- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,776
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It's not about what I think. The BLS numbers are facts. The economy we're used to has a ratio of closer to 1 to 1 job seekers to jobs. This is not the case today. We can address them as facts or we can plug our ears and spout partisan platitudes. Which is more conservative, addressing facts such as they are or as we wish they were?extensions would be nothing more than additional income redistribution. Is your solution-as a "conservative" to keep paying unemployment benefits as long as you think that there are not enough jobs? Just curious
Your idea raises taxes on the poor, and almost exclusively so given the market for these cheaper goods. In fact, as these terms go, this is about as regressive a tax as you can get. Why do you hate the poor?
And then our exports get slaughtered in the ensuing trade war, causing more jobs to be lost.
Brilliant strategy.
So all 10 jobs get filled and that leaves how many people still looking? Almost 3 times as many.You're looking at all wrong if you're looking for a job. There are 10 job openings (that's what's important)and they will be hiring 10 people. Maybe only 10 will apply or maybe 100 will. Gee... maybe you could be one of the 10 who gets hired.
Now, if there were 0 job openings, I'd say we should extend benefits as long as needed.
It's not about what I think. The BLS numbers are facts. The economy we're used to has a ratio of closer to 1 to 1 job seekers to jobs. This is not the case today. We can address them as facts or we can plug our ears and spout partisan platitudes. Which is more conservative, addressing facts such as they are or as we wish they were?
Further, as far as I can tell the CBO maintains that when it comes to spurring our economy back to where it should be, extending the unemployment benefits offers good bang for the buck. On this point I am open to having my mind changed. If you have anything that runs contrary to this, I am willing to look at it. Please provide at your convenience.
It's not about what I think. The BLS numbers are facts. The economy we're used to has a ratio of closer to 1 to 1 job seekers to jobs. This is not the case today. We can address them as facts or we can plug our ears and spout partisan platitudes. Which is more conservative, addressing facts such as they are or as we wish they were?
Further, as far as I can tell the CBO maintains that when it comes to spurring our economy back to where it should be, extending the unemployment benefits offers good bang for the buck. On this point I am open to having my mind changed. If you have anything that runs contrary to this, I am willing to look at it. Please provide at your convenience.
If you will look at what I posted you will see what I am telling you. It's that there are more job seekers than jobs. This is different than there not being any jobs. It's that there aren't enough jobs.BLS does indeed provide facts, it shows what has happened, are you telling me there aren't any jobs at all out there?
They provide a ratio of the number of job seekers to the number of jobs. Have you looked at that ratio? What does it tell you?BLS doesn't predict it reports. Just because there are 4 million more unemployed today than when Obama took office doesn't mean there are 4 million less jobs available. They are just jobs that some people don't have an incentive to take. It may be A job not THE job but it sure beats unemployment. Doesn't look to me like you understand the Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Is that not the same result that a "Fair Tax" would give?
I asked a simple question.
I provided a simple response about the nature of your question.I asked a simple question.
If you will look at what I posted you will see what I am telling you. It's that there are more job seekers than jobs. This is different than there not being any jobs. It's that there aren't enough jobs.
They provide a ratio of the number of job seekers to the number of jobs. Have you looked at that ratio? What does it tell you?
you are a fine one to speak about diversions....i asked you, you conservative, to give me the numbers....you can't do it....you don't posess the knowledge, you never did, but tried to pass it off that you did, and threw up a link to the corporate wallyworld to try and take the heat off...there are terms to describe what you tried to pass off...but i wont go into them here.
Please describe which assumptions are false.Why do you buy CBO data when the CBO website talks about the accuracy of their data? What does CBO stand for and who directs their activity? That is all you really need to know. Stick to the non partisan sites not those that make rosey predictions based upon false assumptions.
I provided a simple response about the nature of your question.
I'm not conservative...well yea, I am conservative.
this what you couldn't find? they also have HC, 401(K),profit sharing and stock purchases.
In the United States, our compensation package is competitive with others in the industry, totaling over $5.2 billion last year. In addition to what the market requires, we base wages on experience, skills, problem-solving and job accountability. The average hourly, full-time wage for Associates in our U.S. stores is $10.76.
These wages, while competitive with industry, are in many cases entry level jobs. We realize that many stakeholders expect us to pay more, while others are concerned about our ability to remain competitive in serving our customers. We see ways to address both concerns. An example of this was our recent advocacy for an increase in the federal minimum wage.
Wal-Mart - Sustainability Progress to Date 2007-2008 - Wages and Benefits
Please describe which assumptions are false.
As I stated earlier--as long as it benefits the country.OK never mind-I asked you how long the benefits should go.
Tell you what, I'll link to the post where I linked to it.Link the CBO report you claim in your post and then I will comment on it, I won't comment without seeing the resport. I am also waiting for BLS.gov data that shows the jobs available.
As I stated earlier--as long as it benefits the country.
If you will look at what I posted you will see what I am telling you. It's that there are more job seekers than jobs. This is different than there not being any jobs. It's that there aren't enough jobs.
They provide a ratio of the number of job seekers to the number of jobs. Have you looked at that ratio? What does it tell you?
I'll link to the post where I linked to it already:No, what BLS shows you is how many people are working, how many people are unemployed, it doesn't show you how many jobs are available. Where do you get the numbers from BLS that shows jobs available? Link it
It tells me that there are still jobs that aren't filled. Doesn't matter how many are jobless until those jobs are filled. What if there was 50 million jobs available and 100 million unemployed?
Should the hundred million receive unemployment for 2 yrs or would you say 26 wks is a bit more reasonable?
Why do you hate the poor?
AFAICT, in that scenario, only 50mil would be getting benefits. It's not the same jobs nor all the same people all the time. People get jobs and people lose jobs just because the number stays close to the same does't mean it all the same people and the same jobs.It tells me that there are still jobs that aren't filled. Doesn't matter how many are jobless until those jobs are filled. What if there was 50 million jobs available and 100 million unemployed?Should the hundred million receive unemployment for 2 yrs or would you say 26 wks is a bit more reasonable?
I'll link to the post where I linked to it already:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...xtend-jobless-benefits-26.html#post1059114295
I didn't ignore it. if you look at my original post, these things are addressed in the quote I posted from the CBO.Here is what CBO says which of course you ignored.
The CBO therefore claims, in addition to "dampen[ing] people's efforts to look for work," ...
Unless I am mistaken, this part is not actually in the CBO report. This is your addition....that taking money out of the economy and putting it back into unemployment benefits might increase economic output, or it might decrease it?
Unless I am mistaken, this part is not actually in the CBO report. This is your addition.Now tell me why you would buy CBO predictions. It might increase or it might decrease economic output! Brilliant analysis
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?