Entry level jobs, education, salary & artificial intelligence. I see a big wall coming up.

[bendog]

Well, what people were buying is that jobs like their parents had, or that they had in 1980, aren't there. And they aren't.

What he lied about is that he has some magic to bring them back, or like he had a plan for replacing Obamacare.

 

[buckeye45_73]

STFU in your useless stats we are at full employment, the only other way to get lazy welfare whores to work is slash welfare payments in half .

I love the twist and turns from the mind of the Trump zealots.

On one hand Trump’s job numbers are not as good as Obama’s because we are at full employment.

Then the next post we are told Obama didn’t do shit and no jobs were created under him.

So, how the fuck did we get to full employment?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

if everyone worked at mcdonalds that full employment......that doesn't mean it's a good job......those are good jobs for teens.....if you're an adult working at mcdonalds......you have no ambition

we are killing it on this argument, i just scroll down these lies coming from the room goats. they just cannot acknowledge what hell we went thru for at least the first two years of Obama when millions and millions had to file for unemployment,,while Obama kept borrowing trillions to make it look like he was creating a lousy 50-100K jobs a month! if the Obama Job Creation was so so successfull,,,then why DIDNT THE DEFICIT AND DEBT GO DOWN???

because they are retarded........and are easily manipulated......it's sad really

No retards, there actually is no reason why deficit didn't go down...BECAUSE AS A MATTER OF FACT DEFICIT DID GO DOWN BIG LEAGUE.

Debt did not go down, because to do that you need to post something called SURPLUS.

Hillarious how you total morons are opening your mouth about someone else being retarded and easily manipulated.

Here we see clearly that your fellow Trumpsters are mostly easily manipulated ignoramuses (as if this thread is not proof positive enough)

Wow Bush was at 400 Billion...in 08....then in 09 Obama went to 1.4 Trillion.......holy shit.....that's a massive jump!!!!!

 

[buckeye45_73]

Well, what people were buying is that jobs like their parents had, or that they had in 1980, aren't there. And they aren't.

What he lied about is that he has some magic to bring them back, or like he had a plan for replacing Obamacare.

No he is brining mfg jobs back....they have gone up this year.

 

[buckeye45_73]

that would be 0% unemployment and everyone in the job market.......

that would be 0% unemployment and everyone in the job market.......

Dope.

Nope

Post up what is considered full employment.

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

technically full employment, means no unemployed people...it's not hard.

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

Yes, dope. That being, how it's measured in our economy by those who measure it.

So, technically, no.

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words.....

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

 

[westwall]

Dope.

Nope

Post up what is considered full employment.

Well that's the odd thing, isn't it. We have full employment, zero interest for biz startups and the biggest hand back of taxes to banks and multinationals evah ... and no inflation. College grads are waiting tables. And how can a pimple face 18 year old girl compete for a wait-staff job with a grad? We could have zero unemployment and jobs would still pay shit.

If the skills needed for the job are so low that a 18 year old pimple faced girl can compete equally with the graduate, then I submit the graduate got a useless degree. Maybe they should have chosen their field better.

Why would I want an 18 year old pimple faced girl without the social skills four years of college delivers to take my dinner order when another restaurant provides a more entertaining wait-staff?

Probably because it isn't what you want that matters. It is who works best for the restaurant, or whatever business it is doing the hiring. I find it amazing that you think it appropriate that a person with a college degree should aspire to a wait person career. You progressives are really weird. You trade one form of slavery for another and think that that is somehow OK.

 

[westwall]

I love the twist and turns from the mind of the Trump zealots.

On one hand Trump’s job numbers are not as good as Obama’s because we are at full employment.

Then the next post we are told Obama didn’t do shit and no jobs were created under him.

So, how the fuck did we get to full employment?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

if everyone worked at mcdonalds that full employment......that doesn't mean it's a good job......those are good jobs for teens.....if you're an adult working at mcdonalds......you have no ambition

we are killing it on this argument, i just scroll down these lies coming from the room goats. they just cannot acknowledge what hell we went thru for at least the first two years of Obama when millions and millions had to file for unemployment,,while Obama kept borrowing trillions to make it look like he was creating a lousy 50-100K jobs a month! if the Obama Job Creation was so so successfull,,,then why DIDNT THE DEFICIT AND DEBT GO DOWN???

because they are retarded........and are easily manipulated......it's sad really

No retards, there actually is no reason why deficit didn't go down...BECAUSE AS A MATTER OF FACT DEFICIT DID GO DOWN BIG LEAGUE.

Debt did not go down, because to do that you need to post something called SURPLUS.

Hillarious how you total morons are opening your mouth about someone else being retarded and easily manipulated.

Here we see clearly that your fellow Trumpsters are mostly easily manipulated ignoramuses (as if this thread is not proof positive enough)

You do not really think these brain dead Trump zealots know the difference between “debt” and “deficit”, do you?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Well it's apparent to anyone with a brain that you clearly don't.

 

[miketx]

We In blue states we are working on it. The same way we are behind the technologies the rest of the country and the world gets to enjoy....just go to church and hate on us and the immigrants.

.
The conservatives' disdain for education and the educated helps the Republicans' further dumbing down of the American people by undermining the public school system.

While it is true that turning out ever increasingly ignorant generations from our public schools also increases the number of conservatives, these uneducated masses are destroying the United States' ability to produce the knowledgeable adults necessary to compete on a world wide scale.

Also, the decades of major tech companies sending the manufacturing of their products to foreign nations to exploit the cheap labor gives these foreign governments the technical data they need to cut our throats in the world market.

It's naïve to believe that much of China's rapid advancement in weaponry isn't based on information gleaned from the decades they've manufactured electronics for U.S. companies.

Additionally, as U.S. schools fall further and further behind those in other developed nations, the conservatives' shouting and waving their big "We're Number One" foam fingers does not alter the fact that U.S. schools need much greater funding. Funding needed to regain all that has been lost at the hands of the GOP's need to repeatedly cut taxes for the fat cats. It is only an extremely small percentage of the middle class that truly benefit from any of the so-called "trickle down" the Republicans' claim these tax cuts create.

But this small percentage of Americans is touted by conservatives and the GOP as the tremendous success of Reaganomics. But, if one does some research, it becomes apparent the top 400 billionaires have increased their wealth by 29 times since Reagan first sold his snake oil to the suckers. While the income for the bottom 90% has stalled or diminished. And the Dow at 25000 is helping an equally small percentage of middle class investors. The lion's share goes to the fat cats.

The GOP and the conservatives are careful to deny these facts, and hide them whenever possible. Just watch their responses to this post. They will deny what I have written, but the cannot produce any reliable facts to refute it. They just have their conservative propaganda and Republican talking points to cite.

As always, thoughtful comments are welcome. But thus far, the conservatives' responses to this thread have again proven, all we can expect is their typical nonsense, alternate facts, and off-topic silliness (e.g. written posts, ratings, memes, etc.). The message board designers included "funny" in their ratings system as an additional method conservatives can use to deny facts. The “funny” rating enables the conservatives to remain safely cloistered in their alternate reality.

As people discovered long ago, any reply to a conservative's foolishness is a waste of time.

.

What an absurd assertion. They don't have a disdain for education, they have a disdain for wasted money attaining an "education" who's job prospects won't pay for the loans taken to pay for it.

And for the fascist agenda they have and for trying to indoctrinate young people to think America is bad, etc etc.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Dope.

Nope

Post up what is considered full employment.

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

technically full employment, means no unemployed people...it's not hard.

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

Yes, dope. That being, how it's measured in our economy by those who measure it.

So, technically, no.

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words.....

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words....

No, dope. The definition is below 5%.
It is you who is stupidly attempting to change it.

To this:

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

 

[buckeye45_73]

Nope

Post up what is considered full employment.

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

technically full employment, means no unemployed people...it's not hard.

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

Yes, dope. That being, how it's measured in our economy by those who measure it.

So, technically, no.

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words.....

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words....

No, dope. The definition is below 5%.
It is you who is stupidly attempting to change it.

To this:

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

no it's not......use logic......god youre dumb
a professor says it so you don't ever question it?
wow, talk about a lemming or sheep
full now equals 95%



and we still haven't talked about the people not in the employment system, which brings the true unemployment rate higher.

Real Unemployment -- Department of Labor (U-6)

For example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not count a person who desires work as unemployed if he or she is not working and has stopped looking for work over the past four weeks

 

[AntonToo]

if everyone worked at mcdonalds that full employment......that doesn't mean it's a good job......those are good jobs for teens.....if you're an adult working at mcdonalds......you have no ambition

we are killing it on this argument, i just scroll down these lies coming from the room goats. they just cannot acknowledge what hell we went thru for at least the first two years of Obama when millions and millions had to file for unemployment,,while Obama kept borrowing trillions to make it look like he was creating a lousy 50-100K jobs a month! if the Obama Job Creation was so so successfull,,,then why DIDNT THE DEFICIT AND DEBT GO DOWN???

because they are retarded........and are easily manipulated......it's sad really

No retards, there actually is no reason why deficit didn't go down...BECAUSE AS A MATTER OF FACT DEFICIT DID GO DOWN BIG LEAGUE.

Debt did not go down, because to do that you need to post something called SURPLUS.

Hillarious how you total morons are opening your mouth about someone else being retarded and easily manipulated.

Here we see clearly that your fellow Trumpsters are mostly easily manipulated ignoramuses (as if this thread is not proof positive enough)

You do not really think these brain dead Trump zealots know the difference between “debt” and “deficit”, do you?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Well it's apparent to anyone with a brain that you clearly don't.

....because WHAT?

 

[AntonToo]

Post up what is considered full employment.

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

technically full employment, means no unemployed people...it's not hard.

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

Yes, dope. That being, how it's measured in our economy by those who measure it.

So, technically, no.

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words.....

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words....

No, dope. The definition is below 5%.
It is you who is stupidly attempting to change it.

To this:

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

no it's not......use logic......god youre dumb
a professor says it so you don't ever question it?
wow, talk about a lemming or sheep
full now equals 95%



and we still haven't talked about the people not in the employment system, which brings the true unemployment rate higher.

Real Unemployment -- Department of Labor (U-6)

For example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not count a person who desires work as unemployed if he or she is not working and has stopped looking for work over the past four weeks

NOPE, wrong again.

We are at full employment according to U6.

What is the “natural rate” for u6? | Jared Bernstein | On the Economy

 

[Rexx Taylor]

now lets do the math,,,they say that Obama cut the deficit at some point,,,OK,,,does borrowing money from the middle class to make it seem like we cut the deficit fare? what obama did is what many of us do to save our credit,,,peter pay paul! paul pay peter! even if we have to write balance transfer checks,,,even if its a check for one trillion dollars every year!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Post up what is considered full employment.

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

technically full employment, means no unemployed people...it's not hard.

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

Yes, dope. That being, how it's measured in our economy by those who measure it.

So, technically, no.

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words.....

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words....

No, dope. The definition is below 5%.
It is you who is stupidly attempting to change it.

To this:

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

no it's not......use logic......god youre dumb
a professor says it so you don't ever question it?
wow, talk about a lemming or sheep
full now equals 95%



and we still haven't talked about the people not in the employment system, which brings the true unemployment rate higher.

Real Unemployment -- Department of Labor (U-6)

For example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not count a person who desires work as unemployed if he or she is not working and has stopped looking for work over the past four weeks

a professor says it so you don't ever question it?

No, dope. I understand the thinking behind it. You obviously don't.


It's not hard to imagine that 4-5% of workers may be in flux at any given time.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Post up what is considered full employment.

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

technically full employment, means no unemployed people...it's not hard.

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

Yes, dope. That being, how it's measured in our economy by those who measure it.

So, technically, no.

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words.....

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words....

No, dope. The definition is below 5%.
It is you who is stupidly attempting to change it.

To this:

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

no it's not......use logic......god youre dumb
a professor says it so you don't ever question it?
wow, talk about a lemming or sheep
full now equals 95%



and we still haven't talked about the people not in the employment system, which brings the true unemployment rate higher.

Real Unemployment -- Department of Labor (U-6)

For example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not count a person who desires work as unemployed if he or she is not working and has stopped looking for work over the past four weeks

full now equals 95%

It has your entire life, dope.

 

[buckeye45_73]

we are killing it on this argument, i just scroll down these lies coming from the room goats. they just cannot acknowledge what hell we went thru for at least the first two years of Obama when millions and millions had to file for unemployment,,while Obama kept borrowing trillions to make it look like he was creating a lousy 50-100K jobs a month! if the Obama Job Creation was so so successfull,,,then why DIDNT THE DEFICIT AND DEBT GO DOWN???

because they are retarded........and are easily manipulated......it's sad really

No retards, there actually is no reason why deficit didn't go down...BECAUSE AS A MATTER OF FACT DEFICIT DID GO DOWN BIG LEAGUE.

Debt did not go down, because to do that you need to post something called SURPLUS.

Hillarious how you total morons are opening your mouth about someone else being retarded and easily manipulated.

Here we see clearly that your fellow Trumpsters are mostly easily manipulated ignoramuses (as if this thread is not proof positive enough)

You do not really think these brain dead Trump zealots know the difference between “debt” and “deficit”, do you?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Well it's apparent to anyone with a brain that you clearly don't.

....because WHAT?

US Federal Deficit by Year - plus charts and analysis


it went up in 16 and 17.....
but looks to go way down in 18....thank you Trump!

 

[buckeye45_73]

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

technically full employment, means no unemployed people...it's not hard.

the phrase "what is considered" is conditional....suggesting some group make the definition.....

Yes, dope. That being, how it's measured in our economy by those who measure it.

So, technically, no.

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words.....

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words....

No, dope. The definition is below 5%.
It is you who is stupidly attempting to change it.

To this:

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

no it's not......use logic......god youre dumb
a professor says it so you don't ever question it?
wow, talk about a lemming or sheep
full now equals 95%



and we still haven't talked about the people not in the employment system, which brings the true unemployment rate higher.

Real Unemployment -- Department of Labor (U-6)

For example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not count a person who desires work as unemployed if he or she is not working and has stopped looking for work over the past four weeks

NOPE, wrong again.

We are at full employment according to U6.

What is the “natural rate” for u6? | Jared Bernstein | On the Economy

Wrong how? you people aren't counted in unemployment searches....a lot of people......so I'm right

and full in any sense does not equal 95%

 

[AntonToo]

Yes, dope. That being, how it's measured in our economy by those who measure it.

So, technically, no.

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words.....

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words....

No, dope. The definition is below 5%.
It is you who is stupidly attempting to change it.

To this:

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

no it's not......use logic......god youre dumb
a professor says it so you don't ever question it?
wow, talk about a lemming or sheep
full now equals 95%



and we still haven't talked about the people not in the employment system, which brings the true unemployment rate higher.

Real Unemployment -- Department of Labor (U-6)

For example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not count a person who desires work as unemployed if he or she is not working and has stopped looking for work over the past four weeks

NOPE, wrong again.

We are at full employment according to U6.

What is the “natural rate” for u6? | Jared Bernstein | On the Economy

Wrong how? you people aren't counted in unemployment searches....a lot of people......so I'm right

and full in any sense does not equal 95%

Dummy, U6 will ALWAYS be higher than U3, you cannot just swap in "full employment" number between them. U6 is considered "full employment" at about 8-8.5%.

 

[buckeye45_73]

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words.....

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

so technically yes......
see you lefties have a problem with changing the definitions of words....

No, dope. The definition is below 5%.
It is you who is stupidly attempting to change it.

To this:

full employment, means no unemployment
you guys use that figure, because that's the best you think we can do.........that's not full employment

no it's not......use logic......god youre dumb
a professor says it so you don't ever question it?
wow, talk about a lemming or sheep
full now equals 95%



and we still haven't talked about the people not in the employment system, which brings the true unemployment rate higher.

Real Unemployment -- Department of Labor (U-6)

For example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not count a person who desires work as unemployed if he or she is not working and has stopped looking for work over the past four weeks

NOPE, wrong again.

We are at full employment according to U6.

What is the “natural rate” for u6? | Jared Bernstein | On the Economy

Wrong how? you people aren't counted in unemployment searches....a lot of people......so I'm right

and full in any sense does not equal 95%

Dummy, U6 will ALWAYS be higher than U3, you cannot just swap in "full employment" number between them. U6 is considered "full employment" at about 8-8.5%.

And U2 is a great band....wtf.......you guys I deal with the real word, not hypothecial academic bullshit......

full to most people means 100%...........not 95%.........

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, dope. The definition is below 5%.
It is you who is stupidly attempting to change it.

To this:

no it's not......use logic......god youre dumb
a professor says it so you don't ever question it?
wow, talk about a lemming or sheep
full now equals 95%



and we still haven't talked about the people not in the employment system, which brings the true unemployment rate higher.

Real Unemployment -- Department of Labor (U-6)

For example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not count a person who desires work as unemployed if he or she is not working and has stopped looking for work over the past four weeks

NOPE, wrong again.

We are at full employment according to U6.

What is the “natural rate” for u6? | Jared Bernstein | On the Economy

Wrong how? you people aren't counted in unemployment searches....a lot of people......so I'm right

and full in any sense does not equal 95%

Dummy, U6 will ALWAYS be higher than U3, you cannot just swap in "full employment" number between them. U6 is considered "full employment" at about 8-8.5%.

And U2 is a great band....wtf.......you guys I deal with the real word, not hypothecial academic bullshit......

full to most people means 100%...........not 95%.........

Great. It's not measured that way though.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I love the twist and turns from the mind of the Trump zealots.

On one hand Trump’s job numbers are not as good as Obama’s because we are at full employment.

Then the next post we are told Obama didn’t do shit and no jobs were created under him.

So, how the fuck did we get to full employment?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

if everyone worked at mcdonalds that full employment......that doesn't mean it's a good job......those are good jobs for teens.....if you're an adult working at mcdonalds......you have no ambition

we are killing it on this argument, i just scroll down these lies coming from the room goats. they just cannot acknowledge what hell we went thru for at least the first two years of Obama when millions and millions had to file for unemployment,,while Obama kept borrowing trillions to make it look like he was creating a lousy 50-100K jobs a month! if the Obama Job Creation was so so successfull,,,then why DIDNT THE DEFICIT AND DEBT GO DOWN???

because they are retarded........and are easily manipulated......it's sad really

No retards, there actually is no reason why deficit didn't go down...BECAUSE AS A MATTER OF FACT DEFICIT DID GO DOWN BIG LEAGUE.

Debt did not go down, because to do that you need to post something called SURPLUS.

Hillarious how you total morons are opening your mouth about someone else being retarded and easily manipulated.

Here we see clearly that your fellow Trumpsters are mostly easily manipulated ignoramuses (as if this thread is not proof positive enough)

Wow Bush was at 400 Billion...in 08....then in 09 Obama went to 1.4 Trillion.......holy shit.....that's a massive jump!!!!!

That is what a recession will do for you


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com