Signs that a collapse is under way.

[HempKat]

I am aware that the vast masses feel that government should create jobs and government jobs are a good thing; however I am not one of them.

I feel that individuals should create businesses if they see an economic need, and those businesses will create jobs.

I do want answers and this is my specific question: What are the Total employed (X) = Private sector employees (Y) + Public sector employees (Z)?

I'd like to know XYZ for the last 90 years.

My spin is that Y is WAY TO HIGH but I can't demonstrate this point very well because my research skills to populate XYZ for the last 90 years sucks ass as you have already pointed out.

I didn't say your research skills suck ass I essentially said your ability to read sucks ass. I say that because you claim to gather from what I posted that there are only 140 Million Americans employed yet the source you claim to gather this from quite clearly says the number is 153 million. Now if one is wanting to make the points you're trying to make it would be very helpful to have an employment total that is lower then it actually is. That way if someone says there are (just for illustration) 20 Million government workes then that would be a higher percentage if the totals are fudged low to 140 Million, then it would be if you used the more accurate number of 153 Million.

 

[HempKat]

Not trying to fudge the numbers. Table A on page four of the pdf you linked to for May 2011 says:

Employed 139,779MM
Not in Work Force 85,620MM
Unemployed 13,914MM

Sub Total 239,313MM

Now what I'd really like to know is of those 139,779MM how many of the got public sector pay checks?

Now if you'd like some spin the percentage of employed individuals as a percentage of total employable individuals is 139/239 or 58.41%

That means that 41.59% of employable Americans are NOT drawing a paycheck.

Yeah and until school children and babies start drawing paychecks it'll remain that way. BTW there's an amazing annual phenomenon that occurs roughly every May that could account for changes in employment numbers. It's called College Graduation. See college students when they finish school tend to leave their jobs they had to help support them thru school. You know so they can move back home and find a job more suited to that fancy education they'll be paying off for most of their lives.

You'll probably see a drop in unemployment in late August too but don't celebrate, it's likely just a new batch of kids going to college.

 

[Hydrosun]

I didn't say your research skills suck ass I essentially said your ability to read sucks ass. I say that because you claim to gather from what I posted that there are only 140 Million Americans employed yet the source you claim to gather this from quite clearly says the number is 153 million. Now if one is wanting to make the points you're trying to make it would be very helpful to have an employment total that is lower then it actually is. That way if someone says there are (just for illustration) 20 Million government workes then that would be a higher percentage if the totals are fudged low to 140 Million, then it would be if you used the more accurate number of 153 Million.

One of us can't read. Or perhaps the report is confusing through intent or government incompetence.

Please RELOOK at the report. It says 153.7mm is the civilian work force. Of that 139.8mm are employed and 13.9mm are UNemployed.

Your link page 4 Table A
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

I am not trying to fudge the numbers low and I don't think you are trying to fudge them high.

I say the accurate number is 139.8mm (rounded to 140), do you agree that your 153mm number INCLUDES 13.9mm unemployed?

 

[SpasticGramps]

And another nail in the coffin for Greece. If they do not get this bailout then their party is over and the contagion will spread like wildfire.

Troica Report: Next Aid Disbursement Can Not Take Place Until Greece Corrects Underfinancing In Adjustment Program

Reuters has obtained an advance peek at the crucial Troica report whose findings will determine Greece's fate, and according to Andreas Rinke the conclusion is not very palatable: "The EU, ECB and IMF mission to Greece said in a report obtained by Reuters on Wednesday that the next disbursement of Greek aid could not take place until it corrected the under-financing in its adjustment program." More from Reuters: "The long-awaited report by the so-called "troika" said Greece risked missing its deficit targets without further consolidation measures and that its recession appeared to be longer and deeper than initially expected. "The financing strategy needs to be revised. Given the remoteness of Greece returning to funding markets in 2012, the adjustment program is now under financed," it said. "The next disbursement cannot take place before this under financing is resolved." The troika said a privatization agency with an independent board, to which the European Commission and euro zone member countries could nominate members, would be set up shortly." We fail to see how the Troica can be satisfied by Greek economic data in the next month or so when Greece is expected to run out of money. Hopefully there is more to this because otherwise this ia very unpleasant conclusion for the insolvent country.

I had post this part again for effect.

and that its recession appeared to be longer and deeper than initially expected

Whose expectations? The retarded talking heads on CNBC? The economist who consistently fail to get anything right? Paul Krugman's expectations? When they go belly up the chorus from MSM of "How could this happen?" and, "No one could see this coming!" Will be deafening albeit a bunch of bullshit.

 

[HempKat]

If that is true why would anyone in the USA get paid more than minimum wage, especially if the job was outsource-able? Shouldn't the employer tell them take minimum wage or we'll send the job over seas?

They should because then at least the person would get a choice but as it stands now they usually say something like "Sorry John but in order to keep the profits up for the shareholders we're going to have to cut your job" and then they outsource it overseas or do like Bill Gates and get one of those special Visas that are meant for employers to bring in foreign workers with skills need that Americans don't have, but instead get used to bring in cheaper labor.

And why in the hell would Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, BMW, and others open manufacturing plants in the USA and pay more than minimum wage? They could drop those factories in Mexico pay way less and still bring the cars in duty free via NAFTA.

Because by putting the plant here they appear to be caring about and helpful to the American public. Plus it's helpful to have consumers that can actually afford your product because they got paid typical American wages. Also your examples are rather flawed in that Jobs going overseas typically aren't going to Germany or Japan and the number one car in India isn't sold in America and while the number one car in China is it's made in China by Chinese workers.

If the minimum wage helps the consumer based economy why don't we just triple or 10x the minimum? Wouldn't that lead to a bunch more goods and services for all Americans?

If American companies are already sending jobs overseas with minimum wage at around $7 per hour then they'll surely be doing it that much more or go under if we raised minimum wage to $21 - $70 per hour. If your suggestion was sustainable and feasible for American employers and shareholders then yes doing that would lead to a bunch more goods and services. Since it isn't however the only options are to raise prices to levels that would make the pay increase seem like it never happened, manufacture somewhere else where laws are more corporate friendly or go out of business.

How did the USA become an industrial and military power prior to enacting minimum wage laws?

As far as my understanding goes minimum wage was enacted in 1938 but the US didn't become the industrial/Military power it is until it went to war in WWII three years after minimum wage was enacted. Although it wasn't minimum wage that made it happen, it was the sleeping Giant the Japanese awoke on 12/7/1941. That Giant being the general public who volunteered for war, grew victory gardens, saved and recycled valuable resouces, etc. What made America great wasn't minimum wage or the Lochner Era, it was it's citizens, what's ruining it now is it's politicians.

I know politicians would love you to believe that their sitting on their asses and producing nothing but rules, regulations, and hurdles makes your life better; but I just can't buy it.

I wouldn't either, you know how to tell when a politician is lying? His lips move.

 

[HempKat]

So it looks like 22mm of the 140mm employeed Americans draws a check from the public. So 118mm work in the private sector.

It would appear that the 118mm working Americans have to pay for the 100mm not in work force / unemployed, 22mm government employees, and the 65mm or so children and retires.

No wonder why the working man in this country is fed up! Each private sector worker has to support himself and 1.8 others.

Thank god for the working man!

Each private sector worker is doing what he'd do anyway regardless of the unemployment rate, the number of government workers, the number of unemployed, etc. I know the government wanted to raise taxes recently but as far as I know they haven't. Ironically though they want to raise taxes to what they used to be when Clinton was in office. So really every private sector worker is supporting less now then they used to 10 or more years ago. Of course with everything being as it is now I'm sure it doesn't feel like that to those workers

 

[HempKat]

One of us can't read. Or perhaps the report is confusing through intent or government incompetence.

Please RELOOK at the report. It says 153.7mm is the civilian work force. Of that 139.8mm are employed and 13.9mm are UNemployed.

Your link page 4 Table A
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

I am not trying to fudge the numbers low and I don't think you are trying to fudge them high.

I say the accurate number is 139.8mm (rounded to 140), do you agree that your 153mm number INCLUDES 13.9mm unemployed?

Okay I'll have to agree to that because that's what Table A actually says. What I went by before was the statement that I quoted before that said "The labor force, at 153.7 million, was little changed over the month" to me someone that is unemployed is not in the workforce. Further it would appear that they see not in work force and unemployed as being seperate. To me they are not. If you're not working you're not in the workforce. Another error to all this is unemployment stats are calculated based on unemployment claims, there is a number almost as big or bigger then the unemployment number that represents people who are unemployed but no longer eligable for benefits.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Gramps, just read my previous comment. Meant to say, "hope you don't mind" (the suggestion etc)

Do you feel a bit like Hydosun, where deregulation isn't so because we still have regulations elsewhere? In other words, a particularly significant de-regulation, for example that morphed the real division between main street/Wall Street into systemic risk?

How do you surmise what's going on with a rather broad swath of doubt and how does that doubt substantiate all the news articles?

I understand that heads and tails is the same coin. But you metaphorically or "practically" win or lose depending on the flip.

I get the impression you're saying you don't flip coins. I hope you gather I avoid selecting the part of reality that supports my reasoning.

"Practical reality" isn't suggesting that you should feel our lawmakers are making practical decisions. It's a deference to "virtual reality" where someone looks at a part of the pic, doesn't look at the other part and makes definitive judgement accordingly. Because we can see what happens when we change courses. Could it be that you choose to ignore the realities because neither reality is your cup of tea?

I'm not not using "virtual reality" as electronic or internet.

You know, CBO isn't the mysterious fed that doesn't want others scouring their business. They're a pretty open joint and their numbers aren't politicized.

Are you suggesting that simply because they're not private sector they can't be trusted?

 

[joeuser]

If that is true why would anyone in the USA get paid more than minimum wage, especially if the job was outsource-able? Shouldn't the employer tell them take minimum wage or we'll send the job over seas?

And why in the hell would Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, BMW, and others open manufacturing plants in the USA and pay more than minimum wage? They could drop those factories in Mexico pay way less and still bring the cars in duty free via NAFTA.

If the minimum wage helps the consumer based economy why don't we just triple or 10x the minimum? Wouldn't that lead to a bunch more goods and services for all Americans?

How did the USA become an industrial and military power prior to enacting minimum wage laws?

I know politicians would love you to believe that their sitting on their asses and producing nothing but rules, regulations, and hurdles makes your life better; but I just can't buy it.

Most of the jobs that can be outsourced HAVE already moved. Many businesses are just too small to move over seas...or they WOULD.

The car makers have factories here because our government MADE them do it. It's that simple...want to sell here...put a few factories here too.

We've already priced ourselves out of the world market...raising the MW would just add to that...making us even more uncompetitive.

We became a world power after WWII...we were the ONLY ones left without a destroyed industrial complex. England, Germany, France...all of Europe and Russia and Japan were decimated during the war. The US picked up the slack and LENT money for the others to rebuild...we NEVER let them forget that. As the only guy left standing, we moved right into world power status.

As for government workers...don't forget about "contractors". They're REALLY government employees...yet paid by a private company...so they're not counted. And there are a LOT of them. Government IS the largest employer.

Quotas and affirmative action have made things MUCH worse too. So now we not only have a HUGE government workforce...they're not even the BEST people in the job! Many are just filling a slot...a quota...forcing the competent workers to work twice as hard.

I hope you're ready for the fallout...the current system won't last too much longer. War is coming...WWIII...and it's going to be a doozy! It's the ONLY way to get out of all this debt...a reset...we'll just delete all the debt we owe to China and the ME oil producers. You wait...it's going to happen. We're backed up to the wall and $100 isn't going to allow us to get out of this depression. And, a big war allows tio government to implement austerity MUCH easier.

 

[paladin420]

'are you suggesting that simply because they are not private sector they can't be trusted ?'

YES!!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

All one has to do is squeeze a balloon. When one part expands, the other part contracts. Business is sitting on more liquidity than ever. It's no surprise that income disparity is at pre-depression levels.

Business has never driven economies when they hold all the money. In the old days they monopolized and made even more money. Now they just send manufacturing abroad.

War and the so-called arsenal of democracy spawned the middle-class. Worker unions continued middle-class growth and people could actually afford to buy what they made. Imagine that?

Henry Ford wasn't a liberal. But even he understood that paying workers enough to actually buy the cars they were making made Henry more money than minimum wage and selling cars to rich peeps.

I'm not dumb enough to think we'll all one day agree where the line should be drawn. But we've got history to see what works and what doesn't for the little guy. This ain't philosophical history where a union boss pontificates that better wages mean better livelihoods. We have statistics to back this up. Like common sense needs stats but that's exactly what we have... proof in the form of after-the-fact indicators. Numbers... math... fact.

So why is anybody surprised the most inflated executive salaries, benefits, options, not to mention global exploitation shrinks the viability of the folks that are expected to buy what these greedsters make?

If one looks at historic, economic indicators, tax cuts for the fat cats never produced jobs. That's not political pie-in-the-sky. CBO doesn't tell us that and how the private sector expands and contracts. It's the private sector's own numbers that show mirror image of where we were vs where we're going.

We've already been where we're going. And the bottom fell out. We could do it ten times over and ideology won't change. Human nature neither changes at the top or the bottom.

But historical economic indicators sure do.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

In the interests of example to back my previous post (where ideology is actually backed with statistics, not to mention we've apparently already forgotten history) I offer the following.

I'd also like to point out that the statistical source isn't the URL at the bottom of the article. The URL neither makes up nor modifies according to political stripe. That's easy to figure out when the URL makes no opinions based on the statistics. They're reporting what non-partisan statistics (aka math) reflect. The piece also links other corroborating reports.

10 Years Later, How Bush-Era Tax Cuts Changed America

A decade has now passed since the Bush-era tax cuts were signed into law, and the topic remains as divisive as ever.
To mark the ten-year anniversary of the tax cuts, extended last year for both upper- and middle-class Americans in a deal to reauthorize unemployment insurance, the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities published five graphs illustrating how the cuts have changed America, and will continue to do so in the future.
What they find is unevenly distributed benefits. The percentage increase in after-tax income tilts greatly in favor of those making over $1 million, for one, especially when compared to Americans making between $40,000-$50,000. And at a time when the country is sunk in $14.3 trillion worth of debt, it's adding vastly to deficit, too. Indeed, the cost of the upper-income tax cuts is roughly equal to the Social Security shortfall in that span, CBPP says.
Criticism of the tax cuts has not died, either. In a blog post this week, Roger Hickey, co-founder of the Economic Policy Institute, for example, called the cuts "another experiment in conservative voodoo economics." And even some of those who've benefited most from the cuts now view them unfavorably, specifically the roughly 200 "Patriotic Millionaires" that recently wrote a letter to Congressional Republicans asking that their taxes be raised to help deficit reduction, rather than relying alone on cuts in government spending.


Below are five charts provided by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showing different ways the Bush tax cuts have affected the nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/..._n_873245.html#s289295&title=Effect_On_Future

I'd like to suggest that those who discount the URL [counter] this info with counter numbers. Only difficulty - there isn't such a thing as counter-math.

 

[joeuser]

Hey Disco... All that stuff is bullshit. NOBODY knows what would have happened with no tax cuts or EXACTLY what the tax cuts caused.

You're smarter than this...don't get suckered by bullshit.

BOTH sides are "out to get us"...don't trust either a Dem or a Rep. In fact...don't EVER vote for EITHER.

We need to stop SPENDING...and unfortunately...a LOT of people completely depend on government spending.

I guess the poor will all have jobs once the REAL war starts. We can start by drafting everyone on public assistance...what do you think about that? Women can join the military...they should be drafted too. We'll need everyone we can get out there when the Chinese attack with their several million man army.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Hey Disco... All that stuff is bullshit. NOBODY knows what would have happened with no tax cuts or EXACTLY what the tax cuts caused.

Well, CBO took a 236 billion surplus and projected 5.7 trill by 2010. You can show me how that's bullshit or you can just bullshit another pile.

You're smarter than this...don't get suckered by bullshit.

BOTH sides are "out to get us"...don't trust either a Dem or a Rep. In fact...don't EVER vote for EITHER.

You sound paranoid, not to mention uninformed. Your generalization ignores what Bush did to revenues compared to his predecessor. I don't tell you how to vote so the rest is uh... nunya.

We need to stop SPENDING...and unfortunately...a LOT of people completely depend on government spending.

Others depend on pontification.

I guess the poor will all have jobs once the REAL war starts. We can start by drafting everyone on public assistance...what do you think about that?

I think yer young enough to make the cut. Boots on the ground, that kind of thing. I'd think with any luck you'll lead the draft-lottery.

You mean the war between Jeebus freaks and everybody else? I like the odds on that one.

Women can join the military...they should be drafted too. We'll need everyone we can get out there when the Chinese attack with their several million man army.

I'd offer the Chinese have more going on up top than you appear to. The only thing that's gonna happen when China gets riled is they'll recall we have several million megatons of nuclear weapons pointed at em... right fuckin' now.

It's not even the deterrent that once persuaded the Soviets not to jump. But it's newest and baddest shit of the lot so don't get yer hopes up, the Chinese ain't morons.

Besides, nobody buys all their crap like American Wally World disciples.

We knew better than to fuck with the Chinese when McArthur flipped his wig and wanted to bomb the Soviets and Chinese via North Korea lol. You saw what happened to his ass.

 

[CLOWD11]

I guess the poor will all have jobs once the REAL war starts.

We'll need everyone we can get out there when the Chinese attack with their several million man army.

Back in the sixties it was reds under the beds, what ever happened to that over hyped propaganda?
Bush has fucked your country then done a runner, its a pity some of you cant see that.
The chinese will not be attacking any time soon, you owe them too much.
They would attack Australia first for our wealth of minerals which they need. Our 22m population would be outflanked by one of their squadrons, do we look worried?
Worry about something worthwhile worrying about dude, theres plenty of other shit to pick from.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Depends on what prisonplanet's spewing, CLOWD.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Do you feel a bit like Hydosun, where deregulation isn't so because we still have regulations elsewhere? In other words, a particularly significant de-regulation, for example that morphed the real division between main street/Wall Street into systemic risk?

I feel the regulation-deregulation argument doesn't matter until the criminals running the show are put behind bars. Lobbyists for business or unions writing rules and regulations is insanity. That's what we have right now.

How do you surmise what's going on with a rather broad swath of doubt and how does that doubt substantiate all the news articles?

The western world is insolvent and is pretending like they aren't. I only have to look at the market, particularly interest rates and credit default swaps, to see that it is going to force the reality down our throats rather we like it or not. No amount of denial will stop it. Lest we not forget our balance sheet is multiples times worse than Greece's.

I understand that heads and tails is the same coin. But you metaphorically or "practically" win or lose depending on the flip.

I would argue that we loose either way if it's heads or tails. Maybe you can argue that you loose a little less with one or the other, but over the course of time you and your family will loose. It's the illusion of choice.

I get the impression you're saying you don't flip coins. I hope you gather I avoid selecting the part of reality that supports my reasoning.

I'm sick of flipping the coin. I think many other Americans are sick of the two party paradigm as well.

"Practical reality" isn't suggesting that you should feel our lawmakers are making practical decisions. It's a deference to "virtual reality" where someone looks at a part of the pic, doesn't look at the other part and makes definitive judgement accordingly. Because we can see what happens when we change courses. Could it be that you choose to ignore the realities because neither reality is your cup of tea?

I understand the reality of the situation and I think it's hopeless. That's why I ignore it. Whenever we are at the point that it's ok to call a political philosophy something that it is not for the sake of convenience or popular culture then we are lost IMO. Is it practical to call Neo-Conservative Progressives "conservative". Yes. Is it practical to call Neo-Liberal Progressives "liberal". Yes. Is it intellectually honest. No. Does it reek of propaganda to do so. Absolutely. When, as a society, we forgo intellectual honesty to satisfy a simpler version of the truth then we are in real trouble.

You know, CBO isn't the mysterious fed that doesn't want others scouring their business. They're a pretty open joint and their numbers aren't politicized.

Are you suggesting that simply because they're not private sector they can't be trusted?

I don't think it wise to trust an organization who is continuously wrong all the time. How can you say their numbers aren't politicized? Congress gives them a bunch of assumptions to do their calculations. Then they calculate the results which are usually wrong by multiple factors. The numbers coming from Congress are politicized (ie growth projections) so the results will be politicized. Equations are only as good as the assumptions that make them up. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Interesting news coming out of China. Inching closer to a western world default.

China ratings house says US defaulting: report AFP

A Chinese ratings house has accused the United States of defaulting on its massive debt, state media said Friday, a day after Beijing urged Washington to put its fiscal house in order.

"In our opinion, the United States has already been defaulting," Guan Jianzhong, president of Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. Ltd., the only Chinese agency that gives sovereign ratings, was quoted by the Global Times saying.

Washington had already defaulted on its loans by allowing the dollar to weaken against other currencies -- eroding the wealth of creditors including China, Guan said.

Guan did not immediately respond to AFP requests for comment.

The US government will run out of room to spend more on August 2 unless Congress bumps up the borrowing limit beyond $14.29 trillion -- but Republicans are refusing to support such a move until a deficit cutting deal is reached.

I believe we will raise the debt ceiling. There will be some silly window dressing to pretend like we are going to do something about the debt and deficit. We will kick the can down the road until the bond market collapses or the Chinese are forced to jump off the sinking ship that is the Dollar and let the Yuan appreciates.

We don't have to go to war with China. All they have to to is stop buying our debt and the party is over. It will hurt them too, but we are painting them into a corner right now.

 

[Hydrosun]

Well, CBO took a 236 billion surplus and projected 5.7 trill by 2010. You can show me how that's bullshit or you can just bullshit another pile.

I believe that was JoeUsers point. NONE of the future predictions mean two shits, because none of them are ever correct.

The how it is bull shit is obvious, this country never saw a year where the national debt decreased during the years in question and had a 13 trillion national debt in 2010 therefore the projected surpluses of 5.7T in 2010 is and was bullshit.

That graph that goes out to 2019 is similarly bullshit.

 

[HempKat]

If one looks at historic, economic indicators, tax cuts for the fat cats never produced jobs. That's not political pie-in-the-sky. CBO doesn't tell us that and how the private sector expands and contracts. It's the private sector's own numbers that show mirror image of where we were vs where we're going.

That BS about Tax breaks for the wealthy produces jobs is cut from the same cloth of BS as "If we did away with welfare people would give more to charities." Charity has been around alot longer then the US government or Welfare. Welfare was created because the rish were never as charitable as they would have you believe and what charity that was there was not enough to even come close to covering the need. These types of assurances from the rich are only given to pursuade people to vote for tax cuts. Once the rich get to keep more of their money they just become richer.