Labor force at the lowest level since 1984????
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/lab...sh-26-year-low
I've got work for someone actually interested in it......
Printable View
Labor force at the lowest level since 1984????
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/lab...sh-26-year-low
I've got work for someone actually interested in it......
Today’s Job Report: Unemployed Far More Likely to Drop Out Than Find a Job
http://www.newdeal20.org/wp-content/..._jan_11003.jpg
http://www.newdeal20.org/wp-content/...ployment_1.jpg
14-15 trillion in debt, yeah it's that bad. Barry needs to stop that clock.
Good thing the Dems focused all their energy on the issue most important to Americans -- health care.
Midwest is having a hard time finding employees.
That fix had to be attempted. The Repugs screwed it up badly.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
What are House Repugs doing about the the economy and jobs? Nothing.
what can they do
donkey in white house
sentate is controled by donkeys also
What was the Republican job plan, Darrin?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Be specific.
Note long, flat, stagnant shit-brown line starting in2001 belongs to the Repugs, with their tax cuts paying for themselves and causing economic growth, yadda, yadda, yadda.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Business Doesn't Need American Workers
Once again, the job numbers are dismal. In January, the U.S. economy created just 36,000 domestic jobs, far below the roughly 145,000 that economists had forecast. The unemployment rate fell, to 9 percent, but only because more and more discouraged workers are giving up and leaving the workforce.
The U.S. still has a jobs gap of about 14 million jobs, and that number is increasing as the labor force grows. Counting people who've given up, or who are working part time when they want full time jobs, the real unemployment number is around 17 percent. America now has about 25 million people either out of work or underemployed.
Meanwhile, corporate profits continue to set records. Profits in the third quarter of 2010 were 1.659 trillion, about 28 percent higher than a year before, and the highest year-to-year increase on record.
What's going on? Very simply, America's corporations no longer need America's workers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...tml?view=print
==============
UCA doesn't need US employees, and don't give shit about them. They are, in pure economic terms, nothing but expensive costs to be minimized, even eliminated.
Boutons, did you ever notice that no one ever replies to your posts? And so you know, it's not because you are "dominating" the argument.
You are fucking delusional.
Why do you libtards forget the tech bubble bursting after the Y2K scare?Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Do you always cherry pick facts that way, or are you really that dumb?
When unemployment goes down because hundreds of thousands of people stop looking for work and drop out of the labor force, you respond with personal anecdotes about available jobs and the threadbare inference that it must be because people are lazy. Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by sickdsm
If jobs and pay is there and so is unemployment, what do you think the problem is? Do tell.
The jobs and pay aren't there.
few jobs for middle class, only unskilled labor in our service-based economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by sickdsm
the middle class jobs have been largely outsourced.
The Y2K INVESTMENT was co-incident with the Internet stock bubble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
And 6 years the "MBA Whitehouse ( dubya an MBA? :lol ) " and 6 years of Repug rule, and low interest rates, was plenty of time for the Repugs to get the economy moving for EVERYBODY. But, as St Ronnie said, for the Repugs, govt IS the problem, must be destroyed, and can never be a force for good.
The Repugs mismanaged the economy into a shithole, where it remains for 95% of the people.
You can take your pick of jobs up here that will give an unskilled worker more than starting teachers. I'm sorry your crowd is too good for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I'm not even getting into the oil field or truck driving either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyforest
So its better to not have a job then do something that one feels is beneath you?
I'm gainfully employed.Quote:
Originally Posted by sickdsm
You've got your own Rust Belt bums to blame for that I suppose. Kindly leave us Texans out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sickdsm
That debt has very very very little to do with the present economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
American Business: Never had it so good
http://media.economist.com/images/im...205_wbd002.jpg
http://www.economist.com/node/18073369Quote:
THE first time the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit 12,000, in October 2006, presenters on CNBC, a business channel, almost caught fire with excitement. When it reached that milestone again on February 1st the reaction was more muted, though the recovery from a low of 6,547 less than two years ago is remarkable, and soaring share prices reflect a corporate America that is leaner and stronger than it was back in 2006.
The current profit-reporting season is shaping up to be one of the best ever. For non-financial firms in the S&P 500, earnings per share are now higher than they have been for at least a decade. With over half of the companies in the S&P 500 having reported, profits in 2010 were up by 17% compared with 2009. (The year-on-year increase is far greater if financial firms are included, since they plunged in 2009 and then rebounded spectacularly.)
...
In America, rapid sales growth is still only a rumour. In emerging markets, it is a fact. So American firms will continue to expand overseas. “Whereas 2010 was a stabilisation year [for corporate America], 2011 will be a year of investing in laying the foundation for growth,” says Mark Spelman, global head of strategy at Accenture, a consultancy.
That is likely to mean tapping into some of the mountains of cash that American firms have accumulated over the past few years. The cash piles were at first supposed to provide a safety net in case of another financial disaster. ...
Thanks to recent productivity improvements, corporate America is well placed to turn higher sales directly into higher profits, says Mr Standevad. If not investing in new organic growth, many firms will look to expand their sales through mergers and acquisitions, both at home and in emerging markets.
If, for some reason, they should fail to put their cash mountains to work, investors will demand the cash back through dividends and share buybacks. Indeed, many are already demanding, and receiving, just that. In short, as American firms expand at home and abroad, profits are set to rise and cash holdings to fall. Whether this will help the more than 9% of the American workforce who are unemployed remains to be seen.
I think all the indicators are that 2011 will see some gains in employment. I still stick to my "weak growth" prediction though.
If that's what you wish to believe. I know I cannot change your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to automatically defend republicans. I just despise your lies. There was far more going on than legislation that the elected republicans in congress did, in fact, they tried to stop many things that lead to out current failures. Too bad your partisan ass doesn't recognize it.
Was it the republicans in congress that changed the short selling rules?
Was it the republicans in congress that defended the lending practices when brought into question?
Think about what you say before you say it. The answer to your question is that it was unelected establishment officials, and democrats that did all this.
"2011 will see some gains in employment"
"some" ain't gonna hack it in the face of 20M+ un/under/mal/employed.
Before globalization, etc took hold, depressions as deep as the current one took many years to recover from. After the similar 1930s Depression (and similar wealth inequality), the economy still wasn't right until the WWII stimulus hit.
So it's not unreasonable to expect the millions of jobs, the level of common wealth, and upward mobility won't recover for 10 years, and probably not then since the VRWC plutocracy is running the government and the country now, and no such govt stimulus is possible (after both the bogus "fiscal conservatives" Reagan and dubya each TRIPLED the national debt).
It is not possible to support a middle class family with such a job.Quote:
Originally Posted by sickdsm
Most people my age are going back to college if they ever hope to have a middle class family. Unfortunately, the USA's colleges are mostly for-profit corporations at this point, with plenty of literally fake colleges that just steal people's money.
The middle class is shrinking.
Too bad you don't start to comprehend your ignorance on the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
https://docs.google.com/present/view...zq7n_0cdjsr4fn
Any whiff of government oversight or SEC regulation that might have promoted some transparency or responsible business practices was quashed like a bug.
Do you really doubt that I could find Republicans in Congress complaining about "government overreach" and how government would "stifle innovation" when it came to imposing sane regulations on the financial industry?
cartoons...Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Is that your mentality?
My point on the matter was that republicans did bring up the concern or mortgage practices, in 2003 if I recall correctly. Prominent democrats held fast that there was no problems with the system.
Do you dispute this?
A quick search revealed this:
I can find more if I must, but I hope you will do your own homework.
We need to reduce taxes on the super rich even further so they'll create more jobs.
I don't know if that's true. The super rich generally pay at capital gains rates rather than income tax rates. It's the small business owner ending up paying that 35% that concerns me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Of the innumerable obstacles facing current and prospective small business owners and their ability to create jobs, a 3% tax increase on income over $250K or $1MM is the least of them.
Or, as it's known amongst Democrats, the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
We need more tax payers. not higher taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Socialism is great, until you run out of enough tax payers.
More jobs = more taxpayers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Yes, and taxing the job providers more makes it more difficult for them to make more jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
And I'll say again that a 3% tax increase on income over $250K or $1MM is the least of their problems when it comes to creating jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
"taxing the job providers more makes it more difficult for them to make more jobs"
bullshit. paying for health care is much heavier. A hard-core public insurance option would lift a huge burden from (small) business.
If they have the work to fuel their profits they will hire regardless of taxes because the work needs to get done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Taxes is not such a big deal as you make it out to be.
Companies have done a good job of down sizing to maximise profits and they are going to keep it that way regardless of taxes. They are getting more out of their workers, longer work days, more streamlining of work processes ect.
No, I was just trying to get it to a level you could understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
HA! man you left yourself open for that zinger. To hard to resist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_01.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_02.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_03.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_04.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_05.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_06.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_07.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_08.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_09.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_10.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_11.jpg
35% only on income above a certain level. After the various deductions, actual effective rates come out vastly different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The other thing is that hiring decisions = labor costs, and they come out of pre-tax income.
If your overall INCOME is over $250,000 per year, assuming your profit margin was 20%, then your personal income taxes represent a pretty small portion of your expenses.
Sorry, it just doesn't have the effects you think it does.
The number of "small business owners" that fall into that category is smaller than Fox "news" would have you believe.
"Taxes is not such a big deal as you make it out to be"
big deal? it's a VRWC red herring. just like national debt is a red herring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I never said you.
Why would i blame high paying jobs on anyone???
Quote:
Originally Posted by greyforest
That's utter BS. If you can't make it a go on a job like i mentioned here you're not very good at managing money.
Everyone is such an expert about raising taxes on SB and how to create jobs but I wonder how many here actually have created jobs?
How about the "experts" on here that work for someone else take on the risk/headaches and then they'll appreciate business owners a little more.
Why you keep minimizing epochally high unemployment is more relevant to the discussion. Why do you do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by sickdsm
Lower taxes, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I'm sure it has to do with the tea party, Palin or most likely Bush.
I asked you. Is that your answer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Simple exercise: research the most heavily taxed states and compare their economies with those that have lower tax burdens.
Compare, let's say, California and New York with Texas and Utah.
:toast
Just lower taxes to 3% and we'll have the greatest economy in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Of course, that 3% will go solely to the Defense budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
so taxing someone who grosses $250,000 an extra $7500 on the $100,000(15% self-employment tax + 25% Federal Income Taxes) they already pay will create more jobs?
That would net them about $10k per month. $3k mortgage, $1k car expenses, $1k utilities, $1k food, $1k kids, $1k college, $1k retirement savings, $1k emergency/vacation/living/entertainment etc....
Leaves a lot of room to create jobs.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxe...ket-rates.aspx
That's not how it works. The extra 3% is on income ABOVE $250K. So if someone makes $350K they would pay an extra $3,000 in taxes per year, or $250 per month.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Maybe too simple. What aspects of their economies are you comparing?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
So based on your understanding of the current tax brackets, if I received a raise from $67,500 annual salary to $68,001, married and filing jointly, I would move into the 25% tax bracket and therefore pay 25% of my income to federal taxes, which equates to more than $6,000 more than I paid in taxes when I made $501 less?
Federal Tax Brackets Married Filing Jointly
10% Tax Bracket $0 – $16,750
15% Tax Bracket $16,750 – $68,000
25% Tax Bracket $68,000 – $137,300
28% Tax Bracket $137,300 – $209,250
33% Tax Bracket $209,250 – $373,650
35% Tax Bracket Over $373,650
If you "the worker" made 68,001 you would pay about $3000 in federal income taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Let me start over.
If the Bush tax cuts had not been extended, how much more in tax would be paid by someone making $250K and $350K?
that extra $100k cost about $50k in taxes. if you think adding more to the bill creates jobs sobeit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Cutting taxes hasn't been a big jobs builder either, judging from the last ten yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
Targeting the megarich for tax breaks maybe wasn't the most effective policy, but it is still very popular.
if you use the unemployment rate as a measuring stick, you're wrong. now if you want to argue the cuts were too concentrated or there should have been more regulation I'm all ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Megarich weren't targeted, but I understand the political mileage the left gets with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I'm from Missouri. Show me.Quote:
if you use the unemployment rate as a measuring stick, you're wrong.
I suggested the first and agree with the latter.Quote:
now if you want to argue the cuts were too concentrated or there should have been more regulation I'm all ears.
Whatever gets you through the night.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
I honestly don't know where you're getting your math.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
The Democrats proposed extending the tax cuts only on income below $250K. That means only income above $250K would see a tax increase. That tax increase would have been 3.6%, returning the top marginal rate back to 38.6% vs. 35%. I don't see how that could possibly be a $50K tax increase for someone making $350K.
And I never said increasing taxes creates jobs. I said a small increase is the least of small business owners' worries.
If the megarich weren't a target then why were Republicans willing to let the tax cuts expire for everyone unless the megarich also got their cuts extended?
$100,000 in increased marginal income. you admit federal income taxes on that would be $35,000. Add self employment taxes and you get about $50,000 in taxes. You want to add to the bill sobeit, but federal income taxes are NOT the least of a business owners worries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
both parties are retarded. I would argue you have the political wool pulled over your eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Any tax increase in this environment, except for people earning millions a year is going to hurt.
nevertheless, the entire premise of raising taxes to offset expenditures is flawed.
They were already paying $35K on that additional $100K with their tax cut; eliminate the cut they would be paying $38.6K. That's an increase of $3,600 from extending the tax cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
I was not aware that the Bush tax cuts had any effect on the self employment tax.
It may be the least of their problems, but it is another problem they don't need to force on employers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Wow...Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
You are so ignorant, you think you got me...
No, I wanted the cuts to expire for everyone. But I'm under no delusion that the tax cuts weren't intended to benefit the wealthy. To believe that would take more than wool, it's kool-aid.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
I want to force the government to live within what it takes in, like the households across America have to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Government is way too large now. We need a smaller government.
so increase taxes to punish the self-employed? I don't get what you're saying, since you're obviously in favor of raising taxes. Or do you just a democrat and have to fall in line.
Answer me one question. Are Taxes the least of concerns for the self-employed individual (job creator)?
why would you want it to expire for everyone since private consumption has been crushed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
deficit financed, dummy. Somehow, you're very concerned about inflation, but not at all about the trillions added to the deficit by tax cuts.
Why not?
tell me how the current deficit is going to cause inflation and maybe I'll be more concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Debt to GDP is about 100% right now. Japan, with a sovereign currency, is about 200% with no inflation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Sheer curiosity here. What's the savings rate in Japan?Quote:
Japan, with a sovereign currency, is about 200% with no inflation.
Rate of growth for the last 20 years?
You want us to aim at that?
are you suggesting we have room to grow our debt level, before we get serious about inflation?Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
Srsly?
Are the financial risks of doing so properly understood? Or is this yet another crapshoot...
in the interest of time, if you're interested japanQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
what I suggest is that with 19+% underemployment we have a lot of growth at our disposal to grow GDP and offset any expansion in money supply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Is that a qualified yes?
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
yes, short-term in the form of a payroll tax holiday. Not an original idea btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
otherwise, the lefties will blow it on wind turbines and cash for clunkers.
Bunch of bullshit. Damn libs.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
Spending controlled by the State is the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I vote freedom.
I don't think I ever claimed the deficit was a cause of inflation. Debt maintenance is real, is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
I have a hard time believing that feeding the deficit is good for us under all circumstances and to be fair, you haven't exactly been at pains to explain it here. You just sort of assumed it. Maybe you could flesh it out a little more for us.
(You mentioned elimination of corporate taxes.)
I never said feeding the deficit was good for us under all circumstances. Only in times like today if you put money in the hands of consumers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23