The future of capitalism

[Foxfyre]

You have said we are "crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all".

And I've argued that private enterprise is far from crushed.

Private enterprise and the economy are two separate things. And I was pretty explicit about what I mean by crushing private enterprise.

You were. You cited manufacturing. And yet manufacturing is growing. You cited a declining LPR. The LPR has stablized. You cited employment. Employment is growing.

The reports of the death of free enterprise have been greatly exaggerated.

And again small improvements in really dismal statistics give reason for hope but are far from anything to celebrate when the recovery should have been accomplished years ago and the economy should be booming now.

 

[francoHFW]

You have said we are "crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all".

And I've argued that private enterprise is far from crushed.

Private enterprise and the economy are two separate things. And I was pretty explicit about what I mean by crushing private enterprise.

You were. You cited manufacturing. And yet manufacturing is growing. You cited a declining LPR. The LPR has stablized. You cited employment. Employment is growing.

The reports of the death of free enterprise have been greatly exaggerated.

And again small improvements in really dismal statistics give reason for hope but are far from anything to celebrate when the recovery should have been accomplished years ago and the economy should be booming now.

Except THIS time the GOP wrecked the whole world and have obstructed a recovery in every possible way, at least until the last year and a half or so. Since they shut down the gov't and looked like total a-holes, even to the non TP GOP...

 

[Foxfyre]

You have said we are "crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all".

And I've argued that private enterprise is far from crushed.

Private enterprise and the economy are two separate things. And I was pretty explicit about what I mean by crushing private enterprise.

You were. You cited manufacturing. And yet manufacturing is growing. You cited a declining LPR. The LPR has stablized. You cited employment. Employment is growing.

The reports of the death of free enterprise have been greatly exaggerated.

And again small improvements in really dismal statistics give reason for hope but are far from anything to celebrate when the recovery should have been accomplished years ago and the economy should be booming now.

Except THIS time the GOP wrecked the whole world and have obstructed a recovery in every possible way, at least until the last year and a half or so. Since they shut down the gov't and looked like total a-holes, even to the non TP GOP...

Some posts are just too absurd to merit a response. Do have a nice day.

 

[pinqy]

A low unemployment rate when 1/3rd of the labor force is not able to work is not a great thing. A low unemployment rate coupled with near full employment is what we should be shooting for.

I'm confused by your terminology. The Labor Force is defined as Employed plus Unemployed, and the Unemployment rate is unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, so by saying 1/3 of the labor force is unable to work, you're claiming an unemployment rate of over 33%...hardly "low." So it's not clear what you think "labor force" means.

Similarly, "full employment" is defined as little to no cyclical unemployment so saying "A low unemployment rate coupled with near full employment " is redundant....you cannot have low unemployment rate and not full employment, nor high unemployment rate and full employment.

Your point gets lost when you misuse terms and it really hurts any credibility of your analysis when you don't understand the basic terms.

 

[francoHFW]

You have said we are "crushing private enterprise under a mountain of rules, regulations and paperwork that nobody can realistically expect to understand or comply with it all".

And I've argued that private enterprise is far from crushed.

Private enterprise and the economy are two separate things. And I was pretty explicit about what I mean by crushing private enterprise.

You were. You cited manufacturing. And yet manufacturing is growing. You cited a declining LPR. The LPR has stablized. You cited employment. Employment is growing.

The reports of the death of free enterprise have been greatly exaggerated.

And again small improvements in really dismal statistics give reason for hope but are far from anything to celebrate when the recovery should have been accomplished years ago and the economy should be booming now.

Except THIS time the GOP wrecked the whole world and have obstructed a recovery in every possible way, at least until the last year and a half or so. Since they shut down the gov't and looked like total a-holes, even to the non TP GOP...

Some posts are just too absurd to merit a response. Do have a nice day.

Sorry about reality...any actual argument?

 

[Foxfyre]

A low unemployment rate when 1/3rd of the labor force is not able to work is not a great thing. A low unemployment rate coupled with near full employment is what we should be shooting for.

I'm confused by your terminology. The Labor Force is defined as Employed plus Unemployed, and the Unemployment rate is unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, so by saying 1/3 of the labor force is unable to work, you're claiming an unemployment rate of over 33%...hardly "low." So it's not clear what you think "labor force" means.

Similarly, "full employment" is defined as little to no cyclical unemployment so saying "A low unemployment rate coupled with near full employment " is redundant....you cannot have low unemployment rate and not full employment, nor high unemployment rate and full employment.

Your point gets lost when you misuse terms and it really hurts any credibility of your analysis when you don't understand the basic terms.

When people are no longer eligible for unemployment and stop looking for work, they are no longer counted in the unemployment numbers. Likewise those who are underemployed--working part time when they need full time--are not counted in the unemployment numbers.

5.5% unemployment is inching toward full employment which has traditionally been about 4.5%. But when you have the lowest percentage of people in the work force working since the Carter administration, you can hardly point to that 5.5% as an indicator of economic health.

 

[francoHFW]

Better shut down the gov't for propaganda and cost the economy ANOTHER 1%+ in growth then...

 

[pinqy]

A low unemployment rate when 1/3rd of the labor force is not able to work is not a great thing. A low unemployment rate coupled with near full employment is what we should be shooting for.

I'm confused by your terminology. The Labor Force is defined as Employed plus Unemployed, and the Unemployment rate is unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, so by saying 1/3 of the labor force is unable to work, you're claiming an unemployment rate of over 33%...hardly "low." So it's not clear what you think "labor force" means.

Similarly, "full employment" is defined as little to no cyclical unemployment so saying "A low unemployment rate coupled with near full employment " is redundant....you cannot have low unemployment rate and not full employment, nor high unemployment rate and full employment.

Your point gets lost when you misuse terms and it really hurts any credibility of your analysis when you don't understand the basic terms.

When people are no longer eligible for unemployment and stop looking for work, they are no longer counted in the unemployment numbers.

Eligibility for unemployment benefits (I'm assuming that's what you mean) has nothing to do with classification as unemployed. Unemployed is defined as wants a job, could have started a job during the survey reference week, and actively looked for work in the four weeks ending in the reference week. Most people (about 93%) not working and not looking for work say they don't want a job now (most are retired, disabled, or students...not to mention stay home spouses)

But I still don't understand what you thought the labor force meant.

[quite]Likewise those who are underemployed--working part time when they need full time--are not counted in the unemployment numbers.[/quote] why would you classify anyone with a job as unemployed? And you're referring to those the BLS calls "part time for economic reasons." And "need" is not part of the definition...it's people who want full time work, but worked part time due to slow business or can't find full time work.

5.5% unemployment is inching toward full employment which has traditionally been about 4.5%. But when you have the lowest percentage of people in the work force working since the Carter administration, you can hardly point to that 5.5% as an indicator of economic health.

"Lowest percentage of the work force working?"????? What in Bob's name does that mean?

You're probably referring to the Labor Force participation rate, which is the percent of the adult civilian non-institutional population (age 16+ not in the military, prison, or other institution) who are in the Labor Force (working or looking for work). You do realize the current LFPR is higher than any time before 1978? And again, it's low mostly because fewer people want to work (again, retirees, students, disabled, etc

 

[Foxfyre]

A low unemployment rate when 1/3rd of the labor force is not able to work is not a great thing. A low unemployment rate coupled with near full employment is what we should be shooting for.

I'm confused by your terminology. The Labor Force is defined as Employed plus Unemployed, and the Unemployment rate is unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, so by saying 1/3 of the labor force is unable to work, you're claiming an unemployment rate of over 33%...hardly "low." So it's not clear what you think "labor force" means.

Similarly, "full employment" is defined as little to no cyclical unemployment so saying "A low unemployment rate coupled with near full employment " is redundant....you cannot have low unemployment rate and not full employment, nor high unemployment rate and full employment.

Your point gets lost when you misuse terms and it really hurts any credibility of your analysis when you don't understand the basic terms.

When people are no longer eligible for unemployment and stop looking for work, they are no longer counted in the unemployment numbers.

Eligibility for unemployment benefits (I'm assuming that's what you mean) has nothing to do with classification as unemployed. Unemployed is defined as wants a job, could have started a job during the survey reference week, and actively looked for work in the four weeks ending in the reference week. Most people (about 93%) not working and not looking for work say they don't want a job now (most are retired, disabled, or students...not to mention stay home spouses)

But I still don't understand what you thought the labor force meant.

[quite]Likewise those who are underemployed--working part time when they need full time--are not counted in the unemployment numbers.

why would you classify anyone with a job as unemployed? And you're referring to those the BLS calls "part time for economic reasons." And "need" is not part of the definition...it's people who want full time work, but worked part time due to slow business or can't find full time work.

5.5% unemployment is inching toward full employment which has traditionally been about 4.5%. But when you have the lowest percentage of people in the work force working since the Carter administration, you can hardly point to that 5.5% as an indicator of economic health.

"Lowest percentage of the work force working?"????? What in Bob's name does that mean?

You're probably referring to the Labor Force participation rate, which is the percent of the adult civilian non-institutional population (age 16+ not in the military, prison, or other institution) who are in the Labor Force (working or looking for work). You do realize the current LFPR is higher than any time before 1978? And again, it's low mostly because fewer people want to work (again, retirees, students, disabled, etc[/QUOTE]

A low unemployment rate when 1/3rd of the labor force is not able to work is not a great thing. A low unemployment rate coupled with near full employment is what we should be shooting for.

I'm confused by your terminology. The Labor Force is defined as Employed plus Unemployed, and the Unemployment rate is unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, so by saying 1/3 of the labor force is unable to work, you're claiming an unemployment rate of over 33%...hardly "low." So it's not clear what you think "labor force" means.

Similarly, "full employment" is defined as little to no cyclical unemployment so saying "A low unemployment rate coupled with near full employment " is redundant....you cannot have low unemployment rate and not full employment, nor high unemployment rate and full employment.

Your point gets lost when you misuse terms and it really hurts any credibility of your analysis when you don't understand the basic terms.

When people are no longer eligible for unemployment and stop looking for work, they are no longer counted in the unemployment numbers.

Eligibility for unemployment benefits (I'm assuming that's what you mean) has nothing to do with classification as unemployed. Unemployed is defined as wants a job, could have started a job during the survey reference week, and actively looked for work in the four weeks ending in the reference week. Most people (about 93%) not working and not looking for work say they don't want a job now (most are retired, disabled, or students...not to mention stay home spouses)

But I still don't understand what you thought the labor force meant.

[quite]Likewise those who are underemployed--working part time when they need full time--are not counted in the unemployment numbers.

why would you classify anyone with a job as unemployed? And you're referring to those the BLS calls "part time for economic reasons." And "need" is not part of the definition...it's people who want full time work, but worked part time due to slow business or can't find full time work.

5.5% unemployment is inching toward full employment which has traditionally been about 4.5%. But when you have the lowest percentage of people in the work force working since the Carter administration, you can hardly point to that 5.5% as an indicator of economic health.

"Lowest percentage of the work force working?"????? What in Bob's name does that mean?

You're probably referring to the Labor Force participation rate, which is the percent of the adult civilian non-institutional population (age 16+ not in the military, prison, or other institution) who are in the Labor Force (working or looking for work). You do realize the current LFPR is higher than any time before 1978? And again, it's low mostly because fewer people want to work (again, retirees, students, disabled, etc[/QUOTE]

Here Argue with these guys. It isn't important enough to me to split hairs over it.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[pinqy]

Here Argue with these guys. It isn't important enough to me to split hairs over it.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Why would I argue with them? I was one of them. I agree with them. I gave the correct BLS definitions. You are not in any way using BLS definitions. They do not use eligibility for unemployment insurance, they don't classify people with jobs as unemployed. And I still don't know what bizzarre definition of "Labor Force" or "workforce" you're using.

But you've made it clear that you don't care about the true definitions.

 

[SwimExpert]

The reality that we face today is that more and more sectors are being automated. Workers in these fields are becoming more and more productive as a result. This is, at its base, a very good thing as we are getting more out of our work we will have to do less of it. Hundreds of years ago work would have consumed virtually 100 percent of peoples time. Better tools, automation and increased productivity have allowed us a great deal of freedom in our lives where we are able to work far less and even have almost 40% of our population not working at all. This is a good thing.

I stopped here, as you're completely detached from reality and generally full of bullshit. Your belief that technological development somehow results in inflated production from a worker is not only utterly absurd and entirely baseless, it reflects a juvenile lack of historical perspective and understanding.

Humans have been developing tools for millions of years. Every technological advent has resulted in improved means of accomplishing tasks that might otherwise be difficult or impossible to accomplish without tools. But that does not mean that the human operator is suddenly less productive by reliance on such tools. A carpenter with a hammer is not suddenly performing labor at an inflated value just because he has a tool that makes his work easier. The widespread adoption of the hammer simply means that unassisted work becomes less valued. No foreman would say "Well gee, now that you're using these hammers you're producing more than your skill set really is capable of producing, so we're going to pay you less now because your skills are less valuable." This is also true for your your scenario you posted some time back about a snow plow driver. Your entire theory is based on an ego-centric evaluation of recent history which you've personally experienced in your lifetime, as if it were the entire story.

The problem with automation is not that workers' productivity is being inflated, and thus reducing the value of labor. The problem occurs when automation results in elimination of labor. Using robotics to help human laborers make more cars is different from using robotics to make cars without human involvement. But you're sadly mistaken to paint this as a problem with capitalism. This is a much larger problem that permeates the whole of society in that we are moving ever forward toward a technological singularity whereby we will make our very existence obsolete.

 

[Abishai100]

Candyman Chalkboard


Capitalism is an economic contract system based on risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, resource-networks, and profiteerism.

The recent free market successes of Korean Air (South Korea's flag carrier airline company) is promoting travel/tourism in that area which has otherwise been beset by communism-democracy problems between North Korea and South Korea.

Can capitalism/profiteerism actually promote healthy dialogue?

The world of the fictional comic book superhero Spider-Man (Marvel Comics) presents a super-nemesis known as Kingpin, a ruthless tycoon who uses wealth for diabolical schemes. How does Kingpin reveal a society interest in at least talking about the ramifications of capitalism and its various kinds of intrigue?







Kingpin (Marvel Comics)

 

[Foxfyre]

So you've paraphrased Twain. But do you even disagree with the stats I've cited. If so, why? If not, then your argument of 'crushed economies' is powerfully undermined.

Sweetie, I don't care what any statistics are if they aren't used within the whole big picture.

That's about as vague a comment as I've heard. And one that's almost uselessly subjective. What is 'used within the whole big picture', according to you?

And hun....please be specific. As its your basis for ignoring any stat from any source that you don't like, it would be relevant to any conversation had with you.

If there is more manufacturing output that's great, but if it has no effect on the number of people who want and need good jobs and can't find them, then it is irrelevent to the subject we are discussing.

Actual employment is rising. Manufacturing output is rising. Productivity is rising. And you're ignoring it all. If you ignore anything that contradicts what you already believe, that's just plain old confirmation bias. And its one of the most useless fallacies of logic to employ when trying to get an accurate picture of something.

The 'big picture' is ALL the factors that must be considered to evaluate the situation. I can look at statistics that show I have collected more $1 bills than ever before as evidence of a growing net worth, but if I look at a separate statistic that shows I spent more $1 bills than I took in, then I have to admit that my net worth could have declined.

Yeah, but you're not considering 'all factors'. You're ignoring anything, and I mean *anything* that doesn't conform to your existing beliefs. You've literally ignored total employment, the unemployment rate, the stablized LPR, the rising manufacturing sector, the US having the highest manufacturing output of any nation, and a growing economy.......

.......because it didn't match your beliefs.

You're offering us nothing but confirmation bias. If you ignore any positive economic indicator, of course you're only going to see decline. But why would a rational person do this if they're genuinely interested in what's actually happening?

There is no reason.

Employment by major industry sector
Right there is a very good reason to scratch your head.

The majority of jobs exist within the services industry and much of those within retail or transportation.

Those are NOT, on average, a decent job.

And even a lot of those are drying up. Since 2009, many hundreds of stores have been closed by major retail chains, and mom and pop stores have gone belly up in record numbers. And each closing represents a loss of jobs.

More of that is scheduled this year and next year:
US and Global Retail Chain 2015 Store Closing Plans and Total Numbers

And each closing produces a ripple effect of lost revenues in service industries that serve those stores, advertisers, transportation, and declining prosperity of the areas experiencing more boarded up businesses and thereby become less attractive to consumers.

The economic climate in this country sucks big time, and it certainly isn't helped by more and more regulation, mandates, and taxes and support of greedy unions that are driving more and more of our manufacturing base off shore.

 

[Skylar]

Sweetie, I don't care what any statistics are if they aren't used within the whole big picture.

That's about as vague a comment as I've heard. And one that's almost uselessly subjective. What is 'used within the whole big picture', according to you?

And hun....please be specific. As its your basis for ignoring any stat from any source that you don't like, it would be relevant to any conversation had with you.

If there is more manufacturing output that's great, but if it has no effect on the number of people who want and need good jobs and can't find them, then it is irrelevent to the subject we are discussing.

Actual employment is rising. Manufacturing output is rising. Productivity is rising. And you're ignoring it all. If you ignore anything that contradicts what you already believe, that's just plain old confirmation bias. And its one of the most useless fallacies of logic to employ when trying to get an accurate picture of something.

The 'big picture' is ALL the factors that must be considered to evaluate the situation. I can look at statistics that show I have collected more $1 bills than ever before as evidence of a growing net worth, but if I look at a separate statistic that shows I spent more $1 bills than I took in, then I have to admit that my net worth could have declined.

Yeah, but you're not considering 'all factors'. You're ignoring anything, and I mean *anything* that doesn't conform to your existing beliefs. You've literally ignored total employment, the unemployment rate, the stablized LPR, the rising manufacturing sector, the US having the highest manufacturing output of any nation, and a growing economy.......

.......because it didn't match your beliefs.

You're offering us nothing but confirmation bias. If you ignore any positive economic indicator, of course you're only going to see decline. But why would a rational person do this if they're genuinely interested in what's actually happening?

There is no reason.

Employment by major industry sector
Right there is a very good reason to scratch your head.

The majority of jobs exist within the services industry and much of those within retail or transportation.

Those are NOT, on average, a decent job.

And even a lot of those are drying up. Since 2009, many hundreds of stores have been closed by major retail chains, and mom and pop stores have gone belly up in record numbers. And each closing represents a loss of jobs.

More of that is scheduled this year and next year:
US and Global Retail Chain 2015 Store Closing Plans and Total Numbers

And each closing produces a ripple effect of lost revenues in service industries that serve those stores, advertisers, transportation, and declining prosperity of the areas experiencing more boarded up businesses and thereby become less attractive to consumers.

The economic climate in this country sucks big time, and it certainly isn't helped by more and more regulation, mandates, and taxes and support of greedy unions that are driving more and more of our manufacturing base off shore.

Oh, you're missing the greater conundrum. What about all the people in the US that have DIED since 2009: more than 15 million. That's more than has been lost in every war the US has ever fought, including the Civil war.

That's like 1 out of every 20 people. Why hasn't the media been reporting this massive reduction in our population?

I'll give you a hint. It begins with the letter b. And its related to why your accounting of only businesses that have closed is more than a little fallacious. Because there's more than one ripple effect.

But as usual.....you only see the negative. And ignore all positive. That's your perspective. But that's not reality. We just added 220,000 jobs last month alone. Our unemployment rate dipped again. And we're at all time highs for employment.

But you can't see any of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's about as vague a comment as I've heard. And one that's almost uselessly subjective. What is 'used within the whole big picture', according to you?

And hun....please be specific. As its your basis for ignoring any stat from any source that you don't like, it would be relevant to any conversation had with you.

Actual employment is rising. Manufacturing output is rising. Productivity is rising. And you're ignoring it all. If you ignore anything that contradicts what you already believe, that's just plain old confirmation bias. And its one of the most useless fallacies of logic to employ when trying to get an accurate picture of something.

The 'big picture' is ALL the factors that must be considered to evaluate the situation. I can look at statistics that show I have collected more $1 bills than ever before as evidence of a growing net worth, but if I look at a separate statistic that shows I spent more $1 bills than I took in, then I have to admit that my net worth could have declined.

Yeah, but you're not considering 'all factors'. You're ignoring anything, and I mean *anything* that doesn't conform to your existing beliefs. You've literally ignored total employment, the unemployment rate, the stablized LPR, the rising manufacturing sector, the US having the highest manufacturing output of any nation, and a growing economy.......

.......because it didn't match your beliefs.

You're offering us nothing but confirmation bias. If you ignore any positive economic indicator, of course you're only going to see decline. But why would a rational person do this if they're genuinely interested in what's actually happening?

There is no reason.

Employment by major industry sector
Right there is a very good reason to scratch your head.

The majority of jobs exist within the services industry and much of those within retail or transportation.

Those are NOT, on average, a decent job.

And even a lot of those are drying up. Since 2009, many hundreds of stores have been closed by major retail chains, and mom and pop stores have gone belly up in record numbers. And each closing represents a loss of jobs.

More of that is scheduled this year and next year:
US and Global Retail Chain 2015 Store Closing Plans and Total Numbers

And each closing produces a ripple effect of lost revenues in service industries that serve those stores, advertisers, transportation, and declining prosperity of the areas experiencing more boarded up businesses and thereby become less attractive to consumers.

The economic climate in this country sucks big time, and it certainly isn't helped by more and more regulation, mandates, and taxes and support of greedy unions that are driving more and more of our manufacturing base off shore.

Oh, you're missing the greater conundrum. What about all the people in the US that have DIED since 2009: more than 15 million. That's more than has been lost in every war the US has ever fought, including the Civil war.

That's like 1 out of every 20 people. Why hasn't the media been reporting this massive reduction in our population?

I'll give you a hint. It begins with the letter b. And its related to why your accounting of only businesses that have closed is more than a little fallacious. Because there's more than one ripple effect.

But as usual.....you only see the negative. And ignore all positive. That's your perspective. But that's not reality. We just added 220,000 jobs last month alone. Our unemployment rate dipped again. And we're at all time highs for employment.

But you can't see any of it.

Again you keep misstating what I have posted. I have not denied there have been positives. In the worst economy in the world there will be positives. But the negatives far outweigh the positives in this current economy in almost any statistic you want to look at. It is a crappy, shitty economy and it didn't have to be. It is as simple as that.

 

[Skylar]

The 'big picture' is ALL the factors that must be considered to evaluate the situation. I can look at statistics that show I have collected more $1 bills than ever before as evidence of a growing net worth, but if I look at a separate statistic that shows I spent more $1 bills than I took in, then I have to admit that my net worth could have declined.

Yeah, but you're not considering 'all factors'. You're ignoring anything, and I mean *anything* that doesn't conform to your existing beliefs. You've literally ignored total employment, the unemployment rate, the stablized LPR, the rising manufacturing sector, the US having the highest manufacturing output of any nation, and a growing economy.......

.......because it didn't match your beliefs.

You're offering us nothing but confirmation bias. If you ignore any positive economic indicator, of course you're only going to see decline. But why would a rational person do this if they're genuinely interested in what's actually happening?

There is no reason.

Employment by major industry sector
Right there is a very good reason to scratch your head.

The majority of jobs exist within the services industry and much of those within retail or transportation.

Those are NOT, on average, a decent job.

And even a lot of those are drying up. Since 2009, many hundreds of stores have been closed by major retail chains, and mom and pop stores have gone belly up in record numbers. And each closing represents a loss of jobs.

More of that is scheduled this year and next year:
US and Global Retail Chain 2015 Store Closing Plans and Total Numbers

And each closing produces a ripple effect of lost revenues in service industries that serve those stores, advertisers, transportation, and declining prosperity of the areas experiencing more boarded up businesses and thereby become less attractive to consumers.

The economic climate in this country sucks big time, and it certainly isn't helped by more and more regulation, mandates, and taxes and support of greedy unions that are driving more and more of our manufacturing base off shore.

Oh, you're missing the greater conundrum. What about all the people in the US that have DIED since 2009: more than 15 million. That's more than has been lost in every war the US has ever fought, including the Civil war.

That's like 1 out of every 20 people. Why hasn't the media been reporting this massive reduction in our population?

I'll give you a hint. It begins with the letter b. And its related to why your accounting of only businesses that have closed is more than a little fallacious. Because there's more than one ripple effect.

But as usual.....you only see the negative. And ignore all positive. That's your perspective. But that's not reality. We just added 220,000 jobs last month alone. Our unemployment rate dipped again. And we're at all time highs for employment.

But you can't see any of it.

Again you keep misstating what I have posted. I have not denied there have been positives.

The positives simply don't factor into your 'big picture'.

When speaking of closings, you never once mention all the expansions and hiring. Despite the fact that hiring vastly out pace firings from the closing businesses you cited. You only acknowledge and focus on the negative. The 'ripples' you'll cite are only the negative ones. None of the positive.

You're perspective isn't a reflection of reality. Its a reflection of your fixation on the negative, your dismissal of anything that doesn't factor into your 'big picture'. Even when the news is quite encouraging......it simply doesn't factor into your view.

You don't see the people that have jobs. Or have started working again. You only see the people that haven't.

That's why your perspective is less useful. You always focus on the worst. No matter what.

In the worst economy in the world there will be positives. But the negatives far outweigh the positives in this current economy in almost any statistic you want to look at. It is a crappy, shitty economy and it didn't have to be. It is as simple as that.

Then explain how both the U-3 and U-6 unemployment has dropped since 2009? How we ADDED 220,000 jobs last month alone? How our employment is at an all time high, our manufacturing is up, our GDP is at an all time high, our deficit is down.

And ....nothing.

I'd argue its your fixation on Obama, and not the economy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah, but you're not considering 'all factors'. You're ignoring anything, and I mean *anything* that doesn't conform to your existing beliefs. You've literally ignored total employment, the unemployment rate, the stablized LPR, the rising manufacturing sector, the US having the highest manufacturing output of any nation, and a growing economy.......

.......because it didn't match your beliefs.

You're offering us nothing but confirmation bias. If you ignore any positive economic indicator, of course you're only going to see decline. But why would a rational person do this if they're genuinely interested in what's actually happening?

There is no reason.

Employment by major industry sector
Right there is a very good reason to scratch your head.

The majority of jobs exist within the services industry and much of those within retail or transportation.

Those are NOT, on average, a decent job.

And even a lot of those are drying up. Since 2009, many hundreds of stores have been closed by major retail chains, and mom and pop stores have gone belly up in record numbers. And each closing represents a loss of jobs.

More of that is scheduled this year and next year:
US and Global Retail Chain 2015 Store Closing Plans and Total Numbers

And each closing produces a ripple effect of lost revenues in service industries that serve those stores, advertisers, transportation, and declining prosperity of the areas experiencing more boarded up businesses and thereby become less attractive to consumers.

The economic climate in this country sucks big time, and it certainly isn't helped by more and more regulation, mandates, and taxes and support of greedy unions that are driving more and more of our manufacturing base off shore.

Oh, you're missing the greater conundrum. What about all the people in the US that have DIED since 2009: more than 15 million. That's more than has been lost in every war the US has ever fought, including the Civil war.

That's like 1 out of every 20 people. Why hasn't the media been reporting this massive reduction in our population?

I'll give you a hint. It begins with the letter b. And its related to why your accounting of only businesses that have closed is more than a little fallacious. Because there's more than one ripple effect.

But as usual.....you only see the negative. And ignore all positive. That's your perspective. But that's not reality. We just added 220,000 jobs last month alone. Our unemployment rate dipped again. And we're at all time highs for employment.

But you can't see any of it.

Again you keep misstating what I have posted. I have not denied there have been positives.

The positives simply don't factor into your 'big picture'.

When speaking of closings, you never once mention all the expansions and hiring. Despite the fact that hiring vastly out pace firings from the closing businesses you cited. You only acknowledge and focus on the negative. The 'ripples' you'll cite are only the negative ones. None of the positive.

You're perspective isn't a reflection of reality. Its a reflection of your fixation on the negative, your dismissal of anything that doesn't factor into your 'big picture'. Even when the news is quite encouraging......it simply doesn't factor into your view.

You don't see the people that have jobs. Or have started working again. You only see the people that haven't.

That's why your perspective is less useful. You always focus on the worst. No matter what.

In the worst economy in the world there will be positives. But the negatives far outweigh the positives in this current economy in almost any statistic you want to look at. It is a crappy, shitty economy and it didn't have to be. It is as simple as that.

Then explain how both the U-3 and U-6 unemployment has dropped since 2009? How we ADDED 220,000 jobs last month alone? How our employment is at an all time high, our manufacturing is up, our GDP is at an all time high, our deficit is down.

And ....nothing.

I'd argue its your fixation on Obama, and not the economy.

I have focused on the net loss--the difference between the expansions and hiring and the closings and job losses--the latter has been far greater than the former. When we have the highest percentage of the work force not working in the last 30+ years, when we have far more job losses projected than hiring this year and years to come, that is a shitty economy. And no amount of cherry picking this stat or that number will change that.

According to ADP that closely tracks those numbers, businesses added just 169,000 jobs in April, 2015, down from 175,000 in the previous month. That was the fewest since January 2014. March's total was revised down from 189,000. U.S. manufacturing lost another 20,000 jobs. There were 262,000 new unemployment claims in the last week of April alone.

Job creation is nowhere near keeping pace with the need for jobs.

Sticking one's head in the sand out of partisan loyalty and refusing to see that administrative policies are far more destructive than helpful just isn't the smart thing to do.

 

[Skylar]

I have focused on the net loss--the difference between the expansions and hiring and the closings and job losses--the latter has been far greater than the former.

No, you haven't. Our employment now is higher than it has ever been. In history. That's not possible if the job losses out pace the job gains.

You simply ignore the job gains, the employment, folks getting jobs, businesses expanding or opening new stores. In all of your talk of stores closing.....stores opening or expanding were completely omitted. That's just confirmation bias. Where you begin with what you believe and ignore anything that doesn't match your beliefs.

But confirmation bias doesn't describe reality. It only describes your beliefs.

Again, I'd argue that you're motivated by opposition to Obama rather than the economy. You know why?

Because you always measure from 2009, when Obama took office. And NOT from when the recession started. If the actual economic results were your benchmark, you'd never do this. If politics were your motivation, this is all you'd do.

And its all you've done.

According to ADP that closely tracks those numbers, businesses added just 169,000 jobs in April, 2015, down from 175,000 in the previous month. That was the fewest since January 2014. March's total was revised down from 189,000. U.S. manufacturing lost another 20,000 jobs. There were 262,000 new unemployment claims in the last week of April alone.

Manufacturing has been on the rise for over a year. And you've completely ignored it. I've cited our manufacturing output repeatedly and you said it wasn't part of the 'big picture'.

But now, since manufacturing had a bad month, it is part of the 'big picture'? You're ignoring anything that doesn't match your negative perspective. Even the very industries you're citing stats on.

That's useless confirmation bias.

Job creation is nowhere near keeping pace with the need for jobs.

You just moved you're goal post. As before you were citing job losses v. job gains. But that number doesn't hold up. Now its job gains v. job 'need'. That's a completely different metric.

Which is it? Because all time employment records contradict you on the former. Will you at least admit that?

 

[Foxfyre]

I have focused on the net loss--the difference between the expansions and hiring and the closings and job losses--the latter has been far greater than the former.

No, you haven't. Our employment now is higher than it has ever been. In history. That's not possible if the job losses out pace the job gains.

You simply ignore the job gains, the employment, folks getting jobs, businesses expanding or opening new stores. In all of your talk of stores closing.....stores opening or expanding were completely omitted. That's just confirmation bias. Where you begin with what you believe and ignore anything that doesn't match your beliefs.

But confirmation bias doesn't describe reality. It only describes your beliefs.

Again, I'd argue that you're motivated by opposition to Obama rather than the economy. You know why?

Because you always measure from 2009, when Obama took office. And NOT from when the recession started. If the actual economic results were your benchmark, you'd never do this. If politics were your motivation, this is all you'd do.

And its all you've done.

According to ADP that closely tracks those numbers, businesses added just 169,000 jobs in April, 2015, down from 175,000 in the previous month. That was the fewest since January 2014. March's total was revised down from 189,000. U.S. manufacturing lost another 20,000 jobs. There were 262,000 new unemployment claims in the last week of April alone.

Manufacturing has been on the rise for over a year. And you've completely ignored it. I've cited our manufacturing output repeatedly and you said it wasn't part of the 'big picture'.

But now, since manufacturing had a bad month, it is part of the 'big picture'? You're ignoring anything that doesn't match your negative perspective. Even the very industries you're citing stats on.

That's useless confirmation bias.

Job creation is nowhere near keeping pace with the need for jobs.

You just moved you're goal post. As before you were citing job losses v. job gains. But that number doesn't hold up. Now its job gains v. job 'need'. That's a completely different metric.

Which is it? Because all time employment records contradict you on the former. Will you at least admit that?

Well you will have to show some figures from a credible source to make me believe that American employment is at the highest in history when all the evidence I've seen is that the percentage of the work force not working is as high as it has been since the 1970's and/or the Great Depression. And many of those who are working are working part time jobs instead of secure full time jobs that they need. And the number of Americans on food stamps is the highest it has ever been. And the number of Americans receiving other kinds of government assistance is the highest it has ever been. And ALL the credible data out there shows that American income and net worth has declined under the current administration.

It is a shitty economy and partisan pronouncements will not change that.

 

[Skylar]

I have focused on the net loss--the difference between the expansions and hiring and the closings and job losses--the latter has been far greater than the former.

No, you haven't. Our employment now is higher than it has ever been. In history. That's not possible if the job losses out pace the job gains.

You simply ignore the job gains, the employment, folks getting jobs, businesses expanding or opening new stores. In all of your talk of stores closing.....stores opening or expanding were completely omitted. That's just confirmation bias. Where you begin with what you believe and ignore anything that doesn't match your beliefs.

But confirmation bias doesn't describe reality. It only describes your beliefs.

Again, I'd argue that you're motivated by opposition to Obama rather than the economy. You know why?

Because you always measure from 2009, when Obama took office. And NOT from when the recession started. If the actual economic results were your benchmark, you'd never do this. If politics were your motivation, this is all you'd do.

And its all you've done.

According to ADP that closely tracks those numbers, businesses added just 169,000 jobs in April, 2015, down from 175,000 in the previous month. That was the fewest since January 2014. March's total was revised down from 189,000. U.S. manufacturing lost another 20,000 jobs. There were 262,000 new unemployment claims in the last week of April alone.

Manufacturing has been on the rise for over a year. And you've completely ignored it. I've cited our manufacturing output repeatedly and you said it wasn't part of the 'big picture'.

But now, since manufacturing had a bad month, it is part of the 'big picture'? You're ignoring anything that doesn't match your negative perspective. Even the very industries you're citing stats on.

That's useless confirmation bias.

Job creation is nowhere near keeping pace with the need for jobs.

You just moved you're goal post. As before you were citing job losses v. job gains. But that number doesn't hold up. Now its job gains v. job 'need'. That's a completely different metric.

Which is it? Because all time employment records contradict you on the former. Will you at least admit that?

Well you will have to show some figures from a credible source to make me believe that American employment is at the highest in history when all the evidence I've seen is that the percentage of the work force not working is as high as it has been since the 1970's and/or the Great Depression.

Would you accept the BLS as reputable?

If not, then you've taken Confirmation Bias and raised it to an art form.