Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Lots of the jobs lost are never coming back. 

 

There is about $5trillion of mortgage debt out there on properties that are underwater on equity.  The entire home construction sector is dead. Real estate is what drove and created the 2007 bubble and until that sector recovers, there can be no full recovery. 

 

Instead of blaming Obama Care, consider the impact of the the baby boomers on Medicare and other Social Security.  Those costs will drive government expenses up by at least 5% per year for the next 25 years.   ObamaCare is basically the same as RomneyCare, which makes both essentially the Repub alternative to the Clinton plan.

Originally Posted by Ronnie P.:

The chart shows job creation dropped at about the time Obamacare became law.  What changed in the construction sector that that April that wasn't there in March?

 

 

 Not true Ronnie.

 Your own chart shows a reivival of job growth above pre-healthcare levels and then the same decline that the rest of the economy has been facing. The red line on your chart is pure propaganda.

 The bail out money from 2009 was used by Wall Street to invest in overseas markets such as Chyina, there was no net gain in employment nor stimulus from that money supplied and backed by the U.S. taxpayer.

Job growth might return in 2014 even if Obama wins in 2012, assuming the commissars running the federal agencies that impact businesses change their anti-capitalist course. Many if not most employers intend on dumping their employees into the subsidized state gov'mint run exchanges. The bad news here is that this will inflate the Federal budget/National Debt and I doubt the Chinese will be stupid enough to buy any more of our bonds.

 

The history of entitlement programs is certainly not encouraging. Congress tends to overpromise and underfund. Medicare, for example, cost nine times more in 1990 than was expected in 1965 ($109 billion, instead of the $12 billion originally estimated). We don’t believe that the federal government has gotten any better at cost estimates or resisting the temptation to expand programs. And at a time of crushing deficits, we can’t afford to be that far off again.

 

One of us is an economist who has laid out the math showing why roughly 35 million American workers will almost certainly be transferred from employer-provided care to the Obamacare exchanges. For these workers, it will be possible for both the employer and the employee to be financially better off if they are “dumped” into the exchanges. Only the taxpayer loses. As evensome in the Obama administration have noted, many employers — and millions of employees — will find the idea of taxpayer-subsidized care very attractive.

The other of us, as a former businessman, knows what it’s like to purchase coverage for employees. There are many employers who would happily get out of the practice of providing health insurance, if they could do it without hurting their workers. Obamacare will encourage them to do so. In the current system, most employers are highly reluctant to drop health coverage for employees because they don’t want their workers to be financially exposed. But under Obamacare, instead of paying $15,000 for family coverage, an employer can choose to pay a $2,000 fine, pay more in cash wages, make his employees eligible for a huge government subsidy and come out ahead. Confident that their employees are also gaining, millions of employers will follow this logic.

 

Tens of millions of workers will be given the opportunity to take advantage of those subsidies. It makes no sense to think that just a few million will wind up in the exchanges.

A recent employer survey by McKinsey & Co. found that more than half of all American companies are likely to “dump” their workers into the government-run exchanges. If half of the 180 million workers who enjoy employer-provided care wind up in the exchanges, the annual cost of Obamacare would increase by $400 billion by 2021. If the other half eventually follows suit, and all American employees wind up in the exchanges — which we believe is a goal of Obamacare — then the annual cost of the exchanges would increase by more than $800 billion.  Like Medicare in 1965, this would be more than nine times the original cost estimate of $93 billion each year ($893 billion vs. $93 billion).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../AG4eAqXH_story.html

18,000 new hires in June 2011, about 3X the rate claimed in the chart.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

 18,000 new jobs! Break out the bubbly!

 

A rule of thumb on Wall Street is that it takes about 150,000 jobs a month to keep up with the growth in the labor force and thereby keep the unemployment rate steady. But the Fed’s view is that “equilibrium” job growth is only 110,000 per month.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...on-jobs-equilibrium/

Let's see, that means that in the productive month of June, we were short of breaking even by a factor of 6.1X using the lower 110,000 per month figure. Anyway, is there no one here capable of noticing that the trend-line is a statistical tool for averaging the lumps and bumps of the graph or that the 6,400 number is likely the mean value? 

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
And another redneck joins the conversation.

Unfortunately, some people believe that facts ALWAYS have a slant in one direction or the other.  That you NEVER get just facts.  There is a little truth in everything, so that's why it's so important to understand where numbers come from and they arrived at them.  You can't just put a liberal or conservative spin on things and get the truth out of it.  There is a factual truth there that isn't there just too make a point.  Reasonable people can still disagree.

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

The answer, which Heritage researchers undoubtedly knew but chose to hide, was the hiring and firing of census workers. 

So this chart which shows PRIVATE SECTOR job growth should show CENSUS jobs?  TO be clear the point of this chart is to show how private sector employers stopped hiring after Obamacare was passed because of the UNCERTAINTY to these small companies.  The federal government isn't worried about being able to pay benefits.

Originally Posted by Ronnie P.:

Alright Jimi, Explain their ignorance.  One day you are going to back some statement up and I'll probably fall out of my chair when you do.

Here is what I think Jimi is saying, if y'all weren't just needling each other.  LOL  First, there is no direct link offered showing the reason for the leveling in job increases to be due to implementation of health care legislation.  There must have been at least 1,000 other things going on to which this could have been arbitrarily attributed.  Two, there have been many more plausible explanations offered for it, e.g., the multiplier effect involved in the huge number of public sector jobs and benefits that were lost -- teachers, firefighters, police officers, college professors, child care training programs -- as well as cuts and elimination of grant funding to non-profits who provide various social services at all levels.  These are jobs, despite some people saying they are not, and the money is spent in various ways in the community that provides business to the private sector, thus employment.    For example, teachers who did not lose their jobs, but they will have less expendable income because of cuts in their retirements benefits, i.e., they will be paying an increased percentage for their retirement.  All public sector spending which provides a job and benefits is money that multiplies in the economy at large. 

Originally Posted by melli:
Originally Posted by Ronnie P.:

Alright Jimi, Explain their ignorance.  One day you are going to back some statement up and I'll probably fall out of my chair when you do.

Here is what I think Jimi is saying, if y'all weren't just needling each other.  LOL  First, there is no direct link offered showing the reason for the leveling in job increases to be due to implementation of health care legislation.  There must have been at least 1,000 other things going on to which this could have been arbitrarily attributed.  Two, there have been many more plausible explanations offered for it, e.g., the multiplier effect involved in the huge number of public sector jobs and benefits that were lost -- teachers, firefighters, police officers, college professors, child care training programs -- as well as cuts and elimination of grant funding to non-profits who provide various social services at all levels.  These are jobs, despite some people saying they are not, and the money is spent in various ways in the community that provides business to the private sector, thus employment.    For example, teachers who did not lose their jobs, but they will have less expendable income because of cuts in their retirements benefits, i.e., they will be paying an increased percentage for their retirement.  All public sector spending which provides a job and benefits is money that multiplies in the economy at large. 


Finally someone who can figure Jimbo out. LOL

You either got to be his Mom or his Babysitter, right?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×