Historical Unemployment in the US

Discussion in 'Politics' started by faceking, Feb 10, 2011.

  1. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,535
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    110
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    The United States Unemployment Rate

    not sure who thought a stimulus package could really control the ebb/flow of the employment landscape....

    shame we don't track real/half unemployment. some assert it's around 22% which I think is too high and perhaps from a biased view... but high teens is quite reasonable.
     
  2. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    There's quite a few people at GM & Chrystler who would like to let you know how that stimulus package worked for them.
     
  3. D_Tully Tunnelrat

    D_Tully Tunnelrat New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1
    There are many bankers would agree with VB's comment re: auto workers. Unemployment seems structural now. With many US companies, like GE, earning over half their income overseas, they can leave the money over there untaxed. Last report, Cisco alone has over $3.5B sitting offshore, which they would like to repatriate, but not at 35%. Not only do they not pay tax on monies earned abroad, but generally speaking the cost of living is much lower, so US multinationals build plants, and hire personnel for far less than back in the ol' USA. Ironically the US is subsidizing foreign economies by bailing (stimulus) out US multinationals, only to not reap the benefits, in either taxes, or jobs. Another case of unintended consequences of '70s tax codes, when far less of, if any, corporate income was generated abroad, which have never been overhauled. At least that's my theory.
     
  4. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Naah.

    Just blame it on Obama's "socialist" policies. Much easier.


     
  5. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    LOL .....refer to first sticky
     
  6. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Hey, instead of following me around the board in some apparent attempt at playing forum cop or forum commentator or whatever, how's about you just PM me with your "feedback".
     
  7. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    And, for the record, my comment was substantive. duc's eloquent appraisal of the situation has not been the kind of thing a great majority of the US populace has undertaken to examine, analyze or understand. Instead, they've mostly reduced themselves to rote parroted sloganeering, along the lines of, for example, "the Democrats'/Obama's socialist policies will ruin the economy".
     
  8. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    nothing to do with you, quit being so fucking paranoid.
     
  9. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    What a load of b.s.
     
  10. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Really it was not had more to do with the royalty.........butch it up a notch.
     
  11. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Oh, now that you've said so, I definitely will.

    And your cowardice in backing down from your insults is a shining example for all of us to follow.

    I'll not prolong this ridiculous tete-a-tete with any further replies on the board. PM with any further examples of your maturity.
     
  12. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    Aside from the obvious, when unemployment was way over 20% during the depression, the graph posted in the OP shows both higher unemployment rates (up to 10.8% during November and December of 1982) and a longer period of 10+% unemployment (from September 1982-June of 1983) than we've experienced in the last two years.

    This in no way belittles those either out of work or underemployed in what's been universally described as the worst economic crisis since 1929, but it does throw the word "historical" in the title of this thread into question: by which history are you comparing it to? The graph you linked showed much worst times of more sustained misery (which, as a young adult in my 20s I remember vividly) than the horrors we're going through now.
     
  13. B_stanmarsh14

    B_stanmarsh14 New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nottingham, England
    OP probs means historical trends in unemployment.

    I see the US has pretty much the same thing as the UK, by hiding the actual figures for those who are put on alternative goverment welfare systems, just so that the real amount of actual unemployment shows less than it actualy is.

    Take myself as a good way to show this..... I am strictly speaking, neither employed or unemployed, and to use what I classify myself, I am a full-time carer for mom, and have been so for close to 18 years, a good 6 of that to this current day, is myself getting paid a welfare payment of sorts (If you can classify that), when it became to the point she needed more full-on care, that covers my rent, local government taxes, and day to day living expenses, which work out at aprox £200 a week, which if you note, is quite a bit BELOW the UK's national minimum wage for a single 36 year old.

    I do this, primarily as I care a great deal for her, she gets someone who she can trust, and it saves the government / NHS, an absolute fortune, if they was to get in the help she needs, which will easily cost over £1,500 a week, so the government gets an absolute bargain out of me, yet right now, they are already trying to cut back what they pay to carers like me, and for those too ill to look after themselves in the community who have to have local government help to look after them.

    the conservatives / Lib-dem's say they are trying to look after the weak and vulnerable in society, whilst deal with those who basically sit on their arses claiming welfare sickness payments and too lazy to work, they are having a fucking joke!

     
  14. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,535
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    110
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    I have it on ignore... and recall why. A> the auto companies had very little impact, and B> they already admitted (GM that is) that 1/3 of the orders from folks w/ stimilus cash were built outside of the US, and the rest here in the US were folded into existing regular production. Obama, however, NEVER said those stimulus driven orders would create jobs anyways. His sheeple did.

    Besides, I was talking about the stimulus package AKA the widely assumed Average Americans Bailout of Feb, not the auto bailout of Mar 09. One was to 'stimulate' the economiy with "shovel ready projects" (god, that's still fucking funny to this day), whilst the other was to save a particular industry (AKA union handjobs all around). This is why I have it on ignore, as it gets tiresome re-educating it here on the board.

    >>Not only do they not pay tax on monies earned abroad

    I hope/assume you mean US taxes.

    >>Ironically the US is subsidizing foreign economies by bailing (stimulus) out US multinationals, only to not reap the benefits, in either taxes, or jobs.

    Not true... for example... your MP3 players ain't built here in the US of A. But the ability to deliver it at $300 vs $3000 allows an Apple to have 10s of thousands of US employees on marketing, sales, and R&D and sales clearks in the hundreds of Apple stores vs maybe only a few dozen. Rather than the US consumer buying the MP3s players from a South Korean hotshot company. Would you rather have offshore hiring come from a US company vs an offshore company using the US for cheap wages?

     
    #14 faceking, Feb 12, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2011
  15. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,535
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    110
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Nah blaming Bush is even easier.
     
  16. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    *SIGH* :rolleyes:
    Well to be honest, if the one that ignorantly refers to me as "it" didn't have me on ignore and wasn't such a blatantly partisan instigator, I would have gone into more detail and not just typed a simple one liner. However, not only is he willing to debate me honestly he would completely twist out of context anything I stated... just like he did repeatedly before letting him have it. That's why I made one small, tongue in cheek response on the subject matter. And now, faceking is now trying to make that into the only thing I know about the subject matter. So how about we really start looking at Unemployment in the United States and put it into a clearer perspective? Not just based on the ignorant banter of a person who cloaks his personal issues with "liberals" and "gay people" through obvious, narrowly viewed political tripe?

    First off, let's look at a recent chart showcasing the increasing of private sector jobs in America - Obama created more jobs in one year than Bush created in eight

    According to the Department of Labor (and not the partisan mindset of a political lightweight), 113,000 private sector jobs were added in 2010 under the Obama administration, knocking the unemployment rate down sharply from 9.8 percent to 9.4 percent. That's more jobs in one year than the previous administration made in an entire 8 year span.

    To say that the stimulus had little to no effect demonstrates a complete willingness to ignore several other tactics made by the current administration to stimulate job growth. This includes a $17.6 Billion jobs bill in March 2010, an additional $26 Billion jobs bill in August in an attempt to save the jobs of thousands of teachers and other government workers, and the Small Business Jobs Bill in September 2010 which created a $30 billion lending program and provide small businesses with $12 billion in tax breaks, including more generous write-offs for equipment purchases just to name a few. The amount of jobs lost under the Bush Administration in its final few years is one of the worst in our country's history. Anyone with any sense would have known that the Stimulus Bill was not going to completely erase all of that damage in a year's time. Alas, faceking makes this thread under the guise that somehow that it was supposed to, or that the "liberal gays" on this board believed that it would. Completely dishonest and thoroughly scripted to agitate and infuriate if ever so subtly.

    The saving of GM and Chrystler may have been small players in job creation, however, its role in saving jobs is one faceking also willingly ignores. According to Center for Automotive Research, the government’s bailouts of the U.S. auto industry spared more than 1.14 million jobs and prevented personal income losses of nearly $97 billion over nearly two years. Another 314,400 jobs were saved in 2010 thanks to the $80 billion in taxpayer lifelines extended to GM, Chrysler, and the GMAC and Chrysler Financial financing businesses. Alas, since this alone didn't reverse 8 years of damage from the previous administration as well, we now have to deal with yet another dishonest, partisan thread about how Obama and the current administration isn't doing anything about job creation in this country - GM IPO: Auto Bailout Saved More Than 1 Million Jobs, Study Says - Deal Journal - WSJ

    In order to deal with the issue of Unemployment and the economy, a level of job preservation needs to be addressed as well. It's not enough to just look at the federal Unemployment number and base your entire argument on that. I could go on, but the one that should be reading will not and I need to have some other tricks up my sleeve just in case...
     
    #16 B_VinylBoy, Feb 13, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2011
  17. B_nyvin

    B_nyvin New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pensacola FL
    Crazy how the only time it was "as bad" was during the high point of the cold war.
     
  18. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    "is why I have it on ignore, as it gets tiresome re-educating it here on the board." Royalty's work is never done is it?
     
  19. B_Inthehouse

    B_Inthehouse New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm pretty sure that Bush made more jobs in 8 years than a laughable 113,000 jobs.
     
  20. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Considering the supposed knowledge that comes out of the mind from the entity that ignorantly refers to me as "it", it's safe to say that his idea of a "re-education" is a literal and contextual dumbing down of the specifics to impose oversimplified & overgeneralized comments that appear to be bipartisan. As for the issue of Unemployment, visualizing it just through the narrow lens of one specific piece of a law knowing full well that it takes years and many legislative actions is ridiculous. What's even more ironic is that despite the claims of unintelligence by the entity that ignorantly refers to me as "it", there are still some things regarding the Stimulus bill where we do agree. We both recognize that the bill was a small player in pertains to job creation. However, the fact still remains that the stimulus did create jobs. Everyone knows this. Even the entity who ignorantly refers to me as "it". It has been fact checked by various sources and the result has always been the same. -

    Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there’s no doubt that the number is positive. - Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

    That includes "shovel ready projects" in Housing & Urban Development, Energy, Transportation and many other social & infrastructure projects - http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-STIMULUS0903.html

    Either way you look at it, the stimulus helped and most people here can recognize that. However, if I was "re-educated" to only see things as faceking does I wouldn't be in any position to expose his short-sighted rhetoric for its obvious distortions. But whatever... he can't re-educate what someone already knows in details he wouldn't dare tap into. How else would he be able to blame "gay liberals" for the fabled hypocrisies he concocts in his mind?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted