|
|
On November 19 2012 10:36 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 10:31 acker wrote:On November 19 2012 10:29 kmillz wrote:
It's still significantly higher unemployment than Texas' youth, just sayin..but it is much easier to attack someone's skewed math than actually address his point, isn't it?
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I get that our rhetoric has gotten stale, and I get that constantly crying wolf doesn't help, but it's hard to refrain from being a bit hyperbolic when half of what you say isn't hyperbolic at all. people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
Is there something I'm missing here? That the unemployment of California's youth is still atrocious? Here, I'll even give you a liberally biased source to support this claim.
Er look at the bold ackers point is that sc2superfan101 is crying wolf.
sc2superfan101 says he's telling the truth and talking straight but he's not at all he's exaggerating, but he got called out =p
|
On November 19 2012 10:40 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 10:36 kmillz wrote:On November 19 2012 10:31 acker wrote:On November 19 2012 10:29 kmillz wrote:
It's still significantly higher unemployment than Texas' youth, just sayin..but it is much easier to attack someone's skewed math than actually address his point, isn't it?
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I get that our rhetoric has gotten stale, and I get that constantly crying wolf doesn't help, but it's hard to refrain from being a bit hyperbolic when half of what you say isn't hyperbolic at all. people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
Is there something I'm missing here? That the unemployment of California's youth is still atrocious? Here, I'll even give you a liberally biased source to support this claim. Er look at the bold ackers point is that sc2superfan101 is crying wolf. sc2superfan101 says he's telling the truth and talking straight but he's not at all he's exaggerating, but he got called out =p
I agree, 50% is definitely an exaggeration, but I'll bold his point which is what is being overlooked due to his exaggeration.
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 01:51 McBengt wrote:On November 19 2012 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the same public that can't sit through thirty seconds of a political speech before breaking out in cheers and applause at yet another carbon-copy, bite-size platitude that they've heard 10,000 times before thinks he's a good public speaker. of course they think he's a good speaker. he's the freaking King of platitudes. they guy's entire Presidency has been based off platitudes.
experience... what experience? you're so fucking spot on it hurts. he gave a few speeches, waved his hands around, cheated against Hillary (lol, not really but that was a very shady primary), and all the sudden he's qualified to lead the nation even though he's the most left-leaning Senator on earth and hasn't spent as much as three minutes in an executive position. shit, I have more managerial experience being a captain of a High-School wrestling team than he managed to rack up in fifty plus years.
it's good thing there's North Dakota (moving there soon, woot!!!) and the shale oil boom or we'd be straight up fucked. still probably screwed but at least the red states will be booming. California (my heart and home) has like 41% unemployment for people my age... lol @ filibusterer proof Dem-controlled state legislature and Dem governor. real good move there, fellow Californians. I mean no disrespect here, you have been one of the honest and intelligent conservatives in this thread, and that is good for creating an interesting debate. But surely you must understand, it's comments in the vein of what you posted there that is continuously dragging your party down. Post-election, the entire conservative media circus has gone off with wild accusations, incredibly stupid comments and complete fallacies. Meanwhile, the intellectual part of the republicans are desperately trying to salvage what remains of their image with minorities, single women, young people, gays etc. And they will never be successful unless the right wing lets up on the anger and bile, it's pure poison and it's scaring moderates away. Honest question here, where does the republican party go from here? With a shrinking demographic base, a new generation that is ever more rejecting the antiquated social policies, what is to be done? Obstructionism and bitterness will get nothing accomplished, and I firmly believe that having a relevant and active opposition is vital for any democracy. eh, don't mind me, I just have a lingering bitterness in my mouth from the election. my own fault for being so partisan as to not take an objective look at the polls. thanks for the compliment though, it's more'n I deserve, to be sure. I get that our rhetoric has gotten stale, and I get that constantly crying wolf doesn't help, but it's hard to refrain from being a bit hyperbolic when half of what you say isn't hyperbolic at all. people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true. and since we know that CA ain't exactly a bastion of conservatism, it can't be the greedy Republicans who are at fault here. another thing that doesn't help is the "Republicans are anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-poor, anti-middle class, anti-everything good" line that the other side has been pushing for years now. I think what's to be done is supporting the shale-oil boom in North Dakota. there's close to 0% unemployment in some of these places up there, with less than 3% unemployment state-wide, and they haven't even gotten started doing the real drilling yet. I know everyone's got an opinion on fracking and they ain't all nice, but it's been a god-send to North Dakota and it'll be a god-send to this nation if we support it. Republicans always do well with working, industrious, people. more people with good jobs and cheap living (courtesy of red-state heaven) means less people looking for the handout that the Obama administration and Democrat party are offering. Republicans always lose in the social realm, where we win is with the economy. my own personal interpretation is that we need to support massive immigration reform and really push for less regulation on fracking. this'll help us shore up the Hispanic votes and get people out of their craptastic blue states and into red states. the more people work, the more likely they are to vote for lower taxes (I hope). young people have always been a lost cause, and until Barack is well and gone I don't see us making any gains with black people. too much vitriol and anti-GOP rhetoric stemming from our unabashed opposition to the President is focused on the idea of us being racist for us to have a chance there. education reform is going to be a huge part of this too. the more people start seeing the world for what it is, the less likely they will to jump at the pipe-dream politics that both parties are peddling right now. either way, we're all gonna take a big hit pretty soon. even if we "avoid" the fiscal cliff, that'll just make the fall that much harder when we finally run out of money to borrow. edit: when I say that we always lose on social issues, I mean that we're never going to be the popular party on that front. I think people are more socially conservative than they like to think, but they end up voting liberal for other reasons, and then attach themselves to the liberal social positions as a justification. no one is losing an election because of abortion, they are losing because of really crappy speaking (Akin, Murdoch) and really stupid politicians (half the GOP).
Obviously there is more than just the factor of Democrats in power that result in less employment in young people, but it's somewhere that the Republicans have less responsibility and blame.
|
The republicans in the California congress bring california's budgeting process to a fucking stand still nearly every year, again sc2superfan101 point isn't really founded. The only reason this year the budget made it though on time is that the revenue increases where left to the voters to decide to which they did approve of the higher taxes. Just because the republicans do not have a majority in claifornia doesn't mean they don't have significant pull in the state esp when claifornia had a republican governor who was backing them.
|
On November 19 2012 10:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 08:35 aksfjh wrote:Every time you read someone extolling the dynamism of the modern economy, the virtues of risk-taking, declaring that everyone has to expect to have multiple jobs in his or her life and that you can never stop learning, etc,, etc., bear in mind that this is a portrait of an economy with no stability, no guarantees that hard work will provide a consistent living, and a constant possibility of being thrown aside simply because you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And nothing people can do in their personal lives or behavior can change this. Your church and your traditional marriage won’t guarantee the value of your 401(k), or make insurance affordable on the individual market. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/the-insecurity-election/I don't normally quote Krugman, or pay much attention to his more political statements, but I think he hits the nail on the head in describing the general feelings on the economy for a great number of Americans. uh, lol? that was one of the dumbest things I have ever read, and I am so not surprised that Krugman is the guy who said it. first he says that the problem with a dynamic free-market is that it's dynamic... and then he tops the sundae with this cherry: Show nested quote +And nothing people can do in their personal lives or behavior can change this. oh yeah, Krugers, there's nothing you can do. NOTHING! all those millions of people who have done things about it? all imaginary.
You're missing the point entirely, and don't understand what he's saying at all.
|
On November 19 2012 11:18 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 10:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 19 2012 08:35 aksfjh wrote:Every time you read someone extolling the dynamism of the modern economy, the virtues of risk-taking, declaring that everyone has to expect to have multiple jobs in his or her life and that you can never stop learning, etc,, etc., bear in mind that this is a portrait of an economy with no stability, no guarantees that hard work will provide a consistent living, and a constant possibility of being thrown aside simply because you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And nothing people can do in their personal lives or behavior can change this. Your church and your traditional marriage won’t guarantee the value of your 401(k), or make insurance affordable on the individual market. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/the-insecurity-election/I don't normally quote Krugman, or pay much attention to his more political statements, but I think he hits the nail on the head in describing the general feelings on the economy for a great number of Americans. uh, lol? that was one of the dumbest things I have ever read, and I am so not surprised that Krugman is the guy who said it. first he says that the problem with a dynamic free-market is that it's dynamic... and then he tops the sundae with this cherry: And nothing people can do in their personal lives or behavior can change this. oh yeah, Krugers, there's nothing you can do. NOTHING! all those millions of people who have done things about it? all imaginary. You're missing the point entirely, and don't understand what he's saying at all.
His point is fucking absurd..he thinks its good to be a welfare state only citing one thing about children born out of wedlock in Sweden doing fine to back this up. Also to say we aren't facing social disintegration is a complete denial of how divisive our country has become...and no Obama did not make things better, as many hoped he would.
The U.S. is facing rising unemployment and poverty, economic dependence, declining civil rights, increased political corruption, generalized legitimacy crisis, capital controls, failing infrastructure, disappearing middle class, media control, devalued currency, militarization of civil life, and militarization of foreign policy, but we're definitely not facing social disintegration. Yeah..ok.
|
On November 19 2012 11:27 kmillz wrote:
His point is fucking absurd..he thinks its good to be a welfare state only citing one thing about children born out of wedlock in Sweden doing fine to back this up. Also to say we aren't facing social disintegration is a complete denial of how divisive our country has become...and no Obama did not make things better, as many hoped he would.
The U.S. is facing rising unemployment and poverty, economic dependence, declining civil rights, increased political corruption, generalized legitimacy crisis, capital controls, failing infrastructure, disappearing middle class, media control, devalued currency, militarization of civil life, and militarization of foreign policy, but we're definitely not facing social disintegration. Yeah..ok.
Without reading anything else on your list, your claim about unemployment is wrong.
Someone else please fact check everything else, I'm not doing it again.
...Actually, why not. I'll go through the economics stuff.
What the hell does economic dependence mean? People are dependent on the economy?
I don't know if capital controls have justifiably or unjustifiably increased or decreased. but how are capital controls in any way relevant to disintegrating civil society?
Failing infrastructure is true. Incomes are also becoming increasingly unequal, which is what I presume you mean by "disappearing middle class".
How is devalued currency in any way related to civil disintegration? This is really stupid, unless you want to End the Fed or add more capital controls, per Mundell's Impossible Trinity.
I get the feeling you spewed out a list of personal grievances, with "social disintegration" tacked on to the end.
|
On November 19 2012 11:45 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 11:27 kmillz wrote:
His point is fucking absurd..he thinks its good to be a welfare state only citing one thing about children born out of wedlock in Sweden doing fine to back this up. Also to say we aren't facing social disintegration is a complete denial of how divisive our country has become...and no Obama did not make things better, as many hoped he would.
The U.S. is facing rising unemployment and poverty, economic dependence, declining civil rights, increased political corruption, generalized legitimacy crisis, capital controls, failing infrastructure, disappearing middle class, media control, devalued currency, militarization of civil life, and militarization of foreign policy, but we're definitely not facing social disintegration. Yeah..ok.
Without reading anything else on your list, your claim about unemployment is wrong. Someone else please fact check everything else, I'm not doing it again.
This post is the equivalent of a tl;dr, therefore pretty much worthless. If you are going to be this lazy about your response, don't bother next time. Short-term unemployment may be dropping, but my post wasn't referring to the illusion of positive trends, it was referring to what we are facing in the future (2013 and 2014).
Edit: Barely addressing anything I mentioned in your edit...but I'll address your feeble attempt.
On November 19 2012 11:45 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 11:27 kmillz wrote:
His point is fucking absurd..he thinks its good to be a welfare state only citing one thing about children born out of wedlock in Sweden doing fine to back this up. Also to say we aren't facing social disintegration is a complete denial of how divisive our country has become...and no Obama did not make things better, as many hoped he would.
The U.S. is facing rising unemployment and poverty, economic dependence, declining civil rights, increased political corruption, generalized legitimacy crisis, capital controls, failing infrastructure, disappearing middle class, media control, devalued currency, militarization of civil life, and militarization of foreign policy, but we're definitely not facing social disintegration. Yeah..ok.
Without reading anything else on your list, your claim about unemployment is wrong. Someone else please fact check everything else, I'm not doing it again. ...Actually, why not. I'll go through the economics stuff. What the hell does economic dependence mean? People are dependent on the economy? I don't know if capital controls have justifiably or unjustifiably increased or decreased. but how are capital controls in any way relevant to disintegrating civil society? Failing infrastructure is true. Incomes are also becoming increasingly unequal, which is what I presume you mean by "disappearing middle class". How is devalued currency in any way related to civil disintegration? This is really stupid, unless you want to End the Fed or add more capital controls, per Mundell's Impossible Trinity. I get the feeling you spewed out a list of personal grievances, with "social disintegration" tacked on to the end.
All of this points to social instability first (with the rise of anti- democratic, nativist and nationalist social movements) and social disintegration both physically (infrastructure) and socially: when you lose the middle class, an hour-glass-shaped stratification system is not stable and can only survive through intense repression, militarization (public and private, hence the increased use of private paramilitary groups).
|
On November 19 2012 11:54 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 11:45 acker wrote:On November 19 2012 11:27 kmillz wrote:
His point is fucking absurd..he thinks its good to be a welfare state only citing one thing about children born out of wedlock in Sweden doing fine to back this up. Also to say we aren't facing social disintegration is a complete denial of how divisive our country has become...and no Obama did not make things better, as many hoped he would.
The U.S. is facing rising unemployment and poverty, economic dependence, declining civil rights, increased political corruption, generalized legitimacy crisis, capital controls, failing infrastructure, disappearing middle class, media control, devalued currency, militarization of civil life, and militarization of foreign policy, but we're definitely not facing social disintegration. Yeah..ok.
Without reading anything else on your list, your claim about unemployment is wrong. Someone else please fact check everything else, I'm not doing it again. This post is the equivalent of a tl;dr, therefore pretty much worthless. If you are going to be this lazy about your response, don't bother next time. Short-term unemployment may be dropping, but my post wasn't referring to the illusion of positive trends, it was referring to what we are facing in the future (2013 and 2014).
Based on my analysis of the future we will have rising employment, improved infrastructure, a stronger economy, and an increase in manufacturing jobs in the US within the next few years. On top of that, with the slow decline of christianity and the rise of atheism and agnosticism I would say the prospects for improvements in our social fabric are increasing.
|
On November 19 2012 11:54 kmillz wrote:
This post is the equivalent of a tl;dr, therefore pretty much worthless. If you are going to be this lazy about your response, don't bother next time. Short-term unemployment may be dropping, but my post wasn't referring to the illusion of positive trends, it was referring to what we are facing in the future (2013 and 2014).
BLS is obviously falsifying its data.
Care to elaborate on just why unemployment will skyrocket over the next two years? Unemployment tends to go down after recessions, not up.
|
On November 19 2012 11:57 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 11:54 kmillz wrote:On November 19 2012 11:45 acker wrote:On November 19 2012 11:27 kmillz wrote:
His point is fucking absurd..he thinks its good to be a welfare state only citing one thing about children born out of wedlock in Sweden doing fine to back this up. Also to say we aren't facing social disintegration is a complete denial of how divisive our country has become...and no Obama did not make things better, as many hoped he would.
The U.S. is facing rising unemployment and poverty, economic dependence, declining civil rights, increased political corruption, generalized legitimacy crisis, capital controls, failing infrastructure, disappearing middle class, media control, devalued currency, militarization of civil life, and militarization of foreign policy, but we're definitely not facing social disintegration. Yeah..ok.
Without reading anything else on your list, your claim about unemployment is wrong. Someone else please fact check everything else, I'm not doing it again. This post is the equivalent of a tl;dr, therefore pretty much worthless. If you are going to be this lazy about your response, don't bother next time. Short-term unemployment may be dropping, but my post wasn't referring to the illusion of positive trends, it was referring to what we are facing in the future (2013 and 2014). Based on my analysis of the future we will have rising employment, improved infrastructure, a stronger economy, and an increase in manufacturing jobs in the US within the next few years. On top of that, with the slow decline of christianity and the rise of atheism and agnosticism I would say the prospects for improvements in our social fabric are increasing.
While I, personally, agree that a rise in atheism and agnosticism (specifically) are positive trends in our social fabric, this only a small sample of the big picture. Would you please elaborate on why your analysis of the future includes rising employment, improved infrastructure, and a stronger economy?
On November 19 2012 11:58 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 11:54 kmillz wrote:
This post is the equivalent of a tl;dr, therefore pretty much worthless. If you are going to be this lazy about your response, don't bother next time. Short-term unemployment may be dropping, but my post wasn't referring to the illusion of positive trends, it was referring to what we are facing in the future (2013 and 2014). BLS is obviously falsifying its data. Care to elaborate on just why unemployment will skyrocket over the next two years? Unemployment tends to go down after recessions, not up.
You think the recession is ending now, that is where we disagree. The BLS data is as good enough of data to argue that unempoyment has gone down slightly as it is to argue that it is still very high, and not likely to come down much more in the near future.
Edit: Let us not forget that the BLS data pretends that someone who does not work, cannot find a job, and has exhausted getting benefits is no longer a bona fide card carrying member of the American workforce.
|
The rate of change of unemployment rate has deceases for the entire past 3 years. If that's a short term trend how is 2013/2014 long term.
|
On November 19 2012 12:00 kmillz wrote:
You think the recession is ending now, that is where we disagree. The BLS data is as good enough of data to argue that unempoyment has gone down slightly as it is to argue that it is still very high, and not likely to come down much more in the future.
I don't think the output gap will be closed until at least 2018, but unemployment trends downwards as deleveraging finished and prices adjust. If Congress isn't stupid or Europe doesn't implode or a meteor hits New York.
You, on the other hand, seem to think unemployment is destined to track upwards. Why?
On November 19 2012 12:00 kmillz wrote:
Edit: Let us not forget that the BLS data pretends that someone who does not work, cannot find a job, and has exhausted getting benefits is no longer a bona fide card carrying member of the American workforce.
Um, no it doesn't. Employment-population ratios are present in BLS reports for this very reason. But employment-population ratios do not equate unemployment.
|
On November 19 2012 12:08 Feartheguru wrote:
The rate of change of unemployment rate has deceases for the entire past 3 years. If that's a short term trend how is 2013/2014 long term.
I just addressed this in my last edit. The illusion is that things are better than they are according to the BLS for their lack of accountability for people that have dropped out of the work force.
|
On November 19 2012 12:10 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 12:08 Feartheguru wrote:
The rate of change of unemployment rate has deceases for the entire past 3 years. If that's a short term trend how is 2013/2014 long term. I just addressed this in my last edit. The illusion is that things are better than they are according to the BLS for their lack of accountability for people that have dropped out of the work force.
Not nearly enough people have dropped out of the workforce to justify saying that the total decrease in unemployment is due to an increase in discouraged workers.
You wouldn't happen to have any statistics? Here. BLS is on the case again:
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Check Wikipedia for details on U1-U6 unemployment (and yes, U4 and U5 cover discouraged workers). Note how every one of them has decreased since the height of the recession.
Is the BLS falsifying its data?
|
1019 Posts
On November 19 2012 11:58 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 11:54 kmillz wrote:
This post is the equivalent of a tl;dr, therefore pretty much worthless. If you are going to be this lazy about your response, don't bother next time. Short-term unemployment may be dropping, but my post wasn't referring to the illusion of positive trends, it was referring to what we are facing in the future (2013 and 2014). BLS is obviously falsifying its data.
yeah and I'm sure obama secretly manipulated the unemployment statistic to push it under 8% just so that he could get reelected.
|
On November 19 2012 12:22 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 11:58 acker wrote:On November 19 2012 11:54 kmillz wrote:
This post is the equivalent of a tl;dr, therefore pretty much worthless. If you are going to be this lazy about your response, don't bother next time. Short-term unemployment may be dropping, but my post wasn't referring to the illusion of positive trends, it was referring to what we are facing in the future (2013 and 2014). BLS is obviously falsifying its data. yeah and I'm sure obama secretly manipulated the unemployment statistic to push it under 8% just so that he could get reelected.
Damned commies, fluoridating the water supply. Where's McCarthy when you need him?
|
On November 19 2012 12:12 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 12:10 kmillz wrote:On November 19 2012 12:08 Feartheguru wrote:
The rate of change of unemployment rate has deceases for the entire past 3 years. If that's a short term trend how is 2013/2014 long term. I just addressed this in my last edit. The illusion is that things are better than they are according to the BLS for their lack of accountability for people that have dropped out of the work force. Not nearly enough people have dropped out of the workforce to justify saying that the total decrease in unemployment is due to an increase in discouraged workers. You wouldn't happen to have any statistics? Here. BLS is on the case again: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServletCheck Wikipedia for details on U1-U6 unemployment (and yes, U4 and U5 cover discouraged workers). Note how every one of them has decreased since the height of the recession. Is the BLS falsifying its data?
According to the BLS, the unemployment rate dropped from 8.5% to 7.8% this year, but if they actually accounted for the drop in labor force it still would have dropped, but only very slightly -- from 8.5% to 8.35%.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-unemployment-rate-has-fallen-in-2012-2012-10
I'm not suggesting that I like Mitt Romney, but his analysis was correct in that most of the decline in unemployment is due to a drop in the workforce.
But how about instead of looking at the "unemployment rate" why don't we look at the civilian employment-population ratio? This pretty much sums up my point:
![[image loading]](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/EMRATIO_Max_630_378.png)
|
Note the disclaimer on the Business Insider piece on old people, rather than discouraged workers. The BLS U4 and U5 data adjusts for old people. That's why the civilian employment-population ratio is only useful to the first degree, as effects from the recession are conmingled with people getting older.
This is the correct link.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab15.htm
|
On November 19 2012 12:29 acker wrote:Note the disclaimer on the Business Insider piece on old people, rather than discouraged workers. The BLS U4 and U5 data adjusts for old people. That's why the civilian employment-population ratio is only useful to the first degree, as effects from the recession are conmingled with people getting older. This is the correct link. http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab15.htm
I did take note of the disclaimer, but it still doesn't mean unemployment is suddenly dropping significantly.
|
It has decreased since the absolute peak when the whole world was about to collaps in 2008,but unemployment is still verry high.
Things are better then at the peak of the crisis, off course i would say, but to say things are ok now goes way to far imo.
Do agree though that atm the economy is recovering, and in the most optimistic scenario (no middle east war, no fiscal cliff,no china dip) the usa economy should do realy well coming years.
They not there yet though, and manny things can still go wrong.
All thoose unemployment statistics.
They verry unreliable as an economic indicator, seeing there so manny different ones of them and they all get adjusted for this or that, or they alter the calculation out of nowhere.
A better indicator would be "totall working hours" of the population, wich simply shows how much work there is.
Have no data for this unfortunatly, but will go see if can find it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
