Discussion: The Economy, Fiscal Cliff, National Debt, And Other Financial Issues IV

Dear François Hollande,

It's called

CAPITAL FLIGHT

You may return to your magical unicorn rainbow farting fantasy land.

Dox,
 
Is anybody concerned that good paying jobs are harder and harder and harder and harder and harder to find. Middle class American families losing everything for a cheap, 2 room apartment and working at McDonalds!

THAT'S PROGRESS!
 
I don't know if you are advocating $2 an hour or $15.

I'm advocating for no minimum wage. We need to stop allowing politicians to determine how and what we spend our money on. A worker has every right to earn what he/she is truly worth in a market economy. If the government decides what workers should get paid, then it's quickly on the road to communism or fascism.
 
Is anybody concerned that good paying jobs are harder and harder and harder and harder and harder to find. Middle class American families losing everything for a cheap, 2 room apartment and working at McDonalds!

THAT'S PROGRESS!

That's inflation! Thank a progressive...:doh:
 
According to Senator Bernie Sanders, "counting those who have stopped looking for work and those settling for part-time work, the real unemployment rate is 13.7%, not 7.3%."
 
According to Senator Bernie Sanders, "counting those who have stopped looking for work and those settling for part-time work, the real unemployment rate is 13.7%, not 7.3%."

You also need to add in there those that do not file for unemployment...like teachers, church workers, non-profit organization workers

It is actually probably closer to 15% +
 
You also need to add in there those that do not file for unemployment...like teachers, church workers, non-profit organization workers

It is actually probably closer to 15% +

People who are working do not file for unemployment. If you want to go that far, then the unemployment rate would be 100% because that would pretty much include everyone eligible to work.

Look, the official unemployment rate is the U-3 measure (which was at 7.3% last month) . That's what government and most media outlets are using. The U-6 measure (or what some people call the real unemployment rate) is not counted because that measure includes people who have given up on looking for work. The truth of the matter is that you or I can not help someone if they do not want help, and you are just not going to get a job (nor assistance) if your are not looking for it. That's why they are not counted in the official statistic.
 
People who are working do not file for unemployment. If you want to go that far, then the unemployment rate would be 100% because that would pretty much include everyone eligible to work.

Look, the official unemployment rate is the U-3 measure (which was at 7.3% last month) . That's what government and most media outlets are using. The U-6 measure (or what some people call the real unemployment rate) is not counted because that measure includes people who have given up on looking for work. The truth of the matter is that you or I can not help someone if they do not want help, and you are just not going to get a job (nor assistance) if your are not looking for it. That's why they are not counted in the official statistic.

What are you talking about? Of course I'm talking about those people that WERE teachers, church workers and non-profit workers that have lost their jobs.

Come on dnno1 really that is your argument? IF you have given up on work, you are STILL TAKING UNEMPLOYMENT in many cases...which is why many ARE NOT LOOKING.

Hence why people are saying both need to be counted, because they are both relevant to the discussion.

Good grief.
 
American values have changed for the worse. We used to celebrate people who worked hard for a living. Laborers who built and fixed things, provided goods and services, and ran the infrastructure. Now, people view the lifestyle of the super-rich to be the ideal. They worship celebrities and follow the daily details of their lives obsessively. The mainstream media is saturated with images flaunting the luxury lifestyle that so few can afford to live.

Many of the manufacturing jobs and other various labor that used to provide so many lower and middle-class American families with stable work have been phased out, or shipped away. The rising costs of living outpace the gradual rise of wages. I feel that we're heading down the wrong path.
 
Fast food workers are striking because they want $15 an hour? Hahaha yeah right. Who doesn't want to pay $20 for a Big Mac meal? That was rhetorical.

$7 something an hour is barely livable yes and I feel minimum wage is due for another increase of a dollar or so but to feel you deserve $15 an hour when you more than likely have little to no education and your job is dependent upon crappy food for cheap prices...by all means strike for $15 an hour flipping burgers.

I read about this a week or two ago. These morons don't realize the consequences of raising minimum wage.

In some cases they don't even flip burgers. McDonald workers just have to throw that garbage in the microwave. It's ridiculous that these bums want that much money. I'm sorry but $15 is more than you would get paid starting in a low level position at an office job in most cases. Office jobs require more experience than pushing labeled buttons on a register, and requires a lot more multitasking. These fools are in fact lazy. If you brush up on Microsoft Word, Excel and get good at using home row and your typing speed, you can easily get an office job through a temp company like OfficeTeam. That's a good way to move up the work ladder. Instead they want to stay working at what is basically a highschooler job and just cry that they're not getting paid as the other people with better skills that actually deserve that much money.

Here's an article one of my buddies had me read.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/california-passes-new-job-killing-minimum-wage/#.UjYvxNKsgdo
 
A few weeks back I was reading an article about Wal-Mart (I'd link it, but I'd probably never be able to find it again).

Basically, Wal-Mart stores across the country are losing customers because of bad employees and employee service. They don't keep the stores clean or organized, they aren't helping customers with questions, and they're doing pretty much the bare minimum needed to keep their jobs, and sometimes not even enough to do that. And even when Wal-Mart fires these people, they can't seem to hire anyone to replace them that will do a good job (at least for very long).

And the blame is being put on low wages and hours.

Wal-Mart has squeezed their pay so low, they literally can't hire good employees. They're actually pricing themselves out of the labor market. They're having trouble keeping stores staffed, and staffed with anyone worth keeping. And their competitors, like Target, are taking the competitive advantage by offering better wages and hours. So they obviously get a better choice of employee because they're going to be everyone's higher choice. And by getting better employees, they're stealing customers, and money, from Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is in a situation where they'd actually make more money by paying higher wages! Just like economics dictates.

Why, exactly, do we need minimum wage again?
 
In terms of a mimimum wage I think it makes more sense to set it city by city. The Minimum wage in New York, NY for instance should be higher then some small town of 10,000 people where the cost of living is less. It's a basic case if Walmart of McDonalds want to set shop in certain cities they should add to the economy of that city instead of hiring people at dirt cheap and leaving them to be on food stamps to get by
 
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...bama-set-to-herald-economic-record/?hpt=hp_t2

This is just what I wanted to hear. :dry:
Six in 10 Americans told Gallup in August that economic conditions are getting worse, and earlier this month, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, found that 95% of income gains from 2009 to 2012 went to the top 1% of earners.

In short, the study found, the slow economic growth the United States has experienced since the economic crash of 2008 has primarily favored top earners, while incomes for the vast majority of people have stagnated.
 
You just reminded me of something else from that article I read.

It placed a good deal of the blame for the shrinkage of middle class incomes on Wal-Mart's shoulders. Their policy of squeezing out every dime, including pay, was mimicked by other large companies.

Well, now they're reaping the benefits of their work. They can't find good employees because they don't pay enough. So their profits are suffering. And they've squeezed pay so low, there's no incentive, or ability, for people to get training and job experience because no one wants those jobs.

This is why you don't really need minimum wage. If you don't pay enough, you're not going to get anyone worth hiring anyway. In areas where cost of living is high, employers will have to pay more. Where it's lower, they'll pay less. But they'll pay what the good employees want or risk losing customers.
 
Wal-Mart literally tries to figure out ways to squeeze extra pennies from their stores. They freak out when anything threatens, or actually hurts, their profits. Even a little.

Also, that 15 billion is down over 4% since 2010. That's over 600 million. Don't think Wal-Mart hasn't noticed that.
 
I work retail and Friday we all had to sit in a safety meeting. The speaker said that our company barely ekes out a profit of one cent on the dollar. To me, that sounds impossible but I know nothing about business. I keep hearing that the entire grocery industry is doing similarly poor business, yet I see the above post about Wal-Mart. What say you, the economically inclined? Is a one cent profit a reasonable expectation to run a fairly large chain?
 
Last edited:
Also, that 15 billion is down over 4% since 2010. That's over 600 million. Don't think Wal-Mart hasn't noticed that.

Next year I guess instead of having Tom Cruise show up to the corporate meetings, that means they will have to settle for Penelope Cruz instead
 
A few weeks back I was reading an article about Wal-Mart (I'd link it, but I'd probably never be able to find it again).

Basically, Wal-Mart stores across the country are losing customers because of bad employees and employee service. They don't keep the stores clean or organized, they aren't helping customers with questions, and they're doing pretty much the bare minimum needed to keep their jobs, and sometimes not even enough to do that. And even when Wal-Mart fires these people, they can't seem to hire anyone to replace them that will do a good job (at least for very long).

And the blame is being put on low wages and hours.

Wal-Mart has squeezed their pay so low, they literally can't hire good employees. They're actually pricing themselves out of the labor market. They're having trouble keeping stores staffed, and staffed with anyone worth keeping. And their competitors, like Target, are taking the competitive advantage by offering better wages and hours. So they obviously get a better choice of employee because they're going to be everyone's higher choice. And by getting better employees, they're stealing customers, and money, from Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is in a situation where they'd actually make more money by paying higher wages! Just like economics dictates.

Why, exactly, do we need minimum wage again?

I got annoyed at Wal-mart basically because they only had two lanes open so both lines to check out were long. I was wondering why they couldn't just have more people work during that time so the checkout could go faster.
 
I got annoyed at Wal-mart basically because they only had two lanes open so both lines to check out were long. I was wondering why they couldn't just have more people work during that time so the checkout could go faster.

At our store we hear the same complaint. We never have enough help and most of the time we aren't busy enough to justify having more people scheduled.
 
I work retail and Friday we all had to sit in a safety meeting. The speaker said that our company barely ekes out a profit of one cent on the dollar. To me, that sounds impossible but I know nothing about business. I keep hearing that the entire grocery industry is doing similarly poor business, yet I see the above post about Wal-Mart. What say you, the economically inclined? Is a one cent profit a reasonable expectation to run a fairly large chain?

For grocery stores, about 2% profit is the norm because competition is high and margins are thin.

The restaurant industry is even more competitive, but their margins are higher. So profits are more like 5-10% depending on factors.


(Just looked up grocery industry because those numbers are from when I was at school, and their profit margin is down to .7%)
 
I watched an interview recently with Mike Rowe from Dirty Jobs...his personal belief was that there's a huge market of open jobs up for grab that people are ignoring that actually pay pretty well. Blue collar work. A lot of the companies he's known have had lots of job openings that they can't fill because in our society we beat it into the heads of our children that they need to get a "GOOD" job...ie, not blue collar. So future generations snub those jobs.

And you know what? I've seen that happen myself so I totally believe it. We seem to think that driving a tractor is beneath us....that we NEED to have an office job in order to be successful. :/
 
That is one thing that we seem to be missing....our education system is missing it to as we shut down funding for CATE classes such as mechanics, welding, etc...we are leaving behind in our "No Child Left Behind" curriculum that group of kids that would be trained to help sustain, and build new infrastructure in our country. We think all kids should go to college, which just isn't a realistic view.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"