While I agree with much of what the article says I strongly disagree that conservatives or conservative policies are to blame. Just look at Ronald Reagan as an example! President Reagan was a strong conservative and his policies benefited all Americans. Poverty decreased and the middle-class was strengthened and Reagan's policies resulted in the greatest period of wealth and economic expansion the world has ever known. Lower taxes and less government intrusion created greater economic incentives, which result in more jobs and more business oportunities and a lifting of all boats in the grand scheme of things. Contrast that with Barack Obama's liberal policies that are recking havoc throughout that nation.
As far as unions go, years ago unions were seen as a benefit to workers and society and the country itself. But things have changed a lot during the last 50 years. Union members now demand exorbitant salaries and ridiculous benefits and it is one of the reasons why America is going bankrupt in my opinion. Unions have become corrupt entities and in many cases they are now a liability to a once functioning economy. Unions also donate huge sums of money to the Democrat Party in an attempt to gain power and influence over the political process. Progressive Democrats have controlled Washington D.C. since January 2007 and the economy and the country itself have gone downhill ever since. Obviously the unions and the Democrat Party itself bears much of the responsibility for the myriad of problems afflicting the nation. Put two and two together and it spells disaster. Democrats and the unions have conspired together and as a result they have pummeled the economy and have harmed the middle-class and it's high time the American people wake up and come to their senses.
I am all for decent wages earned through hard work. But there comes a point of diminishing returns that ends up being bad for both the economy and the country. And today's unions are a prime example of that reality. I am adamantly opposed to government overreach that harms the economy and that oppresses the citizenry and I am also opposed to union cronies that try to buy elections. Liberal policies don't work and evidence abounds to prove my point.
Take a gander at Wisconsin where Gov. Scott Walker has reined in the unions and now the state has turned around economically for the better. Large deficits have been replaced with surpluses in Wisconsin and in other states where conservative Republican governors hold power. On the other hand liberal policies are ruining the economy and the country too for that matter. As an example look at California. California is being run into the ground by liberal Governor Jerry Brown. California has the highest overall taxes and it has the highest poverty rate with some of the highest electricity rates and also some of the highest gas and diesel prices, high unemployment and with some of the highest property taxes in the nation which is leading millions of people into rental apartments just in order to survive. California is drowning in debt even though the latest tax hike momentarily plugged the dam from bursting outright. Feeling his oats (after raking Californians over the coals with recent higher taxes) Governor Jerry Brown is now determined to build a $78 billion dollar high-speed train to nowhere, which will further erode the economy. Another state bleeding massive amounts of red ink is New York which is run by uber liberal Andrew Cuomo. People are fleeing New York in droves as a result of extremely high taxes and other onerous regulations which have harmed New York's economy and ruined the state in general. Furthermore, the state of Illinois is also broke and destitute and it too is being run into the ground by a progressive liberal Governor named Pat Quinn. And then are cities such as Detroit where Democrats have been in control since 1961 and have turned the city into a veritable train wreck that recently went bankrupt. Need I say more?
Conservatives aren't the problem and most assuredly conservative policies aren't the problem either. Facts are stubborn things. Just look at the facts and the evidence that surrounds them. Liberal policies are mostly to blame and liberalism itself is irresponsible and untenable in my opinion. Progressive liberals are basically socialists and socialism is tied to Marxist ideology and also communism. That is the main reason why America is declining under what is a socialist Obama administration. That is also why the U.S. economy is teetering on the brink of what could be a depression even as the national debt continues to rise exponentially under Barack Obama's presidency. Need I say more? If Barack Obama continues down the same wrong path then America will likely end up like Venezuela under Nicolas Maduro. Not a pretty picture I dare say. Lay the blame where the blame is due. Conservativism has the winning argument and conservatives in general want what's best for the nation and the citizenry. Nuff said.
While the jobless rate fell last month, the drop was due in large part to the long-term unemployed giving up on looking for work.
"Some of this is due to the fact that Baby Boomers retiring -- but only some," HuffPost's Mark Gongloff wrote last month. "Most of it has to do with the fact that the economy is still too weak to create enough jobs to draw people into the market. This is most clearly evident in the fact that younger people are leaving the labor force, too -- or never even entering it -- because they can't find jobs."
"The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) has created Director Watch. This site will highlight directors like Erskine Bowles and Martin Feldstein who stuff their pockets while not performing their jobs."
The BLS is a survey as is the Census. The SSA obtains their data from large aggregate tax filings, wage earnings statements, IRS. If one notices in a W2 paystub, you'll see FICA, Social security contributions.
The SSA determines benefits based on lifetime wage earnings, so that is where their statistics come from.
I personally prefer the SSA data since it is directly from wage data vs. a survey reported from people, or from employers.
Whenever you hear "too big to_____" that means that company has bribed every politician we have which sadly is the current "normal" in D.C.
When you have a corrupt gov't in a police state nothing can work.
Robert Oak should focus on the numbers - not Brookings' political credentials. Right wing outfits have been to slip up on their numbers as well. We all have our biases and public airings help to blunt the distortions.
Oak is spot on when he points to fact that absence of international migration distorts our estimating true lack of job creation in the United States over that last twenty years. This is due in part to poor data collection and an accompanying out of sight out of mind mentality
Our old stereotypes about migration are out of date. The critical issue for the USA is not containing immigration but stemming emigrations. Since 2008.roughly 3 million American citizens emigrate a long with 200,000 former Mexican immigrants. These are conservative figures. Given our history of positive inflow,the federal data apparatus is not set up to get a detailed look at outflows.
While most of the emigrants are baby boomer retirees, it is painfully clear that too many are the top young entrepreneur following opportunity (the money). If you can get financial backing in Panama or now it seems socialist France and you are turned down by USA bankers , you go abroad. Tax burden plays a back seat to our financial institutions betting against hard working entrepreneurs.
The central problem is that neither left or right have a clear and workable economic policy for the USA. The right most find new areas of economic expansions other than more coffee houses, trendy restaurants, and micro hotels. Real jobs will follow.
Brookings is a lobbyist group, therefore their papers are highly suspect and we have seen many errors in the past.
Birth/Death must include immigration figures for this is where the U.S. massive working age population growth is originating. To quote only native Birth/Death is misleading.
One venture capitalist gives us some fascinating insights about those in the very top 0.01% of the income ladder. Here are some excerpts and a link to the video of the full interview below:
"Ultimately, this is not about money—it's about status, privileges and power. For a subset of these people, the most important thing in the world is status, privilege and power. They have sacrificed everything for it. This is my world—I know a lot of these folks—and a lot of these folks are border-line sociopathic people, and they don't care about other people."
"According to the numbers just reported, births have declined and deaths have risen, in part a result of our aging population. Even so, the crude birth rate for 2012-2013—at 12.6 births per 1,000 population—is the lowest recorded in many decades. More importantly, the reported migration dynamics are once again headed in the wrong direction, following hopeful upturns last year."
Words out of my mouth. The government still relies on citizen loyalty and many still give it, but considering how this is now corporate America, I wonder how long it will take to erode. People believe God,family, country as the three great loyalties and their identities are wrapped in these.
From the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (February 12, 2014) - "The unemployment rate is down substantially from its October 2009 peak, but two-thirds of the decline is due to people dropping out of the labor force."
They also say that the long-term unemployed potentially exerts less influence on wages than the short-term unemployed. That's makes sense: The long-term unemployed are much more desperate, and will take whatever you throw at them, rather than make any demands from potential employers (They are lucky just to get a job interview.) But the Fed goes in wonkish detail to explain to us why this is.
Another study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York suggests that the out-performance of the American job market is, to a significant extent, a statistical mirage: American unemployment numbers reflect a shrinking labor force.
And from another post: "8 Million Jobs Short, 6 Million Missing Workers" to show the numbers from the Economic Policy Institute—but they appear to be far too conservative. I'd say at least 20 million jobs short and 20 million missing workers.
* Note: There were a couple of minor discrepancies in the SSA data for year-to-year numbers in gains for disability (from two different links at SSA), and one explanation might be that one is the number of "awards" not yet in payment status. After an award is first granted, there is usually a waiting period before a payment is made. But the discrepancy is only minor.
i know you own the site sir and apologize for not mentioning you by name ... i thought it would be understood that my heartfelt thanks go out to not only the owner of this blog but also to the various contributing authors who shed light on the war on america's workers.
cleaner for the lint of the Internet, comments that add nothing but dust. But I'm all for free speech, and it's about worth that ;) Might maybe have a point but doesn't show the ability to articulate it.
Maybe you should add a "Particularly Inept and/or Useless" comments section where things like this could be highlighted. It could serve as a clue to the unenlightened that they need to say why they think so...'cause it's how we talk at the big people's table.
to the site for registered users at this point? ;) Isn't it amazing some of these people, although there are paid corporate trolls trying to "control the social media representation" of the paying client. They get paid about 5 cents a comment. Nice work.
The Economic Policy Institute (updated February 7, 2014) gives us a breakdown of almost 6 million "missing workers" and says most missing workers are of prime working age and are listed below by age and gender:
Men under 25 — 960,000
Women under 25 — 400,000
Men 25–54 — 1,650,000
Women 25–54 — 1,170,000
Men 55+ — 640,000
Women 55+ — 910,000
While I agree with much of what the article says I strongly disagree that conservatives or conservative policies are to blame. Just look at Ronald Reagan as an example! President Reagan was a strong conservative and his policies benefited all Americans. Poverty decreased and the middle-class was strengthened and Reagan's policies resulted in the greatest period of wealth and economic expansion the world has ever known. Lower taxes and less government intrusion created greater economic incentives, which result in more jobs and more business oportunities and a lifting of all boats in the grand scheme of things. Contrast that with Barack Obama's liberal policies that are recking havoc throughout that nation.
As far as unions go, years ago unions were seen as a benefit to workers and society and the country itself. But things have changed a lot during the last 50 years. Union members now demand exorbitant salaries and ridiculous benefits and it is one of the reasons why America is going bankrupt in my opinion. Unions have become corrupt entities and in many cases they are now a liability to a once functioning economy. Unions also donate huge sums of money to the Democrat Party in an attempt to gain power and influence over the political process. Progressive Democrats have controlled Washington D.C. since January 2007 and the economy and the country itself have gone downhill ever since. Obviously the unions and the Democrat Party itself bears much of the responsibility for the myriad of problems afflicting the nation. Put two and two together and it spells disaster. Democrats and the unions have conspired together and as a result they have pummeled the economy and have harmed the middle-class and it's high time the American people wake up and come to their senses.
I am all for decent wages earned through hard work. But there comes a point of diminishing returns that ends up being bad for both the economy and the country. And today's unions are a prime example of that reality. I am adamantly opposed to government overreach that harms the economy and that oppresses the citizenry and I am also opposed to union cronies that try to buy elections. Liberal policies don't work and evidence abounds to prove my point.
Take a gander at Wisconsin where Gov. Scott Walker has reined in the unions and now the state has turned around economically for the better. Large deficits have been replaced with surpluses in Wisconsin and in other states where conservative Republican governors hold power. On the other hand liberal policies are ruining the economy and the country too for that matter. As an example look at California. California is being run into the ground by liberal Governor Jerry Brown. California has the highest overall taxes and it has the highest poverty rate with some of the highest electricity rates and also some of the highest gas and diesel prices, high unemployment and with some of the highest property taxes in the nation which is leading millions of people into rental apartments just in order to survive. California is drowning in debt even though the latest tax hike momentarily plugged the dam from bursting outright. Feeling his oats (after raking Californians over the coals with recent higher taxes) Governor Jerry Brown is now determined to build a $78 billion dollar high-speed train to nowhere, which will further erode the economy. Another state bleeding massive amounts of red ink is New York which is run by uber liberal Andrew Cuomo. People are fleeing New York in droves as a result of extremely high taxes and other onerous regulations which have harmed New York's economy and ruined the state in general. Furthermore, the state of Illinois is also broke and destitute and it too is being run into the ground by a progressive liberal Governor named Pat Quinn. And then are cities such as Detroit where Democrats have been in control since 1961 and have turned the city into a veritable train wreck that recently went bankrupt. Need I say more?
Conservatives aren't the problem and most assuredly conservative policies aren't the problem either. Facts are stubborn things. Just look at the facts and the evidence that surrounds them. Liberal policies are mostly to blame and liberalism itself is irresponsible and untenable in my opinion. Progressive liberals are basically socialists and socialism is tied to Marxist ideology and also communism. That is the main reason why America is declining under what is a socialist Obama administration. That is also why the U.S. economy is teetering on the brink of what could be a depression even as the national debt continues to rise exponentially under Barack Obama's presidency. Need I say more? If Barack Obama continues down the same wrong path then America will likely end up like Venezuela under Nicolas Maduro. Not a pretty picture I dare say. Lay the blame where the blame is due. Conservativism has the winning argument and conservatives in general want what's best for the nation and the citizenry. Nuff said.
While the jobless rate fell last month, the drop was due in large part to the long-term unemployed giving up on looking for work.
"Some of this is due to the fact that Baby Boomers retiring -- but only some," HuffPost's Mark Gongloff wrote last month. "Most of it has to do with the fact that the economy is still too weak to create enough jobs to draw people into the market. This is most clearly evident in the fact that younger people are leaving the labor force, too -- or never even entering it -- because they can't find jobs."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/unemployment-number-one-problem...
NBER Working Paper No. 19895
Issued in February 2014
(Pretty much says everything I did.)
http://www.nber.org/papers/w19895#fromrss
"The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) has created Director Watch. This site will highlight directors like Erskine Bowles and Martin Feldstein who stuff their pockets while not performing their jobs."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/corporate-cronyism-the-se_b_480...
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/director-watch/
The BLS is a survey as is the Census. The SSA obtains their data from large aggregate tax filings, wage earnings statements, IRS. If one notices in a W2 paystub, you'll see FICA, Social security contributions.
The SSA determines benefits based on lifetime wage earnings, so that is where their statistics come from.
I personally prefer the SSA data since it is directly from wage data vs. a survey reported from people, or from employers.
Whenever you hear "too big to_____" that means that company has bribed every politician we have which sadly is the current "normal" in D.C.
When you have a corrupt gov't in a police state nothing can work.
Robert Oak should focus on the numbers - not Brookings' political credentials. Right wing outfits have been to slip up on their numbers as well. We all have our biases and public airings help to blunt the distortions.
Oak is spot on when he points to fact that absence of international migration distorts our estimating true lack of job creation in the United States over that last twenty years. This is due in part to poor data collection and an accompanying out of sight out of mind mentality
Our old stereotypes about migration are out of date. The critical issue for the USA is not containing immigration but stemming emigrations. Since 2008.roughly 3 million American citizens emigrate a long with 200,000 former Mexican immigrants. These are conservative figures. Given our history of positive inflow,the federal data apparatus is not set up to get a detailed look at outflows.
While most of the emigrants are baby boomer retirees, it is painfully clear that too many are the top young entrepreneur following opportunity (the money). If you can get financial backing in Panama or now it seems socialist France and you are turned down by USA bankers , you go abroad. Tax burden plays a back seat to our financial institutions betting against hard working entrepreneurs.
The central problem is that neither left or right have a clear and workable economic policy for the USA. The right most find new areas of economic expansions other than more coffee houses, trendy restaurants, and micro hotels. Real jobs will follow.
Brookings is a lobbyist group, therefore their papers are highly suspect and we have seen many errors in the past.
Birth/Death must include immigration figures for this is where the U.S. massive working age population growth is originating. To quote only native Birth/Death is misleading.
One venture capitalist gives us some fascinating insights about those in the very top 0.01% of the income ladder. Here are some excerpts and a link to the video of the full interview below:
"Ultimately, this is not about money—it's about status, privileges and power. For a subset of these people, the most important thing in the world is status, privilege and power. They have sacrificed everything for it. This is my world—I know a lot of these folks—and a lot of these folks are border-line sociopathic people, and they don't care about other people."
http://youtu.be/80IUcRjIK5U
"According to the numbers just reported, births have declined and deaths have risen, in part a result of our aging population. Even so, the crude birth rate for 2012-2013—at 12.6 births per 1,000 population—is the lowest recorded in many decades. More importantly, the reported migration dynamics are once again headed in the wrong direction, following hopeful upturns last year."
Source: Brookings:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/01/24-us-population-grow...
Births are down to record levels (again) but last year we also had a record high number of high school graduates (again).
Article at the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/graduation-rate-record-high-sch...
So why are economists pegging job growth to population growth?
Words out of my mouth. The government still relies on citizen loyalty and many still give it, but considering how this is now corporate America, I wonder how long it will take to erode. People believe God,family, country as the three great loyalties and their identities are wrapped in these.
From the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (February 12, 2014) - "The unemployment rate is down substantially from its October 2009 peak, but two-thirds of the decline is due to people dropping out of the labor force."
They also say that the long-term unemployed potentially exerts less influence on wages than the short-term unemployed. That's makes sense: The long-term unemployed are much more desperate, and will take whatever you throw at them, rather than make any demands from potential employers (They are lucky just to get a job interview.) But the Fed goes in wonkish detail to explain to us why this is.
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/02/the-long-and-short-...
Another study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York suggests that the out-performance of the American job market is, to a significant extent, a statistical mirage: American unemployment numbers reflect a shrinking labor force.
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/02/comparing-us-and-eu...
Another post, "Prime Age Workers: Bulk of Discouraged Workers"
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2014/02/prime-age-workers-bulk-of-discour...
And this: "22% of all U.S. Households had no Earners" --- Maybe someone with a higher pay-grade can reconcile those numbers ;)
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2014/01/22-of-all-us-households-had-no-ea...
And from another post: "8 Million Jobs Short, 6 Million Missing Workers" to show the numbers from the Economic Policy Institute—but they appear to be far too conservative. I'd say at least 20 million jobs short and 20 million missing workers.
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2014/02/8-million-jobs-short-6-million-mi...
* Note: There were a couple of minor discrepancies in the SSA data for year-to-year numbers in gains for disability (from two different links at SSA), and one explanation might be that one is the number of "awards" not yet in payment status. After an award is first granted, there is usually a waiting period before a payment is made. But the discrepancy is only minor.
I was wondering if someone was going to buy me out is all. Acquisitions, awesome.
i know you own the site sir and apologize for not mentioning you by name ... i thought it would be understood that my heartfelt thanks go out to not only the owner of this blog but also to the various contributing authors who shed light on the war on america's workers.
thank you
cleaner for the lint of the Internet, comments that add nothing but dust. But I'm all for free speech, and it's about worth that ;) Might maybe have a point but doesn't show the ability to articulate it.
Maybe you should add a "Particularly Inept and/or Useless" comments section where things like this could be highlighted. It could serve as a clue to the unenlightened that they need to say why they think so...'cause it's how we talk at the big people's table.
What do you mean? I own the site.
I've also read that in some other places on the internet. Apparently economic populist has caught the attention of some moneyed right wing interests.
Kudos to the author of an honest economics blog about the disintegration of America's workers.
to the site for registered users at this point? ;) Isn't it amazing some of these people, although there are paid corporate trolls trying to "control the social media representation" of the paying client. They get paid about 5 cents a comment. Nice work.
I call a hot steaming load of BS on this comment ... go back to your Ayn Rand novel
The Economic Policy Institute (updated February 7, 2014) gives us a breakdown of almost 6 million "missing workers" and says most missing workers are of prime working age and are listed below by age and gender:
Men under 25 — 960,000
Women under 25 — 400,000
Men 25–54 — 1,650,000
Women 25–54 — 1,170,000
Men 55+ — 640,000
Women 55+ — 910,000
http://www.epi.org/publication/missing-workers/
Pages