Jump to content


Happy Independence Day UK!

UK Brexit independence day UK freedom God save the queen

  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

Klaatu_Nicto #101 Posted Jun 28 2016 - 18:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,569
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostNukelavee45, on Jun 28 2016 - 05:44, said:

 

You seem to be missing something here - that's a 40% unemployment rate. 

http://www.tradingec...employment-rate

 

That article shows a unemployment rate of 5%, with the all time high of 10% back in 1982.

 

Quote

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) declined by 178,000 to 1.9 million in May. These individuals accounted for 25.1 percent of the unemployed. The number of persons unemployed less than 5 weeks decreased by 338,000 to 2.2 million.

 

That's from the article.  1.9 million make up 25% of the total unemployed.  It's makes for easy math.  Total unemployed therefor is ~8million people.  So, you appear to be off by 92 million people.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com...he-labor-force/

 

This article gives a more detailed breakdown of that 92 million figure - it explains that 92 million ignores the number of people between 16 and 64 who could work, but aren't, because they are disabled, ill, retired, staying home to raise or support a family, in school, not working to care for family, retired.  If you look at the graphs in the article, where it shows the total pool of working age Americans by age, those teeny tiny red blocks are those unemployed, but wanting work. 

 

So, again, 100 million unemployed is a totally manufactured and cynical use of the data.  It's a falsehood.

 

As I posted earlier, According to the June 2016 figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of working age people who are employed is 59.7%.

 

If what you think is true than it should read 'according to the June 2016 figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of working age people who are employed is 95.0%.'

 

Maybe you should call the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and tell them they are wrong.



KenadianCSJ #102 Posted Jun 28 2016 - 18:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 14824 battles
  • 2,228
  • [F0XEY] F0XEY
  • Member since:
    08-04-2012

View PostKrentel, on Jun 28 2016 - 12:26, said:

 

Read the book.

 

Whether it's in the book or not is frankly not important. The entire line of thought is [edited]. 



Klaatu_Nicto #103 Posted Jun 28 2016 - 19:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,569
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostKenadianCSJ, on Jun 28 2016 - 09:55, said:

 

Whether it's in the book or not is frankly not important. The entire line of thought is [edited]. 

 

Do you know who Sumner Welles was?

Edited by Krentel, Jun 28 2016 - 19:09.


Nukelavee45 #104 Posted Jun 28 2016 - 20:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 17742 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View PostKrentel, on Jun 28 2016 - 18:30, said:

 

As I posted earlier, According to the June 2016 figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of working age people who are employed is 59.7%.

 

If what you think is true than it should read 'according to the June 2016 figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of working age people who are employed is 95.0%.'

 

Maybe you should call the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and tell them they are wrong.

 

Dude - you're playing games with the data.  Where do you think the numbers I posted came from?    Your total includes teh retired, disabled, ill; it includes people who chose to be stay at home parents, it includes people still in school, or who have returned to school.  There is a huge difference between unemployed but looking for a job/needing a job, and "unemployed because I have something else that has replaced a job".

 

100 million unemployed is a meaningless figure, because it doesn't break down the number into how many don't have jobs, but need and want jobs, from those who are occupied with things that aren't considered jobs.  Your stance implies 100 million people want and need jobs that don't exist for them; that reality is true for about 10 million people  - the other 90 million have other things to do.



KenadianCSJ #105 Posted Jun 28 2016 - 20:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 14824 battles
  • 2,228
  • [F0XEY] F0XEY
  • Member since:
    08-04-2012

View PostKrentel, on Jun 28 2016 - 13:04, said:

 

Do you know who Sumner Welles was?

 

I'm aware of who he is. Doesn't matter. The claim is asinine. 

Klaatu_Nicto #106 Posted Jun 28 2016 - 21:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,569
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostNukelavee45, on Jun 28 2016 - 11:11, said:

 

Dude - you're playing games with the data.  Where do you think the numbers I posted came from?    Your total includes teh retired, disabled, ill; it includes people who chose to be stay at home parents, it includes people still in school, or who have returned to school.  There is a huge difference between unemployed but looking for a job/needing a job, and "unemployed because I have something else that has replaced a job".

 

100 million unemployed is a meaningless figure, because it doesn't break down the number into how many don't have jobs, but need and want jobs, from those who are occupied with things that aren't considered jobs.  Your stance implies 100 million people want and need jobs that don't exist for them; that reality is true for about 10 million people  - the other 90 million have other things to do.

 

I originally wrote "Last I heard about 100,000,000 people of working age in the U.S. are unemployed."

 

You wrote "Krentle - dude, you said 100 million working age Americans are unemployed.  That's the number you need to prove."

 

I proved there are 83.3 million people of working age unemployed in America. I pointed out previously that number of working age Americans unemployed included retired people of working age such as myself.



Klaatu_Nicto #107 Posted Jun 28 2016 - 21:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,569
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

"Germany's war aim....build a new economic organization of Europe which will allow the smaller disposesed nations to trade on equal terms"

 



Nukelavee45 #108 Posted Jun 28 2016 - 23:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 17742 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View PostKrentel, on Jun 25 2016 - 02:55, said:

 

 


 

Unlike today, back then when you came to America you were expected to have to earn your keep, among other things .


 

 

 

View PostNukelavee45, on Jun 25 2016 - 14:56, said:

 

Except that most immigrants do find jobs and are self sufficient.   And, unlike today, North America was a developing region, where anybody who wanted to, could have land just for showing up.

 

Lot harder to live that traditional American dream when even the established folks are competing with corporate monoliths.

 

View PostKrentel, on Jun 25 2016 - 18:39, said:

 

Last I heard about 100,000,000 people of working age in the U.S. are unemployed.

 

Except - there's the context of of how you brought that number into the discussion - to support your opinion that immigrants are lazy, and sucking up free money and benefits.  And, so - back then, and during most of the 20th century, single income families were the norm. 

 

It's a meaningless number, used by you here in a very cynical manner to support your views.  Yes, they are unemployed and don't get a wage, but not working isn't the issue for the full 100 million.  They have other means of support, and have activities that take the place of being wage slaves, by choice.  A great many of them don't need to work, because their partners support the entire family, or they have trust funds, or won the lottery, or whatever. 

 

The important number, the one that means something, is the 8 million who want or need work, that can't get it.

 

Let's spin this around a moment - why do you think that it is a number that's worth mentioning, in the context you brought it up?  Why is it relevent here?



Horribad_At_Tanks #109 Posted Jun 28 2016 - 23:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 6,263
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

View PostNukelavee45, on Jun 28 2016 - 17:07, said:

The important number, the one that means something, is the 8 million who want or need work, that can't get it.

 

That's false too. There are millions of jobs going unfilled but no one wants to do them because it's not what they went to college for or they simply don't like it or their home situation(mom and pop are well off) allows it or they are too lazy to actually get an education to get the job in the first place and on and on. Well that's not an excuse. If you are unemployed go out and get a job even if the job isn't exactly something you will be buying mansions and yachts with or will impress the family and friends or even a job you particularly like. But it's a job and now you can contribute to the overall economy as you wait for your wanted job opening to show up. As to the 100 million number there are many reasons for them to be not working but the key is that they choose not to work when they could be working even if it's a low skill part time job and god knows I see help wanted signs all up and down the streets in every type of business you can think of. Something people don't seem to realize is that our economic system(and most others in developed countries) is set up for as many people who are able to work to go out and work even if all they are doing is selling trinkets to each other at malls. Sure its not the best job but again it's a job and it needs to be filled if people want the economy to run smooth. 



Klaatu_Nicto #110 Posted Jun 29 2016 - 03:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,569
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostNukelavee45, on Jun 28 2016 - 14:07, said:

 

 

 

Except - there's the context of of how you brought that number into the discussion - to support your opinion that immigrants are lazy, and sucking up free money and benefits.  And, so - back then, and during most of the 20th century, single income families were the norm. 

 

It's a meaningless number, used by you here in a very cynical manner to support your views.  Yes, they are unemployed and don't get a wage, but not working isn't the issue for the full 100 million.  They have other means of support, and have activities that take the place of being wage slaves, by choice.  A great many of them don't need to work, because their partners support the entire family, or they have trust funds, or won the lottery, or whatever. 

 

The important number, the one that means something, is the 8 million who want or need work, that can't get it.

 

Let's spin this around a moment - why do you think that it is a number that's worth mentioning, in the context you brought it up?  Why is it relevent here?

 

No, I was not expressing an opinion that immigrants are "lazy." I was expressing an opinion that there are not enough jobs for our current population and your claim there are only "8 million who want or need work, but can't get it" supports my opinion. If they come to America and can't get a job or, as is the case with many, under the working age, someone is providing for them.

 

Governments more often than not cook the numbers in a way to make things look better. The official unemployment rate is as inaccurate as the official inflation rate.



Nukelavee45 #111 Posted Jun 29 2016 - 14:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 17742 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View PostHorribad_At_Tanks, on Jun 28 2016 - 23:55, said:

 

That's false too. There are millions of jobs going unfilled but no one wants to do them because it's not what they went to college for or they simply don't like it or their home situation(mom and pop are well off) allows it or they are too lazy to actually get an education to get the job in the first place and on and on. Well that's not an excuse. If you are unemployed go out and get a job even if the job isn't exactly something you will be buying mansions and yachts with or will impress the family and friends or even a job you particularly like. But it's a job and now you can contribute to the overall economy as you wait for your wanted job opening to show up. As to the 100 million number there are many reasons for them to be not working but the key is that they choose not to work when they could be working even if it's a low skill part time job and god knows I see help wanted signs all up and down the streets in every type of business you can think of. Something people don't seem to realize is that our economic system(and most others in developed countries) is set up for as many people who are able to work to go out and work even if all they are doing is selling trinkets to each other at malls. Sure its not the best job but again it's a job and it needs to be filled if people want the economy to run smooth. 

 

View PostKrentel, on Jun 29 2016 - 03:41, said:

 

No, I was not expressing an opinion that immigrants are "lazy." I was expressing an opinion that there are not enough jobs for our current population and your claim there are only "8 million who want or need work, but can't get it" supports my opinion. If they come to America and can't get a job or, as is the case with many, under the working age, someone is providing for them.

 

Governments more often than not cook the numbers in a way to make things look better. The official unemployment rate is as inaccurate as the official inflation rate.

 

There is definitely a connection between both your points/posts - but both of you are leaving out something as well, horribad especially. 

Those "selling trinkets in malls" type jobs, and fast food jobs, and "jobs that are beneath them" don't usually provide anything like a decent standard of living, by North American standards.  That's why Wal Mart employees get food stamps, for example.

 

But, in contrast, to somebody who just escaped, for example, Syria, even the bottom end of the North American standard of living is a big improvement, and seen as a step in the right direction, upwards.  Further, the desire not to spend your life being underpaid and undervalued drives people to not take those jobs in favour of either waiting/looking for something better, or getting an education/training to gain entry to a better tier of employment.

 

Now, as far as teh "our economy is set up for...", not so much.  Both the US and Canada are actually based on the concept of well paid workers having the income to buy each others products, or use each others services.  but, with so many jobs that dont even provide a living wage, those products and services go wanting for customers, unless... credit is used.  Which is why debt is big business.  We became powerful economies based upon cheap resources and well paid manufacturing jobs, and that situation no longer exists.  To make an economy heavily based upon trinkets and services work, you need a certain overlap in the density of consumers and a higher level of disposable income.  If you don't have that, you get something out of a William Gibson novel (specifically, the Virtual Light trilogy).

 

As for teh bolded line - all sides in this kind of debate cook the numbers, or interpret them as they see fit.  Corporate CEO or Bureaucrat, both groups will say anything to justify their position and cover their asses.  Kind of like art critics. 



Horribad_At_Tanks #112 Posted Jun 29 2016 - 23:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 6,263
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

View PostNukelavee45, on Jun 29 2016 - 08:46, said:

 

 

There is definitely a connection between both your points/posts - but both of you are leaving out something as well, horribad especially. 

Those "selling trinkets in malls" type jobs, and fast food jobs, and "jobs that are beneath them" don't usually provide anything like a decent standard of living, by North American standards.  That's why Wal Mart employees get food stamps, for example.

 

But, in contrast, to somebody who just escaped, for example, Syria, even the bottom end of the North American standard of living is a big improvement, and seen as a step in the right direction, upwards.  Further, the desire not to spend your life being underpaid and undervalued drives people to not take those jobs in favour of either waiting/looking for something better, or getting an education/training to gain entry to a better tier of employment.

 

 

 

Those jobs selling trinkets in malls and burgers to each other provide more than enough of a living wage. I did a little checking around and this is how much a month it costs to live in my part of america with the basics and bus service.

 

$350: There are tons of two bedroom apartments for rent in the $350 range in my area. Not the best nor in the upscale areas but it's a clean safe place to live and nearly every one has a bus route.

 

$80: This will cover power and water easily and could be cut further with good energy management like keeping lights off in unoccupied rooms and setting heat and ac to 75.

 

$150: Food. Get off your [edited]and go shop as it's far cheaper to buy in bulk and prepare yourself than waste money on fast food or pizza etc.

 

$20: Basic internet service good enough for streaming and other common internet tasks. Get a cheap antenna and the odds are good you can pick up most of the basic channels and all the network stations in hd over the air.

 

$6: Tracfone is super cheap and you can get service for ~$6 a month for a basic dumbphone or even a smartphone and mooch off free wifi which is literally everywhere when you go out.

 

$30: Monthly bus fare to get to work or go shopping.

 

Thats right at $630 a month and the typical low end minimum wage job holder will be taking home about twice that a month so that's an additional $600 to be used on savings or buying a car or anything. Double it again if you have two workers living together so now you have even more money to put back or move to a better place etc etc.

 

You can't live off that? People in other countries would be doing back flips in pure unadulterated joy if they could make that much a month and get to keep half of it after living expenses. Why do you think they are coming here in droves?

 

 

 



tod914 #113 Posted Jun 30 2016 - 00:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 64379 battles
  • 6,496
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013
Two bedrooms start around $1350 here in NJ.  What part of the country are your from? 

Horribad_At_Tanks #114 Posted Jun 30 2016 - 01:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 6,263
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

View Posttod914, on Jun 29 2016 - 18:53, said:

Two bedrooms start around $1350 here in NJ.  What part of the country are your from? 

 

East central us outside a small town. Looking up new jersey on apartment.com I found plenty in the $400~750 range all across the state which is still well within a minimum wage earners budget especially as most either have room mates or family or significant others to share the cost. I'm sure there are even cheaper apartments but those tend to be word of mouth or locally advertised and won't show up on a general internet search. Hell even if you live at home because the job you want or trained for isn't open still go get a low end job as which is better? Begging the parents for spending money as you raid the fridge for eats or making $1200 a month and living like a boss whilst paying for your own eats and helping the parents with some bill money?

tod914 #115 Posted Jun 30 2016 - 02:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 64379 battles
  • 6,496
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View PostHorribad_At_Tanks, on Jun 29 2016 - 19:38, said:

 

East central us outside a small town. Looking up new jersey on apartment.com I found plenty in the $400~750 range all across the state which is still well within a minimum wage earners budget especially as most either have room mates or family or significant others to share the cost. I'm sure there are even cheaper apartments but those tend to be word of mouth or locally advertised and won't show up on a general internet search. Hell even if you live at home because the job you want or trained for isn't open still go get a low end job as which is better? Begging the parents for spending money as you raid the fridge for eats or making $1200 a month and living like a boss whilst paying for your own eats and helping the parents with some bill money?

 

2 bedroom apt., any size bathroom, 500-700.  Only a hand full come up on your site in inner city areas, and others are 55+ communities.  Most of which, had no vacancies.  At $1000, quite a few come up.  Now, PA has quite a few in 500-700 range.  $400-700 range certainly isn't the norm in this state.

Horribad_At_Tanks #116 Posted Jun 30 2016 - 02:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 6,263
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

View Posttod914, on Jun 29 2016 - 20:25, said:

 

2 bedroom apt., any size bathroom, 500-700.  Only a hand full come up on your site in inner city areas, and others are 55+ communities.  Most of which, had no vacancies.  At $1000, quite a few come up.  Now, PA has quite a few in 500-700 range.  $400-700 range certainly isn't the norm in this state.

 

Well new jersey isn't typical of the rest of the country as there is little room for expanding housing and the stuff you already have is marked up due to it. However that only affects someone wanting to live on their own and most don't live alone and have at least one other to share the cost so even with an overpriced $1000 a month apartment you still have loads of money left over for everything else and I'm 100% certain if you look locally instead of national web sites geared more for higher end abodes you will find plenty of affordable living space all over the state. This doesn't even take into account many apartments will offer wage based rent so if you are a single mom with kids you can get credits to bring your rent down to something you can afford. Either way even a low end part time job will go miles towards making life much easier.

Klaatu_Nicto #117 Posted Jun 30 2016 - 09:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,569
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

In a nutshell, a recession was in our future regardless of the outcome of the vote but the elites will blame it on Britain leaving the EU.

 



Nukelavee45 #118 Posted Jun 30 2016 - 14:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 17742 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View PostHorribad_At_Tanks, on Jun 29 2016 - 23:30, said:

 

Those jobs selling trinkets in malls and burgers to each other provide more than enough of a living wage. I did a little checking around and this is how much a month it costs to live in my part of america with the basics and bus service.

 

$350: There are tons of two bedroom apartments for rent in the $350 range in my area. Not the best nor in the upscale areas but it's a clean safe place to live and nearly every one has a bus route.

 

$80: This will cover power and water easily and could be cut further with good energy management like keeping lights off in unoccupied rooms and setting heat and ac to 75.

 

$150: Food. Get off your [edited]and go shop as it's far cheaper to buy in bulk and prepare yourself than waste money on fast food or pizza etc.

 

$20: Basic internet service good enough for streaming and other common internet tasks. Get a cheap antenna and the odds are good you can pick up most of the basic channels and all the network stations in hd over the air.

 

$6: Tracfone is super cheap and you can get service for ~$6 a month for a basic dumbphone or even a smartphone and mooch off free wifi which is literally everywhere when you go out.

 

$30: Monthly bus fare to get to work or go shopping.

 

Thats right at $630 a month and the typical low end minimum wage job holder will be taking home about twice that a month so that's an additional $600 to be used on savings or buying a car or anything. Double it again if you have two workers living together so now you have even more money to put back or move to a better place etc etc.

 

You can't live off that? People in other countries would be doing back flips in pure unadulterated joy if they could make that much a month and get to keep half of it after living expenses. Why do you think they are coming here in droves?

 

 

 

 

View PostHorribad_At_Tanks, on Jun 30 2016 - 02:37, said:

 

Well new jersey isn't typical of the rest of the country as there is little room for expanding housing and the stuff you already have is marked up due to it. However that only affects someone wanting to live on their own and most don't live alone and have at least one other to share the cost so even with an overpriced $1000 a month apartment you still have loads of money left over for everything else and I'm 100% certain if you look locally instead of national web sites geared more for higher end abodes you will find plenty of affordable living space all over the state. This doesn't even take into account many apartments will offer wage based rent so if you are a single mom with kids you can get credits to bring your rent down to something you can afford. Either way even a low end part time job will go miles towards making life much easier.

 

Calling crap on this - because you assume far too many things.  In my city, a decent one bedroom place goes for $600.00.  Hydro is going to run you at least 75 a month.  80.00 for a decent phone and internet package (that's basic home phone service).  Personally, I think 40 bucks a week food is pretty minimal , I average 240 a month food, for just me, and I cook a lot, and I don't eat that much.  Boom.  There's 1k a month in expenses.

 

That's without adding in any entertainment budget, like cable or netflix. 

Now, minimum wage here is $10.00/hr.  So, 1600 a month, which sounds great, but - taxes, CPP, and UI deductions will reduce that to closer to 1200.   Still, that's a 200 dollar surplus, right?  Well, not likely - because it assumes you'll get a full 4o hours a week, which isn't a certainty in minimum wage jobs, 30 hours is a more reasonable expectation, and part time is the reality for many people, which is why so many work 2 jobs.

 

But, anyway - 200 dollars that has to cover things like clothing, health care, insurance...  and you won't be saving much to have a safety buffer for emergencies, either.  Now, factor in how many people will also be supporting children, and/or are single parents.   consider daycare/babysitting costs for that parent who is gone 10 hours a day, plus school supplies, etc.

 

God forbid they want to save for a house, or go to school, or to send their kids to post-secondary (even trade programs cost money).  Or perhaps they would like a pet.

 

Yup, clinging desperately to a nickle and dime existence, one emergency away from financial disaster, with no resources to improve your lot, that is totally the American or Canadian dream.

 

And, way back, I did point out that, for somebody right out of Syria, that would be heaven, for the first decade or so, but long term?  Hardly.  And we aren't talking about living in Somalia, or Bangladesh - we're talking about North America.

 

Myself - I manage on ~$1200 a month.  But, I own my home outright, so my housing costs (condo fees) are 250 a month, and, being Canadian, health care is a not a cost.

 

On housing - $400 bucks a month sounds like it's going to be a nightmare of a place in a crap neighbourhood.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users