American job openings outnumber the jobless, first time ever recorded

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Posts #3, 16, 31, 34, 36, 37.

Nothing but deflection away from the positive, and a stubborn (and newfound!) focus on debt and wage growth.

#3- you put some serious words in her mouth "feels like low unemployment isn't a big deal for the average citizen." were did she say that
Derisive about unemployment and the stock market?

#16- It doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth. Looks like this statistic has only been tracked for the last 17 years so the historic significance isn't really that impressive.
Derisive? Not by the definition of derisive.

#31- absolutely nothing derisive

#34-
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If you were highly critical of his character you'd be razing the forum with hyped up posts like you did with Clinton and Obama.
I posted "You forgot to mention the federal debt," as something YOU would be razing the forum with hyped up posts about. Had nothing to do with my thoughts on unemployment and the stock market or the debt.

#36 whats the point of having this shortage of works wink wink if wages dont go UP? yes that is a bit derisive. But the platform of the 2nd place finisher in the democratic primary had it central to his platform. doesn't seem too hypocritical of wdmso to bring it up

#37 nothing derisive about low unemployment and stock gains in that post

One guy is saying wages are what matter. For all I know he is a Bernie guy and was saying that for the past 3 years. You make a big leap to "So when the same people who celebrated low unemployment and stock gains, are now deriding those things, I am just too stupid to see the acumen behind their genius. Gotcha' and "nothing but deflection away from the positive."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

#3- you put some serious words in her mouth "feels like low unemployment isn't a big deal for the average citizen." were did she say that
Derisive about unemployment and the stock market?

#16- It doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth. Looks like this statistic has only been tracked for the last 17 years so the historic significance isn't really that impressive.
Derisive? Not by the definition of derisive.

#31- absolutely nothing derisive

#34-
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If you were highly critical of his character you'd be razing the forum with hyped up posts like you did with Clinton and Obama.
I posted "You forgot to mention the federal debt," as something YOU would be razing the forum with hyped up posts about. Had nothing to do with my thoughts on unemployment and the stock market.

#36 whats the point of having this shortage of works wink wink if wages dont go UP? yes that is a bit derisive. But the platform of the 2nd place finisher in the democratic primary had it central to his platform. doesn't seem too hypocritical of wdmso to bring it up

#37 nothing derisive about low unemployment and stock gains

One guy is saying wages are what matter. For all I know he is a Bernie guy and was saying that for the past 3 years. You make a big leap to "So when the same people who celebrated low unemployment and stock gains, are now deriding those things, I am just too stupid to see the acumen behind their genius. Gotcha' and "nothing but deflection away from the positive."

Here, Pelosi said "“Hip, hip, hooray, unemployment is down. What does that mean to me and my life?” You tell me, did she say that during the Obama years?

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/...ouths-economy/

"#16- It doesn't mean that much unless it actually translates into wage growth."

Yes, it does. It means a lot to the person who chose to take the job.

Spin it all you want. For 8 years, I heard Obama get patted on the back for low unemployment and stock market gains (I was one of those patting him on the back). Now all of a sudden those are not praise-worthy accomplishments.

[Pete F.]

Before he is elected
August 2016: Trump- Unemployment is one of the biggest hoaxs in politics. ..the “real” unemployment rate is anywhere from 18% to 42%.
After he was elected they became real numbers but he says it is all ME, there is BS on one of those statements, either he lied before (it was not a hoax) or he is lying now and it is a hoax. Pick one

[Sea Dangles]

Pete, you are petty. Just like Trump.
If it was good enough then,why isn't it now? Trump is a low life and you are stooping to his level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I think there was a movie about the way things work that you propose and why it failed. If I remember correctly it was titled "The Gods must be crazy"

From all of your posts that I've read, it doesn't seem to me that you understand what I propose. And it seems that your vision is thoroughly embedded in the Progressive assumption that, without big "G" government direction and/or control, societal intercourse will somehow fail, or be dysfunctional.

I searched your movie title and found a comedy by that title and another sequel to it titled "The Gods Must be Crazy 2". The synopsis for neither one of them was about the failure of the free market, nor about the free market at all.

At any rate, I don't look to fictional movies, especially not to comedies, for an answer on how things fundamentally work. Comedies, fictional movies in general, can be very entertaining. But not so useful as a guide to what works or doesn't. Authors of fiction can make anything "work" or "fail" as they wish in the story they write.

I gave you a real world example of a free market oriented medical clinic that charged far less (that worked not failed) than the price for the same procedure done by our Hospital/government cartel system--even less than some of the best government controlled systems outside the US, including Switzerland.

But if you prefer fiction to reality, then I can see why you approach philosophical, political, and economic discussions the way you do--especially how the same thing is good or how it is bad (e.g., how corporatism is bad and destructive of the middle class, but can be a good thing if it can be used to belittle a free market enterprise) depending on the slant you wish to impose.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

From all of your posts that I've read, it doesn't seem to me that you understand what I propose. And it seems that your vision is thoroughly embedded in the Progressive assumption that, without big "G" government direction and/or control, societal intercourse will somehow fail, or be dysfunctional.

I searched your movie title and found a comedy by that title and another sequel to it titled "The Gods Must be Crazy 2". The synopsis for neither one of them was about the failure of the free market, nor about the free market at all.

At any rate, I don't look to fictional movies, especially not to comedies, for an answer on how things fundamentally work. Comedies, fictional movies in general, can be very entertaining. But not so useful as a guide to what works or doesn't. Authors of fiction can make anything "work" or "fail" as they wish in the story they write.

I gave you a real world example of a free market oriented medical clinic that charged far less (that worked not failed) than the price for the same procedure done by our Hospital/government cartel system--even less than some of the best government controlled systems outside the US, including Switzerland.

But if you prefer fiction to reality, then I can see why you approach philosophical, political, and economic discussions the way you do--especially how the same thing is good or how it is bad (e.g., how corporatism is bad and destructive of the middle class, but can be a good thing if it can be used to belittle a free market enterprise) depending on the slant you wish to impose.

But i do understand what you propose, I just believe that some people have and will always want Wealth and Power over others. That is why I referred you to that movie. The Bushmen had an absolute free market.
Shakespeare also wrote comedies. Art is important in society as more than just pretty pictures.
Here is a more in depth look at that movie, take with a grain of salt like all things.
https://grahambaden.com/2014/04/04/t...must-be-crazy/
Hey, it could also be a view in part of what the world will be like after the next world War.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But i do understand what you propose, I just believe that some people have and will always want Wealth and Power over others.

What is the connection between what I supposedly propose and your belief that some people have and will always want wealth and power over others? Should those people be eliminated? Are they bad? Do they do anything good? Does getting rid of free market, or controlling the market, or abolish the market altogether, neutralize or do away with those people? Do those people inherently exist in any sizable community of people no matter what the political structure of those communities is?

That is why I referred you to that movie. The Bushmen had an absolute free market.

I guess I'd have to see the movie to discover what you mean by the Bushmen having an absolute free market. The articles that you posted don't mention or imply any market activity of the Bushmen. Actually, I will try to see the movie. It sounds interesting. Thanks for the referral.

Shakespeare also wrote comedies. Art is important in society as more than just pretty pictures.

Of course! I love the Arts. Shakespeare, and Homer, and the Bible, even in translation, are for me the summum bonum of language artistry. You can throw in Dostoevsky and Hemingway and a whole lot of poets. Twain is pretty good too. And on and on. Art speaks to what some call the soul--that which cannot be defined--that which stirs up powers of truth and beauty beyond logic or mechanical precision.

But, for me, they are not sources on how to form a government or fix a car.

Here is a more in depth look at that movie, take with a grain of salt like all things.
https://grahambaden.com/2014/04/04/t...must-be-crazy/

You're right. I need the grain of salt to digest what your article is trying to say. I starts off OK then drifts into a Post Modern, Cultural Marxist critique of power conflicts, race and class struggle stuff which, to me, is biased and off the mark. The noble savage being superior to the technocrat is a shallow perspective that touches on the surface of humanity but doesn't reach the universal depth of human nature.

But I do agree with the movie's theme of technology separating us from nature. But it is not the technology that does it. Rather it is our use of technology that results in making us an observer and master of nature rather than an integral participant. And that is not all bad. I may be wrong, but I'd guess that you would prefer to live in our techno world than as a pre-modern Bushman.

Still, we tend to become more abstract beings as we immerse into the electric, touch screen mode of living. But we still have the choice, in our leisure time to be in contact with actual people and actual places and actual nature.

Hey, it could also be a view in part of what the world will be like after the next world War.

Don't know about any of that, but I don't think Trump would start that war. If you want to be cynical about it, he has too many properties that would be destroyed. But I, personally, don't see any evidence of him being a warmonger. And that certainly is not in the nature of one who considers himself a deal maker.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Don't know about any of that, but I don't think Trump would start that war. If you want to be cynical about it, he has too many properties that would be destroyed. But I, personally, don't see any evidence of him being a warmonger. And that certainly is not in the nature of one who considers himself a deal maker.

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.”

Originally Posted by detbuch

What is the connection between what I supposedly propose and your belief that some people have and will always want wealth and power over others?Do you propose an absolute anarchy? or some controls? Should those people be eliminated?No Are they bad? Some are Do they do anything good? Some do Does getting rid of free market, or controlling the market, or abolish the market altogether, neutralize or do away with those people? Government can attempt to control them or be them. Do those people inherently exist in any sizable community of people no matter what the political structure of those communities is?

Absolutely

[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

[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?

[detbuch]

Sounds like a bunch of economic prognostication about what we don't actually know will happen. In the meantime, we do know that a significant number of jobs have been created. And if the wage-price spiral continues, when inflation creates higher prices, wage hikes will later follow. Price and wage hikes (or drops) don't both happen at the same time. One follows, later, the occurrence of the other.

But who knows? Supporters of Trump paint a rosy picture. Detractors predict gloom and doom.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Sounds like a bunch of economic prognostication about what we don't actually know will happen..

yup...just a prediction...probably predicted trump would never be president too

[Got Stripers]

Getting a job is great, but if it's paying minimum wage, I guess you need to live with your parents a bit longer.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business...zOL/story.html

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Getting a job is great, but if it's paying minimum wage, I guess you need to live with your parents a bit longer.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business...zOL/story.html

preface of the report is by Bernie Sanders

seems the situation is the worst in the most liberal states

overtime and a second job would help....

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And these are the jobs that are being created Min wage jobs .. it is also where the shortage of workers are ,, shocking

These don't look like minimum wage jobs to me

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/04/news...age/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.368b740fd52e

http://www.mhlnews.com/labor-managem...challenge-2018

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

These don't look like minimum wage jobs to me

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/04/news...age/index.html

Manufacturing jobs have been a problem for years now. The issue is having workers with the right skills in the right places.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Manufacturing jobs have been a problem for years now. The issue is having workers with the right skills in the right places.

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?

[wdmso]

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?

thay maybe skilled but the vast majority of new jobs pay min wage and even with the schooling companys do not want to pay

wife's been a nurse same place for 20 years the company gave 3.00 hr raise to all the nurses except her and 3 others 20 plus year nurses when ask why they didn't get a raise they were told the raises were incentive to keep new nurses so now an inexperienced nurse makes 1dollar less 20 year experienced Nurse basic answer be happy you have a job

My Daughter Is a skilled worker makes a great hourly rate but only can piece together 23 hours a week all hours of the day

landscaper canceled spring clean up because he had no help.. why bust your ass for 12 bucks an hour for 40 hrs when you work inside at amazon in AC and make the same money.... yes the economy is great ... but with out wage growth its like running on a treadmill sure it will improve your health make you feel good ... but when you get off your in the same place as you started

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the vast majority of new jobs pay min wage

?

the number of workers earning minimum wage is statistically very small compared to the total number of hourly workers and a good percentage of those are teenagers....not people trying to rent two bedroom apartments in Cambridge and San Francisco

[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 The Dad Fisherman

These don't look like minimum wage jobs to me

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/04/news...age/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.368b740fd52e

http://www.mhlnews.com/labor-managem...challenge-2018

largest number of new job openings -- about 423,200 -- will be for home health aides, the report found. Guess what they get paid

Firms that save money from the tax cuts may simply be unable to find more workers to hire at the price they are willing to pay.

thats the key phrase willing to pay ....

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

largest number of new job openings -- about 423,200 -- will be for home health aides, the report found. Guess what they get paid
....

Funny, it says here that the average for a home health aide is $19 an hour and can be up to $30 an hour depending on location
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Funny, it says here that the average for a home health aide is $19 an hour and can be up to $30 an hour depending on location
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

[scottw]

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.

"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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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."

[PaulS]

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