Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    10:09 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: How many people are actually unemployed in this country? Back to Topics
101Speedster
Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,725
Points:2,883,905
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 11:06:29 AM

How many people are actually unemployed in this country?

Look off to the far right side of the chart to see the hopefully not ever-increasing numbers of unemployed in this country.

Official Unemployed: 12,299,707

Actual Unemployed: 22,344,803

If the "State of the Union is stronger (and getting stronger)" it will show up in these numbers. Use this topic to post links and opinions regarding Obama's (and Congress') handling of the economy as it relates to employment in this country.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 9:32:21 PM

">>Even though unemployment has "dropped precipitously" according to DOL stats, the SNAP numbers have barely edged down by comparison.

Yes, it is a telling statistic.<<

Hmmm...I see that unemployment dropped between 2003 and 2007, including a couple of pretty good years economically for the country, yet SNAP numbers continued to rise almost that entire time. Apparently, that isn't a "telling statistic" in your world."

Ouch - that one hurt...
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,333
Points:3,336,685
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 1:57:47 PM

>>Even if you lay the 33.490 number on GWBush...<<

Which I didn't, as I simply used the number from January, 2009, his last month in office. However, if you want to base it on the fiscal year, which is what the annual numbers you quoted are, then you'd have to go by the number from the final month in FY 2009, which was September, 2009, and that number was 37.2 million.

 
>>Seen graphically, you can easily see the steep rise in 2009-2013.<<

Actually, the "steep rise" goes from early-mid 2008 through the end of 2011.

 
>>Even though unemployment has "dropped precipitously" according to DOL stats, the SNAP numbers have barely edged down by comparison.

Yes, it is a telling statistic.<<

Hmmm...I see that unemployment dropped between 2003 and 2007, including a couple of pretty good years economically for the country, yet SNAP numbers continued to rise almost that entire time. Apparently, that isn't a "telling statistic" in your world.

 
>>And that's how 0bama got tagged "The Food Stamp President"<<

No, Obama got that tag from Newt Gingrich, who used it as a talking point in 2011 when he began campaigning for President. It sounded good to you righties, so you just keep repeating it.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2015 12:57:35 PM

Thanks for honing in on the year-by-year numbers.
Let's look a little closer at those, okay?
2008 - 28.223 Million on SNAP
2009 - 33.490   "   "   "
2010 - 40.302   "   "   "
2011 - 44.709  "   "   "
2012 - 46.609   "   "  "
2013 - 47.636  "   "   "
2014 - 46.536  "   "   "

Source: USDA website

Even if you lay the 33.490 number on GWBush, you get a huge increase, over 14 Million more people, added in the early years of the 0bama Administration.
Seen graphically, you can easily see the steep rise in 2009-2013.
You can also see SNAP participation (through 2012) charted with unemployment and people in poverty.
Even though unemployment has "dropped precipitously" according to DOL stats, the SNAP numbers have barely edged down by comparison.

Yes, it is a telling statistic.

And that's how 0bama got tagged "The Food Stamp President"


[Edited by: I75at7AM at 2/19/2015 1:06:40 PM EST]
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,333
Points:3,336,685
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 10:32:30 PM

>>Here is the more telling statistic:

People on Food Stamps when 0 took office: 26 million
People on Food stamps in 2014: 46 million<<

Gosh, I75, that sure might be a "telling statistic" if it were true.

However, in January, 2009, when Obama (yeah, that's his name - not "0") took office, there were 32.2 million people on Food Stamps, not the "26 million" you claim. And as of November, 2014, that number is 46.3 million, the same as it was 3 years ago and now on a downward trend. So, that's a 43.7% increase in just under 6 years.

Now, just for comparison's sake, let's take a look at George W. Bush. We already know that there were 32.2 million on Food Stamps in January, 2009. So, what was that number when Bush took office, in January, 2001? Well, that'd be 17.2 million, an increase of 86.9%. A number that had gone down since 1994 went up all but one year under Bush, with costs going up EVERY YEAR.

So, who should be considered the Food Stamp President - the guy with the 6.2% (and going down) annual increase, or the guy with the 8.1% annual increase? That would be George W. Bush - the Food Stamp President!!!

 

>>I see government dependents going up, in number.<<

As you can see from the links I provided above, those numbers haven't gone up in 3 years. No need to pretend those numbers are still going up.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 4:24:04 PM

"People on Food Stamps when 0 took office: 26 million
People on Food stamps in 2014: 46 million

You show unemployment going down. I see government dependents going up, in number"

There it is! 'The Defelction'...

ROTFLOL!!! Thanks for not disappointing, 75. ;)

"Immigrants tend to be at the lower end of the wage scale, at least starting out, and most of those wage earners are eligible for government benefits (food stamps) even while employed."

And then to imply that all ~5 million of those who got jobs are low wage immigrants - wow. Partisan to a fault.
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,525
Points:337,985
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 2:33:19 PM

"Here is the more telling statistic:"

Your statistic doesn't tell anything. A great many people on SNAP assistance already work (at jobs that won't pay enough to allow workers to feed themselves or their families); a great many are also children, and disabled, and elderly.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 1:45:13 PM

The weezil seems to be confused and has equated "more people with jobs" with "more taxpayers". The two groups are in no way mutual. Immigrants tend to be at the lower end of the wage scale, at least starting out, and most of those wage earners are eligible for government benefits (food stamps) even while employed.

>>>Anybody care to twist this statistic now as well since it clearly shows job growth?<<<

Here is the more telling statistic:

People on Food Stamps when 0 took office: 26 million
People on Food stamps in 2014: 46 million

You show unemployment going down. I see government dependents going up, in number.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2015 1:11:42 PM

Thought not... ;)
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 2:52:51 PM

"I would like to see a correlation between the unemployed numbers and the government dependent numbers."

I would like to see a comparison of 'Actual Unemployed' numbers from 2 years ago compared to 'Actual Unemployed' numbers today (since the right suddenly doesn't like to use the Official unemployment number anymore, although it was a perfectly accurate indicator for decades prior to Obama);

Feb 2013: 22,344,803
Feb 2015: 17,525,367

Anybody care to twist this statistic now as well since it clearly shows job growth?

;)
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,725
Points:2,883,905
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2015 1:54:43 PM

I would like to see a correlation between the unemployed numbers and the government dependent numbers.

SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,788
Points:3,942,865
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 5:16:16 PM

"How many people are actually unemployed"

Billions and billions.
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,725
Points:2,883,905
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 5:07:35 PM

Very sad state of affairs these days, I75.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 10:02:05 AM

"So put that little statistic up your tailpipe and light it."

More taxpayers?

Smoke that ;)
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 10:19:33 PM

0bama’s Amnesty Will Add As Many Foreign Workers As New Jobs Since 2009

"President Barack 0bama’s unilateral amnesty will quickly add as many foreign workers to the nation’s legal labor force as the total number of new jobs created by his economy since 2009."

So put that little statistic up your tailpipe and light it.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 3:42:40 PM

"But of course you will try to explain away that little conundrum with another smirky snarky post.

Saw you coming......"

Aw, you make it sound like you don't like me. :(

"so employers will not hire any more full time workers in order to stay under the threshold."

That has always been the case.

"I forgot to post the part about how many of the "new" jobs are part time. And of course many of those part time jobs might have been full time"

Sure some of those jobs are indeed part-time. Again, that nature of the beast. Part-time positions always come first.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 3:18:22 PM

I forgot to post the part about how many of the "new" jobs are part time. And of course many of those part time jobs might have been full time except for the onerous burden of 0bamaCare, so employers will not hire any more full time workers in order to stay under the threshold.

But of course you will try to explain away that little conundrum with another smirky snarky post.

Saw you coming......
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 2:39:15 PM

"I do. For every story announcing a new business opening up, there is a story about one cutting back or going out of business."

That is the nature of Capitalism... The strong survive, the weak do not and new replaces old.

But none of that has anything to do with the continued drop in the 'Actual Unemployed' number touted by you and your fellow Tea Partiers (the number you are now abandoning as it, too, reflects a recovering economy).

"As sad as all these statistics are (sad but true), is it amusing to see 0bama's minions spin themselves into pretzels and knots trying to explain away all the continuing bad news."

Keep parroting those talking points from your Faux Friends ;)
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 2:08:07 PM

I do. For every story announcing a new business opening up, there is a story about one cutting back or going out of business.
From January: Americans quit seeking jobs, unemployment rate drops
From Sept. 2012: How Many Jobs Are Needed to Keep Up with Population Growth? "The actual monthly amount can be calculated and the Atlanta Fed even did us a huge favor by publishing an interactive monthly jobs calculator so you can go check for yourself. This month shows we need 104,116 payroll jobs to maintain the same unemployment rate of 8.1% with all of the other same terrible conditions the state of employment is in."
From Nov. 2012: Who Got Jobs During the Obama Presidency? "A new analysis of government data shows that two-thirds of the net increase in employment since President Obama took office has gone to immigrant workers, primarily legal immigrants."Since President Obama took office, 67 percent of employment growth has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal)."

"There were 1.94 million more immigrants (legal and illegal) working in the third quarter of 2012 than at the start of 2009, when the president took office. This compares to a 938,000 increase for natives over the same time period."

We have seen that new employment does not cover the number needed to keep up with the nation's growth in population. We have seen that new jobs go to immigrants in much larger numbers than to native Americans. And we have seen that many people, instead of finding a job, get on SSI Disability instead. The Number Of US Citizens On Disability Is Now Larger Than The Population Of Greece! Record Number: 10.9 Million Americans Collecting Disability (that was May 2013)

But keep on deluding yourself the the economy is getting better and that unemployment is being reduced and that your lord 0bama is responsible for it all.

As sad as all these statistics are (sad but true), is it amusing to see 0bama's minions spin themselves into pretzels and knots trying to explain away all the continuing bad news.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 1:18:55 PM

"Very hard indeed. I watch the economic news daily, and I haven't seen any."

Let me help you - open your eyes!
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 12:27:43 PM

>>> VERY hard to see good news regarding the economy while he is still in the Oval Office, isn't it?<<<

Very hard indeed. I watch the economic news daily, and I haven't seen any.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 6, 2014 9:46:21 AM

"Very difficult to watch Mr. Obama patting himself on the back the last 2-3 days"

I'll bet. VERY hard to see good news regarding the economy while he is still in the Oval Office, isn't it?

Keep dishing that hater-aid! Some are bound to lap it up...
maryanneusa
Champion Author Missouri

Posts:2,904
Points:654,610
Joined:Jun 2013
Message Posted: Oct 4, 2014 8:25:51 AM

Very difficult to watch Mr. Obama patting himself on the back the last 2-3 days, I can't believe he can stand at any podium and tell those lies with such an attempted straight face. He obviously feels he's getting his "kool-aid" past and into his dwindling minions.
mweyant
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:8,563
Points:1,707,795
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Oct 4, 2014 7:59:13 AM

Jobs report underscores Obama's economic dilemma

10-3-14

"The size of the labor force dropped by nearly a hundred thousand putting the participation rate at a more than three-decade low of 62.7 percent. Before the recession the rate was 66 percent.

Even more troubling, average hourly wages actually dropped a penny to $24.53. The so-called U6 jobless rate, which takes into account involuntary part-timers and those too frustrated to look, is still at a very high 11.8 percent.

Obama's economic dilemma was on full display this week when aides touted a big presidential speech on the economy at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. The speech was intended to show voters who give the president dismally low marks on the economy that Obama was on the case while highlighting all the improvements over six years ago.

But the speech, which included a tired recitation of previous proposals that went nowhere on Capitol Hill, fell completely flat. In fact, the only real headlines out of the address were generated by Republicans crowing over Obama's remark that: "I am not on the ballot this fall. … But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them." '
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2014 10:30:33 AM

Surely you jest.......
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2014 10:29:53 AM

From the link in the OP;

Official Unemployed: 9,488,068

Actual Unemployed: 18,565,145

Yep - still trending positively, regardless of which metric one whishes to believe in.

"You can slice it and dice it however you like, but the reduction in the "unemployment rate" is being affected MORE by people "leaving" the labor force than finding jobs. Period."

Don't be bitter because people better planned for retirement than you... <s>
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 3, 2014 10:21:30 AM

Last month's figures are out. How does 5.9% sound?
September Rate 5.9%

Like another meaningless number, that's how.

232,000 found jobs.

315,000 left the labor force

There are now 92.6 Million people out of the labor force.

You can slice it and dice it however you like, but the reduction in the "unemployment rate" is being affected MORE by people "leaving" the labor force than finding jobs. Period.


[Edited by: I75at7AM at 10/3/2014 10:23:21 AM EST]
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,822
Points:48,160
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 25, 2014 8:38:00 AM

Many are unemployed, under-employed or unemployable since they're UNAVAILABLE or UNWILLING to work various jobs, hours, mornings, nights, weekends, days, 2nd/3rd shifts, rotating shifts, on-call, on-the-road, out-of-town, at changing locations etc.

Many employers cull out the majority of job applicants due to availability alone.

More and more employers want to see very wide availability, even from part-timers.

Many lose their jobs due to availability as well.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 25, 2014 8:16:19 AM

"undereducated
undertrained
unqualified
unfit
unwilling
unresponsive
irresponsible

In other words...undesirable by employers"

Ah, there's a believer in the '47%' myth!
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:22,106
Points:2,117,980
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Sep 25, 2014 12:31:59 AM

" Topic: How many people are actually unemployed in this country?'

.....

Unemployed??? Don't you mean Unemployable...seems more accurate to me.

Words best describing todays unemployed:

undereducated
undertrained
unqualified
unfit
unwilling
unresponsive
irresponsible

In other words...undesirable by employers



[Edited by: KansasGunman at 9/25/2014 12:35:31 AM EST]
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:57:10 PM

Whoa. Neat trick...

Somehow your link in the other thread reb allows me to make a post under your name in this thread.

:P

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 9/24/2014 9:58:06 PM EST]
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,913
Points:2,597,665
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:56:42 PM

OK reb, I'll repost here;

"Wrong Weasel, these numbers have been around for a long time, you might like to check the government web site..."

LOL, certainly the number have 'been around' however nobody was talking about them under W when his unemployment rate was at 5.0% when he left Office, yet now that the unemployment rate is back down to 6.1% (from a peak of 10.0% in '09) the only thing the Right can talk about now is 'Actual Unemployment' or 'work force participation' to try to deflect negatively.

Convenient.

"This link shows unemployment rate at 6.1% in August, but people "participating in work at 62.8""

The participation rate has been declining since 2000 when it was at 67.3% - prior to that it increased steadily since ~1966. Now that the Baby Boomers are retiring (for one)... For comparison, Post-WWII levels of work force participation were ~59%, FYI. Unemployment was also below 3% - I don't recall anybody complaining then either.

"Though that might require some...thought."

I agree ;)
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:49:40 PM

"Read the story. They quit counting them. Duh. Thanks for being REDUNDANT again, as well as WRONG again."

Again;

"From the link in the OP as of 9/2014;

Official Unemployed: 9,533,740

Actual Unemployed: 18,631,638"

Compare the numbers from when the OP was posted - it can't be debated."

;)
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,913
Points:2,597,665
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:48:48 PM

Not Looking for Work: Why Labor Force Participation Has Fallen During the Recovery




"The post-recession economy has undergone the slowest recovery in 70 years. In addition to more than 6 percent unemployment five years after the recession officially ended, labor force participation has fallen sharply since the recession began in December 2007. Today, 6.9 million fewer Americans are working or searching for work. The drop in unemployment since 2009 is almost entirely due to the fact that those not looking for work do not count as unemployed. Demographic factors explain less than one-quarter of the decreased labor force participation. The rest comes from increased school enrollment and more people collecting disability benefits. Over 6 percent of U.S. adults are now on Social Security Disability Insurance. This is no time to make it more difficult for businesses to create jobs."





Obama Adviser Says Policy Can Boost Workforce Participation





"Betsey Stevenson, a member of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the administration is working to enhance labor force participation, which has fallen to multi-decade lows, in part by increasing the incentives for discouraged workers to again enter the market. In addition, she cited policies targeted directly at helping disadvantaged members of minorities, who have much higher unemployment rates than the general population."



"Some of the recent decline is due to the retirement of baby boomers, but Ms. Stevenson said “not all of the decline in participation we have seen is the result of natural and good developments. In fact, the long-term trend of declining participation in employment rates for many groups, such as prime-age men, and particularly young black men, is troubling, and merits a policy response.” she said.

The jobless rate for young black Americans aged 16 to 24 was 24.8% in July, compared with a 12.2% rate for white youths in the same age group."

Lot a people not participating....
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,913
Points:2,597,665
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 9:36:43 PM

Not Looking for Work: Why Labor Force Participation Has Fallen During the Recovery




"The post-recession economy has undergone the slowest recovery in 70 years. In addition to more than 6 percent unemployment five years after the recession officially ended, labor force participation has fallen sharply since the recession began in December 2007. Today, 6.9 million fewer Americans are working or searching for work. The drop in unemployment since 2009 is almost entirely due to the fact that those not looking for work do not count as unemployed. Demographic factors explain less than one-quarter of the decreased labor force participation. The rest comes from increased school enrollment and more people collecting disability benefits. Over 6 percent of U.S. adults are now on Social Security Disability Insurance. This is no time to make it more difficult for businesses to create jobs."





Obama Adviser Says Policy Can Boost Workforce Participation





"Betsey Stevenson, a member of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the administration is working to enhance labor force participation, which has fallen to multi-decade lows, in part by increasing the incentives for discouraged workers to again enter the market. In addition, she cited policies targeted directly at helping disadvantaged members of minorities, who have much higher unemployment rates than the general population."



"Some of the recent decline is due to the retirement of baby boomers, but Ms. Stevenson said “not all of the decline in participation we have seen is the result of natural and good developments. In fact, the long-term trend of declining participation in employment rates for many groups, such as prime-age men, and particularly young black men, is troubling, and merits a policy response.” she said.

The jobless rate for young black Americans aged 16 to 24 was 24.8% in July, compared with a 12.2% rate for white youths in the same age group."

Lot a people not participating....



[Edited by: reb4 at 9/24/2014 9:41:31 PM EST]
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 8:52:38 AM

Read the story. They quit counting them. Duh. Thanks for being REDUNDANT again, as well as WRONG again.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 8:42:47 AM

"You can count them any way you want to, but you can't hide the truth."

Correct - directly for the OP's link;

"From the link in the OP as of 9/2014;

Official Unemployed: 9,533,740

Actual Unemployed: 18,631,638"

Compare the numbers from when the OP was posted - it can't be debated."

;)

"There you go, chuckles. Fewer people unemployed, based on how you count them (just don't count them)."

Strange, since this is the number which is supposedly represented by the "Actual Unemployed" number you and so many others have been touting for years in your constant need to find something to rant about. Wassamatta, even that old go-to is no longer a viable source for criticism since it has dropped by ~4 million over the last year+?

LOL!!!
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2014 7:57:49 AM

You can count them any way you want to, but you can't hide the truth.
Here's a news piece, just out this morning:
Jobless rates drop across the Miami Valley
"In Montgomery County, the unemployment rated dropped from 6.2 percent in July to 5.5 in August — the first time the rate has lowered in the past five months."
Wow, that's good news, right? A drop in the unemployment rate of .7% in just one month?
Not so fast. There's a but. And it's a really BIG BUT:

"The sharp drop had more to do with people dropping out of the labor force rather than new jobs created, experts said."

There you go, chuckles. Fewer people unemployed, based on how you count them (just don't count them)

Here's more news: Kmart to close Fairborn store, costing 66 jobs

But that's over in the next county, so it doesn't matter. Right?



[Edited by: I75at7AM at 9/24/2014 7:58:24 AM EST]
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 2:21:35 PM

"I am a broad-based thinker. The fact that you still don't understand that shows who the narrow thinker is."

I 100% believe that you have sold yourself on that ;)

You'll be darned if somebody shows you something that challenges your reality, there is almost certainly a way to justify discrediting said information! For example;

"From the link in the OP as of 9/2014;

Official Unemployed: 9,533,740

Actual Unemployed: 18,631,638"

Compare the numbers from when the OP was posted - it can't be debated.

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 9/18/2014 2:22:58 PM EST]
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:52:57 AM

I am a broad-based thinker. The fact that you still don't understand that shows who the narrow thinker is. Nice try.....(not really)
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:50:10 AM

"My answers show just how narrow the view of the supposed "experts" can be."

I should think your answers show just how narrow your political POV is...
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:47:21 AM

But Mark.......they're poor...........
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,822
Points:48,160
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:47:04 AM

Some reasons more and more apply for welfare benefits is that they're easier to apply for, recertification is easier, income/asset limits have increased, work requirements have been dropped and more and more people have less and less shame applying for and using benefits.
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,822
Points:48,160
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:38:35 AM

<<Wealth inequality is even greater than income inequality.
- We have addressed this phenomenon in the Wealth Inequity thread. Lower income people tend to live paycheck to paycheck and don't save much if at all. Wealth inequality is as much a measure of poor financial practice as anything else. If lower income people, even poor people, would become regular savers, they would do better and this measure of "inequality" would go down. The assignment of importance to "wealth inequality" presupposes that we should have equal outcomes in this country. No such thing was ever envision, promised, nor intended in this country. Egalitarianism is Communism.>>

Many of our relatives, employees, tenants and customers are benefit rich and cash poor.

They receive tens of thousands in benefits annuallly between $X,000 tax credits, housing subsidies, daycare subsidies, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, HEAP, Emergency HEAP, free furnaces/boilers, breakfasts/lunches, temporary/emergency assistance, local and private assistance.

Although many have a lot of disposable income (since they have few living expenses) they have a small, zero or negative net worth since they lack budgeting, saving, spending and investment discipline.

Much of what they buy consists of disposable junk, services, depreciating assets, non necessities and excesses. The more money they make, the more they waste on these things.

Here in New York many low and poor income smokers spend 25% of their income on cigarettes alone!

When they're hard up for cash they'll often sell off the few things of value that they own for pennies on the dollar.

To add insult to injury, many purchase their services, disposable junk and depreciating assets via high interest financing, or they stop paying other bills so they can afford beer, cigarettes, weed, scratch-offs, junk food fast food, take-out, delivery, upper tier cable, upper tier broadband, smart phones, prepaid minutes, rent-to-own furniture, appliances, electronics - too much to list.

Most poor I know don't take good care of their stuff and/or their stuff is uninsured, so it doesn't last long, doesn't hold its value, or they can't afford to replace it. This is something we often see on a daily basis when servicing furnaces, boilers, water heaters, equipment, computers etc.
Lower income customers almost never perform regular preventative maintenance and almost never pay for extended warranties, service contracts etc.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:16:49 AM

Paul Krugman? Seriously?

My answers show just how narrow the view of the supposed "experts" can be.
They are not measuring what they think they are measuring. Some people like to point out how "poor" the poor in America are compared with the "rich" in America when the reality is that the "poor" in American enjoy standards of living that most of the rest of the world envies. And you don't understand the difference. All this "wealth inequality" comparison is just garbage, I pointed out that it is garbage, I will continue to point out that it is garbage, and you pointing over to some economists who have their heads (and arses) firmly implanted doesn't change the objective reality, which I have pointed out for you.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:03:01 AM

Strange then, I75, how Nobel laureates in Economics agree with what I posted, yet you seem to have all of the answers (excuses)...

No?
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,913
Points:2,597,665
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:02:07 AM

"Why more and more people wil continue to need progams like SNAP"

Weasle, please explain the description you gave for the link...

5 facts about economic inequality



I am in total agreement with this article. and actually this is a condemnation of the lies that Obama has perpetrated to the masses... and it was the middle class ... not the rich that are paying for the handouts... But thats not the reason for the SNAP increases and you know it .... or maybe you are just not as smart as you think you are...
And the immigration of Gap Between Rich, Poor Americans Widened During Recovery

*** This link may not work... may need to search for article to read it ***

"Average, or mean, pretax income for the wealthiest 10% of U.S. families rose 10% in 2013 from 2010, but families in the bottom 40% saw their average inflation-adjusted income decline over that period, according to the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances, which is conducted every three years.

The report showed little change in average take-home pay for middle- and upper-middle-class families, who "failed to recover the losses experienced between 2007 and 2010," it said."





So, who is responsible for it Weasle???



[Edited by: reb4 at 9/17/2014 9:04:53 AM EST]
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 8:43:59 AM

From weasle's link:
1. By one measure, U.S. income inequality is the highest it’s been since 1928.
- Completely meaningless. The disparity is obviously skewed by a few mega-earners. The real measure is how the working classes are doing. They could be doing better, but doing better is largely a self-directed exercise.

2. The U.S. is more unequal than most of its developed-world peers.
- Again, completely meaningless. Our "developed-world peers" don't have those mega-earners at the top, so their earners profile appears less steeply graded than ours. We are even more unequal after factoring in transfer payments? What kind of criteria is that? To show that we need even larger amounts of transfer payments to certain people? Most of those payments are scheduled according to previous earnings of the recipients.

3. The black-white income gap in the U.S. has persisted.
- You would have to carefully examine the demographic makeup of such households. How many adult breadwinners are in the household? Single parent households would tend to skew down a group that includes a larger percentage of them. And who has been the President during the downturn in black family income?

4. Americans are relatively unconcerned about the wide income gap between rich and poor.
- As it should be. "Yet barely half (47%) of Americans think the rich-poor gap is a very big problem." A very subjective question, and a very subjective criteria to say that 47% (a very familiar number...) is somehow a watershed group, one way or the other.

5. Wealth inequality is even greater than income inequality.
- We have addressed this phenomenon in the Wealth Inequity thread. Lower income people tend to live paycheck to paycheck and don't save much if at all. Wealth inequality is as much a measure of poor financial practice as anything else. If lower income people, even poor people, would become regular savers, they would do better and this measure of "inequality" would go down. The assignment of importance to "wealth inequality" presupposes that we should have equal outcomes in this country. No such thing was ever envision, promised, nor intended in this country. Egalitarianism is Communism.

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 9/17/2014 8:46:19 AM EST]
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 3:07:33 PM

Why more and more people wil continue to need progams like SNAP
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,913
Points:2,597,665
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 9:41:18 AM

Food Stamp Sign-ups outnumber Jobs created in Obama's Illinois

"Among the many metrics that show Obama's home state is struggling to break the Great Recession, a new report shows that applications for food stamps in Illinois is greater than its creation of jobs.
Illinois has had the worst recovery from the recession of any state in the country, the Illinois Policy Institute reported this month: "There are nearly 300,000 fewer Illinoisans working today than in January 2008, and 170,000 fewer payroll jobs. "




"For every post-recession job created in Illinois, nearly two people have enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps," the Institute wrote. “In the recession era, the number of Illinoisans dependent on food stamps has risen by 745,000."
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,710
Points:608,025
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 9:17:16 AM

"The population has increased by ten million. As about 60% of the adults in the nation work, we needed six million new jobs."

So you are doing a direct correlation between population growth and job creation?

Let me know when the adults start their conversation. In the mean time, keep connecting those dots...

Unemployed is unemployed. Period. Any other discussion is smoke and mirrors. Keep parroting those tea party talking points though ;)
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,195
Points:3,210,035
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 11:52:46 PM

The adults in the country are having a conversation. If you're not following along, that's your ignorance showing. There is no "excuse making" in my post. The population has increased by ten million. As about 60% of the adults in the nation work, we needed six million new jobs. Reported employment numbers show an increase of much less than that. The rest of the employment numbers are just smoke and mirrors.
Post a reply Back to Topics