Americans’ wages down during Obama’s term[W:223]

[pinqy]

Re: Americans’ wages down during Obama’s term

Your opinion noted but the one thing I will never be known for as foolish since I didn't vote for nor would I ever vote for someone with the resume of Obama.

Neither would I. I never voted for Obama.

what you show is someone who is very naïve and puts too much faith in what people say.

No, what I show is someone who has worked professionally in the field for over a decade and knows the people who calculate the data and knows the methodology.

How do you know someone is still looking for work or has stopped looking for work after their unemployment benefits stop

You seem schizophrenic here....they know by the survey.

 

[Sisyphus]

Re: Americans’ wages down during Obama’s term[W:223]

No, what we have here are people like you who cannot recognize that it is a problem that four years after the end of a major recession the economic results are what they are and that those results are due to very poor leadership and economic policies. When 14.3% of the labor force is unemployed/under employed/discouraged four years after the end of the recession when will you and other liberals come to grips with reality, "your" President is an economic disaster but he does take great vacations.

Reread this part: " So we have a problem, which I think we can all agree on."

 

[Conservative]

Re: Americans’ wages down during Obama’s term[W:223]

Reread this part: " So we have a problem, which I think we can all agree on."

One thing you will learn in the real world is that good leaders will actually solve problems not blame someone else for them. What is preventing Obama from giving up some vacation time to call Congress into session to address the employment problems we have in this country today? Instead he wants to blame Congress yet shows no leadership in bringing them together. The "do as I say" President doesn't understand leadership or the responsibilities of leadership nor do his supporters.

 

[pinqy]

Re: Americans’ wages down during Obama’s term[W:223]

There are two surveys used to calculate the unemployment and employment numbers, Household and Establishment.

Right. But since the Establishment survey data are not used in calculating the UE rate, they're not relevent right now.

The Household data comes from the Census bureau and surveys around 60,000 households around the country, the establishment is much, much broader and looks at payroll records. Tying yourself to the Household survey is the least accurate due to the size of the sample.

The Establishment survey is larger, not broader. It ONLY looks at payrolls. It excludes Agriculture, the self-employed, unpaid family workers and people working in other people's houses. It also double counts people who work 2 jobs and triple counts those who work 3, etc.

It is much better for measuring Jobs, but it has no demographic information or details. There are only 6 questions on the survey.

While less accurate, the Household survey has more detail and includes more people.

You seem to be the one confused as to who is employed, unemployed, and discouraged.

No, I know the definitions by heart. You're the one who seems to think people are dropped if their UI benefits run out and that everyone who stops looking for work is discouraged.

14.3% of today's labor force is unemployed/under employed/discouraged and that is a disaster four years after the end of the recession.

No....the U-6 is Unemployed plus Marginally Attached plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus the Marginally Attached. Discouraged is a subset of the Marginally Attached and is less than half: 2,582,000 Marginally Attached, of whom 1,027,000 are discouraged.
And note that it's not a percentage of the labor force, but a percentage of the labor force plus marginally attached. That's 4th grade math that you can't have something in the numerator that's not in the denominator.

By the way, don't think I haven't noticed your tactic of refusing to support or defend a point, but switching to something else and repeating assertions.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Americans’ wages down during Obama’s term[W:223]

Right. But since the Establishment survey data are not used in calculating the UE rate, they're not relevent right now.


The Establishment survey is larger, not broader. It ONLY looks at payrolls. It excludes Agriculture, the self-employed, unpaid family workers and people working in other people's houses. It also double counts people who work 2 jobs and triple counts those who work 3, etc.

It is much better for measuring Jobs, but it has no demographic information or details. There are only 6 questions on the survey.

While less accurate, the Household survey has more detail and includes more people.


No, I know the definitions by heart. You're the one who seems to think people are dropped if their UI benefits run out and that everyone who stops looking for work is discouraged.



No....the U-6 is Unemployed plus Marginally Attached plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus the Marginally Attached. Discouraged is a subset of the Marginally Attached and is less than half: 2,582,000 Marginally Attached, of whom 1,027,000 are discouraged.
And note that it's not a percentage of the labor force, but a percentage of the labor force plus marginally attached. That's 4th grade math that you can't have something in the numerator that's not in the denominator.

By the way, don't think I haven't noticed your tactic of refusing to support or defend a point, but switching to something else and repeating assertions.

Done here, this serves no purpose. The end result remains we have 14.3% unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers over four years after the end of a recession and no leadership to turn those numbers around. Obama has yet to have one economic prediction come even close to being true.

 

[Sisyphus]

Re: Americans’ wages down during Obama’s term[W:223]

One thing you will learn in the real world is that good leaders will actually solve problems not blame someone else for them. What is preventing Obama from giving up some vacation time to call Congress into session to address the employment problems we have in this country today? Instead he wants to blame Congress yet shows no leadership in bringing them together. The "do as I say" President doesn't understand leadership or the responsibilities of leadership nor do his supporters.

Gotcha. You haven't a clue what the solutions might be but are convinced Obama is doing the wrong things.

Brilliant. I am in utter awe.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Americans’ wages down during Obama’s term[W:223]

Gotcha. You haven't a clue what the solutions might be but are convinced Obama is doing the wrong things.

Brilliant. I am in utter awe.

Have given the solutions many times, Obama and all other liberals don't want solutions, they want dependence and are succeeding.

 

[Sisyphus]

Re: Americans’ wages down during Obama’s term[W:223]

Have given the solutions many times, Obama and all other liberals don't want solutions, they want dependence and are succeeding.

Rather than paging through this thread or the entire site, how about you restate you preferred and what you think its effect might be on the job market. K?

Should be easier that way, for us both, since I might not choose the one you were think about and it could get circular, which a bright guy like you would not doubt want to avoid as well.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Americans’ wages down during Obama’s term[W:223]

Rather than paging through this thread or the entire site, how about you restate you preferred and what you think its effect might be on the job market. K?

Should be easier that way, for us both, since I might not choose the one you were think about and it could get circular, which a bright guy like you would not doubt want to avoid as well.

Very simple, provide incentive for the private sector to grow jobs by eliminating Obamacare, reducing regulations like those on the Keystone Pipeline and in Coal Country, lower business tax rates, cut the size of govt. so that rather than pay debt service capital will be available for businesses to grow, implement a flat tax and quit demonizing individual wealth creation, stop telling private business what to pay their employees, but most importantly get out of the way and stop trying to micromanage the private sector.

We don't need a 3.77 trillion dollar federal govt. on top of the 50 state governments we have. Return all social programs to the states and local communities where they belong.

 

[Sisyphus]

Re: Americans’ wages down during Obama’s term[W:223]

Very simple, provide incentive for the private sector to grow jobs by eliminating Obamacare, reducing regulations like those on the Keystone Pipeline and in Coal Country, lower business tax rates, cut the size of govt. so that rather than pay debt service capital will be available for businesses to grow, implement a flat tax and quit demonizing individual wealth creation, stop telling private business what to pay their employees, but most importantly get out of the way and stop trying to micromanage the private sector.

We don't need a 3.77 trillion dollar federal govt. on top of the 50 state governments we have. Return all social programs to the states and local communities where they belong.

We had the unemployment problem before Obamacare, and in fact it looks like requirement are being postponed. Ergo, no effect.

The energy sector, thanks to higher crude prices, is going nuts already, having lowered UE in ND to around 3%. How many more jobs will the pipeline project create, while it's being built?

Low tax rate are not the job-creating nirvana the Gopniks thought and keep saying. As it turns out, businesses keep the more money and do not hire unneeded staff simply because they can afford it. No help there, in the job-market, either.

Cutting government spending costs jobs. Government does not buy from itself; it buys from the private sector, and employs folks who spend into the private sector. Cutting government by $100 reduces the private sector by $100 ... they're in parallel. So not help with smaller government.

Regulations create job and do not cost jobs. While companies would love to keep money and not have huge compliance departments, and expenses for outside firms, they do it as part of the cost of business. So eliminating regs is not a job-creator; it's a job-killer.

In fact, Con, that's merely rightie talking points that have been debunked by actual outcome, time and time again.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Americans’ wages down during Obama’s term[W:223]

Sisyphus;1062099785]We had the unemployment problem before Obamacare, and in fact it looks like requirement are being postponed. Ergo, no effect.

So why would any business person who cannot print money put his own money into growing a business without knowing the costs of hiring any new employees?

The energy sector, thanks to higher crude prices, is going nuts already, having lowered UE in ND to around 3%. How many more jobs will the pipeline project create, while it's being built?

Do you have any concept as to what more crude oil in the market will do to prices? The pipeline will create direct and indirect jobs similar to what the Trans Alaskan Pipeline created. Nort Dakota is an example of what can happen all over the country. Rather than Embrace what is going on in N. Dakota and other states like TX, liberals demonize them

Low tax rate are not the job-creating nirvana the Gopniks thought and keep saying. As it turns out, businesses keep the more money and do not hire unneeded staff simply because they can afford it. No help there, in the job-market, either.

Right, people hate having more spendable income in their paychecks. If you are so against keeping more of what you earn send it back as a donation to the govt.

Cutting government spending costs jobs. Government does not buy from itself; it buys from the private sector, and employs folks who spend into the private sector. Cutting government by $100 reduces the private sector by $100 ... they're in parallel. So not help with smaller government.

You really don't understand the budget of the United States, suggest you familiarize yourself with it and ask yourself how many so called services are being duplicated at the state and local levels. What exactly is the role of the Federal Govt. in the liberal world? Cutting the size of the Federal Govt. will create more investment capital because less money will go to debt service. You obviously think we have a fixed economy that is incapable of growing without govt. help.

Regulations create job and do not cost jobs. While companies would love to keep money and not have huge compliance departments, and expenses for outside firms, they do it as part of the cost of business. So eliminating regs is not a job-creator; it's a job-killer.

Your opinion noted just like it is also noted you have no concept of business costs and what regulations do to growth. You are such an expert, start your own business and see if regulations affect you

In fact, Con, that's merely rightie talking points that have been debunked by actual outcome, time and time again.

Years of experience, something you lack. Obamanomics is a failure, when will you recognize that?