Does the GOP wish Obama left the country the way Bush left it.

[IcebergSlim]

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

So you're saying the participation rate is down simply because people who wish to work are unable to find a job?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Actually economists are the ones saying that, but I did repeat them so I'll accept that answer

Would you name these economists?

You're kidding, right?

I'm a keeder.......I keed.....

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

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.

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.

It's not a "shame" that companies don't pay their employees higher than market wages, Kenneth. It's why their employees have jobs

Again professor, what market remains nearly flat for three decades? What market forces act on wages?

The US from 1929 until the 1950s for one. Again, repeating your lie that it's been "three decades" doesn't make it so. It started in the late 90s when the dot com bubble burst. That isn't "nearly three decades" it's a little over 1 and a half

Kaz its has been flat for 3 decades pretty much ever since imports caught up with exports.


I always thought that was the culprit



.

 

[rdean]

because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

So, the result of the above is....?????

Right wingers FULLY supporting even more tax breaks to these errant companies, correct???

(BTW, name the huge US companies that are actually paying the stated "high" tax rate)

Again I'm a Republican. You're just flaming too much for me right now. Maybe some psychiatric help?

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

The rest of them don't pay the full amount. They pay somewhere near zero and the full amount. I suspect it's much closer to zero, don't you?

 

[IcebergSlim]

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

So you're saying the participation rate is down simply because people who wish to work are unable to find a job?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Actually economists are the ones saying that, but I did repeat them so I'll accept that answer

Would you name these economists?

Look man, if you want to argue with what is being reported constantly on the business news as to the labor participation rate being low and why and people dropping out for the last decade, then I can work with that. If you want me to tell you what is being reported in the news, I'm not interested

So it's one of those "everybody knows" thingies?

Calculated Risk: Decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate: Mostly Demographics and Long Term Trends

For several years, I've been arguing that "most of the recent decline in the participation rate" was due to demographics and other long term structural trends (like more education).

Most of the recent research supports my view. As an example, from Federal Reserve researchers Stephanie Aaronson, Tomaz Cajner, Bruce Fallick, Felix Galbis-Reig, Christopher L. Smith, and William Wascher: Labor Force Participation: Recent Developments and Future Prospects

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2014/201464/201464pap.pdf
There's lot's more where that came from.......

You gonna stick with "it's all over CNS, FOXBusiness, and Breitbart"?

 

[IcebergSlim]

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

You claimed that you had done something.....I asked you to provide the link to it......you declined.......I suggested that one possible reason for you doing so is that you are lying....

How does that make me a "moron"?

It makes you a moron for saying I'm "lying" if I don't want to go fetch posts that were written to you in this thread

I'm saying that it is a possibility.......surely you don't deny it?

 

[rdean]

Look at that surplus under Clinton. Perhaps we need another Clinton in the white House.
Course, the biggest debt has always been under Republicans. And if you look it, it's really way worse. All the way to the Tippy Top of the surplus under Clinton all the way down the rock bottom under Bush and the GOP. Talk about a fall.

 

[IcebergSlim]

It's like explaining economics to an eight year old, isn't it? You just can't dumb down the concepts enough

You have to laugh otherwise you'd cry. It's just like Faun bragging about our stock market. He (she) doesn't realize that the stock market is what it is due to the trillions of dollars the feds pumped into it. The market is not reflective of our economic success. Like the housing bubble, it's just an artificial bubble. All bubbles burst.

When the Roll of the Incurably Stupid is called.....

Winner x 3 SassyIrishLass gipper kaz​

I guess knowledge beyond yours needs to be ignored, we have to convince you that you're wrong meaning with only information you do know, not tell you things you don't know. But that doesn't leave us much ...

I DEMONSTRATED earlier why the "It's all because of the Fed" theory is total bullshit.......if you didn't understand it, just raise your hand and we'll go over it again....more slowly....

Post #? Note unlike your request to me for a post #, the post I'm asking for wasn't written to me ...

Does the GOP wish Obama left the country the way Bush left it.

Please note how one rolls in such circumstances....

Your turn....

 

[paulitician]

I hope Hussein leaves the country period. That Kenyan village wants its idiot back. Hopefully, he'll oblige.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

So you're saying the participation rate is down simply because people who wish to work are unable to find a job?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Actually economists are the ones saying that, but I did repeat them so I'll accept that answer

Would you name these economists?

Look man, if you want to argue with what is being reported constantly on the business news as to the labor participation rate being low and why and people dropping out for the last decade, then I can work with that. If you want me to tell you what is being reported in the news, I'm not interested

So it's one of those "everybody knows" thingies?

Calculated Risk: Decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate: Mostly Demographics and Long Term Trends

For several years, I've been arguing that "most of the recent decline in the participation rate" was due to demographics and other long term structural trends (like more education).

Most of the recent research supports my view. As an example, from Federal Reserve researchers Stephanie Aaronson, Tomaz Cajner, Bruce Fallick, Felix Galbis-Reig, Christopher L. Smith, and William Wascher: Labor Force Participation: Recent Developments and Future Prospects

There's lot's more where that came from.......

You gonna stick with "it's all over CNS, FOXBusiness, and Breitbart"?

Wait you denounce my fed link in an argument and now you use the feds to support yours? WTF?


Btw more then that.

Obamas America...


The Vanishing Male Worker: How America Fell Behind


Many men, in particular, have decided that low-wage work will not improve their lives, in part because deep changes in American society have made it easier for them to live without working. These changes include the availability of federal disability benefits; the decline of marriage, which means fewer men provide for children; and the rise of the Internet, which has reduced the isolation of unemployment.

At the same time, it has become harder for men to find higher-paying jobs. Foreign competition and technological advances have eliminated many of the jobs in which high school graduates like Mr. Walsh once could earn $40 an hour, or more. The poll found that 85 percent of prime-age men without jobs do not have bachelor’s degrees. And 34 percent said they had criminal records, making it hard to find any work.

 

[KissMy]

 

[nat4900]

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes

20% of big companies pay zero corporate taxes

The rest of them don't pay the full amount. They pay somewhere near zero and the full amount. I suspect it's much closer to zero, don't you?

....and YET, clueless right wingers will STILL bitch that "corporate taxes are too high".....as instructed by FOX and/or Rush, of course..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Look at that surplus under Clinton. Perhaps we need another Clinton in the white House.
Course, the biggest debt has always been under Republicans. And if you look it, it's really way worse. All the way to the Tippy Top of the surplus under Clinton all the way down the rock bottom under Bush and the GOP. Talk about a fall.

The real fall is people that think it's the President that spends our money.

Clinton presided under a Republican led Congress, and a pretty conservative Congress as well. Look at your chart one more time and take note of when Republicans held leadership of Congress. See how the deficits began to shrink in the 90's? See how we find the same pattern once again when they took leadership in 2010?

 

[IcebergSlim]

So you're saying the participation rate is down simply because people who wish to work are unable to find a job?

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Actually economists are the ones saying that, but I did repeat them so I'll accept that answer

Would you name these economists?

Look man, if you want to argue with what is being reported constantly on the business news as to the labor participation rate being low and why and people dropping out for the last decade, then I can work with that. If you want me to tell you what is being reported in the news, I'm not interested

So it's one of those "everybody knows" thingies?

Calculated Risk: Decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate: Mostly Demographics and Long Term Trends

For several years, I've been arguing that "most of the recent decline in the participation rate" was due to demographics and other long term structural trends (like more education).

Most of the recent research supports my view. As an example, from Federal Reserve researchers Stephanie Aaronson, Tomaz Cajner, Bruce Fallick, Felix Galbis-Reig, Christopher L. Smith, and William Wascher: Labor Force Participation: Recent Developments and Future Prospects

There's lot's more where that came from.......

You gonna stick with "it's all over CNS, FOXBusiness, and Breitbart"?

Wait you denounce my fed link in an argument and now you use the feds to support yours? WTF?


Btw more then that.

Obamas America...


The Vanishing Male Worker: How America Fell Behind


Many men, in particular, have decided that low-wage work will not improve their lives, in part because deep changes in American society have made it easier for them to live without working. These changes include the availability of federal disability benefits; the decline of marriage, which means fewer men provide for children; and the rise of the Internet, which has reduced the isolation of unemployment.

At the same time, it has become harder for men to find higher-paying jobs. Foreign competition and technological advances have eliminated many of the jobs in which high school graduates like Mr. Walsh once could earn $40 an hour, or more. The poll found that 85 percent of prime-age men without jobs do not have bachelor’s degrees. And 34 percent said they had criminal records, making it hard to find any work.

I quantified the effect, or lack thereof, of ACA on temporary employment.....

You linked to comments made by Chairperson Yellen.....

You have now linked to evidence of "structural unemployment"......the blame for which cannot be laid at any president's door...

Though I would point out that the net reduction of private sector payrolls between 2001 and 2009 played a larger role in the travails of these workers than the net increase in same from 2009 to the present....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There's lot's more where that came from.......

You gonna stick with "it's all over CNS, FOXBusiness, and Breitbart"?

How can anybody? Who can dispute CalculatedRisk.blog?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Look at that surplus under Clinton. Perhaps we need another Clinton in the white House.
Course, the biggest debt has always been under Republicans. And if you look it, it's really way worse. All the way to the Tippy Top of the surplus under Clinton all the way down the rock bottom under Bush and the GOP. Talk about a fall.

The real fall is people that think it's the President that spends our money.

Clinton presided under a Republican led Congress, and a pretty conservative Congress as well. Look at your chart one more time and take note of when Republicans held leadership of Congress. See how the deficits began to shrink in the 90's? See how we find the same pattern once again when they took leadership in 2010?

Sure.......

What happened the minute Elvis left town?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It was in response to THIS

Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.

I was REFUTING Ray's "single cause" assertion......

One of us isn't reading........I, on the other hand, sport a magnificent conk....

Who said it was a single cause? There are many problems when it comes to getting businesses to create jobs.

 

[IcebergSlim]

There's lot's more where that came from.......

You gonna stick with "it's all over CNS, FOXBusiness, and Breitbart"?

How can anybody? Who can dispute CalculatedRisk.blog?

He makes direct reference (as indicated in the citation) to work by Federal Reserve economists - whom he names.....

and the guy who writes that blog forgets more about macroeconomics over his morning coffee than the entire roster of those assigned to that beat by CNS and Breitbart have even possessed......in aggregate...

 

[IcebergSlim]

It was in response to THIS

Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.

I was REFUTING Ray's "single cause" assertion......

One of us isn't reading........I, on the other hand, sport a magnificent conk....

Who said it was a single cause? There are many problems when it comes to getting businesses to create jobs.

these were your words...

Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.

The facts render this particular "uncertainty trope" a steaming pile of offal.......

 

[nat4900]

The real fall is people that think it's the President that spends our money.

Clinton presided under a Republican led Congress, and a pretty conservative Congress as well. Look at your chart one more time and take note of when Republicans held leadership of Congress. See how the deficits began to shrink in the 90's? See how we find the same pattern once again when they took leadership in 2010?

You could, COULD be correct on the above...and that is why (at least for me) republicans are usually better at fiscal oversight....
HOWEVER, how do you explain the absence of war costs and Medicare Advantage expenditures from GWB's budget.???

 

[IcebergSlim]

and it has now been rolling for 78 months.....