• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Record Number of Jobs Available

So when you say things like ....



... to make it sound as if 40% of the country is just a bunch of lazy bums sucking up welfare, it's not really true because half of those lazy bums are retired, and the other half are in school, disabled or staying home to raise children. It is not a distortion of the statistics to NOT show those people as "unemployed" because classifying them as such implies that they want to be working when in fact, they do not.

The number of "unemployed" is (and correctly so) a measure of the people that want to find work but are unable to do so, not simply the number of people that aren't working. The number of people that choose to not work and have the means to live without a job should be seen as a positive, not a negative.

Show me where they all have private means to live without a job.
 
More jobs does not equate to Quality jobs

It looks to me like there isn't a problem with the quality of the jobs created in recent years. Full-time, private-sector jobs account for 96% on the increase in employment, and the earnings associated with those jobs appear to be at least in line with the existing wage scale.

>>it is not a good thing if someone has to work 2 jobs to get enough money to pay the bills.

I'd say that depends. Some people welcome a chance to get a second job, for whatever reason. If you look at the time series for multiple jobholders collected by BLS, the number of people that have more than one job increases when the economy is expanding and decreases with it's not.

multiple_jobholders_1994_2016.jpg

When more jobs are available, it's easier to get a second job.

As a percentage of the labor force, the trend has been edging downward over the twenty years that this series has been collected.

multiple_jobholders_as_perc_labor_force_1994_2016.jpg

If the labor market continues to tighten, that measure may climb above five percent again.

Last month, there were 7.5 million multiple job holders. 4.1 million had a FT and a PT job, 2.1 million had more than one PT job, 256K had two FT jobs, and 970K had multiple jobs where the hours varied. The only measure trending upward over the long term is more than one PT.

multiple_jobholders_both_PT_1994_2016.jpg

I figure this may reflect a change in the way work gets done. I have two jobs, and the hours vary for both but both are usually PT. I don't get enough work in my small business to work it FT, and my PT job for the gubmint now rarely gets above thirty-five hours, only a few times a year. Because I get my health insurance through the ACA, I don't need access to employer-based coverage.

Show me where they all have private means to live without a job.

How else could they be getting by? Income support programs have work requirements.

I'd say the retired are living off stuff like SS, pensions, and savings. Students who aren't working aren't sucking on any gubmint teat that might be of concern that I can think of. Are parents staying home to raise young children a problem? There's a five-year lifetime limit on TANF, and in 2014 there were 1.7 million households collecting TANF benefits, which btw are down about twenty percent from twenty years ago.
 
Last edited:
More jobs does not equate to Quality jobs, it is not a good thing if someone has to work 2 jobs to get enough money to pay the bills.

But why would those jobs be sitting open? The reason is likely because they are in fact quality jobs. In fact they are such good jobs that businesses can't find anybody qualified to do them.
 
But why would those jobs be sitting open? The reason is likely because they are in fact quality jobs. In fact they are such good jobs that businesses can't find anybody qualified to do them.

Or those that are out of work and are qualified have given up after this many years or moved away to another area that has more of a future. I know people that have done both, if you do not you are living in a cocoon.
 
Or those that are out of work and are qualified have given up after this many years or moved away to another area that has more of a future. I know people that have done both, if you do not you are living in a cocoon.

Could be any number of reasons. Maybe they dont pay enough. Maybe there IS a shortage of workers. Many of them are healthcare. Maybe the destruction of the health care industry is driving people away.
 
Youi can find those numbers easier than businesses can hire, and you know it. Your post is smoke and mirrors.

Some of us experience the problems with finding jobs or finding people to hire first hand. I actually am dealing with both right now.

My current job has lots of positions open, including at least two full time positions just at my store (which has only about 6 full time positions available total, not counting the store manager, who is on salary). We also have multiple pastime positions we want and even need to fill. Very few people are applying for the part time positions we need to fill, and those that are haven't been working out (one applicant lived about 2 - 3 hours away). We haven't really gotten any applicants for our full time position. Starting pay is simply too low for most of those who would be qualified, even at $11.5/HR.

On the flip side, I have to find a new job myself due to our current childcare situation and how far away I am from my job and the crappy hours. I need something closer and more flexible. But everything available in this area requires skills I don't have or a degree I don't have or is not going to meet my needs (hours and/or pay).

It's easy to see the problems when you look at individuals and the many different situations they might be in. Most people can't afford to work a low paying job with children at home because childcare is so expensive and most of that money would go to childcare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Could be any number of reasons. Maybe they dont pay enough. Maybe there IS a shortage of workers.
Here’s How Bad the Job Market Is If You Don’t Go to College | TakePart

Actually here's more evidence that what I said was correct. Turns out only 1% of post recession jobs went to people without at least some higher education.

Many of them are healthcare. Maybe the destruction of the health care industry is driving people away.

HAHAHA!!!! No! What is actually happening is that the healthcare industry is doing so unbelievably well that they can't hire enough nurses and doctors to keep up. If some of those good old boys would put down their AR-15 and go to college to learn how to save lives instead of taking them you might find there's plenty of high paying jobs out there for you.
 
Then you would have less jobs to be open. We could also reduce welfare to make work more necessary. After all, 38% of the country is choosing not to work.

LMMFAO, that zombie lie just keeps going and going and going....
 
Show me where they all have private means to live without a job.

Obviously many will not have the private means to live without a job - such as the permanently disabled, many of them veterans. No doubt there are others who CAN work in some job, but are on disability because of various reasons both legitimate and illegitimate. Others are on some form of public welfare but could work.

The problem is when you begin with a number that includes 10s of millions of people who NO ONE believes is a problem that they're not working - e.g. the 35 million retired, the 9 million stay at home mom's like my sister in law home schooling 5 kids, etc. - you indicate you're not interested in a serious discussion of the issues.
 
Obviously many will not have the private means to live without a job - such as the permanently disabled, many of them veterans. No doubt there are others who CAN work in some job, but are on disability because of various reasons both legitimate and illegitimate. Others are on some form of public welfare but could work.

The problem is when you begin with a number that includes 10s of millions of people who NO ONE believes is a problem that they're not working - e.g. the 35 million retired, the 9 million stay at home mom's like my sister in law home schooling 5 kids, etc. - you indicate you're not interested in a serious discussion of the issues.

When you end every post with an insult, you indicate you're not interested in a serious discussion of the issues.
 
When you end every post with an insult, you indicate you're not interested in a serious discussion of the issues.

I didn't insult you - just pointed out you can't start any serious discussion with that talking point. I also pointed out an error, and that the actually irrelevant stat that 38% are not in the labor force is a right wing zombie talking point that keeps getting repeated here no matter how many times it's debunked.
 
I didn't insult you - just pointed out you can't start any serious discussion with that talking point. I also pointed out an error, and that the actually irrelevant stat that 38% are not in the labor force is a right wing zombie talking point that keeps getting repeated here no matter how many times it's debunked.

"you indicate you're not interested in a serious discussion of the issues." is uncivil. "right wing zombie talking point" is rhetoric. Do you want to debate the topic, or get your digs in?
 
I didn't insult you - just pointed out you can't start any serious discussion with that talking point. I also pointed out an error, and that the actually irrelevant stat that 38% are not in the labor force is a right wing zombie talking point that keeps getting repeated here no matter how many times it's debunked.

It's kind of hard not to argue any information that comes out of the government Bureau Of Labor Statistics & Census Bureau.
 
"you indicate you're not interested in a serious discussion of the issues." is uncivil. "right wing zombie talking point" is rhetoric. Do you want to debate the topic, or get your digs in?

I did discuss the topic by pointing out, with cites to the evidence, why that talking point is ridiculous, and in another post correcting your error about retirees versus 25-54.

Admittedly the first post was a bit sarcastic, but that talking point has been debunked on here so many times. I've debunked it at least a half dozen times, and others have as well, as they did on this thread. The bottom line is no one should care that 38% of the population is neither working nor looking for a job, since the VAST majority of those do not want or need a job.

That's why starting with that number makes it impossible to make a serious point. If there's some point excluding those people you'd like to make, the floor is yours. I read articles at least monthly discussing the labor force participation rate for various subgroups that make serious points. Here's one from a couple weeks ago.

As Low-Skilled Jobs Disappear, Men Drop Out of the Workforce - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The decline in participation rate among men 25-54 is biggest for those with a HS diploma or less (participation rate is about 83%), but those with a college degree are working at a rate of about 94%.
 
It's kind of hard not to argue any information that comes out of the government Bureau Of Labor Statistics & Census Bureau.

So you think BLS and/or Census can't be trusted?

There is no evidence anywhere that data are being manipulated. Both of those groups deal in estimates, and estimates are by definition imprecise, but I've never seen a compelling argument that the numbers should be disregarded or treated as suspect except for noting that they ARE estimates.
 
I did discuss the topic by pointing out, with cites to the evidence, why that talking point is ridiculous, and in another post correcting your error about retirees versus 25-54.

Admittedly the first post was a bit sarcastic, but that talking point has been debunked on here so many times. I've debunked it at least a half dozen times, and others have as well, as they did on this thread. The bottom line is no one should care that 38% of the population is neither working nor looking for a job, since the VAST majority of those do not want or need a job.

That's why starting with that number makes it impossible to make a serious point. If there's some point excluding those people you'd like to make, the floor is yours. I read articles at least monthly discussing the labor force participation rate for various subgroups that make serious points. Here's one from a couple weeks ago.

As Low-Skilled Jobs Disappear, Men Drop Out of the Workforce - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The decline in participation rate among men 25-54 is biggest for those with a HS diploma or less (participation rate is about 83%), but those with a college degree are working at a rate of about 94%.

My point was simply that there is likely a significant number of people on govt assistance who could be working instead. No, its not 38% of the labor force, but it could number in the millions.

50 million are under retirement age. 3 million list other reasons. We know there is lots of fraud regarding disability. We know there are lots of students wasting away federal loans and grants. We know many people abuse Food stamps and welfare. Then you have those we count as unemployed, receiving benefits for years.

Show me some evidence that everyone of those who can work, but dont, arent receiving my tax dollars, and Ill change my mind.
 
Then you have those we count as unemployed, receiving benefits for years.

How is that accomplished? Benefits run out in six months, don't they?
 
My point was simply that there is likely a significant number of people on govt assistance who could be working instead. No, its not 38% of the labor force, but it could number in the millions.

No doubt there could be millions not in the labor force who would like to work but have given up, or who should be working but are drawing some kind of government assistance.

50 million are under retirement age. 3 million list other reasons. We know there is lots of fraud regarding disability. We know there are lots of students wasting away federal loans and grants. We know many people abuse Food stamps and welfare. Then you have those we count as unemployed, receiving benefits for years.

Disability is tough. If you're 62 and diabetic and not all that healthy, are you "disabled" if the only jobs available where you are are manual labor or require hours on your feet that you cannot do, but if you could find a desk job it would be fine? At any rate, there are lots of legitimate issues about the labor force participation rate, and now that we've dispensed with the 94 million/38% number as irrelevant to anything, we can discuss them if we want to continue.

Show me some evidence that everyone of those who can work, but dont, arent receiving my tax dollars, and Ill change my mind.

That's a strawman argument - no one informed would claim that "everyone" who can work but do not are not receiving your tax dollars. Someone on a military pension at age 45 meets that test, as do lots of disabled who can work A job but might not be able to work available jobs, as do people on disability who are flat out crooks, as do the mostly mythical welfare queens etc.
 
How is that accomplished? Benefits run out in six months, don't they?
Then they get a lawyer and go on SSDI with mental or soft tissue injury, and then move from unemployed to SS recipient.
 
My point was simply that there is likely a significant number of people on govt assistance who could be working instead. No, its not 38% of the labor force, but it could number in the millions.

Based on what?

50 million are under retirement age. 3 million list other reasons. We know there is lots of fraud regarding disability. We know there are lots of students wasting away federal loans and grants. We know many people abuse Food stamps and welfare. Then you have those we count as unemployed, receiving benefits for years.

Show me some evidence that everyone of those who can work, but dont, arent receiving my tax dollars, and Ill change my mind.

How about you show the evidence that they are, in any significant numbers.
 
No doubt there could be millions not in the labor force who would like to work but have given up, or who should be working but are drawing some kind of government assistance.



Disability is tough. If you're 62 and diabetic and not all that healthy, are you "disabled" if the only jobs available where you are are manual labor or require hours on your feet that you cannot do, but if you could find a desk job it would be fine? At any rate, there are lots of legitimate issues about the labor force participation rate, and now that we've dispensed with the 94 million/38% number as irrelevant to anything, we can discuss them if we want to continue.



That's a strawman argument - no one informed would claim that "everyone" who can work but do not are not receiving your tax dollars. Someone on a military pension at age 45 meets that test, as do lots of disabled who can work A job but might not be able to work available jobs, as do people on disability who are flat out crooks, as do the mostly mythical welfare queens etc.

There you go again. "No one informed". Forget it.
 
There you go again. "No one informed". Forget it.

Sheesh, that comment restated is "everyone who IS informed agrees with you." :roll: Didn't think you'd have a problem when I agreed with you.... :doh

My disagreement is with the notion that ANYONE claims there is not a single person in this country receiving government benefits but who can work and simply chooses not to. That would require fraud levels to be 0.000, and ignoring military veterans who retired on full benefits, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom