unemployment

[mavs>spurs]

this is interesting..it says that the way they calculate unemployment changed after 1994, and that the numbers are cooked

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1748956928001/real-unemployment-numbers?cmpid=prn_aol&icid=maing-grid7%7Caim%7Cdl17%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D182896

[TDMVPDPOY]

no shit numbers are cooked man,

they count casual jobs as full time jobs

dont forget ppl who are retrenched and cant get onto benefits cause they have savings, they are not counted part of the unemployed crew even though they are lookn for work...

[ElNono]

The previous system was not that great to begin with... The changes that were made in '94 were based on research that started in 1986... there's more information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey

[angrydude]

http://www.shadowstats.com/charts

[The Reckoning]

and you cant get loans if you dont have a monthly income

unemployment= f:lolcked

[Wild Cobra]

That's why peanut counters get paid so much.

[boutons_deux]

the unemployment numbers are silly coverups.

Even new jobs are silly, because they don't show formerly well salaried people taking crappy sub-$15/hour jobs, sometimes only part time, nor the huge growth in temporary/outsourced workers who work with no vacation, no benefits.

The Banksters Great (Jobs) Depression drags on, heading certainly for a Lost Decade(s), while the Repugs intend to add/keep millions out of work with austerity.

7 Ultra-Rich Companies Rake in Profits While Paying Workers Peanuts

1. Toys 'R' Us
2. Walmart
3. Con Edison
4. Lage Management Corp Car Washes
5. Air Serv
6. McDonald’s
7. Starbucks

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/156390

and then there's the relentless, victorious War On Employees. John Deere made huge profits last year, on track for record profits this year, while demanding employees take a 6-year wage freeze and pay more for health insurance.

[Wild Cobra]

ShazBot...

What's your point?

Are you saying you want unskilled labor like WalMart, Toy's R Us, etc. to pay people $20/hr+?

How much should a McDonald's employee make?

[boutons_deux]

Black Americans Have Suffered an Historic Wipeout of Their Wealth, With Few Signs It's Coming Back

The latest report from the Pew Mobility Project shows a particularly bleak picture for African-Americans. Not only are blacks more likely to come from the bottom income bracket (65 percent of blacks compared to 11 percent of whites) but blacks have a far harder time than whites when it comes to exceeding the economic success of their parents. Only 77 percent of African-Americans raised in the middle quintile of income earners will out-earn their parents, compared to 88 percent of whites. The picture is worse for blacks in the second quintile from the bottom; only 66 percent out-earn their parents, compared to 89 percent of whites. Things are even worse when it comes to wealth:

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/156396

[boutons_deux]

Here's a typical Repug extremist, from a western state, of course, downplaying conservative's destruction of the middle class. .

GOP Senator Blasts Obama For Talking ‘Incessantly’ About The Middle Class

KYL: Most prominently, we have a president who talks incessantly about class, particularly the middle class. Maybe you’ve noticed that. He defines class strictly by your income. In the president’s narrative, someone who makes $199,000 a year is a member of one class and someone who makes $200,000 belongs to another class. Does that make sense? Indeed, each day the president’s out on the campaign trail championing himself as the great protector of what he calls the middle class and pitting these Americans against their fellow citizens by arguing that the wealthiest class is victimizing them through the tax code.

The House GOP budget, meanwhile, gutted the social safety net, taking 62 percent of its cuts from programs that benefit the middle and lower classes. And while the GOP maintains the idea that reducing the debt and the tax burden on the wealthy will help middle-income Americans, the last decade has proven that to be utterly false. Republicans promised prosperity and job growth when they passed the high-income Bush tax cuts in 2003; what followed was a decade of rising deficits, anemic job growth, and a massive recession that decimated middle- and lower-class families and programs that benefit them.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/23/571241/gop-senator-blasts-obama-for-talking-incessantly-about-the-middle-class/

[Twisted_Dawg]

Boutons:

I HOPE its only a lost decade. I actually believe we are in for several decades of slow sluggish growth and high unemployment.

The "lost decade" term originated from the Japenese economy whose stock market and economy cratered in 1989. Their lost decade quickly turned into two lost decades.

[boutons_deux]

As long a low taxes on the wealthy, the corps, the 1% and their predations on the 99% continue, their political power (owning elections, legislators, regulators) will only increase, worsening, impoverishing the 99%.

[boutons_deux]

Japan? see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt

Repug scare-mongering on the national debt, see Boner threatening to shut down govt if severe austerity along with tax cuts for the 1% isn't imposed, is simply smokescreen for austerity (where shared sacrifice falls only on the 99%), killing govt to empower further the 1% and UCA.

[George Gervin's Afro]

this is interesting..it says that the way they calculate unemployment changed after 1994, and that the numbers are cooked

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1748956928001/real-unemployment-numbers?cmpid=prn_aol&icid=maing-grid7%7Caim%7Cdl17%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D182896

what's strange is that Fox News only became concerned with the way the unemployment figures were calculated after Obama got into office...

[Clipper Nation]

what's strange is that Fox News only became concerned with the way the unemployment figures were calculated after Obama got into office...

And? No shit Faux News is an outlet for biased neocon ramblings, but that doesn't change the fact that unemployment calculation did indeed change, B.... classic ad hominem, tbh.....

[boutons_deux]

Raising the Minimum Wage Is Cheap and Easy

At the current rate of $7.25 an hour, a full-time year-round worker would have gross pay of less than $15,000 a year. This is less than half of what the average Fortune 500 CEO makes in a day. It would be hard enough for a single person to survive on this income, imagine trying to support a child or even two on this money. And, close to 40 percent of the workers who would be benefited by a minimum wage increase have kids.

In terms of whether we can afford a higher minimum wage, it is worth remembering that the minimum wage in 1968 would be almost $9.22 an hour in today's dollars. In spite of the high minimum wage in the late 1960s, the job creators of that period pushed the unemployment rate down to 3.0 percent.

And, the country has not gotten poorer in the last four and a half decades. We have policy wonks running around Washington who seem to think that cell phones, computers, the Internet, and all other innovations of the past four decades that we now take for granted have reduced our standard of living.

This is of course nonsense. Productivity has increased by more than 120 percent since the late 1960s. If the minimum wage had kept step with productivity growth and inflation it would be over $20 an hour today.

The real problem in our economy today is not a lack of productivity. The problem is that the gains from productivity growth have not been broadly shared. The wealthy have used their power to rig the deck so that most of the benefits of growth have gone those at the top. They have used their control of trade policy, the Federal Reserve Board, and more recently the Wall Street bailout, to ensure that those at the top have gained at the expense of everyone else.

A higher minimum wage is an important step toward reversing this rigging. It should not be too much to expect that workers today should get at least as much as they did 45 years ago, and perhaps some dividend to allow them to share in the benefits of economic growth over this period. A minimum wage of $10 an hour would be a big step in the right direction.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/raising-the-minimum-wage_b_1696177.html?view=print

[mercos]

Raising the Minimum Wage Is Cheap and Easy

The real problem in our economy today is not a lack of productivity. The problem is that the gains from productivity growth have not been broadly shared. The wealthy have used their power to rig the deck so that most of the benefits of growth have gone those at the top. They have used their control of trade policy, the Federal Reserve Board, and more recently the Wall Street bailout, to ensure that those at the top have gained at the expense of everyone else.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/raising-the-minimum-wage_b_1696177.html?view=print

This x1000. The last 30 years of wage suppression and off shoring has finally caught up to the US. It is why demand is so weak and the economy can not get off its feet. We would have been hit with this problem sooner, but the last decade was fueled by the housing bubble and people lived off of their home equity. Having the income distribution tilted this heavy towards the top is unsustainable. It has happened before, in the 1920s. We all know how that worked out.

[TeyshaBlue]

I favor a tiered approach. <18 = $8.00/hr
Everyone else = $12.00/hr.

[coyotes_geek]

I favor a tiered approach. <18 = $8.00/hr
Everyone else = $12.00/hr.

I'm pretty torn on this one. On the one hand, I agree that the 16 year old bagging my groceries doesn't need to be making "a liveable wage". On the other..........."Happy Birthday, you're fired!"........

[boutons_deux]

how do you know someone @$8/hr under 18 is not living free at home and fed?

paying/splitting a rental and paying for all own food?

does not have baby to feed?

And almost always, these low enders have no vacation, no sick leave (often fired if they get sick or pregnant), no employer health insurance.

[coyotes_geek]

I don't. I do know that the overwhelming majority of those under 18 and working don't fall in to that category.

[boutons_deux]

One In Four Private Sector Workers Earn Less Than $10 An Hour

In 2011, more than one in four private sector jobs (26 percent) were low‐wage positions paying less than $10 per hour. These jobs, moreover, were concentrated in industries where low‐wage workers make up a substantial share – in some cases more than half – of the entire workforce.

And even as they employ low-wage workers, chief executives continue to rake in massive salaries, as AlterNet’s Sarah Jaffe notes. At the 50 companies that employ the largest number of low-wage workers, CEOs made an average of $9.4 million — roughly 450 times more than the gross income of a full-time worker who makes $10 an hour.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/24/573671/one-in-four-private-sector-workers-earn-less-than-10-an-hour/

[TeyshaBlue]

how do you know someone @$8/hr under 18 is not living free at home and fed?

paying/splitting a rental and paying for all own food?

does not have baby to feed?

And almost always, these low enders have no vacation, no sick leave (often fired if they get sick or pregnant), no employer health insurance.

It's not meant as a micromanagement strategy. Lrn2contextualize.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm pretty torn on this one. On the one hand, I agree that the 16 year old bagging my groceries doesn't need to be making "a liveable wage". On the other..........."Happy Birthday, you're fired!"........

You fire 'em, you've got to replace them. That <18 population is very small compared to >18.

[boutons_deux]

Why should someone under 18 today on min wage make less in adjusted dollars than the same kid decades ago?

[TeyshaBlue]

Why should someone under 18 today on min wage make less in adjusted dollars than the same kid decades ago?

Because, earning power by and large, is not a concern for the <18. It is for the >18. Also, cramming a $12 hour minimum wage down the throats of congress aint gonna happen. A tiered approach has an element of compromise.

[coyotes_geek]

In 2011, more than one in four private sector jobs (26 percent) were low‐wage positions paying less than $10 per hour. These jobs, moreover, were concentrated in industries where low‐wage workers make up a substantial share – in some cases more than half – of the entire workforce.

This is some hard hitting stuff right here. Who would have guessed that low wage positions would be concentrated in industries where people making low wages make up a substantial share of the workforce? You can't find this type of in-depth analysis just anywhere.

lol thinkprogress

[TeyshaBlue]

This is some hard hitting stuff right here. Who would have guessed that low wage positions would be concentrated in industries where people making low wages make up a substantial share of the workforce? You can't find this type of in-depth analysis just anywhere.

lol thinkprogress

:lmao

[coyotes_geek]

You fire 'em, you've got to replace them. That <18 population is very small compared to >18.

True.

[boutons_deux]

Because, earning power by and large, is not a concern for the <18. It is for the >18. Also, cramming a $12 hour minimum wage down the throats of congress aint gonna happen. A tiered approach has an element of compromise.

if you'd pay attention, "compromise" is a filthily unacceptable concept to Repugs.

try again

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes, boutons. So much easier to give up and just bitch.:rolleyes

[mavs>spurs]

You guys advocating raising minimum wage obviously don't understand economics and have never heard of cost push inflation, or the price/wage spiral. Raising minimum wage only leads to inflation and "real wages" stay the same. Think about it, the labor going into each product rises so the price of goods rises.

[coyotes_geek]

You guys advocating raising minimum wage obviously don't understand economics and have never heard of cost push inflation, or the price/wage spiral. Raising minimum wage only leads to inflation and "real wages" stay the same. Think about it, the labor going into each product rises so the price of goods rises.

Sshh. Let's not wake up anyone from their dream that the cure to poverty is a $15/hr minimum wage.

[boutons_deux]

Somehow, corps managed to pay their execs 450 times their wage slaves, and no cost push inflation.

[ElNono]

The base problem is income inequality.

Here are some number from an article about the Middle-class Decline (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/a-closer-look-at-middle-class-decline):

In addition to the slow growth in overall size of the pie, the share that has been going to anyone but the richest Americans has been declining. The top-earning 1 percent of households now bring home about 20 percent of total income, up from less than 10 percent 40 years ago. The top-earning 1/10,000th of households — each earning at least $7.8 million a year, many of them working in finance — bring home almost 5 percent of income, up from 1 percent 40 years ago.

Raising the minimum wage obviously isn't a be-all, end-all solution, and I agree that if you only do that, then you're not solving anything and basically adding to cost push inflation.

But if you want to re-tilt income inequality, then that should be part of a package of measures.

[ChumpDumper]

You guys advocating raising minimum wage obviously don't understand economics and have never heard of cost push inflation, or the price/wage spiral. Raising minimum wage only leads to inflation and "real wages" stay the same. Think about it, the labor going into each product rises so the price of goods rises.Yeah, inflation skyrocketed after the federal minimum wage was established.

Well, three years later for entirely different reasons, but whatever.

[mavs>spurs]

The minimum wage thing has always been nothing more than a political move. I remember back in 2008 or whenever they did the last one and raised it from 6.00 to 7.25. I was working some shitty part time job for minimum wage fresh out of high school and going to college full time and I was happy at first to get a raise up to 7.50. it was great for about 6 months, and then prices finally caught up with me and i was back where i started. my purchasing power was essentially the same. so yeah if you want to help people out for a few months and cause massive inflation, raise that sucker to 12.00!

[TeyshaBlue]

You guys advocating raising minimum wage obviously don't understand economics and have never heard of cost push inflation, or the price/wage spiral. Raising minimum wage only leads to inflation and "real wages" stay the same. Think about it, the labor going into each product rises so the price of goods rises.

Yet, we seem to do just fine when subjected to the same cost push when material prices increase.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's not a stand alone solution as El Nono pointed out.

[TeyshaBlue]

Somehow, corps managed to pay their execs 450 times their wage slaves, and no cost push inflation.

Maybe that's because, as obscene as they are, execs salaries are a very small component of the entire salary costs of a corp.:rolleyes

[mavs>spurs]

fuck a job, i just wish i had startup capital to be trading with. for this stock market experiment for a finance class, i just made 5k off a 200k investment in only 2 days. where else can you get a 2.5% return in 1 year, much less 2 days! previously made 2k off a 24k investment as well. i'm going to exploit the system while you all bitch about unemployment sons!

i just need a little capital to get started :cry

[mavs>spurs]

Yet, we seem to do just fine when subjected to the same cost push when material prices increase.

is that sarcasm or what i can't really decipher what you're saying

[cantthinkofanything]

fuck a job, i just wish i had startup capital to be trading with. for this stock market experiment for a finance class, i just made 5k off a 200k investment in only 2 days. where else can you get a 2.5% return in 1 year, much less 2 days! previously made 2k off a 24k investment as well. i'm going to exploit the system while you all bitch about unemployment sons!

i just need a little capital to get started :cry

I thought you were going to start a foreskin repair company or something.

[ElNono]

i just need a little capital to get started :cry

Get in line, tbh... :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Nope. Wages are not the only factor for cost push.

Yet, the marketplace can price in and normalize alot of the cost pressure from material costs.

[mavs>spurs]

I thought you were going to start a foreskin repair company or something.

no. someone beat me to the idea and it's a nonprofit organization, and their goal is eventual free restoration, so it's fine with me. still thinking of a business model imho.

[cantthinkofanything]

no. someone beat me to the idea and it's a nonprofit organization, and their goal is eventual free restoration, so it's fine with me. still thinking of a business model imho.

a business model involving the circumcision thing?
or do you have something else in mind?

[mavs>spurs]

Yeah, inflation skyrocketed after the federal minimum wage was established.

Well, three years later for entirely different reasons, but whatever.

totally different scenario. at the time, most people were already making more than the newly established minimum wage so it didn't affect many. today, millions upon millions of workers make 7.25ish. if you raised it today, it would affect like a huge portion of the work force.

[mavs>spurs]

a business model involving the circumcision thing?
or do you have something else in mind?

no, someone beat me to the punch on the circumcision thing. I don't mind though, i'm glad to see it getting attention. going to come up with another business model but probably won't need one for the forseeable future. I have a very loose connection to a couple guys on forbes top 100, although one that could prove to be very lucrative. i think im going to be set here in a couple weeks upon graduation thanks to a family member.

i might just end up working and investing my excess cash in the stock market, i'm beating the hell out of the s&p 500 the past couple of months day trading.

[ChumpDumper]

totally different scenario. at the time, most people were already making more than the newly established minimum wage so it didn't affect many.Aren't most people already making more than the minimum wage now?

[cantthinkofanything]

no, someone beat me to the punch on the circumcision thing. I don't mind though, i'm glad to see it getting attention. going to come up with another business model but probably won't need one for the forseeable future. I have a very loose connection to a couple guys on forbes top 100, although one that could prove to be very lucrative. i think im going to be set here in a couple weeks upon graduation thanks to a family member.

i might just end up working and investing my excess cash in the stock market, i'm beating the hell out of the s&p 500 the past couple of months day trading.

ok...feel free to PM me any business models you have and any ideas

[mavs>spurs]

Aren't most people already making more than the minimum wage now?

well, that depends. only 5% of the workforce makes exactly at or below minimum wage, but i can't find any numbers on those who earn in the 7.25-8.00 range and would be affected by raising the minimum wage. and those workers who are making 8-10 an hour would also demand a raise because they won't accept a paycut to minimum wage. it's not as clearly cut and dry as you are making it.

[ChumpDumper]

well, that depends. only 5% of the workforce makes exactly at or below minimum wage, but i can't find any numbers on those who earn in the 7.25-8.00 range and would be affected by raising the minimum wage. and those workers who are making 8-10 an hour would also demand a raise because they won't accept a paycut to minimum wage. it's not as clearly cut and dry as you are making it.It's clearly not the disaster you are making it out to be either.

[boutons_deux]

the unemployment numbers are silly coverups.

Even new jobs are silly, because they don't show formerly well salaried people taking crappy sub-$15/hour jobs, sometimes only part time, nor the huge growth in temporary/outsourced workers who work with no vacation, no benefits.

The Banksters Great (Jobs) Depression drags on, heading certainly for a Lost Decade(s), while the Repugs intend to add/keep millions out of work with austerity.

7 Ultra-Rich Companies Rake in Profits While Paying Workers Peanuts

1. Toys 'R' Us
2. Walmart
3. Con Edison
4. Lage Management Corp Car Washes
5. Air Serv
6. McDonald’s
7. Starbucks

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/156390

and then there's the relentless, victorious War On Employees. John Deere made huge profits last year, on track for record profits this year, while demanding employees take a 6-year wage freeze and pay more for health insurance.

Not JD, but Caterpillar, a long-time hard-nosed fuck-the-employees employer.

Corporation Pushes Six-Year Pay Freeze On Workers While Making Record Profits, Paying CEO $17 Million

Despite earning a record $4.9 billion profit last year and projecting even better results for 2012, the company is insisting on a six-year wage freeze and a pension freeze for most of the 780 production workers at its factory here. Caterpillar says it needs to keep its labor costs down to ensure its future competitiveness. [...]

Caterpillar, which has significantly raised its executives’ compensation because of its strong profits, defended its demands, saying many unionized workers were paid well above market rates.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/23/567201/caterpillar-pay-freeze/


Caterpillar Earnings, Revenues Soar


Caterpillar Inc. (NYSE: CAT) this morning reported second-quarter earnings per share (EPS) of $2.54 and $17.37 billion in revenue. EPS rose from $1.57 in the same period a year ago, while revenue was up from $14.23 billion. The results compare to the Thomson Reuters consensus estimates for EPS of $2.28 and $17.11 billion in revenue. Both the quarterly EPS and revenue were all-time records for the company.

Read more: Caterpillar Earnings, Revenues Soar - 24/7 Wall St.

http://247wallst.com/2012/07/25/caterpillar-earnings-revenues-soar/#ixzz21djOXpCw

[boutons_deux]

Top Three Myths Conservatives Use To Oppose Increasing The Minimum Wage

1) The minimum wage kills jobs.

“It’s a classic election-year ploy to make the Democrats look like they’re protecting low-income workers. I think it’s well understood that raising the minimum wage hurts workers on the lower end of the pay scale in that it does kill jobs,” said a recent statement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. However, several academic studies have shown that raising the minimum wage does not have a negative effect on employment. In fact, an analysis of state minimum wage increases showed that those state boosting their wage “had job growth slightly above the national average.”

2) Increasing the minimum wage hurts small businesses.

Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) reacted to a proposal to raise the minimum wage by saying that small business owners are “going to have to lay people off.” However, two-thirds of low-wage workers actually work for big corporations, most of which have largely recovered from the recession and could therefore afford to increase wages. The three largest employers of low-wage workers have all seen large profit increases in the last few years.

3) Increasing the minimum wage only benefits teenagers.

Many Republicans argue that raising the minimum wage just hurts teenagers’ ability to gain work experience. But as a new report from the Economic Policy Institute shows, nearly 90 percent of minimum wage workers are 20 years old or older. Plus, “more than a third (35.8 percent) [of minimum wage workers] are married, and over a quarter (28.0 percent) are parents.”

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/26/590571/top-three-myths-conservatives-use-to-oppose-increasing-the-minimum-wage/

[Winehole23]

Though some politicians complain about unemployed people improperly collecting benefits, Americans laid off through no fault of their own actually save the United States government a lot of money when they don't collect benefits for which they are eligible.

In an eye-popping study for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, economists found that the amount of unclaimed benefits dwarfs improper payments. In 2009, the government overpaid unemployment claims by $11 billion. But if everyone eligible for benefits had collected that year, the cost to states would have been much higher.


"The additional expenditures in 2009, toward the end of the recent recession, would have been a whopping $108 billion," wrote economists David L. Fuller, B. Ravikumar and Yuzhe Zhang in their recent paper (http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2285). "On average, the unclaimed benefits are much larger than the more frequently discussed overpayments."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/unemployment-benefits-americans-not-collecting_n_2230840.html