 |
When job growth numbers are lower than the population growth... its actually still a negative number, calling it a positive is spinning it. Because the net number will still be fewer and fewer people with jobs. It would have to EXCEDE the population growth to truly be a positive number.
It certainly IS a glass half epty situation when the water is leaking out of the bottom faster than you can pour it in.
Tell your congressman to invest in jobs projects and not just hand over loot to job creators who ain't creating jobs. Makes no sense to give a rich guy tax free land, build him a road and parking lot and he uses workers who need welfare, to sell stuff his out of country third world workers to make while he rakes in billions, that he hides in some other country.
At least make those fat rich guys build a roads, fix bridges.
as has already been pointed out , people who have stopped looking for work are not counted in the unemployment figures..... nor have we ever seen the job growth exceed the replacement rate. In reality we need 545,551 jobs created per month just to maintain the real unemployment rate ....something we have not come close to during the so called ObamaRecovery .
Give it to a rich man he invests it and creates value... give it to a welfare bum and they waste it on drugs, hookers and booze. Nothing of value is created.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
He creates value only for himself. And not everyone receiving welfare is a bum.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
How many welfare recipients own businesses that hire people and create jobs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
How many rich people... except the Kennedy's and a few others... DON'T own businesses that hire people and create jobs?
I guess it would be nice if life were as simple as you attempt to make it, but it isn't, neither are the solutions to problems. When you view everything in a binary way (black/white, right/wrong) you end up where you are: hatred for a large part of the your fellow humans since only a very small percentage fit into your "acceptable' mold.Quote:
How many welfare recipients own businesses that hire people and create jobs?
Look at the White House guest list and the Democrat donors list for the answer to this question. The stereotype of the rich guy that only hoards his wealth and stole it in the first place is drawn from the LEFT.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
If you think that what 50% of americans think then you live in a dream world.Quote:
The stereotype of the rich guy that only hoards his wealth and stole it in the first place is drawn from the LEFT.
And create as few low-paying jobs as they get away with.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
If those jobs were underpaid... they would find nobody willing to work for them. If these "low paid people" had any talent, why don't they start their own businesses, AND pay higher than market rate wages? THe answer it they can't....they don't have the skills, and if they did, they would be out of business within the month.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
A high school dropout with ZERO specific job skills is simply not worth $40,000 a year in any world.
Any job you could train almost any person you pulled off the street to do in 10 minuites time... isn't worth much in the way of pay, because they don't offer a value worth the money.
Correct... in America. See "Mitt Romney"Quote:
If those jobs were underpaid... they would find nobody willing to work for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It's correct anywhere... would you work for one place (assuming its not a family business and you aren't their kid) if another business down the street would pay you more to do the same job? Darn right you would leave... and so would everyone else. Result... no employees. That's how the free market works. Thats how you climb the ladder.
Wrong. See Ethiopia, India, China, etc...Quote:
It's correct anywhere.
So... they are actually slaves forced to work at gunpoint there? Or are there just far more unskilled workers there than availible jobs because they breed like rabbits? THat means there are plenty of job opportunities there for all the poor people to create all these good paying jobs we keep hearing about the poor creating. Why aren't they doing it?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
smoothy you know the poor would like to create jobs, but they have a big drawback and it isn't related to skill, it is related to capital. Without capital even the skilled among them can't get off the ground. Let's take the example of a friend of mine, a trained horticulturist, you would expect there might be jobs for such as he, but very few, so what does he need to get started ~ he needs land, sheds, pots, in other words, he has skill but requires capital. He can make a few dollars from a backyard operation but beyond that............. he gets plenty of offers from people who want him to grow the wrong thing
But that's not what the left claims... they say the rich don't create any jobs, the poor do... they can't have it both ways...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
different theory, the poor "create" jobs because they spend their entire income, however the effect is somewhat indirect as work isn't necessarily created where it is needed. The 1% create jobs by investing but when you can get better returns by investing in stocks why would you risk startup capital. I don't believe wages are a real barrier, it is regulation that restricts investment
Its not the 1% that invest... but most people that are working towards a retirement. With us in the USA its called the 401K plan... your employer matches what you put into it up to a certain limit. THe best returns are in stocks or funds that diversify in the stock market. THose are prtable tot eh mext employers plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Very few employers still have defined pension plans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Maybe what your freind needs is a better attitude and a life adjustment to work towards his/her goal. There are plenty of people here that cut grass and have turned it into gardening / landscaping businesses. They didnt do it overnight but they did struggle through it and keep one eye on the prize. It can be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The stupid people spend every dime they make.
I was taught my entire life... if you only get a dollar, you put at least $0.10 away for the future. You never spend everything you make. And that was from someone who actually knew what it was like to really be poor... not someone that just likes to think they are.
I can say that because I was one of those stupid people my first few years out of college....then I finally came to understand the lessons I was taught growing up.
You make do with at most 80% of your income....you put 20% in the bank.....you learn to live on that....and make any cuts you need to do it.
99% of the people that claim they can't afford to save money, have it to eat out, have iPhones with data plans for everyone in the house, Large screen TV, Xbox or Playstation, smoke....they have plenty of unneccessary expenses they CAN cut.
yes there are plenty of unnecessary expenses and there are some people who can do a lot with a little, but when you have had the guts kicked out of you a few times it is hard to stay positive, so don't get down on the poor for lack of initiative get down on those who could create opportunities and don't and smoothy, your 401k is great for those who have a job, we have a plan where the employer contributes 9% of your earnings but it actually has come out of wage rises foregone. it only works for those in permanent employment, a dying breed in a fast moving economy and they are now saying it needs to be lifted to 15% to be enough. If only we could get a situation where big losses don't occur every few years.
What I found is that once I got out of the system I could live on about 25% of my former earnings. The system is stacked against the poor because they can't achieve that
and the emperor chimes in ......"you didn't build that business on your own " .Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Which is precisely what the Progressives detest. They have been trying to assign ALL capital to the government so they can fulfill their dream of being Solyndra owners whom the government gives the capital to and expects good intentions in return.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
What sort of B/S is that that you decry assistence to enterprise just because it failed. Maybe one in a hundred startups makes it and sometimes an idea isn't as good as it seems, where is the Sarich rotary engine today? Buried by Detroit hyprocacy and the mad idea of a hybrid car. Solar has become possible because the Chinese found a way to make cells cheaply. still a long way to go though. Why doesn't a bigger and better shuttle fly today, because of penny pinching, petty frogging officialdom
Is that how it looked from outside? Interesting. From here it looked like a political donor raked in a wad of cash despite everybody in the business saying the company was a bust.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Obama Team Backed $535 Million Solyndra Aid as Auditor Warned on Finances - Bloomberg
There is supposed to be protections and due diligence, the buck might stop at the top but the error lies elsewhere
I don't think you were around the forum when we debated Solyndra before, but it goes well beyond right wing holler points so let me catch you up, since you don't want to search for facts yourself.
How Solyndra's Failure Promises a Brighter Future for Solar Power - Scientific American
Its pretty easy to research this dynamic in other industries (Google Chinese dumping, steel,tires, or any other industry you want)as well and see a bigger picture that's was/is far more profound than just U.S. pundits, and politics.Quote:
In essence, China has been loaning Chinese solar module manufacturers in that country money at low-interest rates for both production and installation, even when installation takes place in other countries such as Germany, which makes Chinese products unbeatably cheap when paired with Chinese advantages in labor and logistics costs. "The cost of financing for U.S. and [European Union] production accounts for one third of the cost per kilowatt-hour," Fthenakis notes. In other words, easy financing makes China-made solar cells much cheaper than those from manufacturers who must pay interest on any money borrowed to build factories or install modules. "I would have more confidence in the U.S. solar industry if we take China to the [World Trade Organization] and slow down the unfair competition," Fthenakis adds.
"and the emperor chimes in ......"you didn't build that business on your own " ."
Why didn't private enterprise jump in, in the early 20th century and build the infrastructure that it has become so dependent on now?
It would be in so much better shape today, wouldn't it? The businesses would have poured money into maintenance of water, roads, bridges, sewers, etc - or not?
It is headed well in that direction now with major roadways managed by business ventures and increase in toll roads.
American citizens would much rather have it that way---they never complain about tolls.
They did. Ever hear the phrase "company town?" Then the infrastructure was confiscated because of the outcry of "serfdom" from Big Labor, Progressives, and other assorted proponents of the Welfare State. Were there abuses? Of course. There always have been and always will be crooks to take advantage of any system. The problem is that now they're the government and they shape the laws so they don't have to follow them. It's now called crony capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by smearcase
Tal, how does competition from overseas change the cronyism dynamic of that particular scandal?
No workers, and no customers, no business. The other side of supply is DEMAND! Something supply side capitalist like to ignore because if you cannot have slave, then take them as cheap a possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You make it sound like that was the only Dept.of Energy loan. Need a link? Leave it to the right to nitpick and jump on selective facts, better known as hollering points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
Projects | Department of Energy
The DOE Loan Program Office, A Government Success Story | CleanTechnica
To address your cronyism ideas, which of course after you point out it goes back further than the current administration,
Fact-Checking Governor Romney's Debate Numbers on Renewables and Loans : Greentech Media
Analysis of the DOE Loan Program – NearWaldenQuote:
Governor Romney's cronyism accusation was answered by the Washington Post: “Romney said that Obama sent money to firms whose executives had donated to his campaign. That is true in the case of Solyndra, but while House Republicans have harshly criticized the administration for that, investigations have not revealed any direct link between the loans for Solyndra and campaign support for the president.”
DOE loan recipients John Woolard, CEO of BrightSource Energy, and SolarReserve's Smith both denied to GTM any personal relationship with the White House that might have been associated with their funding.
GTM Research's Kann also told National Public Radio's Marketplace that the $90 billion “includes a wide variety of programs ranging from renewables to energy efficiency to high-speed rail.” The programs, Kann added, “take a number of forms, from tax credits to R&D grants and everything in between.” They were “not all introduced by the Obama administration,” Kann said, and “were not all offered in just one year.”
I could get rich charging you guys for the truth :D
Not only was it not cronyism, just one of many loans and grants, but it was not the only failed company globally that failed because of the Chinese government undercutting ALL the competition. Funny how we never hear of others, but TAL to the rescue AGAIN!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Tal, how does competition from overseas change the cronyism dynamic of that particular scandal?
http://grist.org/politics/house-repu...investigation/
MORE facts, old, but you have some catching up to do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...yvRK_blog.html
"Ever hear the phrase "company town?"
I was raised in a company town.The company towns I know of were coal mining towns with outhouses, mud streets and company stores where most of the money earned by miners came back to the company. Above ground strip mines leaving huge caverns and bare ground, erosion, acid runoff and destruction of wildlife habitat. The area I am speaking of (Western MD) is still so far behind that states and counties are struggling to provide clean water and sewage to the citizens in those company mining towns. It will take another 20 or more years to bring them up to any kind of standard. The volunteer fire depts. haul drinking water into those towns on a continual basis, Or present day mountain top mining in WV where streams are plowed shut and the folks live in fear of mudslides with every storm. Or gas mining areas where super sized loads destroy the roads that were finally put in place. Is this desire of business to create infrastructure a thing of the past?
Are you satisfied with the private business partnerships with states to create toll roadways, pay for use express lanes. Good, you got it (depending on where you reside)-Enjoy.
Ever use the US Interstate Highway system. Eisenhower was a Republican. Why didn't he call on private partnerships to build it?
Infrastructure built by developers today, design and inspection of which if not checked and construction inspection performed by government, fail within a year or two of opening to use.
Does government grow into an unmanageable self serving bureaucracy of people doing less work for more salary every day. Absolutely.
"and the emperor chimes in ......"you didn't build that business on your own " . Could have been said better without the essentially personal attack.
But, try building a coke bottling plant in an area where government won't participate and give you some mulitmillion dollar 42 inch or so water and sewer lines.
Government confiscated infrastructure. More like companies begged towns to take over the scant amount they had so they wouldn't have to absorb the cost of maintenance. And they still do.
are you describing a third world country of something from the beginning of the last century, I have heard of such things before WWII but we have moved on and a twenty-first century country doesn't look like that. If your capitalists would eny teh population they should be stood against the wall. is this why you kling to the gun for those who can afford one
WOW is right. I could only find one other article about this:Sonoma County Man Battling Cancer Denied Coverage By Anthem Blue Cross After Paying $100K In Premiums « CBS San Francisco
That article says that Anthem won't respond until they get a HIPAA release from the patient. It will be interesting to hear their side of this story, but can't imagine what it would be.
One thing that seems unusual here to me as a longtime Blue Cross client is that so much has transpired on this case in probably less than 2 weeks. It was diagnosed, treatment started, analyzed by Anthem originally, sent to a review panel, analyzed by that panel, and written response prepared, sent, received, and reported on. I have had denials before (not Anthem but other Blue Cross affiliate) and it was more like a month to receive any first notice that something was awry. Could have been expedited because of severity of the illness and high, rapidly accumulating costs involved maybe. As if the guy and family didn't have enough problems already.
did I say something about a third world country, it's like hearing a story from Planet of the Apes
Anthem Blue Cross: Hospitalizing cancer patient for emergency chemo isn't "medically necessary".
I have been through the appeals process a few times myself after being denied initially, the last one was settled with a phone call. 3 weeks total. I can bet this was all triggered by tests, and an emergency room visit rather than an routine admission for treatment to the hospital from the physician.Quote:
Zoë and Jeff submitted their claim to their health insurance provider, Anthem Blue Cross. Their claim was reviewed by an OB-GYN instead of an Oncologist for some reason, and that person decided to deny their claim:
The first time I was notified my claim was rejected it was scary but only needed additional paperwork by the primary physician to be cleared up. Insurance companies hate it when you go to the emergency room when you have a doctor because they have to pay more.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I have never heard of emergency chemotherapy, nor an emergency room equipped to perform it. Thats rather confusing.
If you are being teated at a medical center then they have almost everything available. Its not so much that the emergency room has the equiptment but the rest of the hospital might have it. It is a shame the reveiwer wasnt from the classification for this mans illness.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Not sure why the man would need to be reveiwed by a baby doctor.
Lamya Jarjour | LinkedIn
[COLOR=#0066cc]UCLA Physician Lamya Jarjour, MD
[/COLOR]Specialty
Gynecology, Obstetrics, Obstetrics & Gynecology
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:38 AM. |