America's lost generation......it's coming

[JustRalph]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/29/200769/teen-employment-hits-record-lows.html#.UiDG2ny9KSN

Lost........

[LottaKash]

excerpt:
“We have never had anything this low in our lives. This is a Great Depression for teens, and no time in history have we encountered anything like that,” said Andrew Sum,


excerpt:
“People entering into the labor force in their 20s, it looks like more and more now they’re not going to have any work experience as teens. Labor force participation is as low as it’s ever been,” said Keith Hall, who served as commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2008 to 2012.
=====================================


Change has come alright....Thank you Mr. "current" potus...You were so instrumental in all of this...You said change would come, and it has....You have managed to break very "new ground", economically speaking....

[FantasticDan]

Change has come alright....Thank you Mr. "current" potus...You were so instrumental in all of this... :D Thank you for the "Friday funny" :ThmbUp:

[BlueShoe]

The Left, in response to this situation, has proposed that the minimum wage be raised. :eek: :confused: This of course would increase the unenployment rate even higher, likely much higher. The minimum wage should be $0.00, ie, no minimun laws. But liberals, with their socialistic Marxist mindsets have never been able to grasp free market supply and demand economic principles, so do not expect things to get better.

[Jay Trotter]

....or you could focus on the positive part of the article:

"The trend is all the more striking given that the overall unemployment rate has steadily dropped, to 7.4 percent in August. And employers in recent months have been collectively adding almost 200,000 new jobs a month."

[Capper Al]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/29/200769/teen-employment-hits-record-lows.html#.UiDG2ny9KSN

Lost........

Did you forget that umskilled labor has been lost to automation or China or India? Probably the only solution is going to be the shorter work week. The rich won't give up theirs and I doubt our middle class don't want to give up anything either. So what has to be the result- unemployment.

[Capper Al]

The Left, in response to this situation, has proposed that the minimum wage be raised. :eek: :confused: This of course would increase the unenployment rate even higher, likely much higher. The minimum wage should be $0.00, ie, no minimun laws. But liberals, with their socialistic Marxist mindsets have never been able to grasp free market supply and demand economic principles, so do not expect things to get better.

The left :lol: :lol: :lol:

[JustRalph]

....or you could focus on the positive part of the article:

"The trend is all the more striking given that the overall unemployment rate has steadily dropped, to 7.4 percent in August. And employers in recent months have been collectively adding almost 200,000 new jobs a month."

you forgot to add that 70% percent of those added jobs were part time

[JustRalph]

Did you forget that umskilled labor has been lost to automation or China or India? Probably the only solution is going to be the shorter work week. The rich won't give up theirs and I doubt our middle class don't want to give up anything either. So what has to be the result- unemployment.

yep, has nothing to do with the current fiscal policies.........it's all those ATM's taking away jobs, huh Barry?

Btw, you can campaign all you want for the shorter work week crap, it's been tried in France and it was a dismal failure.......as predicted

[Clocker]

you forgot to add that 70% percent of those added jobs were part time

And that we need 125,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with population growth.

[Jay Trotter]

you forgot to add that 70% percent of those added jobs were part timeThat would mean that 60,000 full time jobs were added! It must be tough living in a world that is so dismal. :lol: I would imagine your minky will be showing up shortly.

[Valuist]

That would mean that 60,000 full time jobs were added! It must be tough living in a world that is so dismal. :lol: I would imagine your minky will be showing up shortly.

See Clocker's post above yours.

[Clocker]

That would mean that 60,000 full time jobs were added! It must be tough living in a world that is so dismal.

It's dismal if you don't have a job. Even if you count part time workers as employed, we still have fewer people employed today than we had when the recession started. And 60,00 new full time jobs is pathetic given that we need 125,00 just to keep up with population growth, and that labor force participation is at a 34 year low because of the huge number of discouraged workers that have quit looking for work.

[dartman51]

....or you could focus on the positive part of the article:

"The trend is all the more striking given that the overall unemployment rate has steadily dropped, to 7.4 percent in August. And employers in recent months have been collectively adding almost 200,000 new jobs a month."

That's not very comforting when there are OVER 330,000 NEW sign up's for unemployment, EVERY WEEK. And it's been that way for years. That 7.4 percent unemployment rate is bullshit. Anyone, with a brain, knows it. :ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

That 7.4 percent unemployment rate is bullshit. Anyone, with a brain, knows it. :ThmbUp:

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics computes 6 different unemployment rates, U1 through U6. U3 is generally referred to as the "official" rate. It is described as total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force. The civilian labor force is those working or actively looking for work.

The 7.4% number is the seasonally adjusted U3 number for July. Part time workers looking for full time work are counted as employed in U3. The not seasonally adjusted number for July is 7.7%, so I hope that 0.3% of the unemployed that are not counted feel better about their circumstances.

A more realistic picture of real unemployment is given by BLS U6. This is defined as "...total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force". Many call this the unemployed/underemployed number. U6 for July is 14%, seasonally adjusted, 14.3% unadjusted.

BLS unemployment data is based on surveys. My personal bias is to believe that the unemployment numbers are worse than reported because people tend to lie about how bad things are, or to think that it is no one else's business. Based on what I see in the media and on the web, I would guess that at least 25% of the potential work force consider themselves unemployed or underemployed. But no one with an I.Q. above room temperature can put any faith in the "official" unemployment numbers.

[Tom]

Fold in the millions of people who have stopped looking for work.
Whether things are getting a little better or not, only a fool would think things are great here.

The interest alone on our debt is staggering......and will be for generations to come.

And the dems have only plans to make it worse.

[Clocker]

The interest alone on our debt is staggering......and will be for generations to come.

A ticking time bomb that few in the government are aware of. Or will admit to.

The Treasury has always borrowed money by issuing long-term bonds, usually 30 year bonds, to finance the debt. That locks in the interest rate for years to come. As the debt grew and as the Federal Reserve drove short term interests rates down toward zero, the Treasury in recent years started borrowing by issuing short term bonds, often as short as 1 year.

That greatly reduced the interest on the debt. But as the short term debt expires and the bonds come due, the Treasury pays them off by issuing new short term bonds at the same low interest rates. When interest rates return to normal rates, and they will sooner or later, the Treasury will be faced with having to borrow at higher and higher rates to refinance short term bonds as they expire.

We currently pay about $500 billion a year in interest on the debt. If interest rates returned to "normal" ranges, it is estimated that the interest on the debt would soon double, even if we could stop going further into debt. In effect, the US Treasury is stuck with the largest adjustable rate mortgage in the history of the world.

One of the few benefits of being old is knowing that I am not going to be paying it off.

[Capper Al]

yep, has nothing to do with the current fiscal policies.........it's all those ATM's taking away jobs, huh Barry?

Btw, you can campaign all you want for the shorter work week crap, it's been tried in France and it was a dismal failure.......as predicted

It failed because all the other nations are working 40 hours. The only way it will work is if all the G20 countries would agree.

[Capper Al]

And that we need 125,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with population growth.

I love how you righties step in for one another even if what you say is gibberish. Of course, automation and cheap labor overseas is killing us. This was the premise. No one was arguing that we didn't need more jobs. But it sounds like you are making a point, doesn't it?

[Capper Al]

Fold in the millions of people who have stopped looking for work.
Whether things are getting a little better or not, only a fool would think things are great here.

The interest alone on our debt is staggering......and will be for generations to come.

And the dems have only plans to make it worse.

Righties on the rag!!! The point is cheap labor and automation are killing us. What's your solution? Recite the gospel according to Paul Ryan?

[woodtoo]

I don't know if it's just me,but what the hell are you talking about?
You seem to talk in riddles.


Righties on the rag!!! The point is cheap labor and automation are killing us. What's your solution? Recite the gospel according to Paul Ryan?

[badcompany]

I don't know if it's just me,but what the hell are you talking about?
You seem to talk in riddles.

Apparently, Al isn't happy with the automation that has allowed even a lunkhead like him to have access to technology that wasn't available to the top 1% just a short time ago.

Had Al been around when electricity was becoming widely available, he would've been bitching about the jobs being lost in the candle industry.

[woodtoo]

OK that helps,just a candle in the wind.


Apparently, Al isn't happy with the automation that has allowed even a lunkhead like him to have access to technology that wasn't available to the top 1% just a short time ago.

Had Al been around when electricity was becoming widely available, he would've been bitching about the jobs being lost in the candle industry.

[Tom]

OK that helps,just a candle in the wind.
Or a fart. :eek:

The interest we pay on the debt could provide health care for most of us.

[Capper Al]

It's fun when you righties chime in to defend each other without even understanding the discussion at hand. The more that jump in, the more fun! It's not automation that I'm against. It's that the top two percent aren't sharing the wealth and worse make life miserable for the rest of us. The problems needing solving are


How better might we all share in advancements in technology.
We, the people, need control over Global Funds.
How are we going to stop the ripple effect from off shore banking.
And we just need to regulate our financial banks better.


Solve these and most of the current ill feelings toward our predicament and economy would go away.

[Tom]

cIKugx1sToY

[Greyfox]

The interest we pay on the debt could provide health care for most of us.

A man who gets it.
Post of the month! :ThmbUp:

[nat1223]

here is one: stop spending!

[Clocker]

It's that the top two percent aren't sharing the wealth and worse make life miserable for the rest of us.




The top 10% of income earners in this country pay over 70% of all federal income tax revenue. Some people pay over 50% of their income in total taxes (federal, state, etc.). How is that not "sharing" the wealth?




We, the people, need control over Global Funds.
How are we going to stop the ripple effect from off shore banking.
And we just need to regulate our financial banks better.


You nailed it. All of our problems are due to the international banking conspiracy. We need to start by getting rid of the Bilderberg Group. Since Obama can't seem to make up his mind about what to do about Syria, maybe he could use a few spare missiles to take out the next Bilderberg meeting. I can't wait to get control of my share of "Global Funds".

[Clocker]

here is one: stop spending!

According to the Democrats, we don't have a spending problem, we have a "paying for" problem.

[GaryG]

Had Al been around when electricity was becoming widely available, he would've been bitching about the jobs being lost in the candle industry.As I remember from my long ago college days there was a Frenchman named Frederic Bastiat that made a similar point. The enemy is the sun. Free sunlight will put candle makers out of business. Also, woodsmen should use blunt hatchets so their task will take longer and they will earn more.

I want you righties to stop defending each other, you are making this pisswilly mad...

[PICSIX]

Here's what's coming according to Adam Carolla. WARNING, very graphic language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQpXybTnGVg

[HUSKER55]

if libs are so smart they should start their own businesses. Then they could make their dreams a reality instead of messing with other people.

oh wait.......that would mean work.

[JustRalph]

According to the Democrats, we don't have a spending problem, we have a "paying for" problem.

600 million on Obamacare Adverstising.

30 million without insurance. Excuse me, but if you divide that 600 million between the thirty million without coverage ..........I think we coud get rid of the problem...........

[Greyfox]

600 million on Obamacare Adverstising.

30 million without insurance. Excuse me, but if you divide that 600 million between the thirty million without coverage ..........I think we coud get rid of the problem...........

Huh? 600 mil/30 mil = $20 bucks each??

[JustRalph]

Huh? 600 mil/30 mil = $20 bucks each??

That'll do em....... :lol: ......add in the rest of Obamacare costs......... I think we could cover them.........

estimates now go out to 3 Trillion over the first decade......... depending on who you believe...........and I guarantee you, nobody knows the real costs.......until we are 5 yrs into it.......

[Capper Al]

Post #26

That should be the Corporate Royalist theme song.

[Capper Al]

As I remember from my long ago college days there was a Frenchman named Frederic Bastiat that made a similar point. The enemy is the sun. Free sunlight will put candle makers out of business. Also, woodsmen should use blunt hatchets so their task will take longer and they will earn more.

I want you righties to stop defending each other, you are making this pisswilly mad...

Note what I'm saying. I'm for the technology. The problem is sharing the benefit. Take a look at what has happen with the information age. We are doing more with less. Less employes producing more products. The top 2% have more money and we have less jobs. Think about it outside of the right vs left thing. See if you can wrap your mind around simple facts.

[Capper Al]

Here's what's coming according to Adam Carolla. WARNING, very graphic language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQpXybTnGVg

Here's the problem-- Capitalism doesn't have a competing system without it the people lose. The worse times in history have been when a single ideology was believed by the masses. Remember the inquisition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpI

[sammy the sage]

The top 2% have more money and we have less jobs. Think about it outside of the right vs left thing. See if you can wrap your mind around simple facts.

and THE simple fact of THE matter is THAT your party leader HAS been just as bad IF NOT worse at destroying the next 98%...

so SIMPLE even I can see it...mosty here can't...yes a pun if you will...applies to THE majority posting

[badcompany]

Note what I'm saying. I'm for the technology. The problem is sharing the benefit. Take a look at what has happen with the information age. We are doing more with less. Less employes producing more products. The top 2% have more money and we have less jobs. Think about it outside of the right vs left thing. See if you can wrap your mind around simple facts.

The U.S. population has quadrupled in the last 100 years. In that same time, there have been tremendous advances in technology.

If what you say is true, the unemployment rate should be over 75%. The reality is that there are more jobs than ever.

[Clocker]

Capitalism doesn't have a competing system without it the people lose. The worse times in history have been when a single ideology was believed by the masses.

Capitalism does have a competing system. It is called social democracy, and it took control of the government in 2008. More and more people are coming to the realization that it doesn't work, but it still has the upper hand in Washington. And the plight of the working man and the growing inequality between rich and poor have grow more under this president than under any in modern history.

Social democracy is doing the same thing in the US that it has done in Europe, destroying the middle class and widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Social democracy taken to its logical extreme is communism. And we have all seen what happens there, in the ultimate scheme to redistribute the wealth. There is less and less wealth to redistribute, and what there is still stays at the top.

The people at the bottom of the economic spectrum achieve real improvement only on their own. Capitalism allows that. Socialism discourages it. No system in history has done a better job of improving the status of the working man. It isn't the greedy rich that are destroying jobs in this country, it is the bureaucrats and the do-gooders.

[LottaKash]

]Here's the problem[/size]-- Capitalism doesn't have a competing system without it the people lose. The worse times in history have been when a single ideology was believed by the masses. Remember the inquisition.



Yikes !, what a comparison, a society that is free to make of it what you will, VS, an idealogy that said "either you believe in our god or we will torture you, then kill you....I don't get the connection.....

I mean for many, many years now, at least up until recently, most people in the world dreamed about, and wanted to come to this nation...And they weren't coming here to to be in any inquisition, imo...

[JustRalph]

Here's the problem-- Capitalism doesn't have a competing system without it the people lose. The worse times in history have been when a single ideology was believed by the masses. Remember the inquisition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpI

Your true socialist tendencies leaking out again? Pull your skirt down, your slip is showing

[Capper Al]

and THE simple fact of THE matter is THAT your party leader HAS been just as bad IF NOT worse at destroying the next 98%...

so SIMPLE even I can see it...mosty here can't...yes a pun if you will...applies to THE majority posting

What did I say- think outside of the right vs left! What did you do? You made left vs right. That's your comfort zone. No thinking on social issues.

[Capper Al]

The U.S. population has quadrupled in the last 100 years. In that same time, there have been tremendous advances in technology.

If what you say is true, the unemployment rate should be over 75%. The reality is that there are more jobs than ever.

That situation did fail with the great depression and recession. The WWII saved us by forcing us to spend, something we can't do now as much as we need it.

[Capper Al]

Capitalism does have a competing system. It is called social democracy, and it took control of the government in 2008. More and more people are coming to the realization that it doesn't work, but it still has the upper hand in Washington. And the plight of the working man and the growing inequality between rich and poor have grow more under this president than under any in modern history.

Social democracy is doing the same thing in the US that it has done in Europe, destroying the middle class and widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Social democracy taken to its logical extreme is communism. And we have all seen what happens there, in the ultimate scheme to redistribute the wealth. There is less and less wealth to redistribute, and what there is still stays at the top.

The people at the bottom of the economic spectrum achieve real improvement only on their own. Capitalism allows that. Socialism discourages it. No system in history has done a better job of improving the status of the working man. It isn't the greedy rich that are destroying jobs in this country, it is the bureaucrats and the do-gooders.

Okay, I'll give that the social democratic is our current challenge. But what we need is a big threat like we had with the old Soviets. Then the top 2% are more open to accommodating to the rest of us. Yes, there are two cultural systems up for grabs in our future, the Indian (like India has with a very small middle class) model, or the European (Social Democratic) model. Charles Dickens and many others in our heritage lead us towards having a conscience and the Social Democrat model. This is the direction that I still want to keep going in.

[Capper Al]

Yikes !, what a comparison, a society that is free to make of it what you will, VS, an idealogy that said "either you believe in our god or we will torture you, then kill you....I don't get the connection.....

I mean for many, many years now, at least up until recently, most people in the world dreamed about, and wanted to come to this nation...And they weren't coming here to to be in any inquisition, imo...

You lost your compass. Yes, we lucked in and things worked out just right for us. And don't forget the unions were part of that too. Freedom is more of a misnomer. Most of us can't make it without belong to an organization. Either we control the corporations or they control us. This is the battle going on now. Telling a surf back in the day that he was a surf would have fallen on deaf ears. Same today with telling a person that they are industrial surf. Of course, there are more exceptions today than in the past. But for the most part, most of us are corporate surfs.

[TJDave]

I can pretty much guarantee that my grandkids won't be working at mom & pop's, soda fountains, filling stations, sacking groceries or delivering newspapers.

Just exactly where do kids find jobs today?

[GaryG]

Telling a surf back in the day that he was a surf would have fallen on deaf ears. Same today with telling a person that they are industrial surf. Of course, there are more exceptions today than in the past. But for the most part, most of us are corporate surfs.Well then, I guess the Beach Boys had it right when they said "Surfin is the only life the only way for me"....

[Clocker]

Well then, I guess the Beach Boys had it right when they said "Surfin is the only life the only way for me"....

Hmmm. Maybe I should change my plans for that Serfing Safari vacation.

[Tom]

Al, serfing the web!

Bennet CERF on Technology:

Dead batteries were given out to the poor, free of charge.

Trust your calculator, you can count on it.

Technology is dangerous....drop a computer on your foot and you will have megahertz.

Technology is cheap - buy a new computer and they will give a free opetating system to boot!

See Al, we all get to share it!

[mostpost]

you forgot to add that 70% percent of those added jobs were part time
This is false. We added 161,000 total jobs in July. Of those 73,000 were part time. 73,000 is 45% of 161,000 not 70%. But that is not the whole story either. Part time jobs are divided into those which are taken for economic reasons and those which are taken for non economic reasons. In other words people who are working part time because there are no full time jobs available and those who are working part time because the wish to work only part time.

The BLS figures show there were 10,000 less people working part time in July who wanted to work full time than there were in June. We still have too many who do not have full time jobs, but the percentage is not 70%. It is 45%. And we keep adding jobs; now for 30 consecutive months. That is better than losing jobs.

[Clocker]

This is false. We added 161,000 total jobs in July. Of those 73,000 were part time. 73,000 is 45% of 161,000 not 70%.

Hmmm, are we cherry-picking our data?

75 Percent of Jobs Created this Year Were Part-Time Due to Weak Economy, ObamaCare Concerns

WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.

Faltering economic growth at home and abroad and concern that President Barack Obama's signature health care law will drive up business costs are behind the wariness about taking on full-time staff, executives at staffing and payroll firms say

I'm sure you will reject that story based on its source, those rabid far-right crazies at the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/part-time-job-creation_n_3788365.html).

[mostpost]

A more realistic picture of real unemployment is given by BLS U6. This is defined as "...total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force". Many call this the unemployed/underemployed number. U6 for July is 14%, seasonally adjusted, 14.3% unadjusted.

You guys keep talking about this U6 rating. The funny thing is you never mention that the U6 rate is dropping right along with the U3. It was 14.0 in July, down from a high of 17.1 in 2009.

[JustRalph]

The fact that you are defending the numbers is disgraceful.

If this was a Republican President it would be called a devastating crisis.

It would also be called a racist conspiracy against minorities.

Those who point that out are becoming persona non grata in the Dem party.

They speak the truth.

[mostpost]

BLS unemployment data is based on surveys. My personal bias is to believe that the unemployment numbers are worse than reported because people tend to lie about how bad things are, or to think that it is no one else's business. Based on what I see in the media and on the web, I would guess that at least 25% of the potential work force consider themselves unemployed or underemployed. But no one with an I.Q. above room temperature can put any faith in the "official" unemployment numbers.
The key words here are your "personal bias." Considering that you get a lot of your information from right wing media and websites, I put zero faith in your opinion on this subject. My IQ is far above room temperature and I have quite a bit of faith in official unemployment numbers.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The BLS figures show there were 10,000 less people working part time in July who wanted to work full time than there were in June. We still have too many who do not have full time jobs, but the percentage is not 70%. It is 45%. And we keep adding jobs; now for 30 consecutive months. That is better than losing jobs.

In July 2013, there were 2.665 mm people in the bolded category below, up from 2.652 in June 2013 and 2.568 mm in July 2012. I don't know what Mother Jones magazine is telling you, but these are the actual numbers from the BLS.


Series Id: LNS12032196
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, Could Only Find Part-Time Work, All Industries
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled: Could only find part time work
Worker status/schedules: At work part time

[Saratoga_Mike]

The key words here are your "personal bias." Considering that you get a lot of your information from right wing media and websites, I put zero faith in your opinion on this subject. My IQ is far above room temperature and I have quite a bit of faith in official unemployment numbers.

In the words of the late Bob Novak, that's delicious given you get a lot of your information (read: all) from left-wing media and websites.

[mostpost]

Change has come alright....Thank you Mr. "current" potus...You were so instrumental in all of this...You said change would come, and it has....You have managed to break very "new ground", economically speaking....
"Mr 'Current POTUS'" is responsible for none of this. Our current economic situation and our failure to improve it more rapidly is solely the fault of the idiot Republicans. Our problems started when Reagan decided it was no longer a good idea to require those with the most to contribute most to the cost of running the country. It continued with the war against unions and culminated in the decision that my bank should be allowed to gamble my money on unsound financial instruments. And now those same idiot Republicans continue to espouse the same failed policies and refuse to embrace solutions that would solve the problem.

I apologize for saying "Idiot Republicans" since that is redundant.

[Clocker]

I have quite a bit of faith in official unemployment numbers.

You need to share that Kool Aid so the rest of us can feel confident. The fact is that the job market is in the toilet, and the official numbers don't reflect it, and the administration won't admit it.

The recession ended in June, 2009. Four years later and the "official" unemployment rate is a disgrace on its face, and it does not begin to reflect the reality of the need for jobs. There are huge numbers of people counted as employed, but they can't find the full time work they need to live on. The labor force participation rate is also in the toilet, meaning people have stopped looking for work, and that is not reflected in the unemployment rate. The number of people getting government aid is sky-rocketing, and that is not reflected in the unemployment rate.

[JustRalph]

.
"Mr 'Current POTUS'" is responsible for none of this. Our current economic situation and our failure to improve it more rapidly is solely the fault of the idiot Republicans. Our problems started when Reagan decided it was no longer a good idea to require those with the most to contribute most to the cost of running the country. It continued with the war against unions and culminated in the decision that my bank should be allowed to gamble my money on unsound financial instruments. And now those same idiot Republicans continue to espouse the same failed policies and refuse to embrace solutions that would solve the problem.

I apologize for saying "Idiot Republicans" since that is redundant.

Ever heard of Bill Clinton? Barney Frank? Do we have to get out the videos of them ?

[Capper Al]

Well then, I guess the Beach Boys had it right when they said "Surfin is the only life the only way for me"....

Sorry about that.

[Capper Al]

The fact that you are defending the numbers is disgraceful.

If this was a Republican President it would be called a devastating crisis.

It would also be called a racist conspiracy against minorities.

Those who point that out are becoming persona non grata in the Dem party.

They speak the truth.

Feeling like a victim?

[mostpost]

In July 2013, there were 2.665 mm people in the bolded category below, up from 2.652 in June 2013 and 2.568 mm in July 2012. I don't know what Mother Jones magazine is telling you, but these are the actual numbers from the BLS.


Series Id: LNS12032196
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, Could Only Find Part-Time Work, All Industries
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled: Could only find part time work
Worker status/schedules: At work part time

I got my figures from the same place you got yours.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm

My figures were for every one who was working part time for economic reasons-8,101,000 in July of 2013 vs. 8,104,000 in July of 2012. The difference is in the category "Slack work or Business conditions.

But let's use your figures.
2,665,000 in July of 2013. 2,558,000 in July 2012.
If my math is correct that is an increase of 107,000 part time jobs from July 2012 to July 2013. Now let's go back to that same Table A-8 and see how many total jobs were created in that period.

That information is on line five of that table-non agricultural industries. In July of 2013 there were 142,165,00 persons employed. One year previous the number was 140,013,000. That means we gained 2,152,000 jobs in total over the year. So we have a gain of 2,152,000 jobs of which 107,000 are part time-using your figures. I don't think 107,000 is 75% of 2,152,000.
More like 4%.

Why the difference between the 70% so many of you are touting and the 4% which your own figures come up with? There is a reason, but I am going to let you figure it out if you can.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I got my figures from the same place you got yours.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm

My figures were for every one who was working part time for economic reasons-8,101,000 in July of 2013 vs. 8,104,000 in July of 2012. The difference is in the category "Slack work or Business conditions.

But let's use your figures.
2,665,000 in July of 2013. 2,558,000 in July 2012.
If my math is correct that is an increase of 107,000 part time jobs from July 2012 to July 2013. Now let's go back to that same Table A-8 and see how many total jobs were created in that period.

That information is on line five of that table-non agricultural industries. In July of 2013 there were 142,165,00 persons employed. One year previous the number was 140,013,000. That means we gained 2,152,000 jobs in total over the year. So we have a gain of 2,152,000 jobs of which 107,000 are part time-using your figures. I don't think 107,000 is 75% of 2,152,000.
More like 4%.

Why the difference between the 70% so many of you are touting and the 4% which your own figures come up with? There is a reason, but I am going to let you figure it out if you can.

I don't know about the 70% number, just correcting your previous assertion. Also, I believe your mixing data - using payroll survey data and household survey data, but I don't care enough to check.

Bottom line: the economy is improving but primarily due to the Fed's historic action, not anything Obama has done. His policies have arguably retarded growth.

[Clocker]

Ever heard of Bill Clinton?

Would that be the Bill Clinton that advocated the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, and who signed the law repealing those bank regulations in 1999? Would that be the Bill Clinton who signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 deregulating the trading of credit default swaps and other derivatives? Would that be the Bill Clinton who used the Community Reinvestment Act to set guidelines for bank expansion of subprime mortgages?

[PaceAdvantage]

I love how you righties step in for one another even if what you say is gibberish. Of course, automation and cheap labor overseas is killing us. This was the premise. No one was arguing that we didn't need more jobs. But it sounds like you are making a point, doesn't it?Man, you have a giant persecution complex...are you aware of that?

[PaceAdvantage]

It's that the top two percent aren't sharing the wealth and worse make life miserable for the rest of us.Why should anyone be required to share their wealth with anyone else?

Where was this abysmal, unAmerican notion hatched?

This is the point where your epic fail occurs...

[Capper Al]

Man, you have a giant persecution complex...are you aware of that?

Retaliating for post #64? You even give your pets cover when they need it. Fair and balanced??? :bang:

[PaceAdvantage]

Feeling like a victim?Feeling like someone who bought a bill of goods?

[PaceAdvantage]

Would that be the Bill Clinton that advocated the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, and who signed the law repealing those bank regulations in 1999? Would that be the Bill Clinton who signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 deregulating the trading of credit default swaps and other derivatives? Would that be the Bill Clinton who used the Community Reinvestment Act to set guidelines for bank expansion of subprime mortgages?Yeah, that would be the one...

[PaceAdvantage]

Retaliating for post #64? You even give your pets cover when they need it. Fair and balanced??? :bang:I rest my case.

[Capper Al]

Why should anyone be required to share their wealth with anyone else?

Where was this abysmal, unAmerican notion hatched?

This is the point where your epic fail occurs...

They should share the wealth because we are all in this life together. It's just the extremes that are wrong. While there are starving children there should not be filthy rich people. It's just not right. Why would a person need more than 10 million? We won the cold war but that doesn't justify a capitalism with neglect of the have nots.

[sammy the sage]

Yeah, that would be the one...

yep...he be that...but IN BED w/PUGS...congressman Phil G. from Texas...they were ACTUALLY the architects... :rolleyes: :bang: :mad:

[Capper Al]

yep...he be that...but IN BED w/PUGS...congressman Phil G. from Texas...they were ACTUALLY the architects... :rolleyes: :bang: :mad:

That was a movement from the right. The libs went along with it in a spirit of compromise something apparently today's repubs forget.

[PaceAdvantage]

They should share the wealth because we are all in this life together.I agree. It is noble and kind and generous of someone who has more to share with those who have less.

But you are advocating something completely different. You want those with more to be REQUIRED to share with those who have less.

I find that abhorrent.

[Clocker]

But you are advocating something completely different. You want those with more to be REQUIRED to share with those who have less.

It's an honored tradition with those on the left. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

[Capper Al]

I agree. It is noble and kind and generous of someone who has more to share with those who have less.

But you are advocating something completely different. You want those with more to be REQUIRED to share with those who have less.

I find that abhorrent.

And not the starving children?

[badcompany]

.
"Mr 'Current POTUS'" is responsible for none of this. Our current economic situation and our failure to improve it more rapidly is solely the fault of the idiot Republicans. Our problems started when Reagan decided it was no longer a good idea to require those with the most to contribute most to the cost of running the country. It continued with the war against unions and culminated in the decision that my bank should be allowed to gamble my money on unsound financial instruments. And now those same idiot Republicans continue to espouse the same failed policies and refuse to embrace solutions that would solve the problem.

I apologize for saying "Idiot Republicans" since that is redundant.

I've heard you and other Leftists make the claim that Reagan was somehow responsible for the decline of Unions.

The problem with that argument is that Union membership peaked in the mid 1950s, when Reagan was still making bad movies, and slid downward for 25 years before he was elected.

So, unless Reagan's performance in "Bedtime for Bonzo" triggered the decline in Union membership, your premise is somewhat flawed.

[Capper Al]

Serf's up! :D

( Joke about my spelling)

[PaceAdvantage]

And not the starving children?Where, pray tell, is this giant unwashed mass of starving children in the United States?

Any starving children will eventually be snatched up by protective services and given proper food, nourishment and shelter.

And who's paying for that? The 1%.

[badcompany]

Where, pray tell, is this giant unwashed mass of starving children in the United States?

.

In the strange place that is Al's mind


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/null_zps150ae8d3.png

[JustRalph]

Feeling like a victim?

Once again you have a reading comprehension problem. I was referring to "democrats" being ostracized by their own party.

Such as Tavis Smiley and Cornel West?

Btw, Ron Reagan was the President of a Union.........elected by his peers

[mostpost]

Why should anyone be required to share their wealth with anyone else?

Where was this abysmal, unAmerican notion hatched?

This is the point where your epic fail occurs...
Capper Al did not say sharing their wealth. He said sharing the wealth. In other words, technology has made it possible to produce more with less effort. Why should the benefits of that accrue to just one group?

Why should just the employer benefit? Do not tell me it is because the employer is the one who paid for the new technology. That investment has been returned many times over. Don't tell me it is because the employer has developed the new technology. Perhaps a few did, but most just bought it. And a lot of technological advances were developed by workers. They never get credit because the companies have them tied into agreements where every thing they develop belongs to the company.

[Clocker]

And not the starving children?

They are getting really annoying. I had to step over a couple of them on the sidewalk on my way into the steak house the other night. And when I came out with the styrofoam container with the scraps of my filet for my dog, a couple of the disgusting little beggars tried to rip it out of my hands. As I shoved them aside, they whined about being hungry, and they wouldn't eat until they got their free school breakfast and free school lunch the next day.

[Clocker]

And a lot of technological advances were developed by workers. They never get credit because the companies have them tied into agreements where every thing they develop belongs to the company.

You are right. That is why GM and Chrysler went bankrupt as the greedy owners sucked all the wealth out of the companies, without giving any of it to the employees in the form of wages, benefits, or pensions.

I have heard one poster after another here claim that labor is not getting its fair share of the increases in productivity, without ever providing a shred of evidence, or ever providing a hint as to how to measure the shares of productivity.

[HUSKER55]

you libs just keep it up and more jobs will go to "other workers" over seas who will get their share of the wealth.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
And a lot of technological advances were developed by workers. They never get credit because the companies have them tied into agreements where every thing they develop belongs to the company.

When the owners provide the resources and pay you, of COURSE it their property. That is so simple, I thought even YOU could understand it.
I over-estimated your capabilities once again!

[Clocker]

you libs just keep it up and more jobs will go to "other workers" over seas who will get their share of the wealth.

This is the result of a very basic principle of human behavior, one which most business people don't even stop to think about, and which apparently no politicians have a clue about.

Here is the dirty little secret: People do what they are rewarded for.

You can tell people what they should do, or what you want them to do, or what is good for them, all to no avail. You can pass laws telling people what they should do. But they will do what they are rewarded for.

If you reward companies for moving jobs overseas, they will move jobs overseas. If you reward people for cutting their employees back to under 30 hours a week, they will cut the hours. If you reward companies for dropping health care benefits and shifting employees to the exchanges, they will drop health care benefits in a New York minute. If you reward companies for keeping their international profits off-shore, they will keep their international profits off-shore.

Why does this surprise anyone? This isn't rocket surgery.:eek:

[JustRalph]

This is the result of a very basic principle of human behavior, one which most business people don't even stop to think about, and which apparently no politicians have a clue about.

Here is the dirty little secret: People do what they are rewarded for.

You can tell people what they should do, or what you want them to do, or what is good for them, all to no avail. You can pass laws telling people what they should do. But they will do what they are rewarded for.

If you reward companies for moving jobs overseas, they will move jobs overseas. If you reward people for cutting their employees back to under 30 hours a week, they will cut the hours. If you reward companies for dropping health care benefits and shifting employees to the exchanges, they will drop health care benefits in a New York minute. If you reward companies for keeping their international profits off-shore, they will keep their international profits off-shore.

Why does this surprise anyone? This isn't rocket surgery.:eek:

Btw, even the so called "Liberal" companies will hide their profits from the tax man. There is a picture posted on this board of Obama sitting down to dinner at a fundraiser with Steve Jobs and the titans of Silicon Valley. Every single one of those companies launders their profits through Ireland and other offshore countries to dramatically reduce their tax liability.

They want to raise taxes, and they pay to promote the concept via their support for Dems, yet they only want others to pay. They are duplicitous assholes who think they should be exempt. They talk out of both sides of their mouths and rake in obscene profits while dodging their tax liability. Yet they get raves and support from Liberal Dems. But let Mitt Romney take advantage of the same tax laws and the Obama campaign runs ads about dodging taxes in the Caymen Islands. Ads about Bain dodging taxes etc. It's utter bullshit and lies.

Clocker is right about providing incentives in a backhanded manner. Most don't get it. But all is going according to plan..............creating more have nots is good for Dems. Greasing your supporters pockets while doing it is a grand slam

[Capper Al]

Take your pick. I went for extreme cases with starving children. It doesn't matter if you believe in it or not. We could just have a shorter work week if everything else is equal.

The trick from the top two percent is to give the people an ideology that keeps those needed working and maintaining the best ROI for themselves. An ideology that says the more you give the top two percent the better your life will be. This ideology has to blind the masses from facts of who really is benefitting with more with less and the advancements in technology. Like the belief in the Catholic church and Kings back in the day for the serfs that worked the land, it is the ideology for the corporate serfs that work industry today.

[burnsy]

Lost generation?.......which one? This is like that ridiculous thread about..."young people not smart enough to handicap". Well, i'm 50 years old and from where i'm sitting our generation has ****ed things up royally. Everyone else are victims of the baby boomers screwing things up. Yeah, but we are so much smarter than the younger people. :lol: They'll be paying for the OLDER generations "screw ups" for decades. Its George Bush and Barrack Obamas fault.....:cool:

[Tom]

We could just have a shorter work week if everything else is equal.

Everything else is never equal.
The bills are still due, they do not shrink.
And there will always be people willing to work longer to get ahead and make more - and there will always you guys right there demanding they pay more to make up for your lack of effort. Why work 40 when you can work 36 and then leech off someone who works 48. That about right?

[Dave Schwartz]

Take your pick. I went for extreme cases with starving children. It doesn't matter if you believe in it or not. We could just have a shorter work week if everything else is equal.

Al,

Have you ever owned your own business?

I would assume not.

When you own a business, you hire employees to... do something that needs to be done.

Because the goal is to make profit, you do not say, "Gee, I need 120 hours of labor per week, but I think I will hire 10 people because I am making so much money and those people need jobs."

So, you determine what needs to be done and how many people it will take to do it. After you have hired the people, you tinker with the number and mix of employees to get it right.

Let's say that you eventually realize that it takes a staff of three full-time people to get the job done.

Above, you say, "We could just have a shorter week..." So, if it takes 120 hours to get the job done, and now you are only getting 96 hours from your staff of three, what do you do?

Basically, you have the following choices:

1. You continue to pay them the same hourly rate and hire a 4th (part-time) employee to make up the difference. Your payroll costs remain the same.

2. You pay them a higher hourly rate, because you want them to receive the same paycheck. Then you hire a 4th (part-time) employee to make up the difference in hours. Your payroll costs go up to cover the new employee.

Now, if YOU were the owner of this small business, which would YOU do?

Which SHOULD you do?

If your business was barely producing enough money to provide for YOUR family, which do you think is "fair?"

[badcompany]

Take your pick. I went for extreme cases with starving children. It doesn't matter if you believe in it or not. We could just have a shorter work week if everything else is equal.

The trick from the top two percent is to give the people an ideology that keeps those needed working and maintaining the best ROI for themselves. An ideology that says the more you give the top two percent the better your life will be. This ideology has to blind the masses from facts of who really is benefitting with more with less and the advancements in technology. Like the belief in the Catholic church and Kings back in the day for the serfs that worked the land, it is the ideology for the corporate serfs that work industry today.

Why your analogy fails is that these corporations have to cater to the "surfs" or go out of business. Sears used to be as dominant as Walmart, but it lost its way, and now, it's, for intents, in an orderly liquidation. JC Penney is on its way there, too.

With tech companies the decline can be even faster, Blackberry being a recent example.

That's what you Socialists never get. In a Capitalist system, the consumer is the King.

[Capper Al]

Fellow Industrial Serfs,

We're in an area of Financial Capitalism. If you are in the top 2% your money works for you. If not you work for our money. We are now under the bankers control. There is alway a lot of naivety about the current era we live in. Those with small businesses are not Financial Capitalist. They are only self-employed. They have to work for a living.

[TJDave]

Fellow Industrial Serfs,
There is alway a lot of naivety about the current era we live in. Those with small businesses are not Financial Capitalist. They are only self-employed. They have to work for a living.

There is much truth in this. Those who start a business to provide a job for themselves and/or family are doomed. You grow...or die. 'Small business' is a mutually exlcusive term.

[JustRalph]

They are only self-employed. They have to work for a living.

Only the ones that choose too. If you start a business to supply yourself with only "a job" you are a fool. Early on, yes. But if you could make equal pay at a job, working for someone else, you are assuming way too much risk for "your job"

This shows how out of touch you are

[Capper Al]

http://front.moveon.org/how-workers-can-get-a-fair-shake-a-labor-day-message-from-robert-reich/#.UiUM1dItrs5

Video works in Explorer.

[Capper Al]

Only the ones that choose too. If you start a business to supply yourself with only "a job" you are a fool. Early on, yes. But if you could make equal pay at a job, working for someone else, you are assuming way too much risk for "your job"

This shows how out of touch you are

Think bigger. Outside of lobbying are the banks working for their money? GM, Bank America, etc succeed inspite of themselves.

And what you say is the hook. People rarely what to change the system. All they want is to see how they can get ahead in the world they have.

[Tom]

Outside of lobbying are the banks working for their money?

Yes, they provide a service, utility, and they take the risk on loans.
You can argue the fees, but you can't deny they work for it.
Well, you might...... :bang:

[Capper Al]

Yes, they provide a service, utility, and they take the risk on loans.
You can argue the fees, but you can't deny they work for it.
Well, you might...... :bang:

You ha e the gospel down. Keep working and giving up your life on that thought. Be happy.

[Dave Schwartz]

Think bigger. Outside of lobbying are the banks working for their money? GM, Bank America, etc succeed inspite of themselves.

Their MONEY is working for their money.

If you think that has no value, try starting a business without any money and see how far you get.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I don't have bank account of any sort, not even a card or loan now that the student scam is paid. I hate banks. How many of those that are constantly bitching about them have actually done more than just bitch?

[newtothegame]

They should share the wealth because we are all in this life together. It's just the extremes that are wrong. While there are starving children there should not be filthy rich people. It's just not right. Why would a person need more than 10 million? We won the cold war but that doesn't justify a capitalism with neglect of the have nots.
So, your mere existence makes you entitled to someone elses hard efforts??? :lol:

[badcompany]

So, your mere existence makes you entitled to someone elses hard efforts??? :lol:

A guy like Al obviously subscribes to the Marx Labor Theory of Value which states that profits are a form of theft. So, in his mind, he's not a freeloader, but someone who is trying to get back what was stolen from him.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why should just the employer benefit?The employer just doesn't benefit. Last I checked hardly anyone works for free these days.

I dare say most employees are paid in US Dollars for services rendered. All this with no risk (well, they do incur the risk of being fired if they turn out to be a piss-poor worker).

[Clocker]

They should share the wealth because we are all in this life together.

Why are we all in this together? Why am I responsible for people that make stupid decisions? By what moral authority do you presume to tell me what I "should" do with the fruits of my labor?

If you want to help out people who make bad decisions or who have bad luck, that is your business. If I want to help out, that is my business. But you have no right to judge my decisions, and you have no right to force me to abide by your standards.

We are not all in this together. I have no responsibility for the decisions of others, and I expect no one else to be responsible for my decisions. If I want to help someone, or if someone wants to help me, that is a personal and voluntary decision, and it is no business of society or government.

[HUSKER55]

YOU WOULD BE CORRECT

[GaryG]

If you want to help out people who make bad decisions or who have bad luck, that is your business. If I want to help out, that is my business. But you have no right to judge my decisions, and you have no right to force me to abide by your standards.Yes....I support regional charities, mostly dealing with the needy folks in TN, VA, WV and KY, plus the missions supported by my church. I resent having my hard earned dollars re-distributed by socialist bureaucrats. FUBO.

[badcompany]

Yes....I support regional charities, mostly dealing with the needy folks in TN, VA, WV and KY, plus the missions supported by my church. I resent having my hard earned dollars re-distributed by socialist bureaucrats. FUBO.

Guys like Al who want to tell everyone else what to do with their money are usually cheap asses with their own. My guess is that Al's donations are made primarily at the track.

[Tom]

If we are all in this together, how come so any of us are not pulling our own weight? How come I have no problem finding a parking spot at work every day?


"Where the hell is you all, anywho?":confused:

[Capper Al]

Their MONEY is working for their money.

If you think that has no value, try starting a business without any money and see how far you get.

It's not only their money working for them. It is a lot of our money (gov't) also.

[mostpost]

So, your mere existence makes you entitled to someone elses hard efforts??? :lol:
I think I am entitled to see my hard efforts justly compensated. I don't think my employer should be able to arbitrarily decide what I should be paid. In those cases he will always short change me and favor himself.

As I have said many times, just compensation is determined through negotiation between bargaining equals.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think I am entitled to see my hard efforts justly compensated. I don't think my employer should be able to arbitrarily decide what I should be paid. In those cases he will always short change me and favor himself.

As I have said many times, just compensation is determined through negotiation between bargaining equals.

All comes down to how you define "justly," correct? Curious, where do you think minimum wage should be set at Most?

[Clocker]

just compensation is determined through negotiation between bargaining equals.

Nice theory, but it doesn't exist in the real world. It's always either a buyer's market or a seller's market. You make the best deal you can and make the best of it.

[GaryG]

Consider the burger wars that have been in the news. If one group of McWorkers decides to walk out there will be twice as many in line for their jobs. I can see it now, a protest and near riot shuts down a McDonalds in Detroit....then the locals bitch because they don't have anyplace to get their burgers and nuggets. $15 an hour? Not even when pigs fly....<cue Pink Floyd>

[Tom]

As I have said many times, just compensation is determined through negotiation between bargaining equals.


The idea that the worker is equal is preposterous!
It borders on lunacy.
The worker puts up no capital and assumes no risk of investment.

The guy with the skin in the game offers you a job - take it or not, your choice.

[LottaKash]

the Marx Labor Theory of Value which states that profits are a form of theft.

Yikes !...All these years I thought I did OK for a working guy, now I find that I was being robbed all that time !.....

Where can one go to get his "just" compensation and maybe some revenge too ?...Those dirty profiteers...:D

[Clocker]

The idea that the worker is equal is preposterous!
It borders on lunacy.

Workers can turn the tables, depending on the rules of the game. Public sector unions, for example, have the upper hand in bargaining. For starters, it is management in this case that has no skin in the game. Anything management gives away does not come out of their pockets. It doesn't even come out of their budget if they are giving away future wage increases or fat pensions.

More importantly, management needs the good will of the union for campaign contributions and votes. Votes and campaign cash trumps fiscal responsibility every time.

[badcompany]

Consider the burger wars that have been in the news. If one group of McWorkers decides to walk out there will be twice as many in line for their jobs. I can see it now, a protest and near riot shuts down a McDonalds in Detroit....then the locals bitch because they don't have anyplace to get their burgers and nuggets. $15 an hour? Not even when pigs fly....<cue Pink Floyd>

From a purely economic standpoint, the marginally profitable stores will have to cut staff, causing an increase in wait time for food, causing a decrease in customers, causing further cuts in staff. The other option is to increase prices, but that movie ends the same way, with fewer jobs because of the decreased demand.

In either case, Libs will start chirping that the loss of jobs is a failure of the free market.

[mostpost]

A guy like Al obviously subscribes to the Marx Labor Theory of Value which states that profits are a form of theft. So, in his mind, he's not a freeloader, but someone who is trying to get back what was stolen from him.
That is an over simplification of the Marx Labor Theory of Value which basically states that the value of an item is determined by the labor needed to produce it. A theory I do not subscribe to and which I doubt Capper Al does either.

What I do subscribe to is the idea that labor transforms and adds value. Without labor your friendly neighborhood capitalist would have a bunch of random parts and idle machines. And without the parts and machines your friendly, neighborhood laborer would be toiling without meaning.

Therein lies the difference between us. I recognize the contribution of the capitalist, but I also understand the importance of the laborer. To you the laborer is just a necessary evil.

[mostpost]

The idea that the worker is equal is preposterous!
It borders on lunacy.
The worker puts up no capital and assumes no risk of investment.

The guy with the skin in the game offers you a job - take it or not, your choice.
Do you know the definition of obsequious? It's someone who flatters and fawns over those in authority. Think Eddie Haskell in Leave It To Beaver. "That certainly is a lovely dress you're wearing, Mrs. Cleaver." "Nobody makes better cookies than you, Mrs. Cleaver.

Nobody does obsequious better than you with your constant fawning over those in higher position than you, and your continual putdown of those beneath you.

[Tom]

Workers can turn the tables, depending on the rules of the game. Public sector unions, for example, have the upper hand in bargaining. For starters, it is management in this case that has no skin in the game. Anything management gives away does not come out of their pockets. It doesn't even come out of their budget if they are giving away future wage increases or fat pensions.

More importantly, management needs the good will of the union for campaign contributions and votes. Votes and campaign cash trumps fiscal responsibility every time.

What about the small business owner? It comes right out of his pocket many times. A local dairy with 15 drivers - there is no raising prices without losing sales, there are no fat pensions - there is one guy trying to make ends meet, who has put his life into his business - no way in hell he is equal to the drivers.

[Tom]

Do you know the definition of obsequious? It's someone who flatters and fawns over those in authority. Think Eddie Haskell in Leave It To Beaver. "That certainly is a lovely dress you're wearing, Mrs. Cleaver." "Nobody makes better cookies than you, Mrs. Cleaver.

Nobody does obsequious better than you with your constant fawning over those in higher position than you, and your continual putdown of those beneath you. __________________

Do you know the definition of total moron?
Do you know the definition of hard work, honesty?
To insinuate I am a suck up because I know the value of a job and am not afraid to fend for myself shows your depth or ignorance - far deeper than I ever imagined, and I imaged pretty damn deep.

Thanks for revealing your true lack of any intelligence at all.
You just can't imagine anyone actually getting ahead on their own merit, without a mob behind them, can you, you useless 5th wheel?

[badcompany]

Therein lies the difference between us. I recognize the contribution of the capitalist, but I also understand the importance of the laborer. To you the laborer is just a necessary evil.

That would only be the case if I were in a position where I had to hire you. ;)

[mostpost]

Why are we all in this together? Why am I responsible for people that make stupid decisions? By what moral authority do you presume to tell me what I "should" do with the fruits of my labor?
By this moral authority:
"When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the LORD your God. (NRSV, Leviticus 19:9-10)"

"Through service, we give others the things they lack, and we find meaning and fulfillment to our own lives. Both the Old and New Testament writings give many examples of the importance of service and charity:"

"He who despises his neighbor sins, but happy is he who is gracious to the poor. (NAS, Proverbs 14:21)"

"Feed the hungry! Help those in trouble! Then your light will shine out from the darkness, and the darkness around you shall be as bright as day. And the Lord will guide you continually, and satisfy you with all good things, and keep you healthy too; and you will be like a well-watered garden, like an ever-flowing spring. (TLB, Isaiah 58:10-11)"

"And the crowds asked [John the Baptist], "What then should we do?" In reply he said to them, "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise." (NRSV, Luke 3:10-11)"

"But whoever has the world's goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? (NAS, 1 John 3:17)"

[mostpost]

Do you know the definition of total moron?
Do you know the definition of hard work, honesty?
To insinuate I am a suck up because I know the value of a job and am not afraid to fend for myself shows your depth or ignorance - far deeper than I ever imagined, and I imaged pretty damn deep.

Thanks for revealing your true lack of any intelligence at all.
You just can't imagine anyone actually getting ahead on their own merit, without a mob behind them, can you, you useless 5th wheel?

Six posts today, plus who knows how much time spent reading all the threads here. Tell me again how hard you are working?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Six posts today, plus who knows how much time spent reading all the threads here. Tell me again how hard you are working?

You have his work schedule? Perhaps the evil capitalist who employs him has given him the day off.

[Clocker]

By this moral authority:

If you happen to believe in that moral authority, those quotes are all about giving. They don't say anything about taking. They are all about voluntary actions, not about compelling anyone to do anything.

In the secular world, this is the moral authority:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Capper Al]

What will people do for an income when everything is finally automated? And no I'm not a Marxist, but I think you righties ought to read him. No one person is right or wrong about everything. Marx had a few good points also. Marx's predictions are coming true. He predicted that the capitalist would industrialize the whole world.

[Clocker]

What will people do for an income when everything is finally automated?

People have been asking that question since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and it hasn't happened yet.

I wrote a check for $160 to an air conditioning repair guy last week. His job ain't going away. The big manufacturing jobs are not coming back. New jobs and industries are being created that didn't exist years ago. The only people that have to worry are the people who refuse to accept that the world is changing and refuse to adapt.

[Tom]

You have his work schedule? Perhaps the evil capitalist who employs him has given him the day off.

As a matter of fact, I was working late today - just got out. I am training new people we just hired because we got new jobs - non-union jobs. :lol:
mostpost cannot argue the facts so he sinks into the slime where he is at home.
The man has no clue what hard work and responsibility are all about; he is a taker. He thinks he is entitled to everything and has no shame in how he gets it.

[mostpost]

As a matter of fact, I was working late today - just got out. I am training new people we just hired because we got new jobs - non-union jobs. :lol:
mostpost cannot argue the facts so he sinks into the slime where he is at home.
The man has no clue what hard work and responsibility are all about; he is a taker. He thinks he is entitled to everything and has no shame in how he gets it.
So you're angry because I said you were obsequious. You, the guy who is constantly putting other people down. Calling them anchors and POS's. Never giving anyone credit for anything.

Everyone go back and read my "Obsequious" post. There is nothing there about how hard Tom works or doesn't work. Could his conscience be bothering him?

[mostpost]

As a matter of fact, I was working late today - just got out. I am training new people we just hired because we got new jobs - non-union jobs.
You should have hired union workers. Studies show that union workers are better workers; more dependable, harder workers, smarter, more likely to remain on the job since they are being paid fairly. But I'm glad your company is adding jobs. Just like the rest of the economy. Way to go Barack!!!! :jump:

[Clocker]

Studies show that union workers are better workers

You didn't really believe that you could post that without sources and not get called on it, did you? :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

If you happen to believe in that moral authority, those quotes are all about giving. They don't say anything about taking. They are all about voluntary actions, not about compelling anyone to do anything.

In the secular world, this is the moral authority:

Quote:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Thank you for reminding us of the Fifth Amendment. Too bad for you it has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. No one is taking your life, liberty or property. We are suggesting that much is expected from those to whom much is given. That is also in the Bible, though perhaps not in those exact words.

You have the right to keep all of your money. We have the right to think poorly of you for doing so.

[Clocker]

Too bad for you it has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. No one is taking your life, liberty or property.

Redistribution of wealth is not a taking of property? Or the abridgement of my liberty to use my property as I see fit?

We are suggesting that much is expected from those to whom much is given. That is also in the Bible, though perhaps not in those exact words.

Expected by whom? And by what right or authority? Do you expect the same of Muslims or Jews who don't recognize that source of expectation?

You have the right to keep all of your money. We have the right to think poorly of you for doing so.

I don't have the right to keep all of my money when Obama and Pelosi and Reid are running things. They pass laws requiring me to buy things regardless of whether or not I want or need to.

And I have the right to think poorly of you for judging others by your expectations.

[mostpost]

You didn't really believe that you could post that without sources and not get called on it, did you? :rolleyes:
Here is one. I'm sure I can find more.
http://www.uaw.org/story/union-plants-win-top-productivity-rankings

I also found an article stating that six of the top ten auto manufacturing plants in North America were union shops.
And here is another interesting article.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice

It's about how a very profitable German auto industry pays its workers twice as much as their American counterparts. Workers who all belong to a union.

[Clocker]

Here is one. I'm sure I can find more.
http://www.uaw.org/story/union-plants-win-top-productivity-rankings

I also found an article stating that six of the top ten auto manufacturing plants in North America were union shops.
And here is another interesting article.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice

It's about how a very profitable German auto industry pays its workers twice as much as their American counterparts. Workers who all belong to a union.

The first link is to a UAW site that proudly proclaims that they assemble an F-series Ford in about 19 man-hours while a Toyota Tundra takes about 32 man-hours. That doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the quality of the Ford. As far as productivity, those numbers are meaningless out of context, with no information about the extent of pre-assemblies from sub-contractors, total costs, quality control, etc.

And the second link is dead.

[newtothegame]

So, clocker, what youre really saying is Mosty bought a UAW (Biased) site, amd another link which doesnt work.....:lol:
I mean I would expect the UAW to proclaim proudly how they are outworked, wouldnt you??? :bang:

[HUSKER55]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/13/spencer-bachus/big-three-wages-inflated/


if you read the article GM has 365k retirees that depend on them and with those costs included the hourly cost to the working 62k workers is north $70 an hour.

wages $30
benefits $23
retirees $20

[ hopefully the link works this time - repairman made some adjustments ]

[JustRalph]

http://www.housingwire.com/articles/26706-fisher-elected-officials-sold-our-children-down-the-river

Federal Reserve Bank President

The publication conveyed Fisher’s frustrations with Congress, releasing the following quote from the event:

Elected officials have “sold our children–and our grandchildren–down the river,” Mr. Fisher said. “We haven’t had a budget for five years; no one knows what their taxes are going to be; no one knows what spending is going to be.”