RE: US JOB Growth Strong

RE: US JOB Growth Strong (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 6:11:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether No, I'm stating there isn't a realistic way of answer the question you have, given circumstances. The only way to test the question under the same circumstances, would be to travel to a differen dimension of 'time and space' when the law was not passed. And see how events play out on the employment front. I'm fresh out of time travel devices. How about you? You even agree that we can't make an apples to apples comparison, yet, you continue to blather on about whatever supports your ideology. That's willful ignorance, joether. My question pointed out that we can not know if the ACA has reduced job growth, increased job growth, or had no effect on job growth, simply because we can't "test the question under the same circumstances." Even when you make my point, you still continue to try to oppose me.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 6:26:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Here. A real gentleman would apologize. I'll not hold my breath, waiting for either of you to assume that mantle. Michael That's from 2011, Michael; not exactly current. However.... The Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate (men and women 16 years or older): [image]http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2005_2015_all_period_M02_data.gif[/image] We're down to 62.8% of all people 16 years of age or older participating in the labor force. That's not good. Some of it is due to the retiring Baby Boomers, but our population growth has also slowed to the point where the BLS was predicting 0.5% annual reduction in participation rates for the 10-year period starting in 2012.

MercTech -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 6:41:42 PM)
Remember, if you are not drawing unemployment benefits; you don't count as being unemployed in the government statistics.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/30/2015 7:43:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Remember, if you are not drawing unemployment benefits; you don't count as being unemployed in the government statistics. Not the U-3 stats. You still show up in the U-6, though. Labor Force Participation Rate is a separate, but related, topic.

cloudboy -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/31/2015 7:47:06 AM)
Another factor in job growth is how in the Obama years, public sector jobs (municipal, state, and federal) are down whereas with previous Presidencies those jobs were up. The public sector grew during Mr. Carter's term (up 1,304,000), during Mr. Reagan's terms (up 1,414,000), during Mr. G.H.W. Bush's term (up 1,127,000), during Mr. Clinton's terms (up 1,934,000), and during Mr. G.W. Bush's terms (up 1,744,000 jobs). However the public sector has declined significantly since Mr. Obama took office (down 668,000 jobs). These job losses have mostly been at the state and local level, but more recently at the Federal level. This has been a significant drag on overall employment. Read more at http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/10/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html#DgVxCt05c7VbZRfK.99 ------ If you think the Obama administration has been characterized by a big expansion of government employment, you're wrong. http://www.businessinsider.com/public-sector-jobs-under-various-presidents-2014-10

mnottertail -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/31/2015 7:53:44 AM)
And 'conservatives' should be very circumspect here. The arguments we are seeing here are in opposition to voter ID, they are once again displaying their buffoonery and their mendacity simultaneously.

cloudboy -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/31/2015 7:56:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 I stand corrected, although it might have been a good idea to attach a link to your source the next time you make a claim, makes it look much more legitimate and less prone to criticism. Keep in mind that "Americans" 16 years of age and older includes: Americans age 16-21. Many of this group is in school. Americans age 65 and older. Many of this group are retired. As usual, DS actually avoids the subject at hand -- an impressive record of job growth. His mind will never go there, so it finds other things to latch onto like this odd ball statistic that does not add very much to the debate, as I see it.

cloudboy -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/31/2015 7:58:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The arguments we are seeing here are in opposition to voter ID, Could you expand on that?

mnottertail -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/31/2015 8:03:58 AM)
Because we don't have comparative scenarios, we don't know what the ACA has done to jobs::Because we dont have voter id and comparative statistics we know that there is voter fraud. It don't work.

thishereboi -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/31/2015 2:21:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether No, I'm stating there isn't a realistic way of answer the question you have, given circumstances. The only way to test the question under the same circumstances, would be to travel to a differen dimension of 'time and space' when the law was not passed. And see how events play out on the employment front. I'm fresh out of time travel devices. How about you? You even agree that we can't make an apples to apples comparison, yet, you continue to blather on about whatever supports your ideology. That's willful ignorance, joether. My question pointed out that we can not know if the ACA has reduced job growth, increased job growth, or had no effect on job growth, simply because we can't "test the question under the same circumstances." Even when you make my point, you still continue to try to oppose me. Yes it did but don't expect that to stop some from claiming it does.

DaddySatyr -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/31/2015 2:36:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri That's from 2011, Michael; not exactly current. We're down to 62.8% of all people 16 years of age or older participating in the labor force. That's not good. Some of it is due to the retiring Baby Boomers, but our population growth has also slowed to the point where the BLS was predicting 0.5% annual reduction in participation rates for the 10-year period starting in 2012. Yeah, not current but it's not like we've experienced a remarkable amount of full-time job growth since then, either. To my mind, anything less than 50% is cause for a (bloodless) revolution ... anything less than 60% is deeply troubling ... anything less than 70% is troubling ... between 70-80% is nice but we could do better ... 90% should be the goal. All that aside, if our total for employment is 62.8%, how many of them are full-time employees? Most 16 year olds are high school students so, it's almost a given that they're not employed, full-time. I'm trying to find numbers for ages 18 to 70 but people don't seem to want to get that specific (I'm sure that 62.8% number includes retired people?). Michael

MercTech -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/31/2015 6:39:58 PM)
An effect of the ACA on jobs, at least in the sector of the economy where I work, is that there are a few more openings and a slight (about 1/3 of the annual inflation rate) increase in wages. The staffing companies are saving money as they no longer have to subsidize employee insurance. Hey, it isn't an option any more since getting health insurance is an individual requirement. As a side issue; when I go work a contract in Canada under a work visa, the Canadian government requires my employer to provide health insurance so the work visa worker won't be a burden on National Health. Off to Canada again in May...

DesideriScuri -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (3/31/2015 7:08:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri That's from 2011, Michael; not exactly current. We're down to 62.8% of all people 16 years of age or older participating in the labor force. That's not good. Some of it is due to the retiring Baby Boomers, but our population growth has also slowed to the point where the BLS was predicting 0.5% annual reduction in participation rates for the 10-year period starting in 2012. Yeah, not current but it's not like we've experienced a remarkable amount of full-time job growth since then, either. To my mind, anything less than 50% is cause for a (bloodless) revolution ... anything less than 60% is deeply troubling ... anything less than 70% is troubling ... between 70-80% is nice but we could do better ... 90% should be the goal. All that aside, if our total for employment is 62.8%, how many of them are full-time employees? Most 16 year olds are high school students so, it's almost a given that they're not employed, full-time. I'm trying to find numbers for ages 18 to 70 but people don't seem to want to get that specific (I'm sure that 62.8% number includes retired people?). Michael Yes, the labor participation rate is for all people, ages 16 and up. So, the oldest American is included in that stat. I don't know that we'll ever get as high as 80% participation for at least a couple decades, and, perhaps, even more (if ever). Our population growth hasn't been what it once was, so we'll have to rely on "attriction" to raise our participation rates. There were A LOT of boomers (thus, the "boom" part, lol). Once they are old enough to retire, the number of people who are no longer participating in the labor force is going to boom, and it's going to be a while before there aren't so many of them keeping the participation rate down. http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf Check out "Chart 7." We're down to just over 18.5% of all employed persons being part time workers.

cloudboy -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (4/1/2015 8:57:21 AM)
The country needs to counter balance the boomer retirements with immigration so as not to end up like Japan. We just had a baby, but I don't anticipate her entering the workforce for quite some time.

Lucylastic -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (4/1/2015 9:00:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The country needs to counter balance the boomer retirements with immigration so as not to end up like Japan. We just had a baby, but I don't anticipate her entering the workforce for quite some time. Hey congrats to you and your wife, and welcome to the new addition:)

cloudboy -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (4/2/2015 7:19:28 AM)
Paul Krugman is still stumping away: • Well, Obamacare went into effect fully at the beginning of 2014 — and private-sector job growth actually accelerated, to a pace we haven’t seen since the Clinton years. Meanwhile, involuntary part-time employment — the number of workers who want full-time work but can’t get it — has dropped sharply. • In reality, the only people hurt by health reform are Americans with very high incomes, who have seen their taxes go up, and a relatively small number of people who have seen their premiums rise because they’re young and healthy (so insurers previously saw them as good risks) and affluent (so they don’t qualify for subsidies). • The good news about costs hasn’t made it through at all: According to a recent poll by Vox.com, only 5 percent of Americans know that Obamacare is costing less than predicted, while 42 percent think the government is spending more than expected. • And the favorable experiences of the roughly 16 million Americans who have gained insurance so far have had little effect on public perceptions. And his best turn of phrase: • imaginary disasters can overshadow real successes. Obamacare isn’t perfect, but it has dramatically improved the lives of millions. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/opinion/paul-krugman-imaginary-health-care-horrors.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

joether -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (4/2/2015 1:16:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether No, I'm stating there isn't a realistic way of answer the question you have, given circumstances. The only way to test the question under the same circumstances, would be to travel to a differen dimension of 'time and space' when the law was not passed. And see how events play out on the employment front. I'm fresh out of time travel devices. How about you? You even agree that we can't make an apples to apples comparison, yet, you continue to blather on about whatever supports your ideology. That's willful ignorance, joether. My question pointed out that we can not know if the ACA has reduced job growth, increased job growth, or had no effect on job growth, simply because we can't "test the question under the same circumstances." Even when you make my point, you still continue to try to oppose me. No, your fully not understanding what I'm explaining in plain English. You want to know what the true effects of the ACA have been, had it not be brought into law back in 2010. Because an estimate is not good enough for anyone. Only cold, hard, truthful facts would allow us an objective perspective to the question. In order to do that, we would need to go to a 'time and space' in which the ACA didn't exist in the United States, and a future in which the bill does not become law. Following all the other events to the current. Then looking at how unemployment has changed. In order to do that, would mean a time travel device. Got one? I'm not the one making the silly argument on the ACA's hidden failures to create jobs, but instead has cost the nation more. Without solid evidence to back up my silly conspiracy theory. That's your argument on display. So how do you rebuttal? By attacking me in the hopes I'll shut up and go along with your silly argument. Does it sound like I'm going to "Go quietly into this good night", DS? Accepting your viewpoint here as a credible question worth pondering? The burden of evidence to make it a proper and just question, is with you DS, not myself. You have not met this basic level for the argument to have legs. I've already stated what level of documentaries you need to start such an argument.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (4/2/2015 4:19:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether No, I'm stating there isn't a realistic way of answer the question you have, given circumstances. The only way to test the question under the same circumstances, would be to travel to a differen dimension of 'time and space' when the law was not passed. And see how events play out on the employment front. I'm fresh out of time travel devices. How about you? You even agree that we can't make an apples to apples comparison, yet, you continue to blather on about whatever supports your ideology. That's willful ignorance, joether. My question pointed out that we can not know if the ACA has reduced job growth, increased job growth, or had no effect on job growth, simply because we can't "test the question under the same circumstances." Even when you make my point, you still continue to try to oppose me. No, your fully not understanding what I'm explaining in plain English. You want to know what the true effects of the ACA have been, had it not be brought into law back in 2010. Because an estimate is not good enough for anyone. Only cold, hard, truthful facts would allow us an objective perspective to the question. In order to do that, we would need to go to a 'time and space' in which the ACA didn't exist in the United States, and a future in which the bill does not become law. Following all the other events to the current. Then looking at how unemployment has changed. In order to do that, would mean a time travel device. Got one? I'm not the one making the silly argument on the ACA's hidden failures to create jobs, but instead has cost the nation more. Without solid evidence to back up my silly conspiracy theory. That's your argument on display. So how do you rebuttal? By attacking me in the hopes I'll shut up and go along with your silly argument. Does it sound like I'm going to "Go quietly into this good night", DS? Accepting your viewpoint here as a credible question worth pondering? The burden of evidence to make it a proper and just question, is with you DS, not myself. You have not met this basic level for the argument to have legs. I've already stated what level of documentaries you need to start such an argument. You're such a dipshit, Joether. This whole time I've been saying that you can't claim the ACA hasn't killed jobs because we have nothing to compare it to. You're agreeing with me that we have nothing to compare it to. We even agree as to why we have nothing to compare it to. The claim was made that the ACA didn't kill jobs. I did not make the claim. I pointed out that claim was not possible to prove, since we don't have anything to compare it to. You and I have both put the same fucking legs on this argument, yet you still have no clue that we did. "The blindness is strong in this one." -- Yoda (Paraphrased)

MrRodgers -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (4/2/2015 6:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Here. A real gentleman would apologize. I'll not hold my breath, waiting for either of you to assume that mantle. Michael While I don't have an argument for those figures, it just proves that a whole lot more Chinese, Indians and Mexicans do have full time work. It's so nice to see 'globalization' of labor working out so profitably. You did read the rest of the article correct ?

DaddySatyr -> RE: US JOB Growth Strong (4/2/2015 7:27:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers While I don't have an argument for those figures, it just proves that a whole lot more Chinese, Indians and Mexicans do have full time work. It's so nice to see 'globalization' of labor working out so profitably. You did read the rest of the article correct ? You're barking up the wrong tree, brother. I'm an isolationist that has been against "Free Trade" and other forms of globalization since before King George I signed the first one. I also think we should withdraw from the UN. How's that for not being a supporter of globalization? Michael

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875