Unemployment Rate Falls Below 8 Percent. Game Changer?

[QueEx]

Re: Exclusive: 4 in 5 in US face near-poverty, no work

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/02/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-year-best-start-private-sector-j/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/02/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-year-best-start-private-sector-j/">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Now if we could stop killing public sector jobs right and left, we could really pull out of this funk in a sustainable way.

 

[QueEx]

Now if we could stop killing public sector jobs right and left, we could really pull out of this funk in a sustainable way.

 

[thoughtone]

 

[Greed]

Barack Obama says this year has been the best start for private-sector job creation since 1999

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2008
According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2008, 75.3 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.2 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 On July 24, 2008, the Federal minimum wage increased to $6.55 per hour from $5.85 per hour. Data in this report reflect the average number of workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less for the year (those who earned $5.85 or less from January 2008 through July 2008 and those who earned $6.55 or less from August 2008 through the end of the year). Among those paid by the hour, 286,000 earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage in 2008. About 1.9 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 2.2 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 3.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers. Tables 1-10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2008 data.

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012
In 2012, 75.3 million workers in the United States age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.0 percent of all wage and salary workers. 1 Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.0 million had wages below the federal minimum.2 Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 4.7 percent of all hourly paid workers. Tables 1 through 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2012 data.​

Thanks to this board during the Rick Perry presidential campaign, I learned that job growth containing a significant percentage of minimum wage jobs should be shunned and demonized.

I also learned from this board that, for employees, a job isn't worth having if its at or below the minimum wage. I also learned that, for employers, a job isn't worth creating if its at or below the minimum wage.

Never thought an increase in part-time work would be celebrated on this board, and just think how much economic growth would exist if government policy didn't create so many discouraged workers. Service Employees International Union president Mary Kay Henry said it best, "There are no other jobs to get." Which is the reason, as SEIU tries to organize fast-food workers, she wants wages raised to $15/hour so these jobs can become "good middle-class jobs".

On a brighter note, maybe this is a good example of employment rising when the cost of employment goes down. But wait, I forgot it's better to be unemployed if the job is low wage.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2008
According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2008, 75.3 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.2 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 On July 24, 2008, the Federal minimum wage increased to $6.55 per hour from $5.85 per hour. Data in this report reflect the average number of workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less for the year (those who earned $5.85 or less from January 2008 through July 2008 and those who earned $6.55 or less from August 2008 through the end of the year). Among those paid by the hour, 286,000 earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage in 2008. About 1.9 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 2.2 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 3.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers. Tables 1-10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2008 data.

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012
In 2012, 75.3 million workers in the United States age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.0 percent of all wage and salary workers. 1 Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.0 million had wages below the federal minimum.2 Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 4.7 percent of all hourly paid workers. Tables 1 through 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage. The following are some highlights from the 2012 data.​

Thanks to this board during the Rick Perry presidential campaign, I learned that job growth containing a significant percentage of minimum wage jobs should be shunned and demonized.

I also learned from this board that, for employees, a job isn't worth having if its at or below the minimum wage. I also learned that, for employers, a job isn't worth creating if its at or below the minimum wage.

Never thought an increase in part-time work would be celebrated on this board, and just think how much economic growth would exist if government policy didn't create so many discouraged workers. Service Employees International Union president Mary Kay Henry said it best, "There are no other jobs to get." Which is the reason, as SEIU tries to organize fast-food workers, she wants wages raised to $15/hour so these jobs can become "good middle-class jobs".

On a brighter note, maybe this is a good example of employment rising when the cost of employment goes down. But wait, I forgot it's better to be unemployed if the job is low wage.

Doesn't seem like the board is the problem but what you choose to learn, even if no one is saying it.

As I've said, if certain politicians (not just Republicans)would stop pushing austerity, despite it's proven failure as policy, and cutting public sector jobs then people wouldn't have to settle for part time and low wage work. We would still need to have the debate and action on the minimum wage but that's a different topic.

 

[Greed]

Doesn't seem like the board is the problem but what you choose to learn, even if no one is saying it.

As I've said, if certain politicians (not just Republicans)would stop pushing austerity, despite it's proven failure as policy, and cutting public sector jobs then people wouldn't have to settle for part time and low wage work. We would still need to have the debate and action on the minimum wage but that's a different topic.

What am I learning that no one is saying?

And again, what austerity? The public sector job cuts are from non-federal levels, and inconsistent bwtween the states. Likely due to the realities of tax revenue and not ideology. The federal government has grown through inflation and debt, which is a luxury the states find harder to get away with for various reasons. Plus, from the reported numbers of 600,000, the totality of the public sector losses are equal to just a month of private sector losses during the worse of it. So it's dramatic to call it austerity and it's dramatic to say it's what's holding back the economy.

I hope you aren't calling the "sequester" austerity.

By the way, what does it say about government workers that if they leave a non-low wage government job, they are only good for part time and low wage private sector jobs. Personally, I think it reflects accurately on the quality of the average government worker.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

What am I learning that no one is saying?

And again, what austerity? The public sector job cuts are from non-federal levels, and inconsistent bwtween the states. Likely due to the realities of tax revenue and not ideology. The federal government has grown through inflation and debt, which is a luxury the states find harder to get away with for various reasons. Plus, from the reported numbers of 600,000, the totality of the public sector losses are equal to just a month of private sector losses during the worse of it. So it's dramatic to call it austerity and it's dramatic to say it's what's holding back the economy.

I hope you aren't calling the "sequester" austerity.

By the way, what does it say about government workers that if they leave a non-low wage government job, they are only good for part time and low wage private sector jobs. Personally, I think it reflects accurately on the quality of the average government worker.

You could come to that conclusion if you allow your ideology to dictate how you perceive reality instead of the reverse.
It's been proven that public sector workers tend to be older,more educated and better trained than private sector workers so it's probable that they run into the "over-qualified" label when applying for jobs.
Yes, cutting aid to states federally and many states cutting their workforce but finding the money to cut taxes on higher earners and corporations is the American right wing version of austerity.

 

[thoughtone]

The Federal Government has grown through Conservative republicans.

Can you say Homeland Security?

 

[Greed]

The Federal Government has grown through Conservative republicans.

Can you say Homeland Security?

Well, you can see how when you factor in Obama's complete and utter embrace of the Homeland Security model along with his liberal Keynesianism, it results in a never-ending expansion of the federal government.

Of course, the recent non-federal contraction will prove to be just a blip and it will revert back to its historical trend as well.

 

[Greed]

You could come to that conclusion if you allow your ideology to dictate how you perceive reality instead of the reverse.
It's been proven that public sector workers tend to be older,more educated and better trained than private sector workers so it's probable that they run into the "over-qualified" label when applying for jobs.
Yes, cutting aid to states federally and many states cutting their workforce but finding the money to cut taxes on higher earners and corporations is the American right wing version of austerity.

I've said this before, but what makes someone more deserving of a higher wage because they are older or have more college. Sociology majors go into government work because they are not desired in the private sector. Being a 50 year old philosophy major doesn't make you a productive person deserving of something besides minimum wage. If he's better trained, then I would want to know in what? He's better trained in skills that only succeed in government. No wonder he's a greeter at Walmart or completely left the labor force.

I wonder if aid to states were cut. Considering the Stimulus plus the normal cash that has always flowed to the states. I don't know though.

 

[thoughtone]

Well, you can see how when you factor in Obama's complete and utter embrace of the Homeland Security model along with his liberal Keynesianism, it results in a never-ending expansion of the federal government.

Of course, the recent non-federal contraction will prove to be just a blip and it will revert back to its historical trend as well.

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul could introduce legislation to defund it.

They would rather have 40 useless votes to end Obamacare.

Priorities for the Tea Party!

 

[Greed]

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul could introduce legislation to defund it.

They would rather have 40 useless votes to end Obamacare.

Priorities for the Tea Party!

So Cruz and Rand are wrong for not introducing legislation to end it, but Obama isn't wrong for embracing and using it. Got it.

Obama uses increases in part-time jobs to show his competence at job creation and kills Americans with drones while using the NSA to read email contents, but it's the Republicans fault.

I guess that's one way of looking at it.

 

[thoughtone]

So Cruz and Rand are wrong for not introducing legislation to end it, but Obama isn't wrong for embracing and using it. Got it.

Obama uses increases in part-time jobs to show his competence at job creation and kills Americans with drones while using the NSA to read email contents, but it's the Republicans fault.

I guess that's one way of looking at it.

Which is it, the private sector creating part time jobs or Obama?

 

[Greed]

Which is it, the private sector creating part time jobs or Obama?

The private sector created the jobs of course.

 

[thoughtone]

The private sector created the jobs of course.

The part time jobs.

 

[Greed]

Yea, the only jobs you referenced.

 

[QueEx]

So Cruz and Rand are wrong for not introducing legislation to end it [the Affordable Care Act a/k/a Obamacare], but Obama isn't wrong for embracing and using it [the Affordable Care Act a/k/a Obamacare]. Got it.

Obama uses increases in part-time jobs to show his competence at job creation and kills . . .

More Part-Time Workers?​

The RNC wasn’t the first to suggest the health care law was blocking part-timers from getting full-time jobs, proclaiming:

RNC, July 15: 8.2 Million: Americans Unable To Find Full-Time Work Partly Due To ObamaCare

Early in July, House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor also made similar claims:

Boehner Press Conference, July 9: Because of ObamaCare, millions of full-time workers can only find part-time work.

Cantor Press Conference, July 23: The problem is, the only thing that [Obama] has done is acted to continue to implement ObamaCare, which as we all know now is creating a part-time worker economy, not a full-time economy that can grow.

The total number of Americans working “part-time for economic reasons,” either because they couldn’t find full-time work or because their hours had been reduced, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ June figures. Certainly, everyone who can’t find a full-time job, in a still recovering economy, isn’t in that predicament “partly due to ObamaCare.”

The 8.2 million is actually less than the 9.1 million part-timers seeking full-time work in March 2010, the month the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. BLS figures show that this category of workers skyrocketed in 2008, from 4.8 million in January of that year to 8 million in December. (The nation was officially in a recession from December 2007 to June 2009.)

In recent years, the number working part-time for economic reasons has fluctuated, but in general, has been on a slow trajectory downward. Here’s a chart of BLS data, showing the pre- and post-health care law figures.

The health care law requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers (defined as 30 hours per week or more) to provide insurance or pay a fine. The Obama administration recently delayed that requirement until 2015. It’s possible that some among the 8.2 million part-timers had their hours cut by employers concerned about the law’s requirements. But we don’t know how many that might be, and neither do the Republicans.

There’s no evidence from the BLS numbers that the Affordable Care Act has had an influence on those seeking full-time work. But that didn’t stop Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso from claiming exactly that. Barrasso went into more detail than the RNC, claiming that those working part-time for economic reasons “soared by over 300,000″ in June. He continued in his July 9 remarks to Congress: “There are now 8.2 million Americans working part-time jobs because their hours were cut back, or because they couldn’t find full-time work. Republicans have been warning that this would happen because of the Democrats’ health care law, and that’s exactly what’s been happening for months now.”

But the 300,000 increase in June was more of a continuing fluctuation than a soaring. And there’s no trend showing an increase is “exactly what’s been happening for months now.”

The big jump in these part-timers occurred back in 2008, not because of the health care law.
​

SOURCE

 

[QueEx]

"Since the Affordable Care Act passed, 90 percent of job growth has been in full-time positions."

 

[thoughtone]

"Since the Affordable Care Act passed, 90 percent of job growth has been in full-time positions."

Yea, the only jobs you referenced.

Could you imagine if there were no minimum wage laws?

 

[thoughtone]

Greed, just to expidite the response process, since you tend to abandon subjects when you get called on the facts; where did you get your information about part time work? Please link.

 

[Greed]

So Cruz and Rand are wrong for not introducing legislation to end it [the Affordable Care Act a/k/a Obamacare], but Obama isn't wrong for embracing and using it [the Affordable Care Act a/k/a Obamacare]. Got it.

We were talking about Homeland Security.

SOURCE

"Since the Affordable Care Act passed, 90 percent of job growth has been in full-time positions."

Both of our post about part-time work cite the BLS, which one is correct? The one that makes sense to you or the one that makes sense to me.

But then again, since you misunderstood the first portion of my post, maybe there is no disagreement.

 

[Greed]

Greed, just to expidite the response process, since you tend to abandon subjects when you get called on the facts; where did you get your information about part time work? Please link.

I love how you guys act indignant when I say you act like you're on sides, but you are quick to cheerlead the other over a perceived "win." Doesn't that infer sides.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I've said this before, but what makes someone more deserving of a higher wage because they are older or have more college. Sociology majors go into government work because they are not desired in the private sector. Being a 50 year old philosophy major doesn't make you a productive person deserving of something besides minimum wage. If he's better trained, then I would want to know in what? He's better trained in skills that only succeed in government. No wonder he's a greeter at Walmart or completely left the labor force.

I wonder if aid to states were cut. Considering the Stimulus plus the normal cash that has always flowed to the states. I don't know though.

So being more experienced and more educated isn't grounds for better pay?

"Since the Affordable Care Act passed, 90 percent of job growth has been in full-time positions."

Talking point murdered.

 

[thoughtone]

I love how you guys act indignant when I say you act like you're on sides, but you are quick to cheer lead the other over a perceived "win." Doesn't that infer sides.

Archived. As usual you never answered the question.

OWNED!

 

[thoughtone]

So being more experienced and more educated isn't grounds for better pay?




Talking point murdered.

 

[Greed]

So being more experienced and more educated isn't grounds for better pay?

More experienced in what? More educated to do what? Once again, better trained to do what? I asserted older and more educated government workers that have to take part-time job are only skilled at what the government values, which doesn't have to be equal to what businesses value.

Talking point murdered.

So your side doesn't care that QueEx got my quote and the President's quote wrong in his response?

You should take note that when I corrected QueEx, thoughtone didn't call me out which seems to be the only reason he post.

Archived. As usual you never answered the question.

OWNED!

I answered it in my response to Que. And on the internet it's PWNED.

 

[thoughtone]

You should take note that when I corrected QueEx, thoughtone didn't call me out which seems to be the only reason he post.

Boo hoo hoo!

 

[QueEx]

We were talking about Homeland Security.

And, you just decided to throw this in for good measure:

Obama uses increases in part-time jobs to show his competence at job creation . . .

?

I guess that's one way of looking at it.

Both of our post about part-time work cite the BLS, which one is correct? The one that makes sense to you or the one that makes sense to me.

But then again, since you misunderstood the first portion of my post, maybe there is no disagreement.

Obviously, the answer to that question is the one that makes sense to you -- since, as usual, the article which makes most sense to you is the one which best suits your ideology.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

More experienced in what? More educated to do what? Once again, better trained to do what? I asserted older and more educated government workers that have to take part-time job are only skilled at what the government values, which doesn't have to be equal to what businesses value.

You are making an assumption, based on your ideology and not anything factual, that those former gov't workers wouldn't try to gain employment in their fields. That they're just randomly applying for jobs with no consideration to their own qualifications.
Now, I'm sure that's happened but only after they've failed to get a job in the field they're experienced and trained in.

So your side doesn't care that QueEx got my quote and the President's quote wrong in his response?

You should take note that when I corrected QueEx, thoughtone didn't call me out which seems to be the only reason he post.

I've reread that exchange a few times and have yet to see a "correction" but it's irrelevant. The talking point is dead. You can take it personal if you want, that's a "you" thing. The talking point was being used by others and Que exposed it as a lie. I didn't quote you or call you out when I quoted Que's post.

 

[thoughtone]

And, you just decided to throw this in for good measure:



?


Obviously, the answer to that question is the one that makes sense to you -- since, as usual, the article which makes most sense to you is the one which best suits your ideology.

 

[Greed]

And, you just decided to throw this in for good measure:

​

?

I did.

I made specific responses to you and specific ones to thoughtone.

Obviously, the answer to that question is the one that makes sense to you -- since, as usual, the article which makes most sense to you is the one which best suits your ideology.

As long as we agree to disagree. None of us are immune to our own bias, it's just some of us are more aware we have them.

 

[Greed]

You are making an assumption, based on your ideology and not anything factual, that those former gov't workers wouldn't try to gain employment in their fields. That they're just randomly applying for jobs with no consideration to their own qualifications.
Now, I'm sure that's happened but only after they've failed to get a job in the field they're experienced and trained in.

Nothing that I said contradicts their efforts. They can apply as they see fit, considering their qualifications, but that has nothing to do with the other side of the equation, the non-governmental employer.

You call it ideology, but I'm only taking what you said as truth then asking why. Someone older and educated, presumably a college degree, can't find something other than part-time or low-wage. Why is that? Obviously a private sector business doesn't value the skills obtained as a government worker. I'm sure government workers with quantitative skills have no problems because numbers are numbers, but mid-level bureaucrats aren't coveted and predictably so. They don't have grounds for better pay just because they are older or more educated since that doesn't equate to more skills in what an employer is looking for in a worker.

I've reread that exchange a few times and have yet to see a "correction" but it's irrelevant. The talking point is dead. You can take it personal if you want, that's a "you" thing. The talking point was being used by others and Que exposed it as a lie. I didn't quote you or call you out when I quoted Que's post.

I like how I'm outrageous because you commented on the validity of a Que post that was directed at me.

Anyway, who uses the talking point that the majority of jobs created since 2010 were part-time? Abnormal part-time and low-wage job growth is happening. Everyone from HuffPo to Business Week acknowledges it while using the exact same BLS data, which doesn't rule out the data being wrong. Abnormal part-time and low-wage job growth isn't the same as majority of jobs created, which is what was "murdered."

I would also like to know what the murdered talking point has to do with the assertion that job growth from Jan '13 to Jun '13 is the best since 1999? Wasn't that what Obama brought up.

 

[thoughtone]

I did.

I made specific responses to you and specific ones to thoughtone.


As long as we agree to disagree. None of us are immune to our own bias, it's just some of us are more aware we have them.

Just because you wear your bias (ideology) on your sleeve, doesn't mean you have a grasp of the facts.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions (ideology), they are not entitled to their own facts.

 

[Greed]

Just because you wear your bias (ideology) on your sleeve, doesn't mean you have a grasp of the facts.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions (ideology), they are not entitled to their own facts.

My ideology is to have a grasp of the facts. What's your philosophy?