Slashdot Mirror
US Economy Added 178,000 Jobs in November; Unemployment Rate Drops To 4.6 Percent (washingtonpost.com)
The U.S. economy added 178,000 jobs in November, while the unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent from 4.9 percent the previous month, according to new government data released (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate source) Friday morning. From a report on the Washington Post: Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News had expected U.S. employers to create 180,000 new jobs last month -- roughly in line with the average number added in the first 11 months of the year. The first release after a contentious election in which the candidates disputed the health and direction of the economy, the data showed a job market that is continuing to steadily strengthen from the recession. The unemployment rate fell to levels not seen since August 2007, before a bubble in the U.S. housing market began to burst. The fall was driven partly by the creation of new jobs, and partly by people retiring and otherwise leaving the labor force. The labor force participation rate ticked down to 62.7 percent. Average hourly earnings declined by 3 cents to $25.89. The decrease pared back large gains seen in October, but over the year average hourly earnings are still up 2.5 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said.
At least Trump wasn't mentioned. It seems EVERY article these days has to have Trump put in it.
Of course jobs were added. That's the power of dear leader Trump! Expect this trend to continue as he brings back even more jobs from ocerseas and makes America GREAT again!
Obama FIXED THE ECONOMY. Come January 15 suddenly this headline will read TRUMPS ECONOMY MISSES JOB CREATION ESTIMATES
Really, why is this on Slashdot.
That can't be right, my parents said we've lost millions of jobs under Obama. Surely I should listen to them and not facts, right?
A few months around June-July, there were hundreds of posts for Linux admin positions where I live. In less than a week in July/August, that number dropped by more than half. By September, the best you could find were the Hindi speakers offering "five years of Windows Server 2012, 7 years of Apple Swift 3" type drivel, as well as the Kumar contract or contract-to-fire reqs.
As it stands now, if one looks at indeed or a job site, there is almost nothing out there compared to how it was six months ago.
the GOP saved us from the Anti-Christ Obama, who was sure to appoint himself President-for-Life, and who, unchecked, would have stripped religion, freedom, free enterprise, free speech, free beer, whiteness, and fast food from our great land. Obviously this good news has to do with our optimism about President Trump, who has vowed to preserve our most sacred traditions and Make America Great Again, Like It Used To Be, Before Obama Took All The Jobs, you know?
have you ever seen steve jobs molesting this child while reading a magazine?
is finally over.
Dear America,
Brace yourself, this might be the last story before "Despite Trump" begins to be added to every positive story by the bitter left wing.
Sincerely,
The UK, despite Brexit.
It is a noisy metric. It usually adjusted in the opposite direction of political expedience about 2-3 months after announced. The big hacker there is CA.
It is a bad metric - there are a hundred ways to look at unemployment, and the rate of new people who can get unemployment insurance is exactly at odds with the #1 and #2 employers in the US: Wal-mart and temp-agencies.
It would be nice if actual math and actual science could come first, and politics would be driven by them instead of junk like this.
If you tried to run a real-world production process using this crappy of a metric, you would go out of business, much like the US is putting itself out of being a super-power in the global economy.
-engr
...is lower now than at any time since Jimmy Carter was President.
"Unemployment is low!"
"What about all of those people who have been out of work for over a year, and stopped looking?"
"They don't exist. Shut up."
The unemployment rate fell to levels not seen since August 2007, before a bubble in the U.S. housing market began to burst. The fall was driven partly by the creation of new jobs, and partly by people retiring and otherwise leaving the labor force. The labor force participation rate ticked down to 62.7 percent.
So uh, inflation is still a thing (at a fairly steady rate) and retirement plans have imploded and people have less savings than ever, so they should be having to work longer, right? Unless those people are actually dropping dead, a reduction in the labor force participation rate at this time equals an increase in the actual unemployment rate, as defined by the number of people seeking employment. People who are partially employed and either going farther into debt or neglecting their health because they can't afford deductibles and/or time off (or both) are not only a growing segment of the population but also not represented in the unemployment rate.
Last I checked, a million new jobs hadn't made any improvement in the number of people seeking work. This is really the only relevant statistic of this bunch, and it's not presented here. Hmmmmmm.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
These are not the hallmarks of a thriving economy. The US economy is in a sickly state, with too many part time jobs with no benefits. We need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot. The fact that the numbers look like an improvement is a bit like a doctor telling a patient wife that he's not sick any more. He's dead. The US needs to get healthy before it dies.
Anyone who thinks this is a healthy job market is a fool.
Yes, I know anecdotes are simply anecdotes, but I still hear far too many people complaining about underemployment. We have too many college grads working as baristas and bartenders - and we have far too many STEM people competing against a flood of H1B visa holders.
The U3 number is far too simplistic to show the real difficulties in the job market.
Clearly paying $7 million so that a company can fire 1100 people is really working!
Anyone whose bothered to read a comment section on this type of news knows that these indicators are borderline MEANINGLESS by themselves. It isn't helpful to add jobs at Walmart, Chipotle or Starbucks. Our economy is a big fucking joke orchestrates by the stupid and corrupt.
There is strong evidence that net job growth has entirely gone to the benefit of immigrants. It does nothing to benefit those who have lost out if we keep adding foreigners and handing them a majority or all of the new jobs.
The hope is that Trump will honor his pledge for infrastructure spending and Congress has been making noises that they are on board - both sides of the isle are on board.
The hope is that will boost the economy. The kink is rising interest rates and the window for really cheap borrowing is closing. Never the less, if Trump gets his way, we'll be seeing some pickup.
and working for cash, scrounging
When Bush was president 200,000 new jobs was considered anemic as it didn't cover the rise in working age adults.
Now, with a greater population 187k is considered great. A sign that the economy is truly booming.
Wait a year, when Trump is president, and anything under 200,000k will be considered anemic again.
Remember we've always been at war with Eastasia.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I wonder what this''ll do for Trump's expectations. We have a bit of a paradox at the moment - he gets away with the a lot of stuff we would never let any other person say, and we accept his lack of policy, on the basis that he's inexperienced, or not a normal politician. However, at the very same time, people seem to have rather unreal standards for him - not only is he supposed to be everything that a normal president is supposed to be, classy and in tune with what's happening, but he's supposed to exceed on every metric - bring outstanding improvements to the economy, make the United States a world power (without diplomacy), and construct vast infrastructure improvements while curb stomping taxes for everyone. I honestly wonder what'll happen with his supporters when these two collide - many of them do seem to genuinely expect him to pull this off, and if he fails, they don't have anybody else to blame. 2020 might be a rather interesting election year...
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Freaking Obama hoarding the jobs until the end just so he can make the GOP look bad. SEE SEE!!!!! His Alien brain control device from Area 51 is unfair!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Go read his accounts, the ones he filed during tax challenges. He doesn't just lie on his election form, he lies to his creditors and banks. scheme.
1. If he had money anywhere in his company, he'd lend within Trump corp. HE HAS NO MONEY. Even his house has a mortgage bigger than the price he bought it for.
2. The returns he generates on these properties are far below the mortgage rate. e.g. we know 40 Wall Street prices from a tax dispute. He lied about its revenue and earnings. It's only just in profit at 3 million, on 160 million loans = 3/160 = 1.9%, His mortgage 5.7%.
3. If he could lend himself the money he would! It would be 3 times more profitable than real estate.
4. He lies to creditors. Look at the Deutsche Bank loan of $125 million secured against his Florida golf resort: Trump National Doral.
It is only worth $96 million dollars, so he's told them the same fake earnings number he put in the election document, because otherwise they wouldn't lend him
130% if the asset value, at the cheap rate of Libor +1.75% unless they throught it had income to cover the loan.
5. You can estimate Trump National Doral based on Hilton Resorts, and its about 40 million *REVENUE*, not $132 *INCOME* as he's claiming.
He is lying about the size of investments, claiming $300 million into Scotland (the books show half that), and $200 million into the Post Office building in Washington (the contract shows $40 million).
He gets co-investors to fund their half of the $300 million or $200 million, and they are actually funding all of it, and more. The rest is skimmed off to make mortgage payments in the loss making parts.
He broke. Bankrupt. The books are lies, and cross checking shows you it. The prize for Trump is he can grant his children immunity.
GOP, go hire investigative accounts and take a look yourself.
The economy dd not add 178,000 jobs. It lost 178,000 fewer jobs than it added. But the economy does NOT run on jobss, it runs on money. The added jobs were low pay, starting pay, minimum wage jobs, while the jobs lost included high pay, long term jobs. But pay is not dollars per hour, it is total hours times dollars per hour, which dropped. More people got their hours reduced below the min hours worked to get benefits (take-home pay cut). And who cares about the U2 unemployment figure? It means nothing. U6 is more meaningful, and it dropped to 9.3%. But the reality is total number of workers no longer in the work force, which is 95,055,000. Really, 50% unemployment?
wake up and hold your nose
HAha. The numbers are made up anyway.
It;s always a good laugh when there is a week with a holiday and the week after the Obama administration will go "This is awesome! Unemployment claims dropped 20 percent!!!! At this rate unemployment will be erased to zero in no time at all. This is proof that our policies are working well."
Well, duh. If you remove a day from the five days you have 20% fewer days in that week to file for unemployment. The week after the holiday will show an increase back to the "norm" plus a little bit more because of the unemployed from the previous week spilling into the week after.
Also, they always make adjustments/corrections to previous months later and it's usually adjustment DOWN. It never gets news coverage and whatever spin had been put on that month doesn't apply anymore, but if the mainstream news never mentions it then it essentially never happened.
OF COURSE with a Republican in the White House the rules are different because the news industry is populated by Democrats. News and Democrats are on the same "team", ya know. The news will ALWAYS report when previous months get adjusted downwards.
It's all LIES! LIES I TELL YOU! UNEMPLOYMENT IS AT 45%! I SAW IT ON FACEBOOK SO IT MUST BE TRUE!
Only White President Trump can do anything good for White America like save 800 jobs (300 of which were not moving anyway while still allowing 1300 to go to Mexico) and all for a Photo-Op and $7 million in Indiana State Tax incentives (which Trump could not promise anyway, only Gov. Pence did that) and promises of no federal tariffs imposed for the jobs that do move, and a continued $4.6 billion in Government Contracts for the parent company, United Technologies.
But Hey! You got to cheer in a Nuremberg Rally!
America! Fuck Yeah!
Just asking...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... The Unemployment statistics conveniently ignore people who have given up looking for work.
In case anyone is interested in the real unemployment numbers, look at John Williams' Shadowstats shadowstats.com
Specifically http://www.shadowstats.com/art...
"Counting All Discouraged/Displaced Workers, May 2016 Unemployment Rose to About 23.0%".
Why the big discrepancy? Because, just like the inflation figures and other government statistics, the unemployment numbers have been redefined and massaged to get them into an "acceptable" range. Williams explains the trick:
"To be counted among the U.S. government’s headline unemployed (U.3), an individual has to have looked actively for work within the four weeks prior to the unemployment survey conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistic (BLS)".
So, essentially, what the BLS called the "unemployed" are people who are between jobs. If it takes a person more than a month to find a new job - or if they cannot prove that they have been actively looking - that person ceases to exist as far as the BLS unemployment statistics are concerned.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Right on, mate. The first poster apparently is not aware of the various types of unemployment rates. Namely the U6 which explains a bigger overall picture of the economy. I think the U6 unemployment rate is hovering just below ten percent.
@ the first poster:
TEN PHU@KING PERCENT
Obama takes office - debt at $11 Trillion
Obama leaves office - debt at $20 Trillion
During Obama's 8 years debt increased by about as much as EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY combined.
Lets repeat that... Obama's debt increased by about as much as every other president in history combined.
What is this crap about "But Bush"? Obama increased the debt the same amount as Bush PLUS the 42 presidents before him COMBINED.
As for your link, you will notice the deficit began to reduce when GOP took control of Congress.
The parent has been modded up, yet every number in it is wrong or irrelevant because the parent poster thinks that Obama was inaugurated in January 2008, when in fact, it was an entire year later.
2008 was a year when the economy really tanked. All of parent's figures reflect the very bad last year of Bush Jr's term.
It should be modded down, not up.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
There are 95 million able-bodied people that want to work but have given up. Look at U6 instead of U3. U6 is near an all time high thanks to illegals and opportunistic transnationals, both enabled by Obama, undercutting the markets. The rest of us get to pay the cost in benefits. Hopefully Trump will fix this.
Just a lot of fiddling with the numbers. "Everything is fine".
But I also think it's important to include the value of the jobs that have been created. And for that, I turn to these metrics:
Median household income, which tells us that Americans have not been earning any more money than they had been earning a decade ago.
GDP per capita, which tells us that the value of what the average American has been producing has been rising steadily (adjusted for inflation) since 2009.
So, unemployment is nearly half what it was when Obama took office, but people aren't earning any more, despite them producing more. Begs the question...who's pocketing all that extra money?
Jeez, dude. Same comment, few lines up.
Do you repeat yourself much?
https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9948373&cid=53408279
Do you repeat yourself much?
Just curious what others think.
"Average hourly earnings declined by 3 cents to $25.89."
Tells me nothing of importance in the context of this article. The MEDIAN hour earnings would be a telling sign because the average person earned FAR below $25.89 per hour.
And from I read. Over 50% of workers in America earned less than $30,000 last year. A full third of the workers earned less than a 40 hour week minimum wage job would have provided.
The US Economy adding jobs with slave wages iwn't fixing anything, they aren't even a band-aid and actually makes things worse. The US Economy adding jobs with living wages helps things while minor at best with adding jobs with middle class to upper middle class wages are actually something to be proud of.
Saying you turned a plane crash into a car crash of an economy, while better, isn't near enough.
I dispute those numbers.
There has been a very real growth in nominal median household income, while people claim that real household income is flat even as far back as pre-1970.
Meanwhile, we see in the long term reductions in the percent of that income spent on food and clothing, as well as a 31% increase in spending on shelter while the median size of shelter increases by 56% and the household size (persons) decreased by 15%. That means spending 84% as much on shelter (and 71% per area per person, but that's irrelevant except to say that we're not cramming lots of people into cramped little spaces).
Even since 2005, the food expenditure was 13% and it's now under 12% (personally, it's 3.9% for me, and I eat out a lot--frequently spending $15 for one meal, but not nearly on every meal). Across the past decades, people have been enabled to put more money into savings, buy more and better healthcare, and spend much of their money on entertainment and other discretionary spending.
That doesn't even get into what accounts for "equivalent goods and services" these days.
Dual-core desktops hit the market in 2005. That's quite a shock compared to 66MHz 486DX or 200MHz Pentium Pro chips that cost $200. Never mind the constantly-falling price of RAM, hard disk, and SSD. PCs, costing thousands of dollars in the early 90s, were $350 commodity items in the mid-2000s.
Cell phones of 1983 cost $4,000 for the phone and $55/month for the service, plus 42 cents per minute voice. Two hours per week would net you $250/month service. That's a $9,000 phone and $550/month service today. Somewhere along the line, we got consumer cell phones with $100/month service; then we had $250 flip phones, $40/month service, and text and video messaging; and now we have heterogeneous hex-core smartphones with 2GB RAM for $350, backed by $60/month service with high-speed data (although I pay $35/month to Ting instead).
An ISDN 128K line in 1998 cost $35/month and required a $250 modem. Today I get 200Mbps Comcast service over an $80 modem--it's $54,687 worth of ISDN lines all tied together for $83. Do you remember DSL talking about their wicked-fast "three megs" in 2005? I have 70 of those.
Even cars only standardized transistor radio and air conditioning in the 1950s. Now we have antilock brakes, traction control, EFI, complex suspension systems, air bags, vehicle dynamics that prevent rolling and skidding, sensors and cameras to assist in lane control and parking, and all other manner of highly-complex systems with many moving parts. Somehow, we don't pay a bigger chunk of our income for these things: cars cost about the same proportion of our income, but come loaded. This will remain true when we all have self-driving vehicles.
Your argument is essentially that somebody else has told you that we're producing more, we're not earning more, and our buying power is not increasing. My argument is that the percentage of the median income being spent on goods like food, clothing, and shelter square-footage has gone down; people have spent more on luxury, leisure, savings, and medical care; and that the common goods and services we consume have rolled in more stuff we couldn't have afforded years and decades ago, essentially taking the same portion of our money and giving us more stuff in exchange.
Reality suggests buying power has increased. A lot. People like me--at $75,000 income--are pocketing all the extra money. I bought a house and paid off the mortgage in 3 years. I'm getting ready to buy a car, but I have a couple debts I want to clear out first (adding payments on top of other payments is stupid). I bought myself a $7,000 piano for the house. I put $18,000 into my 401(k) and $3,385 into my HSA this year
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Why do I care, as a non-american nerd, about the USA's semi-fake employment figures? What does that have to do with anything?
Does this editor just spam political news on Slashdot?
I was enjoying your perspective and your argument, up to the insult at the end. Too bad you had to discredit yourself with it.
Yes, many goods and services have gotten cheaper, though you omit the fact that others, including post-secondary education and health care costs, have risen sharply relative to inflation. And I generally accept your argument that purchasing power has steadily increased. Your summary of my argument was partially incorrect; I never said purchasing power has gone down.
I also don't understand why you think the clause "Someone else has told me" is important enough to bold it. These are economic figures from established agencies for which I have reasoned a valid point: If the value of production goes up this country, why doesn't median income? What people are able to do with the money they earn is irrelevant to the discussion, and only distracts from it.
You are just one drop of water in the ocean of our economy, and using yourself as an example to assert the strength of our national economy is not a valid metric. While you and I* may be doing well enough financially, many people aren't. It's those people that elected Trump to the presidency, and it's those people that currently have the strongest and most determined voice in our country. They're not earning $75,000. They're begging for jobs that would earn them even half that, but those jobs are disappearing. They don't want handouts. They just want a good day's salary for a hard day's labor. There are many reasons for why that's unobtainable, though one of them is that consumers like you and me have demanded with our dollars that prices for goods and services get cheaper, which have driven many of these production jobs overseas to cheaper labor markers.
* Congratulations on your good fortune. I'm earning $65,000 a year and also diverting a lot of money to debt elimination, including student loans, hospital bills for a child, and car payments. No "hot tubs and hookers", as you put it. I don't actually recall complaining in my post that I'm spending all my money and wishing I had more. I'm rather comfortable where I'm at; more would allow me to pay debts faster, save more, and enjoy more, but it's nothing that I envy.
I want to begin a new party: the STATISTICS party. We have no emotions, we have no views, and we have no values, just cold hard indisputable and dispassionate facts. Anyone want to join me? Seriously, I'm just so tired of these derpy politicians in D.C. who don't believe in data unless it supports their stupid arbitrary opinions and who base all their decisions on emotions. We need more dispassionate people in charge. On matters of fact, base decisions on fact. On matters of ethics/morals, stay away because nowhere does it say the Government has the power to legislate morality. Let people figure out what's right for themselves.
orange haired overload.
where are the IT jobs ???, I have been outsourced over four times in the past 6 years.
It's all about the Fed pumping trillion$ into the economy year after year.
The number of people considered "not in the labor force" increased by nearly 450,000 in November. The total is now at a record high of 95 million.
http://www.bls.gov/news.releas...
The "unemployment rate" that the politicians, economists and media like to talk about is bullshit. It doesn't really mean a hell of a lot when the government can arbitrarily adjust the size of the "labor force" to produce whatever fraction they want. It's not like 450,000 people just decided to retire in November. People fall into this category when their unemployment benefits run out, but they're still unemployed.
IMO, the most relevant metric for assessing the employment situation of the U.S. economy is the employment to population ratio.
http://www.bls.gov/news.releas...
I say it's the most relevant because it can't be so easily manipulated like the other "unemployment rate". Also because the working people, in one way or another, have to support themselves as well as all the non-working people. Of course there are a few who are living on retirement savings, but if they're old enough, they're getting their SS checks too, so they're still being supported in part by working people. That ratio is 59.7% at the moment, which is barely one percentage point above the lows it hit in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown. The whole "economic recovery" and the "unemployment rate" which has gone from 8-9% down to 4.9% is an illusion. The real economy and real employment situation still suck.
Actually, I think an even more interesting metric would throw kids into the equation. They need to be supported too. In that case, we've got a country where ~152 million people are supporting 320 million people, so the unemployment rate is really 52.5%
and here I expected Trumptards to give him credit...
Credible economists (not on TV) said for quite a while the Obama stimulus was not large enough and followed the "lost decade" where Japan did almost the same things. Obama did restore the economy poorly (which is still better than nothing.) Before one blames him as if he was a dictator, you have to realize that the GOP prevented it from being what it should have been and that Obama's poor negotiation skills always had him beginning with a compromise as a starting point. He really wouldn't get a burger without tomato because he'd start by giving up the buns and still end up having to remove the tomato himself. Combine that with an unprecedented opposition with no rational explanation outside of racism or disguised corruption.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
several local news channels say 1100 jobs are staying. The HVAC guys where I work say Carrier stuff is garbage. The wife says they were going to pay the Mexicans $3/hr with no benefits which was also on the local news.
$.02
while people claim that real household income is flat even as far back as pre-1970.
It's not; you need to look at total compensation per hour worked.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
https://projects.propublica.or...
"Below is a list of all companies that failed to repay their bailout money. These transactions are final and will never result in a profit for taxpayers."
BAILOUT FUNDS OUTGOING BAILOUT FUNDS, INCOMING /Net Outstanding Disbursed Returned Dividends + Interest Warrants Other Proceeds
Name Type State Profi
General Motors Auto Company MI -$11,393,681,666 $50,744,648,329 $38,656,806,062 $694,160,600 $0 $0
CIT Group Bank (Public) NY -$2,286,312,500 $2,330,000,000 $0 $43,687,500 $0 $0
Chrysler Auto Company MI -$1,212,849,005 $10,748,284,222 $7,256,590,642 $1,171,263,942 $0 $1,107,580,633
GM received over $50B, and still owes $11B. Chrysler received over $10B and still owes over $1B. I suppose "still owes" is not exactly accurate, as the numbers largely reflect the loss the government took on the equity instruments they forced on the companies and the government has closed the books. It is true that GM paid back the loans with interest, but that was not the full extent of the monies that were extended to GM.
GM and Chrysler bailouts tossed bankruptcy regulations out the window, screwed over primary bond-holders, but saved the union jobs at outrageous expense while setting dangerous precedents.
Even looking at take-home pay would blow that argument out of the water. The fact that we can buy more and better things than we could years or decades ago is an increase in real income.
Nobody wants to admit income is actually hard to measure, and that wage income doesn't tell you about buying power because the entire point of technical progress is to make the same things with less labor, and thus to employ the same wage-compensated hours to make more things and more-complex things. It sounds easy when I describe it in terms of wooden chairs versus chairs with cushions, but what happens when we get to talking about cars with fluid couplings versus cars with torsen differentials?
One day, we will have the same cars with self-driving modules in them. Look at Tesla: the self-driving hardware is already in the cars; you pay $2,000 for a software update. Building a car with a self-driving module versus building it without isn't flatly the cost of the module; it's also the cost of labor to make two different assemblies, and logistics to determine how many to supply of each. Those labor and logistics costs are so high in some cases that many cars with a heated seat option actually ship all seats heated, and simply don't install a heating port or connector on the seat itself--that way it gets built the same, and they simply skip a step. How do you gauge how much buying power you've gained now that a car with heated seats or a self-driving software program costs trivially-more than one without, when those things come with all cars and you only pay for the permission to use them?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Inevitably the "solutions" for AGW are just socialist economics mixed with SJW punishments that, generally, by their own admission will do little or nothing to actually stop the causes of AGW or ameliorate the existing problems. Rich countries should unilaterally tax themselves to give money to poor countries. The West "owes" the world for its pollution. That sort of thing.
It doesn't help with prominent AGW proponents openly declare that it's not about the environment anymore.
For example, former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.
Earlier, he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."
Any number of others in that domain with similar comments.
And already Trump is doing more than Obama.
The definition of "unemployed" has been twisted and morphed to the point that it is meaningless. Having given up all hope in looking for work doesn't mean you are no longer a member of the unemployed class. Yet, the BLS has somehow done the mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion.
There are MILLIONS of people who would like to be working, but don't even bother looking for work because they know they won't find any or won't be hired because of their gender, skin color, or other superficial traits. These people are UNEMPLOYED, yet the BLS ignores them in the statistics.
The REAL unemployment rate right now is coming in at 9.9%, which is an outrage.
The people from 2008-2016 that still have yet to find work still exist in large numbers.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
When you make it so that after somebody has spent a year looking for a job (might be 6 months now, actually) and then give up is no longer considered unemployed (you need to be both in the labor market AND unemployed AND actively looking for a job to qualify as officially "unemployed"), your unemployment statustics become utterly meaningless. Now if you look at the "labor market participation rate", which is at it's lowest point in many decades (if not ever), an entirely different picture presents itself...
Congress and Obama administration managed to spend (in $ millions) more than $28.7T:
2009 3,517,677
2010 3,457,079
2011 3,603,056
2012 3,536,951
2013 3,454,647
2014 3,506,114
2015 3,688,292
2016 3,951,307 (estimated)
Or about $3.5T per year, while taking in about much less, leading to deficit spending of:
2009 -1,412,688
2010 -1,294,373
2011 -1,299,590
2012 -1,086,963
2013 -679,544
2014 -484,627
2015 -438,406
2016 -615,805
Years after the "crisis" is over and we're still spending about $0.5T more than we take in.
On the day Obama administration took office (with the various Congresses he oversaw), the total national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08 ($10.6T). As of 11/30/2016 it stands at $19,948,064,697,245.75 ($19.9T).
http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/d...
Excuse me, but the summary seems to be incorrect. You have demonstrated that everything that happens is due to Trump, but you seem to have omitted that point in this article.
Please make the correction.
(or stop blaming him when something unfavorable, and beyond his control, happens between now and inauguration day)
captcha: womanly
Where, in India, Mexico, the PRC or maybe Vietnam?
Simple errors. You ignore intangibles. Mostly stress and time.
Stress. Family time. Parenting time. Vacation time. Time not on-call. (All those electronics you tout mainly serve to tether people to work and other responsibilities, as opposed to providing greater quality of life.
These comparisons can be made for nearly all intangible facets of life with great similarity of result.
40 years of women in the workforce fueled by feminism = declining standard of living when all factors are taken into consideration.
Lie or not, you are still off-base.
I have two master's degrees. No full-time work for over eight years. No part time work for over three. Simple: I gave up, because the cost-benefit of looking for work is ridiculous.
I was laughed out of job interviews - at over fifty and with aging degrees (over five years old tech degrees) it was simply not worth any more investment in time or money to look for work or retrain (again). I was told to spend five years on a Phd (for 50K a year adjunct teaching - maybe) or 4+ years to get a K-12 teaching degree and certificate. Simply not worth the risk of all that time and money. Most likely outcome - I am nearly 60 and worn out, and with additional crushing debt.
Nobody on the US left (Democrats and minor parties) or in the center (ie most Republicans) is willing to understand that there are millions of us structurally despondent workers. (including all the skilled and semi-skilled blue collars in a similar situation to us college educated detrius) We simply don't believe anymore that there is a job market for us because, between outsourcing and illegal use of imported workers, our nearly decade-old experience is that it is pointless to even think about looking for work.
THIS is why Trump won. White votes matter.
You don't live in US, no experience with the real job market on the ground.
Almost all jobs that have replaced good, well-paying jobs SUCK. And are taken up by desperate poor and imported illegal workers.
Everyone actually looking for work or working in the lower 90% of jobs knows this. Some ignore it for ideological reasons. but more and more don't. Until the Democrats address this massive structural problem they will keep losing.
You're saying that the value of a job isn't as important of the purchasing power created from its wages. And as I said, I generally agree that we have more purchasing power. You don't need to justify that point any further or defend it with an Economics 101 lesson. (While I'm not an economist, I am a mathematician, who, as such, is inclined to tell you that "you and ten people" is eleven people total, though your math indicates a labor pool of ten. Try not to fail mathematics when you argue mathematics.) Arguing about purchasing power being up when median income isn't is like a patient telling his doctor that he's not worried about his cholesterol levels because he exercises everyday and feels fit. In both cases, there are indications that things aren't as healthy as they seem.
I disagree that purchasing power alone, apart from job value, is the only metric worth evaluating. And you already gave the reason why: The existence of capital induces demand for products, which induces a demand for labor. Median income measures the strength salaries have to pay for products and services, which induces job creation. It matters significantly. So when lower-wage jobs replace higher-pay jobs*, when existing jobs producing the same product pay less to laborers, and when jobs move to overseas markets where labor is cheaper, less demand for labor is induced. Less demand for labor creates less demand for work, restricting access to capital among laborers, which restricts their access to goods and services, decreasing quality of life. All this happens, even if our purchasing power has risen relative to median income.
Also, I found your labor force statistics fascinating. Honestly. Though I'd like to know their source.
Finally, I don't disagree people want security, but they want it through a job. People find value in work. If you don't believe me, visit with some blue-collar workers, and listen to Mike Rowe's take on it.
* For example, manufacturing jobs are down, while Leisure and Hospitality jobs are up. It doesn't take an economist to tell you that they don't pay the same. And this is happening in labor pools across the country.
Unemployment is at lowest since 2007 (mention the number). Labor force participation decreased to 62.7 (mention a different number). Labor force participation is lowest in 40 years (don't mention this number because it makes the unemployment rate meaningless). That's labor force participation percentage -- not absolute number. So you it's not effected by retirements due to aging population. It's the number of people of working age not looking for work and not attending school or job training.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
What if the underground economy is actually burgeoning? We've long equated (or nearly equated) unlawful behavior with unethical behavior, but in most countries around the world where business is heavily regulated, such notions don't exist. Sure there is a strong propaganda to maintain such belief, but what if it's actually crumbling? What if the underground economy is not just selling drugs, gambling, prostitution anymore? What's if it's now manufacturing? Even if we were to discount the driving of business underground due to regulation, there is also a pressure for regular businesses to go underground to avoid litigation risks (which are, by far, the single most damaging risks any business can suffer)?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
even our "left" is essentially right-of-center, see Obama/Billary.
I'm buying a home soon. It'll be a little over 1000 sq/ft because that's what I can afford.
I have 2 cars in my family and will have a third soon (for my kid). This is not by choice. Without a car I need to live where I work. The increased cost of that is several times more than a car, so I put up with a shitty commute. My kid is in college. In 2 years she starts clinicals and they're spread all over town. No car, no clinicals, no degree. I will work harder to have things I don't want so someone can get rich selling them to me.
I can't afford a stay at home mom to cook. So I eat a lot of cheap take out. It tastes bad and it's bad for me, but after two 50 hour weeks nobody in my household is making a good home cooked meal.
I suppose I have a big honking TV though. And it was cheap ($200 bucks). So I'll give you that. Whoop de fucking do. I can drown my sorrows in cheap electronics made by slave labor in China. Thanks.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States decreased to 62.70 percent in November from 62.80 percent in October of 2016. This isn't retirees, but working age adults who could work. The total number of working age people not working is at an all time high. Those people not participating in the work force aren't counted as being unemployed, so when people stop looking, the unemployment rate drops. Doesn't sound as good when you know the facts, does it?
I will be unemployed after the 15th again. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Workforce participation numbers have gone down because of baby boomers retiring and stubbornly refusing to not die instantly. That metric goes up and down over the course of history correlated directly to birth booms from about (wait for it) 65 years earlier.
So you don't realize this because you are (a) fucking retarded and (b) a liar, but you are blaming Obama for the post WW2 baby boom.
That would be good news, if those numbers excluded seasonal holiday hires. November numbers are misleading. Considering moat of the hires are temporary holiday jobs.