View Full Version : dismal job growth a blow to obama
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/09/07/us-jobs-growth-slow-in-august/?ncid=webmail1
what I find amazing:
The labor force participation rate, or the precentage of Americans who either have a job or are looking for one, fell to 63.5 percent -- the lowest since September 1981.
63.5%...holy crap. is there really that many people out there not employed or even LOOKING for one? so that tells me 36.5% of people are doing nothing....NOTHING.
time for some real change. time to rip away the entitlements. time to get those people working again, doing something productive. Get them in the military if they are going to get paid by the .gov. at least then some productivity comes from them.
ETA: I retract my .mil reference. Monky made a very clear point I didn't think about in my tirade. They definitely need to do something though instead of sitting around.
Get them in the military if they are going to get paid by the .gov. at least then some productivity comes from them.
I totally disagree w/ that. Most would never pass a physical and it would be even more of a waste. Would you really want to give the 'entitled' class access to things in the .mil? Aren't there enough problems w/o bringing that type into the .mil?
They had their chance to enlist.. But I do agree they need to be put to work. Have them cleaning highways, roadways, cleaning graffiti.. something.
Zundfolge
09-07-2012, 08:58
Get them in the military if they are going to get paid by the .gov. at least then some productivity comes from them.
Dear God NO! All we need is a bunch of armed entitlement junkies that'll gladly kick our doors in and take our stuff at the whim of any ole tyrant that comes along, Constitution and Posse Comitatus be damned.
Best thing to do is shut down the entitlement state cold turkey (which will happen anyway if we don't do something about it).
I'm in no way defending BO, but we must consider how many of that 36.5% are children under 18 years of age and over 65 years old, don't you think? A quick google search tells me in the 2011 census, 23.7% of the US population was under 18 years old and 13.3% was over 65, so those numbers don't really seem as far off as you might think.
Maybe I'm cynical but these stats are manufactured, there is some truth in them but we'd be hard pressed to find it. The actual numbers are much higher.
I'm in no way defending BO, but we must consider how many of that 36.5% are children under 18 years of age and over 65 years old, don't you think? A quick google search tells me in the 2011 census, 23.7% of the US population was under 18 years old and 13.3% was over 65, so those numbers don't really seem as far off as you might think.
The labor stats only count people 16 and over. - edited to correct my error.
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp
The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over
DD977GM2
09-07-2012, 09:14
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/09/07/us-jobs-growth-slow-in-august/?ncid=webmail1
what I find amazing:
63.5%...holy crap. is there really that many people out there not employed or even LOOKING for one? so that tells me 36.5% of people are doing nothing....NOTHING.
time for some real change. time to rip away the entitlements. time to get those people working again, doing something productive. Get them in the military if they are going to get paid by the .gov. at least then some productivity comes from them.
I would not want some welfare leech onboard ship with me who only wants free money from the government.
I honestly as cold hearted as it sounds and comes across as, take away 95% of welfare and let
the leeches fend for themselves. Darwin will win quickly and then the last 5% of the people who truely need it will have access to it and
also most likely if they can will find jobs for their skill level.
I echo the sentiment that the "entitled" class join the military, there are enough soup sandwiches already. I say make them clean up the highways, or shovel snow in the winter, perhaps even clean state-owned facilities. When they ask for a paycheck you simply tell them "you're already getting a check from the government." Last time I checked, living in CO you're getting the equivalent of $10.05 per hour (for a 40hr/wk job)- that's more than I was making at best buy when I was 19!
The labor stats only count people 16 and over And if they are in school they are not counted, and if they are retired, they also are not counted as part of the labor force..
I totally disagree w/ that. Most would never pass a physical and it would be even more of a waste. Would you really want to give the 'entitled' class access to things in the .mil? Aren't there enough problems w/o bringing that type into the .mil?
They had their chance to enlist.. But I do agree they need to be put to work. Have them cleaning highways, roadways, cleaning graffiti.. something.
very true. as long as it is something to get their ass to work instead of sitting at a section 8 home watching TV eating off food stamps, talking on their .gov supplied phone, popping pills on medicaid, letting their kids run around do whatever they like on the streets who get the parents a disability check.
I'm in no way defending BO, but we must consider how many of that 36.5% are children under 18 years of age and over 65 years old, don't you think? A quick google search tells me in the 2011 census, 23.7% of the US population was under 18 years old and 13.3% was over 65, so those numbers don't really seem as far off as you might think.
so your numbers added to 37%. so you are telling me your numbers and the article numbers which add up to roughly 100% +/- some errors mean everyone is working? no people are unemployed or searching for work?
And if they are in school they are not counted, and if they are retired, they also are not counted as part of the labor force..
so the numbers in the article seem a lot more realistic it looks like. definitely some error in there but that still leaves a ton of people who do absolutely nothing.
What does this have to do with Obama?
The labor stats only count people 16 and over. - edited to correct my error.
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp
Sure, Labor stats might, but i'm talking about census stats.
Sharpienads
09-07-2012, 11:12
What does this have to do with Obama?
I think it has more to do with government in general. Having libtards like Obama doesn't help, but neither do Republicans that have abandoned their conservative roots (that's conservative as in free market, individual liberty, constitutionalist, etc). The real point is that we expect our government to do way too much. Obama doesn't deserve all the blame, but he deserves some. Especially when he operates outside of the confines of Article II. For example, how is him enacting the DREAM Act through executive fiat after congress voted it down going to affect unemployment? Not in a good way. And not because every "formerly illegal" is lazy or just looking for a handout, but because there just aren't enough jobs for them to take.
I'm starting to think that the best thing a president can do is veto every piece of legislation that comes across his desk.
so your numbers added to 37%. so you are telling me your numbers and the article numbers which add up to roughly 100% +/- some errors mean everyone is working? no people are unemployed or searching for work?
Of course not. I was looking at the census statistics, not the labor force statistics. We all know there's a ton of unemployed and underemployed folks out there. I was just trying to point out that if indeed only 63.5% of American's are working, there has to be a large chunk of that 36.5% who are not part of the labor force, so shouldn't really be counted. Isn't that how the government is doing it these days anyway haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force
In the United States, the unemployment rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_rate) is estimated by a household survey called the Current Population Survey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey), conducted monthly by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed persons by the size of the workforce and multiplying that number by 100, where an unemployed person is defined as a person not currently employed but actively seeking work. The size of the workforce is defined as those employed plus those unemployed.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_force#cite_note-0)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/US_Labor_Participation_Rate_1948-2011_by_gender.svg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Labor_Participation_Rate_1948-2011_by_gender.svg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.20wmf9/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Labor_Participation_Rate_1948-2011_by_gender.svg)
United States Labor Force Participation Rate by gender 1948-2011. Men are represented in light blue, women in pink, and the total in black.
The labor force participation rate is the ratio between the labor force and the overall size of their cohort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generational_cohorts) (national population of the same age range). In the West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_World) during the later half of the 20th century, the labor force participation rate increased significantly, largely due to the increasing number of women entering the workplace.
The labor force participation rate explains how an increase in the unemployment rate can occur simultaneously with an increase in employment. If a large amount of new workers enter the labor force but only a small fraction become employed, then the increase in the number of unemployed workers can outpace the growth in employment.
My takeaway is affirmation of what has already been said elsewhere. Although we may have seen an increase in # of jobs during periods, the increase in workforce has outpaced them. Consequently, the decrease in the participation rate is seen.
I really only have experience in construction trades but were supposed to be the most unemployed right now right? I just turned down a 20.00 per hour job because I don't want to give up on my business. I'm still paying bills. At least in Colorado I'd say if you wanted a job you could have one. I was called yesterday about helping on a roof, but I've been sick for a week . Work comes to me when I'm not even looking for it. I couldn't imagine looking for a job and not finding one. Where are they looking their living room, the fridge?
I really only have experience in construction trades but were supposed to be the most unemployed right now right? I just turned down a 20.00 per hour job because I don't want to give up on my business. I'm still paying bills. At least in Colorado I'd say if you wanted a job you could have one. I was called yesterday about helping on a roof, but I've been sick for a week . Work comes to me when I'm not even looking for it. I couldn't imagine looking for a job and not finding one. Where are they looking their living room, the fridge?
Likely the difference is you're a proven, skilled, trades-man with good connections and probably some education or professional qualifications/certifications, right? Assuming as much, you're probably well ahead of the curve and shouldn't ever have too hard a time finding work. It's the same for me in the IT world. A bachelor's and half a dozen IT cert's and I'm pretty certain I'd have a decent job within a week if I was let go. There's a lot of them to choose from around here too... It's the less-than-skilled, untrained and uneducated portion of our society who's having the hardest time... There's just so many of them. Another symptom of that fact: Our entitlement programs are overwhelmed.
Likely the difference is you're a proven, skilled, trades-man with good connections and probably some education or professional qualifications/certifications, right? Assuming as much, you're probably well ahead of the curve and shouldn't ever have too hard a time finding work. It's the same for me in the IT world. A bachelor's and half a dozen IT cert's and I'm pretty certain I'd have a decent job within a week if I was let go. There's a lot of them to choose from around here too... It's the less-than-skilled, untrained and uneducated OR OLDER portion of our society who's having the hardest time... There's just so many of them. Another symptom of that fact: Our entitlement programs are overwhelmed.
Fixed it for you.
Highly skilled older workers do not get hired when there is an abundance of younger, lower paid workers with "almost" skillsets.
I'll say this much, because I have been down that road, that it isn't easy to find work. From Nov 2010-June 2011 I was unemployed. I was seeking jobs that my skills were applicable to- Security, mostly armored car type jobs. They are few and far between. Not saying I couldn't have found something temporary, but I had too much pride to be flipping burgers and waiting tables for much lower pay than what I made in the military. The private sector is a very hard place for a veteran without a degree. Sure we have the tools and the skills to make it in many fields, but I was content to not settle for a job I was unhappy with and keep pounding the pavement for work in a field that was relative to my skills and would pay competitively to my talent. It wasn't until my dad offered me a job just before I had given up and gone to "take what I can get."
So many out there are not going to take whatever they can get just to make money and work... too many veterans are coming home to no jobs that will pay even close to what they were being paid (if you include the benefits). It's a long road back.
Flipping burgers is NOT comparable to waiting tables.
I am still waiting for a job that was well paid during 1999-2000!!!!!!!! [Mad]
[LOL]
Flipping burgers is NOT comparable to waiting tables.
I was speaking in general terms... food service.
Fixed it for you.
Highly skilled older workers do not get hired when there is an abundance of younger, lower paid workers with "almost" skillsets.
Sadly, that's a very unfortunate truth as well. Thanks.
Pancho Villa
09-07-2012, 14:04
When I ran that warehouse, I loved hiring old guys who were way overqualified.
They worked cheap, they worked hard and they often had side skills that would help and we could pay them extra for (ex: hired a carpenter once, we needed some tables made, he made them for us and we paid them a lot more than the 10 stupid bucks an hour he was making shipping computer hardware.)
They appreciated that I understood they were looking for better, would let them have days off when they had interviews and figured the arrangement was temporary. While they were here they were worth more per dollar invested than the young guys.
Young guys are a longer-term investment. My 2nd, who took over when I left, was younger. You can teach them your system and they shut up and learn it, and the smart ones will try to tweak it to be better too, but more important is they'll stay and don't feel like they're just passing time looking for a better job.
But if I wanted a guy who would "get it" on day 1 or 2, pay attention and be a good, solid worker for a few weeks to a few months, give me an old guy.
I was speaking in general terms... food service.
Food service, is customer service, and all customer service us generally the same. I find it interesting you were willing to write off waiting tables (up to $20/hr and no tax) as food service, but went and sold insurance instead, which is largely the same type of job.
jerrymrc
09-07-2012, 14:21
Working in the Medical field I will let ya in on a clue how some of those that have the entitlement thoughts work the military. The mid 2000's were a great time for them.
So ya have an AS degree and ya work dead end jobs because your lazy and always get fired. So lose just enough weight to get in. Now you take a job like supply or something easy and once you get through AIT your broke.
You spend the next three years complaining of everything and anything. Having studied 101 ways to be disabled you never pass a PT test, you never deploy and in the end get med boarded.
After the Army gives you 10% and writes a check for $15K or so and the VA gives you 70% so you now have $18K per year coming in. They then take that 70% and apply for SS benefits. If they play there cards right SS chips in another $12K per year so at age 26 with a couple of kids you now have $27K tax free for life.
45% of all service members leaving the Military are claiming benefits. In my day (Gulf War) 21% claimed them.
I do want to add that this in no way takes anything from those that deserve them but it borders on stupid when a cook that serves 3-4 years stateside and never deploys can claim 50-60% for anything and everything.
And I saw the basic example above first hand. [Bang]
Food service, is customer service, and all customer service us generally the same. I find it interesting you were willing to write off waiting tables (up to $20/hr and no tax) as food service, but went and sold insurance instead, which is largely the same type of job.
Eh, you're looking at it too simply. I hated food service when I did it... I didn't hate bartending as much, but the hours sucked. I don't hate customer service, it's the type of customer service- Insurance is way different than food service. Food service feels more like slave type service (I don't mean that in a disparaging way- it's the only way I can explain it simply), whereas insurance is more of a educated service. Hard to explain, but I don't see them as the same.
Pancho Villa
09-07-2012, 14:27
Some jobs are for some people, others are for others. It's not a good/bad thing and it doesn't mean one job is better/worse than another except in terms of what you get paid.
Eh, you're looking at it too simply. I hated food service when I did it... I didn't hate bartending as much, but the hours sucked. I don't hate customer service, it's the type of customer service- Insurance is way different than food service. Food service feels more like slave type service (I don't mean that in a disparaging way- it's the only way I can explain it simply), whereas insurance is more of a educated service. Hard to explain, but I don't see them as the same.
I've done both and know what you mean.
Some jobs are for some people, others are for others. It's not a good/bad thing and it doesn't mean one job is better/worse than another except in terms of what you get paid.
I agree with this, but let's remember that we are talking about taking a job and making money vs. not working at all.
sabot_round
09-07-2012, 17:32
Working in the Medical field I will let ya in on a clue how some of those that have the entitlement thoughts work the military. The mid 2000's were a great time for them.
So ya have an AS degree and ya work dead end jobs because your lazy and always get fired. So lose just enough weight to get in. Now you take a job like supply or something easy and once you get through AIT your broke.
You spend the next three years complaining of everything and anything. Having studied 101 ways to be disabled you never pass a PT test, you never deploy and in the end get med boarded.
After the Army gives you 10% and writes a check for $15K or so and the VA gives you 70% so you now have $18K per year coming in. They then take that 70% and apply for SS benefits. If they play there cards right SS chips in another $12K per year so at age 26 with a couple of kids you now have $27K tax free for life.
45% of all service members leaving the Military are claiming benefits. In my day (Gulf War) 21% claimed them.
I do want to add that this in no way takes anything from those that deserve them but it borders on stupid when a cook that serves 3-4 years stateside and never deploys can claim 50-60% for anything and everything.
And I saw the basic example above first hand. [Bang]
I know exactly what you are talking about!! I see it every day and it's getting worst.
On the flip side, there are DA civs. that are clinging to those turds fearing that if they don't have any "customers" they'll be terminated, and they let those turds marinate in our system collecting a paycheck for doing nothing!! Can't even show up for work because the sight of a uniform disturbs them.
rockhound
09-07-2012, 17:54
OBAMA'S POLICIES DO NO ENCOURAGE JOB GROWTH
he threw billions at the solar industry which until the technology gets much less expensive will go nowhere,
it would cost me nearly $45k to install a system to meet the needs of my household, i priced it,
no way to justify that expense, an industry with no demand has no reason to produce jobs
he has done everything he can to shut down the coal industry, oil production,
the bailout of GM did probably save jobs, but it did not create new ones,
there is a whole other side of that discussion that we will not go into.
raising taxes on investments, higher income earners and kissing union butts does not encourage jobs,
you want to create jobs, unleash our natural resources, stop kissing the EPA and tree hugger butts, let the US be an oil exporter and get our costs of energy back inline, that will stimulate this economy beyond any other measure
people will have more money to spend, that will create demand which will create jobs,
dont tell me the coal is bad for the environment, i drove by a coal plant two weeks ago, i have seen more exhaust output from one fireplace than that plant was producing, they are so clean now there is no excuse not to have the cheapest energy on the planet in this country.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.