BREAKING: Second source confirms Reid's allegations Romney paid no taxes for 10 year

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

The actual unemployment rate went from 8.20% to 8.25%, and number of jobs created exceeded expectations.

There is nothing "actual" about that number when it doesn't count those who have given up searching for jobs. The "actual" number is actually much higher. Many of us are not fooled by the Obama reporting tricks

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

There is nothing "actual" about that number when it doesn't count those who have given up searching for jobs. The "actual" number is actually much higher. Many of us are not fooled by the Obama reporting tricks

that's why i posted the link to the story about unemployment; that the numbers aren't lower because people are getting work-it's they've stopped looking. so, they're still out of work.

it's worrisome that job growth is lower than at the beginning of the year, and they're not expecting it to get better. and it certainly is an issue that unemployment is artificially lower-it's not due to hiring. and with jobs not keeping pace with those out of work, and with labor growth....it's a worsening situation when you get down to it.

then there's the fact that ouput is higher with five million less workers. that is a good sign for those employed. but if those companies can do more with less, why would they hire?



and just saw this, from an article on yahoo business:

But the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.3% and the so-called real unemployment rate (U6) rose to 15% even as the labor force shrank by 150,000.


one thing that admin keeps pushing for, is increases in teaching, police and fire hiring. i disagree. better to put money into infrastructure spending, which increases construction and other hiring. that way, private sectors hire, rather than adding to government employment. government is an expense, a drain, it's not profitable. private hiring on the other hand, doesn't cause an added drain. private companies would hire, buy more equipment, etc, etc. and we all know that we have bridges and roads that needed repairing or replacing decades ago. that's where the stimulus should have been directed, towards actual jobs, actual work. not adding to public sector jobs, or banks, etc. explains why we saw no benefit from all that added debt.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's why i posted the link to the story about unemployment; that the numbers aren't lower because people are getting work-it's they've stopped looking. so, they're still out of work.

it's worrisome that job growth is lower than at the beginning of the year, and they're not expecting it to get better. and it certainly is an issue that unemployment is artificially lower-it's not due to hiring. and with jobs not keeping pace with those out of work, and with labor growth....it's a worsening situation when you get down to it.

then there's the fact that ouput is higher with five million less workers. that is a good sign for those employed. but if those companies can do more with less, why would they hire?



and just saw this, from an article on yahoo business:

But the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.3% and the so-called real unemployment rate (U6) rose to 15% even as the labor force shrank by 150,000.


one thing that admin keeps pushing for, is increases in teaching, police and fire hiring. i disagree. better to put money into infrastructure spending, which increases construction and other hiring. that way, private sectors hire, rather than adding to government employment. government is an expense, a drain, it's not profitable. private hiring on the other hand, doesn't cause an added drain. private companies would hire, buy more equipment, etc, etc. and we all know that we have bridges and roads that needed repairing or replacing decades ago. that's where the stimulus should have been directed, towards actual jobs, actual work. not adding to public sector jobs, or banks, etc. explains why we saw no benefit from all that added debt.

Running lean is the new model. It hasn't taken very long to figure out that a lot of people weren't really all that important within the system. A person that actually works for 40 hours a week can accomplish a lot.
We are not corporate but have learned that 1 good employee that can multi-task (I know, technically impossible) is better than 2 with a supervisor, so 3 actually.
Wife is in pharma and they are trimming loads of fat and heaping work onto the remainders and after a month or two everyone is cool.

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...about_it_.html


The Jobs Stall
For 18 months we’ve been on track to never return to full employment—why won’t the Federal Reserve do something?
By Matthew Yglesias|Posted Friday, Aug. 3, 2012, at 11:41 AM ET

The underlying reality from the more precise establishment survey was sunnier—a net addition of 163,000 is a decent number. Except that in broader context, there’s nothing decent about it. Across the first half of 2012, the economy’s added 151,000 jobs per month. Across 2011, the number was 153,000 per month. Those are the kind of numbers a healthy economy would be adding. But the American economy didn’t start this period in a healthy place, and needs to be adding jobs at double or triple that rate to get us back to full employment.



Just on Wednesday the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee met and proclaimed that “economic activity decelerated somewhat” in recent months and that it anticipated “that the unemployment rate will decline only slowly toward levels that it judges to be consistent with its dual mandate.” The guardians of macroeconomic stability, in other words, knew nothing particularly good was coming. And the truly shocking thing isn’t the news but the proposed response—to do nothing different.

[Danzig]

and from that article, regarding congress:

Here in the United States, Congress is naturally prepared to make things even worse. At the end of 2012 the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire fully. This is somewhat perverse in light of the combination of high unemployment and ultra-low interest rates that militates in favor of bigger rather than smaller budget deficits. But what makes it especially perverse is that Democrats and Republicans both favor extending the majority of the tax cuts. The disagreement is only over the extension of reductions on marginal rates beyond the first $250,000 in taxable income. Democrats want to bring those back to their pre-Bush level. Republicans don’t. And in order to try to preserve their leverage, Republicans are refusing to vote for the tax-cut extension that both parties favor unless Democrats will throw the high-rate cuts in as well.


please consider the above when deciding on what congressional candidates you're planning to vote for. also, keep in mind that the majority of americans DO NOT FAVOR extending the tax cuts to the top income earners. you know, the ones paying less taxes than they have in most of the last century.