In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 543
Online now 541 Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Its no spin. The number that are "filing" are down. But there are millions that have fallen off and aren't filing. In addition, the jobs they are getting are significantly less than what they were making and many are working for less than they need.
I loved in the SOTU speech how Obama said he has created 6 million jobs. But he didn't count his entire term, early he was losing jobs. The net gain under his watch for public/private is 1.2 million. Which I believe is slower than the growth of the need for jobs for new people entering the workforce.
"...an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough jobs or enough profits" JFK
One certainly has to hope that the revisions are more reliable. It would be troubling to see revisions made that were less accurate than the initial reports.
They are going to have a hard time doing that, but I don't expect that to mean they won't make an effort. They've been consistently more negative towards the guy in The White House during the recovery, than they ever even began to be towards the guy in office when the recession started.
And 8 million have left the workforce...the number the lefties here always ignore. The number of people on unemployment has more to do with people leaving the workforce than the actual number of unemployed, which has NOT GONE DOWN...period! They have exhuasted their 99 weeks or simply have given up. But the left keeps eating a shit sandwich and call it prime rib.
Obama suggested raising the minimum wage. Of course, conservatives then argue that we can't because some making minimum wage will lose their jobs. It seems that conservatives make both sides of the argument.
I agree that Obama did start his count from the bottom. However, isn't that reasonable? Was he expected to turn the ship immediately upon taking office and before any legislation is passed? Is it his fault that states, pushed by Republicans, had to lay off people? Never in history had states done that during a recession. Should those jobs count against Obama as well? I do not remember any recovery during my lifetime in which the U.S. was recovering while Europe was having a disaster. Is Europe's disaster Obama's fault as well? Given the circumstances in Europe and what the states have done, the U.S. is doing quite well.
Have you looked at Jon Stewart's piece on Rubio? If not, I posted a link in the debate thread. It seems to underscore how far afield Rubio was compared to Obama.
Why did you start all of those bizarre threads and then abandon them? I found that a little confusing.
And I agree with all of this. But what's your point?
“Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.
Obviously, we will not see the revisions for a week. So, the best we have now is these numbers. Let's enjoy them. Hopefully the revisions leave us at the same point or even better. If not, that is life.
Should people not be allowed to retire? Should people with permanent disabilities be forced to work?
1) Sorry, don't frequent the board as much as I used to. They didn't seem to go anywhere.
2) What was my point? First, I responded to Morethan's comment about "what conservatives are going to say". Second, those numbers once again didn't paint a complete picture. And once again posters here latched on to them trying to say the economy is doing so much better.
I'm mixed on the raising the minimum wage. But probably leaning towards agreeing with increasing it. On one side we need to increase the pay for the poorest. No argument there. But that will only add more fire to the looming inflation that will be taking off shortly. i don't claim to be an economist. I'm more anecdotal. Inflation will definitely help me as I am holding a lot of inventory. I've recently raised many of my wholesale prices. And I will probably hold/hide more of my income from 2013 in inventory/machinery going forward.
Don't you think that inflation is going to just negate the rise in the minimum wage? Actually, as cream rises to the top the disparity in pay will become more pronounced between those that make the new minimum wage and those in the other (upper) levels of income.
I haven't seen the Jon Stewart piece yet but have heard. I'll go watch it. Stewart is funny.
We just had the best January in the real estate market that we've seen in 6 years.
Southern California’s housing market started 2013 with the strongest January home sale report since 2007; foreclosure starts drop 75 percent year-over-year
1) I do not see why that is something to apologize about.
2) Regarding your "First," why respond to my comment with a new thread? Why not respond in the same thread? Regarding your "Second," this is the problem with starting a new thread rather than responding. What posts do not paint a complete picture? People are claiming that the economy is doing much better than when? I only remember one comment claiming that it is doing much better than 2008. Do you seriously disagree with that? If so, you do not remember 2008 or did not understand it at the time.
Conservatives have been predicting huge inflation for awhile. It has not happened. It is easy for the fed to deal with that. If raising minimum wage causes a small amount of inflation that is good. If it causes a large amount (I strongly doubt that) it can be handled by the Fed raising interest rates.
I do not believe the inflation caused by a rise in minimum wage will be close to enough to negate the raise. There is a trend of wage disparity that I do not see ending in the near future. Raising minimum wages will not contribute to that. It will slightly fight the trend. However, the main purpose of raising the minimum wages (in my opinion) is not the wage disparity. It is so that those people that are working can scrape by a meager existance. It also give those that do not work more of an incentive to work rather than "sucking on the government teet."
Real estate is important to a recovery. Miami is recovering nicely now because of real estate development.
As some who deals with raw commodities for manufacturing I would say that there is an inflation burst waiting to happen. There are a number of things hiding it. Many have been holding back due to the poor economy. There are a number of things happening now that will not hold up and eventually the inflation will take off. Many companies are recycling equipment rather than buying new. Others are running less machines. Some are making it up through resizing down of product and selling at the same price. And some have begun to take the prices up. Its like a rubber band. You can only stretch things so far. In fact, many businesses in an attempt to keep prices down have trimmed other places. Which has hurt the economy in other ways. You can only trim so far. Add in upward pressure from government fees and taxes and new rising labor costs and there is no place to go. If a business owner has a $1 increase in labor costs he will increase goods by $1.50 or more.
We will see what happens?
1) He was questioning why I didn't continue with my threads.
2) I didn't respond in a new thread. I responded here. I'm not sure what you are talking about? I always quote and I always speak to what is quoted (outside of a general reference to commonly held truth).
I'm not going to go and hunt down the references by your type but they are out there where you are saying the economy is doing better. We even have a poster doing drive by posts about the Dow, real estate and unemployment data, implying that things are somehow better now.
My mistake. There were two topics that you responded to. I thought you were writing that you started the threads as a response to my posts. The first part of your answer dealt with the threads and then the second part was the point of your posts here. I confused the two parts of the response. When I went back and reread your post, I realized that I misunderstood what you wrote.
I wrote that the economy is much better now than in 2008. I do not believe that is debatable. It is much better. Things were disasterous in 2008. If financial institutions had not been bailed out, we'd be the equivalent of a third world country now. Things have been continuously doing better. It would be nice if things were even better than they are, but implying that they are getting better is accurate. I do not believe anyone is over hyping the economy. CS (and to a lesser extent I) have copied and pasted good news as it has been reported and I believe both have done so fairly. The reason I mentioned conservative spin is that when we post news stories about the economy improving, frequently a conservative poster (I do not remember if you did this; I was thinking of other posters) will spin why it is really bad news. The once in awhile that the response is accurate that makes sense. However, sometimes the spin is totally from left field.
I believe CS' posting of the Dow is in response to the conservative posters that would post how the Dow was going down every day that it did at the very beginning of Obama's presidency. Conservatives would then cackle about how bad Obama is for the economy. If those same conservatives were still posting here, I would be doing it with him. I don't do it because most of those posters are not even here. Many did not come over to this board and the worst at doing that was Torqed off this board.
FYI, I'm not implying that things are getting better. Instead, I'm directly and emphatically stating that things are getting better. We aren't where I would like us to be yet, but we are most certainly better off than we were.
So, just to confirm...you are cool with FEWER people actually being employed now than in any time since the Great depression, and the number getting WORSE?
Not the fake unemployment percentage, but the raw, real number of those not working, having given up...those 8 MILLION that are within working age, the 5.7 MILLION that are aged 25-54...them NOT WORKING is better?
I haven't stated that I am cool with fewer people being employed than what has been the medium -term historic norm.
Where do you get such a ridiculous stat? WingnutsRUs? The total number of people in the U.S. (including infants, those at war, the retired elderly, totally handicapped, etc.) did not even equal the number of presently employed Americans until about the time of WWII. You need to start reading real articles and not just stuff written by nutcases.
This post was edited by Morethanafan 14 months ago
When the Labour Party in Britain introduced the minimum wage in Britain in 1997, it was against a backdrop of the Right predicting run-away inflation. It never came. We still have a demand slump, labor in China is still abundant and cheap. If the minimum wage causes some inflation which lowers our debt repayments, well that's something to aim for!
In my opinion, the best argument against raising the minimum wage is not inflation, it is that less people will be employed. To an extremely small degree, that probably will happen. However, a very large amount of working people will earn more money. Hopefully, enough to struggle by with.
It depends on how much you raise it. If it leads to a mild redistribution of corporate profits to working people, it'll probably boost demand and further overall economic activity. If you whacked it up to $30/hr, of course it would render some companies uncompetitive.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports