This is the only "political" number I care about. I and the 400+ members of the National Resume Writers Association follow this religiously b/c, unlike what most think, the better the unemployment rate, the more business we get. That's been the case for the past 15 years and I assume it will pretty much stay the same. Business has been booming since 2011. That's not subjective, it's fact. It is a topic of much discussion on our e-list. Of course, there are always going to be monthly fluctuations,- we never get caught up in that. You have to look at these things year-over-year. And there's just no debate that from January 2011 to August 2014, things have gotten much better. I apologize if this destroys your narrative, but facts are facts. Hopefully, you will find some way to regain your objectivity b/c you clearly lost in somewhere in 2008 and it would like to reunite with you at some point.
why are they giving up looking for a job? is it because they know they can't find one (part of the job of being president is creating an environment conducive to job growth)? is it because the incentives to not work are too great (also part of the presidents job)? Or it could be because they have struck it rich? the latter is unlikely
Incentives not to work? How much do you think unemployment insurance pays? I've been out of work for about 3 months. I can tell you I'm not doing it for the "incentives". There is no lack of jobs. The problem is with those doing the hiring. Companies have become so hyper focused on one or 2 things within the larger job description and they let the resume robots toss out potentially good candidates because they're missing some minor detail. There have been many postings I've applied to in which I'll have 99/100 of the skills, experience, and/or education they're looking for. I don't have that one thing and I get tossed. Sometimes it's because I wasn't from a particular industry. Sometimes, it's because of education (I don't have a masters or a degree in business) dspite the fact that they want someone with 10-15 years experience. Sometimes it's one technical skill that would be easily attained with minor training. Houston (O&G) and Austin (tech) are perfect examples of this. Companies complain they can't find enough people. But there are many like me with 15 years in progressively bigger and bigger roles that can't get a sniff because I haven't been in either of those 2 industries. This isn't the President's fault. It's the fault of lazy ass HR departments that put allele of their eggs in the basket with Monster, Indeed, linkedin, taleo, etc...and miss out on potentially great candidates. I don't want to be on unemployment. It f***ing sucks. Please tell me again how I'm a deadbeat living off the gubment.
Huh? I am presuming the incentive you are referring to is welfare which I am sure you would love to blame that on him too even though he was not the one who started it. How about this incentive? Minimum wage that which allows people to take home more money than welfare? Who blocked raising the minimum wage!
Don't pay attention to him. His comments are based on the narrative about "food stamp" president. People tend to forget that the economic downturn forced people to the unemployment line. This started right when Obama took office. But in their twisted logic, he is to blame for encouraging unemployment. People forget the motive of all business is to make a profit. Not to create jobs, not to enable their employees to feed their families. The motive is to make a profit. So, during any economic downturn, these companies will protect the bottom line by cutting hours, shifting to part-time workers, and layoffs. Even when making a profit, they will still outsource to increase their profits. It's just convenient and mentally lazy to simply blame Obama for every thing that is wrong with our country. On one hand, he is the worst POTUS in history, but on the other hand, he's suppose to fix everything in 4-8 years that was decades in the making. You can't argue with the illogical.
unless it causes u to get let go or not hired....... Also minimum wage is not an incentive. i like vouchers. lots of conservatives do. if that's your goal then lets just pay everyone to cut grass with toe nail clippers. tons of jobs.
It's not my goal. But the narrative that not increasing the minimum wage, eliminating the EPA, lowering regulations or not taxing some of these profitable companies will create this avalanche of jobs is false. At the end of the day, a CEO's job is to make money for the shareholders. In any shareholders meeting, the question is not how many jobs we created this quarter, it's how much money we made this quarter. Regardless if the CEO eliminated 1000 jobs to make that profit. That's my point, that I think you missed. Regardless of the industry.
To you, it's not convincing because you cannot get past your bias. That's your issue that you have to deal with. Conclusions about other topics (in a poll of 10,000....) are made with much less. The combined client base of that organization is 200,000+ per year. That's a fairly decent sampling by any consideration. Your retort illustrates nothing and proves nothing- it is the type of intellectual laziness you accuse others so often of engaging in. You answer one question: has unemployment improved from January 2011 to August 2014? It is a simple yes or no question and will reveal you to be honest or deceitful.
Absolutely right on the money. We in the careers industry are extremely frustrated about the lack of effective HR systems existing in many companies today. BTW, how many jobs have you applied for?
there isn't a single economist in the world who would agree with that statement. left or right. of course decreasing the minimum wage would increase the number of jobs. A. minimum wage destroys any job whose value is below minimum wage. if the minimum wage is $5 an hour and my skills are worth $3 then nobody hires me. not rocket science. A $5 minimum wage kills $3 dollar jobs. what does that have to do with anything? A CEOs job is do whatever the shareholders desire.
You might want to read some academic papers that show that raising the minimum wage has (in certain circumstances), raised the number of jobs. For a simpler read, here's the Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-good-harm-they-should-be-set-technocrats-not This is from the Economist, a pretty pro-business magazine.
why? what basic logical argument could they make? what happens to a job thats value is $3 when the minimum wage is $5?
since you're fascinated by this subject, here's the paper (which is quite famous in economic academia) by Card and Krueger http://www.nber.org/papers/w4509.pdf Please note, unlike your simplistic model outlined in your post, they actually took data from fast food restaurants and used the rise in minimum wage in NJ, compared with no change in Penn, and looked at the change in unemployment rate. Just because something seems to make sense in a simplified setting, doesn't mean the real world actually reacts that way. There is a small paragraph in the paper where the authors posit that the lack of change is because employers can change other aspects of their business model: Obviously I'm not saying raise the minimum wage to $50, that's just ridiculous, but some minimum wage doesn't seem to affect the unemployment rate that much.
i see . So you think this justifies your claim? Go bring that analysis to a fortune 500 company. see what they say. I'll tell you what they will say: 'Exactly how many factors do you think go into unemployment numbers?' You will never ever be able to convince anyone of anything without logic brantonli. Especially not using one cherry picked data point. you study doesn't back that claim at all.
I'd imagine if I brought this to a Fortune 500 company and went to their economist, they would probably agree with the findings. And of course there are a myriad of factors that go into the single unemployment rate, that's why the authors researched, tested the conclusion with difference in difference and other stat tests, and then came to the conclusion! do you think they just looked at a graph and immediately drew their conclusions? My goodness, did you even read the paper/understand it? Fine, let's go back to the Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/leade...t?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e You can theorise all you want, but when you look at the evidence, the minimum wage doesn't seem to affect unemployment that much. I should've added earlier about flexible and rigid markets, but since USA is quite a flexible labour market, the minimum wage should not be a problem. I know I don't seem to be able to convince you, despite a highly regarded paper and a largely pro-business magazine stating similar things, but that's ok. It's just a shame, and economics is never a perfect science.
