The future of capitalism

[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.

Would you accept the BLS as reputable?

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

Sure. In raw numbers I am pretty sure it will show the highest number of people working ever just as it will show the same at the end of President Bush's term. But what the raw numbers don't show is how many of those working have full time jobs, permanent jobs, or how many are unable to find work. The unemployment rate sure won't show us that. Nor will it show the ratio of jobs to the increase in the total labor force.

As for labor partiipation rate, from the BLS website and it has gotten worse since January:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[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.

Sure. In raw numbers I am pretty sure it will show the highest number of people working ever just as it will show the same at the end of President Bush's term. But what the raw numbers don't show is how many of those working have full time jobs, permanent jobs, or how many are unable to find work. The unemployment rate sure won't show us that. Nor will it show the ratio of jobs to the increase in the total labor force.

As for labor partiipation rate, from the BLS website and it has gotten worse since January:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

The labor participation rate isn't the unemployment rate. You've moved your goal posts AGAIN. This is the third time. The LPR does not measure who wants to work or who 'needs' work. It merely measures who is working. And its been in decline for about 15 years, with its starkest drop occuring when the first boomers became 62.5. The minimum age for retirement under social security.

If you equate the LPR with unemployment, then we had rampant unemployment in the 40s, the 50s, the 60s and most of the 70s. Alas, Labor Participation Rates are NOT employment rates. The are proportions of the working age adults who are working. Those no listed in the LPR those retired, students, stay at home parents, the disabled and the unemployed.

You're assuming that anyone not part of the LPR is unemployed. And that's a ridiculous assumption to draw. We have the largest retired population in our nation's history. And we have fewer women working. And we have more college kids than ever before. OF COURSE our LPR is going to be lower. How could it not be? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been predicting this decline and its continuance for about a decade now. And they predict it will continue to decline until about 2050.

And even on the LPR, our numbers are essentially stable, hovering back and forth within the same 0.03% range since December 2013. And you already know this shit. But you really hope we don't.

When we get to ACTUAL employment numbers, they're at a record high:

That's the highest level we've ever had. Now how is your bullshit claim that we're losing more jobs than we gaining possible if we have the largest employment in US history?

It isn't. You're stuck ignoring all the good economic news, focusing only on the bad. Oh, you'll tell us about the stores that are closing. But you won't mention even ONE that is opening or expanding. You'll tell us about people who don't have jobs. But you'll never mention (without me pulling teeth) the folks that have found work.

Our ascending manufacturing sector that now has the largest manufacturing output of ANY nation (or even the entire EU) is not important because it doesn't show the 'big picture'.Until we have a bad month in manufacturing. And only THEN will you cite it. Any good news is ignored.

Even if its a year's worth of good news.

That's ridiculous.

 

[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.

Would you accept the BLS as reputable?

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

Sure. In raw numbers I am pretty sure it will show the highest number of people working ever just as it will show the same at the end of President Bush's term. But what the raw numbers don't show is how many of those working have full time jobs, permanent jobs, or how many are unable to find work. The unemployment rate sure won't show us that. Nor will it show the ratio of jobs to the increase in the total labor force.

As for labor partiipation rate, from the BLS website and it has gotten worse since January:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

The labor participation rate isn't the unemployment rate. You've moved your goal posts AGAIN. This is the third time. The LPR does not measure who wants to work or who 'needs' work. It merely measures who is working. And its been in decline for about 15 years, with its starkest drop occuring when the first boomers became 62.5. The minimum age for retirement under social security.

If you equate the LPR with unemployment, then we had rampant unemployment in the 40s, the 50s, the 60s and most of the 70s. Alas, Labor Participation Rates are NOT employment rates. The are proportions of the working age adults who are working. Those no listed in the LPR those retired, students, stay at home parents, the disabled and the unemployed.

You're assuming that anyone not part of the LPR is unemployed. And that's a ridiculous assumption to draw. We have the largest retired population in our nation's history. And we have fewer women working. And we have more college kids than ever before. OF COURSE our LPR is going to be lower. How could it not be? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been predicting this decline and its continuance for about a decade now. And they predict it will continue to decline until about 2050.

And even on the LPR, our numbers are essentially stable, hovering back and forth within the same 0.03% range since December 2013. And you already know this shit. But you really hope we don't.

When we get to ACTUAL employment numbers, they're at a record high:

That's the highest level we've ever had. Now how is your bullshit claim that we're losing more jobs than we gaining possible if we have the largest employment in US history?

It isn't. You're stuck ignoring all the good economic news, focusing only on the bad. Oh, you'll tell us about the stores that are closing. But you won't mention even ONE that is opening or expanding. You'll tell us about people who don't have jobs. But you'll never mention (without me pulling teeth) the folks that have found work.

Our ascending manufacturing sector that now has the largest manufacturing output of ANY nation (or even the entire EU) is not important because it doesn't show the 'big picture'.Until we have a bad month in manufacturing. And only THEN will you cite it. Any good news is ignored.

Even if its a year's worth of good news.

That's ridiculous.

I have never said the labor participation rate and the unemployment rate are the same thing. I didn't say at any time that they had anything to do with each other.

But since you keep saying that I say things that I didn't say I don't see any reason to continue trying to say it to somebody who won't read and won't be honest about what they read. But carry on and have a pleasant evening.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

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.

Sure. In raw numbers I am pretty sure it will show the highest number of people working ever just as it will show the same at the end of President Bush's term. But what the raw numbers don't show is how many of those working have full time jobs, permanent jobs, or how many are unable to find work. The unemployment rate sure won't show us that. Nor will it show the ratio of jobs to the increase in the total labor force.

As for labor partiipation rate, from the BLS website and it has gotten worse since January:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

The labor participation rate isn't the unemployment rate. You've moved your goal posts AGAIN. This is the third time. The LPR does not measure who wants to work or who 'needs' work. It merely measures who is working. And its been in decline for about 15 years, with its starkest drop occuring when the first boomers became 62.5. The minimum age for retirement under social security.

If you equate the LPR with unemployment, then we had rampant unemployment in the 40s, the 50s, the 60s and most of the 70s. Alas, Labor Participation Rates are NOT employment rates. The are proportions of the working age adults who are working. Those no listed in the LPR those retired, students, stay at home parents, the disabled and the unemployed.

You're assuming that anyone not part of the LPR is unemployed. And that's a ridiculous assumption to draw. We have the largest retired population in our nation's history. And we have fewer women working. And we have more college kids than ever before. OF COURSE our LPR is going to be lower. How could it not be? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been predicting this decline and its continuance for about a decade now. And they predict it will continue to decline until about 2050.

And even on the LPR, our numbers are essentially stable, hovering back and forth within the same 0.03% range since December 2013. And you already know this shit. But you really hope we don't.

When we get to ACTUAL employment numbers, they're at a record high:

That's the highest level we've ever had. Now how is your bullshit claim that we're losing more jobs than we gaining possible if we have the largest employment in US history?

It isn't. You're stuck ignoring all the good economic news, focusing only on the bad. Oh, you'll tell us about the stores that are closing. But you won't mention even ONE that is opening or expanding. You'll tell us about people who don't have jobs. But you'll never mention (without me pulling teeth) the folks that have found work.

Our ascending manufacturing sector that now has the largest manufacturing output of ANY nation (or even the entire EU) is not important because it doesn't show the 'big picture'.Until we have a bad month in manufacturing. And only THEN will you cite it. Any good news is ignored.

Even if its a year's worth of good news.

That's ridiculous.

I have never said the labor participation rate and the unemployment rate are the same thing. I didn't say at any time that they had anything to do with each other.

You make claims about the unemployment rate, we discuss offering sources to back my claims about the employment rate....and then you cite the same source with the LPR.

Either that's a red herring, irrelevant to our discussion of unemployment or its a deliberate attempt to equate the two.

Pick one.

And......you're still ignoring the all time record employment numbers, and the utter incompatibility of your claims regarding employment losses being greater than employment gains.

How can employment losses exceed employment gains.....and our total employment be at an all time record, climbing steadily for half a decade?

Explain that to us. Because from where I'm sitting, that's a mathematical impossibility.

 

[pinqy]

But what the raw numbers don't show is how many of those working have full time jobs, permanent jobs, or how many are unable to find work. The unemployment rate sure won't show us that. Nor will it show the ratio of jobs to the increase in the total labor force.

Information on ful time jobs are available. Nothing can show "permanent jobs." How many people are unable to find work is the Unemployment level...so of course the UE rate shows that....i'm not sure why you think it doesn't. And since the UE rate is Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, then the inverse shows the the ratio of employment to the increase in the total labor force.

 

[pinqy]

The LPR does not measure who wants to work or who 'needs' work. It merely measures who is working.

Ummm, no it doesn't...that would be the Employment-Population ratio (currently 59.3%)
The Labor Force Participation Rate (currently 62.8%) is the percent of the population that is in the Labor Force (defined as Employed plus Unemployed).

The are proportions of the working age adults who are working. Those no listed in the LPR those retired, students, stay at home parents, the disabled and the unemployed.

No, the LFPR does include the Unemployed. You keep saying LPR and using numbers for the LFPR, but you're defining the Emp-Pop ratio.

 

[Foxfyre]

But what the raw numbers don't show is how many of those working have full time jobs, permanent jobs, or how many are unable to find work. The unemployment rate sure won't show us that. Nor will it show the ratio of jobs to the increase in the total labor force.

Information on ful time jobs are available. Nothing can show "permanent jobs." How many people are unable to find work is the Unemployment level...so of course the UE rate shows that....i'm not sure why you think it doesn't. And since the UE rate is Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, then the inverse shows the the ratio of employment to the increase in the total labor force.

Because the UE doesn't show how many people have given up and are no longer actively trying to find work. And from what I am reading, those folks number in the millions. That's why there are two numbers - the official government unemployment rate and the real unemployment rate.
The Official Unemployment Rate vs. The Real Unemployment Rate Daily Business News

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Here's the irony, capitalism will force companies to hire people, since if no one else has a job, they can't buy the products. LOL

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

When you stopped reading you completely misunderstood the point and therefore responded to your own constructed straw man. Try again.
Automation pushing workers productivity up does not decrease his wage – increasing the pool of workers that is able to perform the job does as I stated. That is a fact – anyone can be a fry cook at McDonalds and therefore fry cooks earnings are abysmal. Not many can be good actors and so they make millions.
Try not being an abrasive troll and actually reading the thread.

 

[FA_Q2]

What you want me to have said and what I have actually said don't always mesh though do they. Unless you can point to a place in which I actually said it, how you choose to interpret what I said is about as likely to be incorrect as using a single statistic or two as evidence that the economy is doing well.

That you're letting hyperbole run a little wild and you've overstated your case. That the evidence doesn't support your claim that the economy is 'crushed'. But instead, that the economy is slowly recovering.

It doesn't have to be Armageddon or glitter covered utopia. There's definitely room in between. And right now, we're recovering.

Perhaps, but we are recovering at the slowest pace since the Great Depression. A slow recovery does not equal a great economy. And as of last quarter, most economist agreed that the economy had effectively stalled and was not recovering at all at that time.

Most economists are quite optimistic about Q2 estimates as the factors that draged on the US economy in Q1 were temporary: an insanely harsh winter in the north east and a huge port strike in the west, accompanied by a strong dollar.

Yet despite 3.9% in Q3, and a 2.2% growth in Q4, with most economists bullish for Q2.....you're ready drape both yourself and the nation is sack cloth and ashes. This despite optimistic estimates for Q2. And strong estimates for the rest of the year.

You don't sound very 'big picture' oriented. Instead, focusing on one quarter and ignoring both estimates for the next and performance in the 2 quarters before that. Once again strongly suggesting that your beliefs come before the evidence. Or your 'big picture'.

People are hurting Skylar. A low unemployment rate when 1/3rd of the labor force is not able to work is not a great thing.

But who says that 1/3 of the labor force is not able to work? The LPR doesn't measure how many people CAN work. It measures what portion of people ARE working. If your assumptions were true, then our economy was hurting far far more in the late 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s than it is now. As the LPR was lower from 48 to 78.

Your reasoning doesn't work. Your assumptions are invalid. And its these assumptions upon which you're basing a lot of beliefs that simply don't hold up.

As for people 'hurting', US consumer confidence is at roughly the same level as it was in January of 2007. And higher than it was for most of the Bush years. Yet you're offering us rather melodramatic descriptions of comparative doom. The American people don't share your sentiment.

We have more than 3 trillion dollars in capital assets that are parked off shore because people won't incur the excessively high taxes or risk that money in the current crappy economy.

What's an 'excessively high taxes'? Our tax rates are near a historic low. ANY tax rate is too high for the super wealthy sheltering assets overseas.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm siding with the people who are hurting. You seem to be arguing that nobody needs to be hurting at all. And we are not likely to agree on that.

I'm arguing that you've overstated your case and that the evidence contradicts your claims that the economy is 'crushed'. And instead, that the economy is recovering.

A view held by most of the same economists you claimed to cite in your last post.

That statistic is a narrow picture though. Everywhere else we see stats that bemoan the economy because the growing wealth inequality and utterly stagnant wages. That is very significant when talking about the ‘misery’ that fox was referring to.
The overall economy might be recovering but I am not so sure that the middle class is and that is a problem.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Work force being the ‘highest ever’ is a hard number whereas the percentage of the workforce is not a hard number but a ratio.
Population increasing means that the workforce can become a smaller overall percentage to population and still increase. That ratio is less valuable as well because, as the other posters pointed out, retirement and school play a factor in overall employment vs. population that is not necessarily an indication of a falling economy. A lot of what is reported is a matter of sensationalizing what the media can in order to grab ratings.

The shitty economy is expressed more, IMHO, through the decreasing power and scope of the middle class.

 

[FA_Q2]

Here's the irony, capitalism will force companies to hire people, since if no one else has a job, they can't buy the products. LOL

That is not how it works.

 

[usfan]

IMO, 'capitalism' is just the default human system. People work, create wealth, & improve their lot in life. Other 'systems' such as socialism are just variations of exploitation. 'You work & earn bread, & we will eat it.' Lincoln called this 'The Eternal Struggle'. It all comes down to being able to work & keep what you have labored for, or have it taken by collective force to give to someone else.

changes in technology have been going on for centuries. the world is always changing, & buggy whip manufacturers always have to change with the times. But the basics of life.. sustenance & protection, are always needed, & difficult to automate. We can create time & labor saving devices, or toys for our leisure time, but the basic needs of life still require labor for their provision.

the current economic malaise can be explained better from social engineering & govt policy mistakes, especially relating to currency, rather than automation taking all the jobs.

It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. ~ Abraham Lincoln

 

[pinqy]

But what the raw numbers don't show is how many of those working have full time jobs, permanent jobs, or how many are unable to find work. The unemployment rate sure won't show us that. Nor will it show the ratio of jobs to the increase in the total labor force.

Information on ful time jobs are available. Nothing can show "permanent jobs." How many people are unable to find work is the Unemployment level...so of course the UE rate shows that....i'm not sure why you think it doesn't. And since the UE rate is Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, then the inverse shows the the ratio of employment to the increase in the total labor force.

Because the UE doesn't show how many people have given up and are no longer actively trying to find work.

The question was why do you think that the UE rate does not show how many people are unable to find work. If someone has given up trying, then we don't know if she could find work or not.
That someone who is not trying to work does not have a job tells us nothing. Adding them or some of them in with those who are actually trying and failing just distorts the picture.

And from what I am reading, those folks number in the millions.

In March, there were 756,000 people who say they wanted to work, could have started work, had looked sometime in the last year but not the last 4 weeks and stopped looking because they didn't think they'd find a job. Where are you getting millions from?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Here's the irony, capitalism will force companies to hire people, since if no one else has a job, they can't buy the products. LOL

That is not how it works.

Ok then, enlighten me, what happens when 99% of the people don't have a job and no one can buy the products/services being offered by the owners/bosses of businesses/companies?

 

[Foxfyre]

But what the raw numbers don't show is how many of those working have full time jobs, permanent jobs, or how many are unable to find work. The unemployment rate sure won't show us that. Nor will it show the ratio of jobs to the increase in the total labor force.

Information on ful time jobs are available. Nothing can show "permanent jobs." How many people are unable to find work is the Unemployment level...so of course the UE rate shows that....i'm not sure why you think it doesn't. And since the UE rate is Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, then the inverse shows the the ratio of employment to the increase in the total labor force.

Because the UE doesn't show how many people have given up and are no longer actively trying to find work.

The question was why do you think that the UE rate does not show how many people are unable to find work. If someone has given up trying, then we don't know if she could find work or not.
That someone who is not trying to work does not have a job tells us nothing. Adding them or some of them in with those who are actually trying and failing just distorts the picture.

And from what I am reading, those folks number in the millions.

In March, there were 756,000 people who say they wanted to work, could have started work, had looked sometime in the last year but not the last 4 weeks and stopped looking because they didn't think they'd find a job. Where are you getting millions from?

I read about it everywhere from the business magazines to major newspapers and I pay attention. Here is one source--the guys who run this site are heavily credentialed and, to eliminate any appearance of anti-Obama propaganda, they are Democrats.

Unemployed Join 31 million laid off Americans

 

[pinqy]

But what the raw numbers don't show is how many of those working have full time jobs, permanent jobs, or how many are unable to find work. The unemployment rate sure won't show us that. Nor will it show the ratio of jobs to the increase in the total labor force.

Information on ful time jobs are available. Nothing can show "permanent jobs." How many people are unable to find work is the Unemployment level...so of course the UE rate shows that....i'm not sure why you think it doesn't. And since the UE rate is Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, then the inverse shows the the ratio of employment to the increase in the total labor force.

Because the UE doesn't show how many people have given up and are no longer actively trying to find work.

The question was why do you think that the UE rate does not show how many people are unable to find work. If someone has given up trying, then we don't know if she could find work or not.
That someone who is not trying to work does not have a job tells us nothing. Adding them or some of them in with those who are actually trying and failing just distorts the picture.

And from what I am reading, those folks number in the millions.

In March, there were 756,000 people who say they wanted to work, could have started work, had looked sometime in the last year but not the last 4 weeks and stopped looking because they didn't think they'd find a job. Where are you getting millions from?

I read about it everywhere from the business magazines to major newspapers and I pay attention. Here is one source--the guys who run this site are heavily credentialed and, to eliminate any appearance of anti-Obama propaganda, they are Democrats.

Unemployed Join 31 million laid off Americans

Their numbers are meaningless since they don't define their terms. It looks like at minimum they're including people working part time for economic reasons....meaning they're calling people who have jobs "real unemployed." And they're including people who stopped looking for work because they had to look after a family member, or were unable to work for whatever reason, and are now able but haven't looked yet.

That's not honest.

 

[FA_Q2]

But what the raw numbers don't show is how many of those working have full time jobs, permanent jobs, or how many are unable to find work. The unemployment rate sure won't show us that. Nor will it show the ratio of jobs to the increase in the total labor force.

Information on ful time jobs are available. Nothing can show "permanent jobs." How many people are unable to find work is the Unemployment level...so of course the UE rate shows that....i'm not sure why you think it doesn't. And since the UE rate is Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force, then the inverse shows the the ratio of employment to the increase in the total labor force.

Because the UE doesn't show how many people have given up and are no longer actively trying to find work.

The question was why do you think that the UE rate does not show how many people are unable to find work. If someone has given up trying, then we don't know if she could find work or not.
That someone who is not trying to work does not have a job tells us nothing. Adding them or some of them in with those who are actually trying and failing just distorts the picture.

And from what I am reading, those folks number in the millions.

In March, there were 756,000 people who say they wanted to work, could have started work, had looked sometime in the last year but not the last 4 weeks and stopped looking because they didn't think they'd find a job. Where are you getting millions from?

I read about it everywhere from the business magazines to major newspapers and I pay attention. Here is one source--the guys who run this site are heavily credentialed and, to eliminate any appearance of anti-Obama propaganda, they are Democrats.

Unemployed Join 31 million laid off Americans

Their numbers are meaningless since they don't define their terms. It looks like at minimum they're including people working part time for economic reasons....meaning they're calling people who have jobs "real unemployed." And they're including people who stopped looking for work because they had to look after a family member, or were unable to work for whatever reason, and are now able but haven't looked yet.

That's not honest.

No, not really honest. I was rather surprised that this was a clearly left leaning site though. Usually do not see this from the left because they want to place Obama in a good light (like the republicans that kept asking 'what rescission' under Bush)

 

[FA_Q2]

Here's the irony, capitalism will force companies to hire people, since if no one else has a job, they can't buy the products. LOL

That is not how it works.

Ok then, enlighten me, what happens when 99% of the people don't have a job and no one can buy the products/services being offered by the owners/bosses of businesses/companies?

Economic collapse.

You seem to think that companies will hire people they don't need purely to create customers. That simply does not happen and you know it. That is why repossessions and depressions happen - it feeds back on itself. People lose money and demand decreases. Then businesses slim down because the demand is not there. Then people have even less so...

At no point are businesses going to say 'hey, we have no customers so lets hire more people to create them.'

That is also the entire idea about government spending to spur the economy - government supposedly injects money into the system so that people have more money to rive demand. This actually does work in the short term but is harmful in the long.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Here's the irony, capitalism will force companies to hire people, since if no one else has a job, they can't buy the products. LOL

That is not how it works.

Ok then, enlighten me, what happens when 99% of the people don't have a job and no one can buy the products/services being offered by the owners/bosses of businesses/companies?

Economic collapse.

You seem to think that companies will hire people they don't need purely to create customers. That simply does not happen and you know it. That is why repossessions and depressions happen - it feeds back on itself. People lose money and demand decreases. Then businesses slim down because the demand is not there. Then people have even less so...

At no point are businesses going to say 'hey, we have no customers so lets hire more people to create them.'

That is also the entire idea about government spending to spur the economy - government supposedly injects money into the system so that people have more money to rive demand. This actually does work in the short term but is harmful in the long.

So, what's your Keynesian proposal to fix the Keynesian created problem?