Unemployment up but the media claims that is good news.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

No doubt it is extra people not in the labor force as it is extra people in the labor force as well. No economy is ever going to see every new person join the labor force. However, the proportion is still too high, suggesting there are some number of people leaving the labor force.

Suggesting? Why is it so hard for you to say that people are leaving the work force? This had been a trepan for how many years now?

[quote] The main issue right now in the labor force is competing in a global economy with a national labor market. Think about the equivalent within the US economy. To understand the issue, lets think of a hypothetical example.[quote]

The main issue?
What about and anti-business US Gov't?
We have the most complicated tax code in the world.
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
We have the and EPA that hamstrings business instead of promote ways to extract and use our natural resources in a environmental manner.
Our international competition has government backing and promoting their efforts to best us.

Say we go back to major tariffs on everything from overseas (this is a hypothetical), such that everything has to be produced in the US. You are a US corporation trying to produce something with a high volume and a fairly low profit margin, which is not aided by having skilled workers. In this economy, you would be able to build your plant in a location with low cost of labor/low skill of labor and a low cost of living. Then somebody with the skill-set of a low skilled laborer would be able to move to that location to take that job. And thus we find equilibrium. So if I am a low-skilled worker who just happened to have been born in Manhattan or Silicon Valley, I can now move to say rural Mississippi and take that job.

No offense intended but where in the hell have you been for the past thirty years?
Many businesses have left the northeast and Midwest states and California to the Sun Belt states.
Also, several foreign companies have built companies in the Sun Belt states.

With the economy we have now, this is not an option. So we have an international capital market with a national labor market. So if I need low cost labor, I am going to build my plant in a location with a lower cost of living and hire low-skilled labor there (say Bangladesh). However, the low-skilled labor in the US is stuck here due to cultural reasons (not knowing the language, being uncomfortable with the culture), economic reasons (don't have the money to follow the job to Bangladesh and the corporation has plenty of cheap alternatives there meaning they won't send you there), and legal reasons (immigration is controlled by governments). So the equivalent in a national economy is allowing the corporation to build the plant in Mississippi and then telling the low-skilled worker in Manhattan that he can't move there.

I see that you omitted that the US has an 80 plus year entitlement system that spoiled and made lazy multiple generations of Americans.
I see that you also failed to mentioned that for years millions if people come to this county. Many of them take the entry level jobs that too many Americans turn their noses up at and decide to the entitlement route.
Also recently our NLRB tried to prevent Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina. Why? The labor unions didn't want the plant in a right to work state.
One more note on this item. During the Great Depression many American left their homes to work unskilled jobs in the WPA. They built roads, parks, and dams in many out of the way places. I doubt that many of our young Americans have the same determination today.

The unemployment at this point is almost entirely in unskilled and low-skilled labor. Look at the employment numbers from the perspective of education. We have a 12% unemployment rate with a 45% participation rate amongst those with no High School Diploma. We have an 8% unemployment rate with a 58.7% participation rate amongst those with only a High School Diploma. We have a 68.3% participation rate and a 7% unemployment rate for those with an Associate's Degree or some college. Finally, we have a 75.8% participation rate and a 3.7% unemployment rate for college educated workers.

The entitlement systems is partially to blame for the high unemployment numbers for dropouts. The incentive and work ethic is just not there.
It also partially the blame for the dropout rate. Many people born from multiple generations and single parent families of poverty drop out.

So we have a huge unemployment and out of the labor force problem amongst those with no High School Diploma. Amongst those with a college degree, unemployment is basically at 0, since a certain percentage (around 4%) are between jobs at any given time in the healthiest of economies (people should be switching jobs at times to more efficiently allocate the labor force).

You just stated that the unemployment rate for these people is at 3.7%. You also did not factor in the number who are not in the work force as well as being under employed. In fact the under employed have not been mentioned in this thread until now. A lot of grads are over qualified for the jobs they seek are have.

What is the correct solution for this structural issue? I am not sure. And I don't think anybody has come up with a great solution. We could return to national capital markets with huge tariffs. But that raises the price of everything , causing huge inflation. We could move to a fully international labor market (no immigration controls). But that still leaves the cultural and economic issues. At this point in time, it does appear like our elected leaders are content to deal with using transfer payments to maintain the current system. And that might be the best solution. If it enriches the majority of the country enough, it might be worth it to essentially buy off the part of the country it hurts. I am not sure of that or advocating that, but it is possible. But nobody has really come up with a better solution, in either party or ideological camp.

Here are FIVE things we can do:
ONE
How about exploiting the natural resource that can make us competitive. I am referring to our vast quantities of oil and natural gas. We could thousand alone in work on pipelines and rigs. Other thousands in the support of those jobs. With the abundance of energy manufacturing can return.

TWO
Redo our tax code so that workers, businessmen, and corporations can focus on doing business instead of getting around taxes.

THREE
Lower our corporate tax rate and have a government focus on enabling business activity instead of favoring special interests and redistributing wealth.

FOUR
Redo our entitlement systems to take care of the helpless. Also promote the able to be productive
Instead if demoting them to helpless.

FIVE
A national change in attitude and work ethic. Instead of dealing a cost of living raise or increasing prices we should try to add value to the product.

I can add more but it is late and I have to hit the hay.

[gatordowneast]

In the 80s under Reagan (with a business friendly and a cooperative administration) we had many months of 500,000 + new jobs and one month of around 1 M new jobs created. And our population was 50 M less than today. And we were coming out of a terrible recession and malaise due to the stewardship and ineptness of Jimmy Peanut Carter.

Therefor, the data on job creation is terrible and we probably will need to wait 4 years until with get rid of president Obama.

[PSGator66]

Here is another write up on how the media lies about the economy......

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...-about-economy

[magnafides]

Originally Posted by gatordowneast

In the 80s under Reagan (with a business friendly and a cooperative administration) we had many months of 500,000 + new jobs and one month of around 1 M new jobs created. And our population was 50 M less than today.

Ah yes, good old Reagan. He would be labeled a liberal today by the extreme right, yet remains a convenient "go to" due to the "R" next to his name.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Suggesting? Why is it so hard for you to say that people are leaving the work force? This had been a trepan for how many years now?

Because I am a scientist. It strongly suggests that people are leaving the work force, but I am yet to see somebody able to separate people leaving the work force due to giving up completely (and not looking for work for over a year) versus people voluntarily for retirement or people not entering the workforce for other reasons. So strongly suggest is the correct word. I would be shocked if it wasn't true, but the effect hasn't been isolated.

The main issue?
What about and anti-business US Gov't?
We have the most complicated tax code in the world.
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
We have the and EPA that hamstrings business instead of promote ways to extract and use our natural resources in a environmental manner.
Our international competition has government backing and promoting their efforts to best us.

Environmental protection is often a resource favored by those with higher earnings and by highly skilled labor, as it improves their quality of life with limited downsides to their professions (most of which are in knowledge economies). As far as the "anti-business government," it would be difficult to find many more "pro-business" governments in the 1st world. In addition, it is a totally theoretical statement with no backing.

No offense intended but where in the hell have you been for the past thirty years?
Many businesses have left the northeast and Midwest states and California to the Sun Belt states.
Also, several foreign companies have built companies in the Sun Belt states.

Semi-skilled businesses have been leaving the especially expensive areas like California, Washington, New England, etc. Meanwhile, unskilled plants, which used to be the basis of those Sun Belt economies are leaving rapidly to cheaper grounds. What is left is a very expensive area with a knowledge economy with very high earnings based on the superior higher education systems (Silicon Valley, DC/Baltimore Metro, Boston Metro, New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, etc.) and a very poor service sector, the Sun Belt, which has become home to Semi-Skilled Labor (such as Boeing, car plants, etc. that require some educated workers but at a cheaper rate), and unskilled labor, outside of service industries, moving overseas.

I see that you omitted that the US has an 80 plus year entitlement system that spoiled and made lazy multiple generations of Americans.
I see that you also failed to mentioned that for years millions if people come to this county. Many of them take the entry level jobs that too many Americans turn their noses up at and decide to the entitlement route.
Also recently our NLRB tried to prevent Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina. Why? The labor unions didn't want the plant in a right to work state.
One more note on this item. During the Great Depression many American left their homes to work unskilled jobs in the WPA. They built roads, parks, and dams in many out of the way places. I doubt that many of our young Americans have the same determination today.


The entitlement systems is partially to blame for the high unemployment numbers for dropouts. The incentive and work ethic is just not there.
It also partially the blame for the dropout rate. Many people born from multiple generations and single parent families of poverty drop out.

As you said, the entitlement system has been in place for years and is far less extensive than it used to be in past years (see Welfare reform). And yet, the issues with unskilled workers is more severe now than ever. So right-wing caricatures of entitled people really don't account for what has happened.

You just stated that the unemployment rate for these people is at 3.7%. You also did not factor in the number who are not in the work force as well as being under employed. In fact the under employed have not been mentioned in this thread until now. A lot of grads are over qualified for the jobs they seek are have.

That right there sounds very entitled. "I went to college, therefore, I am too good for ____ job, since it doesn't require a college degree." College is currently acting as a signaling system in addition to a learning system. It signals ambition, intelligence, and willingness to work. However, as a higher and higher portion of kids go to college, not all of them will be well-suited to knowledge based jobs, which will lead to some using college exclusively as a signal. Arguments can certainly be made that this is horribly inefficient, but the problem is that with such wide disparities in wealth and opportunities, nobody is willing to tell their own children not to go to college, at least not on the margins of economic efficiency.

The unemployment rate for these people is 3.7% which is basically full employment, as a healthy economy has a few unemployed people as part of the reallocation of labor process, which is necessary for an efficient labor market. If literally every single person is employed, it is likely due to either a gross shortage of labor or due to an economy that is not reallocating workers to increase labor efficiency, both terribly unhealthy for an economy.

Here are FIVE things we can do:
ONE
How about exploiting the natural resource that can make us competitive. I am referring to our vast quantities of oil and natural gas. We could thousand alone in work on pipelines and rigs. Other thousands in the support of those jobs. With the abundance of energy manufacturing can return.

Doing it. Oil production and natural gas production are both way up in the last few years. I would be careful thinking a resource based economy is a silver bullet though, as while it is not possible to entirely outsource resource production, resource-based economies are inherently riskier in the long-term as they are less diversified and less capable of dealing with a major shock to the market, such as major price changes based on huge decreases in demand. Look what happened to oil production in 2008, for example.

TWO
Redo our tax code so that workers, businessmen, and corporations can focus on doing business instead of getting around taxes.

THREE
Lower our corporate tax rate and have a government focus on enabling business activity instead of favoring special interests and redistributing wealth.

This might help businesses and maybe even the entire economy. But if you think it is going to bring back low-skilled labor, you would probably be surprised in a negative manner, as the labor costs due to the high cost of living in the US are still going to be prohibitively high.

FOUR
Redo our entitlement systems to take care of the helpless. Also promote the able to be productive
Instead if demoting them to helpless.

So when we had a bubble of work in low skilled professions due to the construction bubble, all of these people stopped being lazy, but immediately became lazy when it popped? Or is it just that we really don't have enough work for low skilled labor that pays high enough wages to survive in the US, which has a very high cost of living, and the labor markets don't have a release valve to ensure a return to equilibrium due to government involvement in the labor market (by running the immigration systems).

FIVE
A national change in attitude and work ethic. Instead of dealing a cost of living raise or increasing prices we should try to add value to the product.

I can add more but it is late and I have to hit the hay.

Interestingly, compared to the rest of the world, we have been becoming more hard working in the last decade.

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=ANHRS

So in 2000, the US was actually working 8 hours less per year than the average for the OECD. In 2011, the US actually works 11 hours more per year than the OECD average.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Because I am a scientist. It strongly suggests that people are leaving the work force, but I am yet to see somebody able to separate people leaving the work force due to giving up completely (and not looking for work for over a year) versus people voluntarily for retirement or people not entering the workforce for other reasons. So strongly suggest is the correct word. I would be shocked if it wasn't true, but the effect hasn't been isolated.

In other words you are cautious. I am a software engineer with an electrical engineer background. Thus I appreciate you being cautious. But in the other hand it is OK to make a safe bet on this item to be more assertive. Hardly any one will call you out this item were not true.

Environmental protection is often a resource favored by those with higher earnings and by highly skilled labor, as it improves their quality of life with limited downsides to their professions (most of which are in knowledge economies).

I did some surfing to got different results.
First of all environmental protection has a very broad scope. The scope covers Global Warming, Protection of the forest, Wet lands protection, and more. Not everyone is compassionate for every one of these causes. Certain demographic groups identify with certain causes.
What I am trying to say is that due to varying causes the demographics for environmentalist are all over the map. http://ecoamerica.typepad.com/blog/f...EVS_Report.pdf

As far as the "anti-business government," it would be difficult to find many more "pro-business" governments in the 1st world. In addition, it is a totally theoretical statement with no backing.

No backing?
A lot of the current survey's still show the US with a top 4 or 5 ranking but as our policies change so does our ranking.

The U.S. economy is teetering on the edge of a double-dip recession. High unemployment and a weak housing market are dragging down economic growth. But there's another major issue that isn't getting much attention these days: The business climate for entrepreneurs and investors in the U.S. is starting to lag behind other countries'.

The U.S. dropped from No. 2 to No. 9 in our fifth annual ranking of the Best Countries for Business. Blame the high tax burden and a poor showing on trade and monetary freedom compared with many other developed nations. The 35% federal corporate tax rate is the highest of any OECD country according to the Tax Foundation. Meanwhile the government’s significant intervention in the economy during the economic downturn has weakened economic freedom in the U.S. One bright spot for America: It still ranks first when it comes to innovation.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/07/bes...ntries-10.html

Which Countries Love Start-ups?
The World Bank's annual Doing Business report ranks the ease of doing business within 183 countries based on business-friendly regulations. The formula takes into account the ease of starting a business, factoring minimum cost, time, and available capital. Which economies are fostering start-ups? Get this, entrepreneurs: While the United States ranks fourth in the over-all ease of doing business in 2011, it didn't crack the top 10 for start-ups. Here's the count-down, starting at No. 9.

http://www.inc.com/ss/9-best-countri...ness-right-now

Semi-skilled businesses have been leaving the especially expensive areas like California, Washington, New England, etc. Meanwhile, unskilled plants, which used to be the basis of those Sun Belt economies are leaving rapidly to cheaper grounds. What is left is a very expensive area with a knowledge economy with very high earnings based on the superior higher education systems (Silicon Valley, DC/Baltimore Metro, Boston Metro, New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, etc.) and a very poor service sector, the Sun Belt, which has become home to Semi-Skilled Labor (such as Boeing, car plants, etc. that require some educated workers but at a cheaper rate), and unskilled labor, outside of service industries, moving overseas.

The Sunbelt may of been down but it is not down for the count

Recent economic and real estate factors indicate that most of the Sunbelt geographies have already hit their cyclical lows and during the next six to 12 months are likely to surpass national growth rates, according to a special office report issued by Jones Lang LaSalle.

Many of these areas are also hotspots for the digital economy, particularly San Diego, LA, and South Florida. This is also more evidence for something we have pointed out repeatedly at the TechJournal – the resilient U.S. economy is climbing out of its recessionary doldrums.

Although nearly all areas of the U.S. were negatively impacted by the recession, some of the hardest hit were the Sunbelt markets of Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Orange County, Orlando, Phoenix, San Diego, Tampa and West Palm Beach.

http://www.techjournal.org/2012/03/d...are-resurging/

The growth is not just in low skill jobs.

San Jose, home to Silicon Valley, not surprisingly ranks first and Austin, Texas, another leading high-tech metro, is second. But after this is where the list gets very interesting. In addition to high-tech knowledge economy metros like these and Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina, Seattle, and Columbus, Ohio, it includes resource-based metros like Houston and Oklahoma City, as well recovering Sun Belt metros like Phoenix and older Rust Belt metros, including Detroit, whose economies are improving after being so hard hit by the economic crisis.

http://m.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-...ate-jobs/3836/

As you said, the entitlement system has been in place for years and is far less extensive than it used to be in past years (see Welfare reform). And yet, the issues with unskilled workers is more severe now than ever. So right-wing caricatures of entitled people really don't account for what has happened.

Far less extensive then it used to be?

A record number of Americans – nearly 50 million - will be using food stamps this year to buy turkeys, cranberry sauce and stuffing for their Thanksgiving dinners. The government shells out around $78 billion annually for food stamps, tying in with other efforts to shatter morale, create class warfare and encourage complacency.

http://www.examiner.com/article/reco...giving-holiday

A record 5.4 million workers and their dependents have signed up to collect federal disability checks since President Obama took office,

http://news.investors.com/business/0...#axzz2JzVZkU2f

Federal welfare spending has grown by 32 percent over the past four years, fattened by President Obama’s stimulus spending and swelled by a growing number of Americans whose recession-depleted incomes now qualify them for public assistance, according to numbers released Thursday.

Federal spending on more than 80 low-income assistance programs reached $746 billion in 2011, and state spending on those programs brought the total to $1.03 trillion, according to figures from the Congressional Research Service and the Senate Budget Committee.

That makes welfare the single biggest chunk of federal spending — topping Social Security and basic defense spending.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...ears/?page=all

As for the effectiveness of welfare...will you take heed of Obama's own words?

“Well, you know, here’s what I would say. I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency. As somebody who worked in low income neighborhoods, I’ve seen it, where people weren’t encouraged to work, weren’t encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and, over time, their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you’re progressive you’ve got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed.”

http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2011/...ds-dependence/
Moore dependency

According to Seccombe the welfare system breeds dependency in that people are penalized for wanting to achieve a better quality of living. That is, welfare benefits such as health care, child care, transportation, food stamps, and subsidized housing of recipients are minimized or eliminated when employment is acquired (p.96). The fact that such programs are terminated puts in jeopardy a child’s health and can sometimes contribute to a welfare recipient’s economic burden. Therefore, I can agree that the welfare system only encourages dependency and not independence.

http://stoppoverty-claudia.blogspot....ce-on.html?m=1

That right there sounds very entitled. "I went to college, therefore, I am too good for ____ job, since it doesn't require a college degree." College is currently acting as a signaling system in addition to a learning system. It signals ambition, intelligence, and willingness to work. However, as a higher and higher portion of kids go to college, not all of them will be well-suited to knowledge based jobs, which will lead to some using college exclusively as a signal. Arguments can certainly be made that this is horribly inefficient, but the problem is that with such wide disparities in wealth and opportunities, nobody is willing to tell their own children not to go to college, at least not on the margins of economic efficiency.

Unfortunately a lot if people are going to colleges and graduating with majors that are not needed or that they are not professionally suited for. We can thank the enlist snobs for some this. Some vocations required the equivalent to a four year degree. For instance to earn/achieve a Masters license in plumbing, carpentry, or electrician required a lot of academic skills in math, science, and business. Instead of telling their children that they can not go to college they should assist and encourage what vocation/career to go into. .

Doing it. Oil production and natural gas production are both way up in the last few years. I would be careful thinking a resource based economy is a silver bullet though, as while it is not possible to entirely outsource resource production, resource-based economies are inherently riskier in the long-term as they are less diversified and less capable of dealing with a major shock to the market, such as major price changes based on huge decreases in demand. Look what happened to oil production in 2008, for example.

The oil companies have to jump through hoops to get the permits approved. A resource base economy is a good start. Diversity should be a goal.

This might help businesses and maybe even the entire economy. But if you think it is going to bring back low-skilled labor, you would probably be surprised in a negative manner, as the labor costs due to the high cost of living in the US are still going to be prohibitively high.

Their will be an increase in the jobs for all phases of industry. Also as technology evolves the productivity if the low skill either should increase. With the increase productivity the wages can safely go up.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

The markets are largely reacting that interest rates are going to remain low because of the dismal jobs numbers. In addition the economy contracted in Q4, so really there is not much good news in terms of getting back to full employment. These jobs number really don't even keep up with population growth.

Are those Occupy Wall Street-ers still touting the stock market gains as a good thing?

The leftists - epitome of hypocrisy....... Just keep lying until they believe you.

[mdgator05]

I did some surfing to got different results.
First of all environmental protection has a very broad scope. The scope covers Global Warming, Protection of the forest, Wet lands protection, and more. Not everyone is compassionate for every one of these causes. Certain demographic groups identify with certain causes.
What I am trying to say is that due to varying causes the demographics for environmentalist are all over the map. http://ecoamerica.typepad.com/blog/f...EVS_Report.pdf

Income has a non-linear effect, when controlling for education. People with $100,000 has a positive effect on environmentalism, but it decrease after that. However, the education factor is quite large, so it likely cancels much of that out, especially in knowledge based economies.

http://ag.auburn.edu/auxiliary/srsa/...3%2089-107.pdf

No backing?
A lot of the current survey's still show the US with a top 4 or 5 ranking but as our policies change so does our ranking.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/07/bes...ntries-10.html

http://www.inc.com/ss/9-best-countri...ness-right-now

I would argue that most of these rankings criminally under-rank a number of factors including the education level and high productivity, both of which are built by government. Regardless, it is kind of hard to claim a top 5 ranking in "business friendliness" should categorize a country as "anti-business."

The Sunbelt may of been down but it is not down for the count
http://www.techjournal.org/2012/03/d...are-resurging/

The growth is not just in low skill jobs.

http://m.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-...ate-jobs/3836/

Much of the growth is in semi-skilled work, such as resource extraction and production of things like automobiles.

Here is a pretty good look at Sun Belt growth patterns (although the information is very dated, it is still pretty applicable outside of the housing bubble in much of the Sun Belt).

http://wpcarey.asu.edu/seidman/Repor...ledge_6-07.pdf

Table 1 shows huge gains in population across the region. However, despite starting with smaller GDPs than the Non-Sun Belt average in all but 2 states (Florida and Nevada), the aggregate growth rate of Per-Capita GDP was 4% lower than Non-Sun Belt states. Huge gains in population combined with lower gains in Per-Capita GDP are indicative of fast growth in comparatively lower skilled positions.

Far less extensive then it used to be?
http://www.examiner.com/article/reco...giving-holiday
http://news.investors.com/business/0...#axzz2JzVZkU2f

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...ears/?page=all

I probably should have said there is less access to long-term dependent welfare for those without jobs due to welfare reform. Food stamps are an interesting program to claim this huge development of a welfare class, given who receives them.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/...od-stamp-claim
55% of people on food stamps are either children or Seniors. 41% come from households with jobs. So of the food stamp recipients, assuming independence between age and having a member of the family with a job, we are talking about 26.55% of recipients are non-senior adults without jobs.

As for the effectiveness of welfare...will you take heed of Obama's own words?
http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2011/...ds-dependence/
Moore dependency

http://stoppoverty-claudia.blogspot....ce-on.html?m=1

The expansion of programs that do not cut off after a person gets a low-paying jobs would actually be evidence against your point here. The design of the Food Stamp system, as well as programs such as EITC, encourages people to get low-paying jobs by not cutting their benefits entirely, lowering the dependency and making sure people are not locked into poverty.

Unfortunately a lot if people are going to colleges and graduating with majors that are not needed or that they are not professionally suited for. We can thank the enlist snobs for some this. Some vocations required the equivalent to a four year degree. For instance to earn/achieve a Masters license in plumbing, carpentry, or electrician required a lot of academic skills in math, science, and business. Instead of telling their children that they can not go to college they should assist and encourage what vocation/career to go into. .

The main issues aren't the existence of basic humanities or any of the other programs people criticize. The issue is that many people enter college now with a very limited idea of what they want to do and then go into those programs. To a large extent, college for these people is serving only as a signalling mechanism, which is okay on an individual level but is probably not socially efficient. But as I said, I have never heard a good solution, since those basic studies are definitely important on a social level and for those with a plan (many successful people went through Humanities or Social Science programs).

The oil companies have to jump through hoops to get the permits approved. A resource base economy is a good start. Diversity should be a goal.

Oil companies should have to jump through hoops, because the cost of a mistake in these cases is so extensive. Diversity very rarely develops out of resource-based economies, as the skill-sets and requirements are so different. Resource-based economies certainly have a place in the US economy as a whole, but relying on it for a larger and larger portion of the economy is risky.

Their will be an increase in the jobs for all phases of industry. Also as technology evolves the productivity if the low skill either should increase. With the increase productivity the wages can safely go up.

This has frankly not been happening, as productivity only serves as a ceiling for a wage. For example, if a person gives a firm $50,000 in productivity a year and increases to $60,000 in productivity a year, that only changes what the firm would be willing to pay that person. However, the firm would still prefer to pay less than that for the labor, in order to increase profits.

So how has productivity matched wages in the current economy:



The firm has been capturing the entirety of the productivity gains.

[DeanMeadGator]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

Amazing. Not a word from our resident Obama lemmings.

It's sleight of hand. See the bad news. Presto: Now it's good news!!

Which cup is the pea under??

[DeanMeadGator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

This is weird because you're accusing me of what you're doing in wanting it two ways. Again, the only reason we got a little pull in the economy is because the staggering amount of money we threw at it which is trillions of dollars.

Let us not forget that our children and grandchildren will be called upon to pay the multi-trillion dollar deficit that is being passed to them. As we argue over Obama's spendathon, we are ruining the properity of future generations.

Money borrowed must be repaid. Can $20 trillion dollars be paid back? Can the accruing interest even be paid?

Who will we repay it, when will it be repaid, and how many generations will it take to repay it?

If we stopped spending today, there is a serious question as to how much will have to be repaid taking into account the massive amount of interest that is accruing.

Apologize to your children and grandchildren now.