(06-06-2014 01:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 01:08 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  That all sounds good and well but when the jobs pay $7-$20 an hour is that really productive? That no longer supports a middle class... that just continues to polarize a poorer and wealthier class.
I always take the loss or gained jobs stats with a grain of salt because I wonder what jobs have we gained and what jobs were lost. I am woefully underwhelmed by this 'recovery' because as a current middle classer... I'm on the outside looking in for job creation.

But you're not going to create high paying jobs in a retail/service economy. Those aren't the jobs on offer there. You need productive, value-added activities to afford high-paying jobs, and outside of the Bakken and fracking, we're not developing many of those.

And you're not going to transform a retail/service economy back to a production economy under our current tax and regulatory policies. Even less so if Obama were to get his way on more things.

This! This! The higher paying middle class jobs come where stuff is made - not delivering a hot meal to a diners table.

Government is foolish to make it more expensive and harder to have a factory that makes something (value added). All a retail/service economy does is shuffle paper around (non-value added) - it will never lead to large numbers of middle class jobs.

Jobs are not going to be the focus of Democrats going into the midterms. It is a loser. Commietom, likes to troll about how it has been a success for Zero, when an objective view only shows how average Americans are getting crushed. Zero is clueless about economic issues.

(06-06-2014 01:26 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  The big $$ jobs are for the most part, gone. Overseas, never to return, doesn't matter who the president is.

Many jobs are gone to automation. That's the real current challenge.

Quote:I know this is sacred cow area, but do we need to take a good hard look at the capitalist model? I know of course it brought the nation a long way, but is it destined to ultimately destroy us? Maybe it needs tweaking.

So far, every "tweak" has made things worse.

How about a return to the capitalist model? The one that actually worked.

Let me go on record as saying that 217,000 is a good number, regardless of the nature of the jobs. I've said all along that the jobs created number is the one that mattered, not the unemployment rate. We need 24-36 months or more of consistently creating 200,000+ new jobs per month, month after month after month. Obviously, creating good jobs is better than creating bad jobs. But the 200,000 barrier is a good one to be cracking, in any event.

Torch- you are right. Automation is largely responsible. Not sure pure capitalism is sustainable.

(06-06-2014 01:50 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Torch- you are right. Automation is largely responsible. Not sure pure capitalism is sustainable.

I don't know for sure what "pure capitalism" really is. But I will say that the crony-capitalism that we currently have is a bastardization of the original concept, and is certainly laced with problems. It is not the system I would champion.

(06-06-2014 01:50 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Torch- you are right. Automation is largely responsible. Not sure pure capitalism is sustainable.

Automation reduces the number of direct jobs. But there are still jobs making and operating and maintaining the equipment. And those jobs pay well, so the holders have lots of disposable income, and that translates into more indirect jobs. I can afford to eat out more, meaning more restaurants. I can afford a bigger house, meaning more construction companies. I can afford to spend more on fun things, meaning more amusement operations, more clothiers, more pet shops, more of a lot of things.

It's probably a net jobs loss. But that loss is not as large as some would insist.

(06-06-2014 12:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Businesses add labor when they have sales to justify it.

I'm making 15% more than I made in 2009. But that is so subjective to the industry you're in that it's not really even worth mentioning for any sort of comparison to anyone else.

I'm also making about 15% more than I was then. Of course, I'm working for the same company I was then too.

(06-06-2014 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 01:50 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Torch- you are right. Automation is largely responsible. Not sure pure capitalism is sustainable.

Automation reduces the number of direct jobs. But there are still jobs making and operating and maintaining the equipment. And those jobs pay well, so the holders have lots of disposable income, and that translates into more indirect jobs. I can afford to eat out more, meaning more restaurants. I can afford a bigger house, meaning more construction companies. I can afford to spend more on fun things, meaning more amusement operations, more clothiers, more pet shops, more of a lot of things.

It's probably a net jobs loss. But that loss is not as large as some would insist.

Basically, more retail jobs making minimum wage or a little above it. Except for construction - but I would think number of houses would have a bigger impact on construction jobs than the size of the house.

(06-06-2014 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 01:50 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Torch- you are right. Automation is largely responsible. Not sure pure capitalism is sustainable.

Automation reduces the number of direct jobs. But there are still jobs making and operating and maintaining the equipment. And those jobs pay well, so the holders have lots of disposable income, and that translates into more indirect jobs. I can afford to eat out more, meaning more restaurants. I can afford a bigger house, meaning more construction companies. I can afford to spend more on fun things, meaning more amusement operations, more clothiers, more pet shops, more of a lot of things.

It's probably a net jobs loss. But that loss is not as large as some would insist.

Right, but many of the remaining jobs have transitioned from manufacturing to service.

(06-06-2014 01:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 01:08 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  That all sounds good and well but when the jobs pay $7-$20 an hour is that really productive? That no longer supports a middle class... that just continues to polarize a poorer and wealthier class.
I always take the loss or gained jobs stats with a grain of salt because I wonder what jobs have we gained and what jobs were lost. I am woefully underwhelmed by this 'recovery' because as a current middle classer... I'm on the outside looking in for job creation.

But you're not going to create high paying jobs in a retail/service economy. Those aren't the jobs on offer there. You need productive, value-added activities to afford high-paying jobs, and outside of the Bakken and fracking, we're not developing many of those.

And you're not going to transform a retail/service economy back to a production economy under our current tax and regulatory policies. Even less so if Obama were to get his way on more things.

Yep...To put it simply...You have to produce something. You can't run a great economy on service industries.

Quote: The percentage of American civilians 16 or older who do not have a job and are not actively seeking one remained at a 36-year high in May, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In December, April, and now May, the labor force participation rate has been 62.8 percent. That means that 37.2 percent were not participating in the labor force during those months.

Before December, the last time the labor force participation rate sunk as low as 62.8 percent was February 1978, when it was also 62.8 percent. At that time, Jimmy Carter was president.

In April, the number of those not in the labor force hit a record high of 92,018,000. In May, that number declined by 9,000 to 92,009,000. Yet, the participation rate remained the same from April to May at 62.8 percent.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-...-year-high

(06-06-2014 01:03 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 01:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's been like that for a long time. The numbers have always included lesser paying jobs.

That makes no sense. But it's pretty clear you're desperate points are fully dismissed.

How does that not make sense? They never said, oh, we aren't going to count these 50,000 jobs because the person makes less than they use to. That's not in the numbers.

(06-06-2014 11:02 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Don't be disingenous. The vast majority of those bills are political theater. They are politically motivated, not designed to pass or be taken seriously It's the old trick of one party proposing a ridiculous bill that forces the other party to say no, so you can then say "Not my fault, I tried, they wouldn't act on it see how bad they are?"

so wait a minute. you're saying a bill that could help americans that doesn't even face a vote in one house of the Congress or the other is now the fault of the group that did pass the bill is at fault?

WoW... massive bizarro world thinking there...

if it's such a bad bill then the second half of the legislature should just VOTE IT DOWN... not sit on it so it doesn't get consideration.

You are correct sir. Infuriating isn't it?

And yet the record number of disability recipients grew to all time record and number of food stamp recipients continues to increase. What's the quality of the 217,000 jobs if the number of government dependents continue to increase?