@RedshirtI prefer to discuss this issue with someone who can
differentiate the concepts of total job numbers and unemployment rate.Bye.
To "USU-Logan" yawn......so tell me, would unemployment be higher or
lower in March 2010 when there were fewer jobs available?
Several years ago I was in a discussion with a fairly successful co-worker -
district manager for a retail chain, large home, nice cars, collection of
motorcycles, large RV and so on. Not wealthy, but in the upper portion of the
middle class. And not, by any means, a liberal in most of his social views. He said something interesting: "Overall, I tend to do a bit better
when Republicans are in office. The problem is, I don't like them and
usually can't bring myself to vote for them."
re Mark B"...Take an area of the country closely associated with
higher education (Boston, Berkley, even Austin) and compare it with another that
isn't and the Democrats come out ahead - by a mile or two."Add Seattle (a left leaning town) to Berkely/bay area, ATX, & Boston and
what do you get? The places where most of the nations technical innovation
re: Area 52 (1st post) on 3/31Isn't W an Ivy Leaguer like
Barry? The same Lincoln who suspended Habeus Corpus?
@t702: "When did a poor person who make minimum wage ever hire another poor
person?"The richest family in America is the Walton family,
owners of WalMart. Their personal wealth is more than the wealth of the bottom
40% of the country.Much of their workforce is part-time and much of
their full-time workers are paid such a low wage they are on food stamps and
other government aid. The wealthy are not doing a very good job at
@Redshirt1701Let me go through the timeline. 7:10 p.m.
anotherview: Unemployment peaked Oct 2009. 7:54 a.m. Redshirt: Your
year is wrong for peak unemployment. That happened in 2010. 9:08
a.m. anotherview: What is your source for peak unemployment? Mine comes from
Bureau of Labor Statistics, widely cited by economists as the peak. 10:40 a.m. Redshirt1701: I got my data from the BLS. I don't think you
did. According to the BLS, the total jobs in the US hit its low point in
February 2010. Reading these comments, it clearly shows that you
thought the peak of unemployment rate and low point of total jobs are the same
thing. that is why when anotherview correctly stated Unemployment peaked Oct
2009, you rebutted @ 7:54 am saying that peak unemployment should be in 2010,
since you knew total jobs in the US hit its low point in February 2010,
unfortunately, that is not what anotherview talked about. If I did
not point it to you that these are two different concepts, perhaps you still do
not realize the difference.
To "USU-Logan" lets use some logic. If the US is continually increasing
in population, and the total numer of jobs is decreasing do you have higher or
lower unemployment as a result?If you go back and read the thread,
"anotherview" does not understand the difference between total jobs and
unemployment. I was quite clear that total jobs were decreasing into 2010, it
was "anotherview" that could not differentiate between total jobs and
@Redshirt1701When "anotherview" stated that unemployment
rate peaked at Oct. 2009 and provided the BLS source, you repeatedly claimed
that statement was wrong. If it was wrong, then you should provide a correct
time of highest unemployment rate, not provide a time of lowest total job
number, doing so only shows to other people that you lack the understanding of
these two different concepts.And I fact-checked the claim of
“anotherview”, the unemployment rate did peak at Oct. 2009.
To "USU-Logan" that is where you are mislead. You need to go to the BLS
and look at the total non-farm jobs, seasonally adjusted. There you find that
in March 2010 the total jobs hit a low point of 129,811,000. The unemployment
rate is a poor measure of employment since it is only concerned with the number
of people actively looking for a job. One of the better graphs to look at to
understand what is going on in the labor force is the Labor Participation Rate
(BLS) There we see that since Obama took office we have gone from a labor
participation rate of 65.7% in January 2009 to a low of 62.8% in December 2013.
That low of a participation rate hasn't been seen since 1977.So
again, what have the Democrats been doing to create jobs? All of the data
points to Democrats killing jobs and inhibiting job growth.
@RedShirt1701"I got my data from the BLS. I don't think you
did"If you go to BLS, enter "unemployment rate", click
the first result, there will be a graph and table for unemployment rate.
"anotherview" is right, the unemployment rate peaked at 10% in Oct,
2009.You criticize anotherview "Your year is wrong for peak
unemployment. That happened in 2010", he is not wrong, but you are wrong in
changing the subject of unemployment to total jobs, these are two different
To "anotherview" you asked "Is there a piece of legislation
Republicans crafted and passed which helped the economy, added jobs? " So,
I gave you a list of 25 bills that were passed by the Republicans in the House.
Is it their fault that Harry Reid won't let them even be heard?I got my data from the BLS. I don't think you did. According to the
BLS, the total jobs in the US hit its low point in February 2010.Read "Obama has fewer but more costly regulations than Bush" in the
CBS News. There they cite a study that shows that Obama's policies as of
October 2011 had already cost the US economy $100 billion. In the article
"Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year:
report" in the Washington times, they find that by December 2013 Obama
regulations are even more expensive. Those are not opinion pieces, but are
reporting on studies done boy 3rd parties.
Re:Redshirt"If you go to "25 House-Passed Jobs Bills Stuck in the
Democratic-Run Senate" at the House Speaker's web site you can see a
summary of jobs bills that Republicans passed, but Demcrats refused to hear in
the Senate."RightSo if they didn't pass any
legislation then how did they add jobs? What is your source for
peak unemployment? Mine comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics, widely cited by
economists as the peak.Your U.S. News article is merely about a
Republican Senator and the Chamber of Commerce voicing their opinion, void of
any factchecking it is of little value.
To "anotherview" so you agree with me.Your year is wrong for
peak unemployment. That happened in 2010, just as the election cycle
started.I am glad that you agree that Obama killed the pipeline that
would have created some new jobs. I just wonder how many other jobs could have
been created by lowering fuel costs, and the cost for other oil products.You missed the dollar figure for Obama regulations. Read "Report:
Obama Administration Added $9.5 Billion in Red Tape in July" in the US News.
Similar articles can be found in Forbes and other business magazines.If you go to "25 House-Passed Jobs Bills Stuck in the Democratic-Run
Senate" at the House Speaker's web site you can see a summary of jobs
bills that Republicans passed, but Demcrats refused to hear in the Senate.
re:RedShirt"Facts are that until the 2010 elections cut off Democrat
control of congress we were losing thousands of jobs each month."Unemployment peaked Oct 2009"Facts are that until the 2010
elections cut off Democrat control of congress"Is there a piece
of legislation Republicans crafted and passed which helped the economy, added
jobs? On the other hand, Democrats passed and Obama signed the
Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. "Democrats
killed the Keyston pipeline that would have brought in some jobs."The
Keystone pipeline will create jobs during the 1-2 yr period it is being built
but ultimately will result in an estimated 35-50 permanent jobs. (fyi the
Senate voted and passed a measure supporting Keystone, but a trans-border job
requires presidential approval)"Obama has added so many
regulations that it has cost the economy billions of dollars."Between 2009 and 2011, the Obama administration approved an average of 297
regulations per year, comparable to yearly figures for the past 18 years. (In
1992 and 1993, the numbers were much higher, exceeding 1,000 regulations both
To "Happy Valley Heretic" yawn.......you do realize that when Democrats
controlled Congress and the Presidency that things were going downhill, and it
wasn't until Republican took the House that things stopped sliding.So again, waht have they actually done? Even your wisecrack shows that
Democrats are doing nothing that helps create jobs.
RedShirt said: So tell us, what have Democrats been doing to build jobs?Fighting the republicans to do something....anything besides "making this
president a one term president as their "Job #1"
To "anotherview" really? Then show me where Democrats are doing
something that actually promotes job growth, and not dependance on government
welfare.Facts are that until the 2010 elections cut off Democrat
control of congress we were losing thousands of jobs each month.We
currently have the most people on SNAP benefits.Democrats killed the
Keyston pipeline that would have brought in some jobs.Businessmen
view Obama as anti-business.Obama has added so many regulations that
it has cost the economy billions of dollars.The ACA has resulted in
employees losing hours.When asked why Obama wasn't going to cut
capital gains taxes on investments, knowing that it helps build companies and
generates more tax revenues, he said that he wants to tax capital gains more.Obama blames the rich for problems that the poor has, creating a divide
where businessmen don't want to expand.So tell us, what have
Democrats been doing to build jobs?
@Area 52"Any administration can "cook the books" and give the
media/people any numbers they want."If by cooking the books you
mean reporting the unemployment rate the same way it's always been for
decades... @t702"In the liberals mind, the guy who
actually hire and put the poor person to work is to be taken down, economically
that makes perfect sense, right?"In the liberals' mind, the
reason people are hired is due to need, consumer demand drives job creation. The
rich don't create jobs just because they can, they do it because
there's a perceived need. As such, when the poor and middle class have
their wealth/income squeezed due to increased wealth inequality, we believe that
hinders demand and thus hinders job creation. We think this is highlighted in
the data where 1928 and 2007 were our two worst years for wealth inequality (and
then 1929 and 2008 didn't go so well economically for the nation). It
doesn't have to do with taking anyone down, it involves the idea that a
rising tide lifts all ships.
Show me a list of the 10 poorest congressional districts. Show me a list of the
190 congressional districts with the highest murder rate. I wonder which party
represents those districts?
Re:RedshirtYou falsely characterize Democrats as not being focused on job
opportunities for the poor.There are many people working harder than you
or I ever have, yet barely able to put food on the table.And there are
many others not yet able to find employment."Trickle-down" has
thoroughly been debunked, yet Republicans still cling to the myth.There is more and more wealth concentration to those in upper income levels.
The problem is, wealthy people don't spend all their income. Our econmy is
stronger when a greater majority of people have more disposable income, not just
the 1%. There are many hedge fund managers, making hundreds of millions of
dollars who employ but a handful of people. Our economy is very imbalanced.
My observation: There are rich and poor Republicans and Democrats. Poor
Republicans tend to be less educated rural or suburban people and poor Democrats
tend to be less educated urban people. In my experience, wealthier Republicans
tend to be doctors or successful small business owners. Wealthier Democrats
tend to be lawyers or executives in larger corporations. On a personal level,
most of the Democrats I know are better educated than most of the Republicans I
know. (i.e. have graduated from college or have an advanced degree.) Of course
there are always exceptions. Regardless, I believe that the policies of the
Democratic Party, in general, are more beneficial to the less advantaged and
society in general than the policies of the Republican Party. I don't think
trickle down economics works (as proven over the past 30 plus years), and I
think that lifting the "least of these" in society benefits the entire
Liberal Democrats have made fools of the American people. Making voters believe
others are the cause of the mess they created. Who are the greedy wealthy
folks?Yep! And we pay for their lavish vacations, and lifestyle
without knowing it. They're a big contributor of the income
gap. They are the ones who put us in a debt of 100,000 for every second of
seven years. They are the ones who'll cause the collapse of our dollar.Put on your seat belts.
Mark BEureka, CATo FT: You don't have to look far. Take an area
of the country closely associated with higher education (Boston, Berkley, even
Austin) and compare it with another that isn't and the Democrats come out
ahead - by a mile or two.10:10 a.m. March 31, 2014======== Agreed!Seattle -- MicroSoft,
Boeing, Amazon, REI, CostCo, etc.Solid Democrat.One of the
Highest College graduate areas of the Nation.Imagine that, all
those wealthy Democrats wanting [and paying] higher taxes, creating wider
Social safety-nets, Higher paying High-Tech jobs, living healthy,
organic, tree-hugger life-styles, the State giving "the people"
the right to choose marijuana, and increasing the minimum wage to $15.00 /
hour!And all with NO State income tax to boot!!It's
@Area 52You mean, competition? Lol...
Republicans strayed from their constituents, and they are paying the price.
Those true to the people are making a comeback in the party. The
democrats are as bad or worse. Their nakedness will soon be seen by their
masses, although there are those who will not look because of the promise of
crumbs, or because they are mesmerized by charismatic figures. But I think there
will be many who see that the democrats are in bed with big money, worse than
the republicans. The moderates/democrats are coming into the light.
@ slcdenizenSo, you would rather see large corporations come in and
take over small companies because they (the large companies) can afford to pay
thier employees the proposed minimum wage? That is some sound logic you have.
Let's just keep small buisness's from growing and keep it up to the
large corporations. What do you think the maain expenses are for small buisness
owners or maybe even large ones? Wages are the number one expense!
Another way to look at things is this way. If the person who is elected to
congress reflects the voters within their districts what does that say about the
Democrats?It shows that they are out of touch with the poor people
they claim to help. How well do you think Pelosi actually understands what it
is like to be poor?To "anotherview" lets look at it this
way. Democrats want to give your hard work to the poor. Republicans want to
get the poor to work to support themselves. Which do you want?
When did a poor person who make minimum wage ever hire another poor person? In
the liberals mind, the guy who actually hire and put the poor person to work is
to be taken down, economically that makes perfect sense, right?
@Area52"So, how exactly does increasing the minimum wage going
to help long term?"Our slow ecomomic recovery has uncovered the
unstable structure of our whole system. The proposed wage increases are a
short-term fix aimed at alleviating some poverty and reigniting our
consumer-fueled economy. The arguments opposing minimum wage increases seem to
be more about justice and fairness, rather than prescriptive and economically
driven. If we raise the lowest paid workers' wages, they will certainly
continue to spend all of their earnings, driving new business opportunities.
Regarding your other question, small businesses that have no flexibility for
adjusting costs like employee wages have no reason to continue to function. Or
they can hire from among the plethora of MBA grads to rethink strategy. But the
question I have is: why are the needs of small business owners any more
important than those of wage earners. Why can't we debate the issue by
referring to both as ecomomic agents and save the selective empathy for church?
@ SchneeYour comment is flawed. Curious why despite the
huge miss in payrolls the unemployment rate tumbled from 7.0% to 6.7%? The
reason is because in December the civilian labor force did what it usually does
in the New Normal: it dropped from 155.3 million to 154.9 million, which means
the labor participation rate just dropped to a fresh 35 year low, hitting levels
not seen since 1978, at 62.8% down from 63.0%. It's pretty
simple, people are still not working. Any administration can "cook the
books" and give the media/people any numbers they want.
@FatherofFour"Everyone knows that the deep south and the midwest, some
of the poorest areas in America, are solid republican."I
don't think they do know that. All the times it's asserted that
Democrats win the vote of the 47% who pay no income taxes, those people
don't realize that Romney won 8 out of the 10 states (Obama got New Mexico
and Florida) that have the highest state percentages of people not paying income
tax so it's not like he isn't getting a sizable chunk of that
demographic.@FT"Do the Democrats represent more districts
where the constituents have more education? "Yes, at least with
the outliers (like most of the northeast).@Area 52"Oh by
the way, didn’t Pres. Obama graduate from an Ivy league school and look
how that is turning out. "We've gained private sector jobs
50 months in a row.
Wow, in order to be considered educated or smart you now have to be a Democrat.
I guess we will leave it up to all the smart Democrats to get us out of this
predicament that the country is in. Oh by the way, didn’t Pres. Obama
graduate from an Ivy league school and look how that is turning out. One other
thing, Pres. Lincoln was a self-educated person and look how that turned out.
Democratic legislators are advocating to raise taxes on themselves.Nine of the ten poorest states are Red states.Re:Area52"The Republicans are for wanting less taxes for everyone "Uh, no.Remember the 47% who are characterized by Republicans as mere
For an Associated Press report, this sounds suspiciously like commentary.Personal wealth is not always an indicator of priorities. FDR and JFK
were both born to wealth and privilege. Yet the policies of both as President
sought to bring greater parity for the lower income people and those who are
struggling.“If a free society cannot help the many who are
poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."- John F. Kennedy
To FT: You don't have to look far. Take an area of the country closely
associated with higher education (Boston, Berkley, even Austin) and compare it
with another that isn't and the Democrats come out ahead - by a mile or
Interesting choice of words Father of Four. The Republicans are for wanting less
taxes for everyone while the Democrates want the Tax paying citizens to pay more
in taxes. So, you really thinkg increasing the minimum wage is really going to
help out the worker? So what does a small buisness owner suppose to do to offset
the increase in wages? Layoff workers? Hire part-time workers with no benefits?
Increase the cost of services for the customer? So, how exactly does increasing
the minimum wage going to help long term? Sounds to me the small buisness owner
will get hosed again.
@FTA recent Pew poll indicated that less than 6% of scientists
identify as Republican. It's not surprising due to the anti-intellectual
wing that has steadily gained traction in the party. It was sad to see a worthy
candidate like Mr. Romney downplay his stellar academic credentials and
emphasize his business prowess in order to relate to the low-information,
high-rhetoric conservative base during the last election. As a country,
we've seen a steady decline in both overall literacy and STEM graduation
rates. We need both parties to acknowledge our failure at preparing for our
future and shift the debate toward first respecting, then pursuing higher
"Republicans are the party of the rich, right?"Absolutely
not. Republicans belong to the Party that kow tows to the rich, and they are
willing to make sacrifices and compel their families to make sacrifices that
promote the interests of plutocrats at the expense of everyone else.Obviously not all wealthy people are greedy grasping individuals who try to
make peons out of American citizens. The Koch brothers and their ilk are
opposed by some decent wealthy Americans.Fortunately, wealthy
Liberals like Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, and Warren Buffet, the
second richest man in America, and plenty of public-spirited wealthy individuals
who run for public office are NOT Republicans, and they recognize the fact that
the highest earners should be taxed much more than they are taxed now.
Nothing in the artile about education. Does more money indicate more education?
Do the Democrats represent more districts where the constituents have more
education? I'd be curious to know which party has more support of the
intelluctual base in our country.
No one is suggesting that democrats represent a bunch of poor people. Everyone
knows that the deep south and the midwest, some of the poorest areas in America,
are solid republican. Everyone knows that the richer areas (New York,
California, etc.) are solid democrat. The implication is that the republican
party promotes policies catering towards the rich (like tax cuts for
billionaires) whereas democrats promote policies for the middle-class (like a
higher minimum wage, or increasing teacher pay). It is interesting though, as
the author points out, those areas governed by democrats seem to have a much
higher standard of living.