Nothing generates unemployment like liberal policy

[Faun]

The article makes no mention of that. Your lie aside, the article does mention that farmers are not included in the unemployment rate. That's complete nonsense and serves only to reveal how ignorant the author of that claim is.

"Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics. So, by his estimates, nonfarm unemployment was at 35 percent in 1933)".

If you knew your American history you would recall that a larger segment of our nation utilized agriculture in the 1930s, a lot more than we do today.

You're an idiot. I said nothing to the contrary.

What I did say, and I'll repeat since you don't seem to understand.... is that the author of that article said nothing about the death tax, as you falsely claimed; and the economist he quoted who said farmers are not included in the unemployment rate lost all credibility since it's not true. Farmers are not counted in CES data (employment), which is non-farm payroll data. But the unemployment rate is calculated from CPS data (population) which includes everyone age 16 and over.

Faun, please pay attention. I quoted the author as saying a large segment of our economy was agricultural back in the 1930s, compared to today. He was commenting on where our nation stood economically between the 1930s and now, he even said there was more agricultural farms back in the time of the 1930s. Our nation has lost a lot of that farm land over the years since the time in our nation's history - FACT.

Why is that the case? Why is it the United States doesn't have the vast amount of farmland they once had in the 1930s exactly Faun? If you have ever lived long enough in a rural area made up of its share of farms, you already know the answer. Over the years the land has been sold and used by developers for communities as well as establishing businesses. Yes absolutely, the inheritance tax played a part in farm owners having to sell acreage in order to accommodate a government inheritance tax when they tried to pass that land they owned down to the next generation in line. Do a little research and educate yourself as to what an "inheritance tax" is and how it can have an effect on land ownership.

You remain deranged. I never denied some farmers lost their farms due to the inheritance tax. Perhaps you need to re-read my posts a few more times?

Faun, then you would not have questioned why the author was making reference in his article to there being more agriculture in the 1930s ... would you? That's why I had to explain his article three times to you because you just couldn't quite figure that piece out on your own.

That piece was irrelevant. He didn'didn't say that yet you claimed he did. You lied.

Meawhile, what he did actually say... that farmers are not included in the unemployment rate.... is retarded.

Exactly what do you think you gain by quoting someone that stupid?

 

[Faun]

Unemployment rate of Singapore, the free market capital of the world: 1.9%.

Unemployment rate of Greece, the ultimate liberal regressive paradise: 25.6%. (EU average: 9.6%, Switzerland, the free market country of EU: 3.6%).

Questions?

Unemployment rate in the U.S. under the leadership of Liberal Barack Obama.... 5.0%

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say.

The Right just can't stop themselves from lying. No matter how many times this lie is debunked with the actual data, the worthless lying scum Right will just keep repeating lt.

When the ACA was passed there were 9,126,000 working PT who wanted FT work. There are 6,032,000 now, a DECLINE of over 3 million since Obamacare was signed into law. But the Right will continue to tout their gossip from UNNAMED "officials."

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Notice how the left always has to continue going on with these BROAD one source posts that are devoid of any specific pieces of information, while steering clear of those very specifics of how real world workers are having to cope. A source, by the way, you said are found to be "a completely worthless economic indicator" the same as the CNN poll, and now you're putting all your chips on this very source? Seriously?

Again we see what worthless lying scum the Right is.
I said the LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE was a worthless economic indicator because it is not corrected for demographics which undeniable affect it. Only completely worthless lying scum would pervert that into an attack on the BLS. Be proud of yourself.

The fact remains you are rejecting the national numbers on the unproven allegations of a very few based entirely on speculation and rumor.

Litigation against Dave and Brewsters over cutting part time hours to avoid Obamacare is not speculation.

Restaurants may possibly be violating ERISA by cutting worker hours is not speculation.

Without knowing how the economy is having an effect on actual workers in various career positions all you have is broad data without any specifics. By itself it really doesn't carry any weight. You are as lazy as they come when it comes to the economy, you think you can throw out some very general raw data and not see the difference between those working for the state as teachers and those working in the restaurant field as opposed to construction, or even working in retail. You can not tell me how the economy is effecting any one of these fields specifically, and that's the problem with general broad data. You just don't have the slightest clue on how changes in economic policy can have an impact on various jobs with the average American.

 

[edthecynic]

"Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say.

The Right just can't stop themselves from lying. No matter how many times this lie is debunked with the actual data, the worthless lying scum Right will just keep repeating lt.

When the ACA was passed there were 9,126,000 working PT who wanted FT work. There are 6,032,000 now, a DECLINE of over 3 million since Obamacare was signed into law. But the Right will continue to tout their gossip from UNNAMED "officials."

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Notice how the left always has to continue going on with these BROAD one source posts that are devoid of any specific pieces of information, while steering clear of those very specifics of how real world workers are having to cope. A source, by the way, you said are found to be "a completely worthless economic indicator" the same as the CNN poll, and now you're putting all your chips on this very source? Seriously?

Again we see what worthless lying scum the Right is.
I said the LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE was a worthless economic indicator because it is not corrected for demographics which undeniable affect it. Only completely worthless lying scum would pervert that into an attack on the BLS. Be proud of yourself.

The fact remains you are rejecting the national numbers on the unproven allegations of a very few based entirely on speculation and rumor.

Litigation against Dave and Brewsters over cutting part time hours to avoid Obamacare is not speculation.

Restaurants may possibly be violating ERISA by cutting worker hours is not speculation.

At this point it is pure speculation until the case is settled in the courts.

 

[edthecynic]

Without knowing how the economy is having an effect on actual workers in various career positions all you have is broad data without any specifics. By itself it really doesn't carry any weight. You are as lazy as they come when it comes to the economy, you think you can throw out some very general raw data and not see the difference between those working for the state as teachers and those working in the restaurant field as opposed to construction, or even working in retail. You can not tell me how the economy is effecting any one of these fields specifically, and that's the problem with general broad data. You just don't have the slightest clue on how changes in economic policy can have an impact on various jobs with the average American.

That "broad data" is broad enough to include all those fields and it undeniably shows NO TREND to cut hours from FT to PT for ANY reason. The trend since the ACA passed for people working PT who want FT work is DECREASING.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Without knowing how the economy is having an effect on actual workers in various career positions all you have is broad data without any specifics. By itself it really doesn't carry any weight. You are as lazy as they come when it comes to the economy, you think you can throw out some very general raw data and not see the difference between those working for the state as teachers and those working in the restaurant field as opposed to construction, or even working in retail. You can not tell me how the economy is effecting any one of these fields specifically, and that's the problem with general broad data. You just don't have the slightest clue on how changes in economic policy can have an impact on various jobs with the average American.

That "broad data" is broad enough to include all those fields and it undeniably shows NO TREND to cut hours from FT to PT for ANY reason. The trend since the ACA passed for people working PT who want FT work is DECREASING.

If you knew anything at all about the factors resulting from economic policy, then you would know that you relying on one set of broad data from one source is not enough to make an informed decision and get an accurate picture of how things look for Americans trying to find work. This is why you hear reports of how businesses are reacting to economic policy, or how restaurant owners and workers are fairing, even how young graduates are being effected as they are looking for employment. You can make your best attempt to call right wingers liars, however it's rather hard to sound at all convincing when you consistently have provided very little information to go on. You really need to be able to provide enough information that can answer those questions above. However, if this piece of data is the best you've got then you are a long way from showing how well informed you are at how the economy is doing. Let me know when you have a more well researched convincing argument to go on.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Unemployment rate of Singapore, the free market capital of the world: 1.9%.

Unemployment rate of Greece, the ultimate liberal regressive paradise: 25.6%. (EU average: 9.6%, Switzerland, the free market country of EU: 3.6%).

Questions?

Unemployment rate in the U.S. under the leadership of Liberal Barack Obama.... 5.0%

There are other factors that a simple 5% unemployment does not include and take into account, I'd honestly be very surprise if you are able to respond with what they are.

 

[edthecynic]

Without knowing how the economy is having an effect on actual workers in various career positions all you have is broad data without any specifics. By itself it really doesn't carry any weight. You are as lazy as they come when it comes to the economy, you think you can throw out some very general raw data and not see the difference between those working for the state as teachers and those working in the restaurant field as opposed to construction, or even working in retail. You can not tell me how the economy is effecting any one of these fields specifically, and that's the problem with general broad data. You just don't have the slightest clue on how changes in economic policy can have an impact on various jobs with the average American.

That "broad data" is broad enough to include all those fields and it undeniably shows NO TREND to cut hours from FT to PT for ANY reason. The trend since the ACA passed for people working PT who want FT work is DECREASING.

If you knew anything at all about the factors resulting from economic policy, then you would know that you relying on one set of broad data from one source is not enough to make an informed decision and get an accurate picture of how things look for Americans trying to find work. This is why you hear reports of how businesses are reacting to economic policy, or how restaurant owners and workers are fairing, even how young graduates are being effected as they are looking for employment. You can make your best attempt to call right wingers liars, however it's rather hard to sound at all convincing when you consistently have provided very little information to go on. You really need to be able to provide enough information that can answer those questions above. However, if this piece of data is the best you've got then you are a long way from showing how well informed you are at how the economy is doing. Let me know when you have a more well researched convincing argument to go on.

IOW, you got nothing.
Thank you.

 

[Norman]

Without knowing how the economy is having an effect on actual workers in various career positions all you have is broad data without any specifics. By itself it really doesn't carry any weight. You are as lazy as they come when it comes to the economy, you think you can throw out some very general raw data and not see the difference between those working for the state as teachers and those working in the restaurant field as opposed to construction, or even working in retail. You can not tell me how the economy is effecting any one of these fields specifically, and that's the problem with general broad data. You just don't have the slightest clue on how changes in economic policy can have an impact on various jobs with the average American.

That "broad data" is broad enough to include all those fields and it undeniably shows NO TREND to cut hours from FT to PT for ANY reason. The trend since the ACA passed for people working PT who want FT work is DECREASING.

If you knew anything at all about the factors resulting from economic policy, then you would know that you relying on one set of broad data from one source is not enough to make an informed decision and get an accurate picture of how things look for Americans trying to find work. This is why you hear reports of how businesses are reacting to economic policy, or how restaurant owners and workers are fairing, even how young graduates are being effected as they are looking for employment. You can make your best attempt to call right wingers liars, however it's rather hard to sound at all convincing when you consistently have provided very little information to go on. You really need to be able to provide enough information that can answer those questions above. However, if this piece of data is the best you've got then you are a long way from showing how well informed you are at how the economy is doing. Let me know when you have a more well researched convincing argument to go on.

IOW, you got nothing.
Thank you.

Just wondering, where do you think the subsidies come from? Out of a wall? Typical regressed person.

 

[edthecynic]

Without knowing how the economy is having an effect on actual workers in various career positions all you have is broad data without any specifics. By itself it really doesn't carry any weight. You are as lazy as they come when it comes to the economy, you think you can throw out some very general raw data and not see the difference between those working for the state as teachers and those working in the restaurant field as opposed to construction, or even working in retail. You can not tell me how the economy is effecting any one of these fields specifically, and that's the problem with general broad data. You just don't have the slightest clue on how changes in economic policy can have an impact on various jobs with the average American.

That "broad data" is broad enough to include all those fields and it undeniably shows NO TREND to cut hours from FT to PT for ANY reason. The trend since the ACA passed for people working PT who want FT work is DECREASING.

If you knew anything at all about the factors resulting from economic policy, then you would know that you relying on one set of broad data from one source is not enough to make an informed decision and get an accurate picture of how things look for Americans trying to find work. This is why you hear reports of how businesses are reacting to economic policy, or how restaurant owners and workers are fairing, even how young graduates are being effected as they are looking for employment. You can make your best attempt to call right wingers liars, however it's rather hard to sound at all convincing when you consistently have provided very little information to go on. You really need to be able to provide enough information that can answer those questions above. However, if this piece of data is the best you've got then you are a long way from showing how well informed you are at how the economy is doing. Let me know when you have a more well researched convincing argument to go on.

IOW, you got nothing.
Thank you.

Just wondering, where do you think the subsidies come from? Out of a wall? Typical regressed person.

What planet are you on? I never said anything about subsidies having anything to do with moving people from FT to PT work!!!!!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Without knowing how the economy is having an effect on actual workers in various career positions all you have is broad data without any specifics. By itself it really doesn't carry any weight. You are as lazy as they come when it comes to the economy, you think you can throw out some very general raw data and not see the difference between those working for the state as teachers and those working in the restaurant field as opposed to construction, or even working in retail. You can not tell me how the economy is effecting any one of these fields specifically, and that's the problem with general broad data. You just don't have the slightest clue on how changes in economic policy can have an impact on various jobs with the average American.

That "broad data" is broad enough to include all those fields and it undeniably shows NO TREND to cut hours from FT to PT for ANY reason. The trend since the ACA passed for people working PT who want FT work is DECREASING.

If you knew anything at all about the factors resulting from economic policy, then you would know that you relying on one set of broad data from one source is not enough to make an informed decision and get an accurate picture of how things look for Americans trying to find work. This is why you hear reports of how businesses are reacting to economic policy, or how restaurant owners and workers are fairing, even how young graduates are being effected as they are looking for employment. You can make your best attempt to call right wingers liars, however it's rather hard to sound at all convincing when you consistently have provided very little information to go on. You really need to be able to provide enough information that can answer those questions above. However, if this piece of data is the best you've got then you are a long way from showing how well informed you are at how the economy is doing. Let me know when you have a more well researched convincing argument to go on.

IOW, you got nothing.
Thank you.

that's usually what you'd expect from someone who only relies on one source of information and can't find much of a strong supportive argument. Don't come here claiming you know anything about the economy if you can't back up your argument better than this

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

"Some restaurants." In 5 years, it'll stabilize. We bitch now though..

If by stabilization you mean inflated prices throughout the country you would be correct.

 

[Norman]

Without knowing how the economy is having an effect on actual workers in various career positions all you have is broad data without any specifics. By itself it really doesn't carry any weight. You are as lazy as they come when it comes to the economy, you think you can throw out some very general raw data and not see the difference between those working for the state as teachers and those working in the restaurant field as opposed to construction, or even working in retail. You can not tell me how the economy is effecting any one of these fields specifically, and that's the problem with general broad data. You just don't have the slightest clue on how changes in economic policy can have an impact on various jobs with the average American.

That "broad data" is broad enough to include all those fields and it undeniably shows NO TREND to cut hours from FT to PT for ANY reason. The trend since the ACA passed for people working PT who want FT work is DECREASING.

If you knew anything at all about the factors resulting from economic policy, then you would know that you relying on one set of broad data from one source is not enough to make an informed decision and get an accurate picture of how things look for Americans trying to find work. This is why you hear reports of how businesses are reacting to economic policy, or how restaurant owners and workers are fairing, even how young graduates are being effected as they are looking for employment. You can make your best attempt to call right wingers liars, however it's rather hard to sound at all convincing when you consistently have provided very little information to go on. You really need to be able to provide enough information that can answer those questions above. However, if this piece of data is the best you've got then you are a long way from showing how well informed you are at how the economy is doing. Let me know when you have a more well researched convincing argument to go on.

IOW, you got nothing.
Thank you.

Just wondering, where do you think the subsidies come from? Out of a wall? Typical regressed person.

What planet are you on? I never said anything about subsidies having anything to do with moving people from FT to PT work!!!!!

Sorry, it was supposed to be a response to a different message.

Anyway, first of all citation needed. There are plenty of trend effects that need to be accounted for and I heavily doubt the study managed to do that. Of course, obamacare has nothing to do with how regressive policy affects unemployment IN GENERAL. We already know for fact that regressive policies cause unemployment. This is at best yet a other version of "not all X are like that" argument. Besides, I bet you are wrong anyway, given that if a law penalizes FT work, you will have less of it. It's completely irrational to think otherwise, what you need to do is to locate the bias in your methodology.

Now, shall I pull up some IMF statistics on the matter to prove once and for all that countries with high UE rates are those with most lucrative benefits? Is it really so difficult to admit that paying people not to work causes them no to work? Only in regressoland.

 

[rightwinger]

"Some restaurants." In 5 years, it'll stabilize. We bitch now though..

If by stabilization you mean inflated prices throughout the country you would be correct.

We have raised minimum wage for generations....we managed to survive

 

[edthecynic]

Anyway, first of all citation needed. There are plenty of trend effects that need to be accounted for and I heavily doubt the study managed to do that. Of course, obamacare has nothing to do with how regressive policy affects unemployment IN GENERAL. We already know for fact that regressive policies cause unemployment. This is at best yet a other version of "not all X are like that" argument. Besides, I bet you are wrong anyway, given that if a law penalizes FT work, you will have less of it. It's completely irrational to think otherwise, what you need to do is to locate the bias in your methodology.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

As you can see, in Mar 2010, when the ACA was signed there were 9,233,000 working PT who wanted FT work, and today there are 6,123,000 more than 3 million less. So even if there were some cherry picked businesses who cut some FT workers to PT they are few and far between and certainly the exception to the overall trend.

 

[edthecynic]

hat's usually what you'd expect from someone who only relies on one source of information and can't find much of a strong supportive argument. Don't come here claiming you know anything about the economy if you can't back up your argument better than this

Your "sources" are merely OPINION pieces using the exact same BLS data I linked to only they just cherry pick and I use all the data.

 

[Norman]

Anyway, first of all citation needed. There are plenty of trend effects that need to be accounted for and I heavily doubt the study managed to do that. Of course, obamacare has nothing to do with how regressive policy affects unemployment IN GENERAL. We already know for fact that regressive policies cause unemployment. This is at best yet a other version of "not all X are like that" argument. Besides, I bet you are wrong anyway, given that if a law penalizes FT work, you will have less of it. It's completely irrational to think otherwise, what you need to do is to locate the bias in your methodology.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

As you can see, in Mar 2010, when the ACA was signed there were 9,233,000 working PT who wanted FT work, and today there are 6,123,000 more than 3 million less. So even if there were some cherry picked businesses who cut some FT workers to PT they are few and far between and certainly the exception to the overall trend.

Well this is some seriously dumb shit. Of course there are more people working today FT as the economy was still in an aftermath of a recession in 2010. You seriously can't be this stupid. This is not a study, this is a meaningless statistic, which definitely dosen't control for other effects (recession in this case). No wonder you chose 2010 and not 2006 as a benchmark year.

A stupid law by Obama is not going to revert the natural economic cycle, no one is claiming the effects of a single regressive law is that strong.

 

[edthecynic]

Anyway, first of all citation needed. There are plenty of trend effects that need to be accounted for and I heavily doubt the study managed to do that. Of course, obamacare has nothing to do with how regressive policy affects unemployment IN GENERAL. We already know for fact that regressive policies cause unemployment. This is at best yet a other version of "not all X are like that" argument. Besides, I bet you are wrong anyway, given that if a law penalizes FT work, you will have less of it. It's completely irrational to think otherwise, what you need to do is to locate the bias in your methodology.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

As you can see, in Mar 2010, when the ACA was signed there were 9,233,000 working PT who wanted FT work, and today there are 6,123,000 more than 3 million less. So even if there were some cherry picked businesses who cut some FT workers to PT they are few and far between and certainly the exception to the overall trend.

Well this is some seriously dumb shit. Of course there are more people working today FT as the economy was still in an aftermath of a recession in 2010. You seriously can't be this stupid. This is not a study, this is a meaningless statistic, which definitely dosen't control for other effects (recession in this case). No wonder you chose 2010 and not 2006 as a benchmark year.

A stupid law by Obama is not going to revert the natural economic cycle, no one is claiming the effects of a single regressive law is that strong.

Why would any honest person choose 2006 when the ACA was passed at the end of March 2010??? The Right claim that the ACA is causing an increase in PT workers who want FT jobs, so if that were true then we would expect to see an immediate spike in the number especially since the trend was increasing at the time the ACA was signed. Instead we see a decline to the present number, which you attribute to the normal business cycle, so it is clear that the ACA had no adverse effect on the normal business cycle and therefore is not causing people to be moved from FT to PT, which you basically admit at the end.

 

[Norman]

Anyway, first of all citation needed. There are plenty of trend effects that need to be accounted for and I heavily doubt the study managed to do that. Of course, obamacare has nothing to do with how regressive policy affects unemployment IN GENERAL. We already know for fact that regressive policies cause unemployment. This is at best yet a other version of "not all X are like that" argument. Besides, I bet you are wrong anyway, given that if a law penalizes FT work, you will have less of it. It's completely irrational to think otherwise, what you need to do is to locate the bias in your methodology.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

As you can see, in Mar 2010, when the ACA was signed there were 9,233,000 working PT who wanted FT work, and today there are 6,123,000 more than 3 million less. So even if there were some cherry picked businesses who cut some FT workers to PT they are few and far between and certainly the exception to the overall trend.

Well this is some seriously dumb shit. Of course there are more people working today FT as the economy was still in an aftermath of a recession in 2010. You seriously can't be this stupid. This is not a study, this is a meaningless statistic, which definitely dosen't control for other effects (recession in this case). No wonder you chose 2010 and not 2006 as a benchmark year.

A stupid law by Obama is not going to revert the natural economic cycle, no one is claiming the effects of a single regressive law is that strong.

Why would any honest person choose 2006 when the ACA was passed at the end of March 2010??? The Right claim that the ACA is causing an increase in PT workers who want FT jobs, so if that were true then we would expect to see an immediate spike in the number especially since the trend was increasing at the time the ACA was signed. Instead we see a decline to the present number, which you attribute to the normal business cycle, so it is clear that the ACA had no adverse effect on the normal business cycle and therefore is not causing people to be moved from FT to PT, which you basically admit at the end.

It's pretty obvious by now that we are dealing with a retard. No, we would not expect to see an immediate spike, only an idiotic hysterical right winger could claim that.

Yes I accept basic statistics, whew... I know, this is something completely unfathomable to regressives indeed.

If you studied the matter even a bit, you would find that businesses are cutting back FT workers because of obamacare, it's just that the effect is not even nearly strong enough to counter balance the recovery from the greatest recession since the great depression (and especially the artificial interest rates which have boosted the jobs market through the roof, at least temporarily). Mind you, if it was, we would not be dealing with just a common flop, but a complete disaster.

Also the BLS statistics are not suitable for what you want to do, here is a better statistic:

in other words, yet a other regressive full of shit.

 

[edthecynic]

Also the BLS statistics are not suitable for what you want to do, here is a better statistic:

A perfect example of just how little the know-it-all Right actually knows.

A chart of ALL PT workers is completely worthless, unless you intend to deceive, when discussing PT workers who want FT jobs, clearly a subset of ALL PT workers. The BLS data on PT workers who want FT jobs is clearly the BEST data for PT workers who want FT jobs!!!!!