Unemployment rate

Your example is too micro. At the macro level and in long-term view, education and R&D is one of the direct causes production capabilities. The issue is that we're going from a manufacturing stage to a split stage of high-tech and service based economy. Our population is too large to be a straight technology based economy. But without the technology side, the service side can't exist (and not vice versa). Hence, I believe that the more education and R&D we get into, these new high-tech industries will bring new jobs.

Again, I think that if the income gap wasn't so incredibly huge, we'd be ok and it would be just a matter of time till unemployment is back to normal. If we each had enough money to invest into the economy (stocks, bonds, etc), you could accept a lower wage, which would keep jobs onshore, but counter the low wage with investment returns. But currently, the investors don't represent the average American (which is a reason why I hate trickle-down philosophy).

And no, I'm no economist but from the limited courses I took, it's what I got out of it. So don't expect me to back everything up with numbers hehe :grin: . It's just my opinion based on what I've seen and read.

 

Then you must declare yourself trollish -- I was agreeing with you.

It's sad to think that, because someone disagrees with you, that makes that person a troll. If true, that's very shallow thinking, indeed.

 

Disagreeing isn't trollish, it is the way one disagrees that can be characterized as such.

 

I think I am civil in my replies, except, of course, when someone is churlish. In such cases, I confess, I can give as well as I get.

 

My comment was not meant to be accusatory, merely a statement of what I believe to be fact.

 

Understood and, in the same vein, was my reply.

 

soviet union is to russia

that

united states is to ??????

 

Not only that, but Walmart employs over 1.5 million people in the U.S. directly (I - by far the largest employer in the U.S. second only to the federal gov't.

They deservedly had a pretty rotten image, but what they are doing now in terms of making their stores 100% green and their efforts in sustainability is pretty impressive. They are so big they can shape the entire retail industry.

 

I say we big time cut minimum wage. Controversial, yeah. But Americans getting a cut of something is better than getting nothing cuz it went to illegals or foreigners. Its actually competing with the rest of world in CHEAP low skilled wages. If thats indeed the "advantage" to getting work, and its a "deterrent" from employers hiring locally, why not open it up? Maybe its my belief that Americans can surprise with their initiative to want to pick strawberries as compared to NOTHING.

 

Its them hiring 20 part time-3/4 time workers with no benefits and no unions, instead of 10-12 fulltime workers. Diluting take home wages for everyone. But if thats the only way to get a job in the end, what can you do?

 

That's there prerogative. People have a choice to find other jobs. You don't have to be full-time to unionize, nor ask for benefits. But you can't bemoan the lack of benefits from corporations and then attack Universal Health care either.

I also think it's ironic that people were happy to run a deficit during the boom years in exchange for tax cut but in a recession they want gov't austerity.

I guess people have no idea about simple economic principles. We're ending stimulus and our economy is already showing signs of tanking again.

 

Yeah, fair wages of $10/hr. Haha. HOw do you compete with Mexico for physical labor? You import illegals!

"skilled" physical labor doesn't pay much anymore unless it's in construction. You can get skilled labor in Mexico, China, or India for much much cheaper. And there's no way for an American worker to work at that low of a rate and make a living.

If you worship the free market, than you should accept that the free market doesn't value physical labor that much anymore in the U.S. - and you better build something better if you plan on doing something like...buying a home.

By the way, here's what the Republicans are doing....they are tanking the economy to win in November. Even Republican economists support extending unemployment benefits. But your beloved party has axed that to help the economy tank and win more votes. Is there anything more cynical than that?


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/research_desk_responds_is_unem.html

 

You are right on this. Despite Fox News, and libertarian like ideology, and the Dems spinelessness for not just calling them out directly on this, I think a certain percentage of those going through unemployment will wise up as to what side their bread is buttered on.

 

Or we could just follow the Democrat-passed law and actually PAY for the benefits, in which case Republicans would vote for them. The benefits are out of control anyway. At some point well prior to the two year mark, people either need to find a job or stop expecting handouts.

 

republicans (and ben nelson) stopping unemployment checks is really criminal.

anyone w/o a multi-million dollar trust fund that supports republican policies is an idiot.

and JCD, pray tell how people are supposed to find jobs when the official unemployment number is near 10% and underemployment and those not considered part of the workforce is well over that?

this isn't a matter of people not wanting to find jobs because unemployment pays so well. its a matter of we don't have jobs.

if anything those checks help stimulate the economy.

 

That was obviously the wrong thing to do then.

But lets just compound the problem going forward.

 

lets solve demand by killing spending.

brilliant.

 

Instead of looking to protect manufacturing jobs in industries that we can't do competitively we could look to develop new industries and also industries that are impractical to outsource. For instance we could focus on developing renewable energy sources and building an infrastructure based on such.