Dropping some facts...CAA Flagship wrote:http://portalseven.com/employment/unemp ... ate_u6.jsp∞∞∞ wrote:Remember when unemployment was low under Obama but the GOP dismissed it by saying large swaths of Americans dropped out of the workforce and most new jobs were low-paying?
I guess it's all sunshine and rainbows now.
U-6
Last 19 months - 9.4 to 7.4 (21% drop)
Previous 19 months - 10.5 to 9.4 (10% drop)
There's an interesting economic effect/theory which deals with business psychology which states that unemployment rates don't fluctuate much during Presidential election years (2008 being the great exception). Ultimately it boils down to the fact that people end up taking a wait-and-see approach.CAA Flagship wrote:http://portalseven.com/employment/unemp ... ate_u6.jsp∞∞∞ wrote:Remember when unemployment was low under Obama but the GOP dismissed it by saying large swaths of Americans dropped out of the workforce and most new jobs were low-paying?
I guess it's all sunshine and rainbows now.
U-6
Last 19 months - 9.4 to 7.4 (21% drop)
Previous 19 months - 10.5 to 9.4 (10% drop)
I don't doubt that to be a factor. But the Obama admin ran out of Federal Reserve's economic stimulus moves. In an environment of rising interest rates and Fed unwinding of it's balance sheet, something needed to be done to boost the economy. Hillary's message during the campaign was more of the same. That wasn't going to do it.∞∞∞ wrote:There's an interesting economic effect/theory which deals with business psychology which states that unemployment rates don't fluctuate much during Presidential election years (2008 being the great exception). Ultimately it boils down to the fact that people end up taking a wait-and-see approach.CAA Flagship wrote:
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemp ... ate_u6.jsp
U-6
Last 19 months - 9.4 to 7.4 (21% drop)
Previous 19 months - 10.5 to 9.4 (10% drop)
There's a name for it but I can't recall.
But who's benefiting from the economic boost?CAA Flagship wrote: I don't doubt that to be a factor. But the Obama admin ran out of Federal Reserve's economic stimulus moves. In an environment of rising interest rates and Fed unwinding of it's balance sheet, something needed to be done to boost the economy. Hillary's message during the campaign was more of the same. That wasn't going to do it.
∞∞∞ wrote:Remember when unemployment was low under Obama but the GOP dismissed it by saying large swaths of Americans dropped out of the workforce and most new jobs were low-paying?
I guess it's all sunshine and rainbows now.
People dont deserve any of the things you mentioned, unless they go out and work for it themselves. People that dont run businesses (YOU) have ZERO clue what you are talking about.∞∞∞ wrote:But who's benefiting from the economic boost?CAA Flagship wrote: I don't doubt that to be a factor. But the Obama admin ran out of Federal Reserve's economic stimulus moves. In an environment of rising interest rates and Fed unwinding of it's balance sheet, something needed to be done to boost the economy. Hillary's message during the campaign was more of the same. That wasn't going to do it.
Don't take me wrong - it's great that unemployment is continuing to decrease - but it's also an issue when money isn't really reaching regular people (and actually trickling up). Additionally, we've significantly added to the deficit when the smart thing to do during an economic boom is to pay down debts.
People want good jobs. People want good pay. People want good benefits. And that's why "it's the economy stupid" isn't holding up for Trump's GOP; unlike predecessors, they've terribly managed the boom.
∞∞∞ wrote:But who's benefiting from the economic boost?CAA Flagship wrote: I don't doubt that to be a factor. But the Obama admin ran out of Federal Reserve's economic stimulus moves. In an environment of rising interest rates and Fed unwinding of it's balance sheet, something needed to be done to boost the economy. Hillary's message during the campaign was more of the same. That wasn't going to do it.
Don't take me wrong - it's great that unemployment is continuing to decrease - but it's also an issue when money isn't really reaching regular people (and actually trickling up). Additionally, we've significantly added to the deficit when the smart thing to do during an economic boom is to pay down debts.
People want good jobs. People want good pay. People want good benefits. And that's why "it's the economy stupid" isn't holding up for Trump's GOP when it should be the complete opposite.
Tell someone they will make $30 per hour at age 22 and that they will make that amount (inflation adjusted) for the bulk of their lives. Will they take that offer? Should they take that offer?∞∞∞ wrote:Flaggy - there's been a fundamental shift in how Americans view the relationship between Capitalism and Socialism, especially with people my age and younger.
You and the GOP can argue the merits of the current economic system all you want, but at a purely democratic level, these views continue to represent less and less people every year.
I ask you this:
If 35% of voters want America to be pure capitalist nation, 60% want stronger socialist elements mixed with capitalism, and another 5% want pure socialism...from the perspective of a representative democracy, which one should win out? If people don't want capitalism, do you force it? Because if so, that's undemocratic.
We haven't reached that point yet, but voting trends are moving this way. The GOP needs to adapt.
I have no idea, but that's a lot of money. If I took a guess, I think most people would.CAA Flagship wrote:Tell someone they will make $30 per hour at age 22 and that they will make that amount (inflation adjusted) for the bulk of their lives. Will they take that offer? Should they take that offer?
SHOULD they?∞∞∞ wrote:I have no idea, but that's a lot of money. If I took a guess, I think most people would.CAA Flagship wrote:Tell someone they will make $30 per hour at age 22 and that they will make that amount (inflation adjusted) for the bulk of their lives. Will they take that offer? Should they take that offer?
Cliff notes version: Millennials are stupid.Millennials are free marketeers. When asked to choose which is the better system, 64 percent of millennials say a free market system and 32 percent favor an economy managed by the government. By a narrower margin, 52 percent favor capitalism and 42 percent choose socialism.
Millennials appear to be more favorable toward socialism than a government-managed economy, even though the latter is arguably less interventionist. This raises the question: Do millennials know what socialism means?
Perhaps not. A 2010 CBS/New York Times survey found that when Americans were asked to use their own words to define the word “socialism” millennials were the least able to do so. Accord to the survey, only 16 percent of millennials could define socialism as government ownership, or some variation thereof, compared to 30 percent of Americans over 30 (and 57% of tea partiers, incidentally).
This may explain why socialism garners greater support than a government-managed economy. Interestingly, millennial support for a government-managed economy (32%) mirrors national favorability toward the word “socialism” (31%). Millennial preferences may not be so different from older generations once terms are defined.
No we don't.∞∞∞ wrote:Flaggy - there's been a fundamental shift in how Americans view the relationship between Capitalism and Socialism, especially with people my age and younger.
You and the GOP can argue the merits of the current economic system all you want, but at a purely democratic level, these views continue to represent less and less people every year.
I ask you this:
If 35% of voters want America to be purely capitalist, 60% want stronger socialist elements mixed with capitalism, and another 5% want pure socialism...from the perspective of a representative democracy, which wins out? If people don't want capitalism, do you force it? If so, this seems undemocratic.
We haven't reached that point yet, but voting trends are moving this way. And the GOP needs to adapt.
You would be wrong.∞∞∞ wrote:I have no idea, but that's a lot of money. If I took a guess, I think most people would.CAA Flagship wrote:Tell someone they will make $30 per hour at age 22 and that they will make that amount (inflation adjusted) for the bulk of their lives. Will they take that offer? Should they take that offer?
Of course, you can name 1 country who had turned to socialism successfully? Became better off after wards then they were before?∞∞∞ wrote:Flaggy - there's been a fundamental shift in how Americans view the relationship between Capitalism and Socialism, especially with people my age and younger.
You and the GOP can argue the merits of the current economic system all you want, but at a purely democratic level, these views continue to represent less and less people every year.
I ask you this:
If 35% of voters want America to be purely capitalist, 60% want stronger socialist elements mixed with capitalism, and another 5% want pure socialism...from the perspective of a representative democracy, which wins out? If people don't want capitalism, do you force it? If so, this seems undemocratic.
We haven't reached that point yet, but voting trends are moving this way. And the GOP needs to adapt.
This phrase makes zero sense.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I can currently pay $32.70 an hour and nobody will work for it. I am flying 2 people in from Arizona and Colorado to work for that slave wage.
Socialism has one meaning ... period ... if you want another word to describe your view of utopia, then make one up?∞∞∞ wrote:This phrase makes zero sense.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I can currently pay $32.70 an hour and nobody will work for it. I am flying 2 people in from Arizona and Colorado to work for that slave wage.
And 89 - my generation's definition of socialism is not your generation's definition. Most millennials (including myself) want a capitalist system, but one which doesn't disproportionately funnel money to the top. We can recognize laziness, but we can also recognize when the system is not fair.
You also have to realize we've grown up with social media and a shared economy (crowdfunding, ride-sharing, co-working, etc). So sharing in general doesn't really phase the stereotypical millennial. If anything, it's a very fundamental part of our lives and as such, a fundamental part of our politics.
According to this, somebody is.∞∞∞ wrote: But who's benefiting from the economic boost?
And none of that outpaced inflation:CAA Flagship wrote:According to this, somebody is.∞∞∞ wrote: But who's benefiting from the economic boost?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... a68460b614Prices rose at their highest clip since 2012 over the past year, the Labor Department reported Thursday.
The 2.9 percent inflation for the twelve-month period ending in June is a sign of a growing economy, but it’s also a painful development for workers, whose tepid wage gains have failed to keep pace with the rising prices.
The cost of food, shelter and gas have all risen significantly in the past year. Gas skyrocketed more than 24 percent, rent for a primary residence jumped 3.6 percent and meals at restaurants and cafeterias rose 2.8 percent.
Prices have risen roughly at the same rate as wages, erasing any gains workers may have hoped to realize via bigger paychecks.
∞∞∞ wrote:This phrase makes zero sense.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I can currently pay $32.70 an hour and nobody will work for it. I am flying 2 people in from Arizona and Colorado to work for that slave wage.
And 89 - my generation's definition of socialism is not your generation's definition. Most millennials (including myself) want a capitalist system, but one which doesn't disproportionately funnel money to the top. We can recognize laziness, but we can also recognize when the system is not fair.
You also have to realize we've grown up with social media and a shared economy (crowdfunding, ride-sharing, co-working, etc). So sharing in general doesn't really phase the stereotypical millennial. If anything, it's a very fundamental part of our lives and as such, a fundamental part of our politics.
Most successful nations mix democracy, capitalism, and strong social programs supported by higher taxes - paid by everyone including the rich. This provides the benefits of capitalism without excessive wealth inequalities, and provides a better lifestyle for lower-class citizens. So yes, we don't want "socialism" in its purest form; it's a "social democratic" system that millennials fundamentally agree with.Bisonfanatical wrote:Of course, you can name 1 country who had turned to socialism successfully? Became better off after wards then they were before?
Misguided or not - if it's the will of the people - it's the direction America will take.89Hen wrote:I think that post pretty sums up your misguided views pretty neatly. What's crazy is I thought you were 24. At 29 you should be more tuned in to the real world, but alas, you're not.
Not all millennial's have grown up with social media. Social Media didn't exist until I was a Junior/Senior in college. There are millions and millions of us that have zero in common with the way millennial's like you were brought up. While it's a gross generalization - we also didn't grow up with crowdsharing. There's a large contingent of us that grew up in an analog world, during the Clinton administration and were forever changed as we were college freshmen and sophomores watching the Twin Towers fall. We watched the world go to shit and then we graduated.∞∞∞ wrote:This phrase makes zero sense.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I can currently pay $32.70 an hour and nobody will work for it. I am flying 2 people in from Arizona and Colorado to work for that slave wage.
And 89 - my generation's definition of socialism is not your generation's definition. Most millennials (including myself) want a capitalist system, but one which doesn't disproportionately funnel money to the top. We can recognize laziness, but we can also recognize when the system is not fair.
You also have to realize we've grown up with social media and a shared economy (crowdfunding, ride-sharing, co-working, etc). So sharing in general doesn't really phase the stereotypical millennial. If anything, it's a very fundamental part of our lives and as such, a fundamental part of our politics.
Time will tell, but you can't say that with certainty (that it's actually the will). The fact that you don't know the difference between charity and socialism tells me you have no clue.∞∞∞ wrote:Misguided or not - if it's the will of the people - it's the direction America will take.89Hen wrote:I think that post pretty sums up your misguided views pretty neatly. What's crazy is I thought you were 24. At 29 you should be more tuned in to the real world, but alas, you're not.
I've already debunked this myth. Don't make me do it again.∞∞∞ wrote:But who's benefiting from the economic boost?CAA Flagship wrote: I don't doubt that to be a factor. But the Obama admin ran out of Federal Reserve's economic stimulus moves. In an environment of rising interest rates and Fed unwinding of it's balance sheet, something needed to be done to boost the economy. Hillary's message during the campaign was more of the same. That wasn't going to do it.
Don't take me wrong - it's great that unemployment is continuing to decrease - but it's also an issue when money isn't really reaching regular people (and actually trickling up). Additionally, we've significantly added to the deficit when the smart thing to do during an economic boom is to pay down debts.
People want good jobs. People want good pay. People want good benefits. And that's why "it's the economy stupid" isn't holding up for Trump's GOP; unlike predecessors, they've terribly managed the boom.
Slow, sustainable growth which benefits a wider portion of the population is better for the long-term health of a nation than the damaging, get-rich-quick schemes which benefit a small portion of people.
