Reply With Quote
no 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...
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/17489...6pLid%3D182896
no 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...
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
and you cant get loans if you dont have a monthly income
unemployment= fcked
That's why peanut counters get paid so much.
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.
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?
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
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/201...-middle-class/
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.
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%.
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.
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 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.....
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-b...tml?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.
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!"........
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.
I don't. I do know that the overwhelming majority of those under 18 and working don't fall in to that category.
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/201...an-10-an-hour/
It's not meant as a micromanagement strategy. Lrn2contextualize.
You fire 'em, you've got to replace them. That <18 population is very small compared to >18.
Why should someone under 18 today on min wage make less in adjusted dollars than the same kid decades ago?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
