Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Number of unemployed persons per job opening

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
October 30, 2011 3:05:20 AM

According to this data, in August there were 4.6 unemployed persons per job opening.
October 30, 2011 12:03:49 PM

It would seem theres no link, and if whatever numbers these may be, we could cut unemployment by over 20%, which would lead to more jobs as well, due to the extra purchasing power
October 30, 2011 4:23:32 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
It would seem theres no link, and if whatever numbers these may be, we could cut unemployment by over 20%, which would lead to more jobs as well, due to the extra purchasing power

No link between what and what?
Related resources
October 31, 2011 11:49:19 AM

Most businesses will not hire until they have certainty of what future costs will be. With massive uncertainty and lack of stability in the market, they are basically just playing a wait and see game, paying off debt, etc.

My company is currently growing and hiring, but I work in a niche market. Industrial water treatment. So, basically engineers and admin support staff.

Most businesses in the USA will continue to sit on their hands until after the 2012 elections are decided.
October 31, 2011 7:07:04 PM

Can't get any more accurate than that statement Oldman.
November 1, 2011 4:54:38 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Most businesses will not hire until they have certainty of what future costs will be.

Most businesses in the USA will continue to sit on their hands until after the 2012 elections are decided.
To echo this sentiment, the company I work for just extended 1 out of 3 Union contracts until May 2014 as a result of Obamacare and not knowing what the costs effects will be as a result.

A lot of business are playing "hurry-up-and-wait" game until they have some level of certainty with the market and legislation.

November 2, 2011 12:07:56 PM

I am hiring ...

Looking for lecturers in Electrical trades and plumbing and gas fitting ... must have trade papers and preferrably a teaching qual.

I will also be looking for a carpentry and joinery lecturer in the new year.

PM me if interested and i will send you the link.

Must have Working with Children and Education Police clearance.

Govt jobs.
November 2, 2011 10:55:01 PM

The main reason I posted was to put some numbers to a discussion that takes place somewhat often. There's sometimes the claim that jobless people are either unwilling to take a job or unqualified. The numbers show that even if all available jobs were filled, there would still be a significant amount of unemployment, even if the unemployed all became qualified and willing. So Herman Cain's "If you don't have a job ... blame yourself," for example, is false.
November 2, 2011 11:44:18 PM

And I say, since therell obviously more tax monies to be had, more money in peoples pockets, more goods being bought, someone has to make the goods, someone has to sell them, ship them etc
Having more tax money helps settle huge current debt problems etc
The snowball starts rolling in the right direction
November 3, 2011 2:13:55 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
And I say, since therell obviously more tax monies to be had, more money in peoples pockets, more goods being bought, someone has to make the goods, someone has to sell them, ship them etc
Having more tax money helps settle huge current debt problems etc
The snowball starts rolling in the right direction

I'm having trouble seeing the connection between our posts, but maybe you're not trying to connect them. I'm all for Buffet's taxation idea.
November 3, 2011 2:35:18 AM

Nim Chimpsky said:
I'm having trouble seeing the connection between our posts, but maybe you're not trying to connect them. I'm all for Buffet's taxation idea.


Historically in America full employment is considered to be 4-5% unemployment. That is perfectly sustainable. Your always going to have unemployment because we have a dynamic economy. People are moving from poverty to employment to prosperity and vice versa. Plus, some people just cant work or are unwilling to and society takes care of them through government or charity. No, people that don't work can not have the same things as people who do work for them. That is not unfairness, that is reality.

November 3, 2011 3:15:34 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Historically in America full employment is considered to be 4-5% unemployment. That is perfectly sustainable. Your always going to have unemployment because we have a dynamic economy. People are moving from poverty to employment to prosperity and vice versa.

Currently we have a 9.1% unemployment rate. Also, real wages are just not increasing fast enough for the increasing cost of living; except for the 1% of course.

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Plus, some people just cant work or are unwilling to and society takes care of them through government or charity. No, people that don't work can not have the same things as people who do work for them. That is not unfairness, that is reality.

The point of the graph (for which I have now provided a link) is that people will be unemployed even if "some people just can't work or are unwilling." People who can work and are willing.
November 3, 2011 6:59:14 PM

Your argument is flawed Nim.

Manufacturing wages are decreasing (jobs are going way), management wages are up (20% of middle class is management). Looking at the high level, wages are flat. For example, manufacturing has an extremely high unemployment rate. Information Technology has an extremely low unemployment rate which is sitting around 3.1% nationally.
During the recession my personal wages have increased 36%. I am not a business owner or anything, just a middle class working person. I am not in your so called 1% either.

The question to ask if why is the cost of living going up and why are wages flat? If you can accurately answer those questions, it will point you to the root cause.

To expand, wages are flat because of economic uncertainity. Who controls that?
Cost of living is going up because other costs are going up due to regulations in place. Who controls that?
November 3, 2011 11:18:42 PM

riser said:
The question to ask if why is the cost of living going up and why are wages flat? If you can accurately answer those questions, it will point you to the root cause.

To expand, wages are flat because of economic uncertainity. Who controls that?
Cost of living is going up because other costs are going up due to regulations in place. Who controls that?


Your rebuttal is also flawed, in that the wages have stagnated over a much larger time period than immediately after the financial collapse; the systemic root of the economic insecurity currently occupying the markets, created and manifested in the same place.






The regulation argument for the cost of goods going up is a red herring, mostly because the businesses exporting jobs and manufacturing are seeking higher profits, nothing more. The more we employ free trade agreements and foreign policies that directly limit American businesses amongst global competition, the more we see the exportation of all aspects of manufacturing and product creation. IMO, once we remove trade preference (free trade agreements) and impose the same regulations for importation of goods (to create an even manufacturing baseline) there won't be such a rush to seek cheap labor elsewhere. The cost of labor is truly the most dominant factor in moving operations elsewhere; why pay American's dollars/hour when you can pay foreigners pennies/hour?

Imposing the same standards of production on goods created in other countries (same standards for safety, quality, consistency, etc.) through business expectations and proper corporate management, as well as government regulation, would in-turn bring more jobs back to this country.

For all those the continue to blame the government for all our woes, you might want to consider major manufactures like I've listed below:

HP - Laid off 60,000 American workers and outsourced the jobs to India.
GE - Showed revenue of upwards of US$ 15 Billion, 10 Billion of which is directly attributed to off shore investments.
GM/Big 3 - Closed down multiple plants throughout the country to send jobs to Mexico.

These corporations have no incentive of staying in the US when they can save hand-over-fist on Labor by exporting the jobs. Saying that the SAFETY and HEALTH regulations are what is bringing down these markets is disingenious and untrue. The EPA has much less of an effect at creating/destroying jobs compared to a companies options to pollute somewhere else, for less cost. The oil and gas companies were specifically mentioned earlier as being "opportunities" for job growth if it weren't for that pesky EPA. Let's just take Texas as an example and look at the fact that the state is below the national unemployment average, yet the state government has done little to nothing. It's directly related to the energy markets in Texas. Lowering health, safety and quality standards doesn't increase job growth, it increases profit on the bottom line. Nigeria and many other countries in Northern Africa are shining examples (there are no health, safety, quality standards over there, and thus the populations are dying of diesases and problems related to exposure).

But the trend is coming back, albeit extremely slowly:
Quote:
This trend of reshoring or insourcing is likely to grow in the coming years, as the cost gap between building overseas and building at home narrows. It's an encouraging sign in a job market where hiring has stalled in recent months.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/17/news/economy/made_in_us...

But this is directly related to wages increasing in other countries, specifically China, India and many places in South America. As their labor costs increase, so does the margin for profit gain SHRINK by creating products in these far off places.

I have the luxury of working in IT, within the Transportation/Logistics industry and see both sides of issue fairly clearly. The main hangup I have in all of this is the subsidization of businesses, supposedly American businesses, that only have a P.O. Box or less within the US and have all manufacturing outside of our borders. I also have huge problems with the energy subsidizies as all it is doing is propping up the shareholders and executives while passing on the bill to all the tax payers. Per a personal motto, "If you take the money out of politics, you take away the power out of the hands of the few."
November 3, 2011 11:46:55 PM

riser said:
Your argument is flawed Nim.

Manufacturing wages are decreasing (jobs are going way), management wages are up (20% of middle class is management). Looking at the high level, wages are flat. For example, manufacturing has an extremely high unemployment rate. Information Technology has an extremely low unemployment rate which is sitting around 3.1% nationally.
During the recession my personal wages have increased 36%. I am not a business owner or anything, just a middle class working person. I am not in your so called 1% either.

I'm happy for you. You're doing better than average. Link

riser said:
The question to ask if why is the cost of living going up and why are wages flat? If you can accurately answer those questions, it will point you to the root cause.

To expand, wages are flat because of economic uncertainity. Who controls that?

Alan Greenspan cited that uncertainty as a positive for the economy (a negative for the people, to be sure), so I would guess the government and the business sector are responsible.

riser said:
Cost of living is going up because other costs are going up due to regulations in place. Who controls that?

I don't think I could adequately explain why CoL rises, but my limited knowledge at least tells me that it's not that simple. Maybe someone here has enough experience with economics to explain it to me.

EDIT: Ah, I see someone has come to explain that and more.
November 3, 2011 11:51:06 PM

and there is tons of disease and dying people in Texas? you should not compare texas to Africa. Texas has amazing health and safety standards compared to them

I agree overall that jobs need to be brought back to the US.
November 4, 2011 12:10:41 AM

mjmjpfaff said:
and there is tons of disease and dying people in Texas? you should not compare texas to Africa. Texas has amazing health and safety standards compared to them

I agree overall that jobs need to be brought back to the US.



I made a comparison to a place with very high standards that is an example of low unemployment, and cited another place that has very low standards that is an example of what those standards preserve; human life.

Nigeria =/= Texas, nor was I trying show they were.
November 4, 2011 9:50:14 PM

Quote:
Let's just take Texas as an example and look at the fact that the state is below the national unemployment average, yet the state government has done little to nothing. It's directly related to the energy markets in Texas. Lowering health, safety and quality standards doesn't increase job growth, it increases profit on the bottom line

and the low taxes. businesses are flocking to texas because of their low tax rates. it makes sense to work there.
November 4, 2011 10:19:55 PM

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/04/20/cal...
Some firms also say they are leaving because California's state and local budget crunch has made government voracious. LegalZoom, the online company, is leaving Los Angeles for Austin because of a lengthy dispute with city government over taxes. One thing that sealed the move: When the firm's 400 employees heard the company was contemplating leaving, some began asking to relocate. Meanwhile, Creators Syndicate, the media syndication company, has also contemplated leaving because of a dispute over taxes with the city of Los Angeles that prompted an official of the company to accuse the city of operating like a "banana republic" and its bureaucrats of acting like "Stalin's apparatchiks."

The greatest irony lies in the ‘green' companies exiting the Golden State, despite (or perhaps because of) the state's efforts to project itself as a leader in environmental legislation. CalStar Products Inc., a Newark, Ca. company, said shortly after receiving a federal clean energy subsidy that it expects to expand by building manufacturing plants in the Mississippi Valley. Cereplast Inc., an El Segundo, Ca., maker of renewable plastics, announced it was ‘reducing its footprint' in California to a mere 3,000 square feet and moving much of its operation to Indiana "to reduce drastically our costs compared to California from real estate to utilities," according to its CEO. Meanwhile CODA, an electric car and battery company based in Santa Monica, decided last year to build a new manufacturing facility in Ohio.

November 5, 2011 5:02:13 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/04/20/cal...
Some firms also say they are leaving because California's state and local budget crunch has made government voracious. LegalZoom, the online company, is leaving Los Angeles for Austin because of a lengthy dispute with city government over taxes. One thing that sealed the move: When the firm's 400 employees heard the company was contemplating leaving, some began asking to relocate. Meanwhile, Creators Syndicate, the media syndication company, has also contemplated leaving because of a dispute over taxes with the city of Los Angeles that prompted an official of the company to accuse the city of operating like a "banana republic" and its bureaucrats of acting like "Stalin's apparatchiks."

The greatest irony lies in the ‘green' companies exiting the Golden State, despite (or perhaps because of) the state's efforts to project itself as a leader in environmental legislation. CalStar Products Inc., a Newark, Ca. company, said shortly after receiving a federal clean energy subsidy that it expects to expand by building manufacturing plants in the Mississippi Valley. Cereplast Inc., an El Segundo, Ca., maker of renewable plastics, announced it was ‘reducing its footprint' in California to a mere 3,000 square feet and moving much of its operation to Indiana "to reduce drastically our costs compared to California from real estate to utilities," according to its CEO. Meanwhile CODA, an electric car and battery company based in Santa Monica, decided last year to build a new manufacturing facility in Ohio.

ya it is getting pretty bad here in California. The unions literally run the state.
November 5, 2011 2:20:24 PM

mjmjpfaff said:
ya it is getting pretty bad here in California. The unions literally run the state.



California is at the point where they are buying their own debt, and have been for a few years now. That's what the Weimar Republic was doing just before it collapsed. Only this time, it will be another bailout from the federal government with our children, grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren picking up the tab with an effective lifetime tax rate of 80%+.
November 5, 2011 7:27:07 PM

mjmjpfaff said:
ya it is getting pretty bad here in California. The unions literally run the state.

You probably meant figuratively, but can I have some data?
November 6, 2011 12:39:53 PM

California is a lot like Greece. Neither is interested in the sacrifices required to restore sound fiscal practices.

Government bailout for California? I don't know. On one hand, CA is too big to fail. On the other hand, there's NY, IL, and the EU waiting in the wings with their hands out.
November 6, 2011 1:32:31 PM

Nim Chimpsky said:
You probably meant figuratively, but can I have some data?

its a known fact here that the unions are very powerful and very large. both parties need the unions support to be elected. they control the politicians like puppets. guess whos backing the high speed train that will cost about 100 billion (we are 375 billion dollars in debt). the california unions. they want the new workforce to be unionized and they will do it. by the way it will never make 100 billion dollars.
November 6, 2011 1:48:57 PM

Ive also lived in Cali, and to be sure, in the valley, its a government job, or you dont do as well
In the city, its give aways, food stamps, reduced rental costs thru government placement, welfare etc.
The retirement packages are much better than the private sector, thus commitment, huge commitment down the road, ala Greece.
As they drove business after business out of California, the remaining busnesses went union to maintain higher pay standards, because of the huge impact on illegals there, many businesses were coopted into competition, artificial competition, as some businesses, or most, paid their illegals lessor pay.
As it stands now, the fruit industry, too large to fail, is mostly illegal immigrant driven

This was slowly created by those in power, the elected officials, and many were the laments of my Mexican/American friends, that said how much better is was in the old days, and know why it is so today
To get a decent pay in California, you have to be extremely selective in the private sector, or work for the government.
This obviously doesnt bode well for the state, as the private sector is the only true support for the ever growing public sector
November 6, 2011 10:05:42 PM

mjmjpfaff said:
its a known fact here that the unions are very powerful and very large. both parties need the unions support to be elected. they control the politicians like puppets. guess whos backing the high speed train that will cost about 100 billion (we are 375 billion dollars in debt). the california unions. they want the new workforce to be unionized and they will do it. by the way it will never make 100 billion dollars.

If it's a known fact, it should be easy to find some data. I suspect it's more of a talking point. I know unions are a force in politics, but I don't get the impression that they're all-powerful. Ask someone from Europe and they'll tell you about real unions.
November 6, 2011 10:09:02 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
many were the laments of my Mexican/American friends, that said how much better is was in the old days, and know why it is so today

Err... Maybe it's me, but that is a suspicious statement. I suspect that most people with Mexican-American friends don't call them all fruit-farmers to make a point.
November 6, 2011 10:59:18 PM

I'll excuse your misunderstanding

Illegals are one thing, 2nd and 3rd gen Mexican Americans are someting altogether different.
Most that have been here and are naturalised, dont work in the fields, but it isnt that far off, as their grand parents or parents worked their tails off there.

My point was many points, many failings seen in California, and people need to open up to see a bigger picture, not pick and choose misunderstandings.
The pols there allowed for the illegals to use the fruit industry
They also allowed for higher so called green demand, where thru regulastion, it drove many a business out.
They also backed unions to the hilt, where if certain businesses werent union, they too got driven out thru competition from other states.
I still remember, with a gleem in his eye, my Mexican American friend telling me, I only eat hand picked oranges heheh
The blame falls squarely on our pols/officials, as with business losses, the already high taxed state, since prop 13 ran thru, the only taxation/revenue came thru the businesses that remained, which decline more and more.
The people got theirs, low property taxes, the unions do well comparatively to other states on a percentile basis, state jobs have better returns in their retirement packages, as well as higher wages.
Its the pols, no one else to blame there
November 7, 2011 2:05:17 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I'll excuse your misunderstanding

Illegals are one thing, 2nd and 3rd gen Mexican Americans are someting altogether different.
Most that have been here and are naturalised, dont work in the fields, but it isnt that far off, as their grand parents or parents worked their tails off there.

My point was many points, many failings seen in California, and people need to open up to see a bigger picture, not pick and choose misunderstandings.
The pols there allowed for the illegals to use the fruit industry
They also allowed for higher so called green demand, where thru regulastion, it drove many a business out.
They also backed unions to the hilt, where if certain businesses werent union, they too got driven out thru competition from other states.
I still remember, with a gleem in his eye, my Mexican American friend telling me, I only eat hand picked oranges heheh
The blame falls squarely on our pols/officials, as with business losses, the already high taxed state, since prop 13 ran thru, the only taxation/revenue came thru the businesses that remained, which decline more and more.
The people got theirs, low property taxes, the unions do well comparatively to other states on a percentile basis, state jobs have better returns in their retirement packages, as well as higher wages.
Its the pols, no one else to blame there

Yeah, that's basically true. We need laws to restrict the sorts of things that any business is bound to do if it maximizes profits.
November 7, 2011 3:48:52 AM

Nim Chimpsky said:
If it's a known fact, it should be easy to find some data. I suspect it's more of a talking point. I know unions are a force in politics, but I don't get the impression that they're all-powerful. Ask someone from Europe and they'll tell you about real unions.

do you live here? no. well i do so wouldnt that tell you i know what im talking about? the only right wing news we have here is talk radio. the rest is left wing papers local news etc. there is not much that i can show you on it.
November 7, 2011 4:12:20 AM

mjmjpfaff said:
do you live here? no. well i do so wouldnt that tell you i know what im talking about? the only right wing news we have here is talk radio. the rest is left wing papers local news etc. there is not much that i can show you on it.

If here is the US, I do. I'm sure there are a lot of individual cases where unions win, but I would need to see a large sample to agree that it's the norm. Teachers' unions seem to wield a lot of power, the New York police union has made the news lately, e.g., but I don't see workers' unions winning any major battles.
November 7, 2011 1:22:16 PM

here meaning california
November 7, 2011 3:18:51 PM

mjmjpfaff said:
here meaning california

Oh ok. Well I could definitely see unions being stronger in California, because it's a comparatively liberal state. Nationwide union membership is only 12.4% (vs. 16.7% in California) of the workforce, though, and the strength of unions has traditionally been in their numbers (Wikipedia, citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics). They need numbers to pressure lawmakers with votes and they need membership dues for money.
November 7, 2011 11:40:52 PM

mjmjpfaff said:
here meaning california

I live in California and I disagree with you, and I also work in one of the largest industries that employ the unions; Transportation/Logistics. There is a lot that you don't know about the concessions that have been made to the Unions, by the terminals/employers, that could have been dealt with 20 years ago, but instead the terminals/employers decided that placating the union was more efficient (and thus giving the unions more power) than fighting for or arbitrating for certain aspects of the labor. As this has gone on for upwards of 20 years, the employers have a hand in the creation of their own monster. I see this everyday as I have to fight for work that is ours (IT Department) while the mechanics attempt to claim work as their own.

As much as you want to scapegoat all the problems of California on the unions, it's more complicated than that.
November 8, 2011 1:52:45 AM

Quote:
As much as you want to scapegoat all the problems of California on the unions, it's more complicated than that.

youre right the politicians here are very incompetent. instead of fixing the massive debt they are trying to give illegal aliens free education and trying to spend money on a high speed train that costs about 100 billion dollars and it will never make any money because it will be too expensive.
November 8, 2011 4:07:11 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Only this time, it will be another bailout from the federal government with our children, grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren picking up the tab with an effective lifetime tax rate of 80%+.


I dare you to name one period of time in which a person making our (assumed comparable, consider inflation too) wages was paying anywhere near that. The reason is that the max tax brackets have been upwards of 90%... immediately following major wars we had to pay for and the in no way applied to the middle class as you are trying to perpetuate.

Bill Maher said something, which I know will spark it's own sentiments, that when we waged a major war in the history of the US, we always paid on our debts after the fact; generally by raising taxes. We paid on our debts not because it was socialism as what it is being made out to be now, but because it was what you did when you borrowed the money. This was one of the reasons that American debt was rated at AAA; this is the reason that S&P lowered our rating because Congress unnecessarily brought us unnaturally close to disaster. But I digress, if the Bush tax cuts were repealed and our corporate tax holes were plugged, this conversation wouldn't be taking place but there would still be someone like you complaining against raising taxes that will never affect them.

Starving the beast only further leads to economic decline, and 80% taxes will never happen again, especially considering that your average income in Congress is over $250,000. Why would anyone vote to increase their own taxes, even if thousands, perhaps millions of their constituents would be unaffected or possibly have their quality of life improved? Greed and selfishness; two of the most discernible characteristics of politicians of any color.
November 8, 2011 11:30:21 AM

l0ckd0wn said:
I dare you to name one period of time in which a person making our (assumed comparable, consider inflation too) wages was paying anywhere near that. The reason is that the max tax brackets have been upwards of 90%... immediately following major wars we had to pay for and the in no way applied to the middle class as you are trying to perpetuate.

Bill Maher said something, which I know will spark it's own sentiments, that when we waged a major war in the history of the US, we always paid on our debts after the fact; generally by raising taxes. We paid on our debts not because it was socialism as what it is being made out to be now, but because it was what you did when you borrowed the money. This was one of the reasons that American debt was rated at AAA; this is the reason that S&P lowered our rating because Congress unnecessarily brought us unnaturally close to disaster. But I digress, if the Bush tax cuts were repealed and our corporate tax holes were plugged, this conversation wouldn't be taking place but there would still be someone like you complaining against raising taxes that will never affect them.

Starving the beast only further leads to economic decline, and 80% taxes will never happen again, especially considering that your average income in Congress is over $250,000. Why would anyone vote to increase their own taxes, even if thousands, perhaps millions of their constituents would be unaffected or possibly have their quality of life improved? Greed and selfishness; two of the most discernible characteristics of politicians of any color.


ok.

"The United States did not use an income tax until 1861, as a temporary measure to help finance the Civil War; that tax was repealed in 1871, and no income tax was levied until 1913. From an initial top rate of 7% in 1913, the top rate rose to 77% by 1918 to help finance World War I. The top rate fell to 25% after the war, from 1925 to 1928, but peaked at 94% in 1944 and 1945, and it remained above 90% until it was reduced to 70% by 1964."
November 8, 2011 9:55:06 PM

Yes, the US has always paid its debts.
Japan took a different route
They charged their own people huge monies to purchase electronics, fueling the dumping of extremely affordable electronics here in the US and elsewheres
The difference is, the US stifled investment here, while Japan overtook markets
This is similar to what China is doing today

So, in the past, the rich got hammered, and investment was stifled
Today, the markets are fast moving, alot fasyer than back then, and capital is severly needed, so removing that capital, or even the threat of eating it thru taxation thru health care or whatever the government chooses as being "moral", fat foods, smoking etc, whatever reasons they need to promote their "thing" in their name, it harms the jobs creation chances, and even worse, people hold onto their money, and guess what, things slow down
If this isnt what were seeing, then it must be those rich people just hording that cash, and not wanting to make any more, and if you believe that, Ive got a house for sale in some swamp land
November 9, 2011 1:01:55 PM

Regarding the so called 1% - How can you compare a very few people against tens of millions of people? The law of averages will hose up that comparison all day long.

If we want to compare on the scale of 1%, every percent should be broken down. What are those in the 98 percentile making? If I recall the 1% consistented off less than a thousand people out of over 300 million people.

They are the few people who have a very high level skillset to do what the do.

What about the 53%? The people who actually pay taxes.

Regarding stagnent pay, against inflation, yes, it isn't really changing. People make more money, inflation goes up to counter paying higher salaries. It really is very common.

I don't blame the so called 1%. I do not consider myself in the 99% or the 1%.

Government is printing money creating borderline hyper inflation. Our debt is unsustainable.

Liberal companies like GE and Pepco Holdings who are heavily backed by the US government paid ZERO dollars in Federal Taxes last year. Both have record profits. They promote the 'green' agenda and therefore are exempt from taxes. Then you look at Big Oil companies who all paid their fair share in taxes. Yet, the so called 99% want those big corporations to pay their fair taxes? They don't, they won't. Who controls that? The government.

Every basic cost we have is based off the cost of producing something. The more the production costs go up, the higher the cost to the consumer. Thus the assembly line was born to reduce cost by increasing productivity. That made an automobile very affordable to many people. Today we are far more efficient, produce more with less workers.

Government is the root cause of inflation. Inflation is actually good for the government. As people get small pay raises, that money comes from somewhere -> the consumer in paying more.

McDonald's, a year or two ago reduced the size and/or quantity of nuggets in their dollar value from 3 nuggets to 2. The cost stayed the same. Minimum wage went up, the cost stayed the same technicall, but only two instead of three. A lot of people were upset. This was directly related to the cost of minimum wage going up. People are getting paid more, but everything else changed with it. This would result in stagnant wages I suppose.

As for the 1%. What's the big deal? I know several people who make a lot of money. I wouldn't, couldn't do their job for that money. They're not all sitting on golf courses and drinking martinis all day. These people work very hard and sacrifice much of their lvies to do what they do. A company on the other hand needs a strong leader and the cost is priceless for that.

Again, we are comparing a very, very few people against the masses. It is a stupid comparision used to anger a mob of people. If you really deep dive into the numbers you'll realize what a hoax it is and how the wool is being pulled over.
November 9, 2011 3:36:59 PM

I think you're missing the point. OWS is saying that the 99% have almost no influence over policy decisions. The 1% buys lobbyists, organizes PACs, gets elected, etc.
November 9, 2011 4:28:00 PM

Kind of hard to influence things when you don't even vote which the vast majority of them don't.
November 9, 2011 5:03:01 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Kind of hard to influence things when you don't even vote which the vast majority of them don't.


Youre making an ASS of U and ME.

Kinda hard to understand people when you assume whatever it is you think is going on.

BTW I might be making an appearance at OWS in NYC this weekend or next. Ill take some pics of all the Hippies.
November 9, 2011 5:45:34 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Kind of hard to influence things when you don't even vote which the vast majority of them don't.

I'd like to see a stat showing that.

But even if it's true, it just demonstrates one of their points. "This is what democracy looks like." Participation is not just voting every election.
November 9, 2011 6:06:57 PM

Nim Chimpsky said:
I think you're missing the point. OWS is saying that the 99% have almost no influence over policy decisions. The 1% buys lobbyists, organizes PACs, gets elected, etc.


Now that's a completely different answer from what others have said. Previously it was they wanted others to pay their taxes, companies were over charging, they wanted higher paying jobs, etc.

Why are they targeting Wall Street? They should be targeting the government. OWx really stands as a bunch of whiny people who don't want to put in the time to get a job and build a skillset to better themselves. The overall argument is appealing to many. The reality of it is this is not the movement many want to be associated with. OWx pales in comparison to something like the Tea Party Movement.
November 9, 2011 6:16:53 PM

Nim Chimpsky said:
I'd like to see a stat showing that.

But even if it's true, it just demonstrates one of their points. "This is what democracy looks like." Participation is not just voting every election.



Less than half of the 18-29 crowd voted in the 2008 election. And, that was considered to be the most active election for young people in decades.
November 9, 2011 7:00:21 PM

riser said:
Now that's a completely different answer from what others have said. Previously it was they wanted others to pay their taxes, companies were over charging, they wanted higher paying jobs, etc.

Why are they targeting Wall Street? They should be targeting the government. OWx really stands as a bunch of whiny people who don't want to put in the time to get a job and build a skillset to better themselves. The overall argument is appealing to many. The reality of it is this is not the movement many want to be associated with. OWx pales in comparison to something like the Tea Party Movement.

You should definitely check out some statements from the actual OWS people, instead of watching or reading the news. There's a lot of misinformation out there.
November 9, 2011 7:01:04 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Less than half of the 18-29 crowd voted in the 2008 election. And, that was considered to be the most active election for young people in decades.

Ok, so that's different from what I thought you were claiming, that the OWS people themselves say they don't vote.

And my second point?
November 9, 2011 7:30:38 PM

We're not a democracy. We're a republic.
November 9, 2011 8:18:18 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
ok.

"The United States did not use an income tax until 1861, as a temporary measure to help finance the Civil War; that tax was repealed in 1871, and no income tax was levied until 1913. From an initial top rate of 7% in 1913, the top rate rose to 77% by 1918 to help finance World War I. The top rate fell to 25% after the war, from 1925 to 1928, but peaked at 94% in 1944 and 1945, and it remained above 90% until it was reduced to 70% by 1964."

And as I stated, these didn't affect the BULK of Americans, they affected the most wealthy. Since then the funnel from the top has only further extended the gap between the richest and poorest.

riser said:
Regarding the so called 1% - How can you compare a very few people against tens of millions of people? The law of averages will hose up that comparison all day long.

If we want to compare on the scale of 1%, every percent should be broken down. What are those in the 98 percentile making? If I recall the 1% consistented off less than a thousand people out of over 300 million people.

1.)They are the few people who have a very high level skillset to do what the do.

What about the 53%? The people who actually pay taxes.

Regarding stagnent pay, against inflation, yes, it isn't really changing. People make more money, inflation goes up to counter paying higher salaries. It really is very common.

I don't blame the so called 1%. I do not consider myself in the 99% or the 1%.

Government is printing money creating borderline hyper inflation. Our debt is unsustainable.

Liberal companies like GE and Pepco Holdings who are heavily backed by the US government paid ZERO dollars in Federal Taxes last year. Both have record profits. They promote the 'green' agenda and therefore are exempt from taxes. 2.)Then you look at Big Oil companies who all paid their fair share in taxes. Yet, the so called 99% want those big corporations to pay their fair taxes? They don't, they won't. Who controls that? The government.

Every basic cost we have is based off the cost of producing something. The more the production costs go up, the higher the cost to the consumer. Thus the assembly line was born to reduce cost by increasing productivity. That made an automobile very affordable to many people. Today we are far more efficient, produce more with less workers.

Government is the root cause of inflation. Inflation is actually good for the government. As people get small pay raises, that money comes from somewhere -> the consumer in paying more.

McDonald's, a year or two ago reduced the size and/or quantity of nuggets in their dollar value from 3 nuggets to 2. The cost stayed the same. Minimum wage went up, the cost stayed the same technicall, but only two instead of three. A lot of people were upset. This was directly related to the cost of minimum wage going up. People are getting paid more, but everything else changed with it. This would result in stagnant wages I suppose.

3.) As for the 1%. What's the big deal? I know several people who make a lot of money. I wouldn't, couldn't do their job for that money. They're not all sitting on golf courses and drinking martinis all day. These people work very hard and sacrifice much of their lvies to do what they do. A company on the other hand needs a strong leader and the cost is priceless for that.

4.) Again, we are comparing a very, very few people against the masses. It is a stupid comparision used to anger a mob of people. If you really deep dive into the numbers you'll realize what a hoax it is and how the wool is being pulled over.



1.) The law of averages is showing that the average income of ~3000 people (the ~1%) is 185x the average of the rest of the nation. That's hardly fair by any stretch, and when I mean fair you claim that these people are the "best and brightest," a talking point slogan that's been thrown around for awhile now, yet these 1%ers are the root cause of the financial meltdown. Government deregulation, as originally facilitated by Clinton as concessions to Republicans, was an enabling mechanism along with the deregulation of the secondary market allowed casino-style gambling with the funds of the public. I use "public" as those people who lost a large portion of their own wealth due to the direct negligence of a few.

Please show me some material from the "best and brightest" that is worth their exorbitant salaries: I'm mostly focusing on the finance industry, but the salaries of CEOs in all industries has skyrocketed over the last 20 years while the average salary has completely stagnated. Now couple the profit seeking efforts of corporations and the exportation of jobs to seek lower costs of labor (which has been slowly shifting back to the US as I stated earlier), then we are left with CEOs who export jobs (manufacturing, non-finance), sue their customer base and push through legislation that stifles digital innovation (MPAA, RIAA - Viacom's CEO just got a $50million bonus) to show profits that have done what for their companies?

2.) So big oil paid their taxes last year, and your point is? According to Forbes, they paid last year, and the year before the paid next to nothing: That's nearly $20 billion that wasn't paid, but I guess we can all overlook that considering they paid last year. Now to move to Federal Income Tax, most oil companies pay below 20%, which is 15% lower than where they should be at 35%. So, if all of these oil companies paid their actual tax bracket rather than benefiting from tax breaks and off shore shelters, the numbers would be far heavier in your favor. However, as it sits now, you and I pay a higher tax percentage than our oil companies do.

3.) Of the 1%ers I can only think of a handful of CEOs and company leaders that truly reflect the ethics and values of the people they hire - Not that this really has anything to do with the topic, but ethics is a huge portion of business, at least it was in college. Their are many tech companies I could list here that have exceptional leadership teams and who's goal are more aligned with their workforce and not just their out-of-touch board of directors like so many of these ancient finance firms. I'm not saying that being a major decision maker at a company shouldn't pull a decent wage, but I hardly see the justification of a $50million salary (Viacom) as fair considering that the only "idea" to come out of some of these leaders is bribing politicians for toothless legislation, suing their customer base, refusing to lend money to small businesses and foreclosing on homes already free and clear, outsourcing jobs to show a profit, providing bonus' for the top 10% of a company while not increasing the wages of the average worker, etc. etc. etc.

So your anecdote is noted as being an anecdote with no real world significance other than justifying a few friends and your own conscience

4.) Show something to support this garbage statement. The very few people you speak of are the very people who are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The "best and brightest" were the ones to put us into this major economic recess and in turn has permanently funneled the wealth from the majority of the US population to the privileged few who bet against the markets, seeing the systemic failures for what they were and making boatload off of a system that our finance industry fixed, facilitated by politicians who are bought and paid for by money the help deregulate.

Oldmangamer_73 said:
We're not a democracy. We're a republic.

Yes, a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

Slightly off topic but directly relating to the voting in a democratic republic, House Speaker Zellers went on record to say that voting is a privilege and not a right, the exact opposite of reality. To go along with the very true statistics Oldman listed about the 18-29 year old demographic, would Compulsory Voting be the answer? Sounds like it would decimate the GOP as a whole, specifically with all their underhanded schemes to limit voting, as seen in Wisconsin and Ohio.
!