Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 56

Thread: Media Economic Cheerleading Masks True State of Job Recovery

  1. #1

    Media Economic Cheerleading Masks True State of Job Recovery

    Superlatives like “Robust” “Buoyant” “Solid” “Strengthening” are used to describe the job market.

    But the job recovery is a farce:

    https://smaulgld.com/why-the-job-rec...in-six-charts/
    Six charts that show the true state of the labor market. Here is just one:

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails labor force participation rate 25-54- march 2015.PNG  



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Looks more dramatic than it really is if you examine the scale on the chart. Participation went from 83% to 81% and has been rising the past year. Not that big of a change.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Looks more dramatic than it really is if you examine the scale on the chart. Participation went from 83% to 81% and has been rising the past year. Not that big of a change.
    The point is still valid: the media report of a "robust" recovery in employment is simply false.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  5. #4
    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/20...illion-in.html

    Jobs openings increased in January to 4.998 million from 4.877 million in December.

    The number of job openings (yellow) are up 28% year-over-year compared to January 2014.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Looks more dramatic than it really is if you examine the scale on the chart. Participation went from 83% to 81% and has been rising the past year. Not that big of a change.
    It is dramatic. It shows the participation rate of prime age workers dropping while the media is telling us there is a robust job market

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Looks more dramatic than it really is if you examine the scale on the chart. Participation went from 83% to 81% and has been rising the past year. Not that big of a change.
    The economy was supposed to be improving in the past several years according to Democrats like you, but the line continues to drop.

    Oh, wait--did I say Democrat? Not sure. You are a liberal Democrat, right?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    The economy was supposed to be improving in the past several years according to Democrats like you, but the line continues to drop.

    Oh, wait--did I say Democrat? Not sure. You are a liberal Democrat, right?
    My take on Zippy, for what it is worth: He is a genuine, humane person who abhors the US government's violent foreign policy and its violent domestic policing of morality. You will never see him expressing a contrary view on these issues. He is here because libertarians are the only real humane choice in those realms. He sees the hypocrisy of the Democrats, who he knows are just as violent and corrupt as the Republicans. But he truly believes that government can and should manage the economy and act as benevolent protector of the people. He sees and condemns violence and corruption in some sectors of government action but is blind to it in the sectors of government action he favors (or he condones it because he hopes it can be fixed.) And so he is stuck. He can't embrace the thugocracy but he can't let go of the nanny state. Take pity on him!
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  9. #8
    Gee, does that really ever happen?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    My take on Zippy, for what it is worth: He is a genuine, humane person...
    My take on ZippyJuan is different. The ZippyJuan account is not even a person. It's not like you and me, sitting and posting from a bedroom computer. The account is an organization account. It is actually at least two people. The first Zip was British, using terms American seldom, or never, use (e.g., petrol). The second Zip tried to replicate that, but gave that up.

    The ZippyJuan account is here is discourage new members and visitors. If anyone is interested in why Zip is here, then I suggest this thread. Start with post 15.


    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...oup-in-America

  12. #10
    Yes, as that thread suggests, I work for the Jewish National Democratic Council. They pay me $100,000 a year plus $100 a post. That is why almost all of my posts are on Israel and how great a country it is. Check my post history to verify this. My other goal is to shut down not just this site but the entire internet. I am more powerful than the NSA. I am a former British citizen currently working for MOSSAD. But you must work for the CIA because you figured out my cover. Or maybe it is the KGB/ FSB.

    Where do you come up with all your stuff? (also note that while you neg rep me frequently, you avoid debating me in public where you could try to prove me wrong).

    Are you really that bored?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-11-2015 at 02:05 PM.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    My take on ZippyJuan is different. The ZippyJuan account is not even a person. It's not like you and me, sitting and posting from a bedroom computer. The account is an organization account. It is actually at least two people. The first Zip was British, using terms American seldom, or never, use (e.g., petrol). The second Zip tried to replicate that, but gave that up.

    The ZippyJuan account is here is discourage new members and visitors. If anyone is interested in why Zip is here, then I suggest this thread. Start with post 15.


    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...oup-in-America
    I didn't find anything pertinent in that thread. In his defense I note that he rarely starts posts on divisive topics, he never resorts to personal attacks, he usually sticks to facts and rational arguments (even if they are wrong), and he ducks out of threads that get too heated. Those are not the tactics of someone trying to disrupt a forum. Now he COULD be someone with an interest in promoting the status quo in banking and finance, but that doesn't make someone a saboteur. That just makes him a spokesman for a different point of view and we should be able to demonstrate the flaws in his position by reasoned argument. If we can't, then we fail.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    I didn't find anything pertinent in that thread. In his defense I note that he rarely starts posts on divisive topics, he never resorts to personal attacks, he usually sticks to facts and rational arguments (even if they are wrong), and he ducks out of threads that get too heated. Those are not the tactics of someone trying to disrupt a forum. Now he COULD be someone with an interest in promoting the status quo in banking and finance, but that doesn't make someone a saboteur. That just makes him a spokesman for a different point of view and we should be able to demonstrate the flaws in his position by reasoned argument. If we can't, then we fail.



    Forget about academic debate. ZippyJuan could not care less about it. That is not his interest. Their interest is negatively impacting RPF membership.

    Yes, of course Zip is going to be polite. How else could he behave? He is not some argumentative college troll to which your accustomed. If that were the case, then his being here would be pointless. No one would listen to him and he'd be run off the forum. That would hardly help his goal.

    A goal has to be focused. Promoting "the status quo" is too abstract. It really does not accomplish anything. The goal of these people is to simply discourage new members and visitors. They know they're not going to impact the core members. They seek to keep the peripheral membership from growing. It's basically why Zip attempts to post consistently 2nd in a thread, or at least in the top ten posts. He does not leave a thread because the argument gets too heated. He leaves a thread after the thread becomes too long. The longer a thread goes--the fewer people there are to read it. Most people will read the first few posts, but will then move onto to something else. Zip posts second, third, or fourth in a thread means more people will read his posts.

    Think about a Ron Paul/Rand Paul campaign with a dedicated forum versus a Paul campaign without such an internet presence. A healthy membership with sustained traffic and advertising makes a statement. A really large swelling might even get national attention for Rand in 2016. That is why ZippyJuan organization goal is to reduce the membership. They would not even mind seeing the website disappear.

    The success of Zip and others like PRB and TheCount is debatable. I do web content for owners however, and know it's extremely difficult to attract someone to your website. That visitor however, will leave in an eye blink. Advertising dollars are extremely competitive for websites. Their main metric is traffic. Drive away the traffic, and the advertising ceases. If the advertising ceases, then the website folds.





    Check the article below. Tell me who talks about Paul's candidacy and uses words like "deeply troubled," deeply alarmed," and "deeply concerned." Tell me if that's not incentive to invest in thwarting such a candidacy, whether Ron or Rand. Part of that would be thwarting a grassroots site like this one.

    "The National Jewish Democratic Council is deeply troubled by Representative Ron Paul's candidacy for president in 2012,” said David A. Harris, the NJDC president and CEO.

    American Jews should be deeply alarmed that someone with such a deliberately miserable record on Israel would be a major candidate in today's Republican Party."

    The RJC's Matt Brooks had this to say: "As Americans who are committed to a strong and vigorous foreign policy, we are deeply concerned about the prospective presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul.
    http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/p...agree_ron_paul

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Yes, as that thread suggests, I work for the Jewish National Democratic Council. They pay me $100,000 a year plus $100 a post. That is why almost all of my posts are on Israel and how great a country it is. Check my post history to verify this. My other goal is to shut down not just this site but the entire internet. I am more powerful than the NSA. I am a former British citizen currently working for MOSSAD. But you must work for the CIA because you figured out my cover. Or maybe it is the KGB/ FSB.

    Where do you come up with all your stuff? (also note that while you neg rep me frequently, you avoid debating me in public where you could try to prove me wrong).

    Are you really that bored?
    Nice try at diversion playing the conspiracy card. You effort is actually quite mundane. Nothing at all unreasonable or far out about what I said. You, of course, would like to present it otherwise.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    I didn't find anything pertinent in that thread. In his defense I note that he rarely starts posts on divisive topics, he never resorts to personal attacks, he usually sticks to facts and rational arguments (even if they are wrong), and he ducks out of threads that get too heated. Those are not the tactics of someone trying to disrupt a forum. Now he COULD be someone with an interest in promoting the status quo in banking and finance, but that doesn't make someone a saboteur. That just makes him a spokesman for a different point of view and we should be able to demonstrate the flaws in his position by reasoned argument. If we can't, then we fail.
    I'm primarily a lurker on the forum, but I read it every day. Zippy's posts are a great contribution. Somebody has to offer reasoned counterpoint, or you don't have a discussion, you just have a bunch of zealots dancing around the fire, and that's not very interesting...

    Also, its apparent to me that there are some folks on this board who are obsessed with negativity and pessimism, almost to the point that it seems like some kind of weird religious/sexual fetish, and anyone who contradicts that fetish is some kind of heretic...

    I'm not an expert on the economy, and I've given up (years ago actually) with the self delusion that I have any deep insights on where the economy will be 1 year from now, much less 5-10 years from now..

    It is humorous, almost tragicomically so, that some folks have not done this, when you can look back over the last few years and see prediction after prediction that have turned out to be unequivocally wrong, dead wrong, flat out wrong, just wrong...

    That's not to say I'm an unfettered optimist either, because I am not, but I'm not ready to proclaim the superiority of my worldview over any other worldview, just because it's mine...

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    I'm primarily a lurker on the forum, but I read it every day. Zippy's posts are a great contribution. Somebody has to offer reasoned counterpoint, or you don't have a discussion, you just have a bunch of zealots dancing around the fire, and that's not very interesting...

    Also, its apparent to me that there are some folks on this board who are obsessed with negativity and pessimism, almost to the point that it seems like some kind of weird religious/sexual fetish, and anyone who contradicts that fetish is some kind of heretic...

    I'm not an expert on the economy, and I've given up (years ago actually) with the self delusion that I have any deep insights on where the economy will be 1 year from now, much less 5-10 years from now..

    It is humorous, almost tragicomically so, that some folks have not done this, when you can look back over the last few years and see prediction after prediction that have turned out to be unequivocally wrong, dead wrong, flat out wrong, just wrong...

    That's not to say I'm an unfettered optimist either, because I am not, but I'm not ready to proclaim the superiority of my worldview over any other worldview, just because it's mine...
    The "contradiction" that zippy offered was argumentative for the sake of it (something he often does).

    He pointed out the decline in the labor force participation wasn't that dramatic.

    The premise of the post wasn't that the labor participation rate was falling dramatically but rather it was indeed falling while the media was cheering on a robust job market that is improving. A declining labor force participation rate contradicts that claims.

  18. #16
    Here is a better look at how "dramatic" the decline in the labor force participation rate has really been. Put a zero at the bottom of the scale not just look at a ten percent range of the chart.

    Next, what is the reason for the decline in labor force participation? Demographics is having a very large impact- baby boomers are retiring at the rate of 10,000 people a day. That is 3.5 million people a year leaving the labor force. We have more stay at home mothers and fathers- deciding to take care of their families rather than both working. Stay at home dads have doubled in the last ten years. We also have twice the percentage of younger workers in school and not working than we did back in 1998. Does this mean that the job market must suck? If you want to sell gold, you want to sell doom and gloom- gold does better when the economy does poorly. If you buy gold, you want to think it will become worth more. That is more likely if the economy does poorly.

    Has the job situation improved? Certainly. Let's look at number of people working. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001 In February 2010, there were 130 million people with jobs. In February of 2015, there were 141 million working- an increase of eleven million more total people working. Then we also had to replace all the people who retired during that time. In four years, that means you needed another 14 million workers just to keep the number of people working fixed. That comes to 25 million more people with jobs in just five years. Is that evidence that the jobs situation has not been improving? Jobs available (current vacancies) are up 28% just in the last year.

    Yes, things are very bad in the jobs market. Or not. Does everybody who wants a job have one? No. We have never been in that situation. Does everybody make as much money as they want? Again- we have never in history experienced that either. Are things better? Absolutely. Are they perfect? Never will be.




  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Why are you discussing a dramatic decline in the labor force? that was never asserted.

    What was claimed was that there was a decline in the labor force participation rate among prime age workers.

    Such a decline can not be called a robust job market

  21. #18
    25 million more people working in five years is not a sign of a robust jobs market? That is actually the most important figure.

    People going to school to improve their skills reflects a bad jobs market? A family no longer needing both parents working and one now staying home with the kids in greater numbers reflects a bad jobs market?

    The decline in labor force participation rate has been slow and been going on for decades. Have we always had a bad jobs market over the last 40 years? More people able to retire is a sign of a bad jobs market?

    US Job Openings- (nah- no improvement seen here since the depths of the recession- things must be really bad!):


    http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/jobs1.jpg
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-13-2015 at 12:43 PM.

  22. #19
    People going to school to receive benefits/food stamps is a problem

    People going to school and racking up unprecedented debt that they can't pay back because they don't get jobs is a problem

    One wage earner supporting a family would not be a problem if it were true that it was possible

    More jobs is not a problem unless they are mostly low paying part time jobs.

  23. #20
    Most of those jobs have actually been full time despite the part- time myth.

    http://fortune.com/2014/12/05/full-time-workers/



    Contrary to what many have expected, most of the new jobs added since late 2011 are full-time positions.
    But if you want to see only bad new, then that is all you see. And buy gold to protect yourself.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-13-2015 at 01:30 PM.

  24. #21
    Full time jobs with low pay- wage growth is stagnant. More people are in poverty now then in 2009. I see news, not just bad news. Most of the news is bad
    Last edited by Smaulgld; 03-14-2015 at 12:49 AM.

  25. #22
    Unemployment peaked in 2010 (not 2009) and so did the poverty rate and they have been falling since.



    The nation's poverty rate fell to 14.5% in 2013, down from 15% a year earlier, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday. This is the first statistically significant drop in poverty since 2006, when it was 12.3%.

    A lot of the decrease is coming from people finding full-time work -- and thus earning more money.
    http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/news...e-down-census/

  26. #23
    Thanks you showed a chart that indicates poverty has increased since the supposed end of the great recession in 2009. RECOVERY!

  27. #24
    I don't watch news and I don't view any tidbits of current reality as good or bad news. It's just information.

    The appalling loss of freedom in this country in this millennium isn't news, it's tragedy. We're spied on in every waking moment. Whistle blowers bust the illegal spy ring and they petition the owned drones in Congress to enact legislation to make it legal... retro-active.

    False flags that are so obvious a child could see through them, followed by draconian legislation. Free speech "zones" that are surrounded by militarized police forces that the Nazis would envy. The bailout trillions which were opposed by 90% of Americans were enacted anyway and... no revolt. So, they enact more laws to include bank's riskiest gambles under the FDIC, where your "demand" account cash is held. Illegal invasion of sovereign nation after sovereign nation continues apace while we poke sticks in the eyes of the Russian/Chinese alliance, further draining our credit accounts.

    And Zippy argues that the Emerald City is just on the horizon because 20 million illegal aliens now have jobs.

    You can't make this $#@! up.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Most of those jobs have actually been full time despite the part- time myth.
    A lot of those jobs are temp jobs and contract work, which are on the increase. My wife's friend, for example, works as a traveling nurse. It's contractual work. It is defined as "temporary," even though she's been doing it four years without a defined ending date.

    Contract jobs, of course, don't pay health insurance, sick days, or vacation. That amounts to big payroll.




    The number of temps has jumped more than 50% since the recession ended four years ago to nearly 2.7 million — the most on government records dating to 1990. In no other sector has hiring come close.Driving the trend are lingering uncertainty about the economy and employers' desire for more flexibility in matching their payrolls to their revenue. Some employers have also sought to sidestep the new health care law's rule that they provide medical coverage for permanent workers.

    The use of temps has extended into sectors that seldom used them in the past — professional services, for example, which include lawyers, doctors and information technology specialists.

    Temps typically receive low pay, few benefits and scant job security.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...xture/2496585/

  30. #26
    A lot of these jobs are in health care AND social assistance. The population ages, meaning more Medicaid/Medicare dollars for jobs. Social assistance jobs are dominated by government.

    Taking care of sick people with government dollars and social work programs are not the jobs of yesteryear.



    Employment in the healthcare and social assistance industry is projected to increase 29 percent through 2022, compared to an average of 11 percent for all industries. The healthcare and social assistance industry group is projected to be the fastest growing industry overall from 2012 to 2022.

    Healthcare and social assistance is projected to be the fastest growing industry within the service-providing division from 2012 to 2022, with a 2.6% per year growth rate. The healthcare and social assistance industry is also expected to become the largest industry by 2022, overtaking state and local government by number of jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    http://www.nasrecruitment.com/upload...to-2022-72.pdf

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Unemployment peaked in 2010 (not 2009) and so did the poverty rate and they have been falling since.

    A one year increase is not a trend.


























  32. #28
    You win. Things have only ever sucked and have only gotten worse. Might as well move to China since they are the only country growing economically. No jobs or future here.

    (Poverty rate depends on where you draw an arbitrary line. Folks listed as in poverty today are hugely better off than the average family rated as in poverty 50 or 100 years ago- we can instantly change the poverty rate by changing where we draw the cuttoff line even if incomes are unchanged).

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...e-poverty-rate

    There is broad consensus among economists of many ideological schools that the way the U.S. measures poverty is broken. The official poverty thresholds are based off of what Americans spent on food in 1963 – according to the Census Bureau, a household making less than three times what the "minimum food diet" in 1963 cost is below the poverty threshold.

    But the way Americans spend has changed markedly since then. People spent around one-quarter of their budgets on food in the 1960s. By 2003 it was closer to 13 percent, according to the Labor Department. The Gates Foundation calculated in 2012 that Americans now spend only 6 percent of their money on food. Spending on child care and health care, meanwhile, have grown.

    In addition, the official poverty rate doesn't take into account some safety net programs designed to help the poorest Americans. Cash transfers like Social Security are included when determining poverty, but non-cash programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as food stamps) are not included. Taxes are also not taken into account, says Tanner.

    "Someone whose income is above the poverty line but their take-home pay is below the poverty line because of their tax liability is not poor, by our definition," he says. Likewise, the Earned Income Tax Credit is also not taken into account in the official estimate.

    In addition, the federal poverty line applies across a nation in which families have widely varying costs of living; a family earning $20,000 in rural Kansas will likely find it easier to make ends meet than a family in New York City.

    Taken together, all of those factors could affect the rate substantially. With this in mind, the Census Bureau in 2011 started publishing a "supplemental poverty measure" that takes into account all of these factors, among others. The new rate doesn't garner the kind of headlines that the official rate does, but it does tell a different story.

    In a December paper, scholars found that by this measure, poverty has improved drastically since the 1960s
    Link to the newer "Supplemental Poverty Measure" paper. http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-14-2015 at 12:57 PM.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    People spent around one-quarter [25%] of their budgets on food in the 1960s...

    ...in 2012...Americans now spend only 6 percent of their money on food.

    This great percentage change from 25% to 6% doesn't make sense. You can skimp on a food budget, but not reduce it that much. Food consumption will stay fairly constant over time because people always need to eat.

    Fast food is the classic example of cheaper food with lower quality, but even things like that can't account for such a change. The numbers are not correct.

    Besides that, your "US News" article is using different sources to compare 1960s and 2012 food budgets. I can't take pop media silliness very seriously, so I am not even bothering with the rest of your article.

  34. #30
    Some consumer items might be cheaper today, but they represent worse value. Walmartt had a lawn mower for $100. A guy who bought one told me it lasted two years. If I buy a $300 mower that lasts 10 years, then the $300 mower is a better value.

    Price is only one component of value.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Media Economic Cheerleading Masks True State of Job Recovery
    By Smaulgld in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-10-2015, 04:53 AM
  2. There Will Be No Economic Recovery
    By opal in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-27-2013, 06:58 PM
  3. Rand Paul masks his true worldview (LOL)
    By radiofriendly in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-15-2013, 05:10 PM
  4. [VIDEO] UK Banning the wearing of face masks & taking control of social media networking
    By Reason in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-12-2011, 05:37 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-17-2010, 02:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •