Jobs Report

Bonestorm said:
People can retire at 62 already for reduced benefits.
Click to expand...

yes... almost a 25% reduction at age 62 from the FRA bene. Which is irrelevant to the discussion. Darla was suggesting that we allow people to retire at 62 without reducing the bene, in other words making 62 the FRA.
 
Celticguy said:
Or that 800k dropping out of the work force is a bad thing. And interestingly enough those two things are related.
What we have is fewer people working (and paying taxes) and more people living off the government teat (off tax dollars). BO may have increased taxes to ease the curve but this is a bandaid and comes at a cost (.1% growth).
Whistling past the graveyard may sound nice but is just an illusion.
Click to expand...

That's hillarious .1 was weather
 
The Administration better "pivot to jobs" for the habitual time (usually measured in the time it takes for the Press to repeat it, then they move on to more important things like telling you the CBO report is "bad" when they predict 500,000 people will lose jobs if the Prez successfully passes his Min. Wage Hike).
 
These kinds of threads always bring out the stupid in the right.

Hey, righties - the only appropriate reaction for news like this is "Very cool! It's so great to see hiring continue to increase."

Verbatim.
 
Thing1 said:
These kinds of threads always bring out the stupid in the right.

Hey, righties - the only appropriate reaction for news like this is "Very cool! It's so great to see hiring continue to increase."

Verbatim.
Click to expand...

The above highlights the stupidity of the left. Yes, adding jobs is cool. That part is a plus. Losing 800k from the labor force is not good. We are now at 36 year lows in labor participation. You look at ONE component of the jobs report and then pretend we should ignore the remaining data? THAT is the height of stupidity.
 
Thing1 said:
These kinds of threads always bring out the stupid in the right.

Hey, righties - the only appropriate reaction for news like this is "Very cool! It's so great to see hiring continue to increase."

Verbatim.
Click to expand...

fyi... take a good hard look at the chart in the OP...
 
Superfreak said:
The above highlights the stupidity of the left. Yes, adding jobs is cool. That part is a plus. Losing 800k from the labor force is not good. We are now at 36 year lows in labor participation. You look at ONE component of the jobs report and then pretend we should ignore the remaining data? THAT is the height of stupidity.
Click to expand...

288,000 people getting hired is a good #, in any month, for any year. Period.

You & yours will be able to say "but it doesn't nearly make up for x or y" for years to come. But the fact remains - it's a good #.
 
Thing1 said:
These kinds of threads always bring out the stupid in the right.

Hey, righties - the only appropriate reaction for news like this is "Very cool! It's so great to see hiring continue to increase."

Verbatim.
Click to expand...
Too bad you didn't think that way during the Bush Admin, admonishing everybody that a slavish devotion to whatever you want to believe was the reality...

I remember Desh, et al, telling us how it was the "worst economy since the Great Depression" when it was still in the first 2 years of his Admin, all while there were better dropout rate than there has ever been under Obama. It isn't good news to see people dropping from the workforce at a higher rate than retirement could ever allow for.
 
Damocles said:
Too bad you didn't think that way during the Bush Admin, admonishing everybody that a slavish devotion to whatever you want to believe was the reality...

I remember Desh, et al, telling us how it was the "worst economy since the Great Depression" when it was still in the first 2 years of his Admin, all while there were better dropout rate than there has ever been under Obama. It isn't good news to see people dropping from the workforce at a higher rate than retirement could ever allow for.
Click to expand...


Speaking of the Bush administration, I read today that private employment has grown more quickly since bottoming out in 2010 to present than it did from the bottom in 2003 to 2007. So, as far as the private sector is concerned, employment growth is better now that it was then. I thought that was interesting.
 
Bonestorm said:
Speaking of the Bush administration, I read today that private employment has grown more quickly since bottoming out in 2010 to present than it did from the bottom in 2003 to 2007. So, as far as the private sector is concerned, employment growth is better now that it was then. I thought that was interesting.
Click to expand...

It would be if it didn't include the drop rate. It is not okay to maintain the bad... The reality is people are still hurting, having idiots tell them that everything is roses isn't going to help your cause.
 
Damocles said:
Too bad you didn't think that way during the Bush Admin, admonishing everybody that a slavish devotion to whatever you want to believe was the reality...

I remember Desh, et al, telling us how it was the "worst economy since the Great Depression" when it was still in the first 2 years of his Admin, all while there were better dropout rate than there has ever been under Obama. It isn't good news to see people dropping from the workforce at a higher rate than retirement could ever allow for.
Click to expand...

So, did you mean me, or desh?
 
Superfreak said:
The point Darla is that she is NOT an unskilled worker... so your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...

In your senility, you've forgotten what the conversation was about again. It wasn't about skilled vs unskilled laborers. It was regarding your claim that the money for a raise in the minimum wage has to come from somewhere, and your implication that it had to come from raising prices. I then pointed out that I did not raise my prices when I gave raises. And I give merit raises. If I have an employee who I can't give merit raises to, I really don't want them. And that's how it always used to be. And no one raised prices to cover these raises. So that is a bunch of horseshit.
 
Teflon Don said:
Why does it matter that she lives with her parents? That seems pretty bigoted to me. You should pay her more. Why not $50/hour?
Click to expand...

Why not a thousand an hour?

Your argument (and please forgive my grandiose usage of the term) that you either pay workers a sub-standard minimum wage of 6 or 7 dollars an hour, or you pay them an inflated amount an hour, is basically retarded. I know you think it's a "gotcha" but the only other people who view that nonsense as a gotcha are imbeciles like USF.
 
I love how Superfreak is running to DH here - Darla is suggesting! Did you see what that lunatic Darla is suggesting? Like hoping that DH is going to spank me or something. Bad darla! Bad! Can't handle me yourself huh SF?
 
Darla said:
Why not a thousand an hour?

Your argument (and please forgive my grandiose usage of the term) that you either pay workers a sub-standard minimum wage of 6 or 7 dollars an hour, or you pay them an inflated amount an hour, is basically retarded. I know you think it's a "gotcha" but the only other people who view that nonsense as a gotcha are imbeciles like USF.
Click to expand...


Actually it isn't a gotcha at all. The point that most rational people like me who understand economics makes is that there is a reason people make what they make. It is because that is what you value her efforts to your organization as. Is it sometimes arbitrary? Maybe to a certain extent. It isn't like you consulted some chart and said "Hmmmm, this is your age, and female, and lives with parents so you should make this".

I really could care less what you pay your employee. You make an offer and she can choose to accept or decline. If her services are that great and you are underpaying her for said services she can take them elsewhere. If you can easily replace her, then win win for everyone. If she has an overinflated sense of her own self worth, (as many do) then it won't take long for her to realize that.

What I object to is people thinking they can arbitrarily assign a number across the board as if that should be the minimum wage across the board. And yes it is an arbitrary number. If the people who said they cared about this issue really cared about it then they would set the number at the median wage.

Why didn't the dems just fix it when they had a chance? I will tell you why. Because they don't ever have any intention on fixing it. They need it to be an issue. So they will pick these arbitrary numbers so they can come back to the well again and again.
 
Darla said:
Why does it have to come from somewhere other than the company? Employees get raises. Both merit and cost of living. We have a young woman whose salary has gone up by 150 a week in less than two years. She's that good and we recognized it right away, she was given a 50 dollar increase after her first 3 months. I didn't raise my prices to give her the raises.

Also, your idea that grocery stores are using automated checkouts because of minimum wage increases is nonsense to me. I read this week that the minimum wage when adjusted is now lower than in 1973. We haven't had a federal increase since 2009 I think, and that was a small increase. Yet the automation keeps coming. IMO it's not because companies can't afford the wages, it's because our culture has changed and to the detriment of the worker. I'm not an economist but the things you say don't make any common sense to me whatsoever. I think they're bullshit. If you want to know the truth. I think you talk a lot of bullshit, and others are fooled.
Click to expand...

This is why you have no clue to real life.
You're wanting to use 1 employee as an example; but why don't you multiply that by 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 and explain why prices wouldn't have to be raised?
 
Darla said:
Why not a thousand an hour?

Your argument (and please forgive my grandiose usage of the term) that you either pay workers a sub-standard minimum wage of 6 or 7 dollars an hour, or you pay them an inflated amount an hour, is basically retarded. I know you think it's a "gotcha" but the only other people who view that nonsense as a gotcha are imbeciles like USF.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't answer his question of why aren't you paying her $50 @ hr., you cheap ass bitch? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top