Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your post proves the government can dupe you, and you don't even know it.Stop kazzing. The labor force participation rate has nothing to do with full employment.If you don't understand what he said, obviously you don't know what "full employment" means. He told you in his sentence both what it means and what's misleading about it
Do you believe "full employment" means a U3 at 0%?
A Labor Force Participation Rate of 100%?
People giving up looking for work is different than a mother staying home with her kids, Larry
Is it? Why? How is it counted or reported differently?
Because wages have been flat for decades. Giving a failed CEO fifty million on his way out isn't a sound investment in the future.
Paying employees more and enabling them to buy more from you certainly would be.
In a perfect world, yes it would. But employees are not going to by buying much from their own company. They may spend it other places, but not likely at work.
So it doesn't benefit a company to overpay their workers. It would mean getting a less qualified CEO which means less income for the company on both ends. After all, if you don't want to pay that CEO 1800 times what your lower level employees are making, your competition will. That's why those CEO's make the kind of money they do.
Ray
You apparently have no idea what full employment means....
And you apparently don't understand the impact of the labor participate rate in relation to the so-called unemployment figures.
The more people that drop out of the workforce, the lower the unemployment numbers go even if one job was not created. In other words, the unemployment numbers are phony.
Ridiculous.
The people not in the workforce are never counted in the unemployment formula.
People choose not to participate in employment for a variety of reasons. You have no evidence that the participation rate is down soley because people cannot find work. You're assuming you know something you couldn't possibly know.Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.
Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here
Many companies were afraid to invest thanks to Commie Care. There are so many if's, but's and maybe's in the bill that nobody knew what to expect from the federal government.
Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.
Another thing is all this talk from the left giving DumBama credit for any advances we made in our economy. They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).
Some households are saving hundreds of dollars a month in energy costs between gasoline and natural gas. This is a widespread savings that gave most everybody more residual income at the end of each month. People used that extra money to pay down other bills, invest, or otherwise spend in our economy.
Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009....
They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).
This is nonsense........Gas prices started falling at the end of 2014....Are you even reading my posts? These trillions of dollars are not invested. That's the problem. It's cash, earning little, serving no one.If every American's salary doubled today, Big Auto couldn't make trucks and cars fast enough. Extrapolate that throughout the economy.
So what's the benefit of hoarding by Big Business?
The benefit? Growth.
You see, it has little to do with how much a company has. It has to do more with growth of a company.
Let's say that you had a wealthy uncle that died and left you with 200K. You owe no bills. Your house is paid for, your cars are paid for, your kids college is paid for. So what do you do with that money? You invest it.
You don't want something too aggressive and risky, but you don't want anything too slow either. You are looking for a long term somewhat secure investment.
So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?
Before you answer, there's just one more thing: Company A has a gross income of 1.5 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross income of 120 million dollars a year. Does that factor change your mind at all?
Of course it doesn't. You could care less how much money a company has, all you as an investor cares about is growth.
Companies heavily rely on investors to make their business run. They want to attract as many investors as possible in most cases.
Again, what is the benefit of this hoarding?
You really think out of the goodness of their hearts they will give every one a raise?
Not at all. That's why MW needs to be more realistic with future increases indexed to inflation.
It's a shame that is the case. In the past employees were a valued partner in the enterprise. Now they're seen simply as a cost to be cut when they become too costly.
Using that cash by putting it in workers' paychecks would spur growth. For the third time, what good is it doing being held as cash?
Pretty sure you're supposed to end that with a question mark, given that it's a question.Do Republicans remember how the country was when Obama became president. The economy, the stock market, the wars, employment and so on? The car industry, the steel industry, the rubber industry and so on?
Credit card companies? Health care?
Do they wish he had done nothing?
How would things be different?
One Democratic senator is at fault. The Republican majority in Congress and in the Oval Office are his victims.
Got it.
And companies are not investing domestically because they cite lack of demand. Why is there lack of demand? American workers can't afford much discretionary spending on what they're paid.Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.
Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here
These same companies are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. It's just sitting on the sidelines earning next to nothing. If they stopped hoarding that cash and gave their employees raises, several benefits would follow:
1) Americans could afford to buy American,
2) rising wages will stimulate inflation,
3) getting inflation back up to normal levels will make long-term debt more attractive, putting upward pressure on interest rates.
We'll get back to normal quicker if Big Business would just get off the dime. Government can't always solve all our economic problems. Sometimes the private sector has to step up to the plate and do the right thing, too.
Got it. The US economy is bad because companies pay market wages.
The Marxism is strong in this one
In the past employees were a valued partner in the enterprise. Now they're seen simply as a cost to be cut when they become too costly.
Your post proves the government can dupe you, and you don't even know it.Stop kazzing. The labor force participation rate has nothing to do with full employment.
Do you believe "full employment" means a U3 at 0%?
A Labor Force Participation Rate of 100%?
People giving up looking for work is different than a mother staying home with her kids, Larry
Is it? Why? How is it counted or reported differently?
They are counted and reported the same, that's my point, Kenneth. However, the former wants a job and the second isn't getting a job (right now) no matter what. Hence my point that entirely different economic circumstances are treated the same. They are both considered part of the labor force, neither is considered unemployed even though the guy who gave up looking for work wants one.
I mean duh
Stop kazzing. He called you a rightwinger, not a Republican.Oh, and I don't give a crap whatever you label yourself.....you'd still be a right wing idiot
Last time you were lying that you didn't "give a fuck" what I am. Now you admit your homosexual fixation on what I am.
Note despite your queer obsession, you still can't name a single position I'm "conservative" that isn't libertarian.
It's hilarious your butt hurt compulsion to call me a Republican in every post. You're flaming again, Bruce
If every employer did it, it would benefit everyone.
How can you say "overpay" when wages have been flat for decades and overall compensation has been declining?
What market forces do you believe act on wages?
Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.
Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here
Many companies were afraid to invest thanks to Commie Care. There are so many if's, but's and maybe's in the bill that nobody knew what to expect from the federal government.
Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.
Another thing is all this talk from the left giving DumBama credit for any advances we made in our economy. They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).
Some households are saving hundreds of dollars a month in energy costs between gasoline and natural gas. This is a widespread savings that gave most everybody more residual income at the end of each month. People used that extra money to pay down other bills, invest, or otherwise spend in our economy.
Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009....
They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).
This is nonsense........Gas prices started falling at the end of 2014....
Hey...did you hear? Obama managed to get all young blacks working. He moved mountains and got all those millions of young people good paying jobs. ...and all those boomers who dropped out of the work force, Obama got them jobs too. He even got jobs for the Muslims he brought in...and all those illegals he let in too.
The man is a miracle worker.
No, that business should invest more in it's employees rather than top execs.
True.......A CEO should not be allowed by an equally corrupt Board to earn in a half-hour what an employee makes all year...No one expects a CEO to earn the same as the common worker, but to claim that a CEO "earned" almost 1800 times more is ludicrous.
Stop kazzing. He called you a rightwinger, not a Republican.Oh, and I don't give a crap whatever you label yourself.....you'd still be a right wing idiot
Last time you were lying that you didn't "give a fuck" what I am. Now you admit your homosexual fixation on what I am.
Note despite your queer obsession, you still can't name a single position I'm "conservative" that isn't libertarian.
It's hilarious your butt hurt compulsion to call me a Republican in every post. You're flaming again, Bruce
I kind of "like" Kaz's unhinged posts but, you're right, they are annoying to others......
I just turned to my wife and told her that I was being referred to as "gay boy".....and for a crusty 70 year old guy, my wife chuckled and said, "gee, you've kept that from me for these 45 years of marriage???" LOL.
So, you think that Businesses paying MORE taxes would help them afford employees, and you think that the influx of illegal but cheap labor across the boarder is the doing of Republicans? I never thought about it like that... because I don't typically abandon all logic in the pursuit of an irrational explanation. Last I checked, the recent taxes and increased expenses all came from our current president, who happens to be a Democrat.In the past employees were a valued partner in the enterprise. Now they're seen simply as a cost to be cut when they become too costly.
Republicans are the reason US employees become too costly. Repubtards keep adding payroll taxes to workers & cutting income & corp taxes for the wealthy. US workers are taxed out of a job. Tax cuts should only be given to workers & employers who hire US workers, not the ones who fire the tax burdened workers & ship jobs out.
Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.
Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here
Many companies were afraid to invest thanks to Commie Care. There are so many if's, but's and maybe's in the bill that nobody knew what to expect from the federal government.
Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.
Another thing is all this talk from the left giving DumBama credit for any advances we made in our economy. They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).
Some households are saving hundreds of dollars a month in energy costs between gasoline and natural gas. This is a widespread savings that gave most everybody more residual income at the end of each month. People used that extra money to pay down other bills, invest, or otherwise spend in our economy.
Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009....
They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).
This is nonsense........Gas prices started falling at the end of 2014....
Fallacy of the single cause
Moron.... we're talking about the years leading up to the record foreclosures in 2006. Barney Frank didn't become the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee until 2007.One Democratic senator is at fault. The Republican majority in Congress and in the Oval Office are his victims.LeftofLeft said:Record foreclosures were a result of Barney Frank and Co.
Got it.
Barney Queerboy was the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which is the oversight for the lending institutions. One of the most powerful positions in government.
His corruption and incompetency allowed the failure brought on by The CRA to happen.
The economy was doing OK until the Democrats that were elected in 2006 took over Congress and it really hasn't recovered since then with a jackass Democrat President.
OK, Kaz....so give us the technical definition of "full employment" as you understand it....
Already did, multiple times. You really are lost
I'm multitasking........how about linking me to the post in this exchange where you do so....
Why would I waste 30 seconds when you either can't or don't read posts when you respond to them?
It would have taken you much less time to post the link......
The other possibility is that you were lying.....
So because you want me to give you the link in this thread to you that was to you and you didn't process and I won't go find it for you I'm "lying." Got it. Another cookie for you. Moron
