High Unemployment Due to Lack of Demand

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Fuck 'Bammy.[/quote]

Fuck ignoring half of the story…

Edit in link so you know what the hell I’m talking about, lol[/quote]

So maybe you can help me out here because I’m not familiar at all with these stats. What does this graph represent? Is it % of population in the private sector? How does this affect unemployment numbers? [/quote]

It is labor force participation. It is the measure of how many people have jobs or are actively looking for jobs.

The unemployment stat you see in the papers is the U3, which excludes people who stopped looking for work (ie: are fine living off of government transfers). So as the labor force participation rate goes down, so does the U3 rate. Makes for good political fodder in speeches but sucks for the real world.

Mak’s fancy little chart makes people all wet in the panties who like Bam, because it looks so pretty. But when contrasted against the chart I posted you see his chart means nada, as the tax base is still shrinking. Which means lower tax revenues and higher deficits.

But don’t worry, lets pay people’s mortgages, and give them “free” stuff from the government. Social spending, hurrah!

Oh and before the “blame Bush” bullshit starts… Statistics | Tax Policy Center the government collected more under Bush and his evil, evil tax cuts, than Clinton and his wonderful, wonderful, amazing, untouchable presidency. [/quote]

Who is included in the # of people with jobs/looking for work vs. those not employeed? Are 15 year olds include or retirees, for example? I’m trying to grasp who this # represents so I suppose I’m asking who is include and who is excluded?

I think I understand. As particpation decreases so does U3 (adjusted unemployment?), which can be interpreted as a good thing by some, but really isn’t because the # isn’t adjusted for those receiving unemployement benefits as their source of income. Is that accurate?

How is it determined that a person is no longer “seeking employment?”
[/quote]

It has been falling since 2000… Which isn’t good.

42

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

It has been falling since 2000… Which isn’t good. [/quote]

Okay, so it looks like the rate is determined per demographic group, which was what was throwing me off. Thanks for the link.

43

Beans,

Does the U3 also consider the number of people under-employed ?

Or is that conveniently left out so the real unemployment rate given doesn’t cause people to fall on their fainting couch ?

44

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The next time someone screams about the wars in the ME costing trillions, ask yourself where the other $14.5 Trillion went.[/quote]

Not on social spending.
[/quote]

If only! $14.5 trillion could have made every family in the United States mortgage free home owners.

Imagine that kind of money spent on infrastructure![/quote]

Please, let’s have a sit-down about “infrastructure spending”. You will quickly realize how most of it is nothing more than political kickbacks and hook-ups for friends, family, and Union slum-Lords.

Case in point, of ALL the bidders fighting to win the chance to build the multi-Billion dollar California High Speed Rail, it must be pure coincidence that the contract was awarded to Dianne Feinstein’s husband.

45

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Beans,

Does the U3 also consider the number of people under-employed ?

[/quote]

I believe U3 includes parttime workers, but I’m not 100% sure and too lazy to look it up.

46

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Beans,

Does the U3 also consider the number of people under-employed ?

[/quote]

I believe U3 includes parttime workers, but I’m not 100% sure and too lazy to look it up. [/quote]

http://www.economiq.org/series/unrate/

U3 does not include Discouraged workers or workers looking for full time but currently working part-time.

U6 (everything) is currently at 13.9%.

47

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I think I understand. As particpation decreases so does U3 (adjusted unemployment?), which can be interpreted as a good thing by some, but really isn’t because the # isn’t adjusted for those receiving unemployement benefits as their source of income. Is that accurate?

[/quote]

If you are on unemployment you are suppose to be looking for a job so you are included in U3, but when your unemployment benefits run out then you are no longer considered looking for a job under U3. This means as unemployment benefits run out U3 will go down, but the participation rate will also go down.

The government wants U3 to go down and the participation rate to go up. This is how you increase revenues.

48

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Beans,

Does the U3 also consider the number of people under-employed ?

[/quote]

I believe U3 includes parttime workers, but I’m not 100% sure and too lazy to look it up. [/quote]

http://www.economiq.org/series/unrate/

U3 does not include Discouraged workers or workers looking for full time but currently working part-time.

U6 (everything) is currently at 13.9%.[/quote]

So the REAL unemployment rate is a breath away from 14%.

49

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I think I understand. As particpation decreases so does U3 (adjusted unemployment?), which can be interpreted as a good thing by some, but really isn’t because the # isn’t adjusted for those receiving unemployement benefits as their source of income. Is that accurate?

[/quote]

If you are on unemployment you are suppose to be looking for a job so you are included in U3, but when your unemployment benefits run out then you are no longer considered looking for a job under U3. This means as unemployment benefits run out U3 will go down, but the participation rate will also go down.

The government wants U3 to go down and the participation rate to go up. This is how you increase revenues.[/quote]

Ahhh okay, gotcha. Thanks.

50

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

If only! $14.5 trillion could have made every family in the United States mortgage free home owners.

[/quote]

Or you know, people can pay for their own shit and not my tax dollars supporting the nanny state. [/quote]

Agreed. But that is not going to happen any time soon. In the meantime wouldn’t you like the money to be spent on actually helping your fellow Americans as your alternative is having your money squandered.

51

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The next time someone screams about the wars in the ME costing trillions, ask yourself where the other $14.5 Trillion went.[/quote]

Not on social spending.
[/quote]

If only! $14.5 trillion could have made every family in the United States mortgage free home owners.

Imagine that kind of money spent on infrastructure![/quote]

Please, let’s have a sit-down about “infrastructure spending”. You will quickly realize how most of it is nothing more than political kickbacks and hook-ups for friends, family, and Union slum-Lords.
[/quote]

That is because Americans never do a damn thing about corruption and wasteful spending. It is the same with any kind of American government spending. You think “welfare spending” is any better?

Infrastructure done right is a great idea.

52

[quote]phaethon wrote:
In the meantime wouldn’t you like the money to be spent on actually helping your fellow Americans as your alternative is having your money squandered.[/quote]

Sure, and who knows how to do that best? The people themselves. So lower rates and let us keep more of our own money so we can take care of ourselves.

Buying people shit with other people’s money isn’t “helping them out.” Temp programs like WIC, Unemployment and the like are fine with me, because they just help out along the way. Permanent dependency doesn’t help anyone.

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Infrastructure done right is a great idea.[/quote]

Sure, but I’ve been around enough construction to know the government work is never do efficiently. Prevailing wages prevent that. People don’t hustle when they are being paid 2X+ what they make day-to-day on other sites.

I mean, the ideal of what you are talking about may or may not be good, however our government has such a piss poor track record… I just can’t trust it is possible at this point.

53

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The next time someone screams about the wars in the ME costing trillions, ask yourself where the other $14.5 Trillion went.[/quote]

Not on social spending.
[/quote]

If only! $14.5 trillion could have made every family in the United States mortgage free home owners.

Imagine that kind of money spent on infrastructure![/quote]

Please, let’s have a sit-down about “infrastructure spending”. You will quickly realize how most of it is nothing more than political kickbacks and hook-ups for friends, family, and Union slum-Lords.
[/quote]

That is because Americans never do a damn thing about corruption and wasteful spending. It is the same with any kind of American government spending. You think “welfare spending” is any better?

Infrastructure done right is a great idea.[/quote]

Do you not understand, that these groups scratch each others’ backs ?

There is no such thing as “infrastructure done right” when one government agency meant to regulate another is just as corrupt as the one committing the crime.

Where I live, they raised the trash fee to help pave the roads, instead the money went to Union workers raises.

The whole system is fucked, from top to bottom. We are having Mayoral elections right now, and the Dept of Water and Power openly admitted that they have an 11% raise for their workers on the table, assuming the candidate they donated to (Wendy Gruel) wins.

In the case of our High Speed Rail, every single provision has been violated, and the original author of the bond measure is now siding and suing the HSR Authority for fraud.

All of this shit is a fraud, a money grab.

54

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The next time someone screams about the wars in the ME costing trillions, ask yourself where the other $14.5 Trillion went.[/quote]

Not on social spending.
[/quote]

If only! $14.5 trillion could have made every family in the United States mortgage free home owners.

Imagine that kind of money spent on infrastructure![/quote]

Please, let’s have a sit-down about “infrastructure spending”. You will quickly realize how most of it is nothing more than political kickbacks and hook-ups for friends, family, and Union slum-Lords.
[/quote]

That is because Americans never do a damn thing about corruption and wasteful spending. It is the same with any kind of American government spending. You think “welfare spending” is any better?

Infrastructure done right is a great idea.[/quote]

Do you not understand, that these groups scratch each others’ backs ?

There is no such thing as “infrastructure done right” when one government agency meant to regulate another is just as corrupt as the one committing the crime.

Where I live, they raised the trash fee to help pave the roads, instead the money went to Union workers raises.

The whole system is fucked, from top to bottom. We are having Mayoral elections right now, and the Dept of Water and Power openly admitted that they have an 11% raise for their workers on the table, assuming the candidate they donated to (Wendy Gruel) wins.

In the case of our High Speed Rail, every single provision has been violated, and the original author of the bond measure is now siding and suing the HSR Authority for fraud.

All of this shit is a fraud, a money grab. [/quote]

To say that there is waste is an understatement. Anywhere there is money there is some level of corruption. But when you compare this scenario to the financial -private sector- meltdown it doesn’t even come close.

55

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

To say that there is waste is an understatement. Anywhere there is money there is some level of corruption. But when you compare this scenario to the financial -private sector- meltdown it doesn’t even come close.[/quote]

The meltdown was not merely private sector greed. It was crony capitalism. You can’t separate the government’s role in the meltdown from the private sector’s role without an ultra-myopic, ultra-subjective field of view.

56

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

To say that there is waste is an understatement. Anywhere there is money there is some level of corruption. But when you compare this scenario to the financial -private sector- meltdown it doesn’t even come close.[/quote]

without an ultra-myopic, ultra-subjective field of view.
[/quote]

Hey, you know that you are talking about Zeppy right?

57

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

To say that there is waste is an understatement. Anywhere there is money there is some level of corruption. But when you compare this scenario to the financial -private sector- meltdown it doesn’t even come close.[/quote]

The meltdown was not merely private sector greed. It was crony capitalism. You can’t separate the government’s role in the meltdown from the private sector’s role without an ultra-myopic, ultra-subjective field of view.
[/quote]

This. Also, instead of crony capitalism, let’s call it lemon socialism. Let’s not dilute capitalism by associating it with what we now have.

58

[quote]NickViar wrote:

…instead of crony capitalism, let’s call it lemon socialism. Let’s not dilute capitalism by associating it with what we now have.[/quote]

I think crony-capitalism is more accurate. What you call it is far less important than what it does. The left is every bit as greedy and power hungry as the most evil capitalist. The traditional republican party is just as greedy as the other two, as well.

Truly free market enterprise only exists outside the reach of all of the above. Sadly they can reach just about anywhere.

Read about the guy who going to sell instructions on how to make a plastic gun with a 3D printer? He was shut down before he could even get rolling good. I wouldn’t doubt that The gun makers applauded the move.

59

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
I think crony-capitalism is more accurate. What you call it is far less important than what it does. The left is every bit as greedy and power hungry as the most evil capitalist. The traditional republican party is just as greedy as the other two, as well.

Truly free market enterprise only exists outside the reach of all of the above. Sadly they can reach just about anywhere.

Read about the guy who going to sell instructions on how to make a plastic gun with a 3D printer? He was shut down before he could even get rolling good. I wouldn’t doubt that The gun makers applauded the move. [/quote]

I think we support the same thing, but there is no such thing as an evil capitalist, only evil crony capitalists. True capitalism can also exist only in a truly free market.

60

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
I think crony-capitalism is more accurate. What you call it is far less important than what it does. The left is every bit as greedy and power hungry as the most evil capitalist. The traditional republican party is just as greedy as the other two, as well.

Truly free market enterprise only exists outside the reach of all of the above. Sadly they can reach just about anywhere.

Read about the guy who going to sell instructions on how to make a plastic gun with a 3D printer? He was shut down before he could even get rolling good. I wouldn’t doubt that The gun makers applauded the move. [/quote]

I think we support the same thing, but there is no such thing as an evil capitalist, only evil crony capitalists. True capitalism can also exist only in a truly free market.[/quote]

Sorry. I should have used quotes to indicate sarcasm. I did air quotes in my head as I typed out “evil capitalist”.