Job Losses May Have Eased

• Mr. 300

  

  A loss of 85,000 jobs. Yep, things are looking up.
• QuakerOats

  More ............................... change we can believe in ..............
• fish82

  

  Thread Fail.
  
  
• gut

  17% underemployed and 15 million unemployed. Mind-boggling numbers. We have a long ways to go just to get back to a mediocre jobs market.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I'm curious as to how much the spread between reported unemployment and actual unemployment has to do with people leaving the work force to go back to school? It seems I can't get in the car without hearing a commercial about "special programs for higher education" and "President Obama wants you to go back to school" (I'm unsure if Obama approved of that message). Newsflash, the job market for college graduates in virtually all sectors is bleak, and if you are going into debt to get a degree that may or may not increase your employment opportunities, you may want to rethink the plan.
• Footwedge

  QuakerOats wrote: Over 10 million are out of work, and they are not coming back to work any time soon. This is a dismal situation and cannot improve until DC embraces pro-growth policies. Unfortunately, the radicals in DC are doing the exact opposite by imposing a socialist agenda upon the people and sticking them with massive debt. There is nothing coming out of DC right now that is helpful to business and to get this economy in a position to work down the joblessness. It is an unmitigated disaster in DC. and November '10 cannot arrive soon enough.

  
  ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz.... belch...(lift leg) ....fart.
  
  Ever give it a teeny thought that globalization has permanently displaced our manufacturing base here? Ever? Even a fleeting thought?
  
  Does it bother you at all that our manufacturing base has dwindled from 24% of our GDP down to a paltry 9% ?...Or that the military (another non producer} has tripled over the past decade? Or that the financial sector has tripled in size over the past 3 decades....making intangible products that really encompass nothing more that paper contracts? To placate the masses, the government expands the warfare and the welfare state in keeping the sheep employed. Unfortunately, the gap has become so pronounced, even the Keynesian model is failing miserably as well.
  
  Partisan hissyfitters like yourself are truly blind to the realities that have been going on since the Reagan years.
  
  You want private sector to re-emerge? You want to invigorate real GDP growth? Well then it's right time for Corporate America to become Corporate Americans again...as opposed to being Corporate Asians. Africans and South Americans....and the collective wretched traitors that they have become.
• Footwedge

  QuakerOats wrote: More ............................... change we can believe in ..............

  
  That phrase turn you on or something? Have you ever initiated a thought on these boards that have caused people to reflect?
  
  And you call yourself a businessman? ZZZZZzzzzz...
• queencitybuckeye

  Footwedge wrote: You want private sector to re-emerge? You want to invigorate real GDP growth? Well then it's right time for Corporate America to become Corporate Americans again...as opposed to being Corporate Asians. Africans and South Americans....and the collective wretched traitors that they have become.

  What a load of bullshit coming from someone who has obviously never signed the front of a paycheck (although I have to be impressed by your business degree with econ minor from tom_hsfootballfan community college :rolleyes: ). We make it increasingly hard for American companies to do business in America, and we get dullards who call them names for doing what someone who we treat as not being wanted here would naturally do - go somewhere else.
  
  It's the typical Huddle approach - when given the choice between stick and carrot, choose the stick every time. When it's clear (or should be) that mixing in some carrot would make sense, we call for a bigger stick.
• Footwedge

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  Footwedge wrote: You want private sector to re-emerge? You want to invigorate real GDP growth? Well then it's right time for Corporate America to become Corporate Americans again...as opposed to being Corporate Asians. Africans and South Americans....and the collective wretched traitors that they have become.

  What a load of bullshit coming from someone who has obviously never signed the front of a paycheck (although I have to be impressed by your business degree with econ minor from tom_hsfootballfan community college :rolleyes: ). We make it increasingly hard for American companies to do business in America, and we get dullards who call them names for doing what someone who we treat as not being wanted here would naturally do - go somewhere else.
  
  It's the typical Huddle approach - when given the choice between stick and carrot, choose the stick every time. When it's clear (or should be) that mixing in some carrot would make sense, we call for a bigger stick.

  I signed my employees's paychecks for 18 years, sir. Better be careful when you attack people.
  
  What you need to do is revisit Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations....and understand what he stood for and what he believed in. What he didn't believe in was his country {Scotland) having all of their wealth flow overseas.
  
  Your qualifications as an economics consultant are sorely lacking, sir....just my opinion.
• queencitybuckeye

  Footwedge wrote:
  I signed my employees's paychecks for 18 years, sir. Better be careful when you attack people.

  Without proof to the contrary, I'll assume this is just one more in the series of factual falsehoods I've caught you in. IOW (no other words are needed but you seem to revel in being overly verbose), I've seen you tell baldfaced lies before, and have called them out. Fortunately for everyone, you take that as a cue to disappear, at least for a short time.
  

  What you need to do is revisit Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations....and understand what he stood for and what he believed in. What he didn't believe in was his country {Scotland) having all of their wealth flow overseas.

  What you need to do is to refer to any other text related to economics. That this is the only one you bring up (ad naseum) is a pretty clear indicator that your claim of being well-read in Economics is yet another mischaracterization. More on-topic, Smith did not (and would not) call for attempting to preserve wealth by erecting any sort of barriers, he would (and did) call for doing so by creating an environment where there would be no reason to even consider alternatives.
  

  Your qualifications as an economics consultant are sorely lacking, sir....just my opinion.

  The folks at Kellogg respectfully disagree with your opinion, fortunately for me. Say hi to Tom for us. He taught you well.
• Footwedge

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  I signed my employees's paychecks for 18 years, sir. Better be careful when you attack people.

  Without proof to the contrary, I'll assume this is just one more in the series of factual falsehoods I've caught you in. IOW (no other words are needed but you seem to revel in being overly verbose), I've seen you tell baldfaced lies before, and have called them out. Fortunately for everyone, you take that as a cue to disappear, at least for a short time.
  

  What you need to do is revisit Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations....and understand what he stood for and what he believed in. What he didn't believe in was his country {Scotland) having all of their wealth flow overseas.

  What you need to do is to refer to any other text related to economics. That this is the only one you bring up (ad naseum) is a pretty clear indicator that your claim of being well-read in Economics is yet another mischaracterization. More on-topic, Smith did not (and would not) call for attempting to preserve wealth by erecting any sort of barriers, he would (and did) call for doing so by creating an environment where there would be no reason to even consider alternatives.
  

  Your qualifications as an economics consultant are sorely lacking, sir....just my opinion.

  The folks at Kellogg respectfully disagree with your opinion, fortunately for me. Say hi to Tom for us. He taught you well.

  I don't have to prove shit for you. I initiated and operated a highly successful industrial sales company in 1989. So kindly go shove it up your anal canal.
  
  I have never told a lie on this forum, or any other internet forum. There is nothing to be gained by doing so.
  
  Calling anonymous posters liars says a lot about your lack of character and personal morals.
  
  Since you don't know a fucking thing about me, my family, nor my career, I would suggest to you that you mind your own fucking business when it comes to my personal endeavors and achievements.
  
  Now...with that out of the way....care to debate the points that I cited regarding our current e job situation? Or does my overall knowledge of the subject frighten you?
  
  Crickets.....
• Footwedge

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: I'm curious as to how much the spread between reported unemployment and actual unemployment has to do with people leaving the work force to go back to school? It seems I can't get in the car without hearing a commercial about "special programs for higher education" and "President Obama wants you to go back to school" (I'm unsure if Obama approved of that message). Newsflash, the job market for college graduates in virtually all sectors is bleak, and if you are going into debt to get a degree that may or may not increase your employment opportunities, you may want to rethink the plan.

  Other than continuing one's education, or joining the military, what are Americans supposed to do? What are the options?
  
  Well, slick, our options are dwindling. The plan is in full force. The American Empire is going the way of the Ottomans, the British, and the Romans.
  
  The more things change over the course of history, the more things stay the same.
  
  Just another biproduct of the American oligarchs sending our wealth overseas.
  
  and there's really not a damn thing you can do about it.
• I Wear Pants

  I'm pretty sure all of those empires falling was a good thing. Empires are generally bad.
  
  Edit: And because Adam Smith said something doesn't make it right or fact, there are plenty of well respected economists who operate with their mouths and pens not on Adam Smith's jock. John Maynard Keynes was one of them.
• Footwedge

  What you need to do is revisit Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations....and understand what he stood for and what he believed in. What he didn't believe in was his country {Scotland) having all of their wealth flow overseas.

  Wrong. That wasn't the primary reason for him authoring his book....but it was in fact a major personal motivation in doing so.
  
  You may want to do a little research on his term "comparative advantage".
  

  What you need to do is to refer to any other text related to economics. That this is the only one you bring up (ad naseum) is a pretty clear indicator that your claim of being well-read in Economics is yet another mischaracterization. More on-topic, Smith did not (and would not) call for attempting to preserve wealth by erecting any sort of barriers, he would (and did) call for doing so by creating an environment where there would be no reason to even consider alternatives.

  I could quote Malthuse, David Ricardo, and many others. I choose Smith in that you can never denounce the source.
  
  What is abundantly clear, you have only read certain snippets from the Wealth of Nations, maybe from certain right winged business professors, who have done a fine job of bastardizing the greatest economics piece ever written......the political Bible for laissez-faire economics (although the term laissez-faire was not introduced into the English Language until a century after the book was published).
  
  It just pisses you off that Smith admitted that his system had many, many caveats....mainly innately inborn incumbant with the concept of greed.
  
  He was 100% anti corporation...but pro small business (less than 100 people to be exact.) Imagine that.... a free market without the legal contracts of corporations. Isn't it interesting that the Boston Tea Party event was a direct revolution towards the East India Tea CORPORATION? Forboding? No?
  
  Isn't it also interesting that under Smith's "invisible hand" he acknowledged that any labor contract between the employer and the employee would always result in a "collusive advantage" for the employer. Only back then...in his book...he called the employers "masters" and the employees "slaves". You, of course, wouldn't know this...because you never actually read his book.
  
  And isn't it also interesting to note....Smith's biggest fear regarding his sytstem on growing wealth would be undermined and chafed by the "masters" collusion and manifestation of oligopolies and monopolies....a scene that has enveloped our system so badly today, that the government now has to financially bailout the very colluders, manipulators, and monopolists.
  
  Ha. What a sorbid take late term capitalism has morphed itself to be. Indeed Smith warned of it....and Smith was dead nuts on the money. But those that question the present day model of the American Corporate state are somehow labeled protectionists, or far worse...even communists. I see it written all the time. Was Adam Smith actually an under cover liberal? Haaa!!.
  
  Maybe my sharing with you the cold blooded truth on Adam Smith's system equates to "ad nauseum" as you like to say...but it is time for you enfettered free marketers to be shown the truth as to what has happened to our great and proud country.
  
  To those that continue to buy the free market model encompassing globalization...... not to worry. After you and I have lived our gluttonous lives on the national credit card, it will be our grand kids that will have to deal with living in a 3rd world country shithole.
• LJ

  

  Well this thread went downhill while I took a nap. I suggest you all do the same and check back later.