COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
NIGGER CURRY throws zandi under bus

Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi, frequently cited by the White House in support of its economic proposals, told CNBC that Obamacare may be partially responsible for the disappointing jobs numbers released earlier today. “The retail trade number would be consistent not only with the payroll tax, but, again, I think health-care reform might be having an impact,” he argued.

Zandi also rejected the idea that the sequester is dragging down the economy. “I don’t think the sequester is in here at all; I think it’s way too premature for the sequester,” he said.
:D
 
https://encrypted-tbn2.***********/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqW8cq7hZ9wqkNU5L5GY0Vtje4TV0hYW0QVefTlaRWxzkG-PZZ
 
1ea422107d6601302307001dd8b71c47
 
JohnnySavage said:
Merc has his point all upside down.

As people retire they are no longer counted as part of the labor force. Thus, the participation rate would go up, not down.
Click to expand...

No, I'm right. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the population; the population most definitely includes retirees. You're correct that retirees aren't counted as being in the labor force, therefore unemployment will not spike because of the baby boomers retiring - but in no way are they removed from the population count.

The CBO reports that they expect the labor force participation rate to drop further as workers continue to retire. They don't expect the decline to bottom out until late 2014. And now I can't find the link to that but I think that's what their crystal ball is telling them.
 
mercury14 said:
No, I'm right. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the population; the population most definitely includes retirees. You're correct that retirees aren't counted as being in the labor force, therefore unemployment will not spike because of the baby boomers retiring - but in no way are they removed from the population count.

The CBO reports that they expect the labor force participation rate to drop further as workers continue to retire. They don't expect the decline to bottom out until late 2014. And now I can't find the link to that but I think that's what their crystal ball is telling them.
Click to expand...

No, it's the number of employed as a percentage of the population between 16 and 64 (minus several minor demographics).

But it's a beautiful day, so this isn't that important to me.
 
JohnnySavage said:
No, it's the number of employed as a percentage of the population between 16 and 64 (minus several minor demographics).

But it's a beautiful day, so this isn't that important to me.
Click to expand...

Okay well here are the raw numbers that the BLS is using and as you can see they're incorporating people age 65+ into their population total for this calculation. It's right there on the first page at the top.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea13.pdf
 
I'm enjoying this respectful disagreement between Johnny Savage and mercury...both of them have convincing arguments. I'm sitting here thinking...oh, he's right.....but he's right as well! ...and he's right, too! :)

I think the underlying problem here is the vast amount of misinformation doled out by the RWCJ here to continually redefined unemployment to inflict maximum political damage on President Obama.

I'd also like to point out that the first cohort of baby boomers (those in the 54 to 64 age band) is increasing tremendously as a percentage of the workforce. As a rule these folks on average tend to pull a higher salary owing to their level of experience, so when there is a severe economic downturn (such as the recent Bush Recession) these folks have a much more difficult time finding a replacement job at the same income level when they are laid off.

In any event, I still blame Bush. :D (Hey AJ blamed Clinton for 12 years afterwards!)
 
HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? (CONT’D): Behind the Dismal Jobs Numbers: The ‘New’ Economy Takes Shape. “It isn’t just Obamacare that is reshaping our economy. Obama administration policies and regulations that make it more difficult to start a business means that there will be fewer entrepreneurs creating new products that require good workers to make them. Employers will seek to hire more temporary help during busy periods rather than permanently expand their workforce. The number of full time workers in some industries will drop dramatically as companies adjust to an economy of sluggish growth, high taxes, and a clinging uncertainty about the future.”
 
Dollars Over Decency: School Kids Without Money Have Lunch Taken Away And Thrown Out
2013/04/05
By Justin "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario

Conservatives and liberals have two distinct views of the world. In one, no child ever goes hungry regardless of whether or not they can pay for food. In the other, you have this:

ATTLEBORO — As many as 25 students at Coelho Middle School were denied meals or told to throw their lunches away Tuesday because they could not pay or their pre-paid accounts did not contain enough money, school officials said today.

Parents said some of the children cried after they were not allowed to eat or had to toss out their lunches.

School officials said an on-site employee from Whitson’s, the school system’s school lunch provider, apparently gave the order not to extend meals to students who could not pay or whose credit was already overextended.

Imagine, for a second, the mindset required to force hungry children to throw food in the garbage? It’s not like the food was given to a child that could pay, it was just wasted. It’s the ultimate in conservative thought: I will gain nothing from this but the satisfaction of knowing you did not get a free meal.

This is why privatizing government functions is a bad idea in almost every circumstance but particularly in those that provide a direct service. Once a profit motive is introduced, it ceases to be about fulfilling a public need, now it becomes about making a profit by any means necessary. The idea of providing children a nutritious meal so they can grow and learn and contribute to society becomes a narrow and selfish pursuit of the bottom line. If children are left to go hungry, well, that’s capitalism for you!

It’s not as if they couldn’t feed them, the district has a policy where a student that can’t pay for the regular meal will be provided with a cheese sandwich and milk. It’s not the most appealing of meals but it will certainly keep a child fed. But instead, this privately run company decided that over twenty kids simply shouldn’t eat if it was going to cost the company money:

Parents said they were told by their children that some pupils in the cafeteria line had already picked up their lunch and were told at the checkout they had to throw it away.

Victoria Greaves, 11, a fifth grader at Coelho, said a cashier told her to throw away her lunch because there was not enough money in her account. She said she threw her meal away and got nothing to eat.

We’re left to wonder what the cashier planned on doing if the child refused to comply. Would they physically take the food away? Was the couple of dollars really that important?

The larger question that isn’t being asked yet is how did we come to a point where anyone can even think that depriving children of food is a moral thing to do? In the richest nation on Earth, are we so blinded by greed and the pursuit of the Holy Dollar that we don’t even consider that going out of our way to let a child go hungry to be the act of a sociopath? Would we rather throw food in the garbage than let someone eat it for free? Who thinks that way?

House Republicans recently proposed cuts to nutrition assistance that will kick 280,000 low-income children off automatic enrollment in the Free School Lunch and Breakfast Program. Those same kids and 1.5 million other people will also lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamp benefits) that help them afford food at home.

Ah. Well, that explains that, doesn’t it?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/05/dollars-over-decency-school-kids-without-money-have-lunch-taken-away-and-thrown-out/
 
IrezumiKiss said:
Dollars Over Decency: School Kids Without Money Have Lunch Taken Away And Thrown Out
2013/04/05
By Justin "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario

Conservatives and liberals have two distinct views of the world. In one, no child ever goes hungry regardless of whether or not they can pay for food. In the other, you have this:

ATTLEBORO — As many as 25 students at Coelho Middle School were denied meals or told to throw their lunches away Tuesday because they could not pay or their pre-paid accounts did not contain enough money, school officials said today.

Parents said some of the children cried after they were not allowed to eat or had to toss out their lunches.

School officials said an on-site employee from Whitson’s, the school system’s school lunch provider, apparently gave the order not to extend meals to students who could not pay or whose credit was already overextended.

Imagine, for a second, the mindset required to force hungry children to throw food in the garbage? It’s not like the food was given to a child that could pay, it was just wasted. It’s the ultimate in conservative thought: I will gain nothing from this but the satisfaction of knowing you did not get a free meal.

This is why privatizing government functions is a bad idea in almost every circumstance but particularly in those that provide a direct service. Once a profit motive is introduced, it ceases to be about fulfilling a public need, now it becomes about making a profit by any means necessary. The idea of providing children a nutritious meal so they can grow and learn and contribute to society becomes a narrow and selfish pursuit of the bottom line. If children are left to go hungry, well, that’s capitalism for you!

It’s not as if they couldn’t feed them, the district has a policy where a student that can’t pay for the regular meal will be provided with a cheese sandwich and milk. It’s not the most appealing of meals but it will certainly keep a child fed. But instead, this privately run company decided that over twenty kids simply shouldn’t eat if it was going to cost the company money:

Parents said they were told by their children that some pupils in the cafeteria line had already picked up their lunch and were told at the checkout they had to throw it away.

Victoria Greaves, 11, a fifth grader at Coelho, said a cashier told her to throw away her lunch because there was not enough money in her account. She said she threw her meal away and got nothing to eat.

We’re left to wonder what the cashier planned on doing if the child refused to comply. Would they physically take the food away? Was the couple of dollars really that important?

The larger question that isn’t being asked yet is how did we come to a point where anyone can even think that depriving children of food is a moral thing to do? In the richest nation on Earth, are we so blinded by greed and the pursuit of the Holy Dollar that we don’t even consider that going out of our way to let a child go hungry to be the act of a sociopath? Would we rather throw food in the garbage than let someone eat it for free? Who thinks that way?

House Republicans recently proposed cuts to nutrition assistance that will kick 280,000 low-income children off automatic enrollment in the Free School Lunch and Breakfast Program. Those same kids and 1.5 million other people will also lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamp benefits) that help them afford food at home.

Ah. Well, that explains that, doesn’t it?

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/05/dollars-over-decency-school-kids-without-money-have-lunch-taken-away-and-thrown-out/
Click to expand...
Well, no. The goons who put their feet down have been fired.

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news...cle_c5eceb0c-4b43-5551-acf3-efb3b33ef754.html
 
So if SOME students PAY

and

Some DONT


WHT SHOULD ANYONE PAY?

Cant pay? SELL THE BLING AND PAY!:mad:
 
HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? (CONT’D): Five years in to the Great Recession, the economy still isn’t putting people back to work. Huh. What could’ve happened five years ago to disrupt the American economy’s traditional ability to create jobs?:confused::rolleyes:
 
LEGAL EDUCATION UPDATE: WSJ: More Than 50% of Law Graduates Aren’t Making a Living.

Law graduates?

Fuck that shit, they shoulda studied CUNT STUFF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Counselor706
Joe Biden and the powerless presidency
Replies
5
Views
261
John_von_Neumann
J
Ulaven_Demorte
New and Improved "Doom and Gloom™" Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
K
Paul Krugman: "In Defense of Obama"
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
5K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Ulaven_Demorte
About all of the minimum wage "Doom and Gloom"
2
Replies
30
Views
815
bronzeage
bronzeage
4
Investing In a World of Make Believe
Replies
8
Views
265
eyer
E
Back
Top