The 86 million invisible unemployed

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
The 86 million invisible unemployed

EW YORK (CNNMoney) -- There are far more jobless people in the United States than you might think.

While it's true that the unemployment rate is falling, that doesn't include the millions of nonworking adults who aren't even looking for a job anymore. And hiring isn't strong enough to keep up with population growth.

As a result, the labor force is now at its smallest size since the 1980s when compared to the broader working age population.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/news/economy/unemployment-rate/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

forward!
 
Thank you for 30 yrs of failed conservative trickle-down economics. We are reaping the benefits.
 
What should the U.S. be doing economically instead in this global economy?

Impose tariffs, cancel Nafta/Gatt and start protecting American workers for starters. The only way to rebuild the middle class and have a strong economy is to have more money at the bottom, we've learned over the past 30 yrs that conservative trickle-down is a failure. It actually worked just the opposite, which was the Republicon plan all along.
 
Impose tariffs, cancel Nafta/Gatt and start protecting American workers for starters. The only way to rebuild the middle class and have a strong economy is to have more money at the bottom, we've learned over the past 30 yrs that conservative trickle-down is a failure. It actually worked just the opposite, which was the Republicon plan all along.

That would increase the cost of all products. And hurt the ability to import stuff we kinda NEED.
 
Impose tariffs, cancel Nafta/Gatt and start protecting American workers for starters. The only way to rebuild the middle class and have a strong economy is to have more money at the bottom, we've learned over the past 30 yrs that conservative trickle-down is a failure. It actually worked just the opposite, which was the Republicon plan all along.
wasn't nafta approved during clinton?
 
Impose tariffs, cancel Nafta/Gatt and start protecting American workers for starters. The only way to rebuild the middle class and have a strong economy is to have more money at the bottom, we've learned over the past 30 yrs that conservative trickle-down is a failure. It actually worked just the opposite, which was the Republicon plan all along.

yeah, because a tariff war ends well for everyone.
 
Do you think that, without the stimulus, those millions of jobs wouldn't have been lost?

Take your time.

Do you think with a less ideological stimulus, one actually aimed at stimulating the economy rather than one industry above all others, we may actually have millions more jobs rather than be talking about the millions who have simply given up and the fact that the jobs "created" don't even keep up with population growth?

Take your time.
 
in what universe is it beneficial to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to keep a few million jobs resulting in around 200 million in salary?

The same one where the economy was losing trillions in a few short months because the market was crashing and investors had zero confidence, at the same time that businesses were slashing their workforces and cutting spending, leading to consumers reigning in their spending as well.
 
Do you think with a less ideological stimulus, one actually aimed at stimulating the economy rather than one industry above all others, we may actually have millions more jobs rather than be talking about the millions who have simply given up?

Take your time.

I think, given the nature of the crash, that millions of job losses were inevitable. I also believe that the government's power is much more limited in a global economy such as we have, and that the millions of jobs created by the stimulus were probably around what we could hope for from gov't action.

Also, are you generally aware that the stimulus was actually 1/3 tax cuts and incentives, and that liberals hated Obama for compromising so much w/ the GOP?
 
I love the 86 million number. There's a legitimate problem with long-term unemployed that have given up looking for work (as well as the underemployed) but the 86 million number is a joke.
 
I think, given the nature of the crash, that millions of job losses were inevitable. I also believe that the government's power is much more limited in a global economy such as we have, and that the millions of jobs created by the stimulus were probably around what we could hope for from gov't action.

Also, are you generally aware that the stimulus was actually 1/3 tax cuts and incentives, and that liberals hated Obama for compromising so much w/ the GOP?

I am aware, I was one to point out that the tax cuts were not targeted enough toward stimulating the economy and that much of the stimulus would come into effect in the year before election time. I'm relatively sure you remember me calling republicans idiots for voting for the Obama re-election fund.

I am also aware that a better focused stimulus and a less ideological plan in energy alone could create millions of jobs, very quickly.

I think that the jobs losses were inevitable, but that the stagnant and actual backwards growth (jobs not keeping up with population growth) was inevitable with ideologically directed "stimulus".

I also remember who controlled the purse strings during Bush's last two years in office.
 
I am aware, I was one to point out that the tax cuts were not targeted enough toward stimulating the economy and that much of the stimulus would come into effect in the year before election time. I'm relatively sure you remember me calling republicans idiots for voting for the Obama re-election fund.

I am also aware that a better focused stimulus and a less ideological plan in energy alone could create millions of jobs, very quickly.

I think that the jobs losses were inevitable, but that the stagnant and actual backwards growth (jobs not keeping up with population growth) was inevitable with ideologically directed "stimulus".

I also remember who controlled the purse strings during Bush's last two years in office.

We could argue about it all day, but you are what is known in the parlance as an "armchair quarterback" - someone who sits back and snipes without accountability. The thing is, you're talking about compromises which can take months on capitol hill - on a measure where "time sensitive" is a vast understatement. That can also characterize TARP and the auto bailouts, both of which you were wrong about, as well.
 
The same one where the economy was losing trillions in a few short months because the market was crashing and investors had zero confidence, at the same time that businesses were slashing their workforces and cutting spending, leading to consumers reigning in their spending as well.
so you think it was beneficial to spend that much money, to save so little in the way of jobs, increasing the debt of our nation (which increased the loss at the market), all in the name of keeping people working at jobs that were going away anyway?
 
so you think it was beneficial to spend that much money, to save so little in the way of jobs, increasing the debt of our nation (which increased the loss at the market), all in the name of keeping people working at jobs that were going away anyway?

All the gov't could do in the circumstances was stop the bleeding, and give the market & private sector a chance to catch its breath. I think they did that - not as effectively as most would like, but given the timeframe, I think they did okay. I never expected the gov't to be able to get everyone back to work; just to turn the tide.

And yeah - it was worth the investment. Again, the economy was losing trillions, and the market was plummeting (and yes, that does = job losses). By comparison, the stimulus was cheap.
 
We could argue about it all day, but you are what is known in the parlance as an "armchair quarterback" - someone who sits back and snipes without accountability. The thing is, you're talking about compromises which can take months on capitol hill - on a measure where "time sensitive" is a vast understatement. That can also characterize TARP and the auto bailouts, both of which you were wrong about, as well.

Just repeating that somebody is "wrong" about something doesn't make it reality.

An analogy.

We plan on painting a community barn. One plan is to use crappy red paint, another is to use long-lasting outdoor green paint. I argue to paint the barn green, you take a vote, the barn is painted red. Later you come back to say dumb stuff and to tell me that the barn is red, therefore I was "wrong". It doesn't make me wrong. The green paint would last longer, even though the barn is red.
 
Back
Top