Doc Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 Hell, if we have more people in the labor force than we have jobs, then why hasn't the labor force created jobs for them? Because they're not immigrants. Duh!
B-Man Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 CNBC NowVerified account @CNBCnow 7h7 hours ago BREAKING: White House says it will propose $10/barrel fee on oil, paid by oil companies, to cover costs of green transportation proposals. Good thinking Barack, I'm sure the Oil Companies won't pass along the "fee" to its customers. ...........
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Good thinking Barack, I'm sure the Oil Companies won't pass along the "fee" to its customers. ........... How much is wrong with this idea? The markets are already skittish because falling oil prices are eating into oil companies' profits...so announce you're going to cut in to them more... ...even though you won't cut into them more, since it'll just hit the consumer. "Consumer" in this case meaning everyone. Every entity that consumes energy. Airlines, shipping, UPS and FedEx, grocery stores, agriculture, "green energy" industry. A fee on oil paid where? At the wellhead? The refinery? On entry or exit in to the pipeline system? When loaded or unloaded from a tanker? This federal fee is going to be used for "green transportation proposals" how, exactly? For example: collected federally, but distributed to localities by DoE or DoT grants? Or federalizing all "green transportation?" What is "green transportation?" Subsidizing Tesla? Low-interest loans to LaserPerformance to expand their Sunfish production? Grants to cities to convert bus fleets to natural gas? PSAs promoting car-pooling? R&D to put a Mr. Fusion on every DeLorean? Considering that a third of all oil usage in the country is for heating, manufacturing, or paving...you're increasing the cost of manufacturing and road maintenance, and making it more expensive for people to heat their homes, to fund electric trains? Really? That makes sense? Never mind the usual gross inefficiency of the government in allocating funds to ill-defined pie-in-the-sky "proposals."
Tiberius Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Good thinking Barack, I'm sure the Oil Companies won't pass along the "fee" to its customers. ........... Of course they will, to hopefully reduce oil consumption. Similar to the flat tax conservatives love
Keukasmallies Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 In the twilight of POTUS' reign he's throwing everything he can come up with against the wall to see what just might stick. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the blueprint for his entire time in office. Is there a way we can buy this doofus out of the remaining months of his contract? With luck, the next President will understand that he/she is responsible for ALL of the people living in these united states, not just the Democrats.
Tiberius Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 In the twilight of POTUS' reign he's throwing everything he can come up with against the wall to see what just might stick. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the blueprint for his entire time in office. Is there a way we can buy this doofus out of the remaining months of his contract? With luck, the next President will understand that he/she is responsible for ALL of the people living in these united states, not just the Democrats. This is something some Conservatives have advocated for also. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-raise-the-gas-tax-a-lot/2015/01/08/5b4b407c-976f-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html
Tiberius Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment-january-fed-interest-rates.html?_r=0 4.9%!!! The Labor Department said Friday that payrolls rose by 151,000 in January, a falloff from the year-end sprint that helped make 2015 the second-best year for job creation since the late 1990s. Last month, average hourly earnings rose by 0.5 percent, leaving wages up 2.5 percent over the last 12 months. That was the best showing since January 2015 and suggested some of the benefits from the falling unemployment rate were beginning to flow to ordinary workers. “That gain in average hourly earnings is significant,” said Diane Swonk. Since the beginning of 2010, the American economy has gained nearly 14 million jobs, with healthy increases more recently in better-paying sectors like professional and business services as well as construction. Sectors tied to the domestic economy, like retail, education and health care, restaurants and professional services, are performing well. Businesses linked closely to export markets or the energy industry, on the other hand, are suffering. Obviously foreign markets are a bummer but at least it looks like the domestic side of things is going well.
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Remember what his goal is. http://www.investors.com/obama-is-not-fighting-to-lower-gas-prices-/ Editorials Mad About High Gas Prices? Then Chu On This Gasoline: As pump prices hit $4 a gallon, Energy Secretary Steven Chu admits the administration has no interest in bringing them down. Is it any wonder Democrats are growing increasingly agitated with this White House? At a hearing this week, Rep. Alan Nunnelee, R-Miss., specifically asked Chu if “the overall goal” of the administration is to “get our price down.” Chu’s answer was no. In fact, he said that “somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” which are in the neighborhood of $8 a gallon. No, wait. That’s what Chu said about gasoline prices back in 2008, shortly before he took the Energy Department’s helm. What he really said was “the price of gasoline over the long haul should be expected to go up.” Oops! That’s what Chu said last year when asked about gasoline prices. Here’s his answer: He “would have preferred a gradual increase” in prices. Darn! That was Barack Obama talking about energy costs during his presidential run. Chu’s actual answer fits right in with this mold. No, he said, the overall goal of the Obama administration is not to get prices down; the overall goal is “to decrease our dependency on oil.” This has been a mantra of Obama’s for years: There’s nothing anyone can do about gasoline prices, so the only option is to find “alternative” fuel sources. It’s total bunk. Recoverable oil has never been more plentiful, as the industry finds new sources and develops new drilling technologies. The oil boom in North Dakota is proof enough of that. In fact, according to the Institute for Energy Research, there’s enough oil within our borders to supply our fuel needs for 250 years. The problem is the country has put itself in an energy straight-jacket, in deference to environmental groups who challenge any and every effort to tap new oil supplies. This situation predates Obama, but the fact is he’s done nothing to reverse it and much to make it worse. Indeed, he gives every indication of relishing high gasoline prices, since they help power his environmentalist agenda. But now even some Democrats — sensing a political disaster in the making — are starting to put pressure on the president to confront pump prices head-on. That’s unlikely to happen, at least not as long as Obama keeps taking advice from Secretary Chu. Edited February 5, 2016 by 3rdnlng
B-Man Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 No problem. We can pay these folks for not working Wait, I mean for not committing crimes Wait, I mean for their votes......................yeah, that's the ticket. .
TH3 Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 No problem. We can pay these folks for not working Wait, I mean for not committing crimes Wait, I mean for their votes......................yeah, that's the ticket. . Yes - Peaked in 2000 - Clintonanomics....right....or maybe the peak of the baby boomers..... Now pretty much historical norm.....
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Yes - Peaked in 2000 - Clintonanomics....right....or maybe the peak of the baby boomers..... Now pretty much historical norm..... You are being disingenuous. It is not pretty much the historical norm when it's not seen in a vacuum.
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/5/obama-hails-lower-unemployment-rate-taunts-gop/The government reported Friday that the unemployment rate in January fell to 4.9 percent, its lowest level in eight years. The president said the report shows “Americans are working.”But asked about polls that show roughly two-thirds of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track, and that the labor force participation rate remains low, Mr. Obama acknowledged “there’s still anxiety and concern about the general direction of the economy.”He blamed it on lingering effects from the recession that began before he took office.“There’s still a pretty big carryover from the devastation that took place in 2007-2008,” Mr. Obama said. “A lot of people still feel that.” It's still Bush's fault.
Doc Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/5/obama-hails-lower-unemployment-rate-taunts-gop/ The government reported Friday that the unemployment rate in January fell to 4.9 percent, its lowest level in eight years. The president said the report shows “Americans are working.” But asked about polls that show roughly two-thirds of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track, and that the labor force participation rate remains low, Mr. Obama acknowledged “there’s still anxiety and concern about the general direction of the economy.” He blamed it on lingering effects from the recession that began before he took office. “There’s still a pretty big carryover from the devastation that took place in 2007-2008,” Mr. Obama said. “A lot of people still feel that.” It's still Bush's fault. He's a clown.
TPS Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Yes - Peaked in 2000 - Clintonanomics....right....or maybe the peak of the baby boomers..... Now pretty much historical norm..... There really is no historical norm for this statistic. It increased significantly when various social and economic factors led to the rise of two-income households beginning in the 1970s. It started a significant decline in 2010 because that's when the first year of the baby-boom generation turned 65. It's a combination of a poor overall labor market and the baby-boom retiring. Me thinks some of these guys don't understand the definition of the participation rate....
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 There really is no historical norm for this statistic. It increased significantly when various social and economic factors led to the rise of two-income households beginning in the 1970s. It started a significant decline in 2010 because that's when the first year of the baby-boom generation turned 65. It's a combination of a poor overall labor market and the baby-boom retiring. Me thinks some of these guys don't understand the definition of the participation rate.... Just come out and say it rather than dressing it up: the rise of feminism and women in the work place led directly to the two-income household as necessity.
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 There really is no historical norm for this statistic. It increased significantly when various social and economic factors led to the rise of two-income households beginning in the 1970s. It started a significant decline in 2010 because that's when the first year of the baby-boom generation turned 65. It's a combination of a poor overall labor market and the baby-boom retiring. Me thinks some of these guys don't understand the definition of the participation rate.... Yes, I agree and you are not looking at it in a vacuum like Baskin is.
TPS Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Just come out and say it rather than dressing it up: the rise of feminism and women in the work place led directly to the two-income household as necessity.no, deindustrialization started it--the loss of high wage jobs meant families needed two income earners to maintain living standards. Feminism was not the main driver.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 no, deindustrialization started it--the loss of high wage jobs meant families needed two income earners to maintain living standards. Feminism was not the main driver. You're putting the cart before the horse.
....lybob Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 You're putting the cart before the horse. Don't Put Descartes Before De Horse
Recommended Posts