American job openings outnumber the jobless, first time ever recorded

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

That's likely factoring in management or director level people running the programs. I'd wager most home health aids and hospice workers are under 15 an hour. I have a family member who relies on them and they can barely survive.

Is that minimum wage?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It actually was not a reference to Trump, more of one attributed to Einstein
“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Absolutely

So you admit that the people you referred to (some people have and will always want wealth and power over others) exist, in all societies. So that is an omnipresent problem. Can you name a country or political system where these people are not a problem? Is there something about what I refer to as a free market that makes these people a greater problem than in a government controlled market?

[scottw]

went from minimum wage to Einstein, Feinstein, World War 4 and quantum mechanics...don't know if I can hang with these geniuses

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

"the average for a home health aide is $19 an hour and can be up to $30"

they didn't say management or director they said "home health aid"

you do understand that workers generally start at one pay level and then get things called raises for performance and longevity

Home Health Aide Salary. Home Health Aides in the United States are largely women. The group as a whole has a nationwide average of $10.33 per hour for pay. the agency might get paid 19-30 bucks an hour who provide's the home health aid worker


were do you guys get you info from??

https://www.payscale.com/research/US...de/Hourly_Rate

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Home Health Aide Salary. Home Health Aides in the United States are largely women. The group as a whole has a nationwide average of $10.33 per hour for pay. the agency might get paid 19-30 bucks an hour who provide's the home health aid worker


were do you guys get you info from??

https://www.payscale.com/research/US...de/Hourly_Rate

you left these quotes out

"Job satisfaction for Home Health Aides is high."

"Earning a certificate from a recognized program can be done in as little and one and one-half semesters at any community college. This certificate qualifies graduates to work in entry-level positions as aides. "

"Home Health Aides who transition into a Registered Nurse role may receive large pay increases as the latter position pays an average $56K per year. Certified Nurse Assistants or Licensed Practical Nurses are common next-step roles for Home Health Aides moving up in their careers"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Point is that these are skilled jobs, not minimum wage jobs, and there is a shortage of workers for them.

So why aren't people getting the skills to get these jobs?

Now don't go around making logical points while Trump is the President, what you should be doing, is engaging in attacks.

There are a huge number of openings for skilled workers, these are not minimum wage jobs, these are jobs that won't let you buy a McMansion in Greenwich, but will let you buy a raised ranch in the Hartford suburbs.

"So why aren't people getting the skills to get these jobs"

Great question. Maybe getting those skills is something to consider, rather than amassing $200,000 in debt getting a useless liberal arts degree from a third tier private college.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

you left these quotes out

"Job satisfaction for Home Health Aides is high."

"Earning a certificate from a recognized program can be done in as little and one and one-half semesters at any community college. This certificate qualifies graduates to work in entry-level positions as aides. "

"Home Health Aides who transition into a Registered Nurse role may receive large pay increases as the latter position pays an average $56K per year. Certified Nurse Assistants or Licensed Practical Nurses are common next-step roles for Home Health Aides moving up in their careers"

you conveniently left out how they are going to pay for this Transition on min wage Some can most can't but thats the illusion Facts on the ground do not support this Transition idea sure it happens but not in the feel good numbers they suggest

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you conveniently left out how they are going to pay for this Transition on min wage Some can most can't but thats the illusion Facts on the ground do not support this Transition idea sure it happens but not in the feel good numbers they suggest

If you can't live on a home health aide salary (not sure how this became THE focal point), then keep going, enroll at a community college, and get a degree in nursing.

I can only imagine how different the spin on low unemployment would be., from Zimmy and WDMSO, if Hilary had won and if the democrats controlled congress.

If everyone is making barely above minimum wage, why is consumer confidence so high?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So you admit that the people you referred to (some people have and will always want wealth and power over others) exist, in all societies. So that is an omnipresent problem. Can you name a country or political system where these people are not a problem? Is there something about what I refer to as a free market that makes these people a greater problem than in a government controlled market?

The Bushmen and that is why I pointed you in the direction of that movie, but their society was disrupted by a coke bottle.
Societies way to manage "these People" has been government and control of markets.
As I understand what you propose, no controls are needed, the market will work as it works and life will be free of interference in any form. Is that correct?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I can only imagine how different the spin on low unemployment would be., from Zimmy and WDMSO, if Hilary had won and if the democrats controlled congress.

The irony of the "stuff" you say. Also, what is my spin? That low unemployment is good, but I am suspicious that Trumps policies are going to have a negative effect on the economy in coming years? If that is spin, you are a world class ballerina.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The irony of the "stuff" you say. Also, what is my spin? That low unemployment is good, but I am suspicious that Trumps policies are going to have a negative effect on the economy in coming years? If that is spin, you are a world class ballerina.

"Also, what is my spin?"

That in a macro sense, the economy isn't meaningfully healthier than it was on Obama's last day.

Sure, we need to talk about the debt and other potential pain points like inflatipn, but you, Spence and WDMSO, seem to be unable to consider the positives.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The Bushmen and that is why I pointed you in the direction of that movie, but their society was disrupted by a coke bottle.
Societies way to manage "these People" has been government and control of markets.

Who are you referring to by "these people," the Bushmen or the people who made the coke bottle, or the people who dropped it?

But, then, various degrees of authoritarian society manages all those people by various kinds of government control.

As I understand what you propose, no controls are needed, the market will work as it works and life will be free of interference in any form. Is that correct?

No, that is not correct. This is why I said you don't understand what I propose.

In order to have intelligent, fruitful, discussions, key words have to be defined, or, at least, correctly understood by all parties in the discussion. I have defined what I mean by free market and by freedom in various past posts. Perhaps you missed those posts. Perhaps you disagreed with them--but never rebutted them.

I'll try again. My concept of being "free" in relation to other people is that a free person does not coerce, or is not coerced by, other people. Many would consider that coercing others would be a mark of "freedom." But coercion of another results from needing something from whom you coerce. Ergo you are not free. Your coercion bonds you to those you coerce. Is Kim Jung Un free because he has near total power over his populace? No, he is trapped into depending on those who submit to his coercion.

What do I mean by a free market? A market in which neither party to a transaction coerces the other. If your objection to the viability of such a proposition is that there are always people who want power over others, therefor their will always be those who make the market unfree unless there is something to control them from doing so, I have on more than one occasion said that, concerning a free market, government control is not of the market, but of those who impose on market freedom. The role of government in a society based on freedom, is the protection of freedom. It is not the role of government to regulate "free" people, but to regulate (punish, etc.) those who coerce. It is not the role of government to regulate free behavior (that would be a contradiction), but to protect free behavior.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you conveniently left out how they are going to pay for this Transition on min wage Some can most can't but thats the illusion Facts on the ground do not support this Transition idea sure it happens but not in the feel good numbers they suggest

you just make it up as you go along...

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, that is not correct. This is why I said you don't understand what I propose.

In order to have intelligent, fruitful, discussions, key words have to be defined, or, at least, correctly understood by all parties in the discussion. I have defined what I mean by free market and by freedom in various past posts. Perhaps you missed those posts. Perhaps you disagreed with them--but never rebutted them.

I'll try again. My concept of being "free" in relation to other people is that a free person does not coerce, or is not coerced by, other people. Many would consider that coercing others would be a mark of "freedom." But coercion of another results from needing something from whom you coerce. Ergo you are not free. Your coercion bonds you to those you coerce. Is Kim Jung Un free because he has near total power over his populace? No, he is trapped into depending on those who submit to his coercion.

What do I mean by a free market? A market in which neither party to a transaction coerces the other. If your objection to the viability of such a proposition is that there are always people who want power over others, therefor their will always be those who make the market unfree unless there is something to control them from doing so, I have on more than one occasion said that, concerning a free market, government control is not of the market, but of those who impose on market freedom. The role of government in a society based on freedom, is the protection of freedom. It is not the role of government to regulate "free" people, but to regulate (punish, etc.) those who coerce. It is not the role of government to regulate free behavior (that would be a contradiction), but to protect free behavior.

It sounds so rational, even commonsensical, but I think perhaps innocent and could so easily be sidetracked by darker, more sinister motives or basic stupidity.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Also, what is my spin?"

That in a macro sense, the economy isn't meaningfully healthier than it was on Obama's last day.

Sure, we need to talk about the debt and other potential pain points like inflatipn, but you, Spence and WDMSO, seem to be unable to consider the positives.

You are either projecting or off your rocker.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are either projecting or off your rocker.

Stock market is way up, unemployment is way down. Those were the same metrics used by many to conclude that Obama did a great job with the economy. If improving unemployment and the economy make Obama a good economic leader, why don't they make Trump a good economic leader?

I'm holding all of the cards in this here game.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Stock market is way up, unemployment is way down. Those were the same metrics used by many to conclude that Obama did a great job with the economy. If improving unemployment and the economy make Obama a good economic leader, why don't they make Trump a good economic leader?

I'm holding all of the cards in this here game.

For about the millionth time, because he didn't make the soup, he's just ladling it out. Look at the Dow and the other indexes and the unemployment rate and show me a Trump Jump. I don't see it.
I think you have all the cards that are left, if you check carefully you might find that they are Jokers and the Queen of Hearts.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm holding all of the cards in this here game.

Pretty sure you aren't playing with a full deck. I already did consider the positive and that is what I was referring to when I said you are projecting. Your must sit there hearing our voices in your head or something as you make stuff up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Quote:Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I'm holding all of the cards in this here game.

Originally Posted by zimmy

Pretty sure you aren't playing with a full deck.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that was awesome

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It sounds so rational, even commonsensical, but I think perhaps innocent and could so easily be sidetracked by darker, more sinister motives or basic stupidity.

You seem to have a hard time answering a very direct, specific, rational, and commonsensical proposition with a direct answer. Trying to answer back to your vague, content empty responses just leads into rabbit holes heading to nowhere.

What do YOU propose to overcome what you claim is the ever present problem of those who want power over others. You seemed to imply that "control" is needed. Power over others is needed to control those who want power over others. Who do you propose should have such power?

And is that not what I said was the function of government in a free society--to "control" those who coerce, that is, punish those who wield unconsented power over others so that they don't continue to do so?

So, if that is too innocent, or too rational, or too commonsensical for you, then what brilliant, secret, unrevealed and undisclosed by you method do YOU propose? Or are you saying that it is futile to even try?

Should we just succumb to what you call the "darker, more sinister motives or basic stupidity."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

For about the millionth time, because he didn't make the soup, he's just ladling it out. Look at the Dow and the other indexes and the unemployment rate and show me a Trump Jump. I don't see it.
I think you have all the cards that are left, if you check carefully you might find that they are Jokers and the Queen of Hearts.

"he didn't make the soup, he's just ladling it out"

OK. So the fact that his background is in business and not community activism, that didn't instill a confidence in business that wasn't there before? Confidence has a big impact on the economy.

All the regulations he did away with, that didn't unleash any more potential of the markets?

The GOP tax cuts, which cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, instantly making every company more profitable and more valuable, that had zero effect? And the overseas cash that's coming back, that does nothing? Apple alone is paying a one-time tax of $38 billion to the feds, to bring back $250 billion in cash. That's $38 billion the feds have to help people, which they didn't have before.

The GOP tax cuts on individuals, which will obviously increase consumer spending, that had zero effect?

"show me a Trump Jump. I don't see it."

The slope of the line doesn't need to change. What matters, is that the Dow and unemployment are both continuing to head in favorable directions.

You refuse to concede that which doesn't serve your agenda. When my beliefs cannot stand up to irrefutable facts and common sense, that's the day I'll change my beliefs.

Obama helped the economy (see? I can say that even though I despise the man, and my head didn't explode). Trump is doing things to continue to help the economy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Pretty sure you aren't playing with a full deck. I already did consider the positive and that is what I was referring to when I said you are projecting. Your must sit there hearing our voices in your head or something as you make stuff up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Pretty sure you aren't playing with a full deck."

That was pretty funny, good comeback.

"I already did consider the positive"

Did you mention any of the positives in any of your posts on this thread? I may have missed that, all I saw from the lefties was negatives.

"I said you are projecting"

No, I'm not. As of right now, at this moment, unemployment is low, black unemployment is extremely low, the markets are up, consumer confidence is up, and most of us got a small bump in take home pay thanks to the tax cuts. Right now, at this very second, all of those things are irrefutably true, and all of those things are good. True or false? Please tell us, is that true or false?

Yes, we need to look forward, and consider potential pitfalls like debt and inflation and trade wars, etc.

[PaulS]

Labor dept. should have released report on last quarter's wages. Anyone see them?

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Labor dept. should have released report on last quarter's wages. Anyone see them?

My understanding is that real wages have dropped since the tax cuts.

Wait until our farmers start dumping crops they can't sell.

#tiredofwinning

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Labor dept. should have released report on last quarter's wages. Anyone see them?

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

[Pete F.]

Some "fake" news

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wa...nds-2018-07-17
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresag.../#6570b2ba5d9d
https://www.economist.com/finance-an...al-wage-growth
http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3...eel-better-off

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Some "fake" news

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wa...nds-2018-07-17
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresag.../#6570b2ba5d9d
https://www.economist.com/finance-an...al-wage-growth
http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3...eel-better-off

GOP answer Be thankful you even have a job ...or typical liberal thinking that some how they should get more money for free ... or if you want Higher wages find another job...

Wait thill the next Health Insurance increases kick in... who will Trump Blame for that???