# Unemployment



## Doublebase (Feb 22, 2009)

I saw one of my friends out last night.  He has been laid off since November.  He said he gets 974$ every two weeks after taxes.  So basically 2,000$/month.  So he's eating a big steak dinner and told me he just bought a new four wheeler.  I started to get pissed off after hearing this.  Isn't that our federal tax money paying for that dinner and four wheeler?  How is it fair that he gets all that money every month and some people have to work 40/hours a week to make that?  And now they just extended the length of time you can collect from 6 months to 9 months.  He said he will be starting back working in April.  How nice would it be to work 6 months then have 6 months off and collect unemployment.  You could collect the money and then get another job on the side.  Unbelievable.  I would feel like a piece of shit if I were just collecting that money and not trying to find a job.  Although if I knew I were getting my job back in a few months then why try to find a job?  Its just that fact that my tax dollars are going towards this.  I can imagine how many people abuse this.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 22, 2009)

A significant portion of the population does this.  This is very common for airline pilots.  Some go on furlow every year or 2, and collect unemployment every time, but they are limited in how much they can collect, and after a while they lose the ability to collect unless they have something like 18 months of steady work.  I also know of subcontractors doing this.


----------



## Double D (Feb 22, 2009)

What does he do? Are you sure its not seasonal work? Landscaping maybe?


----------



## Double D (Feb 22, 2009)

Plenty of subcontractors do this. I don't think it is taking advantage of anything, once their work is over its over. Really just depends on the situation.


----------



## Doublebase (Feb 22, 2009)

He works in construction.  Road work.


----------



## Double D (Feb 22, 2009)

Well that's why then. Its not that he takes advantage of it.....I'm sure he just works whenever works presented. I have alot of friends who do that. Just depends also if he has his own business or if he works for a union.


----------



## Doublebase (Feb 22, 2009)

Malley said:


> Well that's why then. Its not that he takes advantage of it.....I'm sure he just works whenever works presented. I have alot of friends who do that. Just depends also if he has his own business or if he works for a union.



I guess I'm just jealous.  Wish I only had to work 6 months then collect 80% of my income the rest of the year.


----------



## Double D (Feb 22, 2009)

Who doesn't?


----------



## Doublebase (Feb 22, 2009)

Malley said:


> Who doesn't?



What happens with your medical benefits and 401K when you go on unemployment?


----------



## Double D (Feb 22, 2009)

Well with my 401k I withdrew it and put it elsewhere. But I had to pay a penalty. I am not sure if its all places, but if I wanted to leave mine in there and continue to pay on it I could. As far as medical benefits probably going to lose those.


----------



## Doublebase (Feb 22, 2009)

Malley said:


> Well with my 401k I withdrew it and put it elsewhere. But I had to pay a penalty. I am not sure if its all places, but if I wanted to leave mine in there and continue to pay on it I could. As far as medical benefits probably going to lose those.



So you have to pay for your medical then.  That can be pricey.  If your own your wifes benefits then you're ok.


----------



## Double D (Feb 22, 2009)

I had to pay for my medical anyways. Not to many places pay for all your medical. They do a percentage, but normally you have to pick up the rest. Ya if your wife has health insurance and things of that nature your set. You get paid by sitting at home, and get to keep insurance. Also you could take side jobs if they pay you in cash and never have to report it to your unemployment.


----------



## Yanick (Feb 22, 2009)

My brother's friend was laid off, and now has a cash job working three times a week plus unemployment. He is making more money while working less hours. Kindda sucks to us, but the system is set up that way and you can't really do anything about it.

I believe you can extend your health insurance using the COBRA laws or whatever. I don't know the specifics but i know Obama wanted to extend the term for COBRA as well...i'm pretty sure you need to pay into it though.


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 22, 2009)

Yanick said:


> My brother's friend was laid off, and now has a cash job working three times a week plus unemployment. He is making more money while working less hours.



He's nothing more than a slug, but he has plenty of company.  Personally I'd feel like a fucking loser if I sit on unemployment unnecessarily.  People don't have any pride anymore...  they just hold there hands out & ask "where's mine?"


----------



## bigbeef2604 (Feb 22, 2009)

I dont buy the "his job is seasonal" line..  If I had a seasonal job I'd at least TRY to find work in the off season..  I have a friend in the same situation - he works for 6 months and then takes 6 months off collecting unemployment.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 22, 2009)

Doublebase said:


> He works in construction.  Road work.



This is usually seasonal work.  At least where I live.

As far as him taking time off, that's his choice.  It sounds like his cost of living with fixed expenses is low.

He says he'll start working in April?  Maybe it's that easy for him.

If not....it'll be rough.


----------



## Doublebase (Feb 23, 2009)

Big Smoothy said:


> This is usually seasonal work.  At least where I live.
> 
> As far as him taking time off, that's his choice.  It sounds like his cost of living with fixed expenses is low.
> 
> ...



The company is still operating.  They are just slow.  He said he would lose money if he went to work for them now.


----------



## highpockets (Feb 23, 2009)

Just found out this morning that I'm being laid off. I'm the controller at a small electrical contractor in Northern Indiana. We've been hit really hard by the RV industry layoffs and I don't know what I'm going to do. I've got a wife and 3 kids, oldest is going to college next year. I know there's not much around here job wise. We get 3 or 4 guys in here every week asking about work.


----------



## ROID (Feb 23, 2009)

highpockets said:


> Just found out this morning that I'm being laid off. I'm the controller at a small electrical contractor in Northern Indiana. We've been hit really hard by the RV industry layoffs and I don't know what I'm going to do. I've got a wife and 3 kids, oldest is going to college next year. I know there's not much around here job wise. We get 3 or 4 guys in here every week asking about work.



You're not obligated to foot the bill for your child to go to college if it's going to put you in a financial bind and it will do that. Plenty of federal and private loans out there. 

I would have been better off if my parents never gave me a cent for college. I would have a grad degree by now.


----------



## ROID (Feb 23, 2009)

Doublebase said:


> I saw one of my friends out last night.  He has been laid off since November.  He said he gets 974$ every two weeks after taxes.  So basically 2,000$/month.  So he's eating a big steak dinner and told me he just bought a new four wheeler.  I started to get pissed off after hearing this.  Isn't that our federal tax money paying for that dinner and four wheeler?  How is it fair that he gets all that money every month and some people have to work 40/hours a week to make that?  And now they just extended the length of time you can collect from 6 months to 9 months.  He said he will be starting back working in April.  How nice would it be to work 6 months then have 6 months off and collect unemployment.  You could collect the money and then get another job on the side.  Unbelievable.  I would feel like a piece of shit if I were just collecting that money and not trying to find a job.  Although if I knew I were getting my job back in a few months then why try to find a job?  Its just that fact that my tax dollars are going towards this.  I can imagine how many people abuse this.



The max in alabama is $250/week.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 23, 2009)

The cost of living is much lower there.


----------



## ROID (Feb 23, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> The cost of living is much lower there.



Always one step ahead of me 

The cost of living is low but I would barley be able to pay my rent with only $250/week income.


----------



## Doublebase (Feb 23, 2009)

Yeah the average mortgage is over 2000$/month here.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Feb 23, 2009)

Doublebase said:


> Yeah the average mortgage is over 2000$/month here.


so taxpayer dollars should cover 2000 bucks of that?

should teachers collect unemployment during the summer?

why should I have to foot the bill for somebody who got into an industry knowing full well thats the way it works. just doesnt jibe with me


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 23, 2009)

highpockets said:


> Just found out this morning that I'm being laid off. I'm the controller at a small electrical contractor in Northern Indiana. We've been hit really hard by the RV industry layoffs and I don't know what I'm going to do. I've got a wife and 3 kids, oldest is going to college next year. I know there's not much around here job wise. We get 3 or 4 guys in here every week asking about work.



Sorry to hear the news, highpockets.

But stay strong.  You have moral support, and a lot of others are in the same boat.

Good luck, and keep us posted.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 23, 2009)

highpockets said:


> Just found out this morning that I'm being laid off. I'm the controller at a small electrical contractor in Northern Indiana. We've been hit really hard by the RV industry layoffs and I don't know what I'm going to do. I've got a wife and 3 kids, oldest is going to college next year. I know there's not much around here job wise. We get 3 or 4 guys in here every week asking about work.



Sorry to hear about that.

I hope things workout for the best.

patrick


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 23, 2009)

What a time to be graduating college in the next couple of years!


----------



## Doublebase (Feb 24, 2009)

FishOrCutBait said:


> so taxpayer dollars should cover 2000 bucks of that?
> 
> should teachers collect unemployment during the summer?
> 
> why should I have to foot the bill for somebody who got into an industry knowing full well thats the way it works. just doesnt jibe with me



I think unemployment should be for 6 months.  That will light a fire under you to get another job instead of sitting around collecting all year.  My buddies situation is different.  He knows he will be getting his job back in April so mine as well sit home, collect and work side jobs for under the table money.  I don't think I should have to pay for that but that is the system. 
School teachers have the option at the end of the school year to get a lump some for the summer or keep getting paid as usual.  My wife ops to getting paid every two weeks as usual during the summer.  So even when she isn't working, we still receive income.  It would probably make more sense to take the lump some and put it in a high yield savings account but for the measly few hundred bucks I'd rather have the consistent income every two weeks.


----------



## highpockets (Feb 24, 2009)

Here's one thing that I just don't get pertaining to our government. I need to be completely unemployed to receive benefits. In Indiana my benefits will be about half of what I was making per week. So my government check will be about $400/week. I could probably get part time work at the health club where I work out to help supplement my lost income, but if I do, I won't qualify for unemployment because I'm working. WTF! It seems to me that the government is trying to keep me down. I believe if done correctly, my current employer should verify what I was making and then I should be able to make the equivalent through benefits and part time jobs until I find something full time. Just my 2 cents!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 24, 2009)

highpockets said:


> Here's one thing that I just don't get pertaining to our government. I need to be completely unemployed to receive benefits. In Indiana my benefits will be about half of what I was making per week. So my government check will be about $400/week. I could probably get part time work at the health club where I work out to help supplement my lost income, but if I do, I won't qualify for unemployment because I'm working. WTF! It seems to me that the government is trying to keep me down. I believe if done correctly, my current employer should verify what I was making and then I should be able to make the equivalent through benefits and part time jobs until I find something full time. Just my 2 cents!



Damn, that sucks.  Here in NJ, or at least in PA, you can make up to a certain amount of money and still collect full benefits, any more, and they just subtract that out and give you a partial benefit.  At least that way you are encouraged to find some work.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 24, 2009)

soxmuscle said:


> What a time to be graduating college in the next couple of years!



Don't even get me started there.


----------



## joesmooth20 (Feb 24, 2009)

I'm getting out of the military soon and was told that I can collect unemployment for 24months since i served eight years. That is ridiculous IMO, and too good of a deal. This is probably why 23% of vets are unemployed.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 24, 2009)




----------



## busyLivin (Feb 24, 2009)

Yeah, tough times.  I was told back in October that our jobs were only guaranteed until April... I may be laid off soon too.  

I hate interviewing.   Hopefully things will change.  If I am laid off I may go in an entirely new direction.. tired of an office job.  I just don't know what that direction is yet


----------



## Doublebase (Feb 24, 2009)

busyLivin said:


> Yeah, tough times.  I was told back in October that our jobs were only guaranteed until April... I may be laid off soon too.
> 
> I hate interviewing.   Hopefully things will change.  If I am laid off I may go in an entirely new direction.. tired of an office job.  I just don't know what that direction is yet



Construction.  6 months on 6 months off.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 24, 2009)

Track work or Lab tech.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 24, 2009)

Damn!  The Post just laid off Liz Smith.
NY Post drops legendary gossip columnist Liz Smith


----------



## Burner02 (Feb 24, 2009)

busyLivin said:


> Yeah, tough times. I was told back in October that our jobs were only guaranteed until April... I may be laid off soon too.
> 
> I hate interviewing.  Hopefully things will change. If I am laid off I may go in an entirely new direction.. tired of an office job. I just don't know what that direction is yet


I just took a job working in Afghanistan...BIG paychecks...you can stay a year...or you can stay as long as you want.
It's not for everybody...but if you are about to be out of work and want to make a LOT of $$ in a year...might be a direction...


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 24, 2009)

Burner02 said:


> I just took a job working in Afghanistan...BIG paychecks...you can stay a year...or you can stay as long as you want.
> It's not for everybody...but if you are about to be out of work and want to make a LOT of $$ in a year...might be a direction...



How safe is it?


----------



## maniclion (Feb 25, 2009)

I collected unemployment and worked for my friend for cash under the table after I got out of the Navy.  I let the unemployment accrue and lived on my earnings, me and my Navy buddy Colin did.  We lived like kings, got to stay in Hawaii with our other Navy friends who were still in and saved up money for school.  I burned 3 month's just doing nothing and then decided to go to school, then I didn't have to go to interviews to prove I was looking for a job.  We pretty much started a tradition once we exhausted that another friend of ours from the ship would be getting out and take our spots, it went on like that for about 5 years.  In my eyes it was good for us because it gave us time to settle into civilian life and explore where we wanted to go in life.  Each one of us who did that ended up going to college like most every ex-military person says they want to and we did very well because we had partied ourselves out so we could focus.  Most of our friends who went straight back home after their discharge ended up in some nowhere job usually at the factory their dad worked at or doing construction or as a CompUSA sales person.  They never got around to doing the college thing and many ended up re-enlisting after a few years.......


----------



## busyLivin (Feb 25, 2009)

Burner02 said:


> I just took a job working in Afghanistan...BIG paychecks...you can stay a year...or you can stay as long as you want.
> It's not for everybody...but if you are about to be out of work and want to make a LOT of $$ in a year...might be a direction...



Yeah, I don't know what I'll do.. but very likely staying local.  I first want to see how things pan out with my job & make a move when I have to.


----------



## ROID (Feb 25, 2009)

maniclion said:


> well because we had partied ourselves out so we could focus.



Amen.  I used to feel so guilty for not getting through college in the "expected" time or not doing what everyone else is doing ( steady job, family, etc...)  I screwed around in dead end jobs for a few years, partied my ass off, lost all of my "friends" and then got on track to what I'm sure is a successful life. I wish the best for everyone but I can't even estimate how many people come up to me now and say I wish I would have done something different, something similar to you. (paraphrase)


----------



## KelJu (Feb 25, 2009)

ROID said:


> Amen.  I used to feel so guilty for not getting through college in the "expected" time or not doing what everyone else is doing ( steady job, family, etc...)  I screwed around in dead end jobs for a few years, partied my ass off, lost all of my "friends" and then got on track to what I'm sure is a successful life. I wish the best for everyone but I can't even estimate how many people come up to me now and say I wish I would have done something different, something similar to you. (paraphrase)





Same here. I partied like a rock star my first few years.


----------



## Burner02 (Feb 25, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> How safe is it?


so far so good. I'm finding out that our terrorist...friends are...fair weather terrorists...they like to do their evil in the warm months...

I live in a 'camp' roughly the size of a neighborhood block or two. 
When I get my lap top up n running (I fragged the power source enroute) I'll get some pictures up loaded.

The camp I'm at is a fairly safe place. (knock on wood) In other camps everbody has to wear their full 'battle rattle' (armour) in certain areas...mine is put away and most likely wont be touched again till I turn it in. 
(Actually...its about 40lbs or so with the kevlar bullet proof plates in the vest, so I may wear that when I hit the track..)


----------



## Burner02 (Feb 25, 2009)

ROID said:


> Amen. I used to feel so guilty for not getting through college in the "expected" time or not doing what everyone else is doing ( steady job, family, etc...) I screwed around in dead end jobs for a few years, partied my ass off, lost all of my "friends" and then got on track to what I'm sure is a successful life. I wish the best for everyone but I can't even estimate how many people come up to me now and say I wish I would have done something different, something similar to you. (paraphrase)


kinda the same. All my friends are married, with kids...the 'normal route'...I kinda wish I had that....but life is what it is.
One of the kids that came over with me, is 24....JUST out of hte military...and making the big $$...if he stays a couple years....he'll be set up nicely as well as educated, if he sticks to it and finishes his degree...I'm jealous.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 25, 2009)

Burner02 said:


> so far so good. I'm finding out that our terrorist...friends are...fair weather terrorists...they like to do their evil in the warm months...
> 
> I live in a 'camp' roughly the size of a neighborhood block or two.
> When I get my lap top up n running (I fragged the power source enroute) I'll get some pictures up loaded.
> ...


Wow, I didn't know you were overseas.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 25, 2009)

ROID said:


> I can't even estimate how many people come up to me now and say I wish I would have done something different....



Yeah.

And how many people are content.  I mean "content" by being satisfied enough with their life situation.  All of the factors in life in general.

I have always tried to focus on doing what I want to do, and living where I want to live.  People I associate with, etc.

It's very important to me.


----------



## Burner02 (Feb 26, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> Wow, I didn't know you were overseas.


oh yeah...I went to Afghanistan... 
the job I had been doing th past year...actually expected me to work, so I couldn't get on here too much...and then got the job, ball rolled pretty quickly and here I am! TA DA!


----------



## A Black Guy (Feb 26, 2009)

Don't forget that unemployment isn't payed out of the public tax base, but by your previous employer who has been paying around 2% of your salary into the unemployment tax roll.

This is why you have to work a minimum amount and earn a certain amount in the time before you can claim unemployment benefits.

If you work for McDonald's for 2 months and then get fired, you don't get unemployment.


----------



## Chubby (Feb 26, 2009)

Doublebase said:


> I guess I'm just jealous.  Wish I only had to work 6 months then collect 80% of my income the rest of the year.


I am not jealous of these construction workers.  I have seen them working in very extreme wheather in  summer.  I wonder how much damage it would cause to their health in the future.  I am just glad that atleast these hardworking people are getting some extra cash in their pocket to take care of themselves.  But I really feel jealous of those CEOs of big corporations who get millions of dollars as  bonus.  Bonus for what..doing what they are supposed to do?


----------



## highpockets (Feb 26, 2009)

chobby192 said:


> I am not jealous of these construction workers.  I have seen them working in very extreme wheather in  summer.  I wonder how much damage it would cause to their health in the future.  I am just glad that atleast these hardworking people are getting some extra cash in their pocket to take care of themselves.  But I really feel jealous of those CEOs of big corporations who get millions of dollars as  bonus.  Bonus for what..doing what they are supposed to do?



CEO's getting million dollar bonuses and golden parachutes for failing. Who in their right mind pays someone for doing a miserable job and failing? More suits just scratching each other's backs while we pay for it!


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 26, 2009)

highpockets said:


> CEO's getting million dollar bonuses and golden parachutes for failing. Who in their right mind pays someone for doing a miserable job and failing? More suits just scratching each other's backs while we pay for it!



I've seen first hand what they do to a good thing, They screwed up Motorola. It was a great job when I first started back in '86. Now it sucks.

You do have some people who think they deserve that money.  B_ _ _ _ _ s


----------



## Doublebase (Feb 26, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> I've seen first hand what they do to a good thing, They screwed up Motorola. It was a great job when I first started back in '86. Now it sucks.
> 
> You do have some people who think they deserve that money.  B_ _ _ _ _ s



Man you been there a while.  I bet you have a nice retirement though.  Stock options?  Motorola has changed a lot in the past 10 years.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 26, 2009)

Doublebase said:


> Man you been there a while.  I bet you have a nice retirement though.  Stock options?  Motorola has changed a lot in the past 10 years.



I may be wrong, but I doubt Motorola has a retirement plan, as most companies do not.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 26, 2009)

They made us into sub-contractors, I was there 4 1/2 years just months of being have vested. They let us go 2 days before christmas.

I have some money from my 401k but I really left with nothing.

I got lucky and got a job with the NYTA. Great benefits, retirement and a decent union.
Never again would I work for a private company unless I have a stake in it.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 26, 2009)

Big Smoothy said:


> I may be wrong, but I doubt Motorola has a retirement plan, as most companies do not.



They have one but I think you have to be 65 in order to receive a pension plan, I lost that privilege so long ago so I really didn't care.

They are not doing to good....they have themselves to blame, it was a great company when I first started. 
Motorola freezes pension plans
Cell phone maker announces pension freeze and suspends matching contributions to 401(k)s; execs take a pay cut.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 26, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> They made us into sub-contractors, I was there 4 1/2 years just months of being have vested. They let us go 2 days before christmas.
> 
> I have some money from my 401k but I really left with nothing.
> 
> ...



I agree!

Private companies leave us with nothing.  At best (or is that at worst?) a 401K.  401Ks, have hidden expense fees that are secret and it dependent on the market. 

At-will employment laws in 37 states.

American workers are treated like garbage.


----------



## petlisco (Aug 25, 2011)

*Angry 99er*

After posting my song on YouTube, I was surprised by the number of messages I received asking "What exactly is a 99er?"
I am an angry 99er and that anger has come out in song. The motivation came after I was called in by the Apple Store for an employment seminar and, after thirty years in Hollywood pioneering Apple hardware and software, I was not called back for an interview to be an "Apple Creative."
BTW, the clip was created using Apple hardware and software. My hope is that it will help highlight the issue. Please leave comments on YouTube and pass the link along.






YouTube Video


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 25, 2011)

Petlisco, 

Welcome to IM and thanks for the song.  Hope you stick around.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 25, 2011)

*Petlisco*

I think you registered to spread your song & video around.  Fine by me. 

But after listening to you song I want to say, I like it, but there is one thing:

It's not up to the government to give you a job.  

Although the gov and business has been outsourcing and offshoring jobs for decades, do not think they will "create" jobs for you, nor anyone else unemployed.  Of course if does depend on what industry/field you're in, and yes there is unfair age discrimination.

Create jobs?  Bartenders, waitresses, and cab drivers.  These are the jobs the gov policies are creating. 

It's not about political parties either. You noted a political party. 

If you want to work, I suggest you do what some of my relatives did - move to where there is more work if you're in a place where there is little.


----------



## petlisco (Aug 26, 2011)

*Reply to Big Smoothy*

What I want to spread is the message. I'm shocked by how many people have never even heard the term "99er"

I noted both major political parties and said they are the same. I don't expect the government to create a job for me, I would like them to nurture an environment where they are looking out for the interest of the citizens as much as they look out for the interests of big business.

I apply on average to 15 jobs a week located all over the country and state my willingness to relocate. Counting the 99ers, the unemployed and the under employed, we are over 20%. Got any viable job leads? I'm ready to move.


----------



## billfred (Aug 26, 2011)

petlisco said:


> What I want to spread is the message. I'm shocked by how many people have never even heard the term "99er"
> 
> I noted both major political parties and said they are the same. I don't expect the government to create a job for me, I would like them to nurture an environment where they are looking out for the interest of the citizens as much as they look out for the interests of big business.
> 
> I apply on average to 15 jobs a week located all over the country and state my willingness to relocate. Counting the 99ers, the unemployed and the under employed, we are over 20%. Got any viable job leads? I'm ready to move.


 
most of the oilfield in Texas and North Dakota is being run by immagrant workers because Americans can't pass the drug test.

If you can pass a drug test and willing to locate, you can find a job in this industry.


----------



## LAM (Aug 26, 2011)

why is a drug tested needed?  what a person does on their own free time is of no business to their employer.  drug testing workers is big gov not little gov

Texas has one of the worst public education system in the country how does this help future generations?

what is the average hourly wage for those jobs?

are the workers employees or contractors?

are there any benefits?


----------



## oufinny (Aug 26, 2011)

billfred said:


> most of the oilfield in Texas and North Dakota is being run by immagrant workers because Americans can't pass the drug test.
> 
> If you can pass a drug test and willing to locate, you can find a job in this industry.



WTF are you talking about can't pass a drug test?  I work in the oil industry and unless you are some degenerate meth head or blasting down joints daily you are going to be fine for a drug test.  Getting a job down here is not easy nor it is hard, you just have to have the appropriate skill set.


----------



## oufinny (Aug 26, 2011)

LAM said:


> why is a drug tested needed?  what a person does on their own free time is of no business to their employer.  drug testing workers is big gov not little gov
> 
> Texas has one of the worst public education system in the country how does this help future generations?
> 
> ...



Education system aside, as all public education in the US is shit, TX has its shit together better than many states.  I think if you are on federal unemployment past a certain period of time you should have to work for the government three days a week to earn the money doing something entirely menial as a motivator and you SHOULD take a drug screen monthly to prove you are not squandering the money.  You want people to WORK to find a job, not sit on their fucking ass sucking at the government's teat.  I am pro government involvement in that as it costs you, me and everyone else money so you have privilege of not working (regardless of if it was your fault or not).


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 26, 2011)

oufinny said:


> I think if you are on federal unemployment past a certain period of time you should have to work for the government three days a week to earn the money doing something entirely menial as a motivator



I agree with this, but if they did it, attendance at tea party rallies would drop 3 days out of the week.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 26, 2011)

billfred said:


> most of the oilfield in Texas and North Dakota is being run by immagrant workers because Americans can't pass the drug test.



Please show some data on this, billfred.

So, _There is factual data that because Americans cannot pass the drug test, so immigrant workers are doing these jobs?_

Are these immigrants, legally residents w/ green cards?  Citizens? 

Are they are H1-B visas?

Are they illegal?


Regardless, the are likely work for _less_ that an American citizen would.  This, is called _Insourcing._


----------



## MDR (Aug 26, 2011)

I just read an article from U.S. News and World Reports focusing on the earning power of American men that stated that only 63% of men of working age are actually working in this country, in any capacity, including part and full time workers.  The shocking comparison is that in 1969 the number of men of working age that had a full or part time job was 95%.  Also, the actual value of salaries in this country has gone down over 25% over the past 40 years when you figure in inflation.  So in real dollars, our actual earning level is equal to the earning level in 1948.  Frightening.  The American working man is becoming a thing of the past.


----------



## LAM (Aug 26, 2011)

oufinny said:


> I think if you are on federal unemployment past a certain period of time you should have to work for the government three days a week to earn the money doing something entirely menial as a motivator and you SHOULD take a drug screen monthly to prove you are not squandering the money.  You want people to WORK to find a job, not sit on their fucking ass sucking at the government's teat.  I am pro government involvement in that as it costs you, me and everyone else money so you have privilege of not working (regardless of if it was your fault or not).



there are no more extended unemployment benefits so it's moot to even talk about it.  the US is short 14million jobs, to say that most are sitting around "enjoying" that measly unemployment check is laughable.  check the BLS there are 6 people applying for every 1 job.  and the older a person is the less likely they are to get hired.  so a person that is 60 and gets laid off is pretty much fucked once their unemployment benefits run out.

you already did earn the money by being employed for a certain amount of time.  you can not collect unemployment benefits if you are fired.

$400 a week is the max in most areas and is just enough money to keep most from blowing their fucking head off, you can't do shit with that kind of money unless you are 18.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 26, 2011)

MDR said:


> I just read an article from U.S. News and World Reports focusing on the earning power of American men that stated that only 63% of men of working age are actually working in this country, in any capacity, including part and full time workers.  The shocking comparison is that in 1969 the number of men of working age that had a full or part time job was 95%.  Also, the actual value of salaries in this country has gone down over 25% over the past 40 years when you figure in inflation.  So in real dollars, our actual earning level is equal to the earning level in 1948.  Frightening.  The American working man is becoming a thing of the past.


Thanks, MDR.

If you could post a link I'd be grateful. 

I studied the stats in the past, and yeah, I call the year 1970 more or less, to be the start of the statistical decline in wages.  

And only 64% of adult males working?  That's a very bad number.

These numbers are for countries abroad that we've seen.  And now, it's us.


----------



## LAM (Aug 26, 2011)

Big Smoothy said:


> I studied the stats in the past, and yeah, I call the year 1970 more or less, to be the start of the statistical decline in wages.



Labor's Share - FRB St Louis
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/net/20040801/cover.pdf


----------



## MDR (Aug 26, 2011)

Big Smoothy said:


> Thanks, MDR.
> 
> If you could post a link I'd be grateful.
> 
> ...


 

Took me a minute to find it again, but here is the article.  Interesting stuff.

A smaller share of men have jobs today than at any time since World War II
As President Barack Obama puts together a new jobs plan to be revealed shortly after Labor Day, he is up against a powerful force, long in the making, that has gone virtually unnoticed in the debate over how to put people back to work: Employers are increasingly giving up on the American man.
If that sounds bleak, it's because it is. The portion of men who work and their median wages have been eroding since the early 1970s. For decades the impact of this fact was softened in many families by the increasing number of women who went to work and took up the slack. More recently, the housing bubble helped to mask it by boosting the male-dominated construction trades, which employed millions. When real estate ultimately crashed, so did the prospects for many men. The portion of men holding a job???any job, full- or part-time???fell to 63.5 percent in July???hovering stubbornly near the low point of 63.3 percent it reached in December 2009. These are the lowest numbers in statistics going back to 1948. Among the critical category of prime working-age men between 25 and 54, only 81.2 percent held jobs, a barely noticeable improvement from its low point last year???and still well below the depths of the 1982-83 recession, when employment among prime-age men never dropped below 85 percent. To put those numbers in perspective, consider that in 1969, 95 percent of men in their prime working years had a job.
Men who do have jobs are getting paid less. After accounting for inflation, median wages for men between 30 and 50 dropped 27 percent???to $33,000 a year??? from 1969 to 2009, according to an analysis by Michael Greenstone, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who was chief economist for Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. "That takes men and puts them back at their earnings capacity of the 1950s," Greenstone says. "That has staggering implications."
What is going on here? For one thing, women, who have made up a majority of college students for three decades and now account for 57 percent, are adapting better to a data-driven economy that values education and collaborative skills more than muscle. That isn't to say women have yet eclipsed men in the workplace. They continue to earn about 16 percent less than men and struggle against gender discrimination and career interruptions as they disproportionately take time away from the job to raise children. And both men and women have confronted job losses in the weak economy. In July, 68.9 percent of women aged 25-54 had jobs, vs. 72.8 percent in January 2008. (In 1969, however, fewer than half did.) After a long decline in men's work opportunities, the recession worsened things with a sharp drop in male employment. Unemployed men are now more likely than women to be among the long-term jobless.
The economic downturn exacerbated forces that have long been undermining men in the workplace, says Lawrence Katz, a Harvard professor of labor economics. Corporations have cut costs by moving manufacturing jobs, routine computer programming, and even simple legal work out of the country. The production jobs that remain are increasingly mechanized and demand higher skills. Technology and efforts to reduce the number of layers within corporations are leaving fewer middle-management jobs.
The impact has been greatest on moderately skilled men, especially those without a college education, though even men with bachelor's degrees from less selective schools are beginning to see their position erode. "There's really been this polarization in the middle," Katz says, as men at the top of the education and income scale see their earnings rise while those in the middle gravitate downward.
For generations, American workers kept up with technological change by achieving higher levels of education than their parents. High school education became the norm as the country progressed from an agrarian society to an industrial one. After World War II, increasing numbers of Americans went to college as the economy became more complex. But for reasons not fully understood, college graduation rates essentially stopped growing for men in the late 1970s, shortly after the Vietnam War ended, perhaps in part because draft deferments were no longer an inducement. Women, on the other hand, continued to pursue college degrees in greater numbers and have been more responsive to the changing economy in other ways, taking many of the nursing and technician positions in the expanding health-care industry and making greater headway in service jobs.
While unemployment is an ordeal for anyone, it still appears to be more traumatic for men. Men without jobs are more likely to commit crimes and go to prison. They are less likely to wed, more likely to divorce, and more likely to father a child out of wedlock. Ironically, unemployed men tend to do even less housework than men with jobs and often retreat from family life, says W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.
The long-term fix is simple to spell out and tough to achieve: getting more men to attend college and improving the skills of those who don't. Reducing financial barriers to higher education would be a start. But there isn't much political appetite for spending the billions it would take to make that happen. Even once-sacred Pell Grants are on the block as Washington looks for budget cuts. A strapped public education system that leaves many young men unprepared for the workplace, let alone college, doesn't help. It's noteworthy but not especially comforting to know that this is not just an American problem. The same gender differences in college attendance and employment are emerging in rich societies around the world.
Grappling with these intractable problems won't likely be Obama's top priority. He is under pressure to do something that will be felt now, not a generation from now. The longer people who are currently unemployed remain out of work, the more their skills will atrophy and the greater the risk of a cohort of men???and women???who become permanently detached from the workplace. Anything that raises employment overall would help. Obama is expected to propose tax incentives for employers to hire workers, a reduction in payroll taxes employers pay, and spending on infrastructure. Money for labor-intensive projects, such as retrofitting buildings for energy conservation or refurbishing aging schools, would be especially effective in putting men back to work in construction???though Washington is likely in no mood to pay for that either.
Other ideas that economists have proposed are geared toward keeping men with diminished opportunities from drifting out of the workforce altogether. They include reducing unemployment-benefits extensions for those who have been out of work for a year or more???to give those who are getting by on an unemployment check a stronger incentive to take a job, even if it's not the most desirable one. Others have proposed modifying the Social Security disability insurance system so that it is no longer an all-or-nothing proposition and instead subsidizes employers for hiring workers with partial disabilities. Since 1970, the fraction of 25- to 60-year-old men on disability has more than doubled, from 2.4 percent to 5 percent. Once they begin receiving disability payments, few return to work.
If there is any upside to recessions, it's that they tend to expose deep problems that go ignored or at least overlooked in better times. The short-term fixes the President proposes may provide much needed relief for the millions of people looking for a job. The danger is that the fixes will work just well enough to let us pretend???for a while longer???that the real problem is no longer there.
_*The bottom line:* As women saw workplace gains in recent decades???68 percent of those 25 to 54 have jobs???men's prospects have diminished._
by Mike Dorning - Bloomberg Businessweek


----------



## petlisco (Aug 27, 2011)

LAM said:


> there are no more extended unemployment benefits so it's moot to even talk about it.  the US is short 14million jobs, to say that most are sitting around "enjoying" that measly unemployment check is laughable.  check the BLS there are 6 people applying for every 1 job.  and the older a person is the less likely they are to get hired.  so a person that is 60 and gets laid off is pretty much fucked once their unemployment benefits run out.
> 
> you already did earn the money by being employed for a certain amount of time.  you can not collect unemployment benefits if you are fired.
> 
> $400 a week is the max in most areas and is just enough money to keep most from blowing their fucking head off, you can't do shit with that kind of money unless you are 18.


Thank you LAM. As one of those fucked 60 year old guys I can tell you that I paid the maximum into unemployment for decades while I was employed so I did not feel any guilt for collecting for 99 weeks. I'm stuck at now what?

I don't think the guys in the oil fields are looking to hire someone like me.

I worked in Hollywood for 30 years but as a below the line guy, no residuals. I have a wealth of knowledge and experience that I would love to share but I do not have teaching credentials. I was accepted into the MFA Film Production Program at RIT to earn the degree so I could teach but that would have put me $120,000 into debt and I can not bring myself to borrow more than I could repay before I die. I find in unconscionable that they would loan it to me. Just another part of the problem.

Please help spread the word about the plight of the older, long term unemployed. Help spread the link to my song and video.

OUT OF WHACK - YouTube

I have been searching the Internet for unemployment and 99er forums and I must say that this is one of the best I've seen so far.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 27, 2011)

Best of luck, Petlisco. 

Hope you stick around here.


----------



## petlisco (Aug 28, 2011)

*Thanks*

Thanks, Big Smoothy. 

After almost 3 years of being unemployed, I have just started to explore the online discussions. I am surprised by the number of people who do not realize how big a problem this is. Counting the unemployed, the under employed, the 99ers and those who have just given up, we are looking at numbers over 20%. So to those people who respond that we are just lazy, get a job, I have to respond by saying that I work harder trying to get a job than I did when I had one. Job searching has become an obscession that absorbs the majority of my waking hours.

At 59, all I want is a reasonable wage and some health benefits.


----------



## LAM (Aug 28, 2011)

petlisco said:


> I am surprised by the number of people who do not realize how big a problem this is. Counting the unemployed, the under employed, the 99ers and those who have just given up, we are looking at numbers over 20%. So to those people who respond that we are just lazy, get a job, I have to respond by saying that I work harder trying to get a job than I did when I had one. Job searching has become an obscession that absorbs the majority of my waking hours.



unfortunately the US is the land of economic ignorance, it's how politicians continue to sell bullshit policies to the people that are not in their own well-being.  nobody truly fights for labor anymore only capital.

it's a sad state of affairs when the masses listen to politicians and not the words of academia.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Aug 28, 2011)

petlisco said:


> . Counting the unemployed, the under employed, the 99ers and those who have just given up, we are looking at numbers over 20%.....At 59, all I want is a reasonable wage and some health benefits.



Yes petlisco, I have a few relatives in my family with mortgages and kids.  They always worked and had decent jobs as they got into management or had skills, and, etc.

When they got laid off in 08/09 they could not find work at all.  They are in their learly 50s but look like they're in their late 30.  My point, is that age discrimination exists for many reasons.  

At least one of these relatives was a 99er.  He planned on retiring about about 6 years.  House is nearly paid off, some investments here and there, and the 401K.  Well, now he probably won't every retire.  After his bennies ran out he went to selling cars at a dealership (he was a salesman over 20 years ago), but selling cars right now is a very tough games.  Be on the lot 80 hours per week, and sales are way down.  (2 huge dealerships in my homeotown recently closed and they had been in business for decades.)

So my point, like your, is that it's a real problem.  And yes, many people employed don't see it clearly or are cognizant of it - until it's them.


----------



## petlisco (Aug 29, 2011)

*Benefits?*

Your relative that is working for the car dealership, does he at least get health benefits for those 80 hours a week?


----------



## Gregzs (Oct 16, 2011)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/n...abbies.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha29

October 14, 2011

*Eyes Once on the Ticker Are Now on the Meter*

*By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM*

SCOTT CURTIS spent 25 years trading stocks on Wall Street before he lost his job in the recession. 
Now he drives a yellow cab, not just to make a living, but also to find his next post: He hangs a hiring pitch in the back seat. ???Three interviews so far,??? he said with a grin. 
At his taxi garage in the South Bronx, Mr. Curtis, 47, shares job-hunting tips with another felled financier, who drives home after shifts to Westchester County in his own car, a BMW. They wave hello to a pal, laid off from JPMorgan, who drives to help pay for her son???s European study-abroad program. 
It is a long slide from the trading floor to the driver???s wheel of a taxicab, but these former bankers have adopted a bullish outlook on their new profession. They say taxi driving, with its flexible hours and all-cash wages, is an undervalued asset ??? and an efficient way to meet potential employers face to face. 
???There are 20 million other people on Monster.com,??? said Mr. Curtis, who chats up his fares in case a chief executive or headhunter has stumbled in. ???I thought people would see this, and think, ???He???ll go the extra yard to go and get a job.??? ??? 
More accustomed to the back seat of a taxi, these cabbies are importing skills from their former world to the front seat, dressing well to impress their ???clients??? and finding ways to exploit the inefficiencies of the taxi market. 
While most cabbies view the meatpacking district in Manhattan as a must for late-night fares, Herb Reyes, once a financial director at a major entertainment company, sees a market with excess supply. So he heads to the usually deserted Avenue of the Americas in Midtown, where he knows bankers who work the Asian markets will be looking for rides home. 
Tough times have prompted more New Yorkers to seek financial relief and upward mobility in the taxi trade. The number of licensed city cabbies has risen by 10 percent since the stock market began its decline in late 2007, according to the Taxi and Limousine Commission. License renewals are up, too, officials said, suggesting that drivers who used to move on to higher-paying jobs are sticking with the hack trade for now. 
At Master Cabbie Taxi Academy in Long Island City, Queens, instructors have noticed an increase in former financial workers since the recession began. ???As they lay off, people come through,??? the owner, Terry Gelber, said. ???I haven???t driven in 18 years, but somebody I drove with back then was a broker. He was back last year to get his hack license again.??? 
Mr. Reyes, 38, registered for a cabby license after the severance from his former job ran out. ???People weren???t hiring at the salary I was making,??? he said on the phone from Westchester, where he lives with his wife and two sons, who both attend private school. ???They weren???t offering jobs at a level below, or even two levels below, where I was.??? 
When a friend suggested he look into taxi driving, he scoffed. ???I was born and raised in the city,??? Mr. Reyes recalled saying. ???I???m not driving a cab in New York.??? But on his first night in a taxi, he cleared $180 on fares. It was a Tuesday. ???I could only imagine what Saturday and Sunday would be like,??? he said. 
Passengers who climb into Mr. Curtis???s cab are greeted by a laminated sheet of paper reading: ???Ask to see my résumé. You won???t be sorry!??? It has led to three interviews, one with a major British bank, though none has yet resulted in a job offer. 
Mr. Curtis, who is hoping to land a hedge-fund position, said he decided to become a cabby after having little luck with traditional headhunters and job Web sites. ???I just figured the best way to market myself was to be driving around town with a sign that said: ???Hey, help me! I need a job!??? ??? he said. 
Mr. Curtis, divorced with two children and living in Cliffside Park, N.J., is earning a small fraction of his former income, he said. He is asked for his résumé about four times a day but acknowledges that after five months, he had hoped to already be back in an office. ???I get guys who say, ???This is ingenious!??? I???m like, if I???m such a genius, why am I driving a cab???? 
The stigma of the job, although softened, is not entirely gone. The JPMorgan veteran agreed to be interviewed on the condition that only her first name, Janet, be published. Her job, she said, could prompt her condo board on the Upper East Side to consider ousting her from the building. 
Janet was finishing an afternoon shift the other day in her work uniform: a navy blazer, floral scarf and Ralph Lauren sunglasses. She was raised in Manhattan; cab driving was never part of the plan. ???I always thought cabdrivers were idiots,??? she said. ???I still do. If anything, that has been reaffirmed.??? 
The regulars at the garage in the Bronx did not think she would last a week; two years later, she is still driving. She keeps a stack of 20 résumés by the driver???s seat, handing them out to passengers. One man submitted her name for three jobs at UBS, but it came to nothing. 
???I wanted a job while my son was in Europe,??? she said. ???I set myself a benchmark that by the time he???s back, I???d have a real job. And when he came back, and I didn???t ??? ??? 
Her voice trailed off. ???I was depressed for a week,??? she said. ???I picked up some young kids from JPMorgan, who I knew didn???t know what they were talking about in the cab, but they had the job. I didn???t.??? 
???There???s a lot of people doing things now that they didn???t think they???d be doing,??? Janet added. 
The new crop of cabbies might do well to consider the example of a predecessor: James Williamson III, an M.B.A. graduate who gained some renown in 2008 for his own résumé-in-the-backseat routine. Although his efforts earned a segment on CNN, Mr. Williamson, who studied business at La Salle University, never found a job after 18 months behind the wheel. 
???I never really got any leads,??? he said on the phone from Philadelphia, where he now lives. ???It was always ???Keep your hopes up; things will work out.??? And I would say, ???Are you guys hiring???? They???d say, ???Nobody???s hiring.??? ??? 
Last year, Mr. Williamson gave up his hack license after an aunt found him work as a nursing assistant. Today, he drives a van for disabled travelers. He is still looking for a professional position.


----------



## maniclion (Oct 17, 2011)

I had a hard time finding 2 assistants who had even the basic qualifications.  There are just too many dumbasses out there who don't have their shit together.  One guy came to the interview in his workout gear, another had just lost his cellphone so we had no way of contacting him, another had his computer conveniently stolen the day before so he had no resume, and other bs.


----------



## Doublebase (Oct 18, 2011)

maniclion said:


> I had a hard time finding 2 assistants who had even the basic qualifications.  There are just too many dumbasses out there who don't have their shit together.  One guy came to the interview in his workout gear, another had just lost his cellphone so we had no way of contacting him, another had his computer conveniently stolen the day before so he had no resume, and other bs.



We just hired two new warehouse guys.  Simple job, loading and unloading trucks basically.  We posted it on craigslist.  Got about 150 applicants.  Our HR lady was showing me some of the responses.  My favorite was a guy asking "I jus have a couple questions",  "what is the pay rate?"  First question he asks.  Lol.  And he spelled just like jus.  We ended up having a job fair.  18 people came.  Ended up hiring two guys.  We're talking 10-11$ an hour jobs.  I wasn't part of the hiring but these kids haven't impressed me in the least.  I mean its a low paying job but you can move up pretty fast in my industry if you are smart and work hard.  Hope they come around.


----------



## danzik17 (Oct 18, 2011)

Doublebase said:


> We just hired two new warehouse guys.  Simple job, loading and unloading trucks basically.  We posted it on craigslist.  Got about 150 applicants.  Our HR lady was showing me some of the responses.  My favorite was a guy asking "I jus have a couple questions",  "what is the pay rate?"  First question he asks.  Lol.  And he spelled just like jus.  We ended up having a job fair.  18 people came.  Ended up hiring two guys.  We're talking 10-11$ an hour jobs.  I wasn't part of the hiring but these kids haven't impressed me in the least.  I mean its a low paying job but you can move up pretty fast in my industry if you are smart and work hard.  Hope they come around.



Damn - those must have been some pretty stupid people to not impress you enough to allow them to unload a truck.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 18, 2011)




----------



## Doublebase (Oct 19, 2011)

danzik17 said:


> Damn - those must have been some pretty stupid people to not impress you enough to allow them to unload a truck.



Certain things like age, physical shape and personality play into it.


----------



## LAM (Oct 19, 2011)

maniclion said:


> One guy came to the interview in his workout gear,





I would have just laughed at him while pointing to the exit door!


----------



## Gregzs (Apr 23, 2012)

maniclion said:


> I had a hard time finding 2 assistants who had even the basic qualifications.  There are just too many dumbasses out there who don't have their shit together.  One guy came to the interview in his workout gear, another had just lost his cellphone so we had no way of contacting him, another had his computer conveniently stolen the day before so he had no resume, and other bs.



It does not help that employers are posting listings of vague jobs. I have passed on more than I can count that made no real sense or had unrealistic requirements. Some looked like an IT and a finance job merged into one. 


Firms' lack of job description, career path turns off recruits - InvestmentNews#

[h=2]Firms' lack of job description, career path turns off recruits[/h]By Lavonne Kuykendall 
April 22, 2012 
Financial advisers may be ready to hire this year, but many aren't in a position to attract the brightest young candidates, according to a recent survey and participants in a related recruiting round table last week. 
According to the fiscal-first-quarter TD Ameritrade Advisor Index of 502 registered investment advisers, just over half said that they don't have written job descriptions for the positions in their company, and two-thirds have no defined career paths for new hires. Yet younger and less experienced job candidates typically want both those things, advisers with recruiting experience said. 
That may partly explain why 22% of the RIAs surveyed last month by phone ranked hiring as their biggest challenge in managing people, compared with 18% who said firing. 
“We try to put ourselves in the employees' shoes and understand what is of value to them,” said Nathan Paulson, managing partner of Paulson Wealth Management LLC, which has been actively recruiting entry-level advisers. 
“In our rush, we can sometimes forget to do that,” he said, speaking as a panelist during the round table held in Chicago on Thursday and sponsored by TD Ameritrade Institutional, a unit of TD Ameritrade Inc. The company plans to release the survey in the next few weeks.

Younger hires in particular may be wary of taking a job without a clear set of responsibilities and a timetable for moving up, along with the training needed to advance. 
It could even be a deal breaker for some, according to the advisers who took part in the round table. 
Experienced hires don't really need a career path, though having a formal hiring process in place is still a good idea, Mr. Paulson said. 
But having a long-term plan that can be communicated to younger job candidates is essential. 
“You may be in a smaller role in the beginning, but we are setting a path to where you want to be,” he said he tells potential hires. 
Advisers generally seem more optimistic about their hiring plans now than at the beginning of the year, with 38% saying that they plan to hire, according to the TD Ameritrade survey. In its January survey, however, just 30% of advisers said that they expect to hire specialists or experienced staff members in the next 12 months. 
Smaller firms in particular may have trouble attracting young talent if they can't offer career paths, clearly defined job descriptions, training and regular performance evaluation, according to TD Ameritrade's research. 
“When you recruit high-potential candidates, they want to know the career path,” said Susan Chase Korin, chief operating officer of Balasa Dinverno Foltz LLC, an advisory firm that manages about $2 billion and hired eight new employees in 2011. “They know it is not written in stone, but it allows them to see the potential of coming to a smaller firm rather than going to the large brand name.” 
Part of the problem could be that advisers seem to take an ad hoc approach to personnel issues, with 52% saying that they turn to other advisers as their top source for advice on human resources management. Having a formal hiring process in place, including personality and aptitude testing, makes firms more comfortable allowing new hires to have direct client contact right away, which just 61% of advisers said that they do.

Advisers may not realize they need professional HR management, said Amit Dhawan, chief operating officer and quantitative-research analyst of Geneva Investment Management of Chicago LLC, which hired its first human resources manager in recent months. 
“In the early days of a firm, everyone wears many hats,” he said. 
That changed as the firm grew and people no longer had the time or knowledge to handle tricky personnel issues. The firm has developed wide-ranging training programs, which its centralized HR department coordinates. 
“Employees get trained on everything, even if they don't use it at all,” Mr. Dhawan said. “That way, if clients ask a question about it, you can answer without saying, "I'll have to get back to you.'” _lkuykendall@investmentnews.com _


----------



## Gregzs (Jun 10, 2012)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/b...?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120610

[h=1]Forced to Early Social Security, Unemployed Pay a Steep Price[/h][h=6]By MOTOKO RICH[/h]PALM SPRINGS, Calif. — This retirement oasis in the desert has long beckoned those who want to spin out their golden years playing golf and sitting by the pool in the arid sunshine.        
But for Clare Keany, who turned 62 last fall and cannot find work, it feels more like a prison. Just a few miles from the gated estates of corporate chieftains and Hollywood stars, Ms. Keany lives in a tiny mobile home, barely getting by on little more than $1,082 a month from Social Security.        

“I would rather be functioning and having a job somewhere,” said Ms. Keany, whose pixie haircut, trim build and crinkling smile suggest someone much younger than her years. “I really don’t enjoy living like this. I’ve got too much to do still.”        
Even as most Americans are delaying retirement to bolster their savings accounts, the recession and its protracted aftermath have forced many older people who are out of work to draw Social Security much earlier than they had planned.        
According to an analysis by Steve Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, about 200,000 more people filed initial claims in 2009 and 2010 than the agency had predicted before the recession and he said the trend most likely continued in 2011 and 2012, though that is harder to quantify. The most likely reason is joblessness.        

Ms. Keany had always expected to work into her 70s and add to her retirement cushion. But after losing her job as an executive assistant at an advertising agency in 2008, she searched fruitlessly for full-time work and exhausted her unemployment benefits. For a while, she strung together odd jobs and lived off her 401(k) retirement and profit-sharing accounts. Then, this year, with her savings depleted and no job offers in sight, she reluctantly applied for Social Security.        
Gazing out the window where the Santa Rosa mountains rise behind the mobile home park, she said, “It just seems a waste of a life, to be honest.”        

Drawing Social Security early has repercussions that will be hard to overcome even if the economy — and her work prospects — improve. By collecting four years shy of her full retirement age, Ms. Keany will receive a reduced monthly benefit for the rest of her life. Those who collect early get 20 to 30 percent less a month than they would get if they waited until full retirement age, which varies by year of birth. People in Ms. Keany’s age bracket are expected to live an average of close to 23 more years.        

“The most potent lever that individuals can pull in trying to get themselves a secure retirement income is to postpone claiming” Social Security, said Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.        
As recently as a decade ago, half of those eligible claimed Social Security at 62. But that share has been falling because people are living longer and still want to work as well as shore up retirement funds. That makes it even more galling for those who are forced to claim early because of unemployment. Several people interviewed mentioned blows to their self-esteem along with abandoned dreams of a more comfortable old age.        

According to an analysis by Richard W. Johnson, director of the retirement policy program at the Urban Institute, 37 percent of older workers who lost their jobs between 2008 and 2011 and did not return to work ended up claiming Social Security as soon as they turned 62.        

Ms. Keany, who was born in Britain, was making $64,000 a year as an administrative manager for a boutique advertising agency in Santa Monica when the firm lost two of its biggest clients in one week. She has nearly three decades of experience in the United States. She has managed offices, arranged visits by foreign dignitaries, composed employee handbooks and finessed demanding bosses. She said she had also run errands for movie producers, organized home offices and coordinated the administrative details of a drug study.        

Those years of experience now work against her, she thinks. “I’m overly qualified, overly skilled,” she said.        
Her age is also most likely an impediment. After they lose a job, older workers tend to have a much harder time finding another than younger workers.        
A Government Accountability Office report found that just under a third of those 55 to 64 who lost their jobs from 2007 through 2009 had found full-time work by January 2010, compared with 41 percent of people 25 to 54. The median duration of unemployment for those 55 and older was 34.1 weeks in May, according to the Labor Department, in contrast to 22 weeks for all jobless people over 16.        

Ms. Keany, who is single and has no children, tried a change of geography. Because the economy in California was so weak, she moved in with friends in Charlotte, N.C., three years ago in hopes of having better luck there. She signed up with employment offices and volunteered, but did not find paying work.        

Another friend invited her to stay on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, where Ms. Keany eventually began work at a women’s recovery house in exchange for room and utilities. Then Hurricane Irene hit last August and damaged the house. Ms. Keany could not afford to stay.        

In a panic, she used the last of her savings to move to Palm Springs last October and buy a $19,000 one-bedroom mobile home in the same park where friends lived two doors down.        
“I was so frantic at that point and I was at my wit’s end,” said Ms. Keany, saying she still planned to find a job. “I thought at least with Palm Springs it’s a retirement resort community and I know there’s a lot of business here as well.”        
She scoured Craigslist for affluent residents seeking personal assistants. She took a one-month job in Los Angeles, chauffeuring the principal actor on a movie. She applied for a job as a concierge at a Marriott Hotel, but withdrew after hearing it offered only eight hours a week.        

Finally, in January, she gave in and filed for Social Security. Her monthly check covers the $336 mobile home park fee plus utilities, her cellphone bill, insurance and a satellite dish. She is also paying $100 a month in credit card debt. To save money, she has canceled the data plan on her BlackBerry and cut back on fresh fruits and vegetables.        

After a wind storm blew out a window, she covered it with a tarp because she could not afford to replace the glass.        

Ms. Keany is still hoping to find work. Social Security recipients younger than full retirement age can earn up to $14,640 a year without sacrificing any of their monthly benefit. At Ms. Keany’s age, for every $2 earned over that amount, Social Security deducts $1 in benefits.        

This month, she flew back to the Outer Banks to stay with friends and work part time in two gift shops over the summer. If she cannot find permanent work in North Carolina, she plans to return to Palm Springs in the fall.        
She is discouraged by what she sees as youth-obsessed employers. “We’re already has-beens, which is so sad,” Ms. Keany said. “Some of us are still pretty productive.”


----------



## ChickDiesel (Jun 10, 2012)

Pfff!  Don't remind me!  I used to live in the Oxford Circle and paid like $900 for one bedroom!!!

PLEASE LIKE MY ATHLETE PAGE ON FACEBOOK!


----------



## LAM (Jun 10, 2012)

it's monstrous what they have done to people with that intentionally created recession...unfortunately since there is no god, no punishment will ever come to those that deserve it.


----------



## secdrl (Jun 11, 2012)

In D.C, you can collect unemployment insurance benefits for up to 99 weeks. Then, when that 99 weeks is up, there's an emergency extension program where you can continue to collect unemployment benefits, but the work contacts per week are supposed to increase from 2 to 4. I don't advocate being a load and living off the government, but I totally understand why/how people become dependent on government. 99 weeks to sit back and collect a check is a long time. I don't know many people that wouldn't become addicted to that.


----------



## LAM (Jun 11, 2012)

secdrl said:


> In D.C, you can collect unemployment insurance benefits for up to 99 weeks. Then, when that 99 weeks is up, there's an emergency extension program where you can continue to collect unemployment benefits, but the work contacts per week are supposed to increase from 2 to 4. I don't advocate being a load and living off the government, but I totally understand why/how people become dependent on government. 99 weeks to sit back and collect a check is a long time. I don't know many people that wouldn't become addicted to that.



Emergency Unemployment Compensation continues until the end of 2012.  it takes a long time to replace a high paying white collar job these days.  replacing a middle income white collar job with a $14/hr low wage service sector job is a dead end and a step to no where except poverty.  most of the 5M jobs that were lost in large firms in the private sector in 2008 when they reduced workforces have been filled but they did so with new employees that required lower salaries, etc.


----------



## dirtbiker666 (Jun 11, 2012)

Burner02 said:


> I just took a job working in Afghanistan...BIG paychecks...you can stay a year...or you can stay as long as you want.
> It's not for everybody...but if you are about to be out of work and want to make a LOT of $$ in a year...might be a direction...



I don;t care how safe it is x military with a secret security clearance and have tons of Law enforcement training. Can you get me in bra ?


----------



## Gregzs (Sep 25, 2012)

Unemployment could plague U.S. after jobs return - CBS News

[h=1]Unemployment could plague U.S. after jobs return[/h]By Constantine von Hoffman (MoneyWatch) America is facing an unemployment problem far more complex than what emerges in government jobless statistics. Changes in who the unemployed are and what has happened to them in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis could mean a starkly different economy even after jobs have returned.Going just by the numbers. it might appear things are getting better, or at least not getting much worse. The unemployment rate dropped in August to 8.1 percent, from 8.3 percent. Yet the main reason for that decline was that many job-seekers gave up looking for work. A more accurate picture is visible in the four-week average of the number of people applying for unemployment benefits. The Labor Department said today that nearly 378,000 Americans applied for jobless aid last week, the highest level in nearly three months and the fifth-straight week that figure has increased. 

It isn't just the number of people out of work that matters; it's also how long they've been out of work. Of the nearly 13.3 million unemployed people in the U.S., 5 million, or 40 percent, have been without a job for more than six months, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of this total, 4 million, or 29 percent, have been jobless for a year or more. This is near the all-time and three times the rate at the start of the Great Recession in 2008. It currently takes an American 39 weeks to find a job after being fired.

The longer people are out of work, the harder it is for them to eventually make their way back into the labor force. And when they do find a job, it is typically for lower pay than what they previously earned. That doesn't only hurt individual households -- it's problematic for the entire U.S. economy, too, since employees facing lower wages and salaries are likely to reduce their spending, a serious challenge for a country that depends on personal consumption to drive growth. 

It's well known that job losses have been lower among more highly educated people. In August, the unemployment rate for those with only a high school diploma was 10.3 percent, while for those with college degree it was 4.3 percent. But that disparity levels out once people lose their job.
An unemployed person with a doctorate has roughly the same chance of being out of work for more than a year as someone who hasn't finished high school, according to Pew Research Center. In fact, an unemployed worker with a PhD is slightly more likely to have trouble finding work again. That's because employers believe that the skills of these so-called knowledge workers decay the longer they are out of work. 
Highly educated workers are also at a disadvantage because of the time required to acquire that education. Once older workers lose their job, meanwhile, they are are far more likely to enter the ranks of the long-term unemployed than younger workers are. 
People returning to work after a long period almost always earn significantly less than they did before. The larger pool of job candidates, along with huge gains in worker productivity over the last decade, has caused the median income in the U.S. to fall. The median annual household income last year was $50,054, down 1.5 percent from 2010, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. It has now fallen back to the level it was at in 1996. This is shrinking the middle class as an income group and, perhaps even more fundamentally, may even be changing Americans' social identity.






 (Credit: Pew Research Center) 
Since World War II, most Americans have described themselves as belonging to the middle class. Indeed, the percentage of people who identify themselves as middle class has traditionally far exceeded the statistical definition of this group as measured by distribution of income. But that seems to be changing. 
Pew, a nonpartisan think tank, also has found that nearly a third of Americans now describe themselves as belonging to the lower class -- that is up from 25 percent at the start of the recession. 

About three-quarters of those who think of themselves as lower class say it's harder to get ahead today than it was 10 years ago. Only half believe hard work brings success, a view expressed by overwhelming majorities of those in the middle (67 percent) and upper classes (71 percent). People in the lower classes are also significantly more likely than middle- or upper-class adults to believe their children will have a worse standard of living than they do, Pew's research shows.
The expectation that each generation will surpass their parents is, of course, central to the American Dream. But with the middle class shrinking and the lower class expanding, that defining social and economic narrative in the U.S. may soon need revision.


----------



## LAM (Sep 25, 2012)

Marx theorized that as capitalism increased over time in the US and other advanced economies that more and more of the offspring of those born into the working class would eventually slip into the underclass as social mobility continually decreases over time.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 26, 2012)

^ As for Marx I have his book _Capital_ and David Harvey's companion reader.

I have not read it yet, but because it's kind of deep, but I hope to get at it, and understand it.


----------



## Gregzs (Oct 9, 2012)

Start-Up Bright Uses Technology to Improve Job-Seeking Process - The Daily Beast

Startup Bright.com aims to use big data to make the job-seeking process more efficient and effective.   by  Melissa Lafsky  |    October 4, 2012 4:45 AM EDT 
The information technology revolution is often portrayed as a job killer. ATMs eliminate the need for bank tellers, voice-recognition software has put many stenographers out of business, and payment-processing applications will reduce the need for checkout-counter workers.






But it?s also quite possible that number-crunching machines and algorithms could help reduce the unemployment rate, by tuning up the highly inefficient job-seeking and hiring process. That?s the bet Bright.com, a Silicon Valley start-up, is making.

As we gear up to dissect another monthly jobs report, analysts overlook a largely ignored problem. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that there were 3.7 million jobs open in the U.S. at the end of July, up a mere 0.2 percent from July 2011. But only 3.2 percent of those posts were filled in the month. Why aren?t available positions being filled?


Some experts claim that these ?jobs open? numbers are lip service. Companies post jobs but refuse to fill them while they fret over Europe?s instability, market volatility, and the fiscal cliff. But there?s a larger defect at work, one that?s less the fault of the economy and more a byproduct of the way both job seekers and hiring companies use (or don?t use) technology.


Today?s job search is a goldmine of inefficiency. For starters, job seekers reach out to their swelled-to-bursting social network for leads. Then they comb through the millions of listings on Monster, CareerBuilder, and other sites, spending hours uploading millions of r?sum?s (many of which aren?t right for the position), which employers then have to sort through. By the end, both sides have wasted an absurd amount of time and money. Job sites may hinder the process more than help, since applicants can each apply to hundreds of jobs. The creation of the multi-lane information superhighway has created a traffic problem.


Systems management companies are using big data to tackle the problem of congestion on the roads. Now serial entrepreneur Steve Goodman is using algorithms and cheap, powerful processing to develop a system to match employers and employees more efficiently. His company, Bright.com, is a machine-learning algorithm that aims to connect job seekers with the right jobs.

Launched in June 2012, Bright, based in San Francisco, works by creating a score for every would-be job applicant who visits the site. Users upload r?sum?s and any other information they?re willing to share?location, Facebook page, etc.?and the algorithm delivers a score. It?s free for job seekers; the company makes its money by charging employers for its recruiting tools.
The trick?and it is quite a trick?is taking a host of ingredients, from the highly tangible (location, education, salary level) to the highly intangible (right level of experience, right background) and cooking up a single value that matches people with the jobs they not only want but can get.


The point of the algorithm is to have information that the individual user or human-resources executive can?t possibly access. Bright.com mines social- media contacts, and suggests jobs that come through people you already know. It pushes users toward companies that are more likely to hire from their college or grad school. It crunches numbers to determine a person?s preferred career path, even if she hasn?t thought it through herself, and suggests jobs she could be right for but may not have picked out of a search lineup. Salary is taken into account?applicants won?t be put up for jobs that are not in their desired range. (Users don?t have to share how much they make?the algorithm will guess.)


Once someone uploads their information and receives a Bright score, the site generates a  list of jobs that present the closest numerical match. People can keep searching for more listings, but search results will be ranked according to the Bright score match. Users then decide which jobs they?d like to pursue.

Today?s job search is a goldmine of inefficiency.​To make the whole system work, Goodman hired dozens of human-resources professionals to evaluate piles of r?sum?s and train the Bright score algorithm in how to think like the world?s fastest HR exec. He also hired a neuroscientist, Jacob Bollinger, as well as a former nuclear physicist, a geophysicist, and other data crunchers to build and test it.


To date, the site has listed more than 2.6 million jobs, mostly pulled from partnerships with Career Builder, Jobs Center, Beyond.com and around 20 other sites. The employers include a range of buzzy companies like Amazon and Zynga, plus Fortune 500 firms like Aetna, Nestle, and Wells Fargo. The biggest placement areas so far have been health care and telecom, as well as manufacturing?all industries that have helped make a dent in unemployment over the last few years. ?Bright?s data-science team spends more time [focusing] on blue-collar and middle-office worker positions,? said Goodman. ?Our sweet spot is people who make between $20,000 and $90,000?which makes up between 80 to 90 percent of America.?


For companies looking to hire, the upsides are clear: the same algorithms that spit out the right jobs for individuals likewise spit out the appropriate individuals for jobs. Bright allows hiring divisions to filter massive piles of r?sum?s in seconds. What?s more, an HR professional, with seconds to spend perusing each r?sum?, may not realize that certain key skills or details indicate better qualification for a job?another problem that can be solved by technology.


Bright isn?t the only tech venture looking to remodel how we look for jobs?startups like Brewster aim to take our Facebook and Twitter friends and organize them into searchable networking categories that better enable us to find useful connections during a job search. And of course there?s LinkedIn, the pioneer, and reigning monolith, of online career development. But LinkedIn?s products focus primarily on leveraging your profile and connections to put yourself in potential employers? line of sight, rather than handing the keys to a jobseeker. And while LinkedIn?s reach is huge?the company boasts over 175 million members, 62 percent of which are international?using all the site?s tools requires a level of savvy and knowledge that isn?t readily available to everyone.


While Bright couldn?t be more straightforward to use, its system is far from perfect?Goodman and Bollinger both acknowledge that it is still in the early stages. And while Bright has anecdotal reports of success from both job seekers and companies, there?s not enough data yet to hand our careers over to a jumble of code and say ?go.? The good news is that, as a machine-learning algorithm, the more data the Bright score acquires, the more accurate it gets, and the more jobs are filled.


One thing we do know: simply moving along with our current hiring system isn?t an option?the Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that employers spend an average of $5,504 and two to six months per hire, while job seekers spend a median 19 months looking for their next gig. A lot of time, energy, and money are wasted as people attempt to find jobs. The economy would function a lot more effectively if jobs could find people instead


----------



## Swiper (Oct 9, 2012)

*To limit health care costs, Olive Garden  keeping more workers on part-time status*

*By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, October 9, 3:38 PM*


NEW YORK ? The owner of Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants is putting more workers on part-time status in a test aimed at limiting costs from President Barack Obama?s health care law.
Darden Restaurants Inc. declined to give details but said the test is only in four markets across the country. The move entails boosting the number of workers on part-time status, meaning they work less than 30 hours a week.

Under the new health care law, companies with 50 or more workers could be hit with fines if they do not provide basic coverage for full-time workers and their dependents. Starting Jan. 1, 2014, those penalties and requirements could significantly boost labor costs for some companies, particularly in low-wage industries such as retail and hospitality, where most jobs don?t come with health benefits.
Darden, which operates more than 2,000 restaurants in the U.S. and Canada, employs about 180,000 people. The company says about 75 percent of its employees are currently part-timers.
Bob McAdam, who heads government affairs and community relations for Darden, said the company is still learning from the tests, which was first reported by the Orlando Sentinel.
?We?re not at a point where we have results,? he said. McAdam also noted that Darden is not alone in looking at ways to keep labor costs in check, with companies across the industry prepping for the new regulations to take effect.
In fact, Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Statistics, noted that follow-up legislation might be needed to ensure that companies do not shift more workers to part-time status to avoid providing coverage.
?There?s not a company in those industries that aren?t looking at this,? Keckley said.
This summer, for example, McDonald?s Corp. Chief Financial Officer Peter Bensen noted in a conference call with investors that the hamburger chain was looking at the many factors that will impact health care costs, including its number of full-time employees.
Nationally, 60 percent of companies offer health benefits, but the figure varies depending on the size of the company. Nearly all companies with 200 or more workers offer benefits, compared with 48 percent for companies with 3-9 workers, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Even beyond health care costs, however, Darden has made cutting labor costs a priority in recent years as sales growth has stalled at its flagship chains. In the most recent fiscal quarter, the company?s restaurant labor costs were 31 percent of sales. That?s down from 33 percent three years ago.
The reduction was driven by several factors. Given the challenging job market, Darden has been able to offer lower pay rates to new hires, as well as cut bonuses for general managers as sales have stagnated. Servers at Red Lobster now handle four tables at a time, instead of three.
And last year, the company also put workers on a ?tip sharing? program, meaning waiters and waitresses share their tips with other employees such as busboys and bartenders. That allows Darden to pay more workers a far lower ?tip credit wage? of $2.13, rather than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
Starting next year, the company will change the way it offers health insurance to full-time employees, to keep costs more predictable. Instead of offering one insurance plan for all 45,000 employees, it will give workers a contribution toward buying coverage and then send them to an online health insurance exchange where they can chose from five medical, four dental and three vision plans.
More employers are looking at this concept, known as defined contribution health insurance, as a way to stabilize health insurance costs.
Darden said it decided to do it because a survey indicated that employees wanted more options.
To limit health care costs, Olive Garden parent tests keeping more workers on part-time status - The Washington Post


----------



## LAM (Oct 9, 2012)

nice try at people using the healthcare law for that, it's only been going on for decades...the sad thing is that so many actually believe it.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 10, 2012)

LAM,

Is right.

This was going on over 20 years ago, and I'm sure longer.

Gee....during a tight election there is all this "talk of health care keeping Americans from keeping their jobs."

It's B.S.

And also, it's pretty pathetic that actually having access to health care AT ALL by working adults would actually hurt.

I mean, come on.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Oct 10, 2012)

*Health Ins or lack thereof*

Here's a recent post on an aviation forum I'm on from a Fortune 500 pilot:

10-06-2012, 05:37 PM   #*13* (*permalink*)  
HS125PLT 
Line Holder

Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 28 





  ​ 

_Currently flying for a Fortune 500  company that is not suffering financially. Health care premiums are on par with  what JetBlue will be charging next year. We were also informed that our company  will not be offering Health insurance after next year and will be paying the  $2000 fine per employee. _


----------



## Big Pimpin (Oct 10, 2012)

Here's JetBlue's Insurance disaster which the thread is about:

LifesNotBetterInBlue


----------



## Big Pimpin (Oct 10, 2012)

From a bean counting perspective, these companies are crazy not to pay the $2000 fine vs provide the insurance, but then again the law/mandate was designed that way.  

Much like what they actually pay in taxes, I honest to god believe the average corporate slave has no clue how much his healthcare really costs the company vs the share he pays.


----------



## LAM (Oct 10, 2012)

some large firms actually stopped providing healthcare after the gov stopped subsidizing them AND stopped allowing them to write off the expense that they weren't paying...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 10, 2012)

If Obamacare is saving these companies all of this money on healthcare, this means the job creators are gonna get cracking on hiring, right?  BTW, I think it's stupid for companies to provide healthcare to employees if your intended goal is to lower healthcare costs system wide.  Perhaps now that the cost of health insurance is being put on the person using it they may start making better decisions wrt their health.  I'm sure they could give a fuck when the onus is placed on the company to foot most of the bill.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Oct 10, 2012)

Dale Mabry said:


> If Obamacare is saving these companies all of this money on healthcare, this means the job creators are gonna get cracking on hiring, right?  BTW, I think it's stupid for companies to provide healthcare to employees if your intended goal is to lower healthcare costs system wide.  Perhaps now that the cost of health insurance is being put on the person using it they may start making better decisions wrt their health.  I'm sure they could give a fuck when the onus is placed on the company to foot most of the bill.



I'm curious why would they give a fuck now when pre-existing conditions are no longer a barrier to health insurance?   Sure, pre-existing condition exclusions sound horrible when some 12yo with cancer can't get on momma's insurance but they don't sound all that bad when some fat pile of shit can't get insurance due to complications relating to diabetes.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 10, 2012)

Big Pimpin said:


> I'm curious why would they give a fuck now when pre-existing conditions are no longer a barrier to health insurance?   Sure, pre-existing condition exclusions sound horrible when some 12yo with cancer can't get on momma's insurance but they don't sound all that bad when some fat pile of shit can't get insurance due to complications relating to diabetes.



Lifestyle stuff like Type 2 diabetes will either be dealt with in higher premiums or copays or by taxing shit that leads to it.  The problem is that is more than likely decades away.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 10, 2012)

can someone explain to me why about 1500 plus companies were able to opt-out? 
Also why does the law apply to some and not others?  I thought laws are suppose to apply to everyone/business?


----------



## LAM (Oct 10, 2012)

business and trade laws are not similar to the criminal code, there are numerous exceptions depending on the type of business structure (corp, LLC, etc.), NAICS code, size, etc.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 10, 2012)

LAM said:


> business and trade laws are not similar to the criminal code, there are numerous exceptions depending on the type of business structure (corp, LLC, etc.), NAICS code, size, etc.



if u say the health care law does not hurt companies, why did the obama admin give waivers to them?


----------



## LAM (Oct 10, 2012)

Swiper said:


> if u say the health care law does not hurt companies, why did the obama admin give waivers to them?



that is that nature of business laws and regulations there are always variances for the different types, sizes and revenues of business.  it differs vastly in nature from civil and penal statues.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/finalhcr.pdf

at the part titled "Individual Mandate" it states:

"Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option
exceeds 8% of an individual?s income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009 the
threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples)."

that right there eliminates almost 60% of the US workforce.  if low wage workers can not even save 1% of their annual income they are certainly not going to be expected to pay an additional expense that is 8% of their income.

Here is some data which shows the number of businesses in the US, how many employees they have etc.  there is a gap in data from the recession in 2008.

Statistics about Business Size (including Small Business) from the U.S. Census Bureau 


* obviously it's not the greatest legislation in the world but some improvements is better than none


----------



## Swiper (Oct 10, 2012)

I see,  its because of financial hardship on the companies.  so the Olive Garden restaurant owner is correct.  the health care law puts a financial hardship on companies.


----------



## LAM (Oct 10, 2012)

http://247wallst.dailyfinance.com/quote/nyse/darden-restaurants-inc/dri?source=esadlfltnal0001

 Darden Restaurants, Inc. was just ranked the #2 in the US with the least valuable employees.  the average check at their restaurants ranges from $15 at Olive Garden to $90 at Capital Grille.

with inflation on the USD averaging 25% every decade gee I wonder why he's not doing the same business that Yum Brands is doing...the fucking working class is broke  tuff titties jackass

Romney's strong debate showing puts Europe on edge | Reuters


----------



## Gregzs (Oct 22, 2012)

States' Jobs Picture Improves: Behind the Numbers - US? Business News - CNBC

In a sharp turnaround, most states saw their unemployment rates drop in September. 






Spencer Platt | Getty Images​

According to the *Bureau of Labor Statistics*, 41 states saw their jobless figures decrease, and only six saw them rise. Three report no change at all, including the state with the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, North Dakota, holding steady at three percent. This is a big change from the month earlier, when most states ? 26 ? reported an increase in unemployment. 
The states with the highest unemployment continue to be Nevada (11.8 percent), Rhode Island (10.5 percent), and California (10.2 percent), but all three figures were down from the month before. 
California is adding jobs faster than the national average, and the Golden State has added the most jobs in the country in a year ? 262,000. (_Read More_: *Weekly Jobless Claims Drop Proves to Be Short-Lived*.)
Hiring is happening at companies large and small. 
"We have six employees and we're hiring two more right now," said Andy Moeck, CEO of mobile gaming startup *MOEO* in Santa Monica, Calif. 
He said he's offering similar pay to what he might have offered a few years ago, "but it's harder to find all the applicants with the skill set that we need." Competition has heated up in California for programmers, and Moeck is fielding resumes from outside the state. 








As for the election, Moeck said he's too busy trying to build a business to think about politics. (_Read More_: *Election is Bumming Out Small Businesses*.)
"When we decide we're going to hire someone or not hire someone or grow our business, there's absolutely zero input into that as to who's holding office," he said. "We start companies because that's what we do." 
A few blocks away at a Santa Monica hotel, *Chevron [CVX  112.74  
	

  -0.64  (-0.56%)   
	

]* held a job fair for workers willing to move to Bakersfield to join the resurging oil boom there. 
"You have to go where the jobs are," said civil engineer Christopher Rowda. "You have to follow the work."
The picture in some states shows there is still a lot of work to be done, especially for the long-term unemployed. Michigan, a key swing state in the election, saw the largest drop in total jobs in September, 13,000 jobs. Coming in second, another key swing state, Ohio, with 12,800 job losses in a month (though total employment in the Buckeye State has grown 88,000 in a year). 
Jeff Jacobs, an architect in Columbus, has been out of full-time work for nearly five years.







*Jane Wells 
*CNBC Reporter
"Right now I'm applying for temporary holiday work like department stores," he said. 
Jacobs searches Craigslist daily for openings in architecture, hoping to get back into that field of work. "In Columbus there aren't many posted ads, with some exceptions, and believe me, I've already applied to them."
Like many Americans, Jacobs is getting by on his savings and by living frugally. He wants only one thing out of this election ? jobs. (_Read More_: *Top Destination States for Jobs*.)
"Honestly, I don't give a damn about the deficit. ...We need to get everyone back to work, including me. Especially me," he said.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 22, 2012)

that's what happens when people leave the work force because they can't find a job. 


Weekly Jobless Claims Drop Proves to Be Short-Lived
The Associated Press | October 18, 2012 | 08:35 AM EDT
Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the highest in four months. 
http://m.cnbc.com//id/49460659


----------



## jay_steel (Oct 24, 2012)

Burner02 said:


> oh yeah...I went to Afghanistan...
> the job I had been doing th past year...actually expected me to work, so I couldn't get on here too much...and then got the job, ball rolled pretty quickly and here I am! TA DA!



I got offered a job in afgan making 1000-1500 a day running field communications/cypto, I did tactical cryptologic support in the Navy for 10 years.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 24, 2012)




----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 25, 2012)

*gregzs:*


> In a sharp turnaround, most states saw their unemployment rates drop in September.



Gregzs,

A love these reports for _ONE MONTH. _  Even worse, are the weekly reports. 

One month means.....nothing.  And, what type of jobs were added?  The BLS knows.  They study this with a fine-toothed comb.  These are sh*t jobs. 

The US labor force is adding 125,000 adults _per month_ to the labor force.

For the US unemployment situation to ever get back to where is was 5 years ago, there would have to be 550,000 continuous jobs added per months for 3+ years.


----------



## heckler7 (Oct 25, 2012)

its not right to charge pilots more of an ER co-pay, they are gone from home mostly so they cant use their family doctor and have to use the ER because thats all thats available.


----------



## heckler7 (Oct 25, 2012)

Swiper said:


>


the man tells the truth


----------



## LAM (Oct 25, 2012)

Big Smoothy said:


> And, what type of jobs were added?  The BLS knows.  They study this with a fine-toothed comb.  These are sh*t jobs.
> 
> The US labor force is adding 125,000 adults _per month_ to the labor force.



with those jobs paying between $8-$14 or an inflation adjusted $4-$7 in 1990's dollars.   

the problems with the US economy are so obvious.  those that don't get it have to be dam near functionally retarded.


----------



## Gregzs (Nov 30, 2012)

Big firms pay 50 percent higher wages than small businesses, study shows - The Washington Post

[h=1]Big firms pay 50 percent higher wages than small businesses, study shows[/h][h=3]By J.D. Harrison, Published: November 28 | Updated: Thursday, November 29, 7:30 AM[/h]Small business owners are finding it increasingly difficult to match the wages offered by their larger competitors, according to new research, which could make it harder to find and retain talent on Main Street.

A new Kauffman Foundation study shows that small businesses have historically paid workers significantly less than large firms, with small firms closing the gap to its slimmest margin in 2001, when their employees earned on average 78 percent of the salaries paid to workers at large firms. But the gap has been growing steadily ever since, and by 2011, that figure dropped to 66 percent. 

Over the same period, a similar trend was reported between young and old companies, as the percentage earned by employees of start-ups compared to those of established companies dipped from 85 percent to 70 percent.

That the gaps exist isn?t alarming, one expert explained, as small and young firms simply have smaller pools of capital from which to pay employees. But the rate at which their compensation levels are falling further behind has some worried that small businesses may lose more talented job applicants and employees to their larger, higher-paying counterparts.

?There is some evidence that small and young firms have a hiring advantage in recessions and early stages of expansion because the unemployed will take lower wages,? said Dane Stangler, Kauffman?s Director of Research and Policy, noting the findings may partly be attributed to the state of the economy over the past decade. ?However, if the trends highlighted in today's Kauffman report are partly the result of policy barriers...then they will definitely affect the ability of smaller and younger companies to hire.?

The research draws from analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau?s Quarterly Workforce Indicators, which compile federal and state government data on employers and employees and only recently began including company size and age information. Researchers found that employee turnover slows down considerably as businesses get older and bigger, which could be contributing to the wage phenomenon.

 ?There?s very high turnover at these small and young companies, and they are probably not drawing on as many older, high-educated applicants for their open positions,? Stangler said. ?So my guess is that this is also related to the wage premium for college graduates.?

The widening of the big-small and new-old wage gaps is also partly the result of recent market shifts that have left a higher number of start-ups and small businesses in industries that typically pay lower wages. Stangler noted that the housing bubble, which burst right in the middle of the decade examined in the report, spawned a number of small construction and real-estate companies, which generally pay less than other industries.

He added that, especially for new companies with high-growth potential, wages aren?t always the primary tool used to lure talented employees.

?The wage comparison excludes a lot of the reasons people join start-ups,? he said. ?For example, in tech companies, you have employees taking equity and betting on a payoff down the road and perhaps forgoing a lot of salary. Others want to work for themselves or like a small business environment, so there can be non-financial reasons behind the decision to work for these companies.?


----------



## LAM (Dec 2, 2012)

US small firms are not very profitable nor do they have access to the same types of subsidy that many US large firms have.  most US small firms don't even turn a profit, the ones that do are micro-firms 9 times out of 10 and have no employees.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Dec 3, 2012)

Also consider how may small businesses are fast food/resturants and retail.


----------



## LAM (Dec 3, 2012)

Big Business, Corporate Profits, and the Minimum Wage
http://nelp.3cdn.net/4d54471dc413c2c3bb_wcm6btdnu.pdf

"The central finding of this report is that the majority of America?s lowest-paid workers are employed by large corporations, not small businesses, and that most of the largest low-wage employers have recovered from the recession and are in a strong financial position."

Specifically:

* The majority (66 percent) of low-wage workers are not employed by small businesses, but rather by large corporations with over 100 employees;

*  The 50 largest employers of low-wage workers have largely recovered from the recession and most are in strong financial positions: 92 percent were profitable last year; 78 percent have been profitable for the last three years; 75 percent have higher revenues now than before the recession; 73 percent have higher cash holdings; and 63 percent have higher operating margins (a measure of profitability).

*  Top executive compensation averaged $9.4 million last year at these firms, and they have returned $174.8 billion to shareholders in dividends or share buybacks over the past five years.

and corporate profits right from the St Louis FED
Corporate Profits After Tax (CP) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

* with so many workers in the US being paid low wages growth will continue to be sluggish.  it's all about sustainability, far too many are worried about words like "capitalism" vs mathematics.


----------



## Gregzs (Jan 15, 2013)

25 weirdest job interview questions of 2012 - CBS News

21. "What kitchen utensil would you be?" - Asked at Bandwidth.com, marketer candidate.


----------



## Gregzs (Jan 23, 2013)

The Differences Between Federal and Private Pay | Face the Facts USA


----------



## LAM (Jan 23, 2013)

there you go again trying to use facts and data.  private sector good and government bad that's all we need to know...LOL


----------



## DOMS (Jan 24, 2013)

LAM said:


> there you go again trying to use facts and data.  private sector good and government bad that's all we need to know...LOL



And there you go, not actually looking at the data in front of you -- a big picture with a few words, no less. Here's the "big picture"...







If you have an advanced degree, you get paid less by the government. If you have a bachelor's, you get paid the same. If you don't have a college degree, you get paid less. And who's going to pay top dollar for a bottom dollar educated person?

Having said that, and for clarification, I'm 100% pro-Union.


----------



## LAM (Jan 24, 2013)

DOMS said:


> And there you go, not actually looking at the data in front of you -- a big picture with a few words, no less. Here's the "big picture"...
> 
> Having said that, and for clarification, I'm 100% pro-Union.



what you mean the information that "I" knew 35 years ago when I was 10? from reading info in dozens and dozens of historical texts that talk about US cities and wages and the industrial revolution.

this info so very old to those of us that didn't learn economics and global wage history from politicians on tv...the fed gov has always been about maximum employment numbers and the private sector has always been about maximum profits, these is not new information, but still good info.


----------



## Gregzs (Jan 29, 2013)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/b...?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130128&_r=0

[h=1]In Hiring, a Friend in Need Is a Prospect, Indeed[/h][h=6]By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ[/h]Riju Parakh wasn?t even looking for a new job.        

But when a friend at Ernst & Young recommended her, Ms. Parakh?s r?sum? was quickly separated from the thousands the firm receives every week because she was referred by a current employee, and within three weeks she was hired. ?You know how long this usually takes,? she said. ?It was miraculous.?        

While whom you know has always counted in hiring, Ms. Parakh?s experience underscores a fundamental shift in the job market. Big companies like Ernst & Young are increasingly using their own workers to find new hires, saving time and money but lengthening the odds for job seekers without connections, especially among the long-term unemployed.        

The trend, experts say, has been amplified since the end of the recession by a tight job market and by employee networks on LinkedIn and Facebook, which can help employers find candidates more quickly and bypass reams of applications from job search sites like Monster.com.        

Some, like Ernst & Young, the accounting firm, have set ambitious internal goals to increase the proportion of hirings that come from internal referrals. As a result, employee recommendations now account for 45 percent of nonentry-level placements at the firm, up from 28 percent in 2010.        

The company?s goal is 50 percent. Others, such as Deloitte and Enterprise Rent-A-Car, have begun offering prizes like iPads and large-screen TVs in addition to traditional cash incentives for employees who refer new hires.        

Economists and other experts say the recession has severed networks for many workers, especially the long-term unemployed, whose ranks have remained high even as the economy recovers.        

Nearly 4.8 million Americans have been out of work for 27 weeks or more, according to the Labor Department, three times as many as in late 2007. The typical unemployed worker has been jobless for 38 weeks, compared with 17 weeks before the recession.        

While the overall unemployment rate has edged downward recently, little improvement is expected for the long-term jobless when data for December is released by the Labor Department on Friday.        

?The long-term unemployed and other disadvantaged people don?t have access to the network,? said Mara Swan, executive vice president for global strategy and talent at Manpower Group, which provides temporary help and job placement services. ?The more you?ve been out of the work force, the weaker your connections are.?        

Although Ernst & Young looks at every r?sum? submitted, ?a referral puts them in the express lane,? said Larry Nash, director of experienced and executive recruiting there. Indeed, as referred candidates get fast-tracked, applicants from other sources like corporate Web sites, Internet job boards and job fairs sink to the bottom of the pile.        

?You?re submitting your r?sum? to a black hole,? said John Sullivan, a human resources consultant for large companies who teaches management at San Francisco State University. ?You?re not going to find top performers at a job fair. Whether it?s fair or not, you need to have employees make referrals for you if you want to find a job.?        

Among corporate recruiters, Mr. Sullivan said, random applicants from Internet job sites are sometimes referred to as ?Homers,? after the lackadaisical, doughnut-eating Homer Simpson. The most desirable candidates, nicknamed ?purple squirrels? because they are so elusive, usually come recommended.        
?We call it Monster.ugly,? said Mr. Sullivan, referring to Monster.com. ?In the H.R. world, applicants from Monster or other job boards carry a stigma.?        
Monster.com did not respond to a request for comment.        

Even getting in the door for an interview is becoming more difficult for those without connections. Referred candidates are twice as likely to land an interview as other applicants, according to a new study of one large company by three economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. For those who make it to the interview stage, the referred candidates had a 40 percent better chance of being hired than other applicants.        

For many companies, the odds are even more lopsided. At Sodexo, a food service and facilities management company that hires 4,600 managers and executives a year, referred employees are 10 times more likely to be hired than other applicants.        

?We?re focusing on what will be most efficient,? said Arie Ball, Sodexo?s vice president for talent acquisition. ?And it?s just easier to connect on social networks than it used to be.? The company recently released a mobile app so employees can make recommendations from their mobile phones.        

In particular, LinkedIn has altered the hiring landscape, making it easy for recruiting departments to trace connections between job candidates and their own employees by using LinkedIn?s database and software.        

LinkedIn has also eaten into the bottom line of Monster.com and other online job sites as well as that of traditional recruiters, said Craig A. Huber, an experienced stock analyst at Huber Research Partners who covers LinkedIn and Monster.com.        

Even as the rise of social media changes the landscape for job seekers, the depth of the last recession has eroded labor networks in both the white- and blue-collar worlds, said Judith K. Hellerstein, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland. Skills decline, she said, and friends become reluctant to recommend people who have been out of work for months or years.        

?We?re in a period of historic displacement in the labor market,? Ms. Hellerstein said. ?The long-term unemployed are a huge problem that we haven?t figured out. All this human capital is being wasted and their skills are atrophying.?        

Referral programs carry important benefits for big companies. Besides avoiding hefty payouts to recruiters, referred employees are 15 percent less likely to quit, according to Giorgio Topa, one of the authors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York study.        

Human resource departments have recognized the same pattern. ?Our analysis shows referred hires perform better, stay longer and are quicker to integrate into our teams,? said Mr. Nash of Ernst & Young.        

As a result, within the last two years, firms like Deloitte, Ernst & Young, and Booz Allen have created dedicated teams within their human resource departments to shepherd prospects through the system. Over all, Deloitte receives more than 400,000 r?sum?s a year, but recommended employees are guided along by a 12-person team.        

?We had people that felt referrals weren?t being attended to or referrals weren?t being contacted,? said Maribeth Bailey, national director of talent acquisition at Deloitte. ?We simplified the process by removing a lot of red tape.? Deloitte now gets 49 percent of its experienced hires from referrals, up from 43 percent two years ago.        

Ms. Swan of Manpower cautions that although employee referrals are a valuable tool, ?you have to watch the ultimate long-term result in terms of diversity and skills.? Otherwise, she warned, ?you?re going to get people like you have.?        

People tend to recommend people much like themselves, economists say, a phenomenon known as assortative matching. Mr. Topa?s study for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that 63.5 percent of employees recommended candidates of the same sex, while 71.5 percent favored the same race or ethnicity.        

As a result, some companies are trying to make sure the proportion of employees who are recommended doesn?t get too high even as they expand their referral programs.        

At Enterprise Rent-A-Car, the proportion of workers hired through employee referrals has risen from 33 percent to just under 40 percent in the last two years, but the company wants to make sure it doesn?t pass the 50 percent mark, said Marie Artim, vice president for talent acquisition at Enterprise Holdings.        

?I think if you begin to creep up to 50 percent or higher, you start to worry about people not getting the opportunity to talk to us,? she said. ?That?s why we look for a balance.?


----------



## Swiper (Jan 29, 2013)

Black Unemployment Rate Shoots Up from 12.9% to 14%

http://politic365.com/2013/01/04/black-unemployment-rate-shoots-up-from-12-9-to-14/


----------



## LAM (Jan 30, 2013)

Gregzs said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/b...?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130128&_r=0



that's exactly how I got my foot in the door at EY and landed a job there.  I have about 15 friends from Toronto that work there.


----------



## Swiper (Jan 30, 2013)

US economy shrinks 0.1 pct., first time in 3 ? years

The U.S. economy shrank from October through December for the first time since the recession ended, hurt by the biggest cut in defense spending in 40 years, fewer exports and sluggish growth in company stockpiles.
The Commerce Department says the economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter. That's a sharp slowdown from the 3.1 percent growth rate in the July-September quarter.
The surprise contraction could raise fears about the economy's ability to handle tax increases that took effect in January and looming spending cuts.
Still, the weakness may be because of one-time factors. Government spending cuts and slower inventory growth subtracted a total of 2.6 percentage points from growth. Both are volatile. And they offset faster growth in consumer spending, business investment and housing.
US economy shrinks 0.1 pct., first time in 3 ? years; deep cut in defense spending key factor | Fox News



Obama 2016!


----------



## LAM (Jan 30, 2013)

Swiper said:


> US economy shrinks 0.1 pct., first time in 3 ? years
> 
> The U.S. economy shrank from October through December for the first time since the recession ended, hurt by the biggest cut in defense spending in 40 years, fewer exports and sluggish growth in company stockpiles.
> The Commerce Department says the economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter. That's a sharp slowdown from the 3.1 percent growth rate in the July-September quarter.
> ...



reducing government spending during an economic downturn means reduced overall consumption in terms of US GDP....don't bother trying to understand economics because YOU JUST DON'T GET IT....

your the one that thinks austerity is a jobs program!  LMAO....


----------



## DOMS (Jan 30, 2013)

LAM said:


> reducing government spending during an economic downturn means reduced overall consumption in terms of US GDP....don't bother trying to understand economics because YOU JUST DON'T GET IT....
> 
> your the one that thinks austerity is a jobs program!  LMAO....



So how, pray tell, would cutting out any of the following equal austerity?



ending the $50 billion in foreign aid.
ending the $22 billion on welfare for illegals.
$7.8 billion on illegals in prison (execute the violent and deport the rest).
Building a solid border (this would create jobs).
Making prisons not-for-profit.
Ending offshore tax havens.
Punishing (via taxes and tariffs) American companies that outsource jobs.
Punishing (via taxes and tariffs) that move manufacturing overseas.
Taxing the rich the same way that the middle class is taxed.

All of that would ultimately save *hundreds *of billions over the next few years.


----------



## jay_steel (Jan 30, 2013)

Swiper said:


> Black Unemployment Rate Shoots Up from 12.9% to 14%
> 
> Black Unemployment Rate Shoots Up from 12.9% to 14% | Politic365



why wouldnt it the only reason they voted for obama is so they dont have to work.


----------



## LAM (Jan 30, 2013)

DOMS said:


> ending the $50 billion in foreign aid.
> ending the $22 billion on welfare for illegals.
> Ending offshore tax havens.
> Punishing (via taxes and tariffs) American companies that outsource jobs.
> ...



things the GOP has voted against in the past couple of years...

you also have to differentiate between spending that is paid for with borrowing and with taxes, as the latter comes with debt servicing charges.

reducing social protections only increases crime it does not reduce it.  so reducing payments to illegals is about the worst thing that can be done in an economic downturn.  desperate people perform acts of desperation.  it's why the US has one of the most violent crime rates in the OECD, we spend the 3rd lowest in the OECD on social protections already.

going backwards to go forwards doesn't work in reality.


----------



## Swiper (Jan 30, 2013)

LAM said:


> reducing government spending during an economic downturn means reduced overall consumption in terms of US GDP....don't bother trying to understand economics because YOU JUST DON'T GET IT....
> 
> your the one that thinks austerity is a jobs program!  LMAO....




the stimulus package worked so well need we another one, but it has to be bigger more like 2 trillion. deficits,  national debt, higher taxes means nothing. It has no effect on the economy.   we just need to print more money and everything will be just fine. no need to worry about 16.5 trillion debt. we can just print a coin for 20 trillion and we'll then have a surplus. problem solved. next question......


----------



## LAM (Jan 30, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> why wouldnt it the only reason they voted for obama is so they dont have to work.



or maybe it's because those in the lowest income quintile and those that have the lowest level of education suffer the most during economic downturns.  it couldn't possible be a function of economics and education....

what they hell do you radicals on the far right ideologues do for work?  it seems like not a one of you has any basic critical thinking skills.

DOL Special Reports - The African-American Labor Force in the Recovery

https://www.google.com/search?q=bla...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


----------



## jay_steel (Jan 30, 2013)

sorry not as good at using google as you are LAM... 

whos fault is that they are uneducated? I mean it can't be their own... It has to be the system, the gov't, the country, other people right. It can not be that they lack self disapline, motivation, and drive. Sorry unlike you I don't make excuses for other people.


----------



## LAM (Jan 30, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> sorry not as good at using google as you are LAM...
> 
> whos fault is that they are uneducated? I mean it can't be their own... It has to be the system, the gov't, the country, other people right. It can not be that they lack self disapline, motivation, and drive. Sorry unlike you I don't make excuses for other people.



how far up the socioeconomic ladder has your family moved in the past 30-40 years?


who's fault is it that US blacks were integrated into the US economy during the 60's?  a whole 15-20 years before the US economy started to tank.  who's fault was that? maybe the ones that make the policy in the country...

who's fault is it that the red states take in more federal tax dollars than they pay?

Blame FDR and LBJ for ?Moocher? Paradox in Red States

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/wp2.pdf

typically far right ideology...everything is the individuals fault.  so who started WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Gulf Wars I and II and the war in Afghanistan?

who caused the Great Depression and Great Recession?

individuals? sure but the ones in power that make the policy...

my god you are one stupid individual....how do you get dressed in the morning?


----------



## jay_steel (Jan 30, 2013)

actually pretty damn far due to hard work. My parents family was ripped out of their homes and put in japanese camps, because my grandmother was japanese and my grandfather was a vet. They were broke as hell and my family was raised picking strawberries in fields to make money. While my grandpa drove them around the country looking for work here and there living out of a trailor. Then he went back in the army to fight in the Korean war and came back with still nothing to his name. It was not until some how they ended up in washington he would work construction all day and go to school all night to learn how to work on boeings. 10 years later hes an aircraft engineer for boing making great money. My grandmother started out working the sueing machine at jansport and worked her way all the way from a non speaking japanese women to district manager. 

They did not believe in hand outs, so ever child had to work for their own. My dad never made 100,000's but hes a dedicated bad ass long hawl truck driver that owns his own truck and makes great money. Hes single, has his harly, cobra, and home. Hes happy living a simple life.

My mom started out as a beautician, good food stamps once and sat in the car crying. She couldnt use them the next day she got two more jobs, as a waitress and at sallys beauty supply. Now she owns her own salon. But only works part time really now because my step dad who is also self made got tired of just doing propation and got his ph.d late in life and became a professor teaching criminology. 

None of them started out with a hand out and had the SAME chance every one else did. They did not get hired based on the color of their skin. Shit in washington my dad use to have to tell people he was mexican because they were more racist against japanese then blacks. So dont give me this shit, it is all fucking excuses.

Then me... zero hands outs.. Joined the military at the age of 18 because i knew i could not handle the responsibility of college. Served 10 years and while in my last 3 years started taking college classes. Got out to start my farm from money I saved up. I made 50k ish in the military and lived in a 300 a month apt drove a car i bought cash for 500$  and lived VERY cheap because I knew what it took to own a farm. Got enough money to lease the land and buy the trees and now I am inbusiness with the land owner and also 2 years away from my masters, yes my BS if from UOP but got accepted to fresno states masters program for computer science. I am also a network administrator for a major orthropedic center. I run the entire network. NOTHING was ever given and every thing was earned. I believe in self made men. I have no respect for people made  from hand outs. 

You can keep pointing fingers because if thats all you ever do is accept that your going to fail because you believe so then thats what you are is a failure. So stop pointing fingers at other people and blaming shit and take responsibility.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 30, 2013)

LAM said:


> things the GOP has voted against in the past couple of years...



Which has nothing to do with those being good ways to cut spending.



LAM said:


> you also have to differentiate between spending that is paid for with borrowing and with taxes, as the latter comes with debt servicing charges.



The net result of what I posted is a savings of over a hundred billion in just a few years. The only expenditures would be expelling illegals and building a wall. All of which can be funded with just a small part of the savings.



LAM said:


> reducing social protections only increases crime it does not reduce it.  so reducing payments to illegals is about the worst thing that can be done in an economic downturn. desperate people perform acts of desperation.



That's why removing the services needs to be coupled with the expulsion of the illegals.



LAM said:


> it's why the US has one of the most violent crime rates in the OECD, we spend the 3rd lowest in the OECD on social protections already.



I've already covered this. The reason is that, among the Western OECD countries, the US has the highest number of third-world people.



LAM said:


> going backwards to go forwards doesn't work in reality.



Removing a shit-ton of illegals would be a gigantic step forward.


----------



## LAM (Jan 30, 2013)

DOMS said:


> I've already covered this. The reason is that, among the Western OECD countries, the US has the highest number of third-world people.



the problem with that is your wrong. below is info from the DHS which gives the demographics of immigrants to the US since 1820.
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fi...tion-statistics/yearbook/2011/ois_yb_2011.pdf

a report from Brookings on immigrants and wages
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/re...useconomics haskins/07useconomics_haskins.pdf


* the problem is not the immigrants but the types of jobs that have been created in the US since the 80's. the vast majority are low wage service sector jobs with part-time employment.  90% of the jobs created during the recession recovery were in the low wage service sector.  certainly no replacement for a much higher paying "class wage" job that was lost through no fault of the individual but of the economic downturn in 2008.

Low-wage Workers Are Older and Better Educated than Ever
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage3-2012-04.pdf

Careers Are Dead. Welcome To Your Low-Wage, Temp Work Future - Forbes

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Job_Creation/LowWageRecovery2012.pdf?nocdn=1

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/lowwageworkers/rb.pdf

** and haven't you figured it out by now that the elites don't care and aren't going to do anything about illegals.  IT DOES NOT EFFECT THEIR LIVES NEGATIVELY BUT IT BENEFITS THEM FINANCIALLY....*


----------



## DOMS (Jan 30, 2013)

LAM said:


> the problem with that is your wrong. below is info from the DHS which gives the demographics of immigrants to the US since 1820.
> http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fi...tion-statistics/yearbook/2011/ois_yb_2011.pdf
> 
> a report from Brookings on immigrants and wages
> ...



So Hispanics don't make up 16.7% of the population? They don't account for 21% of all incarcerated people? I can go on all day.

What you're blathering on about: illegal immigrants. What I actually wrote, and you quoted: "I've already covered this. The reason is that, among the Western OECD  countries, the US has the *highest number of third-world people*." I didn't say "illegals", I said "third-world." I've already posted (in other threads) a _*ton*_ of facts to back up my point. You fired back a bunch of excuses. Your partial-truths, spin, and outright lies didn't work there, and they're not working here.


----------



## Swiper (Jan 30, 2013)

it's official, we're in the worst recovery in the history of the US.  Obama 2016!  

http://www.prisonplanet.com/its-official-worst-recovery-ever.html


----------



## Swiper (Feb 1, 2013)

2-1-2013

Unemployment has gone up to 7.9%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Obama 2016!


----------



## LAM (Feb 1, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Your partial-truths, spin, and outright lies didn't work there, and they're not working here.



because you don't understand economics...that's not my problem, it's YOUR PROBLEM...


----------



## LAM (Feb 1, 2013)

Swiper said:


> it's official, we're in the worst recovery in the history of the US.  Obama 2016!
> 
> Prison Planet.com ? It?s Official: Worst. Recovery. EVER



of course it is.  at what other point in time has the working class in the US lost 40% of their wealth? and at what other point in US history has the majority of the working class in the US not made any real gains in income for 3 decades?

just because it's Jan 2013 the causes of the slow recovery doesn't change..because what's causing the slow recovery also helped contribute to the 2008 financial downturn.

what does figure. 1 of the graph show and what does the brief from the Fed state?
https://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2011/el2011-21.html

" Economic theory assumes that consumption is a key determinant of personal well-being. Many households became accustomed to the consumption trend established before the recession and expected it to continue. From that perspective, the amount of foregone consumption might be viewed as a measure of the recession?s cost for the average person. However, the pre-recession consumption trend was almost surely not sustainable because much of the household debt that helped finance that spending was collateralized by bubble-inflated housing values. Consumption was bound to slow sooner or later. Indeed, the average annual compound growth rate of real consumption per person since the recession ended in June 2009 is 1.15%, well below the 2% rate before the recession.

Moreover, it is unclear whether continuing the pre-recession consumption trend was economically desirable. Many households might have continued saving too little for retirement while becoming more burdened with debt. When the housing bubble was expanding, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker (2005) noted several ?disturbing trends,? including that ?personal savings in the United States have practically disappeared,? and that ?home ownership has become a vehicle for borrowing.? He called for federal policies to ?forcibly increase? the saving rate as a way to address the growing imbalance between domestic spending and production."


----------



## LAM (Feb 1, 2013)

DOMS said:


> So Hispanics don't make up 16.7% of the population? They don't account for 21% of all incarcerated people? I can go on all day.
> 
> What you're blathering on about: illegal immigrants. What I actually wrote, and you quoted: "I've already covered this. The reason is that, among the Western OECD  countries, the US has the *highest number of third-world people*." I didn't say "illegals", I said "third-world." I've already posted (in other threads) a _*ton*_ of facts to back up my point. You fired back a bunch of excuses. Your partial-truths, spin, and outright lies didn't work there, and they're not working here.



DOMS your signature screams "I don't understand economics"....so your saying you've explained to me that which you don't understand.  how exactly does that work?


----------



## Gregzs (Mar 8, 2013)

How a 390-Year-Old Family Business Avoids Layoffs

How a 390-Year-Old Family Business Avoids Layoffs

When was the last time you heard this in an American factory? 
"I've been here 26 years in June," Mark Lovell says, leaning toward me as telling a secret, "and I've never seen a layoff, ever."

Lovell is confident that the 70 workers on his production line will always have good-paying jobs, because no one competes with a machine. Whenever a task is automated, the employee who performed it is trained for another one worth equivalent pay. 

"Taking a break while the machine's taking a break, huh?" The boss, Debbie Zildjian, laughs as she holds a door open for George Plaskas. The Greek immigrant has been retrained seven times in 40 years. Plaskas raised two kids in a solidly middle-class neighborhood. 

American industry was built by such immigrants, who looked beyond quarterly profits. And today, the Zildjian cymbal factory in Norwell, Mass., still does. 

For 15 years, Debbie Zildjian, has offered incentive pay, not just for working faster or producing more, but for jobs that are done right the first time. "There were only two months out of those 15 years where we haven't had a payout," she points out.

Every person on the line must approve the work they do. That's a big reason why Debbie's sister, Craigie, the CEO, has never outsourced a job overseas. 
Take a look inside the production facility of Zildjian, America's oldest family business, and see how its renowned musical instruments are made. 

"The notion of sending your quality, outsourcing your quality halfway around the world," Craigie says, "is unthinkable." 

The Zildjian Company makes cymbals. Leon Chiappini has been testing them for more than half a century. _"_You're not going to find two of them that are the same," Chiappini says. "They're like snowflakes. Each sound is unique." 

Cymbals were hardly heard at all in popular music before Craigie's and Debbie's grandfather made some of them thinner and found a rainbow of sound. He did this during hard times, the start of the Great Depression. Avedis Zildjian III began hiring as businesses all around him were firing. He lured good workers with a simple promise. 

"It comes down to trust doesn't it?" Craigie says. "You take care of us, and we'll take care of you." That pledge has remained unbroken since the beginning. 
The Zildjian Company has outlasted empires. It began in Turkey back in 1623, survived the move to Massachusetts, and thrives even during economic turmoil. 

Matt Flynn, drummer for the band Maroon 5, sits down with TODAY's Bob Dotson to talk about Zildjian cymbals and the differences between individual cymbals. 

Quality became more than a slogan. The 125 Americans in this little factory cornered more than half the cymbal market in the world. Who better to tell us how to create and keep good jobs than a company in business for 390 years? 

"Our dad always said, 'follow the music,'" Debbie says. And they did, from big bands to the Beatles, classical to jazz. Debbie pointed to pictures of the legendary drummers who have used their product: Buddy Rich, Gene Krupa, Ringo Starr. They were invited to help the company innovate. 

And musicians still do today. They can test their cymbals in a pressurized room that re-creates the acoustics of concert venues across the country, giving them a chance to hear how cymbals will sound before they perform.

Zildjian's success attracts people with deep pockets. "Have you ever been tempted to sell the company?" I asked Craigie. 

"Oh, almost weekly. We could be quite wealthy. But we're not tempted." Because Debbie's 4-year-old granddaughter is in line to take over one day. 
The CEO pushes back from her desk and asks the little girl: "Do you want to work at the company, Emilia?" 

The job won't be handed to her when she gets bigger. Every Zildjian in the family business must first prove their worth working outside the firm. But Emilia doesn't hesitate. She answers emphatically: "Yes." 

New electronic cymbals have already been named after her generation of Zildjians ? the 16th.


----------



## Gregzs (Mar 17, 2013)

I saw an interview with Erin Callan that aired on NBC Friday after Grimm. This kind of stuff makes me sad.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/o...l=1&adxnnlx=1363547041-FTPW6y+Jx9P7+DP0xuIXhg

[h=1]Is There Life After Work?[/h][h=6]By ERIN CALLAN[/h]SANIBEL, Fla.        

AT an office party in 2005, one of my colleagues asked my then husband what I did on weekends. She knew me as someone with great intensity and energy. ?Does she kayak, go rock climbing and then run a half marathon?? she joked. No, he answered simply, ?she sleeps.? And that was true. When I wasn?t catching up on work, I spent my weekends recharging my batteries for the coming week. Work always came first, before my family, friends and marriage ? which ended just a few years later.        

In recent weeks I have been following with interest the escalating debate about work-life balance and the varying positions of Facebook?s Sheryl Sandberg, Marissa Mayer of Yahoo and the academic Anne-Marie Slaughter, among others. Since I resigned my position as chief financial officer of Lehman Brothers in 2008, amid mounting chaos and a cloud of public humiliation only months before the company went bankrupt, I have had ample time to reflect on the decisions I made in balancing (or failing to balance) my job with the rest of my life. The fact that I call it ?the rest of my life? gives you an indication where work stood in the pecking order.        

I don?t have children, so it might seem that my story lacks relevance to the work-life balance debate. Like everyone, though, I did have relationships ? a spouse, friends and family ? and none of them got the best version of me. They got what was left over.        

I didn?t start out with the goal of devoting all of myself to my job. It crept in over time. Each year that went by, slight modifications became the new normal. First I spent a half-hour on Sunday organizing my e-mail, to-do list and calendar to make Monday morning easier. Then I was working a few hours on Sunday, then all day. My boundaries slipped away until work was all that was left.        

Inevitably, when I left my job, it devastated me. I couldn?t just rally and move on. I did not know how to value who I was versus what I did. What I did _was_ who I was.        

I have spent several years now living a different version of my life, where I try to apply my energy to my new husband, Anthony, and the people whom I love and care about. But I can?t make up for lost time. Most important, although I now have stepchildren, I missed having a child of my own. I am 47 years old, and Anthony and I have been trying in vitro fertilization for several years. We are still hoping.        

Sometimes young women tell me they admire what I?ve done. As they see it, I worked hard for 20 years and can now spend the next 20 focused on other things. But that is not balance. I do not wish that for anyone. Even at the best times in my career, I was never deluded into thinking I had achieved any sort of rational allocation between my life at work and my life outside.        

I have often wondered whether I would have been asked to be C.F.O. if I had not worked the way that I did. Until recently, I thought my singular focus on my career was the most powerful ingredient in my success. But I am beginning to realize that I sold myself short. I was talented, intelligent and energetic. It didn?t have to be so extreme. Besides, there were diminishing returns to that kind of labor.        

I didn?t have to be on my BlackBerry from my first moment in the morning to my last moment at night. I didn?t have to eat the majority of my meals at my desk. I didn?t have to fly overnight to a meeting in Europe on my birthday. I now believe that I could have made it to a similar place with at least some better version of a personal life. Not without sacrifice ? I don?t think I could have ?had it all? ? but with somewhat more harmony.        

I have also wondered where I would be today if Lehman Brothers hadn?t collapsed. In 2007, I did start to have my doubts about the way I was living my life. Or not really living it. But I felt locked in to my career. I had just been asked to be C.F.O. I had a responsibility. Without the crisis, I may never have been strong enough to step away. Perhaps I needed what felt at the time like some of the worst experiences in my life to come to a place where I could be grateful for the life I had. I had to learn to begin to appreciate what was left.        

At the end of the day, that is the best guidance I can give. Whatever valuable advice I have about managing a career, I am only now learning how to manage a life.        
	Erin Callan is the former chief financial officer of Lehman Brothers.


----------



## LAM (Mar 17, 2013)

yea it sucks.  I know far too many people who are that they do.  I can't say that I know what life is about but working yourself to the bone dam sure isn't it.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 18, 2013)

Gergz:



> Is There Life After Work?'



I like my job. No, I actually like my job a lot. I am happy!

But I never talk about work after I'm finished.

I am proud of what I do now, but don't ask me "what do you do?"

It's nobody fuckin' business - even if - it's an ice breaker.


----------



## Gregzs (May 3, 2013)

Keeping Up, Not Getting Ahead - NYTimes.com


----------



## DOMS (May 3, 2013)

What happened in 2008?


----------



## LAM (May 3, 2013)

DOMS said:


> What happened in 2008?



US household debt hit 100% of US GDP, that's what happened.  the workers borrowed until they could borrow no more to fuel excess consumption.  then demand declined and US large firms laid off far more workers than was needed which is why 50% of the total jobless in the OECD in 2008 was in the US alone, we have the least protected workers.

Household Sector: Liabilities: Household Credit Market Debt Outstanding (CMDEBT) - FRED - St. Louis Fed


http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2009/pdf/gdp408f.pdf


----------



## Swiper (May 3, 2013)

"The government counts as unemployed only those who are actively looking for new jobs. As people have given up, the unemployment rate has declined – not because more people are working, but because more people have stopped looking for work."
http://link.tapatalk.com/api/click?...s.com/&subId=0a979f021ded11b1db1a9468d6a65826


----------



## Swiper (May 3, 2013)

*If This is What Successful Stimulus Spending Accomplishes, Go Screw Yourself*

Nick Gillespie|May. 3, 2013 2:37 pm





Via Instapundit comes the latest update of the unemployment rate chart from AEI's James Pethokoukis. The good news is that unemployment came in at 7.5 percent, which represents a four-year low. The bad news includes a lot of things, but let's just focus on two.
First, the U-6 measure, which tracks discouraged workers and part-timers who want a full-time gig, nudged upwards to 13.9 percent.
Second, the final cost of the Obama admin's stimulus program has come in somewhere north of $800 billion. By the administration's own estimation (see above), we clearly got less than nothing for all that extra spending (read: debt and future taxes).
If This is What Successful Stimulus Spending Accomplishes, Go Screw Yourself - Hit & Run : Reason.com


----------



## LAM (May 3, 2013)

Swiper said:


> "The government counts as unemployed only those who are actively looking for new jobs. As people have given up, the unemployment rate has declined ? not because more people are working, but because more people have stopped looking for work."
> ?



and your point is?  it's only been that way for 30 years now.


----------



## LAM (May 3, 2013)

Swiper said:


> *If This is What Successful Stimulus Spending Accomplishes, Go Screw Yourself*
> 
> Nick Gillespie|May. 3, 2013 2:37 pm
> 
> ...



LOL...AEI is a right wing neo-con think tank.  is that what you call being a "free thinker"...nothing more than the standard right wing bullshit "pro-business" ideology...


----------



## Swiper (May 4, 2013)

where are the hundreds of thousands of jobs that were lost? 

1:50 min.


----------



## LAM (May 4, 2013)

Swiper said:


> where are the hundreds of thousands of jobs that were lost?
> 
> 1:50 min.



gee maybe that has something to do with the CBO using arcane (and discredited) multipliers from half a century ago in an economy which does not follow any traditional models of growth.

CBO | Automatic Reductions in Government Spending -- aka Sequestration


----------



## Swiper (May 4, 2013)

835,000 people stopped looking for work in April.


----------



## njc (May 4, 2013)

FishOrCutBait said:


> so taxpayer dollars should cover 2000 bucks of that?
> 
> should teachers collect unemployment during the summer?
> 
> why should I have to foot the bill for somebody who got into an industry knowing full well thats the way it works. just doesnt jibe with me



Teachers have the option to get paid throughout the summer or have all of their salary paid to them while they are working.  Beyond that they make a set salary independent of how many months they are working in the year.  Its all taken into consideration when determining their salary, so thats a bad example.


----------



## heckler7 (May 4, 2013)

shareholders basically store their cash in the stockmarket and are not consumers, companies care more about these leaches than their staff. They laid off their staff to save money and save their stock value but ended up putting the very consumers that purchase their goods out of work thus shooting themselves in the foot.
Some of the companies I worked at are having record proffits and are busier than ever but refuse to hire new employees, they would rather have us work a heap of overtime makes no sense.


----------



## Zaphod (May 4, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> shareholders basically store their cash in the stockmarket and are not consumers, companies care more about these leaches than their staff. They laid off their staff to save money and save their stock value but ended up putting the very consumers that purchase their goods out of work thus shooting themselves in the foot.
> Some of the companies I worked at are having record proffits and are busier than ever but refuse to hire new employees, they would rather have us work a heap of overtime makes no sense.



Courtesy of the instant gratification expected out of the stock market.


----------



## LAM (May 4, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> Some of the companies I worked at are having record proffits and are busier than ever but refuse to hire new employees, they would rather have us work a heap of overtime makes no sense.



this is the increase in productivity that is seen after every recession in the US.  employers squeeze more out of the employees that are left for fear of losing their jobs themselves and being forced into the low wage service sector which is a dead end.  they know workers have no choices to exercise anymore.  the days of telling your boss to "take this job and shove it" are long gone.

Joseph Stiglitz explains below how this cycle in the US is going to continue and will only get worst with time as rising inequality only makes the economy worst and worst.

The ?American Dream? Is a Myth: Joseph Stiglitz on ?The Price of Inequality?


----------



## Swiper (May 4, 2013)

another reason for not hiring: obamacare 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/beigebook/beigebook201303.htm

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...plaining-obamacare-is-a-drag-on-sales-hiring/


----------



## LAM (May 4, 2013)

Swiper said:


> another reason for not hiring: obamacare
> 
> FRB: Beige Book - March 6, 2013
> 
> Fed’s Own Report Says Businesses Complaining ‘Obamacare’ Is a Drag On Sales & Hiring | TheBlaze.com



and where in the report from the Beige Book does it name Obama-care directly?  because healthcare costs have been increasing at double the rate of real GDP growth and the CPI for the past 3 decades.


----------



## Swiper (May 4, 2013)

LAM said:


> and where in the report from the Beige Book does it name Obama-care directly?  because healthcare costs have been increasing at double the rate of real GDP growth and the CPI for the past 3 decades.



it's under employment, wages and prices. 

"Employers in several Districts cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff."


----------



## Swiper (May 4, 2013)

Slow Recovery: Bad Policy or the Norm Following a Financial Crisis

By John P. Cochran
Saturday, May 4th, 2013
Reinhart-Rogoff Revisited

The recent release of GDP data continues to show a weak recovery which many who contribute here have attributed regime uncertainty and inappropriate policy. The Wall Street Journal (“A Jobs Fillip”) comes to a similar conclusion:

Left to its own devices, the U.S. economy will grow as individuals and businesses try to improve their lot and expand. The tragedy of the last four years is that Washington tried to supplant or interfere with those decisions with a wave of regulation, spending and taxation.

John B. Taylor also sees the slow recovery as caused by “ineffective policy interventions” in this comment on the data (“Another Take on Reinhart-Rogoff Controversy”) :

The updated charts below incorporate last Friday’s release of the first quarter GDP data. They continue to tell the story of a weak recovery which, in my view, is largely due to ineffective government policy interventions. There is, of course, an alternative view: that the recovery is weak because the recession and the financial crisis were severe.

This view takes the onus off bad policy as the cause of the slow recovery and bolsters the argument (erroneous in my view) that without stimulus things would have been worse. This alternative view is based on empirical work by Reinhart-Rogoff (This Time Is Different). Reinhart and Rogoff have been in the news recently because of errors in their empirical work on the impact on economic growth from large debt/GDP ratios (see here and here). This error has received lots of press lately, as Taylor points out, because the correction of the error provides data that can be used to “support more fiscal stimulus and less consolidation.”

Michael Bordo has provided strong evidence that Reinhart-Rogoff were also mistaken in their empirical research in This Time Is Different. U. S. data does not support the Reinhart-Rogoff conclusion that that slow recovery following a financial crisis is the norm. Despite the fact that “Bordo wrote about his findings (which are based on his joint research with Joe Haubrich of the Cleveland Fed) in a September 27, 2012 Wall Street Journal article, ‘Financial Recessions Don’t Lead to Weak Recoveries’”, this error has received minimal coverage in the press and the blogosphere especially compared to mountains of positive press of covering the exposure of errors in their work on debt and growth.

Bordo’s correction is, as Taylor speculates, largely ignored because it lends support to the bad policy–slow recovery causal link.


----------



## Bowden (May 5, 2013)

The trade deficit related to globalization and offshoring manufacturing and imports of products has a lot to do with unemployment rates.
Many manufacturing jobs that used to be located in the U.S. have been relocated to offshore locations.
Entire manufacturing sectors like electronics manufacturing have been migrated to offshore locations.
Globalization has caused material shifts in the U.S. job market that is causing unemployment to be higher than normal.

It is common sense that when you offshore entire industries from a nation that there is going to be a resultant long term increase in unemployment numbers in that nation.

Another factor is computer automation factors related to impacts on employment numbers.
An example is now when you go in a grocery store, you see automated checkout lanes controlled by computers that prior used people to check you out.

As well Banks are shifting away from tellers, to computer bankiing transactions in which people do not interact with a person.
Another example of employment trends leading to a reduction in job opportunities for people.

The off shoring of jobs trend since the early 90s is striking in the IT industry, where major corporations like IBM decided to terminate tens of thousands of American workers by "knowledge transferring" the jobs to low cost resources in India.
Now approx. 1/2 of all IBM IT related jobs are located in India.
Great for the Indian job market, corporate profits and shareholder ROI.
Terrible for college educated Americans seeking IT jobs located in the U.S and former employed Americans that cannot find work in a field that they have experience in.

Major corporations are also off shoring research and development to foreign countries.

This type of "knowledge transfer" has negative impacts within National Security areas.

Most critical infrastructures like utilities, financial, commence ect. are controlled by computer systems/applications and the inability of a nation to be self reliant as to not having internal trained resources located in that nation during a time of war to support those systems creates serious national security issues.
China has developed a cyberwarfare division associated with it's military that's purpose is to disrupt American critical IT systems infrastructures during a time of war.


----------



## Gregzs (May 15, 2013)

Why won't employers offer me a fair salary? - CBS News

Will the unfairness in salary range among employees ever end? I don't think so because there are always loops that these employers can jump through to justify why you are paid such meager wages. I have a degree and experience, but have been laid off. I worked hard for my degree. So now I am looking for a job and no one wants to pay enough.

The requirements they are asking for are not obtained from the schools for free -- we have to pay for them. How can an individual pay back student loans and live off of $15/hr and $17/hr? And employers are only doing that because they know people are desperate and need to feed their families -- not keep a roof over their heads -- but just feed them, since no one can pay a mortgage along with other things with that compensation.

I told one interviewer who was offering me a job for $17/hr that I won't be able to live on that. I will lose my home, and I have no where to go but at a shelter. The recruiter then fixed her mouth and asked me how am I living on unemployment. In other words, if I can make it on the unemployment check, I can make on $17/hr. I had to give her some choice words and educate her a bit ( we know she won't be offering me any jobs in the future). 


The work place and the whole job search thing has turned into a circus, with employers exploiting the employees by not paying them what they are worth. You can't say that you won't get your degree and just look for menial job, no, these employees want an individual to have a degree to file documents or to answer the phone for $10/hr.

You see the government knows that NO ONE can survive on the little handout they call unemployment, therefore they offer programs to assist with your mortgage and utilities, and the criteria for these programs is that you must be on unemployment. The minute you get a job, all the assistance stops. Therefore, one has to get a job that will allow them to keep their head above water. 


 What is this society coming to? it's oppression right around -- in the workplace, and even when you're trying to get a job. Is there any one who can look into this?

There's no need to look into it. It's a matter of supply and demand. Businesses know that they can get a qualified worker to do the job for $17 an hour, so shy should they offer a penny more?

When you are shoe shopping, if two stores carried the shoe you wanted and one store was asking $17 for the shoes and the other was asking $35, we'd say you were a fool if you paid $35. Likewise, an employer is a fool for paying $35 an hour when he can get someone to do the job for $17. 

I understand that you have student loans and a mortgage and other expenses. Welcome to adulthood. But it's not the employer's obligation to pay your mortgage. Salaries are not determined by that. Imagine if your coworker got a big raise purely because he went out and bought a bigger house? You'd be livid.

Now we can argue all day about whether the government should be offering benefits that make it more desirable to take the benefits than it is to take a job. But that's the reality we live in. It's up to you what you want to do,but keep in mind that it's not just about the original salary offer. It's about setting yourself up for the rest of your life.

It's easier to find a job when you have a job. And by taking a job, even one that doesn't pay very well, you're making it possible to get a better job later on. The longer you stay unemployed, the more difficult it is to find a job.

The job market will not get better tomorrow. It's not as if you hold out, there will be lots of $75,000 a year jobs waiting for you next week. I hope the market gets better. But even if it does, it will probably happen slowly and gradually. Which means that you may find yourself exhausting government benefits and still not finding a higher paying job.

Only those with jobs get promoted. I realize that statement sounds stupid. But if you want to climb up the corporate ladder you need to get on it. At the bottom. 

We cannot expect paths to always go up. It would be awesome if you could always count on making more money today than you did yesterday. And that your house tomorrow is fancier or bigger or in a better neighborhood than your house today. But that's not real life. There are ups and downs. You may have to realize that the house you could afford last year is not the same one you'll be able to afford next year.

Many businesses are scraping by as well. Sometimes we have this picture of all business owners being like the CEOs we see on television. Yahoo CEO Melissa Mayer's salary is not normal, even for big businesses. For small businesses, there's nothing close. The average salary for a small business owner? In their first year of business, they can expect to make between $34,392 and $75,076 -- not a lot of wiggle room to increase employee salaries.

It's not a conspiracy against workers. It's the reality of a bad market with lots of unemployed people. Hopefully it will get better.

Have a workplace dilemma? Send your question to EvilHRLady@gmail.com.


----------



## LAM (May 15, 2013)

Bowden said:


> The trade deficit related to globalization and offshoring manufacturing and imports of products has a lot to do with unemployment rates.
> Many manufacturing jobs that used to be located in the U.S. have been relocated to offshore locations.
> Entire manufacturing sectors like electronics manufacturing have been migrated to offshore locations.
> Globalization has caused material shifts in the U.S. job market that is causing unemployment to be higher than normal.



another thing that many don't understand about the offshoring of US manufacturing is that it hides the real rate of inflation and loss of purchasing power of the USD.  by offshoring manufacturing to low cost labor nations US large firms can still make plenty of profits and the people at the lower 2 income quintiles can still afford to buy most necessities (clothes and household products) in reasonable quantities.  when the USD went completely fiat in the early 70's and OPEC doubled the price of a barrel of crude, that was the beginning of the end of the USD and they started cooking the books with bogus calculations for the CPI, unemployment, etc.


----------



## Gregzs (Jun 3, 2013)

Top companies using banishment rooms to show employees the door - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun

With Japan's lifetime employment system in tatters, business circles are pushing to make it easier for companies to fire employees on full benefits who they view as lacking initiative and drive.

By the same token, companies, while keen to shed "redundant" employees, are reluctant to show them the door through outright dismissal.

The situation has given birth to so-called banishment rooms, where companies transfer surplus employees and give them menial tasks or nothing to do. Companies hope that targeted employees will become despondent and quit of their own volition.

Some big name companies have been found to operate banishment rooms. They include two subsidiaries of Panasonic Corp., Hitachi Ltd., Sony Corp., an NEC Corp. subsidiary, Toshiba Corp. and Seiko Instruments Inc.

The companies, however, deny they are exerting pressure on workers to resign by ordering them to perform menial tasks to hurry them out of the door.

The Asahi Shimbun recently learned that one of the two Panasonic subsidiaries also operates a section called "career development team" that a male employee said was just a fancy name for a banishment room, like the section known as the "Business & Human Resource Development Center" (BHC) at the companies.

"Employees come under enormous pressure to quit," said the man, who is in his 40s. "My section is simply another banishment room."

He was told his transfer was only temporary. That was four years ago. His main responsibility has been to find a new job via the Internet.

He was instructed to offer his assistance to another section that is busy.

In March, he was required to stare at a monitor for any irregularity in TV program footage for 10 hours at a stretch each day.

His boss told him he was lucky to still be on the payroll.

"Under normal circumstances, you should have been fired," his boss told him. "You ought to be grateful for being allowed to stay here and receive a salary."

The man built his career around planning in an Internet-related operation. But that window closed for him in 2008. He was unable to find a new position in or outside the company.

His employee performance evaluation was lowered year after year.

A bonus he received last year was a quarter of the sum he received five years ago.

The man said there were about 30 employees at his section, as of March.

A public relations official with Panasonic Corp.'s main office said, "The section is similar to the BHC in training employees to acquire new skills so they can work at different sections."

In April, the Panasonic subsidiary added 468 more employees to its BHC, most of them coming from sections that were performing poorly. It means that one in 10 workers at the company is with the BHC.

The expansion is aimed at "generating tangible results by securing a new source of income," according to employees, citing a management edict in March.

Internal documents obtained by The Asahi Shimbun show that there were 362 employees at the BHC last July, when it was established.

Thirty-five employees left the company, while 29 were transferred to other sections.

Rebounding from years of heavy losses, Hitachi is no longer in a situation in which it needs to implement large-scale cost-cutting.

In a recent interview, however, a Hitachi employee in his 50s said the ordeal he weathered over the past several months led him to believe he had been "singled out for dismissal."

"I feel like I was betrayed by Hitachi," the man said.

He recalled that his mind went blank when an instructor from a staffing agency spoke to him and 11 others from the company at the beginning of a two-week "career challenge program" last June.

"You are the ones who your company says are unnecessary," the instructor said. "You should find a different career path after taking this program."

The other participants, who are in their 40s and 50s, had worked in computer-related fields, where an increasing amount of production and programming work is outsourced.

The man was told to take the training course by his former boss.

After the session finished, the former boss summoned him and said: "We would like you to look for a new career path at a different company."

Thus his new routine began of going to a windowless room with only a desk and computer that was prepared by the staffing agency.

He looked for a job via the Internet and printed out his resume time and again.

An official with Hitachi's main office denied knowing of details of his situation.

"We have a program to prepare our employees for a life after retirement and to assist those who are opting for a career outside of Hitachi," the official said. "But few details of the program are available now."

The man felt he had a promising career ahead of him.

He was sent to study at a prestigious university overseas, the youngest Hitachi employee to do so at the time. The company clearly felt he showed promise.

After more than 10 interviews, the man landed a job with a midsize company.

A man with a software programing company within Konami Corp. is in the same boat as the former Hitachi employee.

He was told by his boss more than a year ago the transfer to the "career development section."

The man, who is in his 50s, stays home as his security pass to enter company premises was canceled.

He had been involved in the development of game software. The transfer came despite the parent company's robust sales of videogames in recent years. The man said few jobs are available for those older than 50 in the game industry.

"At our company, employees are expendable," he said.

In response to a request by The Asahi Shimbun for an interview, a publicity official at Konami said, "We cannot comment because the company structure is classified."

It is difficult to determine how widespread the practice of banishment rooms is in corporate Japan.

Business circles, meantime, have been clamoring for an overhaul of employment practices to make it easier for an employer to fire regular workers on grounds that companies need to move more swiftly to seize growth potential.


----------



## Gregzs (Jun 28, 2013)

On GPAs and Brainteasers: New Insights From Google On Recruiting and Hiring | LinkedIn

?We found that brainteasers are a complete waste of time. How many golf balls can you fit into an airplane? How many gas stations in Manhattan? A complete waste of time. They don?t predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart.?

That was just one of the many fascinating revelations that Laszlo Bock, Google?s senior vice president for people operations, shared with me in an interview that was part of the New York Times? special section on Big Data published Thursday.

Bock?s insights are particularly valuable because Google focuses its data-centric approach internally, not just on the outside world. It collects and analyzes a tremendous amount of information from employees (people generally participate anonymously or confidentially), and often tackles big questions such as, ?What are the qualities of an effective manager?? That was question at the core of its Project Oxygen, which I wrote about for the Times in 2011.

I asked Bock in our recent conversation about other revelations about leadership and management that had emerged from its research.

The full interview is definitely worth your time, but here are some of the highlights:

The ability to hire well is random. ?Years ago, we did a study to determine whether anyone at Google is particularly good at hiring,? Bock said. ?We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship. It?s a complete random mess, except for one guy who was highly predictive because he only interviewed people for a very specialized area, where he happened to be the world?s leading expert.?

Forget brain-teasers. Focus on behavioral questions in interviews, rather than hypotheticals. Bock said it?s better to use questions like, ?Give me an example of a time when you solved an analytically difficult problem.? He added: ?The interesting thing about the behavioral interview is that when you ask somebody to speak to their own experience, and you drill into that, you get two kinds of information. One is you get to see how they actually interacted in a real-world situation, and the valuable ?meta? information you get about the candidate is a sense of what they consider to be difficult.?

Consistency matters for leaders. ?It?s important that people know you are consistent and fair in how you think about making decisions and that there?s an element of predictability. If a leader is consistent, people on their teams experience tremendous freedom, because then they know that within certain parameters, they can do whatever they want. If your manager is all over the place, you?re never going to know what you can do, and you?re going to experience it as very restrictive.

GPAs don?t predict anything about who is going to be a successful employee. ?One of the things we?ve seen from all our data crunching is that G.P.A.?s are worthless as a criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless ? no correlation at all except for brand-new college grads, where there?s a slight correlation,? Bock said. ?Google famously used to ask everyone for a transcript and G.P.A.?s and test scores, but we don?t anymore, unless you?re just a few years out of school. We found that they don?t predict anything. What?s interesting is the proportion of people without any college education at Google has increased over time as well. So we have teams where you have 14 percent of the team made up of people who?ve never gone to college.?

That was a pretty remarkable insight, and I asked Bock to elaborate.

?After two or three years, your ability to perform at Google is completely unrelated to how you performed when you were in school, because the skills you required in college are very different,? he said. ?You?re also fundamentally a different person. You learn and grow, you think about things differently. Another reason is that I think academic environments are artificial environments. People who succeed there are sort of finely trained, they?re conditioned to succeed in that environment. One of my own frustrations when I was in college and grad school is that you knew the professor was looking for a specific answer. You could figure that out, but it?s much more interesting to solve problems where there isn?t an obvious answer. You want people who like figuring out stuff where there is no obvious answer.?


----------



## Gregzs (Jun 28, 2013)

3 Reasons to Hire Nervous Job Candidates

For many people, interviews are one of the most nerve racking things that they can do. It?s not surprising when you think about it, since there is a lot at stake: the job of their dreams, the ability to make the next mortgage/rent check, regaining a lost sense of self esteem, etc.

With so much being at stake, isn?t it perfectly understandable that many candidates may succumb to nerves during an interview? The problem is that these nerves can indeed impair their interview performance and hinder the interview process ? candidates can speak too quickly, slur their speech, have temporary memory loss and basically not give a true representation of their ability. This means that it is very easy to miscast nervous candidates as basket cases or incompetents who are not suitable for the job, when in truth they could be more appropriately skilled than some of the more outspoken and forward applicants.

In fact, three studies back up the idea that nervous candidates may be in fact disguising underlying brilliance.

The first was a study by Corinne Bendersky from UCLA?s School of Management. In her study she looked at MBA students and classified them as an extrovert and introvert (typically more neurotic and nervous) and she looked at the perceived status of these students. They found that those who were seen to be more extroverted were perceived to be of higher status and a better potential contributor to the effort. While neurotics were seen as lower status and they were expected to make a smaller contribution (this superficial first impression is an effect that is likely to be replicated in the interview room). But, what was most interesting was that at the end of the 10 week study/project period, the extroverts were seen to have lost status and to have contributed less than expected and neurotics were seen to have contributed more than expected and gained status as a result. Corinne concluded that extrovert traits that may them stand out from the crowd can fail in a team based situations. And the dull, uninspiring traits of introverts can make them effective on the job.

So, if you are hiring for roles with a collaborative element consider that the more nervous and neurotic may make a very positive contribution.

Corinne completed a second study which looked at team perceptions of neurotics and extroverts before and after working together and revealed that the general preconception is that the volatility and negativity of neurotics will be a drag on the team and that the enthusiasm and energy of extroverts would boost the team. But, in the studies the contributions of extroverts were not as good as expected and the introvert performed beyond expectations in a team environment.

A third study by Adam Grant from Wharton compared the sales performance of a group of 340 introvert and extrovert sales people. They found that the most successful employees were the ambiverts (halfway between introvert and extrovert) earning 24 percent more than introverts and 32 percent more than extroverts. So, in a purely sales capacity, this study (albeit isolated)  has shown that extroverts are the worst performers.

Now, I am in no way suggesting that you exclusively hire introverts because you need a balanced team and introversion is just one of many qualities and skills which can lead to the employee being a higher performer. But, that is the point; while you should not hire someone just because they are introvert, equally it does not make sense to overlook someone because their introversion and neuroticism may have affected their presentation during the interview. Try and build selection processes that allow both introverts and extroverts to shine and develop interview techniques that relax candidates and which coach nervous candidates back into a state where they give an authentic demonstration of their ability, enabling you to make truer assessment of their abilities.

If you need help with effectively interviewing nervous candidates, watch out for the second part of this article titled, ?8 Tips for Interviewing Nervous Candidates.?


----------



## Gregzs (Jul 8, 2013)

Why Underemployment May Be Worse Than It Looks

The level of underemployed workers looks bad on its face but even worse when it's not the government doing the counting. 

When the Labor Department released its monthly nonfarm jobs report Friday, it was all sunshine and roses except for one glaring weakness: A big jump in the unemployment rate that includes those who have quit working as well as those who have had to take part-time jobs even though they'd rather work full-time. 

That rate, which economists call the U-6, jumped from 13.8 percent in May to 14.3 percent in June?a 3.6 percent increase and indicative that the 195,000 new jobs created in the month weren't exactly of the highest caliber.

But what often doesn't get as much attention is the monthly labor count that the experts at Gallup conduct.

According to the pollster's results, the underemployment situation is even worse. 

Gallup reports that 17.2 percent of the workforce is underemployed, a startling number compounded by its divergence from the government's count. While the rate is down from the 20.3 percent peak in March 2010, it has remained maddeningly high over the past three years even as economists tout the strength of the U.S. economic recovery. 

From a broader perspective, the Gallup measure actually has increased from its 15.9 percent multi-year low in October 2012.


The potential significance of the recent trough is that it came a month before the Federal Reserve launched the third round of quantitative easing, the $85 billion a month bond-buying program that is supposed to help the central bank achieve its dual objectives of price stability?and full employment. 

Amid questions of whether QE3 is about to come to end, and if it has been as effective as its predecessors, the underemployment rate will be one important metric to watch. 

Aside from the Gallup numbers, the government's report was discouraging in its own right: A jump from 28.5 percent to 29.3 percent for the percentage of those working part-time for economic reasons in the labor force, and a year-over-year surge of 25.1 percent?1.027 million total?for those "discouraged workers" who have quit searching for jobs. 

"It's a big deal. The labor market is far from healthy, so I don't want to minimize the fact" that underemployment is on the rise, said Joe LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank. 

"To me, it's something that bears watching," he added. "Given the month it occurred, we have tremendous exit and entry into the workforce?teachers and students. You really need to reserve judgment. You need another month or two to see if it's a new trend." 

Indeed, some of the other Gallup metrics point to a bit brighter labor picture. 

The firm's adjusted unemployment rate, which in the past has diverged substantially from the BLS count, stood at 7.6 percent in June, directly in line with the government's numbers and down substantially from May's 8.2 percent reading. 

Also, its payroll-to-population gage was at 44.8 percent, a 2013 high though below the 45.7 percent in late 2012. 

But the labor market faces clear pressure ahead, particularly from government sequestration spending cuts and uncertainty over the looming Obamacare implementation. 

"We expect labor market pressure from the spending sequester in Washington to spread from reduced hours to job cuts," Ethan Harris, global economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said in a report for clients.


For now, though, LaVorgna said he is attributing the data point discrepancies to an unusual jobs climate that will out the kinks in the months ahead. 

"The labor market is so far from normal that it wouldn't surprise me that all these metrics are not necessarily moving in the same direction," he said. "There's going to be some incongruity between these two series. When things normalize, you would expect these things to rectify themselves."


----------



## Gregzs (Jul 8, 2013)

Temporary jobs becoming a permanent fixture

WASHINGTON (AP) ? Hiring is exploding in the one corner of the U.S. economy where few want to be hired: temporary work.

From Wal-Mart to General Motors to PepsiCo, companies are increasingly turning to temps and to a much larger universe of freelancers, contract workers and consultants. Combined, these workers number nearly 17 million people who have only tenuous ties to the companies that pay them ? about 12% of everyone with a job.

Hiring is always healthy for an economy. Yet the rise in temp and contract work shows that many employers aren't willing to hire for the long run.

The number of temps has jumped more than 50% since the recession ended four years ago to nearly 2.7 million ? the most on government records dating to 1990. In no other sector has hiring come close.

Driving the trend are lingering uncertainty about the economy and employers' desire for more flexibility in matching their payrolls to their revenue. Some employers have also sought to sidestep the new health care law's rule that they provide medical coverage for permanent workers. Last week, though, the Obama administration delayed that provision of the law for a year.

The use of temps has extended into sectors that seldom used them in the past ? professional services, for example, which include lawyers, doctors and information technology specialists.

Temps typically receive low pay, few benefits and scant job security. That makes them less likely to spend freely, so temp jobs don't tend to boost the economy the way permanent jobs do. More temps and contract workers also help explain why pay has barely outpaced inflation since the recession ended.

Beyond economic uncertainty, Ethan Harris, global economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, thinks more lasting changes are taking root.

"There's been a generational shift toward a less committed relationship between the firm and the worker," Harris says.

An Associated Press survey of 37 economists in May found that three-quarters thought the increased use of temps and contract workers represented a longstanding trend.

Typical of that trend is Latrese Carr, who was hired by a Wal-Mart in Glenwood, Ill., two months ago on a 90-day contract. She works 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., helping unload trucks and restocking shelves. Her pay is $9.45 an hour. There's no health insurance or other benefits.

Carr, 20, didn't particularly want the overnight shift.

"I needed a job," she says.

The store managers have said some temps will be kept on permanently, Carr says, depending on their performance.

Carr isn't counting on it.

The trend toward contract workers was intensified by the depth of the recession and the tepid pace of the recovery. A heavy investment in long-term employment isn't a cost all companies want to bear anymore.

"There's much more appreciation of the importance of having flexibility in the workforce," says Barry Asin of Staffing Industry Analysts, a consulting firm.

Susan Houseman, an economist at the Upjohn Institute of Employment Research, says companies want to avoid having too many employees during a downturn, just as manufacturers want to avoid having too much inventory if demand slows.

"You have your just-in-time workforce," Houseman says. "You only pay them when you need them."

This marks a shift from what economists used to call "labor hoarding": Companies typically retained most of their staff throughout recessions, hoping to ride out the downturn.

"We clearly don't have that anymore," says Sylvia Allegretto, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley.

The result is that temps and contract workers have become fixtures at large companies. Business executives say they help their companies stay competitive. They also argue that temp work can provide valuable experience.

"It opens more doors for people to enter the labor market," says Jeff Joerres, CEO of ManpowerGroup, a workplace staffing firm.

But Houseman's research has found that even when jobs are classified as "temp to permanent," only 27% of such assignments lead to permanent positions.

About one-third of temporary workers work in manufacturing. Temps can be found on production lines, repairing machinery and stocking goods in warehouses. About a fifth are administrative.

Shortages of doctors and nurses have led some hospitals to turn to temp agencies. Staffing Industry Analysts forecasts that spending on temporary doctors will grow 10% this year and next.

Some school districts now turn to temp firms for substitute teachers. This lets them avoid providing retirement benefits, which union contracts might otherwise require.

Manufacturing unions have pushed back against the trend, with limited success.

"We run into this across all the various industries where we represent people," says Tony Montana, a spokesman for the USW, which represents workers in the steel, paper, and energy industries.

Todd Miller, CEO of software company Gwabbit in Carmel Valley, Calif., says about a third of his 20 employees are temporary. An additional one-third are contractors.

He says he's had no trouble filling such positions. People are "willing to entertain employment possibilities that they would not have six or seven years ago," Miller says.

If the economy were to accelerate, Miller says he might hire more permanent staff. But "I don't have tremendous confidence in this economy."

Only the health care and leisure and hospitality sectors have added more jobs during the recovery. But each is roughly five times as large as the temp industry. The proportion of all jobs in the temp industry is about 2%, just below a record set in 2000.

Temp hiring has accelerated even though the economy has 2.4 million fewer jobs than it did five years ago. Temp jobs made up about 10% of jobs lost to the recession. Yet they've made up nearly 20% of the jobs gained since the recession ended.

A survey of companies with more than 1,000 employees by Staffing Industry Analysts found they expect 18% of their workforces to be made up of temps, freelancers or contract workers this year, up from 16% in 2012.

Shane Watson, who in November lost a job providing tech support for Blackberry maker Research In Motion, says contract work has helped him recover. He's on his third such position. Still, Watson, 36, misses the security of a permanent job.

Wal-Mart says it's been hiring disproportionately more temporary workers. "Flexible associates," it calls them. Spokesman Dave Tovar says temps allow store managers to provide permanent workers with more reliable schedules.

Online competitors are seeking to upend the temp industry just as Amazon and eBay disrupted retail. Employers spent $1 billion last year hiring workers for short-term projects through online labor exchanges, such as oDesk and Elance, according to Staffing Industry Analysts. That's 67% more than in the previous year.

Freelancers in the online exchanges can be evaluated by employers, post portfolios and take online tests to demonstrate their abilities.

Gary Swart, CEO of oDesk, says his clients are mainly small or startup companies. But giants like AOL and Unilever are using the service, too.

When Hans Hess of Arlington, Va., was seeking a lawyer to do a trademark search for his Elevation Burger chain, he turned to Elance. He found a lawyer to do it for under $500.

"When I was using a big law firm, it could cost me $5,000 to get to the point of just filing a trademark," Hess says.

Gigwalk recruits temps for brief projects in retail, merchandising and marketing. Anyone who downloads Gigwalk's app can see pinpoints on a map signifying available jobs nearby.

Frito-Lay, a division of PepsiCo, used Gigwalk this year to hire workers to check in-store displays of its products to ensure that a seasonal promotion was being handled properly.

"You can hire 10,000 people for 10 to 15 minutes," says Gigwalk CEO Bob Bahramipour. "When they're done, those 10,000 people just melt away."


----------



## sneedham (Jul 8, 2013)

ROID said:


> The max in alabama is $250/week.


Same for Florida....Got laid off once and my ass was looking for a job pronto.........On another note it does piss me off when I see people taking advantage of unemployment, free phones,housing aid, food stamps, health care, heating assistance,....etc...I could go on but am starting to get to aggressive with my computer now....


----------



## LAM (Jul 8, 2013)

sneedham said:


> Same for Florida....Got laid off once and my ass was looking for a job pronto.........On another note it does piss me off when I see people taking advantage of unemployment, free phones,housing aid, food stamps, health care, heating assistance,....etc...I could go on but am starting to get to aggressive with my computer now....



there are no free phones, that's bullshit ring wing media rumors and that phone plan actually started under the Bush admin by a low cost provider it had nothing at all to do with government.

and all of those things you stated are for single mothers.  and if you knew anybody that collected those benefits you wouldn't believe the hoops they have to jump through to get them.  I know girls that get them and every single one of them did so as a last resort because they are all up in your business, bank accounts, your house, etc.

whatever you read about in the papers, etc. the truth is pretty much 180 degrees from that...

per the 1996 Welfare Reform Act cash benefits are limited to the lifetime maximum of 60 months at $400 a month and SNAP benefits until the last child turns 18 and of course you have to be making poverty wages.  those are the last people you should be jealous of as they have no financial freedom.


----------



## MuscleGauge1 (Jul 8, 2013)

He will get penalized if he is working a job and they find out he is getting paid a salary. They will deduct the charge him for back payment and make him pay it back so its not that easy. Each week he has to certify how much money he has made for that week so if he doesn't report it they will find out and charge him. Unemployment depends on the state though it really is different for everyone.


----------



## Gregzs (Jul 19, 2013)

Many jobs going unfilled for over 3 months - CBS News

Despite the fact that the unemployment rate is hovering around 7.5 percent, more than a third of companies have positions that have gone unfilled for at least three months, according to a new study. 

This is just one more indicator that there is a growing mismatch between the skills job seekers have and the ones companies are looking for. 

CareerBuilder.com, an online jobs site, asked more than 2,000 hiring managers and human resources professionals to identify the hardest-to-fill positions within their organizations -- those that stay open 12 weeks or longer. It then paired the list of occupations with job growth data provided by Economic Modeling Specialists to find out the number of new positions created in those occupations in the past three years. 

While many jobs on the list require very specialized skills and extensive education, there are also a surprising number -- like sales representatives and truck drivers -- that don't call for years of training. 

"Although the recession created an abundant pool of readily-available, unemployed talent that still exists today, employers are struggling to find new employees for technology-related occupations, sales, healthcare and a variety of other areas," CareerBuilder's Brent Rasmussen said in a release. "Two in five employers (41 percent) reported that they continuously recruit throughout the year so that they have candidates in their pipeline in case a position opens up down the road. The skills gap that exists for high-growth, specialized occupations will become even more pronounced in the years to come, prompting the need to place a greater emphasis on reskilling workers through formal education and on-the-job training."

Here are the number of jobs created in the past three years where positions are going unfilled for at least 12 weeks: 
Sales representative: 584,792 
Machine operator/Assembler/Production worker: 135,363 
Nurse: 135,325 
Truck driver: 113,517 
Software developer: 103,708
Engineer: 73,995
Marketing professional: 57,045 
Accountant: 55,670 
Mechanic: 53,002 
IT Manager/Network administrator: 48,709 


According to the Labor Department, 36.7 percent of all those looking for work have been unemployed for at least 27 weeks. For those people and others, this list may provide a guide if they are considering changing careers or retraining.


----------



## LAM (Jul 19, 2013)

employers need to fill positions but many firms are not desperate to do so.  they are no longer willing to train people, so if you don't have the specific qualifications or skill sets they need, the position goes unfilled.


----------



## Gregzs (Jul 22, 2013)

Scarred by Financial Crisis, U.S. Companies Continue to Hoard Cash - WSJ.com

Scarred by Financial Crisis, U.S. Companies Continue to Hoard Cash 

One thousand of the largest companies in the U.S. are sitting on a growing pile of cash?some $981 billion as of last year, up 1% from 2011 and 61% over five years, according to REL Consulting, a division of Hackett Group. 

What should they be doing with it?

Their options include, among other things, returning it to shareholders via dividends and stock repurchases, using it to build factories and hire workers or hoarding it until the economic outlook gets clearer.

We asked a panel of corporate-finance experts to weigh in on the issue. They are Donna M. Hitscherich, a member of the finance and economics faculty at Columbia Business School; Wayne Guay, the Yageo professor of accounting at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School; and Ira S. Weiss, a clinical professor of accounting and entrepreneurship at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

Here are edited excerpts of their email discussion.


WSJ: What should companies do with their cash in this environment? 

Prof. Weiss: I'm not surprised that cash on hand has been rising for U.S. companies. The economy is doing well, and corporations are profitable. And because of the almost catastrophic global financial crisis of 2007-08, corporate treasurers might have a bit of "postrecession stress disorder" and want to hold higher levels of cash than they did previously. 

During the financial crisis, a lot of companies had problems accessing the capital markets, even companies that never had problems accessing capital in their history. Because of that, companies are more likely to take their sweet time before increasing their dividends and announcing share repurchases. 

Apple Inc., AAPL +0.32%Google Inc. GOOG +1.57% and a few other technology companies are in a position of holding huge cash piles, but those cash piles are overseas, and repatriation would cause a significant tax burden. In light of that, Apple's recent decision to borrow in order to pay out some cash [in dividends and stock buybacks] is a wise one.

Prof. Guay: We've seen a marked shift in uncertainty and risk in general. The dynamic and risky nature of doing business around the globe has changed a lot in the last 20 years.

To know whether a firm has too much cash, you need to know their tax situation, where all that cash is and what the tax would be if they brought it back. You need to know what the firm is planning for the next five years in terms of research and development, expenditures and other items. It is a tricky thing for shareholders to figure out when a firm has too much cash.

WSJ: What needs to happen for companies to feel more secure? 

Prof. Weiss: As the world economy continues to remain stable and Europe recovers, companies will start feeling more secure. I'm not sure how long that might take, but my guess is a minimum of two more years, but possibly five.

However, if there are further interruptions in growth?say a war in Iran or another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil?I'd expect them to continue to hoard cash for the foreseeable future.

Prof. Hitscherich: Should the "reasons" for the rise in cash balances reverse, I am not sure that companies would spend the cash.

There are two issues here. First, why spend the cash on the balance sheet in such a low-interest-rate environment, [assuming the company is a good credit in the first instance]? Second, what will it take for companies to have visibility and therefore to have confidence in the state of the world (regulatory/fiscal/security) going forward?

Once we have the answers to each of these questions, private investment should increase.

Ms. Schoenberger is a writer in New York. She can be reached at reports@wsj.com.


----------



## Gregzs (Jul 26, 2013)

I knew this about my last boss. It was as though he couldn't help himself even when he did things that some partners would call him out for.

Sometimes, the boss really is a psycho

Sometimes, the boss really is a psycho 

The bully, the narcissist, the know-it-all, even the psychopath.


We may not like them, or want our children to be like them. But chances are, almost everyone who has worked long enough has a horror story about a superior who generally behaved like Homer Simpson's boss, Mr. Charles Montgomery "Monty" Burns. 

A growing number of researchers are looking into what makes a real-life Mr. Burns, and what they are finding isn't always pretty. 

"There are whole climates and cultures of abuse in the workplace," said Darren Treadway, an associate professor at the University at Buffalo School of Management. His recent research looks at why bullies are able to persist, and sometimes even thrive, at work. 

He said many people have either seen or experienced bullying at work because some bullies are skilled enough to figure out who they can abuse to get ahead, and who they can charm to get away with it. 

"The successful ones are very, very socially skilled," he said. "They're capable of disguising their behavior." 

Both popular culture and real life are rife with examples of alleged bullying. Just this week, San Diego Mayor Bob Filner was accused by his communications director, Irene McCormack Jackson, of harassment including dragging her around in a headlock and whispering sexual advances. Filner has rejected the claims. 

2 in 10 workers: Boss hurt my career 

Experts say a good boss can really help your career, but a bad boss can be devastating. A survey of 2,000 adults released earlier this year by Glassdoor found that about 2 in 10 workers say a manager has hurt their career.


Smart bad bosses can be hard to spot, some experts say, because they are extremely good at manipulating and charming some people, while abusing others. 

Industrial organizational psychologist Paul Babiak first grew interested in studying psychopaths at work after he was called in to consult for a dysfunctional team. He found an abusive, lying boss?and a team that was staunchly divided into two camps. 

"(There was) a subset of the team that really loved this guy? idolized him?and then there was another group of people who thought he was a snake," Babiak said. 


Very few companies will admit that they want a bad boss in their corporate ranks. But experts say that bad bosses do have some aspects of American corporate culture working in their favor. 

That includes the results-at-all-costs mentality that pervades many publicly held companies and the stereotype that a good boss should be aggressive and bold. 

When Babiak presents the first part of his research on corporate professionals who are psychopaths, he said he often hears from senior leaders who wonder why psychopaths are so bad. That's because they would actually like to have a manager who comes across as strong, decisive and aggressive.

The allure is often short-lived. 

OK, they're not actual psychopathic patients 

"Usually by lunchtime they realize ? that you can't pick and choose the traits that you want," he said. "If you are hiring a psychopath you will get pathological lying. You will get grandiose sense of self."


By contrast, he said the initial response he usually gets from lower level workers is, "Oh my God, you're describing my boss." 

Of course, most bosses aren't horrendous enough to deserve an actual diagnosis of psychopathy. 

"At first, the tendency is to see (a bad) boss as a psychopath," said Sigrid Gustafson, an industrial organizational psychologist who runs the consulting firm Success Exceleration. "There are a lot of ways to be a jerk, and there are a lot of ways to be a bad boss." 

Babiak said about 4 percent of the 203 executives he studied were diagnosable psychopaths, compared to about 1 percent of the broader population. A person is considered a psychopath if they score very high on an evaluation that looks at four factors and finds that they are particularly manipulative, without remorse or empathy, live a deviant lifestyle and are antisocial. 

It's more likely that the boss you dislike is just not very good at supervising employees. Babiak said the most common type of boss is what he calls the unskilled boss. 

"The not-so-nice name is the abusive boss," he said. "They tend to be offensive because they're not polished." 

These are the bosses who scold people in public, don't handle stress well and aren't always fair. That's in contrast to the two other types of bosses he's identified: The good, predictable, tough-but-fair boss and the really bad, psychopathic boss. 

Nice people are less likely to emerge as leaders 

In general, Timothy Judge, a management professor at the University of Notre Dame, said his research has shown that agreeable people?those who are cooperative, nice and gentle?are less likely to emerge as leaders than disagreeable people. That's even though agreeable leaders tend to do just as good a job as disagreeable people, he said.


More generally, Judge's data also has shown that being agreeable can harm many aspects of career success, including salary negotiations, occupational prestige and career attainment. 

"We have this quality that we say we really want in people, and yet if you look at the labor market it really punishes that," Judge said. 

The extremely bad bosses, such as the "aberrant self-promoters" Gustafson has identified, aren't necessarily more prevalent in the upper ranks than any other type of personality, she said. However, these truly bad bosses are more memorable because they wreak so much havoc. 

"They have more influence and they're more likely to bully and intimidate and ruin other people," she said.


Taking credit for others' work 

That kind of charming, risk-loving personality can sometimes help a company achieve great things?although Gustafson said that's usually by getting their loyal workers to do the work, rather than doing it themselves. But Gustafson said their weaknesses often mean that companies find the success is short-lived.


"In the end, they will find that something has gone really badly amiss," she said. 

She was recently called in to consult for a company that was lulled into hiring a destructive boss, and asked her to evaluate the person that had replaced the bad boss, to make sure they didn't make the same mistake twice. 

Many experts say it can be hard, at first, to distinguish the gifted leader from the narcissist or the bully. That's partly because some of the attributes we admire in leaders?such as the boldness and attention to detail so coveted by the likes of the late Apple executive Steve Jobs?can also turn darker.

Bill Wales, professor of management at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., said his research has shown that narcissistic chief executives tend to lead more entrepreneurial companies. 

That doesn't mean that they are more successful, he notes. It just means that they are much more likely to take big risks or make bold moves, which may end up being major coups or miserable failures. 

"You're getting both bigger wins and bigger losses," Wales said.


----------



## Gregzs (Jul 31, 2013)

Unemployment disparity: African-American jobless rate is twice that of whites. Blacks likely to be unemployed longer. | Face the Facts USA

The color of unemployment

In an interview published Saturday in the New York Times, President Obama talked about unemployment and the income gap as key factors in ongoing racial tension in America. Obama predicted that with continuing unemployment and inequality, "Racial tensions won?t get better; they may get worse, because people will feel as if they?ve got to compete with some other group to get scraps from a shrinking pot." It's a fact that the recession has not affected all Americans equally. While overall unemployment hovers around 8 percent, the reality was much different depending on your racial and ethnic background. African-Americans had an unemployment rate of 14.1 percent, nearly double the rate of whites at 7.2 percent. Hispanics had the second highest unemployment rate at 10.2 percent. And Asians fared best, with 5.9 percent unemployment. But Asians do not fare so well when it comes to long-term unemployment, those out of work for six months or longer. Unemployed Asians and African-Americans tend to stay unemployed for longer stretches of time. Check out our infographic for more on unemployment?s racial disparities. See ?What Do Others Say?? on the demographics, then add to the discussion below. What do these disparities say about the U.S.? How much is prejudice at play? Are President Obama's statements on the ties between race relations and unemployment accurate?


----------



## Gregzs (Aug 14, 2013)

States Where It Is Hardest To Find Full-Time Work - 24/7 Wall St.

States Where It Is Hardest To Find Full-Time Work

As the nation continues to recover from the recession, not only is the unemployment rate down, but the underemployment rate ? an important measure of the health of the job market ? has been slowly declining as well.

In 2012, 14.7% of all people in the workforce either had no job, were too discouraged to go looking, or were not working as much as they wanted. Through the 12 months ending mid-2013, this figure had fallen slightly to 14.3%. But in many states, underemployment remains persistently high. These are the states where it is hardest to find full-time work.

BLS chief regional economist Martin Kohli told 24/7 Wall St. ?In these states, the statistics are showing some positive and some negative developments.? In high underemployment states like Mississippi and New Jersey, he noted, the rate of people involuntarily underemployed increased over the last year, even as the national rate declined.

For those high underemployment states where the rate has declined, however, such as California, Nevada, and Michigan, the declines in underemployment rates in some of these states is a sign of job market growth. In these states, Kohli noted, there have been ?increases in their labor forces, as well as significant over the year increases in payroll jobs, so the changes in the [underemployment] rates are additional confirmation of improvements in their labor markets.?

For many states with high underemployment, a strong year for job growth in 2012 still has not been enough to help all workers find jobs. High underemployment states like Washington, Arizona, and California had some of the fastest job growth in the country in 2012, but still have not recovered all of the jobs they lost prior to the recession. In Arizona, there were about 2.5 million jobs in July. In late 2007, there were nearly 2.7 million nonfarm jobs. In California, where the number of jobs rose 3.3% in 2012, the third-fastest growth in the country, there were 14.6 million jobs in July, just under half a million less than in late 2007.

Many of the states where people cannot find full-time, consistent work were especially hurt by the housing market collapse in the previous decade. At the end of 2012, according to the CoreLogic Case-Shiller Indexes, home prices in the majority of the states with high underemployment were still at least 20% lower than they were at the end of 2007. In Arizona and Nevada ? both high underemployment states ? home prices declined by one-third and almost half, respectively.

To determine the states with the least full-time work, 24/7 Wall St. used figures published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization, covering four quarters ending with the second quarter of 2013. We focused on two measures: U-3, the conventional measure of the unemployment rate, and U-6, the underemployment rate. The underemployment rate adds ?marginally attached? workers, which includes those who have become too discouraged to look for a job, and people working part time because their hours were cut or they cannot find full-time work. We also reviewed figures published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis on personal income and changes by state for 2012.

These are the states where it is hardest to find full-time work.

10. New Jersey
 > Underemployment rate: 15.7% (tied-8th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 9.1% (tied-6th highest)
> Gross domestic product: 1.3% (15th lowest)
> Income per capita: $53,628 (3rd highest)

New Jersey has suffered from the recession, as well as the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. Home prices are down by 21% between 2007 and the end of 2012, a decline topped by only nine states. Average weekly wages in the state are among the highest in the country, at $1,172. However, wage growth was slow in 2012. The state has also had a slow job recovery, and the 12-month average unemployment rate midway through this year remained above 9%.

Also Read: Nine Cities Running Out of Water

9. Arizona
> Underemployment rate: 15.7% (tied-8th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 8.1% (tied-15th highest)
> Gross domestic product: 2.6% (13th highest)
> Income per capita: $35,979 (10th lowest)

Like neighboring Nevada, Arizona?s housing market was hit hard by the recession. Home prices were down 33.3% between the end of 2007 and the end of last year. However, there are some signs of a healthy recovery ? Arizona?s home prices rose the most in the U.S. last year. But the housing market still has a long way to go. More than a third of homes with mortgages have negative equity, higher than all but three other states. The state?s job market has been slow to recover. Unemployment is down from a 12-month average of 8.2% of the labor force to 8.1% through the first half of 2013. Construction jobs are up by nearly 10% between June 2012 and June 2013, but are still down by close to 50% compared to June 2006.

8. Washington
 > Underemployment rate: 15.7% (tied-8th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 7.5% (tied-22nd highest)
> Gross domestic product: 3.6% (4th highest)
> Income per capita: $45,413 (12th highest)

Washington has improved its unemployment measurably in the last two quarters, from a 12-month average of 8.3% at the end of 2012, to an average of 7.5% at the end of the second quarter of 2013 ? below the U.S. 12-month rate of 7.8%. The state?s underemployment rate has also fallen more than all but three other states, but the rate remains one of the highest in the country. One barrier to higher full-time employment may be the state?s minimum wage, although policy makers disagree on the effect such minimums have on job growth. Washington has the nation?s highest minimum wage, at $9.19 per hour.

7. Mississippi
 > Underemployment rate: 15.8%
> Unemployment rate: 9.3% (4th highest)
> Gross domestic product: 2.4% (17th highest)
> Income per capita: $33,073 (the lowest)

In the wake of the recession the economic prospects in this state are still grim, especially when business earnings decline and jobs are cut as a result. Last month, for example, Entergy Corporation, which employs 1,900 Mississippi workers, said it will cut 800 jobs to make up for plummeting net income. In 2012, jobs grew by just 1.1% in the state, below the U.S. growth rate of 1.9%. Wages also grew less than average. As of the end of 2012, workers in the state earn just $720 per week, less than those in any other state.

6. Rhode Island
 > Underemployment rate: 15.9%
> Unemployment rate: 9.5% (tied-3rd highest)
> Gross domestic product: 1.4% (17th lowest)
> Income per capita: $44,990 (14th highest)

The Rhode Island economy was among the weakest in the nation during 2012, when it had far-slower growth in both employment and wages than the U.S. overall, and home prices barely inched upwards. According to the Associated Press, Rhode Island recently received a $1.9 million federal grant to help boost its economy and infrastructure. The first half of this year has been more promising, however. Rhode Island?s annual average unemployment rate was 10.5% in 2012, higher than any other state except Nevada. But by the second quarter of 2013, the state?s 12-month average unemployment rate had fallen substantially to 9.5%. Similarly, the state?s underemployment rate also declined in that time, from 17.6% to 15.9%, a larger percentage point decline than any other state.


----------



## Gregzs (Aug 14, 2013)

5. Illinois
 > Underemployment rate: 16.1% (tied-4th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 9.0% (7th highest)
> Gross domestic product: 1.9% (25th lowest)
> Income per capita: $44,815 (16th highest)

Illinois? housing market reveals the poor state of economic health in the state: over a quarter of homes with mortgages have negative equity. Between 2007 and 2012, home prices saw a 28.6% decline, worse than only three other states. Jobs in Illinois are faring no better. The unemployment rate is one of the highest in the country. Employment growth was also slower than two thirds of states in 2012. This month, the Chicago Tribune reported filings with the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, which said about 400 workers were told in July they might be laid off.

Also Read: Famous Restaurant Chains That Are Hard to Find

4. Michigan
 > Underemployment rate: 16.1% (tied-4th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 8.9% (8th highest)
> Gross domestic product: 2.3% (18th highest)
> Income per capita: $37,497 (16th lowest)

Like many states with high underemployment, Michigan home prices fell significantly during the recession, but showed some signs of improvement in 2012. Average weekly wages grew by only 2.3% in 2012, the fifth-slowest growth among states. Reflecting the desperate state of employment in the state, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation announced last month its approval of incentives to companies planning expansions in Michigan. CBS reports the projects may generate nearly $86 million in investments, and add 600 new jobs.

3. Oregon
 > Underemployment rate: 16.9%
> Unemployment rate: 8.7% (10th highest)
> Gross domestic product: 4.0% (3rd highest)
> Income per capita: $38,786 (18th lowest)

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Oregon?s 12-month average unemployment rate of 8.7 was the 10th-worst in the country. It?s underemployment rate was even worse, with 16.9% of workers either unemployed or involuntarily employed less than full-time. While jobs grew more than most states in 2012, the state is still short by roughly 70,000 jobs compared to its pre-recession levels. Average weekly wage in Oregon is not far below the national average. However wage growth has been slower than most of the country, growing just 2.5% in 2012.

2. California
 > Underemployment rate: 18.3%
> Unemployment rate: 9.5% (tied-3rd highest)
> Gross domestic product: 3.5% (6th highest)
> Income per capita: $44,980 (15th highest)

California was one of the fastest growing states in the nation in 2012. Jobs grew by 3.3% last year, more than all but two other states. Home prices began to rebound as well, rising by 12.9% from the fourth quarter of 2011 to the fourth quarter of 2012, more than all but two other states. But over the 12 months ending with the second quarter of 2013, the state had among the highest unemployment and underemployment rates in the country. Also, while the state has done well in adding jobs so far through 2013, it still has yet to replace about half a million jobs lost during the recession.

Also Read: States Sending the Most People to Prison

1. Nevada
 > Underemployment rate: 19.0%
> Unemployment rate: 10.4% (the highest)
> Gross domestic product: 1.5% (20th lowest)
> Income per capita: $37,361 (14th lowest)

Home prices in Nevada fell by 46.6% between 2007 and 2012, the worst decline in the nation, according to CoreLogic. In 2012, employment in Nevada saw a 1.9% growth, which was 14th in the country. Jobs have been created in Nevada in some of the largest industries, particularly leisure and hospitality, which reported a 2.3% increase this June, according to Nevada?s Research and Analysis Bureau. But the state is still down more than 100,000 jobs compared to pre-recession levels. Some are skeptical of the job growth in the state, noting that while jobs are being created, over half are for low-wage positions. Wage growth in 2012 was 16th lowest in the country.


Alexander E.M. Hess and Thomas C. Frohlich


----------



## maniclion (Aug 14, 2013)

New Jersey is having a solar boom right now, anyone with a construction or electrical background should be able to land an installer job, when our solar boom started I saw a lot of real estate agents transition into solar salesperson positions, also quite a few stock brokers....


----------



## Gregzs (Aug 16, 2013)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57598411/what-it-costs-to-raise-a-kid-$241080/

What it costs to raise a kid: $241,080

Children will cost you roughly one-quarter of a million dollars before they turn age 18. If you send them to college, you could spend twice as much, according to a new report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Offspring are also far more costly, even on an inflation-adjusted basis, than they used to be, the agency found. In 1960, children in the baby boom generation cost their parents 23 percent less to raise than kids do today. That amounts to a total of $195,690 in inflation-adjusted dollars, versus today's average of $241,080. 


The biggest factor behind the rising cost of child-rearing is out-of-pocket health payments and child care expenses, which have both more than doubled. The USDA partly attributes the spiraling cost of child care to the fact that there are far more two-income families in 2013 than there were in 1960. That means more families are reporting day-care expenses. 

Music producer David Bruner, for example, told CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano he quit his job to be an at-home dad because childcare in New York City cost too much - even though his wife is an attorney with a six-figure salary.

"It's an expensive blessing," he said, but he's "more than okay" with that.

Of course, if a couple opts to have one spouse stay home to raise the kids, that's a cost, too. But the USDA didn't account for the so-called opportunity cost of wages that went unearned by a stay-at-home spouse in 1960. Even today it ignores the half of U.S. households that say they have no day care or education expenses. 

Theoretically, if the researchers had used the same formula used in 1960, the disparity would be less severe. Still, where child care and education accounted for just 2 percent of the cost of having children in 1960 -- a total of $3,914, or roughly $301 annually (through age 13) -- it now commands 18 percent of the cost, an average annual expense of $3,338. 


No matter how you slice it, in short, the cost or raising children is far higher in 2013 than half a century ago. 



Meanwhile, even at $241,080, this estimate of the cost of having kids is likely to be conservative. The government's exhaustive explanation of how it figures the numbers notes that the cost of housing your child is figured based on the incremental cost of buying a house with an additional bedroom. It doesn't account for those who might move to a more costly neighborhood to get the benefit of better schools or a safer environment. 


The estimates also assume some economies of scale that come with having more than one child, such as being able to use hand-me-down clothing and shared babysitters. If you have just one child, you'll spend comparatively more.


But the USDA rightly notes that the amount you spend on a child - like the amount you spend on yourself -- will vary based on household income. The lowest-income group studied -- those earning less than $60,640 -- will spend an average of $216,910 on their youngest child by the time he or she reaches the age of 18. Those earning the most -- $105,000 or more -- will spend upwards of $500,000.


----------



## LAM (Aug 16, 2013)

and it's exactly that cost which is causing the low birth rates in the wealthy country's in the OECD, they use immigration to keep the population up and the profits in the US since all the wealth flows to the top.

other country's with far more stable economy's don't follow the US labor or immigration models for the obvious reasons.


----------



## bigdippin (Aug 17, 2013)

Back in 2009 I was laid off from a job I worked at for 10 years with no warning or a heads up.  I was a supervisor and made good money.  It was damn near impossible to find a job that payed close to what I was making.  I hate to admit it, because its embarrassing to me, but I had to collect unemployment for a few months until I was able to find a job.


----------



## Gregzs (Sep 17, 2013)

Gap in employment rates between rich, poor at widest levels in records dating back a decade | Star Tribune

Gap in employment rates between rich, poor at widest levels in records dating back a decade

WASHINGTON ? The gap in employment rates between America's highest- and lowest-income families has stretched to its widest levels since officials began tracking the data a decade ago, according to an analysis of government data conducted for The Associated Press.

Rates of unemployment for the lowest-income families ? those earning less than $20,000 ? have topped 21 percent, nearly matching the rate for all workers during the 1930s Great Depression.

U.S. households with income of more than $150,000 a year have an unemployment rate of 3.2 percent, a level traditionally defined as full employment. At the same time, middle-income workers are increasingly pushed into lower-wage jobs. Many of them in turn are displacing lower-skilled, low-income workers, who become unemployed or are forced to work fewer hours, the analysis shows.

"This was no 'equal opportunity' recession or an 'equal opportunity' recovery," said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. "One part of America is in depression, while another part is in full employment."

The findings follow the government's tepid jobs report this month that showed a steep decline in the share of Americans working or looking for work. On Monday, President Barack Obama stressed the need to address widening inequality after decades of a "winner-take-all economy, where a few do better and better and better, while everybody else just treads water or loses ground."

"We have to make the investments necessary to attract good jobs that pay good wages and offer high standards of living," he said.

While the link between income and joblessness may seem apparent, the data are the first to establish how this factor has contributed to the erosion of the middle class, a traditional strength of the U.S. economy.

Based on employment-to-population ratios, which are seen as a reliable gauge of the labor market, the employment disparity between rich and poor households remains at the highest levels in more than a decade, the period for which comparable data are available.

In the first seven months of 2013, the employment rate was 73.5 percent for households with income of more than $150,000 a year, compared with 33.8 percent for households making less than $20,000 ? a gap of 39.7 percentage points, similar to the ratio in the most recent years after the recession. In contrast, the employment gap was 36.4 percentage points in 2005, at the height of the housing bubble.

"It's pretty frustrating," says Annette Guerra, 33, of San Antonio, who has been looking for a full-time job since she finished nursing school more than a year ago. During her search, she found that employers had become increasingly picky about an applicant's qualifications in the tight job market, often turning her away because she lacked previous nursing experience or because she wasn't certified in more areas.

Guerra says she now gets by doing "odds and ends" jobs such as a pastry chef, bringing in $500 to $1,000 a month, but she says daily living can be challenging as she cares for her mother, who has end-stage kidney disease.

"For those trying to get ahead, there should be some help from government or companies to boost the economy and provide people with the necessary job training," says Guerra, who hasn't ruled out returning to college to get a business degree once her financial situation is more stable. "I'm optimistic that things will start to look up, but it's hard."

Last year the average length of unemployment for U.S. workers reached 39.5 weeks, the highest level since World War II. The duration of unemployment has since edged lower to 36.5 weeks based on data from January to July, still relatively high historically.

Economists call this a "bumping down" or "crowding out" in the labor market, a domino effect that pushes out lower-income workers, pushes median income downward and contributes to income inequality. Because many mid-skill jobs are being lost to globalization and automation, recent U.S. growth in low-wage jobs has not come fast enough to absorb displaced workers at the bottom.

Low-wage workers are now older and better educated than ever, with especially large jumps in those with at least some college-level training.

"The people at the bottom are going to be continually squeezed, and I don't see this ending anytime soon," said Harvard economist Richard Freeman. "If the economy were growing enough or unions were stronger, it would be possible for the less educated to do better and for the lower income to improve. But in our current world, where we are still adjusting to globalization, that is not very likely to happen."

The figures are based on an analysis of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sum and Northeastern University economist Ishwar Khatiwada. They are supplemented with material from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's David Autor, an economics professor known for his research on the disappearance of mid-skill positions, as well as John Schmitt, a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington think tank. Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, analyzed data on poverty.

The overall rise in both the unemployment rate and low-wage jobs due to the recent recession accounts for the record number of people who were stuck in poverty in 2011: 46.2 million, or 15 percent of the population. When the Census Bureau releases new 2012 poverty figures on Tuesday, most experts believe the numbers will show only slight improvement, if any, due to the slow pace of the recovery.

Overall, more than 16 percent of adults ages 16 and older are now "underutilized" in the labor market ? that is, they are unemployed, "underemployed" in part-time jobs when full-time work is desired or among the "hidden unemployed" who are not actively job hunting but express a desire for immediate work.

Among households making less than $20,000 a year, the share of underutilized workers jumps to about 40 percent. For those in the $20,000-to-$39,999 category, it's just over 21 percent and about 15 percent for those earning $40,000 to $59,999. At the top of the scale, underutilization affects just 7.2 percent of those in households earning more than $150,000.

By race and ethnicity, black workers in households earning less than $20,000 were the most likely to be underutilized, at 48.4 percent. Low-income Hispanics and whites were almost equally as likely to be underutilized, at 38 percent and 36.8 percent, respectively, compared to 31.8 percent for low-income Asian-Americans.

Loss of jobs in the recent recession has hit younger, less-educated workers especially hard. Fewer teenagers are taking on low-wage jobs as older adults pushed out of disappearing mid-skill jobs, such as bank teller or administrative assistant, move down the ladder.

Recent analysis by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that whites and older workers are more pessimistic about their opportunities to advance compared to other groups in the lower-wage workforce.

Eric Reichert, 45, of West Milford, N.J. Reichert, who holds a master's degree in library science, is among the longer-term job seekers. He had hoped to find work as a legal librarian or in a similar research position after he was laid off from a title insurance company in 2008. Reichert now works in a lower-wage administrative records position, also helping to care for his 8-year-old son while his wife works full-time at a pharmaceutical company.

"I'm still looking, and I wish I could say that I will find a better job, but I can no longer say that with confidence," he said. "At this point, I'm reconsidering what I'm going do, but it's not like I'm 24 years old anymore."


----------



## LAM (Sep 18, 2013)

we never recovered from the jobs lost during 2001 and the weak period of economic expansion between 2001-2008 decimated the working class.

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate (CIVPART) - FRED - St. Louis Fed


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 18, 2013)

bigdippin said:


> Back in 2009 I was laid off from a job I worked at for 10 years with no warning or a heads up.  I was a supervisor and made good money.  It was damn near impossible to find a job that payed close to what I was making.  I hate to admit it, because its embarrassing to me, but I had to collect unemployment for a few months until I was able to find a job.



No reason to be embarrassed. 

That's what unemployment benefits are for. You paid into it. 

There is no security in the American workforce.

This is one reason I am debt free and will remain so until death.


----------



## Gregzs (Oct 8, 2013)

How to make sure your new employees fail from day one | SmartBlogs SmartBlogs

Recently. I read that 20% of new employees either quit or are terminally disenchanted after only 45 days on the job.

Personally, I think it?s wonderful that so many companies are doing so well that they can afford to throw away that much money on hiring people who immediately learn to hate the jobs they get hired for. I?ve always said that the recession was simply a figment of our imagination, and now we finally have proof.

But I want to take this one step farther. I think some of these companies are accidentally rubbing their employees the wrong way. I think sometimes it just happens. And I don?t want my readers to have to rely on random chance when it comes to driving their new employees into the ground. So let?s look at some of the things you can do to actively oppress and demoralize your workforce. Sadness, engage!

Give your new employees only the most thankless assignments

We all know that new employees are hired specifically to do the things we don?t want to do anymore. It?s the same reason older children get so excited when they find out they?re going to have a new baby brother or sister, because they know they?ll get to pawn the vacuuming off on their little, weaker sibling. So make sure the work you assign to your new employees is menial, monotonous, and as unpleasant as possible.

I?ve actually heard one story (totally, completely not making this up) of a new employee who was asked to fire an older employee on his manager?s behalf.  Seriously. And what an opening-day message! ?Welcome to the team, son! Now go make the team smaller. Oh, and by the way, you probably shouldn?t worry too much about the next time I hire someone. I?m like 75% sure I won?t ask that person to fire you. Glad you?re here!?

Provide little or no training

Learning takes time, and time is money. Which means you need to remind your new employees how much money they?re wasting by learning things.  I?m pretty sure they offer degrees in payroll processing and oil drilling and product consulting and every other job you could possibly be hiring people for, so there?s no reason these people should need any extra education. And don?t even think about sending them to a conference. You know all they?re going to do is sleep in and watch HBO anyway.

Give them opportunities to showcase their ignorance

You?ve burdened them with all the menial tasks you can think of, and you?ve given them no opportunity to learn the ropes. Which means now is the perfect time to expect them to perform at the same level as everyone else!

One innovative solution I?ve heard to make new employees feel confident and excited is to provide them an opportunity to present on a topic they know a lot about; it shows your older employees that your new hires actually do know something useful, and it shows your new hires that you appreciate their knowledge and experience. But I?m pretty sure ?innovative? is a synonym for ?dumb.? They?re pretty close to each other in the dictionary. So instead of coaching them and scaffolding off of their existing skills, drop them into the deep end and watch them flail! Assign them to lead important projects that you haven?t had time to get to yourself, then berate them loudly when they inevitably find themselves in way over their heads!

I hope this helps. At least one study suggests that each new employee you hire actually costs twice as much as the salary you pay them. And what?s the point of all that money if you can?t spend it on something extravagant and unnecessary? There are literally millions of luxury items you could buy if you wanted to, and there?s no reason that ?endless stream of new, soon-to-be-unhappy employees? can?t be one of them.


----------



## Gregzs (Nov 7, 2013)

Want to move abroad? This map shows the best and worst countries to be an expatriate.!

Want to move abroad? This map shows the best and worst countries to be an expatriate.

China and Thailand are the two best countries to be an expatriate, according to a recent study by British bank HSBC that looked at economic opportunities and quality of life for expats in 34 countries. They're followed by small, rich countries known for their globalized business classes. In descending order, they are: Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Bahrain and Singapore.

The worst of these 34 countries to be an expat is Egypt, which has seen xenophobia rise considerably since this summer's military coup and wave of populist nationalism. Also at the bottom of the list is much of Western Europe, which the report says is often too expensive for expats. In descending order: France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy and second-to-last is Ireland.

For 24 of those countries, the study also looked at metrics gauging the suitability of raising children as expats. If you incorporate the data on child rearing abroad along with the economic and quality-of-life measurements, China ranks first overall, following by Germany and Singapore. The study concludes that Germany is the best of these countries to raise expat children, that Thailand provides the best work-life experience for expats, and that Switzerland has the most favorable economy for expatriates.

This map shows how the 34 countries compare on economic opportunities and quality-of-life for expats. It does not include the metrics on child rearing. Bluer countries are better for expats and redder countries are worse:






You can see right away that the data are very favorable for expat life in Asia's developing economies. Companies in these countries prize expat workers and tend to pay them 15 percent more, the report explains. This, combined with lower costs of living, can give expats much higher spending power than they'd enjoy elsewhere. Expats in East and Southeast Asia also tend to report that their social lives become much more active on moving there, due perhaps to the boost in disposable incomes as well as better weather and proximity to beaches.

Still, I was surprised to see mainland China rank so high. The country's worsening air quality (here is the most shocking photo of Chinese air pollution I've ever seen) and food safety issues (watch this video on Chinese "gutter oil" if you dare), particularly severe in the major cities likely to host expats, have sent a number of expats packing as China once again becomes a "hardship" posting. Perhaps the economics really are that favorable to outweigh these costs.

Germany and Switzerland also scored well for expats, as both economies improve despite the larger European woes. Salaries for expats are unusually high in the German-speaking countries and expenses are lower than in the rest of the Europe, owing to export-driven economic growth. Strong social programs and high standards of living also tend to make the experience pleasant, even if expats do not live as a class-above as they do in many developing economies.

Middle Eastern countries tend be worse places for expats, owing to legislation that makes it tougher for foreigners to own property and because of formal and informal social restrictions that can cut back on quality of life. The exceptions are Bahrain and Qatar, two very wealthy and very small Persian Gulf states whose governments work to attract the wealthy expats they see as crucial to building businesses there. It should go without saying that HSBC's study does not consider "guest workers" in its measurements. Gulf states, particularly Qatar, have notorious reputations for mistreating migrant laborers from South and Southeast Asia, who work in difficult conditions and with few protections.

A big surprise here may be the countries of Western Europe, which despite their wealth and high standards of living are considered among the worst countries to be an expat, according to the study. The report cites high taxes and costly services; expenses that might make sense if you're a citizen who plans to one day employ your country's substantial social services, but less so if you're an expat who pays into those services but doesn't fully benefit. The European Union's ongoing financial problems also mean that salaries are less competitive, particularly compared to the higher cost of living. Part of this may be that Western European companies, as well as foreign companies with offices in Western Europe, are not as willing to invest in growth with all the economic uncertainty. Otherwise, though, Western Europe ranks highly for child rearing, with high-quality education and child services relatively affordable.

Based just on this report, if you're thinking about flying off for the life of an expat and you don't want to have kids there, then you should consider China, Thailand or someplace else in Asia. And if you want to have kids abroad, then Germany should also be near the top of your list.


----------



## Gregzs (Nov 8, 2013)

Explainer: How to tell if the job market is improving - CBS News

 The government's latest jobs report shows unemployment increasing from 7.2 percent in September to 7.3 percent last month. In many ways, however, the employment-to-population ratio is a better indicator of labor market conditions. And even as the economy was adding many more jobs than forecasters had predicted, that key metric fell to 58.3 percent, down 0.3 percentage points from the previous month.

The problem with using changes in the unemployment rate as the most important measure of the job picture is that it can fall even when labor market conditions get worse. When the unemployment rate declines because more jobless people find work, that reduction reflects a positive development in the labor market. But the unemployment rate also falls when people get discouraged about their prospects for finding a job and drop out of the labor force. 

Thus, to properly interpret a change in the unemployment rate, it's important to know whether the change is due to a change in the proportion of people finding jobs or from a change in the labor force participation rate.

This is especially important recently because there has been a large change in labor force participation, meaning the number of working-age people who are employed or who are looking for work. The civilian labor force participation rate has fallen from 66 percent at the start of the recession in December 2007 to 62.8 percent in October of this year. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 2.3 million people among those who have dropped out of the labor force who wanted and are available for work. These individuals are not counted as unemployed because they have not searched for work in the previous four weeks. If all of these workers had been counted as part of the labor force, the unemployment rate in October would have been 8.6 percent instead of 7.2 percent, a major difference. 

One big unknown for the future is how many of these workers will return to the labor force once labor market conditions improve. If they return in substantial numbers, it would make it harder for the unemployment rate to fall.

The employment-to-population ratio does not have the discouraged worker problem. The civilian working-age population used to calculate this measure of labor market performance includes people both in and out of the labor force, so the movement between the two groups does not change the statistic. 

This measure of labor market conditions tells a different story than the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate has fallen steadily from a peak of 10 percent in October 2009 to 7.3 percent as of last month. However, the employment-to-population ratio was 62.7 percent at the start of the recession in December 2007, fell to a low of 58.2 percent in November 2010 and has only increased to 58.3 percent in October of this year. 


According to this measure of labor market performance, in other words, there hasn't been much improvement in the job market.


There are other factors besides the discouraged worker problem to watch out for when interpreting movements in either the unemployment rate or the employment-to-population ratio. If, for example, there is demographic change (such as the aging population we are seeing in the U.S.) and this causes a decline in the labor force participation rate as older workers drop out of the labor force, the employment-to-population ratio and unemployment rate calculations will be affected. 

But there is an easy way around this problem for the employment-to-population ratio. The employment-to-population ratio for prime age workers aged 25-54 should be relatively independent of demographic change of the type we are currently experiencing because it excludes older workers. However, the story this measure tells is much the same. The ratio was 79.7 percent at the onset of the recession, fell to 74.8 percent in December of 2009 and has only increased to 75.4 percent since. It also has been flat for the last year or so. 


So this measure also paints a somewhat gloomier picture of the labor market than the unemployment rate.

There are two other factors that are important to consider when interpreting movements in either the unemployment rate or the employment-to-population ratio. Both measures of labor market performance assume that anyone with a job is working as much as they want to and is in the job he or she is best suited for. But some workers who are counted as fully employed will only be able to find part-time work; they would rather work full-time if they could, and others end up in jobs they are overqualified for. 


The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes an alternative measure of the unemployment rate that corrects for the discouraged worker and part-time worker problems, and when these corrections are made the unemployment rate increases from 7.2 to 13.8 percent in October.

Of course, no single measure of labor market conditions is perfect, so it's best to look at the full range of indicators rather than focusing on any one measure. But the employment-to-population ratio should be among the set of statistics that is more carefully scrutinized, especially when there are substantial changes in labor force participation of the kind we have seen in recent years.


----------



## Swiper (Nov 19, 2013)

*Census ?faked? 2012 election jobs report*



In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply ? raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.
The decline ? from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September ? might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.
And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.
Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.
And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee ? that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.
?He?s not the only one,? said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.
The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.
Ironically, it was Labor?s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.
Labor requires Census to achieve a 90 percent success rate on its interviews ? meaning it needed to reach 9 out of 10 households targeted and report back on their jobs status.
Census currently has six regions from which surveys are conducted. The New York and Philadelphia regions, I?m told, had been coming up short of the 90 percent.
Philadelphia filled the gap with fake interviews.
?It was a phone conversation ? I forget the exact words ? but it was, ?Go ahead and fabricate it? to make it what it was,? Buckmon told me.
Census, under contract from the Labor Department, conducts the household survey used to tabulate the unemployment rate.
Interviews with some 60,000 household go into each month?s jobless number, which currently stands at 7.3 percent. Since this is considered a scientific poll, each one of the households interviewed represents 5,000 homes in the US.
Buckmon, it turns out, was a very ambitious employee. He conducted three times as many household interviews as his peers, my source said.
By making up survey results ? and, essentially, creating people out of thin air and giving them jobs ? Buckmon?s actions could have lowered the jobless rate.
Buckmon said he filled out surveys for people he couldn?t reach by phone or who didn?t answer their doors.
But, Buckmon says, he was never told how to answer the questions about whether these nonexistent people were employed or not, looking for work, or have given up.
But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed.
Census never publicly disclosed the falsification. Nor did it inform Labor that its data was tainted.
?Yes, absolutely they should have told us,? said a Labor spokesman. ?It would be normal procedure to notify us if there is a problem with data collection.?
Census appears to have looked into only a handful of instances of falsification by Buckmon, although more than a dozen instances were reported, according to internal documents.
In one document from the probe, Program Coordinator Joal Crosby was ask in 2010, ?Why was the suspected ? possible data falsification on all (underscored) other survey work for which data falsification was suspected not investigated by the region??
On one document seen by The Post, Crosby hand-wrote the answer: ?Unable to determine why an investigation was not done for CPS,? or the Current Population Survey ? the official name for the unemployment report.
With regard to the Consumer Expenditure survey, only four instances of falsification were looked into, while 14 were reported.
I?ve been suspicious of the Census Bureau for a long time.
During the 2010 Census report ? an enormous and costly survey of the entire country that goes on for a full year ? I suspected (and wrote in a number of columns) that Census was inexplicably hiring and firing temporary workers.
I suspected that this turnover of employees was being done purposely to boost the number of new jobs being report each month. (The Labor Department does not use the Census Bureau for its other monthly survey of new jobs ? commonly referred to as the Establishment Survey.)
Last week I offered to give all the information I have, including names, dates and charges to Labor?s inspector general.
I?m waiting to hear back from Labor.
I hope the next stop will be Congress, since manipulation of data like this not only gives voters the wrong impression of the economy but also leads lawmakers, the Federal Reserve and companies to make uninformed decisions.
To cite just one instance, the Fed is targeting the curtailment of its so-called quantitative easing money-printing/bond-buying fiasco to the unemployment rate for which Census provided the false information.
So falsifying this would, in essence, have dire consequences for the country.
Census ?faked? 2012 election jobs report | New York Post


 all govt reports are questionable. They have no credibility anymore.


----------



## Gregzs (Nov 20, 2013)

The Best Job Search Engines for Finding Your Ideal Position | Brazen Life

Best Job Search Engines for Finding Your Ideal Position


----------



## Gregzs (Nov 21, 2013)

25 personal interview questions you

25 personal interview questions you?ll need to know the answer to

In the past year, we?ve published several lists of real-life interview questions asked by banks and other financial firms. Some were aimed at prospective investment bankers, others were more general, but all were quantitative in nature ? questions that would test a candidate?s technical aptitude. While it?s critical to have answers to these questions, it?s equally important to have good responses to some of the softball behavioral inquiries.

Frankly, these are the questions that give you the opportunity to differentiate yourself and show your true colors. The quantitative questions are just used to weed out those who don?t have the required skillset. Here are 25 questions that are frequently asked by banks, financial firms and even technology companies that are looking for MBA graduates. They were collected by students at NYU Stern School of Business. While clearly none of them are ?difficult? in nature, you should do the work upfront and have a good story to tell.

1. Tell me a little about yourself.

2. Why did you leave your last job (or why are considering leaving)?

3. Who is the worst (best) boss/subordinate/colleague you have ever worked with?

4. In your present position, what problems have you identified that were previously overlooked?

5. What kinds of people do you find it difficult to work with?

6. Describe a situation where your judgment proved to be valuable.

7. What aspects of your previous jobs have you disliked?

8. Do you work better under pressure or with time to plan and organize?

9. What is more important ? completing a job on time or doing it right?

10. What are your strengths and weaknesses?

11. What are the three most important accomplishments in your career?

12. What kinds of decisions are most difficult for you?

13. What is it about your current company that you do not particularly like or agree with?

14. How would your boss describe you?

15. What three words would you choose to best describe yourself?

16. How do you go about criticizing others?

17. What type of tasks do you feel you cannot delegate?

18. Why do you consider this to be a good opportunity?

19. What kind of relationship and atmosphere do you prefer to maintain with colleagues and subordinates?

20. How do you try to develop the weaker members of your team?

21. Describe how you allocate your time and set your priorities on a typical day.

22. Could your team carry on without you? How?

23. How do you determine if a subordinate is doing a good job?

24. Are you a better planner or implementer?

25. Describe your impact on your present company.


----------



## Gregzs (Jan 10, 2014)

http://news.dice.com/2014/01/06/pre-employment-credit-check-hits-tech-workers-hardest/?CMPID=EM_SV_UP_JS_AD_LC_AD_&utm_source=Cheetahmail&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=&utm_campaign=Advisory_Lifecycle&om_rid=AAGso-&om_mid=_BQI8$-B8tYqRPk&dadv&om_rid=AAgjM8&om_mid=_BSzrl$B83jm3In&dice

Pre-Employment Credit Check Hits Tech Workers Hard

Technology job candidates are among the most likely to be screened with pre-employment credit checks, so they may be particularly interested in a proposal in Congress that would bar employers from using such checks during the hiring process.

According to a random survey of 544 human resource professionals, 87 percent say job candidates with responsibility for technology, as well as fiduciary and financial responsibility, are subject to pre-employment credit screening. Oracle, for one, has previously come under fire for its use of credit checks.

Meantime, 25 percent say they are likely to screen IT workers who have responsibility for electronics equipment and other forms of property, according to the Society of Human Resource Management, which conducted the survey.

History of Good Credit

Employers overall tend to favor a six- to seven-year credit history when screening job applicants. According to the survey, 52 percent of high-tech job candidates who have fiduciary and financial responsibility are likely to have a history pulled. That credit report looks at timely payments, size of debt and other factors, and is different than a snapshot credit score, says Amy Traub, senior policy analyst for think tank Demos.

?A high salary is not a good predictor of creditworthiness,? Traub says, noting that pre-employment credit checks are unfair and serve no useful barometer on whether a potential employee is likely to steal money, property or information from their employer. She notes that even though engineers and other high-tech jobs pay well, a medical catastrophe or layoffs can suddenly put a good credit rating at risk.

States with Credit Check Restrictions 

Although there is an effort afoot to impose a federal ban on pre-employment credit checks, some states already have restrictions in place. California is one. The other nine include Nevada, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, according to law firm Seyfarth Shaw.

According to the Washington Post, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced the ?Equal Employment for All? bill, which is meant to stop employers from disqualifying job applicants based on a poor credit history. Lawmakers argue that the use of credit checks in hiring adds to long-term unemployment and disproportionately impacts women and minorities who took a hit during the financial crisis.

?No one should be denied the chance to compete for a job because of a credit report that bears no relationship to job performance,? said Warren during a call with reporters. She is one of seven lawmakers sponsoring the Equal Employment for All Act.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act currently allows employers to check a job applicant?s credit history if the applicant gives their consent. According to a 2012 survey by SHRM, 47 percent of employers use credit checks when making hiring decisions.

There?s a long history of using credit reports to figure out if applicants who would be responsible for handling money can manage their own finances, says Elizabeth Milito, senior executive counsel at the National Federation of Independent Business. ?A credit check can serve an important function in certain jobs, especially in the financial services industry,? she contends. ?A blanket prohibition would disadvantage many businesses that use credit as one component of a background check.?

But the practice is now pretty common for any type of position, and advocates and lawmakers say there is little evidence that credit checks make sense across the board. A study from Demos revealed that credit checks were conducted for jobs such as telephone tech support and selling frozen yogurt. The think tank polled unemployed Americans and found that one in 10 had been told they would not be hired because of their credit history. Poor credit was often related to lack of health insurance, medical debt or job loss.

?The use of credit checks creates a Catch 22 for job seekers,? says Nancy Zirkin, executive vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. ?It traps unemployed workers who have fallen behind on their bills in a vicious cycle of debt.?


----------



## LAM (Jan 10, 2014)

Swiper said:


> all govt reports are questionable. They have no credibility anymore.



Speaking of no credibility that would also include anything that has to do with Rupert Murdoch like the New York Post..LOL


----------



## Gregzs (Jan 10, 2014)

The Best Interview Secrets We've Never Heard | The Daily Muse

The Best Interview Secrets We?ve Never Heard

We spend the better part of our lives giving you advice for your job search, but we?ll tell you a little secret?we don?t know everything.

That?s why, this week, we took to the web to find some of the most interesting job interview advice and research that was new to us. From scheduling your interview on a Tuesday morning to avoiding the word ?sure,? you?re bound to learn something new that will help you shine in your next interview.
?Just as you set agendas for meetings, setting an agenda for your interview can help you stay on track. (Brazen Life)
?You might want to skip that pre-interview cup of coffee?it could be hurting your performance. (Come Recommended)
?The interview isn?t just about your conversation with the hiring manager. Be sure to make these critical observations during your time there. (U.S. News)
?You should definitely ask questions during your interview, but avoid these common questions that will make you look bad. (Doostang)
?In fact, there are certain words that should stay off-limits while you?re chatting with the interviewer. (boston.com)
?When you schedule your interview can make a big difference in whether you get the job or not. (Glassdoor Blog)
?Can you tell partway through that the interview?s not going so well? Use these tricks to get back on track. (Career Attraction)
?Getting ready for an internal interview? The game is a little bit different. (Harvard Business Review)


----------



## Swiper (Jan 11, 2014)

74,000 jobs added in December.  lol

Obama 2016!!


----------



## Swiper (Jan 11, 2014)

LAM said:


> Speaking of no credibility that would also include anything that has to do with Paul Krugman like the New York Times LOL



I totally agree. ^^^^


----------



## Zaphod (Jan 11, 2014)

You do realize that Obama is done after this term?


----------



## Bowden (Jan 11, 2014)

Swiper said:


> 74,000 jobs added in December.  lol
> 
> Obama 2016!!



You think that any government unemployment published numbers are accurate as to how many people are unemployed?
I will bet you that those numbers are revised upward next month.

Besides that, that 74k is an anomaly due to the weather that impacted construction.


----------



## Swiper (Jan 11, 2014)

Bowden said:


> You think that any government unemployment published numbers are accurate as to how many people are unemployed?
> I will bet you that those numbers are revised upward next month.
> 
> Besides that, that 74k is an anomaly due to the weather that impacted construction.




yes they get revised every month. so what? whatever that number is it's still going to be pathetic to say otherwise is foolish unless it's 400k or more. 

most of the jobs gained in the 74k are just seasonal holiday jobs that now are most likely already gone. 


****the US added more jobs in 2012 than in 2013****  Obama 2016!


----------



## Gregzs (Jan 19, 2014)

LinkedIn Expands Its Jobs Database With A New Volunteer Marketplace For Unpaid Non-Profit Work

LinkedIn Expands Its Jobs Database With A New Volunteer Marketplace For Unpaid Non-Profit Work | TechCrunch

LinkedIn, the social network for the working world, has gained a reputation as a place to go when you?re looking for a job, or a person to fill a vacant role. Now the company is expanding on that idea with the launch of a Volunteer Marketplace ? a place people can go to post and look for unpaid positions. The site is live now, with openings ranging from asking for help with web development at nonprofits like Hire Our Heroes through to a request for a voluntary board member (with fundraising experience) at the United Way of San Luis Obispo.

But even if the marketplace will focus on unpaid work and is currently limited to U.S. 501c3 nonprofits, posting in the marketplace will not be free: I went through the process of posting a job on the marketplace a moment ago, and in the UK (where I am based and LinkedIn automatically redirects me on all paid matters) a single, 30-day posting costs around $20 (at a current 90% discount); a five-job pack costs around $164 per job; a 10-job pack costs $132 per job (the rates seem to vary depending on where I post the job).

?Yes, we are charging a nominal fee to help with quality and fraud control when you post,? a spokesperson told me. ?We are investing all revenue directly back to the nonprofit sector, to increase the liquidity of the postings.?

Launching a volunteer marketplace makes sense for a few reasons:

? LinkedIn is currently courting more students to sign up, with an expansion of its university pages and now the ability for people as young as 14 to create accounts. Volunteer positions, which could include internships or other work experience, are a key way of getting those younger users to engage more in LinkedIn.

? It is a way to get people who are not actively looking for paid work to keep using LinkedIn to expand their horizons.

?When I talk with LinkedIn members, many tell me they aren?t actively looking for traditional job opportunities,? writes Reid Hoffman, co-founder and chairman of LinkedIn, writes in a blog post up today. ?Instead, they want to hone or leverage their skills while also making a positive impact on the world.?

? It?s a way of helping out a sector that really needs it. The cynics among you might think that LinkedIn is simply looking for a way to drive up its position as a place for recruitment, whatever the nature of it. Talent solutions ? the division of the company that covers job listings and related paid products ? generated 57% of its $393 million in revenues, or $224 million, in the last fiscal quarter. On the other hand, the area of volunteering, particularly for non-profits, is massively undersubscribed, with a recent study from the Taproot foundation noting that 92% of nonprofits are currently on the hunt for volunteers to fill roles.

? It also fits in with a part of LinkedIn?s existing aggregation of profile data. When users create and update their profiles on the site, along with professional experience, you can (just as you do on a resume) include charitable and other non-paid interests in the Volunteer and Causes part of their profiles. Some three million members have added this information to their profiles. Hoffman writes that some 600,000 have indicated they would like to serve on boards or do other skills-based volunteering.

Adding in a marketplace to serve that need not only makes entering that kind of information more relevant, but it increases the chances that more will do so ? right now there are more than 259 million members, so three million is not exactly a huge proportion.

Although there are already organizations like CatchAFire built to connect professionals with volunteering opportunities, the fact that we are largely talking about a fundamentally low-margin business like non-profits means that there is usually less attention paid to these kinds of platforms. Coupling a marketplace for unpaid positions to one that already gets a lot of traffic for paid positions could see a boost of attention for volunteering. In fact, CatchAFire, along with the Taproot Foundation, BoardSource and VolunteerMatch are all partnering with LinkedIn for the service ? with LinkedIn serving as a kind of aggregator.

Right now, if you look at the listings on the marketplace, all come from non-profit organizations. I am asking whether that will remain the case longer term or whether LinkedIn plans to add other unpaid work like internships or other work at profit-generating companies. Such a move could potentially raise the question of whether LinkedIn encourages unpaid work at the expense of companies offering fair remuneration for a job done, no matter how small it is. (Update: looks like it is only nonprofits for now, according to a spokesperson.)


----------



## Gregzs (Feb 7, 2014)

http://www.themuse.com/advice/7-interview-questions-that-will-blow-hiring-managers-away

7 Interview Questions That Will Blow Hiring Managers Away

You know by now that when an interviewer asks, "Do you have any questions for me?" you should have a few in your back pocket. 

But this isn't just a chance for you to learn more about the role, team, and company culture?it's a prime opportunity for you to stand out as a candidate even more. By asking smart, thought-provoking questions, you can show that you've done your research, you really care about the company, and you're already thinking about how to be successful on the job.

In this infographic, hiring managers share the questions that have blown them away?and what they learned about candidates as a result. Read on, then consider them for your next big interview.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 7, 2014)

another pathetic jobs report. Only 113,000 jobs added in January.  

Obama 2016!


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 7, 2014)

Swiper said:


> another pathetic jobs report. Only 113,000 jobs added in January.
> 
> Obama 2016!



You do, of course, realize this is his second term and cannot run again?  Besides, with record profits there is no reason companies shouldn't be hiring.  Blame the pathetic jobs report on the real people responsible: the ones running the country, the corporations.


----------



## LAM (Feb 7, 2014)

Swiper said:


> another pathetic jobs report. Only 113,000 jobs added in January.
> 
> Obama 2016!



Still haven't learned a single thing over the past year or so have you?  the economy is NEVER going to get better, the pre-2008 economy (well really 2000-2008) was a massive illusion which you apparently can't seem to remember.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 7, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> You do, of course, realize this is his second term and cannot run again?  Besides, with record profits there is no reason companies shouldn't be hiring.  Blame the pathetic jobs report on the real people responsible: the ones running the country, the corporations.



spoken like a democrat sheep. ^^^

no reason companies shouldn't be hiring?  lol you do know the crash is yet to come right?  

you blame the corps. and not the politicians who crated this mess. lmao!  you have a lot to learn besides democrat talking points.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 7, 2014)

LAM said:


> Still haven't learned a single thing over the past year or so have you?  the economy is NEVER going to get better, the pre-2008 economy (well really 2000-2008) was a massive illusion which you apparently can't seem to remember.



you voted for Obama twice because of his economics policies, how's that working out for ya?  LOL!


----------



## LAM (Feb 7, 2014)

Swiper said:


> you voted for Obama twice because of his economics policies, how's that working out for ya?  LOL!



Gee I don't know I'm retired at 45...so apparently great!


----------



## Swiper (Feb 7, 2014)

LAM said:


> Gee I don't know I'm retired at 45...so apparently great!



you're old.  so in the past 5 years you made all your money?  lol.  how much did you make during the bush years?  maybe you should be thanking him instead.


----------



## LAM (Feb 7, 2014)

Swiper said:


> you're old.  so in the past 5 years you made all your money?  lol.  how much did you make during the bush years?  maybe you should be thanking him instead.



Actually I made most of it from the mid 1990's to 2001 and then bought a shit load of gold when it was still at $230 oz.

And yeah that fake "housing market" demand that was created deregulation, that worked out real well for the working glass and the globe didn't it.  I mean it's not like it caused a global recession or anything and decreased global GDP permanently about 60-200T dollars according to the BIS and FSB.

Yea, great work there GWB....


----------



## Swiper (Feb 7, 2014)

LAM said:


> Actually I made most of it from the mid 1990's to 2001 and then bought a shit load of gold when it was still at $230 oz.
> 
> And yeah that fake "housing market" demand that was created deregulation, that worked out real well for the working glass and the globe didn't it.  I mean it's not like it caused a global recession or anything and decreased global GDP permanently about 60-200T dollars according to the BIS and FSB.
> 
> Yea, great work there GWB....



Obama had nothing to do with your retirement. why would you imply his economic policies helped you?  I know you idolize him, but come on get off his dick already.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 8, 2014)

Swiper said:


> spoken like a democrat sheep. ^^^
> 
> no reason companies shouldn't be hiring?  lol you do know the crash is yet to come right?
> 
> you blame the corps. and not the politicians who crated this mess. lmao!  you have a lot to learn besides democrat talking points.



Politicians and government are owned by big business.  Nearly ALL of the politicians.  The current state we are in is what the corporations and politicians want it to be.  Democrat talking points?  Hardly.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 8, 2014)

Swiper said:


> Obama had nothing to do with your retirement. why would you imply his economic policies helped you?  I know you idolize him, but come on get off his dick already.



Nothing to say so your only response is an oral sex comment?  That's pretty sad.


----------



## LAM (Feb 8, 2014)

Swiper said:


> Obama had nothing to do with your retirement. why would you imply his economic policies helped you?  I know you idolize him, but come on get off his dick already.



The economic policies closer in line with those seen in the best observed practices across the OECD.  Please state which one of your low wage policies of the right wing radicals are supported by at least one highly functioning economy in the world or one Nobel prize winning economist.

But that's right you don't know anything about comparative economic analysis, you get your economic information from politicians or financial commentators like Peter Schiff.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 8, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Nothing to say so your only response is an oral sex comment?  That's pretty sad.



lol mind your own. 

it's so obvious both of you are blinded by your love affair with Obama. it's pathetic. why don't you two think for yourselves instead of being like sheep and following the democrat talking points.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 8, 2014)

LAM said:


> The economic policies closer in line with those seen in the best observed practices across the OECD.  Please state which one of your low wage policies of the right wing radicals are supported by at least one highly functioning economy in the world or one Nobel prize winning economist.
> 
> But that's right you don't know anything about comparative economic analysis, you get your economic information from politicians or financial commentators like Peter Schiff.



we've been through this 100 times if you don't know by now I give up on you. you must too stupid to comprehend it. 


nice try to change the subject. your not answering my question. you're a liar and I don't believe most of what you say about yourself because ever time it's a different story.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 8, 2014)

Swiper said:


> lol mind your own.
> 
> it's so obvious both of you are blinded by your love affair with Obama. it's pathetic. why don't you two think for yourselves instead of being like sheep and following the democrat talking points.



Those talking points have nothing to do with democrats.  You calling someone a sheep?  That's ironic.


----------



## LAM (Feb 9, 2014)

Swiper said:


> we've been through this 100 times if you don't know by now I give up on you. you must too stupid to comprehend it.
> 
> 
> nice try to change the subject. your not answering my question. you're a liar and I don't believe most of what you say about yourself because ever time it's a different story.



It's obvious your the stupid one because world history, US history and comparative economic analysis across the OECD and globe clearly shows that progressive economic policy leads to more sustainable economic models.  While conservative economic policy leads to extreme income inequality, increases poverty and slows real GDP growth.  And in the US it has caused 2 of the worst economic disasters in the history of the country.

It's why there is no highly functioning conservative state in the US or country in the world not now and not ever.  So who's the blind ideologue again?


----------



## Swiper (Feb 9, 2014)

LAM said:


> It's obvious your the stupid one because world history, US history and comparative economic analysis across the OECD and globe clearly shows that progressive economic policy leads to more sustainable economic models.  While conservative economic policy leads to extreme income inequality, increases poverty and slows real GDP growth.  And in the US it has caused 2 of the worst economic disasters in the history of the country.
> 
> It's why there is no highly functioning conservative state in the US or country in the world not now and not ever.  So who's the blind ideologue again?



it's the lack of capitalism that's the problem. conservatives and democRATS don't believe in capitalism. just like you. 

most of our problems stem from the monetary policy of the federal reserve.  for one example: you do realize that 50% of every transaction involves money, money where the govt sets the rate of. the free market need to set the interest rates so not to distort the economy with cheap money/credit. cheap money is a major problem. interest rates need to rise, so bad investments aren't made.  that's just one reason why we need a crash to get rid of all the malinvestments. the more these malinvestments are made the bigger the crash is going to be, and you want to wait 8 more years?  lol!!!


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 9, 2014)

Capitalism isn't the solution.  It's part of the problem.  Wanting to use capitalism as a solution is like amputating your hand for a hang nail.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 9, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Capitalism isn't the solution.  It's part of the problem.  Wanting to use capitalism as a solution is like amputating your hand for a hang nail.



typical answer from someone who doesn't understand what capitalism is. 

so you advocate socialism instead?  lol.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 10, 2014)

Swiper said:


> typical answer from someone who doesn't understand what capitalism is.
> 
> so you advocate socialism instead?  lol.



I understand perfectly what capitalism is and it's limitations.  Capitalism would be good if not for the human part of the equation, which is what makes capitalism more harm than good.


----------



## LAM (Feb 10, 2014)

Swiper said:


> it's the lack of capitalism that's the problem. conservatives and democRATS don't believe in capitalism. just like you.
> 
> most of our problems stem from the monetary policy of the federal reserve.  for one example: you do realize that 50% of every transaction involves money, money where the govt sets the rate of. the free market need to set the interest rates so not to distort the economy with cheap money/credit. cheap money is a major problem. interest rates need to rise, so bad investments aren't made.  that's just one reason why we need a crash to get rid of all the malinvestments. the more these malinvestments are made the bigger the crash is going to be, and you want to wait 8 more years?  lol!!!



actually capitalist don't like capitalism, why do yo think they always try to destroy their competition?  once again you have shown your utter ignorance about not knowing US history or economics in general.

And no the government doesn't sets the interest rates, the FED does ever heard of the Monetary and Control Act of 1980, of course you haven't because you don't read or know jack shit.  

Cheap money has been a problem since the 1980's when the FED adopted the failed monetary theory of Milton Friedman.  And of course interest rates need to rise but that will also slow down debt based consumption because of the extreme inequality of income in the US many households just can't afford higher revolving debt payments.  This won't stop bad investments by those that are hoarding massive amounts of cash because they don't need credit, it's safer from them to use it in certain situations as bad investments can be written off in bankruptcy courts, once cash is spent it's gone and there is no recovery mechanisms for that.

*So your brilliant plan which is not supported by one single economists in the world is to crash the US (and global economy) when it's at it's weakest in 60 years and cause the greatest deflationary spiral ever seen in world history.

Once this crash occurs how do you restart the global economy again?*


----------



## Swiper (Feb 10, 2014)

LAM said:


> actually capitalist don't like capitalism, why do yo think they always try to destroy their competition?  once again you have shown your utter ignorance about not knowing US history or economics in general.
> 
> And no the government doesn't sets the interest rates, the FED does ever heard of the Monetary and Control Act of 1980, of course you haven't because you don't read or know jack shit.
> 
> ...



you just contradicted yourself again. the last thread you said the govt does set monetary policy through the fed with you stated is and independent entity of the US govt.  now you say they don't. get your story straight and get back to me.  you're so lost in this it's comical.  

The Austrian economist do.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 10, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> I understand perfectly what capitalism is and it's limitations.  Capitalism would be good if not for the human part of the equation, which is what makes capitalism more harm than good.



lol  clueless.

what form do you support????????


----------



## LAM (Feb 10, 2014)

Swiper said:


> you just contradicted yourself again. the last thread you said the govt does set monetary policy through the fed with you stated is and independent entity of the US govt.  now you say they don't. get your story straight and get back to me.  you're so lost in this it's comical.
> 
> The Austrian economist do.



Dude your reading comprehension sucks, at no time have I ever stated that the US fed gov sets monetary I specifically state time and time against that it doesn't, that is the explicit role of the monetary authority.  policy, good luck trying to find one post where I have ever said such.  What is the # of the post where I stated this?

Simply saying that "The Austrian economist do" isn't proof, where is a link to a paper which supports your rhetoric.


----------



## LAM (Feb 10, 2014)

So Swiper I ask once again how to you restart the economic engines of growth in a country with a large service sector based economy when the bottom say 40-50% of households have less than $2,000 in non retirement savings.  Because in the event of a total economic collapse virtually all retirements savings in stocks will all be wiped out, especially in firms that have major holdings in financial products.

The US had manufacturing to get us out of the Great Depression, now that we don't as the rest of the world caught up to the US in the 60's.  How is this achieved?  How do you increase aggregate demand when the bottom 50% has no money or wealth?


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 10, 2014)

Swiper said:


> lol  clueless.
> 
> what form do you support????????



I support regulated capitalism.  The one that works.

As far as your "clueless" comment goes, once again it's the irony.  The clueless calling someone else clueless.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 10, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> I support regulated capitalism.  The one that works.
> 
> As far as your "clueless" comment goes, once again it's the irony.  The clueless calling someone else clueless.



capitalism is the exchange of goods and services without govt intervention.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 10, 2014)

LAM said:


> So Swiper I ask once again how to you restart the economic engines of growth in a country with a large service sector based economy when the bottom say 40-50% of households have less than $2,000 in non retirement savings.  Because in the event of a total economic collapse virtually all retirements savings in stocks will all be wiped out, especially in firms that have major holdings in financial products.
> 
> The US had manufacturing to get us out of the Great Depression, now that we don't as the rest of the world caught up to the US in the 60's.  How is this achieved?  How do you increase aggregate demand when the bottom 50% has no money or wealth?



it's simple,  it's called free market capitalism.  

yes, the big banks will collapse, people will lose mass wealth but that recession need to take place to rid of all the malinvestments private and public. the first year of the crash is going to be extremely painful for a lot of people.


----------



## LAM (Feb 11, 2014)

Swiper said:


> it's simple,  it's called free market capitalism.
> 
> yes, the big banks will collapse, people will lose mass wealth but that recession need to take place to rid of all the malinvestments private and public. the first year of the crash is going to be extremely painful for a lot of people.



As expected no reality based answer because you don't understand economics.  

There are no natural methods of recession recovery from capitalism.  So basically your "solution" is to crash the US and global economy, which would result in a depression that would most likely last 30-50 years and make the Great Depression and Great Recession look like holidays.

And it wouldn't just be the big banks, it would all the retailers, all the fast food chains, all the mom and pop stores across the country because they would have no customers. Hyperinflation would cause the costs of foods, goods and services to increase 1000-2000%.  There are dozens of examples in world history of these effects, the US would not escape them and they would be the same here.

Only the biggest firms would survive and during the recession they would gobble up what ever assets were held by smaller firms making them even large in scope.  Recessions cause permanent  wealth transfer up the ladder.

You have only the most basic understanding of how capitalism works and apparently no working knowledge of recession recovery patterns.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 11, 2014)

Swiper said:


> capitalism is the exchange of goods and services without govt intervention.



Without regulation it's a complete train wreck.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 11, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Without regulation it's a complete train wreck.



i beg to differ


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 11, 2014)

Swiper said:


> i beg to differ



Then you aren't paying attention.  Without regulation there is no competition, there are no safeties to protect the consumer, it becomes a system horribly slanted to the benefit of the few.  With a lot of the deregulation that has happened how can you not see this?


----------



## Bowden (Feb 11, 2014)

Originally Posted by *Zaphod* 

 
 				Without regulation it's a complete train wreck.




Swiper said:


> i beg to differ



Without government anti trust laws/regulations there is historical evidence that corporations tend to form monopolies which reduces free market competition and trade.
Without government regulations in this area companies tend to fix prices and reduce consumer choice.

That was the reason why the Sherman act was enacted into law.
The history of railroads and The Standard Oil Company illustrates the problems with unregulated capitalism and corporations.


----------



## LAM (Feb 11, 2014)

Swiper said:


> i beg to differ



That's because you don't know anything about it the history of it because your too lazy to read about it. 

Contrary to conservative ideology, there is no such thing as a free market that is wholly divorced from laws, regulation and government. The market, as it exists, is a function of those property rights that were modified to exclude communal rights. The legal infrastructure of capitalism is what separates ownership from labor, and turns the marketplace into an inherently "owner friendly" institution.

People like you that are always talking about free market capitalism only preach about theory not about practical application.  In reality there have never been any free markets in the US going all the way back to colonial times.  There were laws that regulated trade between the colonies and the British in the 1600s called the Navigation Acts and laws that regulated trade between the colonies during the days of colonial mercantilism.

The fantasy world you speak of has never existed in reality and never will, get over it.  You do realize that the entire original purpose of the colonies in the US was for the benefit of Britain don't you?


----------



## Swiper (Feb 11, 2014)

LOL you guys crack me up! 

have fun living with the govt ruling your life in every aspect. I know you can't handle liberty and the responsibilities that come with it. its a damn shame. But some people like you just can't handle life without out govt telling you how to live. that's sad.  but hey some people just need someone like govt holding your hand through life. LOL


----------



## Gregzs (Feb 14, 2014)

http://www.themuse.com/advice/how-to-answer-the-31-most-common-interview-questions

How to Answer the 31 Most Common Interview Questions


----------



## Bowden (Feb 15, 2014)

Swiper said:


> LOL you guys crack me up!
> 
> have fun living with the govt ruling your life in every aspect. I know you can't handle liberty and the responsibilities that come with it. its a damn shame. But some people like you just can't handle life without out govt telling you how to live. that's sad.  but hey some people just need someone like govt holding your hand through life. LOL



To flourish capitalism and corporations require stable societies that are governed by the rule of law and order.
Laws are enacted by governments and law and order is enforced by government agencies such as the police.
The more complex a society, the greater need there is for a centralized government that enforces law and order .

The alternative is anarchy and a economy that is based on a 1-1 barter economy.

If you disagree provide some historical examples of complex stable societies and complex capitalist economies and corporations that have flourished within-in anarchical societies that do not have some form of centralized government.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 17, 2014)

At the Fed, The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

By Ron Paul
Ron Paul Institute
February 17, 2014

Last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen testified before Congress for the first time since replacing Ben Bernanke at the beginning of the month. Her testimony confirmed what many of us suspected, that interventionist Keynesian policies at the Federal Reserve are well-entrenched and far from over. Mrs. Yellen practically bent over backwards to reassure Wall Street that the Fed would continue its accommodative monetary policy well into any new economic recovery. The same monetary policy that got us into this mess will remain in place until the next crisis hits.

Isn?t it amazing that the same people who failed to see the real estate bubble developing, the same people who were so confident about economic recovery that they were talking about ?green shoots? five years ago, the same people who have presided over the continued destruction of the dollar?s purchasing power never suffer any repercussions for the failures they have caused? They treat the people of the United States as though we were pawns in a giant chess game, one in which they always win and we the people always lose. No matter how badly they fail, they always get a blank check to do more of the same.

It is about time that the power brokers in Washington paid attention to what the Austrian economists have been saying for decades. Our economic crises are caused by central bank infusions of easy money into the banking system. This easy money distorts the structure of production and results in malinvested resources, an allocation of resources into economic bubbles and away from sectors that actually serve consumers? needs. The only true solution to these burst bubbles is to allow the malinvested resources to be liquidated and put to use in other areas. Yet the Federal Reserve?s solution has always been to pump more money and credit into the financial system in order to keep the boom period going, and Mrs. Yellen?s proposals are no exception.

Every time the Fed engages in this loose monetary policy, it just sows the seeds for the next crisis, making the next crash even worse. Look at charts of the federal funds rate to see how the Fed has had to lower interest rates further and longer with each successive crisis. From six percent, to three percent, to one percent, and now the Fed is at zero. Some Keynesian economists have even urged central banks to drop interest rates below zero, which would mean charging people to keep money in bank accounts.

Chairman Yellen understands how ludicrous negative interest rates are, and she said as much in her question and answer period last week. But that zero lower rate means the Fed has had to resort to unusual and extraordinary measures: quantitative easing. As a result, the Fed now sits on a balance sheet equivalent to nearly 25 percent of US GDP, and is committing to continuing to purchase tens of billions more dollars of assets each month.

When will this madness stop? Sound economic growth is based on savings and investment, deferring consumption today in order to consume more in the future. Everything the Fed is doing is exactly the opposite, engaging in short-sighted policies in an attempt to spur consumption today, which will lead to a depletion of capital, a crippling of the economy, and the impoverishment of future generations. We owe it not only to ourselves, but to our children and our grandchildren, to rein in the Federal Reserve and end once and for all its misguided and destructive monetary policy.
www.LewRockwell.com


----------



## Gregzs (Feb 17, 2014)

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_df9db8a2-99bc-5910-ad16-5c53a15adb85.html

St. Louis jobseeker mailed feces to companies that failed to hire him

ST. LOUIS ? Rather than simply grumble to himself or complain to others, a St. Louis man aggrieved by a company's failure to hire him took another approach.

Jevons Brown packaged up cat feces and sent it through the mail.

Brown, 58, was sentenced Friday to two years of probation after pleading guilty in August to a misdemeanor charge of mailing injurious articles.

The plea says Brown, a veteran, became frustrated with his lack of employment opportunities and lashed out at employees of companies that failed to hire him.



U.S. Postal Inspection Service spokesman Dan Taylor said that investigators tracked 20 similar packages to Brown.

?This is not a victimless crime,? Assistant U.S. Attorney John Bodenhausen said in court Friday, later explaining that he meant postal workers and the people whose mail was adjacent to Brown's packages, in addition to the employees that received it.

Both Bodenhausen and Sean Vicente, Brown's public defender, agreed that probation was an appropriate sentence, saying Brown had recently found a job and had almost no criminal history.

Federal sentencing guidelines recommended probation or up to six months in prison.

Brown apologized in court, vowing, ?I'm sorry. This will never happen again.?

He has been getting counseling, and said that prayer and church had also been helping.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 18, 2014)

*CBO: Hiking Minimum Wage to $10.10 Could Cost 500K Jobs*

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-...ng-minimum-wage-to-1010-could-cost-500k-jobs/


----------



## Swiper (Feb 20, 2014)

Bowden said:


> Without government anti trust laws/regulations there is historical evidence that corporations tend to form monopolies which reduces free market competition and trade.
> Without government regulations in this area companies tend to fix prices and reduce consumer choice.
> 
> That was the reason why the Sherman act was enacted into law.
> The history of railroads and The Standard Oil Company illustrates the problems with unregulated capitalism and corporations.



what's the problem with standard oil and the railroads? they gave us cheap prices for their services and products. And their prices kept falling. they weren't gouging people at all. 

standard oil prices were cheap and competitive, Rockefeller's competitors wanted higher prices and increase market share.  they were able to buy off lawmakers to side with them to pass anti trust laws. 
so who's fixing the prices and making everything more expensive? yes, the govt........



[h=1]The Truth About the "Robber Barons"[/h]Mises Daily: Saturday, September 23, 2006 by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Oily Characters?
Another prime example of a market entrepreneur whom generations of writers and historians have inaccurately portrayed ? indeed, demonized ? is John D. Rockefeller. Like James J. Hill, Rockefeller came from very modest beginnings; his father was a peddler who barely made ends meet. Born in 1839, he was one of six children, and his first job on graduating from high school at age sixteen was as an assistant bookkeeper for fifteen cents a day (under ten dollars a day today, even accounting for nearly 150 years of inflation).[22]
Rockefeller was religious about working and saving his money. After working several sales jobs by age twenty-three he had saved up enough to invest four thousand dollars in an oil refinery in Cleveland, Ohio, with a business partner and fellow church member, Samuel Andrews.[23]
Like James J. Hill, Rockefeller paid meticulous attention to every detail of his business, constantly striving to cut his costs, improve his product, and expand his line of products. He also sometimes joined in with the manual laborers as a means of developing an even more thorough understanding of his business. His business partners and managers emulated him, which drove the company to great success. As economist Dominick Armentano writes, the firm of Rockefeller, Andrews, and Flagler, which would become Standard Oil,prospered quickly in the intensely competitive industry due to the economic excellence of its entire operations. Instead of buying oil from jobbers, they made the jobbers' profit by sending their own purchasing men into the oil region. They also made their own sulfuric acid, barrels, lumber, wagons, and glue. They kept minute and accurate records of every item from rivets to barrel bungs. They built elaborate storage facilities near their refineries. Rockefeller bargained as shrewdly for crude as anyone has before or since; and Sam Andrews coaxed more kerosene from a barrel of crude than the competition could. In addition, the Rockefeller firm put out the cleanest burning kerosene and managed to profitably dispose of most of the residues, in the form of lubricating oil, paraffin wax, and Vaseline.[24]
​Rockefeller pioneered the practice known as "vertical integration," or in-house provision of various inputs into the production process; that is, he made his own barrels, wagons, and so on. This is not always advantageous ? sometimes it pays to purchase certain items from specialists who can produce those items at very low cost. But vertical integration has the advantage of allowing one to monitor the quality of one 's own inputs. It has the further advantage of avoiding what modern economists call the "hold-up problem." If, say, an electric power plant contracted with a nearby coal mine for coal to fuel its generating plant, the coal mine might effectively break its contract at one point by demanding more money for its coal. In such instances the power plant has the choice of paying up, engaging in costly litigation, or going without the coal and closing down. None of these options is attractive. But if the power plant simply buys the coal mine, all of these problems disappear. That is what Rockefeller, the compulsive micromanager, did with many aspects of the oil-refining business. He reduced his costs and avoided hold-up problems through vertical integration.
Rockefeller also devised means of eliminating much of the incredible waste that had plagued the oil industry. His chemists figured out how to produce such oil byproducts as lubricating oil, gasoline, paraffin wax, Vaseline, paint, varnish, and about three hundred other substances. In each instance he profited by eliminating waste.
Just as James J. Hill spent the extra money to build the highest quality railroad lines possible, Rockefeller did not skimp in building his refineries. So confident was he of the safety of his operations that he did not even purchase insurance.
Rockefeller also made the oil-refining industry much more efficient. There had been vast overinvestment in the oil industry in its first decades, as everyone had wanted to get rich quick in the business. Northwestern Pennsylvania, where the first oil well had been drilled, was littered with oil derricks and refineries of all sizes, many of which were operated by men who really should have been in another line of work.
Rockefeller purchased many of these poorly managed operations and put their assets to far better use. There was never any threat that these "horizontal mergers" ? the combination of two firms that are in the same business ? would create a monopoly, for Standard Oil had literally hundreds of competitors, including such oil giants as Sun Oil, not to mention its many large competitors in international markets.
One of Rockefeller's harshest critics was journalist Ida Tarbell, whose brother was the treasurer of the Pure Oil Company, which could not compete with Standard Oil's low prices. She published a series of hypercritical articles in _McClure's_ magazine in 1902 and 1903, which were turned into a book entitled _The History of the Standard Oil Company,_ a classic of antibusiness propaganda.[25]
Tarbell's writings are emotional, often illogical, and lacking in any serious attempt at economic analysis. But even she was compelled to praise what she called the "marvelous" economy of the entire Standard Oil operation. In a passage describing one aspect of Standard Oil's vertical integration she wrote:Not far away from the canning works, on Newtown Creek, is an oil refinery. This oil runs to the canning works, and, as the newmade cans come down by a chute from the works above, where they have just been finished, they are filled, twelve at a time, with the oil made a few miles away. The filling apparatus is admirable As the newmade cans come down the chute they are distributed, twelve in a row, along one side of a turn-table. The turn-table is revolved, and the cans come directly under twelve measures, each holding five gallons of oil ? a turn of a valve, and the cans are full. The table is turned a quarter, and while twelve more cans are filled and twelve fresh ones are distributed, four men with soldering cappers put the caps on the first set?. The cans are placed at once in wooden boxes standing ready, and, after a twenty-four-hour wait for discovering leaks are nailed up and carted to a nearby door. This door opens on the river, and there at anchor by the side of the factory is a vessel chartered for South America or China ? waiting to receive the cans?. _It is a marvelous example of economy, not only in materials, but in time and footsteps_ [emphasis added].[26]
​Because of Standard Oil's superior efficiency (and lower prices), the company's share of the refined petroleum market rose from 4 percent in 1870 to 25 percent in 1874 and to about 85 percent in 1880.[27]
?
As Standard Oil garnered more and more business, it became even more efficient through "economies of scale" ? the tendency of per-unit costs to decline as the volume of output increases. This is typical of industries in which there is a large initial "fixed cost" ? such as the expense involved in building an oil refinery. Once the refinery is built, the costs of maintaining the refinery are more or less fixed, so as more and more customers are added, the cost per customer declines. As a result, the company cut its cost of refining a gallon of oil from 3 cents in 1869 to less than half a cent by 1885. Significantly, Rockefeller passed these savings along to the consumer, as the price of refined oil plummeted from more than 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 10 cents in 1874 and 8 cents in 1885.[28]
Because he could refine kerosene far more cheaply than anyone else could, which was reflected in his low prices, the railroads offered Rockefeller special low prices, or volume discounts. This is a common, ordinary business practice ? offering volume discounts to one's largest customers in order to keep them ? but Rockefeller's less efficient competitors complained bitterly. Nothing was stopping them from cutting their costs and prices and winning similar railroad rebates other than their own inabilities or laziness, but they apparently decided that it was easier to complain about Rockefeller's "unfair advantage" instead.
Cornelius Vanderbilt publicly offered railroad rebates to any oil refiner who could give him the same volume of business that Rockefeller did, but since no one was as efficient as Rockefeller, no one could take him up on his offer.[29]
All of Rockefeller's savings benefited the consumer, as his low prices made kerosene readily available to Americans. Indeed, in the 1870s kerosene replaced whale oil as the primary source of fuel for light in America. It might seem trivial today, but this revolutionized the American way of life; as Burton Folsom writes, "Working and reading became after-dark activities new to most Americans in the 1870s."[30] In addition, by stimulating the demand for kerosene and other products, Rockefeller also created thousands upon thousands of new jobs in the oil and related industries.
Rockefeller was extremely generous with his employees, usually paying them significantly more than the competition did. Consequently, he was rarely slowed down by strikes or labor disputes. He also believed in rewarding his most innovative managers with bonuses and paid time off if they came up with good ideas for productivity improvements, a simple lesson that many modern corporations seem never to have learned.
Of course, in every industry the less efficient competitors can be expected to snipe at their superior rivals, and in many instances sniping turns into an organized _political_ crusade to get the government to enact laws or regulations that harm the superior competitor. Economists call this process "rent seeking"; in the language of economics, "rent" means a financial return on an investment or activity in excess of what the activity would normally bring in a competitive market. This sort of political crusade by less successful rivals is precisely what crippled the great Rockefeller organization.
The governmental vehicle that was chosen to cripple Standard Oil was antitrust regulation. Standard Oil's competitors succeeded in getting the federal government to bring an antitrust or antimonopoly suit against the company in 1906, after they had persuaded a number of states to file similar suits in the previous two or three years.
The ostensible purpose of antitrust regulation is to protect consumers, so on the face of it the government's case against Standard Oil seems ludicrous. Because of Standard Oil's tremendous efficiencies, the price of refined petroleum had been plummeting for several decades, generating great benefits for consumers and forcing all other competitors to find ways to cut _their_ costs and prices in order to survive. Product quality had improved, innovation was encouraged by the fierce competition, production had expanded dramatically, and there were hundreds of competitors. None of these facts constitutes in any way a sign of monopoly.
As happens in so many federal antitrust lawsuits, a number of novel theories were invented to rationalize the lawsuit. One of them was so-called predatory pricing. According to this theory, a "predatory firm" that possesses a "war chest" of profits will cut its prices so low as to drive all competitors from the market. Then, when it faces no competition, it will charge monopolistic prices.
?
It is _assumed_ that at that point no other competition will emerge, despite the large profits being made in the industry. Journalist Ida Tarbell did as much as anyone to popularize this theory in her book on Standard Oil, in a chapter entitled "Cutting to Kill." To economists, however, predatory pricing is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity, either. It has never been demonstrated that a monopoly has ever been created in this way. Certainly predatory pricing was not a tactic used by Standard Oil, which was never a monopoly anyway.
In a now-classic article on the topic in the prestigious _Journal of Law and Economics,_ John S. McGee studied the Standard Oil antitrust case and concluded not only that the company did not practice predatory pricing but also that it would have been irrational and foolish to have attempted such a scheme.[31] And whatever else may be said about John D. Rockefeller, he was no one's fool.
McGee was quite right about the irrationality of predatory pricing. As an investment strategy, predatory pricing is all cost and risk and no potential reward. The would-be "predator" stands to lose the most from pricing below its average cost, since, presumably, it already does the most business. If the company is the market leader with the highest sales and is losing money on each sale, then that company will be the biggest loser in the industry.
There is also great uncertainty about how long such a tactic could take: ten years? twenty years? No business would intentionally lose money on every sale for years on end with the pie-in-the-sky hope of someday becoming a monopoly. Besides, even if that were to occur, nothing would stop new competitors from all over the world from entering the industry and driving the price back down, thereby eliminating any benefits of the predatory pricing strategy.
Finally, there is a logical contradiction in the theory. The theory assumes a "war chest" of profits that is used to subsidize the money-losing strategy of predatory pricing. But where did this war chest come from? The theory posits that predatory pricing is what creates a war chest of "monopoly profits," but at the same time it simply assumes that these profits already exist!
After examining some eleven thousand pages of the Standard Oil case's trial record, McGee concluded that there was no evidence at all presented at trial that Standard Oil had even attempted to practice predatory pricing. What it did practice was good old competitive price cutting, driven by its quest for efficiency and customer service.
The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry.[32]
The court argued, in essence, that Standard Oil was a "large" company with many divisions, and if those divisions were in reality separate companies, there would be more competition. The court made no mention at all of the industry's economic performance; of supposed predatory pricing; of whether industry output had been restrained, as monopoly theory holds; or of any other economic factors relevant to determining harm to consumers. The mere fact that Standard Oil had organized some thirty separate divisions under one consolidated management structure (a trust) was sufficient reason to label it a monopoly and force the company to break up into a number of smaller units.
?
In other words, the organizational structure that was responsible for the company's great efficiencies and decades-long price cutting and product improving was seriously damaged. Standard Oil became much _less_ efficient as a result, to the benefit of its less efficient rivals and to the detriment of consumers. Standard Oil's competitors, who with their behind-the-scenes lobbying were the main instigators of the federal prosecution, are (along with "muckraking" journalists like Ida Tarbell) the real villains in this story. They succeeded in using political entrepreneurship to hamstring a superior market entrepreneur, which in the end rendered the American petroleum industry _less_ competitive.
The prosecution of Standard Oil was a watershed event for the American petroleum industry. It emboldened many in the industry to pay less and less attention to market entrepreneurship (capitalism) and more to political entrepreneurship (mercantilism) to profit.
During World War I the oil industry became "partners" with the federal government ostensibly to assure the flow of oil for the war effort. (Of course, in such arrangements the government is always the "senior partner.") As Dominick Armentano writes:The Oil Division of the U.S. Fuel Administration in cooperation with the War Services Committee, was responsible for determining oil production and for allocating crude supplies among various refiners. In short, these governmental organizations, with the coordinating services of leading business interests, had the legal power to operate the oil industry as a cartel, eliminating what was described as "unnecessary waste" (competition), and making centralized pricing and allocative decisions for the industry [i.e., price fixing] as a whole. Thus, the wartime experiment in "planning" (i.e., planning by political agents to satisfy political interests rather than by consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs to meet consumer demand) created what had previously been unobtainable: a government sanctioned cartel in oil.[33]
​After the war, oil industry executives favored extending this government-sanctioned and -supervised cartel. President Calvin Coolidge created a Federal Oil Conservation Board that enforced the "compulsory withholding of oil resources and state prorationing of oil," a convoluted way of saying "monopoly."[34]
The newly formed American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade association, lobbied for various regulatory schemes to restrict competition and prop up prices; it did not even pretend to be in favor of capitalism or free enterprise. The institute even endorsed the use of National Guard troops to enforce state government production quotas in Texas and Oklahoma in the early l930s.
During the 1930s even more teeth were put into government oil industry cartel schemes. The National Recovery Act empowered the federal government to support state oil production quotas to assure output reductions and higher prices. Interstate and foreign shipments of oil were strictly regulated so as to create regional monopolies, and import duties on foreign oil were raised to protect the higher-priced American oil from foreign competition.[35]
In 1935 Congress passed the Connally Hot Oil Act, which made it illegal to transport oil across state lines "in violation of state proration requirements."[36] In the l950s the government placed import quotas on oil, creating an even greater monopoly power. All of this, you will recall, came on the heels of the government's antitrust crusade against the Standard Oil "monopoly." Clearly, the purpose of the political persecution of Standard Oil had been to begin stamping out competition in the oil industry. That process was continued with a vengeance with forty years of squalid political entrepreneurship. By the middle of the twentieth century, real capitalism had all but disappeared from the oil industry.


How to Build a Railroad
Most business historians have assumed that the transcontinental railroads would never have been built without government subsidies. The free market would have failed to provide the adequate capital, or so the theory asserts. The evidence for this theory is that the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads, which were completed in the years after the War Between the States, received per-mile subsidies from the federal government in the form of low-interest loans as well as massive land grants. But there need not be cause and effect here: the subsidies were not needed to _cause_the transcontinental railroads to be built. We know this because, just as many roads and canals were privately financed in the early nineteenth century, a market entrepreneur built his own transcontinental railroad. James J. Hill built the Great Northern Railroad "without any government aid, even the right of way, through hundreds of miles of public lands, being paid for in cash," as Hill himself stated.[2]
Quite naturally, Hill strongly opposed government favors to his competitors: "The government should not furnish capital to these companies, in addition to their enormous land subsidies, to enable them to conduct their business in competition with enterprises that have received no aid from the public treasury," he wrote.[3] This may sound quaint by today's standards, but it was still a hotly debated issue in the late nineteenth century.
James J. Hill was hardly a "baron" or aristocrat. His father died when he was fourteen, so he dropped out of school to work in a grocery store for four dollars a month to help support his widowed mother. As a young adult he worked in the farming, shipping, steamship, fur-trading, and railroad industries. He learned the ways of business in these settings, saved his money, and eventually became an investor and manager of his own enterprises.[4] (It was much easier to accomplish such things in the days before income taxation.)
Hill got his start in the railroad business when he and several partners purchased a bankrupted Minnesota railroad that had been run into the ground by the government-subsidized Northern Pacific (NP). The NP had been a patronage "reward" to financier Jay Cooke, who in the War Between the States had been one of the Union's leading financiers.[5] But Cooke and his NP associates built recklessly; the government's subsidies and land grants were issued on a per-mile-of-track basis, so Cooke and his cohorts had strong incentives to build as quickly as possible, which only encouraged shoddy work. Consequently, by 1873 the NP developers had fallen into bankruptcy.[6] The people of Minnesota and the Dakotas, where the railroad was being built, considered Cooke and his business associates to be "derelicts at best and thieves at worst," writes Hill biographer Michael P. Malone.[7]
It took Hill and his business partners five years to complete the purchase of the railroad (the St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Manitoba), which would form the nucleus of a road that he would eventually build all the way to the Pacific (the Great Northern). He had nothing but contempt for Cooke and the NP for their shady practices and corruption, and he quickly demonstrated a genius for railroad construction. Under his direction, the workers began laying rails twice as quickly as the NP crews had, and even at that speed he built what everyone at the time considered to be the highest-quality line. Hill micromanaged every aspect of the work, even going so far as to spell workers so they could take much-needed coffee breaks.[8] His efficiency extended into meticulous cost cutting. He passed his cost reductions on to his customers in the form of lower rates because he knew that the farmers, miners, timber interests, and others who used his rail services would succeed or fail along with him. His motto was: "We have got to prosper with you or we have got to be poor with you."[9]
?
In keeping with his philosophy of encouraging the prosperity of the people residing in the vicinity of his railroad, Hill publicized his views on the importance of crop diversification to the farmers of the region. He didn't want them to become dependent on a single crop and therefore subject to the uncertainties of price fluctuation, as the southern cotton farmers were.[10] Hill also provided free seed grain ? and even cattle ? to farmers who had suffered from drought and depression; stockpiled wood and other fuel near his train depots so farmers could stock up when returning from a delivery to his trains; and donated land to towns for parks, schools, and churches.[11] He transported immigrants to the Great Plains for a mere ten dollars if they promised to farm near his railroad, and he sponsored contests for the beefiest livestock or the most abundant wheat. His "model farms" educated farmers on the latest developments in agricultural science. All of this generated goodwill with the local communities and was also good for business.
Hill's rates fell steadily, and when farmers began complaining about the lack of grain storage space, he instructed his company managers to build larger storage facilities near his rail depots. He refused to join in attempts at cartel price fixing and in fact "gloried in the role of rate-slasher and disrupter of [price-fixing] pooling agreements," writes historian Burton Folsom.[12] After all, he knew that monopolistic pricing would have been an act of killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
In building his transcontinental railroad, from 1886 to 1893, Hill applied the same strategy that he had in building the St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Manitoba: careful building of the road combined with the economic cultivation of the nearby communities. He always built for durability and efficiency, not scenery, as was sometimes the case with the government-subsidized railroads. He did not skimp on building materials, having witnessed what harsh Midwest winters could do to his facilities and how foolish it was for the NP to have ignored this lesson. (The solid granite arch bridge that Hill built across the Mississippi River was a Minneapolis landmark for many years.)[13] Burton Folsom describes Hill's compulsion for excellence:Hill's quest for short routes, low grades, and few curvatures was an obsession. In 1889, Hill conquered the Rocky Mountains by finding the legendary Marias Pass. Lewis and Clark had described a low pass through the Rockies back in 1805; but later no one seemed to know whether it really existed or, if it did, where it was. Hill wanted the best gradient so much that he hired a man to spend months searching western Montana for this legendary pass. He did in fact find it, and the ecstatic Hill shortened his route by almost one hundred miles.[14]
​Hill's Great Northern was, consequently, the "best constructed and most profitable of all the world's major railroads," as Michael P. Malone points out.[15] The Great Northern's efficiency and profitability were legendary, whereas the government-subsidized railroads, managed by a group of political entrepreneurs who focused more on acquiring subsidies than on building sound railroads, were inefficiently built and operated. Jay Cooke was not the only one whose government-subsidized railroad ended up in bankruptcy. In fact, Hill's Great Northern was the only transcontinental railroad that never went bankrupt.
James J. Hill versus the _Real_ Robber Barons
By the summer of 1861, after the Battle of First Manassas, it was apparent to all that the War Between the States was going to be a long drawn-out campaign. Nevertheless, in 1862 Congress, with the southern Democrats gone, diverted millions of dollars from the war effort to begin building a subsidized railroad. The Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 created the Union Pacific (UP) and the Central Pacific (CP) railroads, the latter to commence building in Sacramento, California, and the former in Omaha, Nebraska. For each mile of track built Congress gave these companies a section of land ? most of which would be sold ? as well as a sizable loan: $16,000 per mile for track built on flat prairie land; $32,000 for hilly terrain; and $48,000 in the mountains.[16] As was the case with Jay Cooke's Northern Pacific, these railroads tried to build as quickly and as cheaply as possible in order to take advantage of the governmental largesse.
Where James J. Hill would be obsessed with finding the shortest route for his railroad, these government-subsidized companies, knowing they were paid by the mile, "sometimes built winding, circuitous roads to collect for more mileage," as Burton Folsom recounts.[17] Union Pacific vice president and general manager Thomas Durant "stressed speed, not workmanship," writes Folsom, which meant that he and his chief engineer, former Union Army genera1 Grenville Dodge, often used whatever kind of wood was available for railroad ties, including fragile cottonwood. This, of course, is in stark contrast to James J. Hill's insistence on using only the best-quality materials, even if they were more expensive. Durant paid so many lumberjacks to cut trees for rails that farmers were forced to use rifles to defend their land from the subsidized railroad builders; not for him was the Hill motto, "We have got to prosper with you or we have got to be poor with you." Folsom continues:Since Dodge was in a hurry, he laid track on the ice and snow?. Naturally, the line had to be rebuilt in the spring. What was worse, unanticipated spring flooding along the lower fork of the Platte River washed out rails, bridges, and telephone poles, doing at least $50,000 damage the first year. No wonder some observers estimated the actual building cost at almost three times what it should have been.[18]
​In 1869, after seven years of construction, the two subsidized railroads managed to meet up at Promontory Point, Utah, amidst much hoopla and celebration. What is not often mentioned, however, is that after the big celebration both of the lines had to be rebuilt and even relocated in places, a task that took five more years (into 1874).
The wasteful costs of construction were astonishing. The subsidized railroads routinely used more gunpowder blasting their way through mountains and forests on a single day than was used during the entire Battle of Gettysburg.
With so much tax money floating around, the executives of the CP and UP stole funds from their own companies in order to profit personally, something that would have been irrational for James J. Hill or any other private, market entrepreneur to do. For example, the UP managers created their own coal company, mining coal for two dollars per ton and selling it to themselves for six dollars per ton, pocketing the profits. This crooked scam was repeated in dozens of instances and would be exposed as the Cr?dit Mobilier scandal. (Cr?dit Mobilier was the name of one of the companies run by UP executives.)
With virtually everything riding on political connections, as opposed to creating the best-quality railroad for consumers, the UP and CP executives naturally spent an inordinate amount of time on politics as opposed to business management. While James J. Hill detested politicians and politics and paid little attention to them, things were very different with the UP. Folsom explains:In 1866 Thomas Durant wined and dined "prominent citizens" (including senators, an ambassador, and government bureaucrats) along a completed section of the railroad. He hired an orchestra, a caterer, six cooks, a magician (to pull subsidies out of a hat?), and a photographer. For those with ecumenical palates, he served Chinese duck and Roman goose; the more adventurous were offered roast ox and antelope. All could have expensive wine and, for dessert, strawberries, peaches, and cherries. After dinner some of the men hunted buffalo from their coaches. Durant hoped that all would go back to Washington inclined to repay the UP for its hospitality.[19]
​In addition, free railroad passes and Cr?dit Mobilier stock were routinely handed out to members of Congress and state legislators, and General William Tecumseh Sherman was sold land near Omaha, Nebraska, for $2.50 an acre when the going rate was $8.00.
Congress responded to the 1874 Cr?dit Mobilier scandal by enacting a blizzard of regulations on the UP and CP that would in the future make it impossible for them to operate with any semblance of efficiency. Because of the regulations, managers could not make quick decisions regarding leasing, borrowing money, building extensions of the rail lines, or any other day-to-day business decision. Each such decision literally required an act of Congress.
Political interference also meant that separate rail lines were required to be built to serve communities represented by influential members of Congress even if those lines were uneconomical. No business could possibly survive and earn a profit under such a scenario. The UP went bankrupt in 1893; the Great Northern, on the other hand, was still going strong. Not having accepted any government subsidies, James J. Hill was free to build and operate his railroad in a way that he deemed was most efficient and most profitable. He prospered while most of his subsidized competitors went bankrupt at one point or another.
?
Hill continued to show how effective market entrepreneurs could be. Having completed the Great Northern, he then got into the steamship business in order to facilitate American exports to the Orient. As usual, he succeeded, increasing American exports to Japan sevenfold from 1896 to 1905. He continued to reduce his rail rates in order to make American exports profitable. Being an ardent free trader, Hill was a Democrat for most of his life, because the Republican Party since the time of Lincoln had been the main political force behind high protectionist tariffs. (He switched parties late in life when the Democratic Party abandoned its laissez-faire roots and became interventionist, but he considered the Republican Party to be merely the lesser of two evils.)
Recognizing a market in the American Midwest for timber from the Northwest, Hill convinced his next-door neighbor, Frederick Weyerhauser, to get into the timber business with him. He cut his freight charges from ninety to forty cents per hundred pounds, and he and Weyerhauser prospered by selling Northwest timber to other parts of the country.[20]
Despite the quality services and reduced costs that Hill brought to Americans, he would be unfairly lumped in with the political entrepreneurs who were fleecing the taxpayers and consumers. The public eventually began complaining of the monopoly pricing and corruption that were _inherent_features of the government-created and -subsidized railroads.
The federal government responded to the complaints with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, which was supposed to ban rail rate discrimination, and later with the Hepburn Act of 1906 which made it illegal to charge different rates to different customers. What these two federal laws did was to outlaw Hill's price cutting by forcing railroads to charge _everyone_ the same high rates.[21] This was all done in the name of consumer protection, giving it an Orwellian aura.
This new round of government regulation benefited the government-subsidized railroads at Hill's expense, for he was the most vigorous price cutter. His trade to the Orient was severely damaged since he could no longer legally offer discounts on exports in order to induce American exporters to join with him in entering as foreign markets. He eventually got out of the steamship business altogether, and as a result untold opportunities to export American products abroad were lost forever.
?
The Interstate Commerce Commission soon created a bureaucratic monstrosity that attempted to micromanage all aspects of the railroad business, hampering its efficiency even further. This was a classic example of economist Ludwig von Mises's theory of government interventionism: one intervention (such as subsidies for railroads) leads to market distortions which create problems for which the public "demands" solutions. Government responds with even more interventions, usually in the form of more regulation of business activities, which cause even more problems, which lead to more intervention, and on and on. The end result is that free-market capitalism is more and more heavily stifled by regulation.
And on top of that, usually the free market, not government intervention, gets the blame. Thus, all of the railroad men of the late nineteenth century have gone down in history as "robber barons" although this designation definitely does not apply to James J. Hill. It does apply to his subsidized competitors, who deserve all the condemnation that history has provided them. (Also deserving of condemnation are the politicians who subsidized them, enabling their monopoly and corruption.)

http://mises.org/daily/2317


----------



## LAM (Feb 21, 2014)

Swiper said:


> what's the problem with standard oil and the railroads? they gave us cheap prices for their services and products. And their prices kept falling. they weren't gouging people at all.
> 
> standard oil prices were cheap and competitive, Rockefeller's competitors wanted higher prices and increase market share.  they were able to buy off lawmakers to side with them to pass anti trust laws.
> so who's fixing the prices and making everything more expensive? yes, the govt........



No actually it would the legal use of private capital in the public election cycle that's the problem.  If only public monies were used then private capital COULDN'T use it's influence on government.  And it's why lobbying isn't allowed in most country's in the OECD to any degree that is is in the US and why they fund their public elections with public monies only.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 21, 2014)

LAM said:


> No actually it would the legal use of private capital in the public election cycle that's the problem.  If only public monies were used then private capital COULDN'T use it's influence on government.  And it's why lobbying isn't allowed in most country's in the OECD to any degree that is is in the US and why they fund their public elections with public monies only.



i don't want my tax dollars going to fund candidates.  they'll just end up taking money under the table anyway. your Idea will never work.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 22, 2014)

Swiper said:


> i don't want my tax dollars going to fund candidates.  they'll just end up taking money under the table anyway. your Idea will never work.



So far you haven't offered up any ideas.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 22, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> So far you haven't offered up any ideas.



sure I have. article one section 8. if congress followed the constitution we  wouldn't have this problem.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 22, 2014)

Swiper said:


> sure I have. article one section 8. if congress followed the constitution we  wouldn't have this problem.



They are following article 1, section 8 rather well.  Borrowing money, regulating its value, etc.  What could possibly go wrong?  Oh, wait...


----------



## Swiper (Feb 22, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> They are following article 1, section 8 rather well.  Borrowing money, regulating its value, etc.  What could possibly go wrong?  Oh, wait...




To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:
As in gold and silver.  they don't follow it. 

 it was the big govt loving Hamilton who wanted to barrow money. all the other founders didn't want that in the Constitution. Hamilton also wanted a central bank. look how good that has done for us since 1913......


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 22, 2014)

It says nothing about gold and silver.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 22, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> It says nothing about gold and silver.



article one section 10

Section 10.
10.1 No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.



the founders never wanted fiat money.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 22, 2014)

Swiper said:


> article one section 10
> 
> Section 10.
> 10.1 No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
> ...



Section 10 simply prohibits individual states from making their own currency except for gold and silver coins.  Otherwise there would be fifty different currencies in use.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 22, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Section 10 simply prohibits individual states from making their own currency except for gold and silver coins.  Otherwise there would be fifty different currencies in use.



it clearly states money is gold and silver.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 22, 2014)

You're grasping.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 22, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> You're grasping.



I grasp at nothing. 
its clearly written in the constitution.  

you were able to turn your paper money in for gold and silver.  it actually had value back then unlike today.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 22, 2014)

You still can turn your money in for gold and silver.  Most places just don't accept gold and silver as payment.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 22, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> You still can turn your money in for gold and silver.  Most places just don't accept gold and silver as payment.




it's now illegal to use gold or silver as tender.  to can buy gold or silver just can't use as money. 

you were able to turn in your paper money to the govt for gold or silver back in the days the constitution had a meaning.


----------



## LAM (Mar 2, 2014)

Swiper said:


> it clearly states money is gold and silver.



Re-read it because it's clearly only taking about the rights of states.

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/ch...itution of the United States: A Transcription


----------



## Swiper (Mar 3, 2014)

LAM said:


> Re-read it because it's clearly only taking about the rights of states.
> 
> Section. 10.
> 
> ...


 

the federal govt didn't want the states printing their own fiat currencies because the standard they wanted to keep was gold/silver


----------



## LAM (Mar 3, 2014)

Swiper said:


> the federal govt didn't want the states printing their own fiat currencies because the standard they wanted to keep was gold/silver



Before the Declaration of Independence the colonies did coin their own fiat money and it was called colonial script, Benjamin Franklin wrote about it in many of this works.  The battle over "colonial script" and England is the real reason behind the the Revolutionary War.

Fiat currency is totally sustainable in a closed economy when the money supply is only increased at the same rate as the population growth.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 3, 2014)

Swiper said:


> the federal govt didn't want the states printing their own fiat currencies because the standard they wanted to keep was gold/silver



How do you know this?


----------



## Swiper (Mar 3, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> How do you know this?




if you read the writings of most of the founding fathers it supports that. 
Also from constitutional professors such as  Andrew Napolitano and many other constitutional scholars.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 3, 2014)

I honestly believe they simply didn't want each state having its own currency.  Gold and silver had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Gregzs (Mar 3, 2014)

http://ideas.time.com/2014/02/19/unemployment-is-worse-than-death/

Unemployment: A Fate Worse Than Death

When it comes to happiness, being unemployed is worse for you than divorce or the death of a spouse.

Short of death or dismemberment, what do you think the worst thing is that could happen to you? If you answered ?divorce? or ?losing my husband,? you?re probably wrong ? at least as far as future happiness is concerned. Don?t get me wrong: these things will make you very unhappy. (To say nothing of how your husband will feel.) But over time, research shows, you will recover.

Not so with unemployment. Like divorce or the death of a spouse, losing a job will often plunge people into despair. But,unless they spend a lot of time hunting for a new job, unemployed people tend to stay unemployed. Time heals most wounds, but not all of them. A long-term study of how Germans reacted to various life events showed that four years after they?d lost their jobs, they still hadn?t gotten used to it ? being unemployed made them just as unhappy as they?d been the day they were laid off.

Remember, this is Germany, which long had generous unemployment benefits. The financial insecurity that usually attends prolonged unemployment is bound to add to one?s misery. But it doesn?t seem to be the primary cause. As much as we may gripe about it, work is not just something you have to do in order to pay the mortgage. It is a daily connection to coworkers and customers. It is the knowledge that you are wanted and useful. Even the most tedious job gives us a place in the world. Unemployment makes us question why we are here.

That?s what is so disturbing about the recent string of lackluster job reports. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last week that in January, 145.2 million people were employed ? 1.1 million fewer than in January of 2008, even though the population has grown. In the last two months, the economy created fewer than 200,000 jobs. The unemployment rate is falling only because so many people have dropped out of the labor force entirely and stopped looking.

?If you want to work, if you want a job, if you want to be part of America, we?ll find a place for you,? Senator Rand Paul recently promised immigrants. But right now, America can?t even do this for the people who are already here. The administration often seems to be focused on making unemployment more attractive, rather than making it less common, fighting Republicans over extended unemployment benefits (which some research indicates may actually increase unemployment), and not talking much about how to get people back to work. When the Congressional Budget Office recently projected that Obamacare would  cause the economy to lose the equivalent of 2 million full time jobs, the White House argued that this was actually great news, because most of them would be choosing not to work.

Never mind that many of them would be ?choosing? unemployment because Obamcare?s subsidy structure effectively makes much work unprofitable. Work is a form of investment: in many careers, pay and promotion opportunities are strongly related to the number of  you?ve worked (and experience you?ve accumulated).

That?s if you can get a job at all. But one thing we know about today?s labor market is that once you?ve left, it?s very hard to get back in. Public outcry may be stopping employers from posting the ?no unemployed need apply? ads that triggered such outrage a few years ago, but studies show that their behavior hasn?t actually changed: people whose resumes have a sizeable gap will have a substantially harder time finding another job. That?s true for laid off ironworkers and middle managers, and it?s also true for women who step out of the workforce to care for a family member. You can argue ? as I would ? that employers shouldn?t do this, but no one?s come up with a way to stop them. That?s why our government policy ought to be focused on keeping people at work, not  making it easier for them to leave.

This is difficult, but not impossible. There are programs, from tax credits for hiring the unemployed to using direct employment programs as a substitute for extended unemployment benefits. None of them seems likely in the current political environment, so Americans who?ve lost their jobs are going to have to help themselves. Fortunately, we do know something about what works, and what doesn?t.

The first thing is pretty obvious: you have to look for work, every day. Research shows that the more time you spend on your job search, the more likely you are to find another job quickly. Interestingly, how you go about looking seems to matter less than the amount of time you spend doing it.

The second is to be willing to accept lower pay. In the current labor market, you are much better off looking for a higher-paying job from a lower-paying job, than from no job at all.

And the third  is move. The whole country has been hit hard by the recession, but some areas were harder hit than others. The farther you are willing to move, the more likely you are to find a job that fits your skills.

?But that?s obvious!? you may be saying, and it?s true. But you wouldn?t know it from the behavior of job seekers. Many of whom slack off their job search when their first round of leads run dry, and resist taking a lower-paying jobs, especially if it involves moving far away. This is entirely understandable. Job hunting, with all its explicit and implicit rejection, is extremely unpleasant. I know, I?ve been there. So is accepting that you are no longer worth what your last boss paid you. And moving routinely ranks high on the list of life?s most unpleasant experiences. But even if it?s understandable, it?s also terribly dangerous.

If you reconcile yourself to lower pay, and steel yourself to put in the hours and look for a job every single day ? even when you don?t feel like it, and even if you aren?t sure you are searching the ?right? way ? then you are much more likely to keep a brief episode of misery from turning into an extended catastrophe. Unemployment will always be one of the worst things that ever happened to you, but it doesn?t actually have to stay that way.


Read more: Unemployment: A Fate Worse Than Death | TIME.com http://ideas.time.com/2014/02/19/unemployment-is-worse-than-death/#ixzz2uxiYBUCs


----------



## Swiper (Mar 3, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> I honestly believe they simply didn't want each state having its own currency.  Gold and silver had nothing to do with it.



this is what the interpretation is based on, including writing of the founders.  

Art. I Sec. 8 
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Art. I Sec. 10
No state shall.......make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;


----------



## Gregzs (Mar 14, 2014)

http://www.themuse.com/advice/5-signs-you-should-run-from-an-interview-and-never-look-back

5 Signs You Should Run From an Interview and Never Look Back

A common job-hunting aphorism observes, ?a job interview is as much about interviewing the company you?re applying to as it is about the hiring managers interviewing you.? But, we all know that?s not exactly how it goes. Mostly, we?re too obsessed with looking and acting the part to reflect upon whether we actually want a certain job.

Yet, if you spend all of your time trying to ace the interview process, you might miss some foreboding signs of what?s to come. Allow me to be the harbinger of bad tidings for a moment and tell you that if you ignore inconvenient truths during the interview process, it won?t take long before you?re miserable. In fact, you may be starting the job hunt all over again. The horror!

At your next interview, as much as you want that paycheck, look closely. And if you see any of these major red flags, think long and hard before signing on the dotted line.


1. The Interviewer Says Bad Things About the Company


At an interview, most hiring managers are on good behavior?they dress up a bit, clean the place, and show the best sides of the company. So, if your interviewer uses the opportunity to indulge in a venting session about anything from her role to the company culture, your suspicions should be raised.

Sure, some people are just general downers, but non-stop complaints could also indicate that dissatisfaction is so pervasive that it penetrates every facet of the workplace. Your best bet is to sidestep this sinkhole of negativity.


2. The Interviewer Expresses Disbelief That You Actually Want the Role


I was recommended to a previous job through a friend. In my final interview with the company, the hiring manager asked me, ?So you know [Jane] and you still want to work here?? and laughed, incredulously. ?Of course I do!? I said, and eagerly brushed the comment aside in an attempt to persuade her just how much I wanted the job.

And I did, at the time. But I don?t work there anymore, and now I understand all too well why she asked that question. It was no secret that most colleagues on my level despised every waking moment of their time at the company and fled as soon as they could.

While my situation may be an extreme one, pay attention to any comments like, ?You sure you want this job?? or ?You sure you can handle difficult clients?? If your interviewers seem surprised that you actually want the job, it might be signs of things to come.


3. You Question an Interviewer?s Competence


There are lots of people in the world?some smart, and, let?s be honest, some not so smart. Even people in that latter group frequently enter the business world, start professional ventures, and hire new colleagues.

Particularly if your interviewer is the person you?ll be reporting to every day, make sure that he or she is someone you can respect and learn from. If he or she appears flaky, doesn?t know how to answer a lot of your questions, or appears disorganized or unintuitive, don?t brush it aside. You probably don?t want to work with this type of manager on a regular basis.


4. The Interviewer Pressures You To Take The Role Immediately


If an interviewer or hiring manager acts like your position is a ticking time bomb, you should probably run for the hills. There are exceptions, especially in highly sought-after fields like banking or engineering?but as a rule, extreme pressure to take a job generally indicates that the company or hiring team is in some type of crisis management mode.

Take a step back and evaluate why the team is so desperate to hire you and why they?re trying so hard to sell the job to you. We know you?re awesome, but make sure you?re not in a situation where they?re just looking for someone?anyone!?to fill the role.


5. Turnover is Crazy High


I cannot stress this enough: Do everything in your power to investigate the turnover at the company. If people talk frequently about pursuing new opportunities or returning to graduate school, question it. If the hiring manager mentions that this position has been filled by four different employees in the last year, ask why.

For one, high turnover almost always signals a big problem in the management or working environment. But what?s more, at some companies?including my previous role, which, if you can?t already tell, was the worst?insanely high turnover was actually built into the business model. Every couple of years, large groups of analysts would filter out for other professional or educational ventures. The company expected this exodus and set up a ?farm team? of sorts, full of interns who would replace groups of departing analysts at entry-level salaries.

I didn?t recognize this until it was too late, but it was a valuable lesson: If you want to grow with a company, make sure that it?s even a possibility, and that it doesn?t operate on a ?burn and churn? model.

Even if you?re unhappy with your current position, don?t jump at a new opportunity if it?s not a great one. By taking the extra time and care to uncover red flags during the interview process, you can make sure your next job is the right move for the long haul.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 15, 2014)

*More than 500 economists slam minimum wage hike as a jobs killer*

BY PAUL BEDARD | MARCH 12, 2014 AT 12:13 PM 

Five hundred economists, including three Nobel laureates, on Wednesday urged Congress to junk President Obama's proposal to boost the minimum wage to $10.10, claiming it will cut jobs and raises prices.
Instead, the 500 urged in a letter to Congress that Washington pass a comprehensive package to deal with poverty.
???One of the serious consequences of raising the minimum wage is that business owners saddled with a higher cost of labor will need to cut costs, or pass the increase to their consumers in order to make ends meet. Many of the businesses that pay their workers minimum wage operate on extremely tight profit margins, with any increase in the cost of labor threatening this delicate balance,??? they warned.


Among the signers were economists from major schools, including Obama???s alma mater, Nobel laureates Vernon Smith, Edward Prescott and Eugene Fama, and George Shultz, who was secretary of State, Treasury secretary, and a former top budget chief.
It was timed to coincide with a Senate hearing on legislation to boost the minimum wage, which the Congressional Budget Office warned could lead to thousands of job cuts.
???To address the very real concerns of out of work and low-wage workers, many of our nation???s policymakers point to raising the minimum wage as a ???silver bullet??? solution,??? the economists wrote. ???Although increasing wages through legislative action may sound like a great idea, poverty is a serious, complex issue that demands a comprehensive and thoughtful solution that targets those Americans actually in need.???
While they did not lay out an anti-poverty agenda in the letter provided in advance to Secrets, they did argue that the minimum wage wouldn???t relieve poverty.
???The minimum wage is also a poorly targeted anti-poverty measure. Extra earnings generated by such an increase in the minimum wage would not substantially help the poor. As CBO noted, ???many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families.??? In fact, CBO estimates that less than 20 percent of the workers who would see a wage increase to $10.10 actually live in households that earn less than the federal poverty line,??? they wrote.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2545532

http://economistletter.com/


----------



## Swiper (Mar 15, 2014)

*Union: Obamacare will slash wages by up to $5 an hour*


http://washingtonexaminer.com/union-obamacare-will-slash-wages-by-up-to-5-an-hour/article/2545310


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 15, 2014)

Swiper said:


> *Union: Obamacare will slash wages by up to $5 an hour*
> 
> 
> http://washingtonexaminer.com/union-obamacare-will-slash-wages-by-up-to-5-an-hour/article/2545310



And the insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## LAM (Mar 16, 2014)

Swiper said:


> *More than 500 economists slam minimum wage hike as a jobs killer*
> 
> BY PAUL BEDARD | MARCH 12, 2014 AT 12:13 PM
> 
> ...



Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage
http://www.epi.org/event/path-raising-federal-minimum-wage-10-10/


----------



## LAM (Mar 16, 2014)

The US Has the Highest Share of Employees in Low Wage Work
http://economistsview.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b33869e20168e9f3787c970c-800wi


----------



## LAM (Mar 16, 2014)

ILO Global Wage Report 2008/2009

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_100786.pdf


----------



## Gregzs (Mar 26, 2014)

http://www.themuse.com/advice/the-little-interview-mistakesthat-cost-you-big-time

The Little Interview Mistakes&#151;That Cost You Big Time

You&#146;ve worked hard to get the interview, and now it&#146;s your time to shine. While you might be spending most of your time rehearsing your pitch for exactly how your skills fit the job, you might want to think more about the overall impression that you&#146;re making. 

Turns out, that impression is about much more than what you say. In fact, 93% of first impressions are based on the way you dress, act, and walk through the door, and the quality of your voice and confidence. And even little things&#151;like failing to make eye contact with the interviewer&#151;can hurt your chances of walking out with an offer in hand. 

Want to make sure you have the best chances of interview success? Read the infographic guide below to see all the things interviewers are paying attention to&#151;big and small.


----------



## Swiper (Apr 4, 2014)

*Part-Time Nation: Number Of High-Wage Jobs Added In March: +2,000*


Curious why March hourly wages fell, and why the weekly number continues to trend at a near-recession level, and certainly one that does not support a 2% inflation growth case? Here's why: in March the best paying industry groups - information, financial activities and manufacturing (which actually saw a drop of 1,000 jobs in the past month) - added a cumulative total of... 2,000 jobs among them. Where was the bulk of the job gains? At the worst paying sectors of course.


Education and Health: +34K
Leisure and Hospitality: +29K
Temp Help: +29K
Retail Trade: +21K
And that's why there is no inflation (at least according to whatever the Fed's preferred inflationary indicator du jour is): because the jobs that are "added" to the economy, have virtually no wage and/or purchasing power growth. But at least the "recovery" continues.




And while we have beaten this particular horse to death since December 2010, here again, is America's transition to a part-time society (via WSJ):



And another:



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-04/number-high-wage-jobs-added-march-2000


----------



## Swiper (Apr 4, 2014)

Meet "Lowflation": Deflation's Scary Pal

By:  Peter Schiff        

Friday, April 4, 2014        

In recent years a good part of the monetary debate has become a simple war of words, with much of the conflict focused on the definition for the word "inflation." Whereas economists up until the 1960's or 1970's mostly defined inflation as an expansion of the money supply, the vast majority now see it as simply rising prices. Since then the "experts" have gone further and devised variations on the word "inflation" (such as "deflation," "disinflation," and "stagflation"). And while past central banking policy usually focused on "inflation fighting," now bankers talk about "inflation ceilings" and more recently "inflation targets".  The latest front in this campaign came this week when Bloomberg News unveiled a brand new word: "lowflation" which it defines as a situation where prices are rising, but not fast enough to offer the economic benefits that are apparently delivered by higher inflation. Although the article was printed on April Fool's Day, sadly I do not believe it was meant as a joke.
Up until now, the inflation advocates have focused their arguments almost exclusively on the apparent dangers of "deflation," which they define as falling prices. Despite reams of evidence that show how an economy can thrive when prices fall, there is now a nearly universal belief that deflation is an economic poison that works its mischief by convincing consumers to delay purchases. For example, in a scenario of 1% deflation, a consumer who wants a $1,000 refrigerator will postpone her purchase if she expects it will cost only $990 in a year. Presumably she will just make do with her old fridge, or simply refrain from buying perishable items for a year to lock in that $10 savings. If she expects the cost of the refrigerator to decline another 1% in the following year, the purchase will be again put off. If deflation persists indefinitely they argue that she will put off the purchase indefinitely, perhaps living exclusively on dried foods while waiting for refrigerator prices to hit zero.

Economists extrapolate this to conclude that deflation will destroy aggregate demand and force the economy into recession. Despite the absurdity of this argument (people actually tend to buy more when prices fall), at least there is a phantom bogeyman for which to conjure phony terror. Low inflation (below 2%) is even harder to demonize. Few have argued that it has the same demand killing dynamics as deflation, but many say that it should be avoided simply because it is too close to deflation. Given their feeling that even a brief bout of minor deflation could lead to a catastrophic negative spiral, they argue for a prudent buffer of 2% inflation or more. But the writer of the Bloomberg piece, the London-based Simon Kennedy, quotes people in high positions in the financial establishment who offer new arguments as to why "lowflation" (as he calls it) is a "threat" in and of itself. And although the article was primarily concerned with Europe, you can be sure that these arguments will be applied soon to the situation in the United States.

The piece correctly notes that those struggling with high debt tend to welcome high rates of inflation. The math is simple. By diminishing the value of money, inflation benefits borrowers at the expense of lenders. By repaying with money of lesser value, the borrowers partially default, even when paying in full. The biggest borrowers in Europe (and the United States for that matter) are heavily indebted governments and the overly leveraged financial sector. Should it come as a surprise that they are the leading advocates for inflation? The writer admits that higher inflation will help these interests manage their debt burdens and in the case of the financial sector, profit from the increased lending that low interest rates and quantitative easing encourage.

On the other side of the ledger are the consumers, the savers, and the retirees. These groups want lower prices and higher rates of interest on their accumulated capital. Such a combination will lead to higher living standards for those who have worked and saved for many years in order to enjoy the fruits of their efforts. But these types of people are simply not on the "must call" list for our best and brightest economic journalists. As a result, we only get one side of the story.

The article also points out that higher inflation gives businesses more flexibility to retain workers in periods of weak growth. The argument is that if sales revenue falls, companies will not be able to lower wages, and will instead resort to layoffs to maintain their profitability. However, this is only true in cases involving labor union contracts or minimum wage workers. In all other cases, business could reduce wages in lieu of layoffs. Plus, if prices for consumer goods are also falling, real wages may not even decline as a result of the cuts.

In circumstances where wages cannot be legally reduced, as is the case for unionized or minimum wage workers, layoffs are often the employer's only option for keeping costs in line with revenue. However, inflation allows employers to do an end run around these obstacles. In an inflationary environment, rising prices compensate for falling sales. The added revenue allows employers to hold nominal wage costs steady, even when the raw amount of goods or services they sell declines. When inflation rages, higher skilled workers will often demand, and receive, pay raises. But low-skilled workers, who lack such leverage, are usually left holding the bag.

In other words, politicians can impose a high minimum wage to pander to voters, but then count on inflation to lower real labor costs, thereby limiting the unemployment that would otherwise result. So what the government openly gives with one hand, it secretly takes away with the other. Workers vote for politicians who promise higher wages, but those same politicians also create the inflation that negates the real value of the increase. But while government takes the credit for the former, it never assumes responsibility for the latter. The same analysis applies to labor unions. Based upon political protection offered by friendly officials, unions can secure unrealistic pay hikes for their members. But the same governments then work to reduce the real value of those increases to keep their employers in business.

Of course, what the Bloomberg writer was really arguing is that governments need inflation to bail themselves out of the policy mistakes they make to secure votes. But two wrongs never make a right. The correct policy would be to run balanced budgets rather than incur debts that can only be repaid with the help of inflation. On the labor front, the better policy would be to abolish the minimum wage and the special legal protections offered to labor unions, rather than papering over the adverse consequences of bad policies with inflation.

So be on the lookout for any more hand-wringing over the supposed dangers of lowflation. The noise will simply be an effort to convince you that what's bad for you is actually good. And although it's an audacious piece of propaganda to even attempt, the lack of critical awareness in the media gives it a fighting chance for success.

http://www.europac.net/commentaries...mmentary+(Peter+Schiff's+Economic+Commentary)


----------



## Swiper (Apr 4, 2014)

How Minimum Wage Laws Increase Poverty


Raising the minimum wage is a formula for causing unemployment among the least-skilled members of society. The higher wages are, the higher costs of production are. The higher costs of production are, the higher prices are. The higher prices are, the smaller are the quantities of goods and services demanded and the number of workers employed in producing them. These are all propositions of elementary economics that you and the President should well know. It is true that the wages of the workers who keep their jobs will be higher. They will enjoy the benefit of a government-created monopoly that excludes from the market the competition of those unemployed workers who are willing and able to work for less than what the monopolists receive. The payment of the monopolists? higher wages will come at the expense of reduced expenditures for labor and capital goods elsewhere in the economic system, which must result in more unemployment. Those who are unemployed elsewhere and who are relatively more skilled will displace workers of lesser skill, with the ultimate result of still more unemployment among the least-skilled members of society. The unemployment directly and indirectly caused by raising the minimum wage will require additional government welfare spending and thus higher taxes and/or greater budget deficits to finance it. Your and the President?s policy is fundamentally anti-labor and anti-poor people. While it enriches those poor people who are given the status of government-protected monopolists, it impoverishes the rest of the economic system to a greater degree. It does this through the combination both of taking away an amount of wealth equal to the monopolists? gains, and of causing overall production to be less by an amount corresponding to the additional unemployment it creates. The rise in prices and taxes that results from raising the minimum wage both diminishes the gains of the monopolists and serves to create new and additional poor people, while worsening the poverty of those who become unemployed. Furthermore, the higher the minimum wage is raised, the worse are the effects on poor people. This is because, on the one hand, the resulting overall unemployment is greater, while, on the other hand, the protection a lower wage provides against competition from higher-paid workers is more and more eroded. At today?s minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, workers earning that wage are secure against the competition of workers able to earn $8, $9, or $10 per hour. If the minimum wage is increased, as you and the President wish, to $10.10 per hour, and the jobs that presently pay $7.25 had to pay $10.10, then workers who previously would not have considered those jobs because of their ability to earn $8, $9, or $10 per hour will now consider them; many of them will have to consider them, because they will be unemployed. The effect is to expose the workers whose skills do not exceed a level corresponding to $7.25 per hour to the competition of better educated, more-skilled workers presently able to earn wage rates ranging from just above $7.25 to just below $10.10 per hour. The further effect could be that there will simply no longer be room in the economic system for the employment of minimally educated, low-skilled people. Of course, the minimum-wage has been increased repeatedly over the years since it was first introduced, and there has continued to be at least some significant room for the employment of such workers. What has made this possible is the long periods in which the minimum wage was not increased. Continuous inflation of the money supply and the rise in the volume of spending and thus in wage rates and prices throughout the economic system progressively reduce the extent to which the minimum wage exceeds the wage that would prevail in its absence. The minimum wages of the 1930s and 1940s ? 25? an hour and 75? an hour ? long ago became nullities. To reduce and ultimately eliminate the harm done by today?s minimum wage, it needs to be left unchanged. The standard of living is not raised by arbitrary laws and decrees imposing higher wage rates, but by the rise in the productivity of labor, which increases the supply of goods relative to the supply of labor and thus reduces prices relative to wage rates, and thereby allows prices to rise by less than wages when the quantity of money and volume of spending in the economic system increase. If raising the standard of living of the average worker is your and the President?s goal, you should abandon your efforts to raise the minimum wage. Instead, you should strive to eliminate all government policies that restrain the rise in the productivity of labor and thus in the buying power of wages. If your goal is to raise the wages specifically of the lowest-paid workers, you should strive to eliminate everything that limits employment in the better-paid occupations, most notably the forcible imposition of union pay scales, which operate as minimum wages for skilled and semi-skilled workers. In causing unemployment higher up the economic ladder, union scales serve to artificially increase the number of workers who must compete lower down on the economic ladder, including at the very bottom, where wages are lowest. To the extent that occupations higher up could absorb more labor, competitive pressure at the bottom would be reduced and wages there could rise as a result. Abolishing or at least greatly liberalizing licensing legislation would work in the same way. To the extent that larger numbers of low-skilled workers could work in such lines as driving cabs, giving haircuts, or selling hot dogs from push carts, the effect would also be a reduction in competitive pressure at the bottom of the economic ladder and thus higher wages there. The principle here is that we need to look to greater economic freedom, not greater government intervention, as the path to economic improvement for everyone, especially the poor. 

www.mises.org


----------



## Gregzs (Apr 7, 2014)

https://www.themuse.com/advice/4-common-interview-questions-and-4-perfect-answers

4 Common Interview Questions (and 4 Perfect Answers)


Interview invitations should really come with a warning: Strong feelings of excitement changing suddenly into dread are imminent upon receiving this invitation. 

Career counselors (and yes, I&#146;m guilty of this, too) will frequently say, &#147;Oh, it&#146;s a two-way street. You&#146;re interviewing them as much as they&#146;re interviewing you.&#148; And while that is partially true&#151;you should definitely use the interview as a way to gauge whether or not you want to work for a company&#151;there is still a power imbalance. Ultimately, the hiring manager will get to decide first whether you&#146;ll get an offer. So, it&#146;s understandable to be nervous. 

But fear not! With a little preparation, you&#146;ll know exactly what to say to impress. To get you started, here are four tricky, but common, interview questions and how to tackle them. 



1. Tell Me About Yourself

This completely open-ended opportunity to talk about yourself throws a lot of people off. Worse, it&#146;s usually the first question interviewers ask! The confusing part about this question is that it actually isn&#146;t an invitation to tell your life story. The interviewer really just wants to know why you&#146;re interested in this position and what makes you qualified.

One way to structure this answer is to start with your present, go into your past, and finish off with your future. This approach covers all your bases by answering the question, giving you an opportunity to talk about your relevant skills, and getting to what the interviewer genuinely wants to know: How are you going to perform in this position? Remember to focus your experiences and accomplishments on what&#146;s most relevant to the position and the employer.



I&#146;m a second-year master&#146;s student studying computer science and a research fellow at the Hudson Lab. I have previous industry experience at Dell, where I honed my skills in modeling and data analysis. This experience really piqued my interest in the field of big data, so I&#146;m excited to learn more about your company and the chance to contribute to your data science department.





2. What is Your Greatest Weakness?

Surprisingly, this isn&#146;t actually meant to be a trick question. A more straightforward way an employer could ask this question would be, &#147;Are you knowledgeable about the areas that you can improve upon? I prefer to hire people who are reflective about their skills and actively seek to improve themselves.&#148; 

And I&#146;m sure you&#146;ve heard the advice to spin this into a strength, but don&#146;t. Don&#146;t say you&#146;re such a perfectionist that it sometimes affects your work. No one is going to believe that, even if it&#146;s true. 

Instead, give a genuine weakness&#151;whether that&#146;s delegating to others or attention to detail&#151;but push it back into your past. Talk about the concrete steps you took to address your weakness and show improvement. Mention you&#146;re still working on it, but you&#146;ve made some great progress. 



When I first started college, I was a pretty horrible public speaker. I knew this was something I wanted to overcome, so I promised myself to speak up more in small groups. Later, I took it a step further and took a public speaking class. Now, even though it doesn&#146;t come naturally to me, I think I&#146;ve made some big improvements. In fact, I recently presented at a student conference to an audience of over 100.


Not bad, right? Now just make sure you don&#146;t say public speaking, because everyone uses that example.




3. Tell Me About a Time You Failed

Again, this is a time to be real. Talk about real failure, not the B+ you got in Introduction to Psychology. Maybe it was a group project that wasn&#146;t meeting deadlines or a miscommunication with your supervisor during a previous internship&#151;the failure doesn&#146;t need to be huge. It just needs to involve a mistake that you can reflect on thoughtfully. Interviewers are less interested in making you cry and more interested in seeing how you handle setbacks. Do you bounce back? Ask for feedback? Learn from your mistakes? Talk about the failure and, most importantly, discuss the lessons you learned from the experience.



At my last position, there was a three-month period of time when my supervisor had a very intense travel schedule, which meant most of my communication with her was via email. At some point, there was some miscommunication over who would be the point person for a new client, resulting in some confusing interactions and repeat memos to him. Ultimately, it wasn&#146;t the best customer experience. From then on, I personally made it a point to clarify what information I was sharing with each of our clients on a weekly basis to my supervisor if not in person, then over the phone. I definitely learned the importance of frequent and clear communication.





4. Where Do You See Yourself in 5 Years?

In other words, &#147;How long are you going to stick with us? Are you worth the investment of training?&#148; Ethically, you don&#146;t want to say that you&#146;ll stay with their company forever, because you probably won&#146;t. Maybe you want to eventually move on to a smaller company or you want to go get your MBA&#151;whatever your plan is, it&#146;s probably not going to line up with what your interviewer has in mind. 

The good news is you can still answer this question thoughtfully and with specifics without lying. After qualifications and fit, interviewers usually care more about your ability to make an impact at their company than anything else. So, play to that, but also bring up your excitement to join their company. 



Well, I&#146;m definitely really excited about the associate consultant position at Midnight Consulting, and I can see myself growing professionally in this role. I think, generally speaking, within the next five years I would seek to make a significant impact at Midnight Consulting, particularly in the energy sector. I&#146;m also looking forward to eventually taking on additional managerial responsibilities and possibly taking the lead on some projects. Another big part of my life is mentoring, so I would hope to incorporate more of that as my knowledge of this industry develops.


As with all things, practice makes perfect. Make sure to practice answering these questions aloud several times for maximum confidence during your interview.


----------



## Swiper (Apr 7, 2014)




----------



## Gregzs (Apr 10, 2014)

https://www.themuse.com/advice/the-1-mistake-people-make-on-phone-interviews

The #1 Mistake People Make on Phone Interviews

Increasingly, employers are phone screening job candidates before inviting them for an on-site interview. 

Maybe this is good news. Phone interviews are easier, right? You can have a bunch of cheat sheets in front of you&#151;your resume, sample answers to common interview questions, and key facts about the company. You can wear your pajamas&#151;heck, you can even stay in bed while you chat! 

Well, not exactly. In fact, the number one mistake job candidates make on phone interviews is sounding tired, bored, or disengaged. Good luck avoiding this if you&#146;re reading from a script or tucked away in bed!

Without visual cues, interviewers are paying extra close attention to the content of your answers and anything else they can glean from your voice. So, lackluster answers or low energy could be read as lack of interest&#151;and can keep you from getting in the door for that next interview. 

So, how can you maximize what you convey with your voice? Follow these simple steps.


1. Do Some Power Poses

A few minutes before the interview, prep by doing some &#147;power poses.&#148; Research shows that standing with your legs shoulder-length apart with your hands on your hips and your chest out for just two minutes raises your testosterone levels, lowers cortisol, and makes you sound more confident. You might feel silly, but at the very least, it&#146;ll help calm some nerves. Definitely a good thing!

2. Stand Like a Speaker

Like anyone who&#146;s speaking or telling a story, you want to sound dynamic and engaged. And slouching in a chair is just not going to help with this. Instead, try positioning yourself like a speaker: A good setup is having some relevant materials on a desk or table in front of you as you stand. (And by relevant, I mean bulleted talking points, not prepared documents&#151;remember, you want to sound natural and energetic!)

3. Don&#146;t Forget to Smile

And feel free to laugh! Yes, this is an interview for a job, but ideally it&#146;s also a conversation between two mutually interested parties. Don&#146;t make the mistake of sounding overly serious or timid. Your skills and qualifications got you the interview, but it&#146;s your personality and commitment that wins over hiring managers. The fact is, no matter how standardized companies try to make their interview processes, being friendly and getting the interviewer excited about working with you will have a huge effect on whether you get invited to the on-site interview. So, smile! Even if they can&#146;t see it, your voice will sound more cheerful. 

 As a final note, treat this as you would an on-site interview, and do the proper logistical preparation. Make sure you have a quiet place to conduct the interview, and check to see if you have good phone signal (better yet, use a landline). Confirm the date and time with your interviewers a day before, along with a line letting them know you&#146;re looking forward to it. Because, you are! Especially now that you&#146;re ready to blow them away with your energy and drive.


----------



## Gregzs (Apr 20, 2014)

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/many-americans-temp-work-becomes-permanent-way-life-n81071

For Many Americans, 'Temp' Work Becomes Permanent Way of Life

or Americans who can&#146;t find jobs, the booming demand for temp workers has been a path out of unemployment, but now many fear it&#146;s a dead-end route.

With full-time work hard to find, these workers have built temping into a de facto career, minus vacation, sick days or insurance. The assignments might be temporary &#151; a few months here, a year there &#151; but labor economists warn that companies&#146; growing hunger for a workforce they can switch on and off could do permanent damage to these workers&#146; career trajectories and retirement plans.








&#147;It seems to be the new norm in the working world,&#148; said Kelly Sibla, 54. The computer systems engineer has been looking for a full-time job for four years now, but the Amherst, Ohio, resident said she has to take whatever she can find.

&#147;I know a lot of people who are doing this temping. It seems to be the way this is going,&#148; she said.

Sibla&#146;s husband, 67, got a buyout offer from his former employer and is now retired, but she has minimal retirement savings in her own name. &#147;When you&#146;re working as a temp you don&#146;t get any of that. Nothing,&#148; she said. The couple is downsizing to a smaller home and trying to sell the one they live in now to reduce expenses.

&#147;You don&#146;t get any benefits to speak of, you only get paid for what you work &#133; no sick time, no paid vacation,&#148; said Brian Dupuy, a computer technician in Des Moines who lost his last full-time job five years ago and has been temping since 2011.

Dupuy, 56, said he&#146;s paid hourly, and the rate comes to about 40 percent less than he was earning at his last full-time job. &#147;After a year, they&#146;ll sign you up for a 401(k) but the salary is so low you have trouble making ends meet to begin with,&#148; he said.

Economists say it&#146;s typical for temporary hiring to rise initially as the economy recovers, before businesses are ready to commit to hiring full-time employees. But Susan Houseman, senior economist at Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, said the current pattern doesn&#146;t fit historic norms.








&#147;Right now we&#146;re seeing something interesting,&#148; she said. &#147;We&#146;ve seen it surpass its previous highs, so it looks like there could be a structural shift going on, too. There&#146;s a reason to believe we might see some increase in the use of temporary help in general.&#148;

In March, the temp industry added 28,500 jobs, and about 2.8 million workers are employed currently in temporary or contract positions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is a little more than 2 percent of the workforce, a peak last reached in April 2000, said Steve Berchem, chief operating officer of the American Staffing Association, an industry trade group.

Berchem cautioned that drawing conclusions from one month or even a few months&#146; worth of data could be misleading because the BLS frequently revises its data, but he said the shift to companies using more temporary workers is already under way.

&#147;We argued when the recovery began that there would be a structural shift,&#148; he said. &#147;We were hearing that from members who were hearing that from their clients, (that) they were more likely to use temp and contract workers.&#148;

&#147;There are a lot of perverse incentives for employers to use temps,&#148; said Erin Hatton, an assistant professor of sociology at the State University of New York, Buffalo, and author of "The Temp Economy: From Kelly Girls to Permatemps in Postwar America." For one thing, it&#146;s cheaper. Using temporary labor lets companies avoid the cost of providing benefits like health insurance, workers&#146; comp, paid sick leave and the like.

&#147;It allows them to increase or reduce their workforce more easily, and in an uncertain environment, that can be very valuable to the firm,&#148; Houseman said.

More kinds of businesses seem to be drawing that conclusion, as industries not thought of as traditional temp work territory are using more contract workers. Hatton pointed out that adjunct college professors face much of the same uncertainty and lower wages than their full-time counterparts. And manufacturing companies make up around 40 percent of the current demand for temp workers, Houseman said.








&#147;In the government data, you see that 17 percent of assembly line workers are hired through the staffing industry,&#148; Houseman said.

With organized labor losing its clout, there&#146;s little to check companies&#146; ability to shed workers the moment they perceive an economic chill, said Eileen Appelbaum, a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. &#147;In the private sector there&#146;s no counterbalancing power,&#148; she said. &#147;The decisions are almost costless to them.&#148;

Appelbaum added that domestic outsourcing &#151; when companies contract with third-party firms to handle everything from their janitorial to their payroll services needs &#151; is on the rise.

It&#146;s all part of a broader shift to an everyone-for-themselves workforce, labor economists say. Business services firm MBO Partners says there were 17.7 million independent workers last year, up 10 percent from 2011.

Berchem called this shift in the labor market a &#147;win-win&#148; for companies as well as workers. &#147;We&#146;ve seen an increase in workers preferring flexibility,&#148; he said. &#147;Family is a big priority for temporary and contract employees and they prefer the flexibility such work allows.&#148;

Lynn Monaghan, 33, began temping after a transition away from her former career in event planning and says there are pros and cons.








&#147;The pros are, it&#146;s given me a great amount of flexibility,&#148; she said of her current job, which is also nearby where she lives in suburban Boston. &#147;Being a working mother, that has been really beneficial to me. There&#146;s less pressure,&#148; she said.

But flexibility is relative.

&#147;There is certainly a small segment of the workforce ... that does want real flexibility in their lives. The thing is, though, that temp work is very flexible for employers and not that flexible for workers,&#148; Hatton said. &#147;It gives them a profound sense of insecurity.&#148;

As a temp, even something as innocuous as personalizing a workstation can be a gamble. With her unemployment benefits exhausted and &#147;no calls whatsoever,&#148; Dayton, Ohio-area resident Ronda Roberts said she took a temp job in December 2012 doing clerical work that paid a quarter of what she previously made as a developer of training materials. &#147;I kind of felt like I didn&#146;t have a choice,&#148; said Roberts, 55.

A year later, even that rug was pulled out from under her. Roberts said she took a rare sick day, only to get a phone call from the temp agency that evening, telling her that her contract had been ended, effective immediately.

When she asked if she could retrieve her computer case and other personal items, the agency told her she wasn&#146;t allowed back into the office where she had worked for roughly a year, and that she had to wait for the company&#146;s corporate human resources department to contact her.

In the end, it took Roberts two months of waiting and an hour&#146;s drive to the company&#146;s headquarters to get her things back. &#147;If I ever got a temp job again, I would not leave anything on site,&#148; she said. &#147;It bothers me that I wouldn&#146;t be able to go and get my own things.&#148;

Roberts said she had gotten along well with her full-time co-workers and that she felt like part of the team, but her abrupt dismissal and the hoops she had to jump through to retrieve her belongings reminded her of her outsider status. &#147;Your job is dispensable. That&#146;s why you&#146;re a temp,&#148; she said.

This is just one of many ways Hatton said temp workers are marginalized in corporate culture. &#147;There&#146;s a very deep level of unfairness,&#148; she said. &#147;Those workers feel profoundly bitter.&#148;

&#147;When you&#146;re just a contractor at a company &#133; your ID badge is a different color. People treat you differently. They say they don&#146;t, but they just do,&#148; Sibla said.

More alarming to economists, long-term temps also miss out on the opportunity to develop a nest egg for a comfortable retirement.

&#147;It&#146;s almost entirely the burden of the individual,&#148; said Kevin Cahill, a labor economist with the Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College.








The potential hit to Social Security benefits is two-fold, he said. Since Social Security benefits are based on your earnings over your work history, both low-paying temp work or a gap in employment &#151; a combination many of today&#146;s &#147;permatemps&#148; face &#151; can drag down a worker&#146;s future payments.

These workers also may not have access to a corporate 401(k) plan. Even if they do, they might not be paid enough to be able to put any away for retirement. There&#146;s certainly no employer match.

&#147;Folks who turn to temporary employment because full-time employment is lacking have been hit extra hard. They&#146;ve lost time to accumulate savings and could very well bleed down their savings during their job search.&#148;

This is what happened to Dupuy, who said he used his 401(k) funds to stay afloat during his unemployment. &#147;I figure I&#146;m going to be working way beyond 65 or 67 or whatever it is these days,&#148; he said. &#147;I just know it&#146;s going to be really hard.&#148;

This has broad effects, Hatton warned, not just on the legions of temp workers today, but on the next generation. Their tenuous employment situation can make it harder for them to send their children to college, she said. &#147;The effects ripple out.&#148;


----------



## Swiper (Apr 21, 2014)

it's disturbing hearing the Obama admin tout all the jobs created under his term when those jobs are all low paying part time jobs. they sure have some low standards at the White House


----------



## Big Smoothy (Apr 22, 2014)

^^ and ^^^

The US job market has gone to sh*t.

I left.  Glad I did. My friends and Fam did not.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 22, 2014)

Swiper said:


> it's disturbing hearing the Obama admin tout all the jobs created under his term when those jobs are all low paying part time jobs. they sure have some low standards at the White House



Look who is living there.  That explains the low standards.


----------



## Big Puppy (Apr 22, 2014)

^^^^. .???
I thought you were an obama lover


----------



## Swiper (Apr 23, 2014)

*The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World&#146;s Richest*

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...ass-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?_r=0


----------



## Gregzs (May 22, 2014)

http://news.dice.com/2014/05/15/navigate-complex-hiring-process/?CMPID=EM_SV_UP_JS_AD_LC_AD_&utm_source=Cheetahmail&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=&utm_campaign=Advisory_Lifecycle&om_rid=AAGso-&om_mid=_BQI8$-B8tYqRPk&dadv&om_rid=AAgjM8&om_mid=_BTfcqiB86L4q-i&dice

How to Navigate a Complex Hiring Process

Some employers like to put candidates through their paces as they search for the perfect fit, which can lead to a process that requires multiple interviews spread over several weeks. Unless you know what lies ahead, you could be derailed by an abrupt salary question, a bad credit score or a poor showing at a technical interview. The best way to be ready for any contingency is to be prepared. Here&#146;s an outline to help.

Step 1: Understand the Process

Most companies are happy to share their hiring process. Some may detail it on their website, but if they don&#146;t you shouldn&#146;t hesitate to ask HR about it when you first apply. In addition, ask recruiters and networking contacts for their views as soon as you get the chance. When you speak to the hiring manager, gauge their sense of urgency by finding out when they need someone to start. Employers rarely skip steps, but they may accelerate the hiring process if they&#146;re short-handed.

Step 2: Pass the Initial Screen

After they&#146;ve reviewed resumes, most companies conduct a phone screen or live video interview. At first, you&#146;ll probably speak with a recruiter or HR manager who&#146;ll confirm your experience with the top technical requirements. They&#146;ll also evaluate your communication skills and measure your interest.

To move forward, establish rapport, cite statistics and experience to verify your technical skills and sidestep salary questions. As the conversation winds down, confirm the next steps and timeline. And be proactive: If you don&#146;t hear back within the specified timeframe, follow up.

Step 3: Ace the Technical Assessments

Although technical questions may arise at any time, at this point most employers administer an online coding test, white board exam or technical interview. Naturally, you&#146;ll want to study the answers to certification exams and practice your white boarding skills beforehand. During the sessions, be sure to walk engineers through your problem-solving methodology. Don&#146;t be afraid to ask for hints and explain how you&#146;d find an answer if you need more information. Offer further validation in the form of coding samples or portfolios. Finally, ask about the next steps and be sure to follow up.

Step 4: Master In-Person Interviews

Next, you&#146;ll undergo a series of face-to-face interviews with IT managers and prospective teammates. They may ask behavioral questions or assess your cultural fit and interpersonal chemistry over coffee or lunch. Study the company&#146;s culture and values, prepare examples and vignettes for behavior-oriented questions and be ready to discuss compensation and other areas that particularly matter to you. Finally, flat-out ask for the job and find out when the hiring manager will make a decision. By now you know the drill &#151; send a thank you note to everyone you meet and show your interest by following up.

Step 5: Negotiate Salary

Finally, it&#146;s time to nail down the deal. Prepare to negotiate compensation by researching the market rate for someone with your experience and skills, and be sure you&#146;re comfortable with negotiation strategies and tactics. Touch base with previous managers and references because a background check is usually the final step to your being brought on board.

Be patient, be engaged, follow up at every step and focus on showing off your strengths. That way, you&#146;ll develop the employer&#146;s interest, and they&#146;ll recognize that you&#146;re the person they&#146;re looking for.


----------



## Gregzs (May 22, 2014)

https://www.themuse.com/advice/41-ways-to-help-a-jobsearching-friend

41 Ways to Help a Job-Searching Friend

Whether it&#146;s your friend who&#146;s totally miserable at her job, your little brother who&#146;s panicking about his post-graduation plans, or your child who you fear will never move out of your basement, we bet there&#146;s someone in your life who could use a little help on the job search.

And if you&#146;re like many, you probably don&#146;t know exactly what you can do to lend a hand. Should you reach out to people in your network? Shoot over job postings? What would be helpful&#151;and what would be, well, annoying?

Here&#146;s our advice: Choose a few of our ideas from the list below, put them in an email, and ask your loved one if you can help and if so, which option would be most useful. You&#146;ll be making the most of your skills, putting your energy where it matters most, and, most importantly, helping out in exactly the right way.

Lend Your Skills

Are you a great people-connector or an editor extraordinaire? When thinking about how to help your friend, think about the areas in which you feel most strong and confident. For example:

1. Offer to review your friend&#146;s resume. But don&#146;t just check for typos&#151;really make sure each and every bullet point is sending the right message and selling him or her as the best person for the job. Our five-step resume-editing process will cover all of your bases. 

2. Take a look at your friend&#146;s cover letter. Just how awesome does it make him or her sound? If you think you could up the ante a bit more, revamp it.

3. Resume bullet points are infinitely better when they&#146;re quantified: How much money was saved? How many man-hours were reduced? Offer to dig into Excel and do some calculations that will help your friend quantify each of his or her accomplishments.

4. They&#146;re also better when they don&#146;t use the same tired words over and over. Offer to spice up his or her resume with these 185 power verbs.

5. Put on your marketing hat, and create a list of sample taglines that your friend could use as his or her LinkedIn headline. (For a step-by-step process to brand yourself&#151;or someone else&#151;on LinkedIn, check out our career expert Lily Zhang&#146;s tips.)

6. Offer to proofread his or her follow-up or thank-you emails. Most people like to get these out really quickly, which means it&#146;s easy for typos to happen.

7. If you have design skills, offer to design your friend a new resume (or customize one of these ready-to-go resume templates).

8. Offer to set up your friend&#146;s online portfolio or personal website. If you have an eye for design and basic web skills, you can easily set something up on one of these 14 personal website platforms. 

9. If you have a camera and a bit of a creative streak, help your friend write, film, and produce a killer video resume.

10. More of a photographer than a videographer? Take an awesome headshot he or she can use on social media profiles.

Help Prep for Applications and Interviews

The process of sending out resumes, writing cover letters, and preparing for interviews can be daunting. Let your friend know you&#146;re there to help with one of these ideas.

11. Google your friend and report on your findings, particularly if there&#146;s anything that might be off-putting to a hiring manager (remember to look at image and video results, too!). Google results can be slightly different from person to person, so you might find something he or she hasn&#146;t.

12. Send relevant job listings. (Note: Ask first so you&#146;re not overwhelming his or her inbox&#151;a better option might be sending a long list of links rather than IMing every post you see.) When you do send a listing, add an encouraging note with why you think he or she would be so perfect for the job. That confidence boost can do wonders. 

13. Is your friend stuck on what types of jobs to even apply for in the first place? Offer to brainstorm together. Or, point him or her to our nine-question worksheet designed to help you find your dream career. 

14. While your friend crafts his or her cover letter, do the Google legwork needed to track down the hiring manager&#146;s name and contact info.

15. Channel your inner actor, and play hiring manager as your friend practices mock interview questions. Not sure what to ask? Take a few from our list of most common interview questions, or browse Glassdoor to see what questions are frequently asked at the companies he or she wants to work for.

16. Is he or she headed to a phone or Skype interview? Offer to hold a trial run to check for technical difficulties and lighting or sound issues. 

17. Go shopping together and help your friend pick out the perfect interview ensemble. (Need suggestions? Check out our picks for guys and gals.)

18. Offer to drop his or her suit off during your next run to the dry cleaner&#146;s. (Hey, sometimes it&#146;s the small stuff.)

19. Help your friend practice his or her handshake. Sounds simple, but having a great one can go a long way in making a stellar first impression. And hey, follow these tips, and you might pick up a few pointers, too.

20. Help your friend craft and practice the perfect &#147;So, tell me about yourself!&#148; elevator pitch.

21. Print out a few copies of our All-in-One Interview Prep Guide, so they&#146;ll be ready to go when your friend needs them. 

22. Offer to put together a list of career coaches in your area. Look for people who specialize in your friend&#146;s industry (marketing, tech, nonprofits) or specific situation (career changers, new grads).

23. Point your friend to The Muse&#146;s free &#147;Kick Start Your Job Search&#148; class&#151;we&#146;ll do all the advice-giving for you.

Use Your Network

You&#146;ve heard it before: Your network is your net worth. Invest a little of it in your friend by seeing if you have contacts who can help him or her out.

24. Browse your LinkedIn network to see if there&#146;s anyone who might be helpful in your friend&#146;s job search. If so, ask your contact if he or she might be willing to sit down for an informational interview with your friend.

25. Better yet, ask if you can connect your contact with your friend directly. Make an introduction that sings your friend&#146;s praises, then step away and let your friend blow your contact away with his or her initiative and smarts. To make it even easier on yourself, here's a template to use for asking your contact if you can connect him or her to your friend, and then a template for making the actual introduction.

26. Ask your friend for a list of his or her dream companies, then search your LinkedIn network to see if anyone you know works there (or has in the past). There might be some surprising contacts you&#146;ve missed.

27. Volunteer to attend a networking event together (believe us, it makes the whole process so much less intimidating). Make sure you split up, and when you meet someone who&#146;d be a good contact for your friend, you can easily introduce the two of them.

28. Or, host your own networking event. Invite a few contacts, have your friend do the same, have each of those people invite a few more, and before you know it you&#146;ll fill a room with interesting people.

29. Have your friend put together this &#147;Help Me Find a Job&#148; email template, than forward it along to anyone you know in his or her industry or dream companies. 

30. If your friend has a blog or online portfolio, share a link or two on your social network. You never know whose eye it might catch (plus, your unsolicited participation will come across as a solid vote of confidence in his or her talents and abilities).

Show Your Support

The job search can be tough&#151;it&#146;s long, it&#146;s frustrating, and it can really be a confidence-killer. So make sure you&#146;re finding ways to be encouraging and uplifting throughout the process.

31. Offer up 30 minutes of your time for an interruption-free &#147;seriously, this job searching business is the worst&#148; venting session.

32. Send your friend an email sharing what you think are his or her strongest skills and abilities. It can often be hard to identify our own strong points, but an outside perspective can be really helpful. 

33. Is your friend changing careers? Help identify the most easily transferrable skills on his or her resume. 

34. Help your friend identify his or her superpower&#151;the one thing he or she does better than anything else. 

35. Big interview coming up? Invite him or her to a special lunch or cocktail afterward to celebrate.

36. If your friend doesn&#146;t get a job he or she was really excited about, send an &#147;it&#146;s all going to be OK&#148; email. Bonus points for including links to a few other exciting openings or ridiculous gifs. 

37. Put together a pump-you-up playlist your friend can play late at night when he or she is scrolling through job postings (think Kelly Clarkson&#146;s &#147;What Doesn&#146;t Kill You Makes You Stronger&#148; and basically anything Kanye).

38. Keep your friend accountable for his or her goals. Does he or she want to send out three applications each week? Go to at least four networking events this month? Offer to periodically (and nicely) check in and see how the search is progressing.

39. Make sure your friend isn&#146;t just settling or taking any job just to have one. Debrief after each interview and make sure he or she is really stoked about the position. If not, encourage him or her to look for greener pastures.

40. Remember not to let the job hunt be your immediate and only topic of conversation. Has your friend picked up a new hobby, like blogging or web design? Taken up kickboxing? Tried an awesome new recipe? Your friend wants your support in his or her job search, of course&#151;but sometimes, he or she may just want a friend. Period.

41. Do nothing&#151;just make sure your friend knows you&#146;re there if he or she needs help. Sometimes, that little knowledge will go further than you know.


----------



## LAM (May 27, 2014)

Swiper said:


> it's disturbing hearing the Obama admin tout all the jobs created under his term when those jobs are all low paying part time jobs. they sure have some low standards at the White House



So your now just learning about a trend that started decades ago.  I thought you understood microeconomics!  LMAO

This is what happens when you are "educated" by media

The shift of U.S workers to the low wage service sector jobs obviously has not a single thing to do with the executive branch but with the private sector and the off-shoring of higher paying jobs and of course financialization.

As I stated some 5+ years ago in 2009, the U.S economy will never get any better.  We will see each recession in the U.S get continually worse as wealth is concentrated more and more at the top and as more and more firms continue the trends of maximizing MSV and the growth of financialization continues.  Recessions are also worst after periods of weak economic growth, so this is the new trend in the U.S.  Weak economic growth during periods of "economic expansions", long and hard jobless recovery's and the continued shift of workers to the low wage service sector.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (May 27, 2014)

LAM said:


> So your now just learning about a trend that started decades ago.  I thought you understood microeconomics!  LMAO
> 
> This is what happens when you are "educated" by media
> 
> ...


Great.  So, why not stop incentivizing businesses to relocate to other countries by having a more competitive corporate tax rate and less regulation designed for environmental special interests that drives business out of places like CA?  Look at TX right now.  This should serve as an example for the rest of the US.  You can blame previous administration all you want, but the fact remains, Obama is president as we speak and has been for over 5 years.  When does the buck begin to stop with this administration and when do we stop blaming Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc.?


----------



## Swiper (May 27, 2014)

LAM said:


> So your now just learning about a trend that started decades ago.  I thought you understood microeconomics!  LMAO
> 
> This is what happens when you are "educated" by media
> 
> ...



no Im just stating that the person you've voted for twice is scamming the American people at free will and you're one of them.


----------



## Gregzs (May 28, 2014)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101710406?__source=xfinity|mod&par=xfinity

Uber&#146;s $90K salary could disrupt the taxi business

Uber cab drivers in New York are raking in near-six-figure salaries&#151;about triple the amount their traditional taxi driver counterparts make, according to an article in The Washington Post. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, New York cab drivers make about $32,000 a year. Uber claims the average salary for its drivers in the same city is above $90,000, presumably after the company takes its 20 percent cut from the driver's total fares. That number does not account for vehicle maintenance costs and such, but it may still explain why 20,000 drivers sign up with Uber every month, according to the company.

Smartphones deserve some of the credit. UberX drivers rely on them for leads, so they do not have to drive around hoping to be in the right place at the right time for a fare.The company claims it can serve 43 percent of the U.S. population with a cab in less than five minutes. Uber also packs mechanisms into its app that allow both drivers and passengers to rate each other. The Post's Matt McFarland thinks such a simple measure may make longstanding taxi regulation schemes in some U.S. cities unnecessary. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...could-end-the-era-of-poorly-paid-cab-drivers/


----------



## Gregzs (Jun 15, 2014)

I had to go over a recruiter's head to her boss to get her to return my calls.

http://post.nyssa.org/nyssa-news/20...Id=1037915168&zbdom=http://nyssa1.informz.net

Signs That Recruiters Are Not Being Truthful with You


You&#146;re applying for jobs in finance. You&#146;re relying on recruiters to act as intermediaries and to represent you to potential employers. In most cases, recruiters are honest upstanding individuals. But even honest, upstanding individuals can be a little economical with the truth sometimes.

Want to know whether a hiring agent is being duplicitous? According to recruiters, speaking candidly and anonymously, these are the signs.


1. You call to ask about the job and the recruiter can&#146;t give you any information at all.

In a very few cases, recruiters might advertise jobs they don&#146;t have solely to attract resumes for their databases. All the recruiters we spoke to strenuously denied doing this, but they each suggested it&#146;s easy to tell if a position is fabricated. &#147;All you need to do is to call the recruiter and ask the name of the company you&#146;ll be working for, the name of the line manager, and the size of the team,&#148; said one recruiter. Won&#146;t fellow recruiters be hesitant about divulging this information on the telephone though? &#147;If you send in your CV so that they know who you are and they still won&#146;t give you full information, you should probably question whether the job exists,&#148; he said.

2. You apply for a job. You&#146;re told it&#146;s been pulled or &#145;put on hold,&#146; but you can still see it advertised. 

It&#146;s pretty obvious that something fishy is going on when you&#146;re told a job no longer exists but you can still see it advertised. There may be a genuinely good reason to subject you to this falsehood, however.

&#147;The only time I ever lie to candidates is when someone applies for a job with a team they&#146;re already working for,&#148; says the head of one risk recruitment agency. &#147;It can be very awkward &#150; they might not even be aware that their team is hiring and suddenly they&#146;ve sent in their CV. I usually say that role&#146;s been put on hold and that we&#146;ll let them know if something else comes up,&#148; she adds.

3. You ask for detailed post-interview feedback and you&#146;re told you need to work on your &#145;rapport.&#146;

If you attend a finance interview and ask for detailed feedback on your performance, don&#146;t be surprised if you don&#146;t get it. Banks rarely provide recruiters with feedback on candidates after interviews and recruiters are forever having to explain to candidates why they don&#146;t know the reasons behind a rejection. Once in a while, however, banks do offer feedback and it can be unpleasantly robust.

&#147;They&#146;ll tell us they thought the candidate was completely awful or that he just seemed very odd,&#148; says the head of one recruitment firm. &#147;We&#146;ll usually try and spin that and tell the candidate a few positives in with the negatives so that they&#146;ve got something to build on. If a client says that someone&#146;s odd, we&#146;ll say something like they need to work on their rapport.&#148;

4. You&#146;re told that you need to make up your mind about a job offer within 24 hours because there are other very desirable candidates in the pipeline. 

Much as estate agents always have other viewers interested in the property you&#146;re looking at, recruiters always have other candidates interested in the job you&#146;re applying for. This is especially the case if you get an offer for that job &#150; at which point recruiters can smell their fees and will want to close the deal as soon as possible.

&#147;It&#146;s often quite honest to say that we have other candidates in the process who are interested in the role, but we do also push the point to encourage a candidate to make a quick decision,&#148; says the head of one firm.

If you&#146;re uncertain whether a role is 100% right, or whether the compensation is 100% appropriate, don&#146;t allow a recruiter to rush you. If their client is genuinely interested in you, they should be prepared to wait for 72 hours at least.

5. You ask for a slight improvement to the compensation package you&#146;ve been offered and you&#146;re told this is out of the question. 

In these days of the European Union&#146;s bonus cap and of vast disparities in the way banks structure their bonuses, going for a new job is not just about negotiating higher pay &#150; it&#146;s about negotiating the best deal in terms of cash payments and deferrals, along with the highest conceivable salary.

Often, banks will be genuinely inflexible over compensation &#150; particularly with regards to salaries, which tend to be fixed by position. But in some cases, recruiters will claim that banks are inflexible even when they&#146;re not.  &#147;Recruitment is a game of psychology,&#148; says one recruiter. &#147;I don&#146;t want to promise that I can negotiate a higher salary when I&#146;m not 100% certain that this is the case. I&#146;ll often start by saying that a higher salary is out of the question and then drop in a 10% salary increase later in the process to help close the candidate. It&#146;s all about managing expectations.&#148;

6. You see a job being advertised and it looks too good to be true

Finally, if you see a job being advertised and it looks too good to be true, then it probably is. Recruiters might occasionally fabricate incredibly well paid jobs simply to attract top CVs. See point one; react accordingly.


----------



## Gregzs (Jun 17, 2014)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101762746?__source=xfinity|mod&par=xfinity

What the jobless are&#151;and aren't&#151;doing to find work

The U.S. labor market has undoubtedly improved in the last five years&#151;even if it remains tight. So what are the unemployed doing, and not doing, in order to find work?

The U.S. unemployment rate currently stands at 6.3 percent, after reaching 10 percent in October of 2009&#151;a record high over the last 10 years.

Meanwhile, the number of long-term unemployed, or those out of work for 27 weeks or more, remains at 3.4 million people, or 34.6 percent of the jobless. And there are the millions of people who are said to have given up looking for work. 

When it comes to finding employment, the Internet remains the focus of job searches, according to a new online survey from Express Employment Professionals, a full-time and part-time staffing firm. 

The survey of 1,500 unemployed adults aged 18 or older who are capable of working shows that all use the Internet in some way: (click here for full results) 
&#149; 53 percent said visiting or researching online job boards. 
&#149; 44 percent said visiting a prospective company's website. 
&#149; 43 percent said posting resumes on major online job boards. 
&#149; 41 percent said entering search terms directly into a search engine. 
&#149; 33 percent said using resources at the state employment office. 
&#149; 31 percent said going to job or career fairs. 
&#149; 29 percent said visiting social networking sites. 
&#149; 28 percent said visiting or researching websites that provide resume tips.

But finding a job requires a lot more than submitting a resume online, said Bob Funk, chairman and CEO of Express. "There's a misconception that using the Internet is the only way to find work," he said.

"People really need to go out in person, beat the pavement so to speak, and make face-to-face connections," Funk added. "It's difficult to do, but it's a game-changer when it comes to finding a job."

Funk said that it's the smaller firms rather than larger companies that are doing much of the hiring, and those are the types of companies that prefer meeting a job candidate in the flesh. He emphasized the need for job seekers to network with others in the field they want to enter.

Time looking

While 90 percent of those surveyed said they are working hard to find a job, the amount of time they spend doing so varies greatly.

The survey revealed how many hours people spent looking for work in the week prior to the survey: 
&#149;14 percent said zero hours. 
&#149;22 percent said one to five hours. 
&#149;21 percent said six to 10 hours. 
&#149;21 percent said 11 to 20 hours. 
&#149;12 percent said 21 to 30 hours.
&#149;9 percent said 31 or more hours. 

Interviews hard to get

The survey also found out that interviews are hard to come by: 
&#149;46 percent reported not having gone on any job interviews in the prior month. 
&#149;Among those unemployed for more than two years, 71 percent reported not having gone on any interviews in the prior month. 
&#149;23 percent said their last interview was in 2012 or before. 

Relocating? No, thanks

For many, moving to another state to find work, or getting more education, is not an answer: 
&#149;44 percent are "not at all willing" to relocate to a new city/town for a job. 
&#149;60 percent are "not at all willing" to move to another state to find work. 
&#149;64 percent have no plans to go back to school to make themselves more marketable. 
&#149;7 percent are currently enrolled in classes, and 6 percent have already attended classes or earned a new degree.


----------



## Gregzs (Jul 4, 2014)

https://www.themuse.com/advice/dear-hiring-managers-stop-rejecting-desperate-candidates

Dear Hiring Managers: Stop Rejecting "Desperate" Candidates

Kathryn recently went on a job interview and felt like she nailed it. In fact, the hiring manager started talking about start dates, so she was shocked when she spoke to the recruiter the following morning and found out that company had decided she wasn&#146;t a &#147;good fit.&#148; Kathryn pushed the recruiter for additional feedback, which the recruiter reluctantly shared. Her problem? She seemed too desperate for the job.

Desperation is a big turn off for many employers. This, of course, has some logic behind it. Desperate people will take any job they are offered, and employers don&#146;t like that. They want someone who wants this job, because otherwise, the employee is likely to leave when something better comes along.

So, avoiding the desperate means you have less of a chance of hiring someone who isn&#146;t a good fit. But, let&#146;s be honest here, have you ever been desperate?

I have been. It took me a while to land a job after finishing graduate school, because let&#146;s face it, how many job openings do you see that say, &#147;Help Wanted: Political Scientist. Must be able to discuss Nietzsche and do regression analysis.&#148; Yep, that was me. So, was I pretty desperate by the time I finally landed a job? Yes. Am I grateful that the hiring manager didn&#146;t say, &#147;Gee, I can see that she&#146;s been out of school for five months. She must be living off credit cards and noodle ramen. Let&#146;s not hire her.&#148; Yes.

For some reason, it&#146;s okay for businesses to not be perfect, but not job candidates. Businesses underpay, misrepresent how flexible their schedules really are, and often have bad managers. Yet, if a job candidate comes across as someone who desperately wants to get back to work (or wants to change jobs), we reject them. Which leaves candidates who are currently unemployed (or are in bad jobs) in the weird position of having to pretend that they are fabulously wealthy and just want to get a job to get them out of the house for a bit.

Isn&#146;t that ridiculous? People need money, and we want them to get that through working. So, before you reject someone because they want any job, consider if the job you are offering is perfect. Could you possibly be underpaying? If so, then you should be thrilled that you&#146;ve found someone who is worth more than you can pay, even if it&#146;s for a short time. Is your staff overworked? If so, you should be doing a happy dance that you&#146;ve found someone who is willing to put up with your crazy demands. Do you have developmental opportunities? If not, you should be glad that you&#146;ve found someone that wants to move forward with their career, but is willing to work for you for a time.

Additionally, keep in mind that most people are not great at job interviews and those that are great at interviewing aren&#146;t necessarily the best at working. Someone who projects desperation may have the exact skills you need in the job. Don&#146;t discount them because of a bad interview.

Another thing to keep in mind is that people don&#146;t stay at jobs for 20 years any more. Your perfect candidate isn&#146;t likely to stay that much longer than the person who took the job out of desperation.

Your first priority should be hiring someone who can do a fabulous job, and sometimes that person is desperate for a job. Don&#146;t reject on that basis alone.


----------



## Swiper (Sep 5, 2014)

*Jobs Report: U.S. Payrolls Climb 142,000, Short of Expectations*

http://online.wsj.com/articles/jobs...limb-142-000-short-of-expectations-1409920448


Another pathetic jobs report......


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 5, 2014)

Swiper said:


> *Jobs Report: U.S. Payrolls Climb 142,000, Short of Expectations*
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/articles/jobs...limb-142-000-short-of-expectations-1409920448
> 
> ...



The last time I checked, there are about 148,000 people entering the labor market every month in the USA.

The number of jobs created (which are largely low-paying service sector cash only jobs) are not enough to keep up with the demand.


----------



## MI1972 (Sep 5, 2014)

[h=1]Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low[/h]
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-force-participation-rate-matches-36-year-low


----------



## Gregzs (Sep 29, 2014)

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-layoffs-unemployment-jobs-economy-20140924-story.html

One-fifth of U.S. workers were laid off in past five years, study says 

ne in five U.S. workers was laid off in the past five years and about 22% of those who lost their jobs still haven't found another one, according to a new survey that showed the extent Americans have struggled in the sluggish labor market since the Great Recession ended..

Those who did find work had a difficult time with their job search and the effects of unemployment, the survey by the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University found.
Nearly 40% said it took more than seven months to find employment and about one in five of laid-off workers said all they could find was a temporary position.

Almost half -- 46% -- of the estimated 30 million layoff victims who found new jobs said they paid less then their old ones, according to the survey of 1,153 U.S adults done over the summer.

"While job growth has been consistent, it has been insufficient to produce enough full-time jobs for everyone," the study said.

Despite a declining overall unemployment rate, the study says, long-term joblessness has remained a major problem as the U.S. economy has slowly recovered from the deep recession, which technically ended in June 2009.

The study notes that 3 million Americans in August had been unemployed for more than six months. Although that figure has been declining, it still is high.

The effects of long-term unemployment can be traumatic, the survey found.

"While a majority of Americans were affected by the Great Recession, those who had long-term periods of unemployment experienced severe, negative changes in their standard of living," the study concluded.

About one-third of those who were unable to find work for more than six months reported "a major and permanent change in their lifestyle," according to the study.

Asked to compare their salary and savings now to five years ago, 42% said they had less. That figure included 25% of respondents who said they had "a lot less."


----------



## Swiper (Oct 3, 2014)

*4 Of 5 Top Job Additions In September Were Low Or Minimum Wage*

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-03/4-5-top-job-additions-september-were-low-or-minimum-wage



*Labor Participation Rate Drops To 36 Year Low; Record 92.6 Million Americans Not In Labor Force*

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...low-record-926-million-americans-not-labor-fo




If the labor participation rate was the same as in 2007 as it is today the unemployment rate would be around 10%


----------



## Swiper (Oct 3, 2014)




----------



## LAM (Oct 5, 2014)

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times the economy is plagued with the cumulative negative effects of structural changes made to the U.S economy decades ago and the complete abandonment of equitable growth policies which can be traced back the the 60's, 70's and 80's.  Structural problems are extremely difficult to repair especially with a totally dysfunctional government and in terms of large firms a greedy and highly exploitative private sector.


----------



## SheriV (Oct 6, 2014)

LAM said:


> If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times the economy is plagued with the cumulative negative effects of structural changes made to the U.S economy decades ago and the complete abandonment of equitable growth policies which can be traced back the the 60's, 70's and 80's.  Structural problems are extremely difficult to repair especially with a totally dysfunctional government and in terms of large firms a greedy and highly exploitative private sector.




YEY! LAM is still here!

no srsly...you came up in a list of people that was missed in AG


----------



## Gregzs (Oct 28, 2014)

5 TED Talks to Watch Before Your Next Interview 

https://www.themuse.com/advice/5-te...TED Talks to Watch Before Your Next Interview


----------



## FUZO (Nov 1, 2014)

Wasn't LAMS black jesus Blojama supposed to fix all this,  nope he made it worse  and after Tuesday blojama s fuk'd because the Republicas will control both houses of congress and thak GOD Harry scum reid will be gone and wont be the senate leader any more


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 1, 2014)

FUZO said:


> Wasn't LAMS black jesus Blojama supposed to fix all this,  nope he made it worse  and after Tuesday blojama s fuk'd because the Republicas will control both houses of congress and thak GOD Harry scum reid will be gone and wont be the senate leader any more



How are republicans going to fix things?


----------



## Bowden (Nov 3, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> How are republicans going to fix things?



Perception on the state of the economy is biased based on political affiliation.

If a Republican were president now, probably all of the Republicans being critical about state of the economy would think that it is doing well and would be defending the president.

One thing is for sure.
I will be glad when the election is over and all of the BS political ads stop.


----------



## Bowden (Nov 3, 2014)

FUZO said:


> Wasn't LAMS black jesus Blojama supposed to fix all this,  nope he made it worse  and after Tuesday blojama s fuk'd because the Republicas will control both houses of congress and thak GOD Harry scum reid will be gone and wont be the senate leader any more



So which Republican scum bribed through PAC donations by wealthy elites and corporate lobbyists to advance their interests would you like to see replace the Harry Reid scum that was bribed through PAC donations by wealthy elites and corporate lobbyists to advance their interests?


----------



## Big Puppy (Nov 3, 2014)

Harry Reid should be sniped


----------



## LAM (Nov 4, 2014)

FUZO said:


> Wasn't LAMS black jesus Blojama supposed to fix all this,  nope he made it worse  and after Tuesday blojama s fuk'd because the Republicas will control both houses of congress and thak GOD Harry scum reid will be gone and wont be the senate leader any more



If you think the POTUS has that much control over the economy you really don't understand how it functions nor do you have any concept of U.S and global recession recovery history, I've explained all this stuff dozens of times.  The economy was shit before 2008 and it only gets worse after every recession as they cause permanent wealth transfers upwards which means aggregate demand continually falls due to the loss of wealth and wages for the working class along with the labor market continually shifting workers into the low wage service sector.  There are two economies one that serves those at the top which is always doing great, the top 5% account for 35% of personal consumption but most of this is high end luxury items which does not employ a significant number of people.  The economy that serves the working class is debt lead with low wages jobs which prevent any measurable amount of wealth to be generated which dictates consumption patterns.

The economy was shit before 2008 and technically it's been in the crapper since the 60's and it's never going to get any better.


----------



## FUZO (Nov 4, 2014)

. Bottom line Blojob didn't do shit for African americans like he promised,let alone Hispanics, God forbid whites and our economy an the list can go on and on.


----------



## UberJedi (Nov 4, 2014)

Doublebase said:


> I saw one of my friends out last night.  He has been laid off since November.  He said he gets 974$ every two weeks after taxes.  So basically 2,000$/month.  So he's eating a big steak dinner and told me he just bought a new four wheeler.  I started to get pissed off after hearing this.  Isn't that our federal tax money paying for that dinner and four wheeler?  How is it fair that he gets all that money every month and some people have to work 40/hours a week to make that?  And now they just extended the length of time you can collect from 6 months to 9 months.  He said he will be starting back working in April.  How nice would it be to work 6 months then have 6 months off and collect unemployment.  You could collect the money and then get another job on the side.  Unbelievable.  I would feel like a piece of shit if I were just collecting that money and not trying to find a job.  Although if I knew I were getting my job back in a few months then why try to find a job?  Its just that fact that my tax dollars are going towards this.  I can imagine how many people abuse this.



I'm not going to read all the pages but YOUR EMPLOYER PAYS INTO UNEMPLOYMENT ON YOUR BEHALF. You are not taking tax dollars at all.  You have to bank account of sorts with the govt. that they pay you out of. Once it's gone it's gone. It is a state level thing. With some of the extensions that is federal tax dollars making up for it yes.  But that is an exception. So chill out. Also in most states unless you are on a scheduled lay off you must be actively looking for work.


----------



## Amozoc (Nov 4, 2014)

Fucking $&@&);:  they take me  out $650 Dlls of my check just in taxes to support lazy guys 


Sent from my iPad using VPN Hot Spot Shield


----------



## LAM (Nov 4, 2014)

FUZO said:


> . Bottom line Blojob didn't do shit for African americans like he promised,let alone Hispanics, God forbid whites and our economy an the list can go on and on.



The please explain how the current POTUS or any POTUS could negate the effects of an asset bubble burst that cost the working class to lose 40% of it's wealth which easily takes a good 10-20 years to recovery from, record household debt that peaked at 100% of GDP in 2008 which took 30 years to increase from the 50 year average of 55% in 1980, low civilian labor participation since we never recovered from the jobs lost to the minor 2001 recession, labors declining share of the national income now at the 60 year low, jobs being lost to technology and off-shored to boost profits, sluggish economic growth due to decades of inequitable economic policy, the continued de-industrialization of the country for profits and the disinvestment in the real economy which coincides with that, the continued shift of U.S workers to the low wage service sector which is a function of de-industrialization, etc, etc. etc...

LOL...if you read the financials and economic reports on economic trends over the decades you would know that bad is the new "good" economy in the U.S


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 5, 2014)

Amozoc said:


> Fucking $&@&);:  they take me  out $650 Dlls of my check just in taxes to support lazy guys
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using VPN Hot Spot Shield



That's it?  You don't make very much, do you?


----------



## Amozoc (Nov 5, 2014)

Nope Bro


Sent from my iPhone using VPN Shield


----------



## Zaphod (Nov 5, 2014)

Get your ass to school!  Get a degree!  In anything!  Just having that piece of paper that says you spent four more years in school will open up doors for you.  Especially if you have a halfway interesting story to go with it.


----------



## Bowden (Nov 6, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Get your ass to school!  Get a degree!  In anything!  Just having that piece of paper that says you spent four more years in school will open up doors for you.  Especially if you have a halfway interesting story to go with it.



You might have a point if many of the jobs created since the start of the 'great recession' were higher paying jobs that require a college degree, instead of low wage service sector jobs that only require a high school education.

Someone comes out of college with a huge student loan debt and then has to try and find a job to pay for that loan on top of all their living expenses.
Many people with college degrees are still living with mom and dad due to the job market and trying to pay off student loans.


----------



## Bowden (Nov 6, 2014)

LAM said:


> The please explain how the current POTUS or any POTUS could negate the effects of an asset bubble burst that cost the working class to lose 40% of it's wealth which easily takes a good 10-20 years to recovery from, record household debt that peaked at 100% of GDP in 2008 which took 30 years to increase from the 50 year average of 55% in 1980, low civilian labor participation since we never recovered from the jobs lost to the minor 2001 recession, labors declining share of the national income now at the 60 year low, jobs being lost to technology and off-shored to boost profits, sluggish economic growth due to decades of inequitable economic policy, the continued de-industrialization of the country for profits and the disinvestment in the real economy which coincides with that, the continued shift of U.S workers to the low wage service sector which is a function of de-industrialization, etc, etc. etc...
> 
> LOL...if you read the financials and economic reports on economic trends over the decades you would know that bad is the new "good" economy in the U.S



Income inequality...
I am certain that the new Republican congress majority will fix that problem right away.
Income inequality been increasing ever since the days of Ronald Regan, and the middle class is being converted to low wage paid tools of capitalism to trickle up the capital, but that does not mean that the new Republican congress will fail to fix it like all the former politicians did.

As  soon as they kill any and all regulations that get in the way of free market business capitalism, and reform the corporate tax rates to 0, then all of the service sector corporations will convert all of their part time low wage and benefit employees in the working poor economic class to full time employees making a living wage with health insurance, instead of sending them to welfare offices so that the taxpayers can fund their low wage labor arbitrage business models that trickle up the capital to the top economic classes and fund millions/billions of dollars worth of stock buyback programs and dividend distributions that benefit wall street, investors, corporate executives and business owners in the top economic classes.

In addition there will be an explosion of high paying jobs with benefits.

LOL, HA HA HA.
Suckers.


----------



## Bowden (Nov 6, 2014)

LAM said:


> The please explain how the current POTUS or any POTUS could negate the effects of an asset bubble burst that cost the working class to lose 40% of it's wealth which easily takes a good 10-20 years to recovery from, record household debt that peaked at 100% of GDP in 2008 which took 30 years to increase from the 50 year average of 55% in 1980, low civilian labor participation since we never recovered from the jobs lost to the minor 2001 recession, labors declining share of the national income now at the 60 year low, jobs being lost to technology and off-shored to boost profits, sluggish economic growth due to decades of inequitable economic policy, the continued de-industrialization of the country for profits and the disinvestment in the real economy which coincides with that, the continued shift of U.S workers to the low wage service sector which is a function of de-industrialization, etc, etc. etc...
> 
> LOL...if you read the financials and economic reports on economic trends over the decades you would know that bad is the new "good" economy in the U.S



Lam,
Stop posting economic root cause analysis based on facts.
It's confusing anyone that gets their understanding of who is getting rich or getting screwed by the new economy from Fox news, CNBC or economic media published by hidden under the cover interests who are getting rich from the new economy.


----------



## Swiper (Nov 26, 2014)

*Applications for US jobless aid jump to 313,000*


WASHINGTON (AP) ? The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits jumped last week, pushing total applications above 300,000 for the first time in nearly three months.

Weekly applications rose 21,000 to a seasonally adjusted 313,000, the Labor Department said Wednesday. That's the highest level since the first week of September. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, rose 6,250 to 294,000.
The increase is unlikely to raise concerns about the broader health of the job market. At least some of the rise occurred because of seasonal layoffs in businesses affected by the cold weather, such as construction. The department seeks to control for such seasonal factors but doesn't always do so perfectly.
Applications had been under 300,000 for 10 straight weeks, an unusually low level that indicates companies are laying off fewer workers.
Even with last week's increase, the overall level of applications is well below where it was 12 months ago. The four week average has tumbled 12.2 percent in the past year, and isn't that far from a 14-year low of 279,000 reached last month
"Though we have seen increases over the past three weeks in the four-week average, the trend in claims remains relatively low," Derek Lindsey, an economist at BNP Paribas, said in a note to clients.


The fall in applications has coincided with stronger job gains. Employers have added an average of 229,000 jobs a month this year, putting 2014 on pace to be strongest year for hiring since 1999. That's up from an average of 194,000 last year.
The unemployment rate has fallen to 5.8 percent, a six-year low, down from 7.2 percent a year ago.
Still, the number of people without jobs is concerning, with nearly 9 million Americans officially unemployed. That compares with 7.6 million before the recession. Yet barely a quarter of the unemployed are actually receiving unemployment aid.
That partly reflects the drop in layoffs. But it also suggests that Americans are more confident that they will find work when they do lose jobs. They also may be finding jobs faster than in the earlier stages of the recovery. As a result, they may be less likely to seek unemployment benefits. The percentage of laid off workers who apply for benefits is lower than it was just after the recession ended five years ago, economists estimate.
The total number of people receiving benefits dropped to 2.3 million in the week ending Nov. 15, the latest data available. That's the lowest level since December 2000.
Still, the job gains have yet to push up wages much, limiting the broader growth of the U.S. economy. Average hourly pay rose 3 cents in October to $24.57. That's just 2 percent above the average wage 12 months earlier and barely ahead of a 1.7 percent inflation rate.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/applications-us-jobless-aid-jump-313-000-133423296--finance.html


----------



## Swiper (Nov 26, 2014)




----------



## Big Puppy (Nov 26, 2014)

I think I'm ginna jump on the unemployment bandwagon. Why work to pay for all the lazy bastards.


----------



## LAM (Nov 27, 2014)

Big Puppy said:


> I think I'm ginna jump on the unemployment bandwagon. Why work to pay for all the lazy bastards.



If you think $400/wk is good money you've obviously never made anything close a decent income, it's floor scraps especially since the purchasing power of the U.S declines by 25% every decade.  So $400/wk today has the same purchasing power as $200/wk in 1994 dollars.

$400/day is only equivalent to what $50K a year could buy you 20 years ago.


----------



## Swiper (Nov 27, 2014)

LAM said:


> If you think $400/wk is good money you've obviously never made anything close a decent income, it's floor scraps especially since the purchasing power of the U.S declines by 25% every decade.  So $400/wk today has the same purchasing power as $200/wk in 1994 dollars.
> 
> $400/day is only equivalent to what $50K a year could buy you 20 years ago.



and ur buddy Obama appoints a mass inflationist to head the federal reserve solely to devalue the dollar and boost asset prices for the rich while killing the middle class and poor cuz she thinks prices of goods aren't high enough. what a nice guy.....


----------



## Big Puppy (Nov 27, 2014)

LAM said:


> If you think $400/wk is good money you've obviously never made anything close a decent income, it's floor scraps especially since the purchasing power of the U.S declines by 25% every decade.  So $400/wk today has the same purchasing power as $200/wk in 1994 dollars.
> 
> $400/day is only equivalent to what $50K a year could buy you 20 years ago.



It's not good money. But on the other hand it's excellent money. You don't even have to work for it. You fill out a couple papers and like magic, it comes in the mail. That's good money. Name any other job that doesn't make you work and gives you $400/ week.


----------



## sneedham (Nov 27, 2014)

Swiper said:


> and ur buddy Obama appoints a mass inflationist to head the federal reserve solely to devalue the dollar and boost asset prices for the rich while killing the middle class and poor cuz she thinks prices of goods aren't high enough. what a nice guy.....


Agreed!!!!


----------



## LAM (Dec 1, 2014)

Swiper said:


> and ur buddy Obama appoints a mass inflationist to head the federal reserve solely to devalue the dollar and boost asset prices for the rich while killing the middle class and poor cuz she thinks prices of goods aren't high enough. what a nice guy.....



Yea that started 45+ years ago when Paul Volcker was chairman of the FED and they adopted the monetary theory of Milton Friedman where the monetary base was doubled every decade to inflate away Vietnam war debts.

And if you actually knew anything about economics you would understand why the same approach was used for both the Japanese asset bubble burst in 1992 and in the U.S starting in 2009 but you don't.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/


----------



## LAM (Dec 1, 2014)

You can start with a liquidity trap when interest rates are already low and/or negative


----------



## Swiper (Dec 1, 2014)

LAM said:


> You can start with a liquidity trap when interest rates are already low and/or negative



explain how this is going to play out.  

soon we'll be 20 trillion in debt. our current payment on the interest of the national debt is about 350 billion a year with zero percent interest rates. when rates rise to a historically low rate of 5% the interest Payment on it will be 1 trillion a year. we only take in just over 2 trillion a year.


----------



## LAM (Dec 1, 2014)

Swiper said:


> explain how this is going to play out.
> 
> soon we'll be 20 trillion in debt. our current payment on the interest of the national debt is about 350 billion a year with zero percent interest rates. when rates rise to a historically low rate of 5% the interest Payment on it will be 1 trillion a year. we only take in just over 2 trillion a year.



As I've said before the Club of Rome has projected that the U.S economy will totally collapse by the 2050's.  And it's going to be from the combination of low and stagnate wages which contribute to all that debt your talking about along with the trade deficit which also contribute to that debt and health care which will amount for about 35% of US GDP come the 2030's due to the lack of meaningful health care reform and of course decades of U.S imperialism all of which was put on credit.

There isn't an honest economist alive that claims the U.S economy is sustainable but they also won't talk about what the math clearly shows will occur.  There is no economic homeostasis when you analyze the mathematics that drives U.S economy there can be only one end result it's not a matter of if but of when.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 2, 2014)

*Total US Debt Rises Over $18 Trillion; Up 70% Under Barack Obama*


Last week, total US debt was a meager $17,963,753,617,957.26. Two days later, as updated today, on Black Friday, total outstanding US public debt just hit a new historic level which probably would be better associated with a red color: as of the last work day of November, total US public debt just surpassed $18 trillion for the first time, or $18,005,549,328,561.45 to be precise, of which debt held by the public rose to $12,922,681,725,432.94, an increase of $32 billion in one day

It also means that total US debt to nominal GDP as of Sept 30, which was $17.555 trillion, is now 103%. Keep in mind this GDP number was artificially increased by about half a trillion dollars a year ago thanks to the "benefit" of R&D and intangibles. Without said definitional change, debt/GDP would now be about 106%.
*It also means that total US debt has increased by 70% under Obama, from $10.625 trillion on January 21, 2009 to $18.005 trillion most recently*.
And now we wait for the US to become Spain, and add the estimated "contribution" from hookers and blow to GDP, once again pushing the total debt/GDP ratio below the psychological 100% level.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-01/total-us-debt-rises-over-18-trillion


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 3, 2014)

Didn't G-dub double the debt?  So Obama is right on track.  Then the next pres will double it, then the next one after that will double it again.  Regardless of party, it won't be either party's fault, it will be the other party's fault.  Life in America, ain't it grand!


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 3, 2014)

Dale Mabry said:


> Didn't G-dub double the debt?  So Obama is right on track.  Then the next pres will double it, then the next one after that will double it again.  Regardless of party, it won't be either party's fault, it will be the other party's fault.  Life in America, ain't it grand!



It's the fault of the voters.  They keep voting either democrat or republican.  As long as either party is in power we will continue along this same path.  It's the same end, they just have different means.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 3, 2014)

Dale Mabry said:


> Didn't G-dub double the debt?  So Obama is right on track.  Then the next pres will double it, then the next one after that will double it again.  Regardless of party, it won't be either party's fault, it will be the other party's fault.  Life in America, ain't it grand!



under bush it increased 5 trillion. under Obama it will increase 10 trillion by the end of his term, which is double of what it increased under bush.


----------



## LAM (Dec 11, 2014)

Swiper said:


> under bush it increased 5 trillion. under Obama it will increase 10 trillion by the end of his term, which is double of what it increased under bush.



The increase under Bush was from legislation and with the exception of the $800B stimulus under Obama its been from lost revenue from the economic downturn while spending stayed at historic trends.


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W006RC1Q027SBEA


----------



## Swiper (Jan 4, 2015)




----------



## Swiper (Jan 4, 2015)




----------



## Zaphod (Jan 4, 2015)

Swiper said:


>



There's the conundrum:  Don't go to college and you're looked down upon, told to go to college to better yourself and get a better job, go in debt to get that education, then you can't get a job in your field of study.  Instead you only hear "go back and get a different degree, a more practical degree."  Or you can go to college, get your education, go in debt, only to not get a job in your field of study.  Often taking shit jobs just to survive.  In which case you're looked down upon, told to go back to college, get even further in debt, only to find you can't get a job in your field of study.  No matter what you do you're fucked.


----------



## Zaphod (Jan 4, 2015)

Swiper said:


>



I have yet to see any signs of a recovery.


----------



## Conceal30 (Jan 4, 2015)

Doublebase said:


> I saw one of my friends out last night.  He has been laid off since November.  He said he gets 974$ every two weeks after taxes.  So basically 2,000$/month.  So he's eating a big steak dinner and told me he just bought a new four wheeler.  I started to get pissed off after hearing this.  Isn't that our federal tax money paying for that dinner and four wheeler?  How is it fair that he gets all that money every month and some people have to work 40/hours a week to make that?  And now they just extended the length of time you can collect from 6 months to 9 months.  He said he will be starting back working in April.  How nice would it be to work 6 months then have 6 months off and collect unemployment.  You could collect the money and then get another job on the side.  Unbelievable.  I would feel like a piece of shit if I were just collecting that money and not trying to find a job.  Although if I knew I were getting my job back in a few months then why try to find a job?  Its just that fact that my tax dollars are going towards this.  I can imagine how many people abuse this.



actually you pay for your unemployment yourself, its part of the taxes that are taken of your check when your working, and its based on your salary. He gets that much because he evidently makes good money when he works, and pays a lot of taxes. People who collect unemployment dont bother me, you can only get it if you work the majority of the time. its the people who have never had a job in their life and get free money every month that pisses me off.


----------



## Conceal30 (Jan 4, 2015)

Zaphod said:


> There's the conundrum:  Don't go to college and you're looked down upon, told to go to college to better yourself and get a better job, go in debt to get that education, then you can't get a job in your field of study.  Instead you only hear "go back and get a different degree, a more practical degree."  Or you can go to college, get your education, go in debt, only to not get a job in your field of study.  Often taking shit jobs just to survive.  In which case you're looked down upon, told to go back to college, get even further in debt, only to find you can't get a job in your field of study.  No matter what you do you're fucked.



I have a kid in college and 2 on the way. I have told them since day one, get an MBA or something medical like dr/nurse, or healthcare administration. or a law degree... anything else isnt worth the paper it printed on. the medical and legal field is constantly growing because the population is constantly growing, an MBA is universal. I have a friend who got 100k in debt getting a degree in psychology.... completely worthless


----------



## Bowden (Jan 5, 2015)

Financialization of the economy is resulting in income inequality, wage stagnation, a large increase in the working poor.
Rent seeking is now the name of the game.

The capital is trickling up to the top and staying there.
It may eventually lead to a collapse of the economy and the creation of a society that will resemble feudalism.

The elites have and still are financially engineering the financialization of the economy, the leverage of debt and other types of financial instruments and have people arguing over crap like legalization of illegal immigrants will lead to competition for jobs.

We have now been reduced to arguing over competition between Americans and legalized immigrants over service sector low wage working poor jobs with low or no benefits.
A level of compensation that qualifies someone for welfare.

All while the elites go their merry way, becoming very wealthy at our expense.


----------



## Swiper (Jan 5, 2015)

you can  thank the federal reserve and the politicians that makes all that happen.


----------



## LAM (Jan 8, 2015)

Swiper said:


> you can  thank the federal reserve and the politicians that makes all that happen.



The private sector bears just as much blame as do the politicians after all it's their lobbyists that pull the strings of politicians and write major pieces of legislation that benefit their bottom line.  Which ultimately comes down to the fact that money isn't value neutral and allowing private capital to be used in public elections could only result in a system of government that functions as it does in the U.S.  There is no transparency.

All of these issues were brought up hundreds of years ago by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx.


----------



## Swiper (Jan 11, 2015)




----------



## LAM (Jan 16, 2015)

Most of the jobs created in the service sector are of the low wage variety in food service, etc.  


With the velocity of the M2 money stock at a 55+ year low it's safe to say it's never going to get better.  Not with an economy being lead by non-productive financial speculation.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-17/the-recovery-and-the-speed-of-money


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2V/


The velocity has tanked since the tech sector bubble started to peak in 1997 and the capital gains rates were changed in the Tax Payer Relief Act of 1997.  Even during all those years of false prosperity created by lax lending and easy money for housing it didn't pick up.


----------



## Gregzs (Jan 31, 2015)

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7938229/obama-economic-plan-chart

One chart that explains Obama?s new economic plan

President Barack Obama's 2015 State of the Union was different than all his other State of the Unions. Obama, for the first time, offered an economic plan that wasn't really about unemployment. And if you want to know why, look at the chart above.

The graph comes from the Economic Policy Institute, and it outlines one of the stranger facets of the recovery. Unemployment has fallen to normal levels ? 5.6 percent unemployment was routine in, say, 1995, a year that few remember as some sort of labor market hellscape. But the fall in unemployment isn't just driven by people getting jobs. It's also driven by workers disappearing from the labor market.

The unemployment rate doesn't include everyone without a job. It only counts people who don't have a job and have looked for a new one in the last four weeks. If you don't have a job and, for whatever reason, haven't looked for a new one in the last four weeks, you're not counted as unemployed. And that's a big part of what's brought the unemployment rate down: millions of workers who lost their jobs have stopped looking for new ones.

The measure you want to track here is "labor-force participation": the percentage of the adult population (excluding people in the military, prisons, mental hospitals, and nursing homes) that's either working or looking for work. When Obama took office, it was 65.7 percent. In December, it was 62.7 percent. That's a sharp drop.

There are good reasons for the participation rate to fall. Retirement, for example, reduces labor-force participation, and that's fine ? we don't want people to have to work until the day they die. And with the Baby Boomers hitting retirement age, we knew that labor-force participation was going to fall during Obama's presidency ? much as it fell during George W. Bush's presidency.

But there are bad reasons for people to be leaving the labor force, too. Being unable to find a job for months on end, despite sending out hundreds of resumes, is a bad reason. Being unable to find a job that pays enough for child care and your bus commute is a bad reason. We should worry about people who drop out of the labor force for those reasons just like we worry about the unemployed.

So to get a solid picture of the labor market right now, you have to do more than look at the unemployment rate. You have to do more than look at the labor-force participation rate, too. You also have to make a judgment about how much of the participation drop comes from demographic factors like aging, and how much is unemployment or underemployment in disguise.

The White House's Council of Economic Advisers took a go at this last summer: they concluded that roughly half the fall in labor force participation was to be expected, and the other half was partly "a cyclical decline in line with historical patterns in previous recessions" and partly "other factors, which may include trends that pre-date the Great Recession and consequences of the unique severity of the Great Recession."

The folks at the Economic Policy Institute also came up with a clever way to do try to tease out the numbers. They unearthed a Bureau of Labor Statistic paper from 2007 ? so, from before the recession ? called "Labor Force Projections to 2016: More Workers in Their Golden Years". The study included a projection of labor-force participation until, well, 2016. Obviously, in 2007, the BLS didn't know we were about to face the biggest recession in 80 years. This makes their predictions a good proxy for what would have happened to labor force participation without the downturn. EPI compared the BLS predictions to the actual numbers, figuring the difference is attributable to the recession.

Like any projection, the BLS paper might have been wrong. Perhaps labor force participation was always going to fall faster than the BLS thought. But if you take it as a benchmark, the results are devastating: it shows six million workers missing from the labor force. If they were all actively looking for jobs today, the unemployment rate would be 9.1 percent ? and no one would be talking about a recovery.

A complicated problem

Unemployment is a straightforward problem: it's people who want jobs but can't find them. Labor force participation is more complicated. Some of those six million missing workers are people who want jobs and have been so thoroughly discouraged trying to find them that they've given up. Some are students in college or grad school. Some are people who can't find a job that pays enough to offset the costs of transportation and child care. Some are members of families that got used to having only one income during the recession and now find it hard to go back.

No one ? including the Obama administration ? doubts that a big part of the problem here is too few jobs. But now that the economy is beginning to add jobs at a rapid clip, the White House is turning to the other side of the problem: many of the jobs on offer don't pay much, and certainly not enough to pull people back into the labor force. And this, in turn, is part of a longer-term problem in the economy: lower-skill workers haven't gotten a real raise in decades.

If you read the White House's new economic proposals closely, you see them trying to do two things: make jobs pay more by raising the minimum wage and offering various tax credits to workers, and make workers more valuable to employers by making it cheaper for them to go to college. This isn't an agenda that directly tries to create jobs so much as it's an agenda that tries to make the jobs that already exist more valuable to workers, and the workers that already exist more valuable to employers.

Solving this problem matters, and not just for the affected workers. This week, the Congressional Budget Office projected that deficits were going to grow faster than expected because the economy was going to grow more slowly than expected. And part of the reason they think America is going to grow more slowly in the coming years is fewer people are in the workforce.

"This is a very, very big deal," says Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a former White House economist. "Maybe the biggest deal. It?s not just that we want people to get back into the job market because it would improve their living standards. It?s also because the economy depends on it."


----------



## Bowden (Feb 1, 2015)

The above post illustrates what has happened to capitalism and the impacts to labor force participation.
The capital is all trickling up to the top through capital gains and dividends and it is not trickling down into wage increases except in a small number of job types.
Many people I know over 50 who lost their jobs during the great recession are living off of their 401ks until they hit social security age.

Who in the hell wants to go to work for under 10 an hour at a low wage no benefit services industry job if they can afford not to?


----------



## Swiper (Feb 2, 2015)

*SF Bookstore Survived 100% Rent Increase, Great Recession & Competition from Amazon and eBooks, but Not $15 Mininmum Wage*



The consequences of the clueless implementation  of attempts to muscle the economy (minimum wage edition). Very sad.


From the website of Borderlands Books:Borderlands is closing.
In 18 years of business, Borderlands has faced a number of challenges. The first and clearest was in 2000, when our landlord increased our rent by 100% and we had to move to our current location on Valencia Street. The steady movement towards online shopping, mostly with Amazon, has taken a steady toll on bookstores throughout the world and Borderlands was no exception. After that and related to it, has been the shift towards ebooks and electronic reading devices. And finally the Great Recession of 2009 hit us very hard, especially since we had just opened a new aspect to the business in the form of our cafe.
*But, through all those challenges, we?ve managed to find a way forward and 2014 was the best year we?ve ever had*. Overall, Borderlands has managed to defeat every problem that has come our way. At the beginning of 2014, the future of the business looked, if not rosy, at least stable and very positive. We were not in debt, sales were meeting expenses and even allowing a small profit, and, perhaps most importantly, the staff and procedures at both the bookstore and the cafe were well established and working smoothly.
So it fills us with sorrow and horror to say that we will be closing very soon.
In November, San Francisco voters overwhelmingly passed a measure that will increase the minimum wage within the city to $15 per hour by 2018. Although all of us at Borderlands support the concept of a living wage in principal and we believe that it?s possible that the new law will be good for San Francisco ? *Borderlands Books as it exists is not a financially viable business if subject to that minimum wage. Consequently we will be closing our doors no later than March 31st.*
Many businesses can make adjustments to allow for increased wages. The cafe side of Borderlands, for example, should have no difficulty at all. Viability is simply a matter of increasing prices. And, since all the other cafes in the city will be under the same pressure, all the prices will float upwards. *But books are a special case because the price is set by the publisher and printed on the book. Furthermore, for years part of the challenge for brick-and-mortar bookstores is that companies like Amazon.com have made it difficult to get people to pay retail prices. So it is inconceivable to adjust our prices upwards to cover increased wages.*
The change in minimum wage will mean our payroll will increase roughly 39%. That increase will in turn bring up our total operating expenses by 18%. To make up for that expense, we would need to increase our sales by a minimum of 20%. We do not believe that is a realistic possibility for a bookstore in San Francisco at this time.
The other obvious alternative to increasing sales would be to decrease expenses. The only way to accomplish the amount of savings needed would be to reduce our staff to: the current management (Alan Beatts and Jude Feldman), and one other part-time employee. Alan would need to take over most of Jude?s administrative responsibilities and Jude would work the counter five to six days per week. Taking all those steps would allow management to increase their work hours by 50-75% while continuing to make roughly the same modest amount that they make now (by way of example, Alan?s salary was $28,000 last year). That?s not an option for obvious reasons and for at least one less obvious one ? at the planned minimum wage in 2018, either of them could earn more than their current salary working only 40 hours per week at a much less demanding job that paid minimum wage.
Although the major effects of the increasing minimum wage won?t be felt for a while, we?ve chosen to close now instead of waiting for two reasons. First, the minimum wage has already increased from $10.74 per hour to $11.05 (as of January 1st) and it will increase again on May 1 to $12.25. Continuing to pay the higher wage without any corresponding increase in income will expend the store?s cash assets. In essence, the store will have less money (or inventory) six months from now, so closing sooner rather than later makes better business sense. But more importantly, keeping up our morale and continuing to serve our customers while knowing that we are going to close has been very painful for all of us over the past three months. Continuing to do so for even longer would be horrible. Far better to close at a time of our choosing, keep everyone?s sorrow to a minimum, and then get on with our lives
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/02/sf-bookstore-survived-100-rent-increase.html
​


----------



## LAM (Feb 3, 2015)

Swiper said:


> The consequences of the clueless implementation  of attempts to muscle the economy (minimum wage edition). Very sad.



Out of 196 countries in the world do you know how many have a sustainable economic growth model with a large middle class that is a natural function of any economic system or the markets?  zero...

A large middle class is created via policy and part of that policy is setting a wage floor.  Countries that do not have a minimum wage AND have sustainable wage lead economic growth are covered by national collective bargaining agreements.

If you ever bothered to read any of the works of Adam Smith you would understand how the majority of labor does not naturally share in the prosperity that accompanies economic developments over time.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 3, 2015)

lam, if u understood how the minimum wage destroys jobs and has nothing to do in building a middle class you'd get a gold star in economics 101.


----------



## LAM (Feb 4, 2015)

Swiper said:


> lam, if u understood how the minimum wage destroys jobs and has nothing to do in building a middle class you'd get a gold star in economics 101.



my god your daft, labor market equilibrium in an industrialized economy is fantasy it does not occur in reality.  The deadweight loss attributed to the effects of a mandated wage floor are unavoidable as with all economic policy there is either a negative effect on the supply or demand side of the equation.  In the presence of decreasing returns to labor, price setting implies an increase in the price given the wage as employment increases.  Put another way, it implies a negative relation between employment and the real wage|just like labor demand. Given the price level, wage setting implies higher nominal wages if unemployment is low|equivalently if employment is high. In another way, it implies a positive relation between the real wage and employment, just like labor supply.  Adam Smith stated that the "invisible hand" would guide markets to equilibrium.  That does not only not hold true in the face of globalization and in the shift from a manufacturing based to service based economy in a country with a very large labor force but it also doesn't account for the fact that the equilibrium wage is not naturally a living wage.  Low wages cause not only weak employment but they are insufficient to contribute to any measurable amount of economic activity.

The belief that the removal of the wage floor would lead to "full employment" is pure delusion and is not backed by empirical data or any real world case scenario.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 4, 2015)

lam it's simple economics.  when something cost more you'll have less of it. when labor cost more you'll have less labor.   companies buy your labor, when your labor costs more they buy less of it.  then you also have supply and demand.  the more unemployed the more labor available the less it costs to buy.


----------



## LAM (Feb 4, 2015)

Swiper said:


> lam it's simple economics.  when something cost more you'll have less of it. when labor cost more you'll have less labor.   companies buy your labor, when your labor costs more they buy less of it.  then you also have supply and demand.  the more unemployed the more labor available the less it costs to buy.



Actually there's nothing simple about it your trying to apply neo-classical theory and it's preoccupation with perfect competition in labor markets.  Labor markets are naturally imperfect and the assumption that labor markets function exactly the same as commodity markets is erroneous at best.  Neo-classical theory neglects to take into account business fluctuations, inflation, deflation or the effects of rapidly raising prices (such as health care costs increasing at double the rate of the CPI, etc.).  It also neglects to factor in the effects of profit maximization or the effects of technology.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 4, 2015)

Swiper said:


> lam it's simple economics.  when something cost more you'll have less of it. when labor cost more you'll have less labor.   companies buy your labor, when your labor costs more they buy less of it.  then you also have supply and demand.  the more unemployed the more labor available the less it costs to buy.



If only economics was indeed simple.  If it were economic theory would be cut and dried, it would no longer be theory but fact.  You put ten economists into a room and they'll talk about ten different economic theories and how ten of them are right and nine are wrong.


----------



## SeattlesBest (Feb 4, 2015)

Shit the way I see it is. At least you know the guy.. Think of it this way. Your taxes are going to get stolen from you anyway. At least it's your Buddy's having a good time on your dime. Not some crack head.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 7, 2015)

*Only 44% Of U.S. Adults Are Employed For 30-Or-More Hours Per Week*

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-06/only-44-us-adults-are-employed-30-or-more-hours-week


----------



## Swiper (Feb 7, 2015)

LAM said:


> Out of 196 countries in the world do you know how many have a sustainable economic growth model with a large middle class that is a natural function of any economic system or the markets?  zero...
> 
> A large middle class is created via policy and part of that policy is setting a wage floor.  Countries that do not have a minimum wage AND have sustainable wage lead economic growth are covered by national collective bargaining agreements.
> 
> If you ever bothered to read any of the works of Adam Smith you would understand how the majority of labor does not naturally share in the prosperity that accompanies economic developments over time.



tell that to all the people that are losing their jobs because of the minimum wage increase.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 7, 2015)

*When Obama Wasn't in Office, Krugman Slammed the Minimum Wage*



In 1998, Krugman reviewed a book that supported the living wage, titled ?The Living Wage: Building a Fair Economy.? But Krugman slammed the idea: ?The living wage movement is simply a move to raise minimum wages through local action. So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment.?
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/02/when-obama-wasnt-in-office-krugman.html


----------



## Bowden (Feb 7, 2015)

Swiper said:


> *Only 44% Of U.S. Adults Are Employed For 30-Or-More Hours Per Week*
> 
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-06/only-44-us-adults-are-employed-30-or-more-hours-week



Have you ever noticed, that there something ignored by most conservative writers and media like CNBC related to employment issues, worker hours and the increasing use of part time labor working under thirty a hours a week, with low or no benefits?

WalMart, allocates 15 billion dollars of cash for buying back stock.
That cash allocation stock buyback level is only possible if they arbitrage labor and intentionally impoverish employees by paying them a low wage and restricting their hours to under 30 a week.

This is trickle up economics in play and is a form of corporate welfare.

You, I and every other taxpayer is subsidizing this low wage arbitrage model that trickles up capital to the corporate investor and owner economic classes through corporate stock buybacks and dividend payouts to investors  by our payroll taxes that fund big government socialist welfare programs used by lthe ow wage employees that qualify for welfare due to low compensations.

The billionaire Waltons that own Walmart and own the majority of WalMart shares are the biggest beneficiaries of this type of corporate welfare.


----------



## Bowden (Feb 7, 2015)

Even if the ACA 30 hour a week mandate for health care insurance provision was removed, large businesses like WalMart are probably not going to hire more employees at over 30 hours a week if that reduces their operating margin spreads and free cash after operating expenses to the point that they do not have as much free cash available to allocate to buying back stock and paying out dividends.

As the company owners that own the majority of stock shares benefit the most from stock buybacks and dividend payouts.


----------



## LAM (Feb 7, 2015)

Swiper said:


> tell that to all the people that are losing their jobs because of the minimum wage increase.



How does removing the wage floor increase labors share of the national income?

Your belief in removing the wage floor and having a 100% labor participation rate is pure delusion.  As wages were pushed down just as many people would leave the workforce as would join.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 7, 2015)

LAM said:


> How does removing the wage floor increase labors share of the national income?
> 
> Your belief in removing the wage floor and having a 100% labor participation rate is pure delusion.  As wages were pushed down just as many people would leave the workforce as would join.



wtf?   what post are you reading? when did I ever say we'd have 100% labor participation rate?    

removing the minimum wage will make it legal for unskilled people to start at an entry level job.  companies will hire more people and not close their businesses making them unemployed like in my previous post about the bookstore.


----------



## LAM (Feb 7, 2015)

By saying there should be no minimum your further devaluing abstract labor which already occurs via changes in technology and financialization, essentially giving more power to capital which is pretty stupid for someone that derives 100% of their income from labor.  Abstract labor value is a social phenomenon which is why we see things like sports athletes making millions of dollars a year but people rationalize this by saying well the owners make so much they are paying the players "what they deserve" and the players have agents that negotiate contracts for them to get them what they think the are "worth".  Following this logic then do the people that work at the Genius Bar at the Apple Store not also deserve to be making much higher wages because of the annual profits made by Apple, but they make crappy wages and yet nobody bitches about that.

You right wingers bitch and complain about people in poverty then want to pay people at the bottom even less wages that's freaking brilliant.


----------



## LAM (Feb 7, 2015)

Swiper said:


> wtf?   what post are you reading? when did I ever say we'd have 100% labor participation rate?
> 
> removing the minimum wage will make it legal for unskilled people to start at an entry level job.  companies will hire more people and not close their businesses making them unemployed like in my previous post about the bookstore.



Full employment is the typically argument for people that wrongly apply the neo-classical approach to labor value as being the same as commodity value which they are not.  Find a country with no minimum wage and no national collective bargaining agreement and you find that a large population of the workforce receives low wages.  Currently the U.S already has the largest percentage of low paid workers in the OECD.

OECD employment outlook 2014 page 287
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fglobal.fki.or.kr%2FCommon%2FDownload.aspx%3Fid%3Daaf15374-dffa-4f5b-a54c-000bf7e9b67b&ei=F8TWVPKaG4aggwT55oPIDA&usg=AFQjCNFw0GVdIp9VzSNDOit0Us6nqyZb9Q&sig2=m5YscfGyq88QwKvxdrIEjQ&bvm=bv.85464276,d.eXY&cad=rja


----------



## Bowden (Feb 8, 2015)

LAM said:


> By saying there should be no minimum your further devaluing abstract labor which already occurs via changes in technology and financialization, essentially giving more power to capital which is pretty stupid for someone that derives 100% of their income from labor.  Abstract labor value is a social phenomenon which is why we see things like sports athletes making millions of dollars a year but people rationalize this by saying well the owners make so much they are paying the players "what they deserve" and the players have agents that negotiate contracts for them to get them what they think the are "worth".  Following this logic then do the people that work at the Genius Bar at the Apple Store not also deserve to be making much higher wages because of the annual profits made by Apple, but they make crappy wages and yet nobody bitches about that.
> 
> You right wingers bitch and complain about people in poverty then want to pay people at the bottom even less wages that's freaking brilliant.



The only time that many people who are in upper economic classes that gain wealth from capital gains and dividends as passive income and demand lower costs for goods and services really care about people in poverty, is when they cost them something.

If anyone ever attributes the problem of people in poverty being due to low wage arbitrage and suggests that in example WalMart should apply some of the 15 billion in cash they allocate for stock buybacks to paying their employees enough to disqualify them from  welfare, the right wingers and others who are in upper economic classes that reap capital gains and dividends as passive income and benefit from low cost goods and services start raising hell that their wealth creation and benefits from the low wage arbitrage that places workers in the working poor impoverished economic class may be reduced.

The upper economic classes require a impoverished working poor in poverty to maintain their standard of living,their wealth creation from passive income and lower product and services costs made possible from low wage arbitraged workers. 
Be it Walmart workers, grocery store clerks, convenience store clerks or any other working poor impoverished service industry worker that serves them.


----------



## Bowden (Feb 8, 2015)

Swiper said:


> wtf?   what post are you reading? when did I ever say we'd have 100% labor participation rate?
> 
> removing the minimum wage will make it legal for unskilled people to start at an entry level job.  companies will hire more people and not close their businesses making them unemployed like in my previous post about the bookstore.



It does someone no good to be employed, if the compensation from their employment does not adequately compensate for the labor effort the job requires and the compensation is not adequate to keep an employee out of poverty.
There is no financial incentive for someone to work for pay less than the transportation costs for them to go to a job everyday, pay rent, buy groceries, pay utilities bills ect.

Companies being allowed to reduce someones pay to a level that places them in abject poverty, in-order to achieve maximum profit and increase the trickle up of capital to the upper economic classes, is not the solution.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 8, 2015)

Bowden said:


> It does someone no good to be employed, if the compensation from their employment does not adequately compensate for the labor effort the job requires and the compensation is not adequate to keep an employee out of poverty.
> There is no financial incentive for someone to work for pay less than the transportation costs for them to go to a job everyday, pay rent, buy groceries, pay utilities bills ect.
> 
> Companies being allowed to reduce someones pay to a level that places them in abject poverty, in-order to achieve maximum profit and increase the trickle up of capital to the upper economic classes, is not the solution.



it's impossible to hire someone who's pay exceeds his or hers productivity.  that's the reason why the SF bookstore closed.  I guess in the liberals mind no job is better that a job that pays what their productivity is worth.


----------



## LAM (Feb 8, 2015)

Swiper said:


> it's impossible to hire someone who's pay exceeds his or hers productivity.  that's the reason why the SF bookstore closed.  I guess in the liberals mind no job is better that a job that pays what their productivity is worth.



How do you measure labor productivity in a non-production economy?  We have a post-industrial economy where very little is actually made in the U.S.

You need to stop living in the past.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 8, 2015)

LAM said:


> How do you measure labor productivity in a non-production economy?  We have a post-industrial economy where very little is actually made in the U.S.
> 
> You need to stop living in the past.




LOL for real?

Ever hear of flipping burgers & cooking french fries? how many burgers do you have to flip and sell to make your wage plus all the other costs it take to have an employee, ie workers compensation, taxes ect...


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 8, 2015)

Swiper said:


> removing the minimum wage will make it legal for unskilled people to start at an entry level job.



Please explain this claim.  It is already legal for unskilled people to start at an entry level job.


----------



## LAM (Feb 8, 2015)

Swiper said:


> LOL for real?
> 
> Ever hear of flipping burgers & cooking french fries? how many burgers do you have to flip and sell to make your wage plus all the other costs it take to have an employee, ie workers compensation, taxes ect...



They could reduce their profit margins as is done in many other countries in the OECD but "society" in the U.S does not view that as a viable option so the state then has to compensate the worker for his low wages because our "society" as whole is extremely fragmented there is no solidarity.  Neo-liberalism has also increased the number of low wage jobs while simultaneously diminishing collective bargaining.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/fas...t-of-low-wage-jobs-in-the-fast-food-industry/


You guys are the ones with kids not me, so in the long run none of this effects my life one bit but you might want to think about what kind of wages your children will be earning 30 years from now.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 8, 2015)

Zaphod said:


> Please explain this claim.  It is already legal for unskilled people to start at an entry level job.



not if the libtards get their way with the minimum wage.   the higher the wages go the more employers are gonna look for experienced workers putting the younger first time workers out of a job


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 8, 2015)

Swiper said:


> not if the libtards get their way with the minimum wage.   the higher the wages go the more employers are gonna look for experienced workers putting the younger first time workers out of a job



But it isn't illegal to hire them, nor will it be illegal to hire them.  It's just illegal to pay them below a certain wage.  Entertainers and athletes have agents, executives have attorneys, friends in the right places, and connections to get them their astronomical pay yet the average Joe is supposed to take whatever pittance he can get?


----------



## Swiper (Feb 9, 2015)

*SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2015*

*The Numbers Behind the San Francisco Bookstore that Will Close Because of a Climbing Minimum Wage*



In a new essay, _The New Yorker, _in Hamlet-like fashion, can't quite make up its mind as to whether the minimum wage is good or bad, despite the essay being about the San Francisco  bookstore that is closing because of the upcoming minimum wage hikes.

Nevertheless, the piece does provide some solid background on the financial situation of  Borderlands, the San Francisco bookstore that is closing:

[Alan Beatts owner of Borderlands] employs five people beside himself, only one of whom works full time, and they all get paid minimum wage, or a couple of cents more; last year, that amounted to less than eleven dollars an hour. His own wages are slightly higher?he made twenty-eight thousand dollars last year, which, accounting for a forty-hour work week and no vacation time, comes to about thirteen dollars an hour. (?If people think I?m lighting hundred-dollar cigars with hundred-dollar bills back in the office, it?s like, that?s not happening,? he said, noting that he usually works fifty or sixty hours a week.) Overall, raising wages to fifteen dollars an hour would increase the store?s operating expenses by nearly twenty per cent. In 2013, Borderlands turned a profit of about three thousand dollars; the higher expenses would mean a loss of about twenty-five thousand dollars. 
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/02/the-numbers-behind-san-francisco.html​


----------



## LAM (Feb 9, 2015)

Swiper said:


> not if the libtards get their way with the minimum wage.   the higher the wages go the more employers are gonna look for experienced workers putting the younger first time workers out of a job



Seriously your about a stupid fuck, with no wage floor all labor wages that have already been de-valued by technology and financialization will be pushed further downward as the labor force participation rate falls.  At no point in U.S history has there been a full rate of employment for young and first time workers.  

Removing the wage floor might increase the employment rate but it pushes wages down which means labors share of the national income would decrease ever more which has a long run negative effect on wealth creation and the ability for the working class to consume which further decreases aggregate demand and increases unemployment.

The percentage of eligible young workers in the U.S is historically high right now due to a 2nd baby boom that occurred in the late 1970's.

This fantasy world that you believe in where all young first time workers can be employed has never existed especially not in a country with an extremely large population.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 9, 2015)

LAM said:


> Seriously your about a stupid fuck, with no wage floor all labor wages that have already been de-valued by technology and financialization will be pushed further downward as the labor force participation rate falls.  At no point in U.S history has there been a full rate of employment for young and first time workers.
> 
> Removing the wage floor might increase the employment rate but it pushes wages down which means labors share of the national income would decrease ever more which has a long run negative effect on wealth creation and the ability for the working class to consume which further decreases aggregate demand and increases unemployment.
> 
> ...



hey! why don''t you grow the fuck up and stop the person attacks? wtf is your problem?  apologize or i'm putting you on ignore and i'll never respond to you.


----------



## LAM (Feb 9, 2015)

Swiper said:


> hey! why don''t you grow the fuck up and stop the person attacks? wtf is your problem?  apologize or i'm putting you on ignore and i'll never respond to you.



Using the word libtard is not a personal attack on those of us that are far to intelligent to vote for republicans?


----------



## Swiper (Feb 9, 2015)

Singapore, 1.9% unemployment with *NO min wage*. 

Singapore, One of the highest incomes per capita in the world


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 10, 2015)

LAM is a dumbass obamazombie


----------



## Glycomann (Feb 11, 2015)

Swiper said:


> Singapore, 1.9% unemployment with *NO min wage*.
> 
> Singapore, One of the highest incomes per capita in the world



Singapore is an island nation of 5 million uniquely placed in South east Asia for trade advantages and is a major trade hub. It is a financial center and is highly industrialized. It also has one of the highest income inequalities among developed countries, being slightly better than the U.S. You seem to cherish income inequity so this is a plus for you. Please outline how you would "Singaporeize" the U.S. economy. You can start by describing how to squeeze our area to 220 sq ft and moving our newly compressed mass between Viet Nam and Australia. Maybe this is a great idea for a conservative since the squeezing process will push the liberals in the coastal states into the ocean along with all the illegal and legal aliens.


----------



## Bowden (Feb 11, 2015)

Swiper said:


> Singapore, 1.9% unemployment with *NO min wage*.
> 
> Singapore, One of the highest incomes per capita in the world



http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking_news_detail.asp?id=45106

Singapore to set minimum wages for cleaners, security guards
_(01-08 16:51)_

                  Singapore's government is going to introduce a  compulsory licensing scheme leading to mandatory basic wages for  cleaners and workers in security sector, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman  Shanmugaratnam said on Wednesday.

Nevertheless, the minister said that the moves are targeted approaches  to use the industry licensing schemes to raise wages in certain sectors  and that it is not a national minimum wage.

The scheme will make it mandatory for specified sectors to adopt a  progressive wage model with basic wage levels set in accordance with the  role of the employees, so as to raise wages progressively as workers'  productivity improves through skills upgrading and training.

All cleaning companies will come under the scheme in September, with the  entry-level pay for cleaners set at 1,000 Singapore dollars monthly.  This is about 20 percent higher than the current median basic wage for  cleaners.
Details for the security sector are still being worked out. --Xinhua


----------



## Bowden (Feb 11, 2015)

Swiper said:


> it's impossible to hire someone who's pay exceeds his or hers productivity.  that's the reason why the SF bookstore closed.  I guess in the liberals mind no job is better that a job that pays what their productivity is worth.



This has nothing to do with being a liberal or conservative.
What is the economic incentive  and motivation for someone to work at a wage that pays less than their living costs?

For some reason, companies that have a low wage staffing model expect maximum effort and high levels of productivity from their employees for low compensation.
Those companies may look at their employees as low skill or no skill easily discard-able tools of production.
You see this a lot in the retail sector, say in grocery stores.

When they do not get maximum effort and high levels of productivity from unmotivated employees, experience high rates of employee turnover,  and have customer complaints as to the level of customer service, they blame the employees, instead of admitting the root cause.
Their low wage compensations leading to unmotivated employees.

People demand low cost for goods and services, that demand requires a business to use low wage labor arbitrage to drive down employee wage compensation and benefit costs as far as possible and the result is as follows

Crappy compensation =  recruitment problems, crappy unmotivated employees = staffing instability issues and increased employee turnover =  leading to customer complaints as to poor customer service levels.

People that think that retail manual labor jobs that require someone to bust their ass should be compensated as low as possible just so they can buy what they want at a dirt cheap price, should not complain about the quality of employee and the level of customer service in a business.
Employee wage compensation and benefit levels and customer service and satisfaction levels are related to each other.

You get, what you are willing to pay for.
Be it quality of a product or quality of employee.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 11, 2015)

Glycomann said:


> Singapore is an island nation of 5 million uniquely placed in South east Asia for trade advantages and is a major trade hub. It is a financial center and is highly industrialized. It also has one of the highest income inequalities among developed countries, being slightly better than the U.S. You seem to cherish income inequity so this is a plus for you. Please outline how you would "Singaporeize" the U.S. economy. You can start by describing how to squeeze our area to 220 sq ft and moving our newly compressed mass between Viet Nam and Australia. Maybe this is a great idea for a conservative since the squeezing process will push the liberals in the coastal states into the ocean along with all the illegal and legal aliens.




LOL.

 there's no hope for the US economy. If we had capitalism then we'd have a change.


----------



## Bowden (Feb 11, 2015)

It is rational for someone to promote a low wage working poor worker class, if they in some way financially benefit from it as a customer of that business, a business owner, or an investor in that business.
They support a low wage arbitrage business model that cuts employee costs to the bone resulting in a financial benefit for them.
Even if it means the employees of that business due to low wages and low or no benefits fall into a working poor economic class and into poverty.

It is irrational for someone to want to work at a job that requires a great deal of physical effort for a wage that pays well below what it costs for them to survive.
I am not talking about someone that spends money on what they may want like a large screen tv, an iphone or other expensive stuff they do not need to survive.
I am talking about someone that works for a living to provide the survival money they need to pay rent, utilities, buy food and transportation costs to go to work.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 11, 2015)

Bowden said:


> http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking_news_detail.asp?id=45106
> 
> Singapore to set minimum wages for cleaners, security guards
> _(01-08 16:51)_
> ...



I bet once the wages rise the unemployment rate goes up as well


----------



## Bowden (Feb 11, 2015)

Swiper said:


> I bet once the wages rise the unemployment rate goes up as well



Specific to Singapore, I bet that you are wrong.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 11, 2015)

Bowden said:


> This has nothing to do with being a liberal or conservative.
> What is the economic incentive  and motivation for someone to work at a wage that pays less than their living costs?
> 
> For some reason, companies that have a low wage staffing model expect maximum effort and high levels of productivity from their employees for low compensation.
> ...




Since when has a minimum wage job meant to be a career and to live off of?  Are you trying to completely abolish the teen and first time job seekers out of the market?


----------



## Swiper (Feb 11, 2015)

Bowden said:


> It is rational for someone to promote a low wage working poor worker class, if they in some way financially benefit from it as a customer of that business, a business owner, or an investor in that business.
> They support a low wage arbitrage business model that cuts employee costs to the bone resulting in a financial benefit for them.
> Even if it means the employees of that business due to low wages and low or no benefits fall into a working poor economic class and into poverty.
> 
> ...



As long as people are willing to take the job its on them. If no one wants the job then the company would have no option but to raise the wage.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 11, 2015)

*Obamanomics' Fatal Flaw: Minimum Wage-Hiking States Are Seeing Slower Job Growth*





Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/17/2014 12:54 -0400


Who could have seen this coming? While facts are awkward things - especially in the face of populist policies - the data shows that *retail trade employment growth since the start of the year is notably slower for 'minimum-wage-hiking' states than 'non-minimum-wage-hiking' states*.
 




_As ValueWalk's Roger Thomas explains,_



*Seventeen states increased their minimum wages in 2014. Most of the changes happened early in the year.*

*It?s still quite early on evaluating how large the adverse employment effects will be, but it looks like the effects are starting to show up in the retail trade employment numbers.* As a note on why retail trade, the effects would likely show up in retail trade before they show up in other industries because retail trade employs a large proportion of the minimum wage workers.

*Here?s the early evidence.*



The figure shows the growth in retail trade by state since the start of the calendar year according to whether or not a state imposed new higher minimum wage rates.

*On the left hand side are states that left things as is, meaning these states did not impose any new minimum wage rates.*

*On the right had side are states that imposed new minimum wage rates.*

The figure that matters here is the difference in the average employment growth rate. *In states that left business as is, employment growth in the retail trade industry is up 0.72%.*

In contrast, *states that imposed higher minimum wage rates saw retail trade employment growth of only 0.43%.*

Although it?s still too early to say the results are statistically valid, one could likely assume further analysis will find that some or most of the difference is due to higher minimum wage rates.​​http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...ge-hiking-states-are-seeing-slower-job-growth


----------



## Swiper (Feb 11, 2015)

*The Minimum Wage Law*

JANUARY 17, 2014Walter Block
The minimum wage on its face is an unemployment law, not an employment law. It does not compel anyone to hire anyone else. It only stipulates who CANNOT legally be employed: no one may be hired for less than the amount stipulated by law. If the minimum wage law is set at $10 per hour, the law does not require any employer to hire any employee at that wage level. It only FORBIDS employment contracts set at $9.99 or below. This is not a matter of empirical evidence, not that there can be any such thing in proper, e.g., Austrian economics; this conclusion is a matter of pure logic. We repeat: the minimum wage on its face is an unemployment law, not an employment law.
What about empirical studies (economic history, for praxeological economists)? Here, economists disagree. Some say there will be no unemployment effects whatsoever. That is, a person with a productivity level of $6 per hour will still be hired and paid $10 per hour, even though any such firm that does so will lose $4 per hour. Such ?economists? are in a distinct minority. Other dismal scientists opine there will be very slight unemployment effect; some few unskilled workers will lose their jobs or not attain them in the first place; but a large number will retain their jobs and be paid more. Then there is a third or majority view: most economists conclude that this law will boost unemployment for those with low productivity, and will only raise wages for them temporarily, until employers can substitute away from the factor of production (unskilled labor) now priced out of the market.
What is the Austrian take on all of this?
The praxeological view is that the minimum wage law will raise unemployment higher than it would otherwise be, in the absence of this law, other things equal, provided only that it is set above the level of productivity of at least one worker. This is an apodictic claim, not subject to refutation, falsification or testing. This claim is necessarily true, and yields knowledge about real world effects. Austrian economics is causal ? realist, unlike the economics of the mainstream logical positivists, who recognize no economic law, only hypotheses to be tested, and if not falsified, then provisionally accepted.
Some economists who have recently signed this open letter in support of the minimum wage law have published introductory and intermediate economics textbooks. In those publications, they take the usual position that minimum wage legislation unemploys laborers with low skills. Thus, their textbooks blatantly contradict the open letter they signed. I take great joy in listening to and reading their responses to this charge that they are contradicting themselves. Talk about talking without saying anything.
What of the ethics of the matter? Here, again, there can be no controversy. An employer and an employee agree to a wage contract of, say, $5 per hour. Both are considered criminals under this pernicious legislation. But it is a victimless ?crime? to pay someone $5 per hour for his labor services, and/or to receive such an amount of money for working. Both parties agreed to this contract! Our society is now in the process of legalizing other victimless crimes, such as those concerning prostitution, drugs, gambling, etc. Many people favor ?choice? when it comes to adult behavior without victims. The minimum wage law is a step backwards from these moves in a moral direction. And, yet, paradoxically, it is to a great degree precisely those people who advocate the legalization of these victimless crimes who are the staunchest supporters of the minimum wage law.
Posit that the ?moderate? economists were right. A few people will lose their jobs, but the overwhelming majority would either find or keep their employment slots, at higher compensation rates. Suppose I were to go to the inner city (which contains a disproportionate number of the unskilled), and did the following. I went to one in every 20 people I met, and, at the point of a gun, I relieved them of, oh, $10,000 (40 hours per week time 50 weeks multiplied by $5 per hour). Whereupon I turned to the other 19 out of 20 people and dispersed these stolen funds amongst them. If I did so, I would be promoting the precise effects that the moderate members of the economics profession who are supporters of minimum wage claim will occur. Namely, this law, they contend, they concede, will hurt very few but benefit the many. But how would my excursion into the inner city, and my wealth transfer, be considered by law? Of course, I would be considered a criminal, and very properly so.
For reasons we need not discuss right now, the productivity of whites is higher than that of blacks. It is for this reason that the unemployment of the latter is higher than that of the former, actually, as an empirical finding, about twice as high. For reasons we need not discuss right now, the productivity of middle aged workers is higher than that of young employees, who are just starting out. . It is for this reason that the unemployment of the latter is higher than that of the former, actually, as an empirical finding, about twice as high. It is for this reason that the unemployment rate of black teens is roughly quadruple that of whites of mature years. All this stems from the minimum wage law serving as a barrier to entry, a hurdle, and not a floor raising wages. Supporters of the minimum wage, who just LOVE statistics, tend to shy away from this revealing data.
Who are the beneficiaries of the minimum wage law? Cui bono? This will come as a shock to some people, but the people who gain the most from this legislation are skilled workers, typically organized into labor unions. When they demand a boost in their own wages, the immediate response of the employer is to want to substitute away from this suddenly more expensive factor of production, skilled labor, and into a substitute for it; that is unskilled labor. There is more than one way to skin the cat. The same number of widgets might be able to be produced with 100 skilled and 100 unskilled workers, as with, for example, 50 of the former and 200 of the latter. If there is any such thing as fixed proportions in manufacturing and production, it must be a great rarity. How best to fight such an eventuality from the point of the labor union? One way to do so is to castigate as scabs? (why this is not an example of ?hate speech? similar to the use of the ?N? or ?K? word is beyond me; well, not really) the unskilled laborers hired in response to the union?s demand for higher wages. But there are problems here. For one thing, these newly hired employees would be disproportionately minority group members. It really looks bad for liberals, ?progressives,? to be fighting this particular demographic. For another, these people can fight back. If you slash their tires, and hit them over the head with a baseball bat, they can reciprocate. No; this will not do. Organized labor has come up with an ingenious counterattack. Are you ready for this? Please take a seat, for you are now in danger of keeling right over. Yes: the minimum wage law; that is the solution to this quandary for organized labor. There is perhaps no better way to eliminate competition than to price it out of the market. (Hint, to burger providers; if you want to adopt crony capitalism, try to get a law passed compelling the prices of competitive products such as pizza, hot dogs, to be raised ten-fold. You can claim it is for health reasons.)
Who else benefits from the minimum wage law? This is like asking, who gains from high unemployment rates of young people, and unskilled workers? When looked at in this manner, several candidates immediately come to mind, given that unemployment breeds boredom and criminality: social workers, psychologists, psychologists, prison guards, policemen, etc. I don?t say that all of these people favor the minimum wage law because it will feather their nests. I only say their financial situation improves from its passage, and therefore empirical research into this possibility might be fruitful.
Why do we have this law on the books if it is so evil, so pernicious? One reason, already discussed, is that there are beneficiaries: organized labor, and our friends on the left who support them. Another is of course monumental economic illiteracy. Obdurate economic illiteracy. I teach freshman economics at Loyola University, and I usually take a survey of my students on opening day. Typically, a large majority favors the minimum wage law, and they do so not out of malevolence. Rather, they really think that this law will raise wages and help the poor. My students think this law is like a floor rising, and thus raising everyone with it. They do not realize that a better metaphor is a hurdle, or high jump bar: the higher the level stipulated by the minimum wage law, the harder is it to ?jump? into employment. This law eliminates the lowest rungs of the employment ladder, where especially young people can gain valuable on-the-job training, which will help raise their productivity. If this legislation were of such great help to the poor, I ask my students, why are we so niggardly about it? Why limit the raise to $10, or $12 or even $15, as some radicals favor? Why not really help the poor, and raise the minimum wage level to $100 per hour, or $1000 per hour, or maybe $10,000 per hour. At this point they can see that virtually the entire population would be unemployed, because it is a rare person who has such high productivity. But, then, hopefully, then can begin to see that a minimum wage of a mere $7 per hour is an insuperable barrier to employment for someone whose productivity is $4 per hour.
When the minimum wage was raised from $.40 to $.70 cents per hour (the largest percentage increase so far) we went from manually operated elevators to automatic ones, helping high skilled engineers at the expense of the unskilled manual operators. This transition took a few years, but that was the cause. Initially, before anyone could be fired, wages did indeed rise. If the present minimum wage goes from $7.25 to, horrors!, $15.00, people who ask if you want ?fries with? that will be supplanted by self serves and automatic machinery which will then be competitive with labor, but cannot now compete with low skilled people. Those jobs will go the same place, namely, booted out of existence, as the ones that used to exist at gas filling stations.
What should be done? We should not raise the present national minimum wage from its present $7.25. Nor should we maintain it at that level. Nor should we decrease it (some politicians advocate a lower minimum wage, for example, $4 per hour, just for the summer and only for high school kids to help them get jobs; but to counsel such a course of action is to admit that the law is a hurdle which must be jumped over, not a floor supporting rises). We should instead eliminate it entirely, and sow salt where once it stood. More than that. We should criminalize passage of this law. That is, we should throw in jail, or deal with these miscreants as we would other criminals, all those responsible for the passage of this law and for its implementation, such as the legislators who passed such a law, the police who enforced it and the judges who gave it their seal of approval. After all, is this not the way we would treat a person who unemployed other people at the point of a gun? Suppose there were a law that explicitly did consign people to involuntary unemployment, not implicitly and indirectly as does the minimum wage law, but directly. That is, an enactment such as this: It shall be illegal to employ black people. It shall be illegal to employ white people. It shall be illegal to employ young people. It shall be illegal to employ old people. It shall be illegal to employ Jews. It shall be illegal to employ Christians. It shall be illegal to employ gays. It shall be illegal to employ heterosexuals. It shall be illegal to employ men. It shall be illegal to employ women. How would we treat all those responsible for the passage of such laws and for their implementation such as the legislators who passed such a law, the police who enforced it, the judges who gave it their seal of approval? Precisely, we would throw the book at them. We would penalize them to the fullest extent of the law. Why should we do any less for those responsible for the minimum wage law?

http://mises.org/blog/minimum-wage-law


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 13, 2015)

Singapore's unemployment rate and minimum wage cannot be compared to the US for a myriad of reasons.


----------



## Bowden (Feb 14, 2015)

Swiper said:


> As long as people are willing to take the job its on them. If no one wants the job then the company would have no option but to raise the wage.



I think you are wrong about supply and demand of workers being the sole factor in wage determinations.

I base that on the fact that I invest in companies within the grocery industry and as an investor I keep an eye on among other things, the cost of grocery labor and the number of job postings on grocery store websites, as that has impacts on the profitability of the company I invest in and my ROI.

If what you are stating is true about supply and demand and companies having no options as to raising wages if no one wants the jobs, why have some grocery clerk jobs on grocery store websites been open for months without anyone applying for them, and that lack of applicants has not resulted in an increase in the starting base pay for those jobs that would increase the number of applicants for those jobs?


----------



## Bowden (Feb 14, 2015)

Big Smoothy said:


> Singapore's unemployment rate and minimum wage cannot be compared to the US for a myriad of reasons.



Big true, Big Smoothy.


----------



## Bowden (Feb 14, 2015)

Sniper,
I have four words for you.

Low Wage Labor Arbitrage.
That has as much to do with retail sector worker wage and benefits compensation rates as the supply and demand for workers does .


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 14, 2015)

Swiper said:


> it's impossible to hire someone who's pay exceeds his or hers productivity.  that's the reason why the SF bookstore closed.  I guess in the liberals mind no job is better that a job that pays what their productivity is worth.



Most everyone in my building costs the company a horrific amount of money.  The faster we break things the more we cost.  That's our job.


----------



## Bowden (Feb 14, 2015)

Swiper said:


> Since when has a minimum wage job meant to be a career and to live off of?  Are you trying to completely abolish the teen and first time job seekers out of the market?



No.

People need to keep in mind is that due to globalization, off-shoring and automation there have been structural changes in the U.S job markets that have resulted in large numbers of working adults, many with families, that are being employed long term in low wage jobs that are traditionally associated only with teens and first time job seekers.

There are things going on out there due to globalization, off-shoring and automation that are radically reducing the level of opportunities in the U.S job market for advancement into higher paying jobs.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 14, 2015)

Bowden said:


> I think you are wrong about supply and demand of workers being the sole factor in wage determinations.
> 
> I base that on the fact that I invest in companies within the grocery industry and as an investor I keep an eye on among other things, the cost of grocery labor and the number of job postings on grocery store websites, as that has impacts on the profitability of the company I invest in and my ROI.
> 
> If what you are stating is true about supply and demand and companies having no options as to raising wages if no one wants the jobs, why have some grocery clerk jobs on grocery store websites been open for months without anyone applying for them, and that lack of applicants has not resulted in an increase in the starting base pay for those jobs that would increase the number of applicants for those jobs?



it also has to do with the cost of labor.  the more labor costs a company the less they'll hire.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 14, 2015)

Bowden said:


> No.
> 
> People need to keep in mind is that due to globalization, off-shoring and automation there have been structural changes in the U.S job markets that have resulted in large numbers of working adults, many with families, that are being employed long term in low wage jobs that are traditionally associated only with teens and first time job seekers.
> 
> There are things going on out there due to globalization, off-shoring and automation that are radically reducing the level of opportunities in the U.S job market for advancement into higher paying jobs.



 the reason for the offshoring & automation IS because wages are too high to compete globally.  when the cost of labor  goes up companies will always look to cut
costs. automation is one way they do it here in the US.   

you don't see ushers at the movie theaters any more, the reason is because of the minimum wage laws.   

you never see people at gas stations filling up your tank,  checking the tire pressure or cleaning your windshield all because of the unemployment law,  the minimum wage.   

I wonder how many more jobs have been abolished do to the minimum wage


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 14, 2015)

Swiper said:


> the reason for the offshoring & automation IS because wages are too high to compete globally.  when the cost of labor  goes up companies will always look to cut
> costs. automation is one way they do it here in the US.
> 
> you don't see ushers at the movie theaters any more, the reason is because of the minimum wage laws.
> ...



Our CEOs are the highest paid in the world.  Why aren't they being off-shored?


----------



## Swiper (Feb 14, 2015)

Zaphod said:


> Our CEOs are the highest paid in the world.  Why aren't they being off-shored?



 it's simple, they're the boss. they do what they want.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 15, 2015)

Swiper said:


> it's simple, they're the boss. they do what they want.



There's the problem.  The guys at the top aren't being competitive with the CEOs around the rest of the world.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 15, 2015)

Zaphod said:


> There's the problem.  The guys at the top aren't being competitive with the CEOs around the rest of the world.



says who?


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 15, 2015)

Swiper said:


> says who?



Says the facts.  While corporations around the world are paying their top dogs around 20x what the average worker makes US companies are paying hundreds of times what the average worker makes.  It's making US businesses uncompetitive.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 15, 2015)

Zaphod said:


> Says the facts.  While corporations around the world are paying their top dogs around 20x what the average worker makes US companies are paying hundreds of times what the average worker makes.  It's making US businesses uncompetitive.



what facts?


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 17, 2015)

Swiper said:


> what facts?



The facts that US CEOs are way overpaid and they are hurting the competitiveness of their companies.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 17, 2015)

Zaphod said:


> The facts that US CEOs are way overpaid and they are hurting the competitiveness of their companies.






Zaphod said:


> There's the problem. The guys at the top aren't being competitive with the CEOs around the rest of the world.



Where did you get this information? how did you calculate the differences between the companies ad their ceos like are they stock options or yearly income? what about  profits, number of employees, taxes, publicly traded company, private,  ect... post the link where you got your info.  

And if they are so what? you don't like it, become a ceo and pay yourself what you want. what wrong with that?


----------



## Swiper (Feb 17, 2015)

Swiper said:


> Singapore, 1.9% unemployment with *NO min wage*.
> 
> Singapore, One of the highest incomes per capita in the world



*Singapore more than triples earlier Q4 growth print*

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102429321


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 17, 2015)

Swiper said:


> Where did you get this information? how did you calculate the differences between the companies ad their ceos like are they stock options or yearly income? what about  profits, number of employees, taxes, publicly traded company, private,  ect... post the link where you got your info.
> 
> And if they are so what? you don't like it, become a ceo and pay yourself what you want. what wrong with that?



Google it.  I did.  What's wrong with it?  They are artificially inflating their wages, hurting the competitiveness of the companies they are raping, and the icing on the cake?  They've got people like you convinced they aren't the problem, someone else is.  They've got you convinced the guy actually doing the work that makes the company money is the problem.  Global economy they say, worker pay needs to be competitive with the rest of the world they say.  But somehow they aren't part of the global economy, their pay doesn't need to be competitive.  

http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/
http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-Archive/CEO-Pay-and-You/CEO-to-Worker-Pay-Gap-in-the-United-States/Pay-Gaps-in-the-World
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/25/the-pay-gap-between-ceos-and-workers-is-much-worse-than-you-realize/


----------



## Swiper (Feb 17, 2015)

Zaphod said:


> Google it.  I did.  What's wrong with it?  They are artificially inflating their wages, hurting the competitiveness of the companies they are raping, and the icing on the cake?  They've got people like you convinced they aren't the problem, someone else is.  They've got you convinced the guy actually doing the work that makes the company money is the problem.  Global economy they say, worker pay needs to be competitive with the rest of the world they say.  But somehow they aren't part of the global economy, their pay doesn't need to be competitive.
> 
> http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/
> http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-Archive/CEO-Pay-and-You/CEO-to-Worker-Pay-Gap-in-the-United-States/Pay-Gaps-in-the-World
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/25/the-pay-gap-between-ceos-and-workers-is-much-worse-than-you-realize/




you're off topic. 
you said ceo pay in the U.S. compared to ceo pay in other countries.  again show me where you got your info.  what you posted has nothing to do about what u stated how CEOs in the US make more than their counterparts around the world.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 17, 2015)

Click on the Washington Post link.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 17, 2015)

Zaphod said:


> Click on the Washington Post link.



so you're saying if ceo's in the U.S. paid themselves the same ratio as the other countries ceo's you'd be ok with that?   

what's your soliton to the problem you perceive?


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 18, 2015)

Swiper said:


> so you're saying if ceo's in the U.S. paid themselves the same ratio as the other countries ceo's you'd be ok with that?
> 
> what's your soliton to the problem you perceive?



There isn't really a problem with CEO pay.  So long as they will stop trying to screw the worker out of a decent wage.  Until then they can lower their pay so it is more in line with their foreign counterparts.  After all we're in a global economy and their pay is preventing their companies from being competitive.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 18, 2015)

Zaphod said:


> There isn't really a problem with CEO pay.  So long as they will stop trying to screw the worker out of a decent wage.  Until then they can lower their pay so it is more in line with their foreign counterparts.  After all we're in a global economy and their pay is preventing their companies from being competitive.



so US companies just need to lower the pay of one employee, the ceo, and they'll be competitive with the rest of the world.  ok got it, that makes perfect sense.......


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 20, 2015)

Swiper said:


> so US companies just need to lower the pay of one employee, the ceo, and they'll be competitive with the rest of the world.  ok got it, that makes perfect sense.......



One EXTREMELY overpaid employee.


----------



## Swiper (Feb 25, 2015)

*Proof of the "Job-Sharing" Economy*

FEBRUARY 19, 2015  BY MIKE FINGER

In his new Gold Videocast, Peter Schiff explained how Obamacare has created a ?job-sharing? economy that is skewing the government?s employment data. As he put it:

"Obamacare forces employers to provide insurance for full-time employees. As a result, employers are hiring more part-time workers than they normally would and that is substantially influencing these numbers? *[Suppose an employer] cuts [two full-time workers?] hours back to 10 hours a week and then he actually hires two more guys. So now he has four guys working 40 hours instead of two guys working 80 hours. He?s cut the hours in half but doubled his workforce. According to the government, he?s just created two jobs even though he has four people sharing one job.?

People are already wondering how Peter can know that job sharing actually takes place. Where?s the evidence that full-time workers are being laid off in favor of part-time labor? All you have to do is look at the numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
For instance, look at June of 2014. The BLS reported that 799,00 part-time jobs were created, while 523,000 full-time jobs were lost. To the casual observer, it looks like nearly 276,000 jobs were created.

Peter isn?t the only one observing this trend. The CEO of Gallup recently exposed the crooked math behind the BLS job reports. Beyond trading part-time for full-time jobs, there are a lot of other problems with the numbers.

John Manfreda explains in detail in his recent commentary:​On Friday, February 6th, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent. This sounds great on the surface, but Gallup?s CEO said it best; the unemployment rate is a ?big lie.?
According to Gallup CEO Jim Clifton, if one hasn?t been working for four weeks or actively looking for work, one isn?t counted as unemployed. Also, if you work one hour a week, or get paid at least $20.00 a week, you aren?t counted as unemployed. This explains why 30 million Americans are out of work or severely unemployed.
What also helps explain the low unemployment rate is that nearly 22 million Americans are under-employed. This means is that if you are working part-time because you?re unable to find full-time work, you?re still counted as employed. Or if you have a PHD or Masters, but work as a cashier, you are considered employed.
The BLS also counts part-time and temporary work as jobs created. Currently, 44% of Americans work 30 hours or more a week. Most people in Human Resources (HR) consider a full-time job that of 40 hours or more. If a company hires 2 temporary workers and lays off a full-time worker, the BLS counts that as one job created.
As an example of this, in the June 2014 jobs report, 523,000 full-time jobs were lost, but 799,000 part-time jobs were created. This netted a gain of over300,000 jobs.
In fact, since the ?recovery? began, most of the jobs created were part-time. In 2013, 75% of the total jobs created were part-time jobs. This is why two-thirds of Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck.
These doctored-up numbers aren?t the only reason the unemployment rate has declined. Look at this labor participation rate chart from the BLS.





​You can see the labor participation rate has declined drastically starting from the year 2009. Look at this chart below.




​When looking at the chart, one can see the decline in the unemployment rate correlates with the decline in the labor participation rate.
On February 6, when the BLS announced the job data, it claimed that only 1900 jobs were lost in the energy patch. Meanwhile, Gary Christmas said that 21,322 jobs were lost. Why didn?t the BLS count those jobs?
As you can see, the unemployment rate is just masking the true dire state of the US economy.
*http://schiffgold.com/guest-comment...social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=guest*

*​


----------



## Swiper (Apr 5, 2015)

*March Payrolls Huge Miss: Only 126,000 Jobs Added, Worst Since December 2013*

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...uge-miss-rise-only-126000-worst-december-2013


----------



## Swiper (Jul 7, 2015)

http://youtu.be/nydOsWCTLNs


----------



## LAM (Jul 9, 2015)

Swiper said:


> http://youtu.be/nydOsWCTLNs



Of course it's at a 38 year low:

* Baby boomers are exiting the workforce combined with a large percentage of the U.S population that is "older" and chooses not to work.

* More youths are attending college then ever before

* A decline in women entering the workforce which peaked in 1999

* And of course the long term effects of the 2008 economic downturn which has severely damaged the U.S labor market.  The growth of credit even after 6-7 years of deleveraging from the record private sector debt has not picked up even with zero rates out of the FEDs discount window.

Most of the decline in the labor force participation is structural in nature and when you add in the baby boomers that are exiting the workforce and moving to a fixed income this is going to cause the further decrease in aggregate demand as their levels of consumption decrease.  The lack of real income growth in the low wage U.S workforce is also hampering any increase in aggregate demand, especially since consumption is driven by wealth and income.  

Given the changing demographics of the U.S population which is structural the decline in the labor force participation was not only inevitable it was expected.


----------



## MI1972 (Jul 9, 2015)

[h=2]One in Five Americans Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month[/h]Largest share of participants on assistance for three to four years
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL



AP​ 

BY: Ali Meyer 
July 7, 2015 12:00 pm

One in five Americans participates in government assistance programs each month, according to the most recent data released by the U.S. Census Bureau.
?Approximately 52.2 million (or 21.3 percent) people in the U.S. participated in major means-tested government assistance programs each month in 2012,? according to the Census Bureau?s report.
Means-tested programs include Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and General Assistance (GA).
The number of beneficiaries of these means-tested programs has increased significantly over the last decade. According to the Census, in 2004 there were nearly 42 million monthly recipients of these programs. Between that year and 2012, monthly participation increased by 24.9 percent.


----------



## LAM (Jul 9, 2015)

MI1972 said:


> [h=2]One in Five Americans Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month[/h]Largest share of participants on assistance for three to four years
> SHARE
> TWEET
> EMAIL
> ...



The majority of those benefits go to the working poor, the elderly and the disabled but it's only going to get worse.  The real U.S economy has been in the tank for decades only being lifted up in the 90's with some real wage growth due to the tech sector boom years.  Fake jobs have been leading employment for decades which have left U.S workers with part time work, low pay and many underemployed.  The complete financialization of the U.S economy since the 1980's has shifted economic growth from production and market share to financial and shareholder value strategies.  Financial investment strategies from non-financial firms has encouraged firms to replace equity with debt financing and to reduce employment, reducing costs and boosting profits and stock prices.  

The U.S is toast, the economy is never going to get any better then it was in the 1990's.  There is no technology to be seen in the horizon that would cause the kind of real income growth that was seen in the 90's across almost every income quintile except the lowest.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Jul 9, 2015)

I'm sure its bush's fault


----------



## Swiper (Jul 9, 2015)

LAM said:


> Of course it's at a 38 year low:
> 
> * Baby boomers are exiting the workforce combined with a large percentage of the U.S population that is "older" and chooses not to work.
> 
> ...



 Older workers have increased their participation rates, 

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp1576.pdf


----------



## Swiper (Jul 15, 2015)

By:  Peter Schiff
Wednesday, July 15, 2015

While Greece is now dominating the debt default stage, the real tragedy is playing out much closer to home, with the downward spiral of Puerto Rico. As in Greece, the Puerto Rican economy has been destroyed by its participation in an unrealistic monetary system that it does not control and the failure of domestic politicians to confront their own insolvency. But the damage done to the Puerto Rican economy by the United States has been far more debilitating than whatever damage the European Union has inflicted on Greece. In fact, the lessons we should be learning in Puerto Rico, most notably how socialistic labor and tax policies can devastate an economy, should serve as a wake up call to those advocating prescribing the same for the mainland.  

The U.S. has bombed the territory of Puerto Rico with five supposedly well-meaning, but economically devastating policies. It has:

1. Exempted the Island's government debt from all U.S. taxes in the Jones-Shaforth Act.
2. Eliminated U.S. tax breaks for private sector investment with the expiration of section 936 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
3. Required the nation to abide by a restrictive trade arrangement.
4. Made the Island subject to the U.S. minimum wage.
5. Enabled Puerto Rico to offer generous welfare benefits relative to income.

While passage of such politically popular laws seems benign on the surface (and have allowed politicians to claim that their efforts have helped the poorest Puerto Ricans), in reality they have deepened the poverty of the very people the laws were supposedly designed to help. The lessons here are so obvious that only the most ardent supporters of government economic control can fail to comprehend them.

Tax-Free Debt

By exempting U.S. citizens from taxes on interest paid on Puerto Rican sovereign debt, Washington sought to help the Puerto Rican economy by making it easier and cheaper for the Island's government to borrow from the mainland. As a result, Puerto Rican government bonds became a staple holding of many U.S. municipal bond funds. As with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds a decade ago, many investors believed that these Puerto Rican bonds had an implied U.S. government guarantee. This meant that the Puerto Rican government could borrow for far less than it could have without such a belief. However, this subsidy did not grow the Puerto Rican economy, but simply the size of the government, which had the perverse effect of stifling private sector growth.  

In contrast to the tax-free income earned by Americans who buy Puerto Rican government bonds, those with the bad sense to lend to Puerto Rican businesses were taxed on the interest payments that they received. Businesses could have used the funds for actual capital investment (that could have increased the Island's productivity), but instead the money flowed to the Government which used it to buy votes with generous public sector benefits that did nothing to grow the Island's economy or put it in a better position to repay. That problem was left for future taxpayers who no politician seeking votes in the present cared about.

This dynamic is almost identical to what happened in Greece, where low borrowing costs, made possible by the strong euro currency and the implied backstop of the European Central Bank and the more solvent northern European nations, permitted the Greek government to borrow at far lower rates than its strained finances would have otherwise allowed.

Taxing Private Investment

Perversely, as the U.S. government made it easier for the Puerto Rican government to borrow, it made it harder for the private sector to do so. In 2006 the government ended a tax break that exempted corporate profits earned on private sector investment in Puerto Rico from U.S. taxes. As a result, U.S. businesses that had been making investments and hiring workers on the Island pulled up stakes and moved to more tax-friendly jurisdictions. The result was an erosion of the Island's local tax base, just as more borrowing (made possible by triple tax-free government debt) obligated the remaining Puerto Rican taxpayers to greater future liabilities.

The Jones Act

The Jones Act, a 1920 law designed to protect the U.S. merchant marine from foreign competition, has had a devastating effect on Puerto Rico, and should be used as a cautionary tale to illustrate the dangers of trade barriers. Under the terms of this horrible law, foreign-flagged ships are prevented from carrying cargo between two U.S. ports. According to the law, Puerto Rico counts as a U.S. port. So a container ship bringing goods from China to the U.S. mainland is prevented from stopping in Puerto Rico on the way. Instead, the cargo must be dropped off at a mainland port, then reloaded onto an expensive U.S.-flagged ship, and transported back to Puerto Rico. As a result, shipping costs to and from Puerto Rico are the highest in the Caribbean. This reduces trade between Puerto Rico and the rest of the world. Since a large percentage of the finished goods used by Puerto Ricans are imported, the result is much higher consumer prices and fewer private sector jobs. Even though median incomes in Puerto Rico are just over half that of the poorest U.S. state, thanks to the Jones Act, the cost of living is actually higher than the average state.

The Federal Minimum Wage

In 1938 the Fair Labor Standards Act subjected Puerto Rico to a federal minimum wage, but it was not until 1983 that a 1974 act, which required that the Island match the mainland's minimum wage, was fully phased in. The current Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is 77% of Puerto Rico's current median wage of $9.42. In contrast, the Federal minimum is only 43% of the U.S. median wage of almost $17 per hour (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), May 2014). The U.S. minimum wage would have to be more than $13 per hour to match that Puerto Rico proportion. The disparity is greater when comparing minimum wage income to per capita income.

The imposition of an insupportably high minimum wage has meant that entry level jobs simply don't exist in Puerto Rico. Unemployment is over 12% (BLS), and the labor force participation rate is about 43% (as opposed to 63% on the mainland) (The World Bank). A "success" by the Obama administration in raising the Federal minimum to $10 per hour would mean that the minimum wage in Puerto Rico would be higher than the current medium wage. Such a move would result in layoffs on the Island and another step down into the economic pit. I predict that it could bring on a crisis similar to the one created in the last decade in American Samoa when that Island?s economy was devastated by an unsustainable increase in the minimum wage.

It will be interesting to see if our progressive politicians will have enough forethought and mercy to exempt Puerto Rico from minimum wage increases. But to do so would force them to acknowledge the destructive nature of the law, an admission that they would take great pains to avoid. 

Welfare   

In 2013 median income in Puerto Rico was just over half  that of the poorest state in the union (Mississippi) but welfare benefits are very similar. This means that the incentive to forgo public assistance in favor of a job is greatly reduced in Puerto Rico, as a larger percentage of those on public assistance would do better financially by turning down a low paying job. Because of these perverse incentives not to work, fewer than half of working age males are employed and 45% of the Island's population lived below the federal poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Briefs issued Sep. 2014). According to a 2012 report by the New York Federal Reserve Bank, 40% of Island income consists of transfer payments, and 35% of the Island's residents receive food stamps (Fox News Latino, 3/11/14).

In other words, Puerto Rico's problems are strikingly similar to those of Greece. Its government spends chronically more than it raises in taxes, its economy is trapped in a regulatory morass, and its economic destiny is largely in the hands of others.

The solutions to Puerto Rico's problems are simple, but politically toxic for mainland politicians to acknowledge. Puerto Rico must be allowed to declare bankruptcy, the Federal incentive for the Puerto Rican government to borrow money must be eliminated, Puerto Rico must be exempted from both the Jones Act and the Federal Minimum wage, and Federal welfare requirements must be reduced. Puerto Rico already has the huge advantages of being exempt from both the Federal Income Tax and Obamacare, so with a fresh start, free from oppressive debt and federal regulations, capitalism could quickly restore the prosperity socialism destroyed. With the current incentives provided by Acts 20 and 22 (which basically exempt Puerto Rico-sourced income for new arrivals from local as well as federal income tax - see my report on America's Tax Free Zone) and with some additional local free market labor reforms, in a generation it's possible that Puerto Ricans could enjoy higher per capita incomes than citizens of any U.S. state.

If Washington really wanted to accelerate the process, it should exempt mainland residents from all income taxes, including the AMT, on Puerto Rico-sourced investment income, including dividends, capital gains, and interest related to capital investment.
http://www.europac.com/commentaries...ed_puerto_rico_and_how_capitalism_can_save_it


----------



## LAM (Jul 15, 2015)

I like how Schiff leaves out the largest factor the Roosevelt Roads Navy base closing due to BRAC.  It was built in the early 1940's and was closed in 2004.

There are literally dozens of examples of places which never recovered from the permanent loss of economic activity when a military base closes.


----------



## Swiper (Oct 2, 2015)

Sept. Jobs Report Confirms Weakening Labor Market

http://youtu.be/aVp8fJaQS-M


----------



## LAM (Oct 4, 2015)

Swiper said:


> Sept. Jobs Report Confirms Weakening Labor Market
> 
> http://youtu.be/aVp8fJaQS-M



And I told you years ago that the U.S economy was never going to get better because it isn't, the fundamentals that drove economic growth for the working class in the 80's to the tech sector bubble are shot, they no longer exist.  Record low birth rates, the continued shift from a manufacturing to service economy puts more workers in part-time jobs with no security and service sector jobs for most that do not see wages with increases in productivity  The service sector jobs that do pay well are small in number.  .  .  Many households are still underwater even after the completion of the de-leveraging process of the record private sector debt that peaked at 100% of GDP in 2008 as a good deal of that was from defaults and not the actually paying down of debt.  Consumption slows as workers age and especially here in the U.S where health-care costs have been increasing on average at double the rate of the CPI since the 80's.  The lack of credit growth since the end of the recovery is a sign that U.S workers are not going to take on the same levels of debt as was done previously to help fuel economic growth.  Millennials are saddled with debt from education loans and many studies and polls have shown that over half of them say they probably wont have any children the return to renting makes it much easier for workers to relocate.

And that's with out even getting into the global shift in GDP away from the West which has already started and the slow down of profits of U.S large firms as their days of easy profits are over as well due to the increased competition in many markets at the global level.  The U.S share of global 500's has also started to decline as firms from emerging markets are more competitive and not as bloated with levels of management etc.  And the drain that the massive U.S financial sector has on growth is sizable as much of its activities now are mainly redistributive in nature and does not  create new wealth but your main Schiff will never talk about that.

There's no reasons for the working class economy to get any better which is which is why it isn't, the luxury goods economy is booming for the obvious but the top dose not create jobs for the middle and bottom they are created from demand and the availability to either forgone savings and spend excess wages or take on more revolving debt by those in the same general income brackets.

The Good Days are over...


----------



## Swiper (Feb 7, 2016)

https://www.facebook.com/PeterSchiff


----------



## LAM (Dec 25, 2016)

America's Wealth Effect From Rising Home Prices Has Been Cut in Half

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-from-rising-home-prices-has-been-cut-in-half


----------



## LAM (Dec 25, 2016)

Home prices are almost at peak bubble levels

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPCS20RSA


----------



## LAM (Dec 25, 2016)

Household Debt to GDP is down, with much of that via defaults and not the actual paying down of debt.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HDTGPDUSQ163N


----------



## Swiper (Jun 3, 2017)

Over The Last 10 Years The US Economy Has Grown At Exactly The Same Rate As It Did During The 1930s, the great depression 

http://news.valubit.com/over-the-la...tly-the-same-rate-as-it-did-during-the-1930s/


----------



## Swiper (Jun 3, 2017)

Huge Miss: Only 138K Payrolls Added In May; April Revised Much Lower As Wages Disappoint

http://news.valubit.com/huge-miss-o...april-revised-much-lower-as-wages-disappoint/


----------



## Swiper (Jun 3, 2017)

"Reverse Pay Gap?" Female CEOs Make More Than Male Peers

http://news.valubit.com/reverse-pay-gap-female-ceos-make-more-than-male-peers/


----------



## Swiper (Jun 3, 2017)

Where The May Jobs Were: It Was All About Minimum Wage Again

http://news.valubit.com/where-the-may-jobs-were-it-was-all-about-minimum-wage-again/


----------



## Swiper (Jun 26, 2017)

*Seattle Min Wage Hikes Crushing The Poor: 6,700 Jobs Lost, Annual Wages Down $1,500 - UofW Study*

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ikes-has-cost-works-14mm-hours-year-6700-jobs


----------

