as it was created and unfolded, that he was certainly the Wrong President at the Wrong Time. For one thing, he never publicized his struggle with the Congress over Fannie and Freddie. He never spelled out what he was trying to avoid by trying to rein them in. The media didn't help him. Republicans in Congress didn't help him. Wall Street didn't help him. Paulson, Greenspan and Bernanke didn't help him.

    And let's not forget that naysayers and Cassandras like Roubini were few and far between before late 2007. One of the few things Reich and Krugman have proven to be correct on was their warnings of a serious recession when; not if, WHEN the real estate bubble burst. I first heard Reich issue such warnings in early 2007 and Krugman was right there with him in his columns. Too many Conservatives like Kudlow did not take their warnings seriously until it was too late. Kudlow has had the decency to admit it and say that even after Bear Stearns had to be rescued, he did not see the banking crisis coming until Lehman collapsed. Except maybe for Byron Dorgan in the Senate, what Democrat was sounding the alarm ? Instead we had Fwank extolling the virtues of Fannie and Freddie and Waters saluting their "creative lending and financing".
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 06-09-2010 at 11:22 AM.

  6. #31
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    ...I've repeatedly argued that we'd be better off repealing the Corporate Income Tax entirely.
    And here we have some other misguided person trying to heap all government expenses upon its citizens, and at the same time giving corporations (who are not even human but only an artificial legal entity) all the benefits they desire. That is the most anti-social and socially-destructive attitude I've come across. And you aren't the only one with that disease.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  7. #32
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    US Taxpayer money at work towards jobs creation ...

    (snip)"Moves to Mexico may speed up when Chrysler and GM reduce some of the political pressure they face by paying back government bailout money, said Michael Robinet, vice president of global forecasting for CSM Worldwide in Northville, Michigan. The U.S. government has distributed about $80 billion in the Auto Industry Financing Program to support the industry.

    DesRosiers says Mexico’s share of North American auto production will rise to 19 percent over the next decade from an average 12 percent in 2000 to 2009. Over the same period, the U.S. will lose 7 percentage points to 65 percent of the market and Canada’s share will hold at 16 percent, he said.

    Average Wages

    GM workers in Mexico earn wages and benefits of 340 pesos a day ($26.40) on average, or less than $4 an hour, said Tereso Medina, head of the union for GM’s 5,000 workers in Saltillo, a city that makes one in four Mexican autos. Ford workers in the U.S. earn about $55 an hour with benefits, compared with $50 an hour for Toyota Motor Corp.’s U.S. workers, Lewis Booth, Ford’s chief financial officer, said on a Jan. 28 conference call. "(snip)

    (snip)"Mexico stands to benefit from more stringent U.S. fuel- efficiency requirements because it’s more profitable to make small cars where labor costs are lower, Robinet said.

    Chrysler announced in February it’s spending $550 million to retool its factory in Toluca to assemble the Fiat 500 model.

    Last month, Ford reopened an assembly plant in Cuautitlan to build 2011 Fiesta cars. The factory will generate 2,000 jobs and is part of $3 billion in investments announced since 2008. In the U.S., Ford has closed four assembly plants since 2006 and plans to close four more facilities by the end of 2011. "(snip)

    from


    The obvious take-away from this news story is that, regardless of short term lip service by US politicians and regardless of short term financial assistance from US taxpayers, multinational corporations make decisions based on long term trends / fundamentals. The 'handwriting on the wall' in regard to future US auto mileage standards and future US costs of doing business started to be written in November of 2006 and showed up in boldface type in November of 2008. Corporate execs started to make future plans accordingly. While these announcements re additional US plant closures and Mexican plant operation expansions are recent, it is guaranteed that they have been 'in the works' for at least a year. Also, once implemented, it is guaranteed that the trend will never be reversed ( short of a draconian US gov't action to abrogate NAFTA and establish high tariffs anyhow ).

  8. #33
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    That is not the reason. Rather it is because free market capitalism promotes greater economic growth and wealth creation than government programs.... A free market disciplines corporations by punishing their errors. Instead we have been bailing them out.
    That is ONLY so much theoretical garbage. Further, it is only right when one ignores the true effects of corporations' abilities to de-construct things before the unorganized public can react to them, most of whom are brainwashed by scientific advertising into thinking that corporations are doing what they do in the public interest and welfare. Thus government must protect its citizens against unscrupulous, wealthy, highly protected entities that have very strong influence to the legislative and executive process because of their wealth and lobbying expertise. A free market (free of regulations) is an exploitative, totalitarian system, and can be worse than any government because it produces tangible goods used continually where such a government produces only abstract power and restraints on its citizens to protect influential corporations.

    Example: if an unregulated agri-business cartel decides to take over all crop and meat producing resources, it will pull every trick to do so, including temporary poisoning fertilizer and water supplies, as well as to call in farm loans and sponsor repressive government regulations directed at independent farmers until they are forced to sell out to the agri-business cartel. That is in fact a form of fascism and extortion as well. Then when agri-business has all the bsusiness and the government under its wealthy power, it may cheapen its products to the detriment of the population in an attempt to maximize its profits. Maybe to the extent of health detriment of the population if agri-business feels it can take over the now more urgently needed medical products and healthcare systems businesses in another attempt to further broaden its repressive net over society. Ineffect it becomes a cancer, destroying everything it cannot feed upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    FDR's "alphabet soup " of programs retarded economic growth and prolonged the Depression. Johnson's "Great Society" created as much poverty as it alleviated.
    Ho hum; heard it all here before. Blame all the democrats for all problems. That is just more and more BS.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  9. #34
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    swinging back on topic ... check out

    (snip)"1. Look out ahead.

    We already know that when you strip out the short-term Census jobs, May's jobs growth was a pitiful 41,000. But what people haven't realized is that the leading indicators for June are even worse. TrimTabs Investment Research Inc. tracks the real-time jobs picture by monitoring income tax deposits at the Treasury. And these have suddenly started falling. Based on the latest data, the firm predicts the economy will actually lose up to 200,000 jobs, net, in June. "The big news is that we have a job loss of about 200,000 coming in June," says Trim Tabs' Madeline Schnapp, "and the market isn't ready for it."

    It's not just the stock market. You can bet that the administration -- and the country -- isn't ready either. Remember, we need to create about 100,000 just to keep up with population growth.

    2. One and a half million people have 'disappeared'?

    The government says the unemployment rate "edged down" to 9.7% -- keeping it below the politically sensitive 10% level. Read more jobs coverage.

    But that's only because about one and a half million people have just, miraculously "disappeared" from the official labor force.

    A million and a half people disappearing? It sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory. But there it is, buried in the fine print of the government's own data.

    From May 2009 to May 2010, the U.S. "civilian non-institutional population" of prime working age -- 20 to 64 -- expanded by one and a half million, 180.5 million to 182 million.

    Yet over the same period the official tally of the labor force over age 20 held steady at just 148 million.

    What happened to those extra people?

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't have a full explanation. "We don't have direct questions (in the survey) addressing that fact," said a spokeswoman. But many of the disappeared are "unemployed who have decided not to look for work any more," or who haven't looked for work recently. Anyone who hasn't actively sought a job in the last four weeks vanishes from the rolls.

    People dropping out completely are not a bullish sign — unless, perhaps, one is measuring the unemployment figures for the government.

    3. Some of the new "jobs" may not even exist

    That's because they're being counted by the Federal Department of Guesswork. Ever since 1994, say economists, Uncle Sam has been using some statistical, er, "adjustments" to the core jobs data to come up with the, er, "true" picture. It will surprise no one that these "adjustments" make the data look better, rather than worse. The government makes estimates about new companies being started up as well as jobs being lost.

    Those adjustments may be adding as many as half a million extra "jobs" to the core figure, says independent economist John Williams at Shadow Government Statistics.

    In previous recessions, these adjustments may have had some justifications, because new companies formed very quickly in the recovery. But this recession has been unlike any other in our lifetimes, because it was caused by too much debt rather than economic overheating. So the recovery has been different as well. The slump in bank lending and the money supply in the past year suggest new companies are probably being formed far more slowly than in past recoveries, if at all. Bottom line: many of those jobs may not exist.

    4. The private sector picture may still be in recession

    Some recovery: The number employed in the private sector is still about 900,000 below where it was even a year ago, and about 8 million below where it was in 2007. And remember, it has to keep growing just to stand still, because the population is growing.

    "There's practically no growth in private sector employment," says Gluskin Sheff strategist David Rosenberg. Jobs growth was anemic even in the parts of the economy allegedly leading the recovery, such as manufacturing. And now, he says, many leading economic indicators have started to turn down again.

    The jobs growth is so slow, Rosenberg says, that by his calculations "it is going to take years, probably five to seven years, before we recoup the employment (lost) from the Great Recession," he says. Five to seven years? "There's a significant chance," he adds, "that for the first time ever we will go into the next recession without having seen a new peak in employment."

    5. And as for earnings...

    In the quest for some more cheerful news, the government said for those who do have jobs, average hourly earnings were up 1.9% from a year ago.

    Good, yes?

    Er, not really.

    The government also reported that those workers produced 2.8% more goods and services per hour. So they actually got paid about 1% less for each widget they made, TV they sold, or meal they served. Oh, and over the same period consumer prices rose 2.2%. So even those lucky enough to be working have gone backwards — before tax"(snip)

    with many thanks to MarketWatch !

  10. #35
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    True but incomplete. Those loans were written because Wall St. institutions like Bear Strearns, Lehman Brothers , Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs were clamoring for "product" i.e. real estate loans that they could securitize and sell or keep in their own accounts.

    It wasn't only Bush that interfered with state efforts to regulate lending. It is also questionable how effective SOME of the proposed legislation would have been. In any event you are correct that Dum Dum and the Republicans bear a fair share of the blame. As do the Dems. There is more than enough blame to go around.

    Let me ask you something : Leaving out Bush's tax cuts, do you seriously think that if Clinton had been President from 2000 to 2008, that we would have avoided the real estate bubble and its bursting ? Careful now. Clinton didn't do anything to avoid the Tech Bubble or its bursting, did he ? Rubin, Summers and Geithner helped create this mess, didn't they ?
    It's impossible to say whether or not the financial crisis would have occurred if Bill Clinton had been in office for those 8 years just as it is impossible to say whether or not the attacks on 9/11 would have occurred if Bill Clinton was in office. Maybe one or both of these events would have happened or maybe neither would have. I doubt very much we would have started this crisis with $10 trillion in debt if Bill Clinton was in office. Without Bush's tax cuts and without the war in Iraq, the national debt would have been far less than it was.

    If Bill Clinton was President during those years, perhaps he would not have had the federal government overrule state government anti-predatory lending laws. A study showed that these laws slowed down housing foreclosures.

    http://washingtonindependent.com/625...d-foreclosures

    (snip)
    States that adopted tough anti-predatory lending laws had lower foreclosure rates than states without those laws, according to a new study conducted by the UNC Center for Community Capital.

    In addition, after 2004, when the federal government exempted national banks from state anti-predatory lending laws, national banks increased their subprime lending the most in states with those laws. After this loophole opened in 2004, national banks made riskier loans, especially in states where other lenders remained subject to strict anti-predatory lending laws.

    These conclusions suggest that when state laws did apply, the laws did a better job of promoting quality lending.
    (snip)

    I agree that President Clinton made some poor decisions in signing some of the anti-regulation legislation that he did. I also think his decision to reappoint Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Fed was a poor decision.

    While I do hold any Democrats that went along with the Republicans on anti-regulatory legislation as also being responsible, I do believe that if the Democrats controlled Congress, such legislation never would have been introduced.

  11. #36
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post

    The obvious take-away from this news story is that, regardless of short term lip service by US politicians and regardless of short term financial assistance from US taxpayers, multinational corporations make decisions based on long term trends / fundamentals. The 'handwriting on the wall' in regard to future US auto mileage standards and future US costs of doing business started to be written in November of 2006 and showed up in boldface type in November of 2008. Corporate execs started to make future plans accordingly. While these announcements re additional US plant closures and Mexican plant operation expansions are recent, it is guaranteed that they have been 'in the works' for at least a year. Also, once implemented, it is guaranteed that the trend will never be reversed ( short of a draconian US gov't action to abrogate NAFTA and establish high tariffs anyhow ).
    Eventually the cost of labor will go up in Mexico as more factories are built and fewer workers become available as a result of Mexico's declining birthrate.

  12. #37
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    Job growth, again, is NET job growth. There are some companies still laying off. There could have been 141,000 jobs found against 100,000 jobs lost and that statistic would not reflect the real dynamics. Besides, how do they know it is 41,000 net?
    Last edited by threlayer; 06-10-2010 at 06:33 PM.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  13. #38
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    To get this straignt...
    Actually it's worse than if these short term gov't jobs had not been added from a purely economic standpoint. The point of course is that every one of those 840,000+ temporary census workers ...

    A. census worker paychecks were actually paid by borrowed money which US income tax payers will have to repay,

    B. census workers will probably be able to collect some amount of unemployment benefits after their previously determined temporary employment comes to an end in July / August ... again paid for by borrowed money which US income tax payers will have to repay.

    C. probably will pay nearly zero in additional US income tax, due to their annual incomes falling below the ~$32,000 a year level where income tax money is actually collected rather than paid out in the form of 'refundable tax credits' - 'tax credits' which many census workers will qualify for, and which again will have to be paid for by borrowed money which US income tax payers will have to repay.

    D. obviously the firing of temporary census workers will spike the official unemployment number upward. Put in perspective, last month the TOTAL of new non-government jobs added by the private sector was 41,000. At this pace, it will require 21 months for new private sector jobs to 'break even' against the 840,000 temporary census workers that will be losing their jobs shortly !!!
    Sounds like you're saying the US should violate the US Constitution in 2010 because doing the required Census costs too much ?
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  14. #39
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    ^^^ no, I'm saying that the official U1 unemployment statistic, and the msm commentary touting the recent reduction in unemployment rate as pointing to an economic recovery, are based on the perpetuation of a false assumption. That false assumption is that 'temporary' gov't census jobs make a net positive contribution to the US economy in the same way that 'permanent' private sector jobs do.

  15. #40
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    Eventually the cost of labor will go up in Mexico as more factories are built and fewer workers become available as a result of Mexico's declining birthrate.
    And what are we supposed to do in the twenty years or so for that situation to develop ? It's not going to happen overnight and it will take years for Mexicans to adjust to what looks like WILL happen in the next decade or two.

    How do we know Mexico and Mexican employers won't react by modifying their very strict immigration laws and permit hiring of Guatemalans
    and Hondurans ?

  16. #41
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    Eventually the cost of labor will go up in Mexico as more factories are built and fewer workers become available as a result of .
    More of them are hauling ass out of the country to El Norte.

  17. #42
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by threlayer View Post
    Job growth, again, is NET job growth. There are some companies still laying off. There could have been 141,000 jobs found against 100,000 jobs lost and that statistic would not reflect the real dynamics. Besides, how do they know it is 41,000 net?
    Nor does it take into account the quality of the job (level of pay, level of technical competence, level of benefits, etc.)

  18. #43
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: May's Job Numbers

    ^^ Very true....important point when one looks at the job loss impact.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Lifepath numbers
    By exotisch23 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-21-2020, 11:37 PM
  2. The Beauty of Numbers!
    By lethalsoul in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 06:04 PM
  3. Do certain numbers mean something to you?
    By LuckyOne in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-16-2007, 08:06 PM
  4. Economy's numbers
    By Deogol in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-01-2006, 04:55 PM
  5. By the Numbers
    By Hello~Kitty in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-07-2005, 04:28 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •