3rdnlng Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 If we mess with the figures enough we can even make it appear that the "real" unemployment level is going down. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-immigrant-workers-account-for-all-employment-growth-since-2007/article/2557626 "But Camarota and Zeigler say that employment numbers for U.S.-born workers has still not returned to pre-recession levels, while it returned to pre-recession levels for immigrant workers in 2012 “and has continued to climb.” Overall, the number of U.S.-born workers fell from 124,014 million in November 2007 to 122,558 million in November 2014. Foreign-born workers, who make up 17 percent of the workforce, increased from 23,104 million to 25,108 million in the same time period. The BLS figures showed that 11 million fewer U.S.-born workers are in the labor force now compared to 2007, and that figure has not improved in the last year. Camarota and Zeigler say the numbers show there is no labor shortage, “even as many members of Congress and the president continue to support efforts to increase the level of immigration.”
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) What role does the aging Baby Boomer population play into this equation? Edited December 21, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois
Azalin Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 What role does the aging Baby Boomer population play into this equation? Probably not a lot, since baby boomers range in age from 50 to 68, most are still working and will continue to work for at least a few years yet.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 Probably not a lot, since baby boomers range in age from 50 to 68, most are still working and will continue to work for at least a few years yet. And then what? Does the bottom drop out? Who's doing the labor?
....lybob Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 After six months you start to make the transition from unemployed to unemployable that transition is pretty well completed when you've been unemployed for a year
Azalin Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 And then what? Does the bottom drop out? Who's doing the labor? People are 'doing the labor'. Do you think that we're positioning ourselves to have more jobs than we have people?
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 (edited) Do you think that we're positioning ourselves to have more jobs than we have people? That would bring bigger trouble and headaches, right? I think we are positioning ourselves to counter it. We've had to seen this situation (population dilemma) for years. It seems like that it is bound to happen if we do nothing. Ideally, you'd want it to be balanced. If it is tipped one way, I suppose it is better tipped to where there is less jobs and slightly more people (low unemployment). Productivity is @ its best then, right? Edited December 22, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois
Chef Jim Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 And then what? Does the bottom drop out? Who's doing the labor? The millennials come in. They are actually a larger number than baby boomers at 85 million.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 The millennials come in. They are actually a larger number than baby boomers at 85 million. They don't want to work or get their hands dirty... All looking for their "dream job" from the get go. ;-) ;-) The birth rate between 1950 and 1959 (9 years) was almost double than between 1980 and 1995 (15 years) That leads to what the definition of "millennial" is. Where does that 85 million come from? It can't come solely from the birth rate, the birth rate is half. Is it between 1980 and 1995? Children of Boomers (ie: echo boomers) or is it to include say my children (1998 & 2002) that were born from my generation (Gen X). That adds another decade of births on for the millennials. Consider Boomers go from 1946 to 1964. I am sure we can play around with the numbers all we like. BUT, I do consider my children "millennials."
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 If we mess with the figures enough we can even make it appear that the "real" unemployment level is going down. http://www.washingto...article/2557626 "But Camarota and Zeigler say that employment numbers for U.S.-born workers has still not returned to pre-recession levels, while it returned to pre-recession levels for immigrant workers in 2012 “and has continued to climb.” Overall, the number of U.S.-born workers fell from 124,014 million in November 2007 to 122,558 million in November 2014. Foreign-born workers, who make up 17 percent of the workforce, increased from 23,104 million to 25,108 million in the same time period. The BLS figures showed that 11 million fewer U.S.-born workers are in the labor force now compared to 2007, and that figure has not improved in the last year. Camarota and Zeigler say the numbers show there is no labor shortage, “even as many members of Congress and the president continue to support efforts to increase the level of immigration.” A biased story based on biased figures from a right wing xenophobic "think tank" doesn't make any of this true
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 A biased story based on biased figures from a right wing xenophobic "think tank" doesn't make any of this true Play nice w/Krusty the 3rd Inning Clown. It's his only news source: Right-wing xenophobic "think tanks." Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;-)
3rdnlng Posted December 22, 2014 Author Posted December 22, 2014 A biased story based on biased figures from a right wing xenophobic "think tank" doesn't make any of this true A response completely worthy of your ignorance and propensity to give head to your preformed ideals based on your masters hackiness. Damn right wing BLS!
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 A response completely worthy of your ignorance and propensity to give head to your preformed ideals based on your masters hackiness. Damn right wing BLS! Why would you expect anything else when you post pure ignorance? When your sources are pure propaganda?
3rdnlng Posted December 22, 2014 Author Posted December 22, 2014 Play nice w/Krusty the 3rd Inning Clown. It's his only news source: Right-wing xenophobic "think tanks." Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;-) When are you and Gatorboy going to do another Dumb and Dumber movie together? We could pay back North Korea by flooding them with dvd's of it and also use it as the ultimate torture at Gitmo.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 Why would you expect anything else when you post pure ignorance? When your sources are pure propaganda? Because it is his job... He's a ringer. A ding-a-ling @ that!
3rdnlng Posted December 22, 2014 Author Posted December 22, 2014 Because it is his job... He's a ringer. A ding-a-ling @ that! It's so cute when you and your understudy flirt with each other. Make sure to put this in your new book, "Confessions of a Toll Collector".
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 A biased story based on biased figures from a right wing xenophobic "think tank" doesn't make any of this true I'd be interested in seeing your numbers, which tell a different story?
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 I'd be interested in seeing your numbers, which tell a different story? Why?
3rdnlng Posted December 22, 2014 Author Posted December 22, 2014 I'd be interested in seeing your numbers, which tell a different story? No, he doesn't believe in the government's numbers unless they back up what he has been told to believe.
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 Why? Because anyone so vehemently opposed to a data set must certainly have other data that they believe to be more accurately reflective of the situation, otherwise, they'd have nothing to base their opposition on. I'm interested in seeing the data which has swayed you.
Recommended Posts