Reply With Quote
Repugs have put forth 30+ abortion/vagina bills after winning House majority, but not a single jobs bill.
Ryan's magic ridiculous budget, repeated for the 3rd time, does nothing for jobs, but $Bs for 1% and corps.
You can blame the KKK or Soviets, but fact remains employment situation looks like crap.
Repugs have put forth 30+ abortion/vagina bills after winning House majority, but not a single jobs bill.
Ryan's magic ridiculous budget, repeated for the 3rd time, does nothing for jobs, but $Bs for 1% and corps.
Well, one graph says it all...not....
What if wages in the U.S. were forced to keep up with worker productivity increases..I wonder what the minimum wage would be here...
http://boldprogressives.org/the-mini...ty-since-1968/The Center for Economic and Policy Research’s John Dewitt looked at what the minimum wage would be if it simply rose with productivity — that is, if workers were actually paid for the increasing amount of output — since 1968, and found that it would be almost 3 times what it is now:
Since 1968, however, productivity growth has far outpaced the minimum wage. If the minimum wage had continued to move with average productivity after1968, it would have reached $21.72 per hour in 2012 – a rate well above the average production worker wage. If minimum-wage workers received only half of the productivity gains over the period, the federal minimum would be $15.34.
So, people are working harder, true there are fewer people working, but what is the incentive for hiring more people if you can just get the employees you have now to be more efficient and work harder for much less?
I'll bet we would have an endless cycle of inflation, and lose even more exports. Imports would increase, and we would lose more jobs yet.
At first sight, a ~4 point swing wouldn't appear to be majorly significant.You can blame the KKK or Soviets, but fact remains employment situation looks like crap.
I'm not sure I understand the economic impact. Explain?
hyperinflation.
If median income were had been keeping pace with GDP, median income would be $92K, not $52K.
The VRWC/1%/UCA strategy is to suck up all the wealth, GAMEOVER!, which then doesn't recirculate in the Real Economy because they hyper-wealthy simply can't spend it all.
The Class War of Wealthy vs the non-Wealthy is over, won't be restarted, as seen in the enormous inequality of US wealth and loss of social/economic mobility.
The American Dream, if it were anything but a myth, has gone poof.
The economic impact of the rate of employment going down? The more people who are employed, the more goods and services being produced, the more GDP growth, the more wealth in the country. You can get GDP growth through technological advances, or through a better(more skilled)/bigger workforce. a shrinking workforce will stunt GDP.
and labor participation rate and unemployment are correlated in this case because people are getting desperate and just giving up, dropping out of the workforce.
... more income/sales tax revenues reduces local/state/federal deficits, and reduces cuts in infrastructure, schools, etc.
... less poverty reduces govt aid to the poor (reduces govt spending)
... less residential/commercial property stress
etc, etc.
That Congress, esp the Repugs, is NOT PRIORITIZING economic stimulation and job creation to reduce the deficit shows how ed up Congress is, esp the Repugs who are only interested in enriching/protecting the corps and wealthy, while screwing the 99%.
For serious budget proposal, see the one from the Congressional Progresssive Caucus.
Baby boomers are retiring. Expect that number to continue to trend down.
Thanks, perhaps I should've been more clear. I understand the overall impact of jobs as you've described. What I don't understand is what kind of economic impact a relatively meager(?) 4 point swing has.
a pretty good amount, because as population is growing exponentially, less people in proportion to population are even looking for work, and even less are actually working. that means for every person retiring, less are replacing them in the workforce to put money into SS, medicare, etc. it's a big problem in a world where population is growing and people are living longer, we need as close to full employment as we can get or there will start to be huge repercussions. we're already feeling them but it can get worse.
Thanks. I thought people not actively looking for work are not counted on the Participation Rate, but I could be wrong.
The labor force participation rate is the ratio between the labor force and the overall size of their cohort (national population of the same age range). In the West during the later half of the 20th century, the labor force participation rate increased significantly, largely due to the increasing number of women entering the workplace.
(# of people working or looking for work in age group A) divided by (# of people in age group A)
normally, the labor force of a country (or other geographic en y) consists of everyone of working age, typically above a certain age (around 14 to 16) and below retirement (around 65) who are participating workers, that is people actively employed (either part-time or full-time) or people actively seeking employment.
^ Right, and after that:
However, for the purposes of the labor force participation rate, the labor force does not have an upper age limit in the United States although it does for other countries.
and
Discouraged workers who want to work, but cannot find work and have thus stopped looking for work for at least a month are not included in the labor force in most countries, including the United States.
right, they drop out of the labor force but they are still counted when calculating the labor participation rate
labor force/total population
I see, thanks
Our rich bas overlords allow us to fight over irrelevant social issues like gay marriage and abortion since sex is the only thing the average american is capable of understanding.
and the money machine rolls on
"allow" isn't the right word.
The VRWC/Repugs figured out how God, guns, gays, vaginas, bad n!gg@/Messican topics could create/maintain an "emotional" base of bubbas, "Christians", gun fellators, etc voting against their best economic interests (eg, right-to-work states are generally much poorer and lower wage than blue state), and are extremely motivated to use Orwellian language to spew lies non-stop from their stink tanks and right-wing hate media, while protecting/enriching the corps, 1%, financial sector.
I believe that works out to 14mm people.
There it is. Thanks!
do you still consider 14mm meager? IMO 4% is huge when talking about large numbers. I would love 4% growth, 4% less unemployment, 4% interest on income investments and the country would be better off too, no?
we're not 'feeling repercussions' because of Social Security...that has it's own trust fund...we are feeling repercussions because government income, i.e. taxes, took a nose-dive when 20 million people lost their jobs and the home equity racket crashed and neither have fully recovered...we have a spending problem because we have an income problem, not the other way around..we're already feeling them but it can get worse.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
