What they don't talk about with unemployment figures - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Monday, October 05, 2009 7:27 AM on j-body.org
Friday the September unemployment report was released with it's preliminary numbers. What you will see in all of the media is that we lost 263,000 jobs last month. While they are still saying this is higher than expected, you also keep hearing that we are in a recovery. I heard again in a news brief a couple of days ago another statement from the Whitehouse that the ARRA is working.

What you are not seeing in the media reports is that the real number of decreased employment for September is 785,000. This is the largest decrease in employment we have seen since January. Why the 263,000 number? Because we lost 571,000 people from the reported workforce last month, so the difference between the workforce and the employed only changed by 263,000. We are now at a non-adjusted unemployment rate of over 17%.

You can view the official report here. If you scroll down to the bottom, you will see the chart with the figures I posted.

I strongly urge people who don't see the problem with all of the bills they are trying to get through to take a long, hard, honest look at what they are doing, and what it is not doing for our country. Get on the phone and call your representatives and senators and tell them to stop passing these 1,000+ page bills full of spending and massive bureaucracy, and start doing things that will really help us.







Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Monday, October 05, 2009 7:31 AM on j-body.org
And those things would be? I'd just like to have some constructive suggestions before I bash the current approach (not that I am any fan of it).





Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Monday, October 05, 2009 8:14 AM on j-body.org
Lower taxes on energy, lower taxes on investment, lower taxes on business. Every one of those with stimulate growth. Make the 2003 tax cuts permanent, rather than allowing them to expire next year.

Stop looking at new ways to tax people and business. Stop trying to take over everything that isn't working right. Stop "printing" money like crazy, which is only going to hurt us in the future (and not that far away) with major inflation. Stop borrowing like there is no tomorrow. The entire premise of capitalism works when it's not screwed around with. Let failing businesses fail, and let the thriving businesses thrive.

The answer to our problem is to make it more viable for companies to operate in this country. Do this, and more companies will actually invest in growth, or startup, creating more jobs.






Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Monday, October 05, 2009 9:15 AM on j-body.org
Ah, there we go. Thanks!

By the way...sounds suspiciously like Reaganomics, which led our nation into its most affluent postwar boom ever. How we lost that thrust and momentum is the big question...





Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Monday, October 05, 2009 10:20 AM on j-body.org
LOL. Put on yer flame suit Bill.

There are many who just can't see that logic, nor how it was government meddling that caused us to be where we are today.






Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Monday, October 05, 2009 10:29 AM on j-body.org
I thoght it was solely to blame on the previous administrations failed policies?


When an auto company is vetting ot prospective cities in which to build a new plant, there are three MAIN things they consider. Proximity of UAW and their potential meddling, logistics with supplies, and sweetheart tax breakes from states and local governments. Why the shift in auto plants being built all over the south instead of the Midwest? You have the three aforementioned answers.
The Midwest definitely has the logistics, just a problem with the other two...


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Monday, October 05, 2009 11:17 AM on j-body.org
ugh im so glad i found a job a few months after i got laid off



Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Monday, October 05, 2009 11:48 AM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

I thoght it was solely to blame on the previous administrations failed policies?

You are correct, sir...the Clinton administration did send us on this path (away from Reaganomics), and the W. Bush administration was too busy playing toy soldiers to see or head off the damage.

It's funny...when we had Rockstar Billy in the WH, we were too stoned and happy to notice his cadre was undoing years of Reaganomics. Then when Bush II came in, we were too busy with "national security" and the like. Man are we stupid! Or at least, easily fed bull@!#$.






Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Monday, October 05, 2009 1:37 PM on j-body.org
NAFTA.......

BILLEYBOY....

YA

Chris



"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 7:05 AM on j-body.org
Yeah I'm putting NAFTA at the top of the list for economic downfall. Was working in textiles when wind of NAFTA started in the early 90s, and it was the general consensus that it would hurt textiles. Of course it's spread over other industries too, but the premise that it would bolster Mexico's economy didn't take into account companies would flee to Mexico for cheap labor or ship goods there for assembly due to no tariffs all the while causing the US to lose jobs wasn't taken into account I guess.




Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 10:45 AM on j-body.org
And lest we forget...we're now seeing the ultimate backlash of so much outsourcing too, as well as rampant consumerism. Both parties can share the blame.

When we started to lose manufacturing plants in this country (and this started a while ago), I was relieved to see that unemployment did not skyrocket. The national economy can be a very flexible organism, resilient and tough. While unemployment did not rise, we can presume that the folks who lost jobs, in many cases, had to settle for lower paying positions. Also not a bad thing, for their previous factory positions were likely overpaid...at least in the sense of the new market's lower pricing due to overseas competition. Sucks to be them, but overpaid jobs do not a strong economy make.

So, as we shifted more and more to a service economy rather than a manufacturing one, the economy adapted. At the same time, we became more and more driven by excessive consumption and consumerism...instead of saving, or investing, we were spending. Like how! All this spending kept the economy humming along for years, even as we lost manufacturing jobs overseas. But it did nothing for our ability to build a strong foundation.

Trouble was brewing...this economic resilience was not infinite, nor was our ability to obtain even more credit. Soon enough, the loss of manufacturing crimped the economy, and its ability to create new jobs faltered; this occurred in mid-2007. Many are unaware that the bank crises, real estate devaluation, stock market losses, and recession of 2008 were preceded by this negative job growth some time earlier...we'd been adding new jobs for many years until that critical July of 2007. Every month since, we've lost more jobs. it's a helluva roll to be on, and it shows no signs of letting up

You may not have heard about it that early...they kept a lid on it for a while. But this was an early sign of the growing "perfect storm".






Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 11:14 AM on j-body.org
Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:

While unemployment did not rise, we can presume that the folks who lost jobs, in many cases, had to settle for lower paying positions.
Actually, I would bet that a large number of them became entreprenuers, and another large portion of them found a way to adapt and make a good career in another industry. I have no doubt that some people who lose their job settle for a lesser one, but many Americans adapt and find a way to be better when confronted with this type of obstacle.


Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:

So, as we shifted more and more to a service economy rather than a manufacturing one, the economy adapted. At the same time, we became more and more driven by excessive consumption and consumerism...instead of saving, or investing, we were spending. Like how! All this spending kept the economy humming along for years, even as we lost manufacturing jobs overseas. But it did nothing for our ability to build a strong foundation.

Trouble was brewing...this economic resilience was not infinite, nor was our ability to obtain even more credit. Soon enough, the loss of manufacturing crimped the economy, and its ability to create new jobs faltered; this occurred in mid-2007. Many are unaware that the bank crises, real estate devaluation, stock market losses, and recession of 2008 were preceded by this negative job growth some time earlier...we'd been adding new jobs for many years until that critical July of 2007. Every month since, we've lost more jobs. it's a helluva roll to be on, and it shows no signs of letting up.
I don't believe our economy had an unstable foundation because of the shift from manufacturing to service. Had it not been for the massive housing bubble, and the banking and investment crash which was tied into it, we would not be anywhere near where we are now. These things had nothing to do with shift in the economy away from manufacturing. They were the result of extremely poor policies which not only encouraged, but just about forced, bad lending practices, as well as the derivatives market which became basically a legalized gambling market on failed mortgages. Either one of these was a bomb waiting to go off, and unfortunately, they were both tied together so tightly that they were doomed to set each other off one way or another.





Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:15 PM on j-body.org
Then there are fools like Trump who tells homeowner that have an "upsidedown mortgage" to just walk away and let their house to foreclosure. What is up with that? So as long as the house is appreciating during a bubble, i should honor my obligations, but as soon as it starts to deppreciate, then I should walk? No sir... If you still have your job and can afford your monthly payment... Then you have to pay it... It's the right thing to do. A lot of our current problems are from that kind of mentality.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:27 PM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

Then there are fools like Trump who tells homeowner that have an "upsidedown mortgage" to just walk away and let their house to foreclosure. What is up with that? So as long as the house is appreciating during a bubble, i should honor my obligations, but as soon as it starts to deppreciate, then I should walk? No sir... If you still have your job and can afford your monthly payment... Then you have to pay it... It's the right thing to do. A lot of our current problems are from that kind of mentality.

I agree...but I think it's far too general of a statement for him to make, or be effectively interpreted without knowing the details of a particular case. I'm sure in cases where people got caught up very badly, with huge negative equity, its makes sense to bail. I'd wager those are who he refers to, and from a businessman's point of view, it's what I'd expect to hear from him. Business is about the bottom line.

Also agree that values just don't seem to be what they used to be in terms of responsibility and staying the course. But we must all keep in mind, these are desperate times, and such times do lead to desperate actions being more appropriate...or at least more common!





Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:33 PM on j-body.org
Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:

I don't believe our economy had an unstable foundation because of the shift from manufacturing to service. Had it not been for the massive housing bubble, and the banking and investment crash which was tied into it, we would not be anywhere near where we are now. These things had nothing to do with shift in the economy away from manufacturing. They were the result of extremely poor policies which not only encouraged, but just about forced, bad lending practices, as well as the derivatives market which became basically a legalized gambling market on failed mortgages. Either one of these was a bomb waiting to go off, and unfortunately, they were both tied together so tightly that they were doomed to set each other off one way or another.

I don't attribute all problems to the shift away from manufacturing either, but it is certainly a factor that helped drive the ultimate inability to "pay the bills". Two things were happening simultaneously, and our great leaders were too optimistic to see them coming...too many bad mortgages were being written, while too many people getting those mortgages were losing their jobs. That proved to be a very fatal cocktail. We can only speculate that had the job losses not been mounting at the rate of hundreds of thousands for each of the last 27 months, perhaps some of those "junk mortgages" would have been more able to be sustained. Making the wages to pay the bills remains a pretty key component to keeping a house.

The housing bubble and bank collapse bursting cannot be attributed to any one factor, but the overused "perfect storm" term is actually quite appropos.





Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:18 PM on j-body.org
Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:

Two things were happening simultaneously, and our great leaders were too optimistic to see them coming...too many bad mortgages were being written, while too many people getting those mortgages were losing their jobs.

Something you might want to look into if you aren't aware of it (and a lot of people aren't): Bush Administration proposed oversight to Fannie and Freddie in 2003

It was forseen, they tried to stop it (actually, so did McCain in 2005), but it was shot down by the biggest mouths in the Democrat party, such as the slobbering Barney Frank, who just a few short months ago was ond an NPR show saying how he has always been more for affordable rental housing, not mortgages, but it was the Bush administration who wanted everyone to own a home.






Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:27 PM on j-body.org
Well, heh...I am not singling out anyone for my disdain. When I say "Great Leaders", I am referring to anyone and everyone whos hand was on the wheel and perhaps could have/should have prevented the problem. I don't have a position other than that.

I'm not at all interested in finding who to blame...think of my PM





Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:39 AM on j-body.org
Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:

I'm not at all interested in finding who to blame...think of my PM
While I'm not one to feel the need to dwell on a blame game, the problem I see is this:

The current leadership is constantly pointing the finger and trying to blame not just the Republican party and Bush, but some very specific policies, as having caused the problems. These are entirely disingenuous accusations, but people have been eating it up. I think people need to really be shown the truth behind the collapse of the economy, and why we are in such a bad situation, so that they can understand that what they are hearing as the cause is false, and not allow us to be taken down a worse path.

Unless people understand that it was the very meddling of the government in the housing market, under the guise of "fairness" and "caring" that caused it to balloon so badly and crash so hard, they are going to continue to fall for the rhetoric and policies that go along with it. Also, when people really see who is to blame, they might vote them out next election (Barney Frank, for example).






Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Wednesday, October 07, 2009 12:08 PM on j-body.org
Throw the bums out! I like that one

Every new administration blames the "other guys". It's so routine that I find it to be expected. I refuse to raise my hackles over something so commonplace and predictable.

However...As I don't live in any of the districts you mention, I won't be able to exercise any electoral action on those fellas. Not saying your words fall on deaf ears...more like ears busy with things I find more important than those things I cannot change. Besides...how would an average Joe like me ever get to the bottom of it all...every source of information is biased, and God knows what happened that we will never even hear about. I can't develop enough truly dependable data to get fired up about it. They ALL fcuked up. Dems, Repubs, businessmen...the whole lot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, October 07, 2009 12:08 PM



Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Saturday, December 05, 2009 6:58 AM on j-body.org
Since the November unemployment numbers are out, I thought I'd pull this thread back up and make a couple of comments.

The unemployment rate dropped by .2% for November, and of course, it's being touted as proof that the stimulus package is working, but this is no cause for celebration. The measured workforce still dropped by .06%, which means the increased percentage of employed individuals (from 89.8% to 90%) isn't really much of a gain, because it's a slightly larger percentage of a slightly smaller number. The actual number of employed individuals did increase by 232 thousand. While this might sound good, consider that it's the Christmas shopping season, and many of those jobs, if not all of them, are only temporary. If we see the number of employed even stay at 10% through January and February, it can be said that we may have hit the bottom and levelled out. However, claiming that now is premature.

I say this not to be negative, but for this reason: At the same time they are touting this very slight decrease in unemployment (remember, they did this same thing in July when we were at 9.4%), they are talking about passing another form of stimulus, which needs to stop. This group is spending money faster than any, and it need to be shut down before they are able to do any more damage.







Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Saturday, December 05, 2009 9:51 AM on j-body.org
I believe it's just a blip on the screen, this improvement. I think it means little unless it becomes a sustained pattern, seen for some months. But, we all know the administration will claim a victory where it can, and who could blame them, Even if all it does really indicate is a leveling off, that in itself's a good thing. We'll know more by February or so, I'd guess!

I'm not convinced that all forms of stimulus are to be avoided. While I well understand the impact of greater indebtedness, I also understand the potentially more destructive impact of an economy allowed to flounder too much. As such, it may be reckless to disavow any and all new stimulus based strictly on the cost.





Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:45 AM on j-body.org
It's not that I'm against any stimulus, it's that I'm against the kind this administration and the leaders in Congress will write. They will not write tax cuts for anyone. They will at best write weak tax credits, which end up being either ineffective or more hand-outs for the unproductive, encouraging less achievement, and doing nothing to stimulate the economy. Consider the tax credit for hiring new employees. A credit large enough to be effective would end up being a hand-out, because it would essentially be a subsidy. We all know how well this works. The $3000 credit they talked about before is pointless. That doesn't even cover the non-wage costs of hiring an employee. What reasonable businessman would hire an employee for such a small incentive? For that matter, a tax credit like this could be viewed as government-sponsored corporate Darwinism, since only the foolish businessman would do it, which would cause them to likely fold in the near future. LOL.

At it's worst, they just pass another spending bill, which pays high costs for very little gain, and further buries us in national debt, which will preclude the reasonable possibility that we ever get a real tax break again, and increases the likelihood that they manage to actually pass more tax increases. As one can easily see, this becomes a vicious circle.







Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:55 AM on j-body.org
We wouldn't have this unemployment issues if people weren't lazy pieces of @!#$ and wanted to EARN money...



Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Saturday, December 05, 2009 11:46 AM on j-body.org
Well, your statement seemed to indicate a general aversion to stimulus, based on indebtedness:

Misinformation Peddler wrote:

...they are talking about passing another form of stimulus, which needs to stop. This group is spending money faster than any, and it need to be shut down before they are able to do any more damage.


As for the wherefores and hows of their approaches, I don't know that you or me are any better suited than the folks in charge of making these calls. A complete economic meltdown was averted by this crew, and we should not lose sight of this fact. Massive indebtedness has occurred before; it's not inevitably a hole we could never climb out of.

I don't think you can count on any major moves by this administration to reduce the jobless rate; not just yet. Keeping folks in a jobless state for the time being may well serve their ultimate purpose of furthering Government as Parent. Making and keeping folks dependent may well be the spirit of the hour in this regard. All involved also realize that the best way to keep funds flowing in that direction is to not "cure" joblessness all too quick. Doing so also satisfies the embattled business owners, for they don't need to be encouraged to do hiring right now. They are too busy restructuring and downsizing and catching their breath and recovering to do new hires right now anyway.





Re: What they don't talk about with unemployment figures
Saturday, December 05, 2009 12:11 PM on j-body.org
I know you don't like a post broken by quotes, but due to the highlighting and direct response to the second quote, I wanted to break it up.

Moderate Voice of the People wrote:

As for the wherefores and hows of their approaches, I don't know that you or me are any better suited than the folks in charge of making these calls. A complete economic meltdown was averted by this crew, and we should not lose sight of this fact. Massive indebtedness has occurred before; it's not inevitably a hole we could never climb out of.
I absolutely believe that people like you and I are better suited to speak about what will help job creation, as we are not only working people, but we have experience in small business management (I'm making an assumption that you do here, based on the company that bears your last name). This is a big issue for me. Our country was founded on the premise that we essentially run ourselves, and the government is not it's own separate class. The notion that we should "let the guys in charge" make the decisions because we aren't as qualified is one that I believe leads to the ability of the government to take more and more liberties away with the approval of the masses. I also do not believe for one second that this group saved us from anything. If you look at the stimulus package, it was never designed to save the economy, it was designed to further agendas. It is merely the claims that have been made for so long that it's stuck in the minds of many.

As for the debt, it is at that point where we can't foresee the ability to get out from under it, but that's not to say putting the brakes on it at this point wouldn't at least make turning it the other way feasible. Also, at the rate this group is going, we run the risk of being shut off from our creditors, which means either a meltdown, or massive printing of money, which kills us by massive inflation. Either way, the end result is similar.


Moderate Voice of the People wrote:

Keeping folks in a jobless state for the time being may well serve their ultimate purpose of furthering Government as Parent. Making and keeping folks dependent may well be the spirit of the hour in this regard. All involved also realize that the best way to keep funds flowing in that direction is to not "cure" joblessness all too quick.
I contend that this is exactly the case, which is exactly why they need to be stopped dead in their tracks. I think you're more correct in this statement than you may even realize. There is a point of no return to their idea of what this country should be that we need to avoid, and they are trying desperately to get us there before it's too late for them.

I see the liberals in power as the equivalent of drug pushers. They talk to the entitlement recipients as though they are doing good for them, when in reality, they are just keeping them hooked, and trying to get more people hooked.







Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search