Jobs report

[EricMM 0]

I didn't SAY he wanted oil prices high, in fact, I specifically said he DIDN'T control the oil prices.

 

Jeez.

[Guest Paul H.]

Wouldn't cutting out corporate tax breaks stamp out resourcing?(they get tax-breaks for investing in thirld world nations and US territories.)

 

Also maybe revising all these new free-trade agreements that has the companies flocking to these countries?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Who's Hiring?

I don't think the big question is "Who's Hiring?" I think "Who's Firing?" is a much bigger issue. Most people don't care about having a new job if they can hold onto the one they already have.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Umm...if more people are hiring than are firing...thats a good thing right? I just put that out there so people could see where the job growth is coming from. Unless I'm mistaken, investmen analysts typically watch figures on hiring...not firing. It's difficult to accurately measure the firing side of job growth as there's so many reasons for it. Just saying, new hires are TYPICALLY used as indicators of the economy whereas new fires are not.

 

And on the role of the economy...

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/39214...07|reuters.html

Credit - Reuters and MyWay

 

The Fed action, which boosted the dollar and weighed on U.S. government bonds and the stock market, came despite anemic job growth in July as well as oil prices that hit records above $45 a barrel on Tuesday.

 

"In recent months, output growth has moderated and the pace of improvement in labor market conditions has slowed. This softness likely owes importantly to the substantial rise in energy prices," the Fed said in a statement outlining its rate decision.

 

"The economy nevertheless appears poised to resume a stronger pace of expansion going forward," it added.

 

The central bank said the risks to the U.S. economy remained balanced between weaker growth and higher prices, reiterating that some of the recent climb in prices appeared due to transitory factors.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Wouldn't cutting out corporate tax breaks stamp out resourcing?(they get tax-breaks for investing in thirld world nations and US territories.)

 

Also maybe revising all these new free-trade agreements that has the companies flocking to these countries?

Paul,

 

Q1: Tax breaks to keep workers could help stamp out resourcing by lowering the costs of retaining them. However, corporations are only taxed on profits, not retained earnings. You'd likely see a substitution towards higher R&D rather than a lessening of outsourcing. Oh, and btw, more jobs are being insourced in the last few months than outsourced. But the idea is sound.

 

Q2: Bad Paul. We want free trade. Every argument for protectionism has been solidly debunked in the last 20 years by economists. Even the infant industry argument can't hold water. An insane amount of evidence has been compiled that as free trade increases, the economic well-being of the country/countries involved increases dramatically towards the long run. Do we have short-term shocks as economies change? Yes. This isn't problematic if we have the right policies to help those get re-educated in another field. The US's comparative advantage has been for the last 50 years in innovation of new products. Coincidentially, those are the industries that pay the highest wages. We want those. So I'm all for free trade which shucks our old innovations to other countries where they can be produced by cheaper *and less productive* labor while we keep getting the new and better industries here.

 

There's a reason why Ross Perot didn't win in 1992, besides from the ears. Free trade is one of the best things for any country, no matter what economic position they hold (see: Ricardo, David)

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Umm...if more people are hiring than are firing...thats a good thing right?

Perhaps. But what good does it do me if the jobs that are hiring is nothing I'm good at? The problem with saying "more jobs are hiring than are laying off so things are GOOD" is that you just assume the people who get fired can move into one of the new lines of work and it all balances out.

 

Or maybe not. You're saying that you're using it as an indicator of economic health, and maybe it works like that, although I still think we're just seeing a lot more Wal-Mart Team Member quality jobs, but we'll see.

 

Still, saying "You shouldn't have any problem being employed because there's more job openings!" doesn't work. My 50+ Dad cannot labor in a field, and I can't do quantum physics. Although, if I tried, it might turn out like Quantum Leap and that would be kind of cool.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

to JOTW:

 

1) I'll restate something I've said before. We need good policy for job retraining and education, specifically educating and continuing to education. It costs money, but it returns alot in the long run. Honestly, if you can't get hired at the new jobs, take our a loan and invest in education at the new job. I also don't see how you're saying that if more people are hiring than are firing, at higher wage jobs *which they are* how that couldn't be good.

 

2) I am using it as an indicator of economic health. That's what it is. And as I pointed out of who is hiring, it is not "Walmart" jobs. Increasingly job creation has been in positions with higher educational requirements than "service/retail/food" jobs. Those who perform those jobs have little power over their wage, are easily replaced, and earn little. I'd like to see those jobs disappear over time, replaced with more livable wage jobs. Unless you can point to data to disprove my claim on where the job growth is going, don't assume. The Census is very helpful as well as the BLS.

 

3) Keynesian theory states that wages and labor can be sticky, and that real problems do occur. If people stay out to long of the labor force, they lose skills (hysteresis). There's frictional issues, structural issues, etc... Hysteresis is probably the most problematic, but not here. That's in Europe, big time (because of high unemployment benefits). When you don't have the education to get the created jobs, that's frictional. When industries change, that's structural. When you're lazy, that hysteresis. I wouldn't say someone wouldn't have a problem getting a job if they're more openings, they could not have the quals. But that problem is more easily solved (education), and definitely not worth trying to retain the crappier jobs that are disappearing.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

1) I'll restate something I've said before. We need good policy for job retraining and education, specifically educating and continuing to education. It costs money, but it returns alot in the long run. Honestly, if you can't get hired at the new jobs, take our a loan and invest in education at the new job. I also don't see how you're saying that if more people are hiring than are firing, at higher wage jobs *which they are* how that couldn't be good.

 

Why the hell was I chastised by Mike, Marney, etc. when I suggested this months ago?

[Stephen Joseph 0]

1) I'll restate something I've said before. We need good policy for job retraining and education, specifically educating and continuing to education. It costs money, but it returns alot in the long run. Honestly, if you can't get hired at the new jobs, take our a loan and invest in education at the new job. I also don't see how you're saying that if more people are hiring than are firing, at higher wage jobs *which they are* how that couldn't be good.

 

Why the hell was I chastised by Mike, Marney, etc. when I suggested this months ago?

I don't know Tyler, because obviously I agree with you.

 

I'm a libertarian that believes in public education. Go figure.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Why the hell was I chastised by Mike, Marney, etc. when I suggested this months ago?

Because you're a commie fag.

 

What exactly would be a "good policy" regarding this topic? If someone wants to better themselves they can already do it...

[tommytomlin 0]

If Free Trade is so great for America, then how come the one you just signed with Australia is anything but?

[Stephen Joseph 0]

David. Ricardo.

 

Until someone disproves his theory on comparative advantage, the argument holds. Pure free trade.

 

Anything other than that, and well then, all bets off. I advocate purely free trade

[DARRYLXWF 0]

If Free Trade is so great for America, then how come the one you just signed with Australia is anything but?

Them lobby groups are a powerful bunch of motherfuckers.