• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

CBS News: Chronic unemployment worse than Great Depression

You think the glut of unemployed white collar workers and office professionals would be affected by removing the minimum wage?
 
There you go being logical again.

Also do you think people in their 40s/50s would get rehired at low wage jobs whne their healthcare coverage may be more thna their paycheck?
 
Minimum wage is really not an issue in this fight. And I'm sorry, but CBS is reaching here. When we start to have 1/4 to 1/3 of people unemployed, then we can start drawing comparisons to the Great Depression.
 
It's also a non-starter in that during the Depression there was the WPA and other agencies creating millions of jobs.
 
Who was crazier the Son of Sam or the Unabomber?
 
Structural unemployment is very European and it seems unavoidable that we'll follow the same path, including with major government debt problems.

I found it interesting that unemployment is only 4.5% for those w/Bachelor's degrees or better. I assume people are taking jobs in which they are overskilled and pushing out the uneducated.

Unemployment is only 6.8% for those 55 years of age and older. So they are finding it easier to acquire jobs and their social security and Medicare is fully protected. Must be nice. Maybe other generations need to learn to vote like old people do.
 
Minimum wage?

The reality is the "job creators" don't want to hire people and don't want to pay them so they aren't. That's the simple story of unemployment.

The solution isn't trying to seduce jobs out of the people who don't want to hire people. The solution is to "create" new job creators who HAVE to hire people.
 
Minimum wage?

The reality is the "job creators" don't want to hire people and don't want to pay them so they aren't. That's the simple story of unemployment.

The solution isn't trying to seduce jobs out of the people who don't want to hire people. The solution is to "create" new job creators who HAVE to hire people.

Interesting concept. Exactly what do you have in mind? Who exactly is going to create new job creators? And why exactly do the HAVE to hire people?
 
Demand creates jobs. A rich guy could spend $5M hiring people, but he would lose it without demand.
 
Minimum wage?

The reality is the "job creators" don't want to hire people and don't want to pay them so they aren't. That's the simple story of unemployment.

The solution isn't trying to seduce jobs out of the people who don't want to hire people. The solution is to "create" new job creators who HAVE to hire people.

Email and voicemail took the secretaries' job. Excel, Powerpoint, and Access murdered intro jobs.

Then a bunch of corp's figured out how redundant their staffing was and they cut people lose, boosted profits, and realized they could still operate with new technology.
 
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/actual-employment-numbers-not-that-bad-2011-06-03?dist=countdown

The market was disappointed with today’s employment data. But actual total employment, as opposed to the widely reported seasonally adjusted numbers, was nowhere near the catastrophe that the market’s reaction made it seem. The problem was that economists’ expectations were misguided, partly as a result of their focus on seasonally adjusted fictitious data, which showed a gain of 54,000 for May.

Actual (not-seasonally-adjusted) payrolls were up 682,000, according to the BLS establishment survey. That’s not gangbusters in relation to other years, but it’s not that bad. Since 2001, the average gain in payrolls in May has been 764,000. 2010 had a very strong gain of 1.10 million. That number was an outlier. The best year before that was 2007 at 942,000.

Today’s reported numbers were worse than non-recession years, however. Only 2008 at 570,000 and 2009 at 269,000 were worse.

In addition to the establishment survey, the BLS also surveys households. The total number of employed persons (actual, not seasonally adjusted) according to the BLS household survey rose by 367,000. The average gain in total employed in May from 2001 to 2010 was 344,000. From this perspective, today’s number was a little better than average.

The histrionics surrounding today’s announcement are an artifact of the fact that many economists had assumed without good reason that the numbers would be much better. However, the unadjusted actual numbers in the household survey had shown a decline in growth momentum since the end of last year, and today’s data simply continues that trend. The slowing employment growth momentum this year has been concurrent with the decline in stimulus spending that spurred the employment gains in the first place. In that context, slowing employment growth should have surprised no one.

Total employment usually peaks in July. Therefore, we should find out just how weak the employment trend is over the next couple of months. The question is whether last year’s peak employment numbers will be broken, and if so, by how much. The first few months of seasonal decline in the second half could show a shift to negative momentum if the usual second half employment declines are greater than last year’s.

Even if total employment grows slightly year over year, if the growth is less than population growth, the employment-to-population ratio will continue to fall. Even though the economy might grow in nominal terms life will get harder for a growing number of Americans.

But to Wall Street and the markets, that matters not.
 
http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/06/03/private-sector-jobs-have-increased-by-2-million-since-2010-and-are-growing-at-132000-per-month/

The chart above shows monthly private-sector jobs since January 2005 calculated by the BLS from two different methods: a) the household survey, which is larger and includes self-employed workers, and b) the establishment survey, based on company payroll records. Over time they move very closely, although monthly variations are common – for May the household survey showed a gain of 373,000 private-sector jobs, compared to a gain of only 83,000 private payroll jobs. But since the cyclical bottom in December 2009, both surveys are showing gains of more than 2.1 million private-sector jobs, which is a healthy increase of 132,000 private-sector jobs per month on average.
 
In May, the private sector gained 373,000 jobs while the public sector lost 417,000.

One would think the usual suspects on this board who lay in bed at night trembling and sweating that the US is becoming Socialist would throw a freakin parade about this. maybe take the kids outta school and fall to their knees rejoicing.

But instead they come here and post that we are about to meet our doom.......

typical.

and even better, 84Deac immediately on the first post wants to attack the poorest people in America and strip them of some money - minimum wage earners.

VERY typical
 
The loss in home values has also exceeded that of the Great Depression.
 
In May, the private sector gained 373,000 jobs while the public sector lost 417,000.

One would think the usual suspects on this board who lay in bed at night trembling and sweating that the US is becoming Socialist would throw a freakin parade about this. maybe take the kids outta school and fall to their knees rejoicing.

But instead they come here and post that we are about to meet our doom.......

typical.

and even better, 84Deac immediately on the first post wants to attack the poorest people in America and strip them of some money - minimum wage earners.

VERY typical

We have had enough reasonable exchanges that I do consider this a cheap shot. Not one of you liberals addressed the contention that an artificially high minimum wage discourages entry level job creation. 27% of white and 52% of black teenagers are unemployed. Doesn't it make sense to let these kids work for a wage that fits their skills and level of experience.

Baked, this actually ties in well with our other discussion about welfare and government dependency. Getting more teenagers in the work force rather than hanging out on the corner smoking weeding and breaking in to cars to steal change and GPS units makes a lot of sense to me. They may not have anyone else in their household who punches a timeclock on a regular basis. The best way to break the cycle of poverty that exists out there is with the youngest generation you can reach. Minimum wage requirements will keep teen unemployment rates sky high and keep these kids from developing life skills that nobody else is going to teach them.
 
The loss in home values has also exceeded that of the Great Depression.

Well, frankly, the inflation of home prices from 2004 to 2007 was so unfettered that it made the fall that much farther.

There is plenty of blame...from Bill Clinton and Phil Gramm teaming to repeal Glass-Steagall to just plain old anthropology -- enough just ain't never enough for the banksmen. Look, I don't really want to slam the banking community but they fell asleep at the switch. They are the protectors of the economic engine...they decide who does and who does not get a loan and their criteria was cut and dry before they entered the mortgage business. They lost sight of what they are charged to do...and that is to show fiscal restraint and responsibility. That's why they get paid the big bucks. But in this last decade those lads and ladies have really whiffed on the pitches that for nearly 70 years they hit for a high percentage...
 
We have had enough reasonable exchanges that I do consider this a cheap shot. Not one of you liberals addressed the contention that an artificially high minimum wage discourages entry level job creation. 27% of white and 52% of black teenagers are unemployed. Doesn't it make sense to let these kids work for a wage that fits their skills and level of experience.

Baked, this actually ties in well with our other discussion about welfare and government dependency. Getting more teenagers in the work force rather than hanging out on the corner smoking weeding and breaking in to cars to steal change and GPS units makes a lot of sense to me. They may not have anyone else in their household who punches a timeclock on a regular basis. The best way to break the cycle of poverty that exists out there is with the youngest generation you can reach. Minimum wage requirements will keep teen unemployment rates sky high and keep these kids from developing life skills that nobody else is going to teach them.

don't take it personally, I certainly don't take this board personally. It's all in fun - and I'm guilty of a little goading from time to time.

again, i agree. "getting more teenagers in the work force rather than hanging out...." sounds fine. I expect we disagree on how to do that.
 
Back
Top