Unemployment rate jumps from 7.7% to 8.9% in 30 days

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Many of the posts from that user didn't survive the archive process, but I remember Diemen, Achtung_Bebe, rougerum, TylerDurden and some others...

Here's an old post:

Sure I am lucky, but as with any long term relationship we have had our difficulties. We have survived the "If THIS is really true love, then why are we fighting?" phase. There have been some break-ups, as well as great make-ups Our story is not over, and I hope it is just beginning. She is a wonderful woman, an elementary school teacher (I never had a cute teacher when I went to school, no fair)

I think this song is about those times in a relationship where you really don't want to be around this person, but something keeps you there...and the next day you realize how great of a thing you truly have. "Through the storm we reach the shore..."
Well, it didn't work out. Bit I did marry someone else and had children and a great life filled with danger and romance.

I hope "AEON" doesn't get banned for admitting he's a rumored to be banned user from 2000, but I've had some wine and I've wanted for 9 years to say I'm sorry for being a jerk at that time in my early 30's...I was especially harsh to a young man that threatened suicide more than a few times...sorry DethVeggie. And I think I chatted once that I thought Thom Yorke had Downs Syndrome...sorry, not cool.

WAY off topic I know, but I thought the post was best buried in FYM. If this is AEON's last post - I will have to go away and dream it [new username] all up again.
 
Many of the posts from that user didn't survive the archive process, but I remember Diemen, Achtung_Bebe, rougerum, TylerDurden and some others...

Here's an old post:

Well, it didn't work out. Bit I did marry someone else and had children and a great life filled with danger and romance.

I hope "AEON" doesn't get banned for admitting he's a rumored to be banned user from 2000, but I've had some wine and I've wanted for 9 years to say I'm sorry for being a jerk at that time in my early 30's...I was especially harsh to a young man that threatened suicide more than a few times...sorry DethVeggie. And I think I chatted once that I thought Thom Yorke had Downs Syndrome...sorry, not cool.

WAY off topic I know, but I thought the post was best buried in FYM. If this is AEON's last post - I will have to go away and dream it [new username] all up again.

Oh I think you'll be forgiven. You seem like a very thoughtful, intelligent and rational person on here. But may I ask why were you so hard on someone who was suicidal? I've known many who blew their brains out and it isn't pretty. One guy missed his brain and only blew his jaw off and minutes later had to pull the trigger again. He was alive without a jaw for a few minutes. You shouldn't mess with a suicidal person.
 
Oh I think you'll be forgiven. You seem like a very thoughtful, intelligent and rational person on here. But may I ask why were you so hard on someone who was suicidal? I've known many who blew their brains out and it isn't pretty. One guy missed his brain and only blew his jaw off and minutes later had to pull the trigger again. He was alive without a jaw for a few minutes. You shouldn't mess with a suicidal person.

Thank you for the kind words...

To answer your question - He kept coming into the chatroom - saying the same thing - "today's the day" and everyone responded "poor thing" - and after several months I guess I called him on it - it wasn't well received (though I think he lived because I did see more posts after that).

I agree - it was horrible and nobody should mess with someone in that condition. But I was still a child at 30. I grew up in Boy's Homes and I knew some kids from seriously messed up situations - well, it solved my own self pity and I felt that if these kids could make it, anyone could. Or so I thought.
 
Thank you for the kind words...

To answer your question - He kept coming into the chatroom - saying the same thing - "today's the day" and everyone responded "poor thing" - and after several months I guess I called him on it - it wasn't well received (though I think he lived because I did see more posts after that).

I agree - it was horrible and nobody should mess with someone in that condition. But I was still a child at 30. I grew up in Boy's Homes and I knew some kids from seriously messed up situations - well, it solved my own self pity and I felt that if these kids could make it, anyone could. Or so I thought.

Ya I guess it's a little different dealing with an unknown person who is suicidal over the internet. Especially if it goes on for months. Ten years ago I may have told him to just do it. Now I would try to get him help.

Even growing up in a difficult situation where you seen many kids make it and survive, these kids are tough and are grown up at an early age. Many times it's the kid from a middle class family who never dealt with problems into they became a teenager. The smallest issue to us may not be to him / her and be the cause of their suicide.

It's the easy way out. And it works. Unfortunately, their family is left to pick up the pieces.
 
Another great quote...

“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”
Richard Buckminster Fuller
 
So, the unemployment rate is now at 7.3% according to CNN.

However, millions are still struggling and there are some who aren't being wise about how to deal with it:

Thousands of Kansans could lose food stamps under a new state policy that congressional Republicans hope to implement nationwide.
Kansas officials indicated that they will reinstate work requirements for food stamp recipients who are able-bodied adults without dependent children. Under the new policy, come October, those aged 18 to 49 will need to work at least 20 hours per week or enroll in a job training program within three months in order to continue to receive benefits from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
"We know that employment is the most effective way to escape poverty," Phyllis Gilmore, secretary of the Kansas Department of Children and Families, said in a statement posted on hayspost.com. Gilmore's agency estimates that 20,000 Kansas SNAP recipients will be affected.
Federal law allows able-bodied adults without children to receive nutrition assistance for only three months if they don't get jobs or sign up for training, but states can waive the requirement during periods of high unemployment -- something more than 45 states currently do. Kansas will join Delaware, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wyoming and Utah as states that don't waive the able-bodied work requirement for food stamps. Oklahoma and Wisconsin also intend to allow their waivers to lapse, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.
"As long as federal work requirements are met, no one will lose food assistance; the law only affects those individuals who are capable of working and have no dependent children," Gillmore said.
Last month Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives signaled they will push legislation to curtail all states' use of the waivers. The percentage of able-bodied jobless Americans on SNAP rose from 6.6 percent to 9.7 percent of the overall food stamp population between 2007 to 2010, according to the Congressional Research Service. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington, D.C., estimates that eliminating the waivers nationally would deprive some 4 million Americans of nutrition assistance.
In Kansas, the policy change is being greeted warmly by conservative Republicans, who dominate state politics. State Rep. Travis Couture-Lovelady (R-Palco) told The Huffington Post that he sees the shift as a way for those receiving government assistance to get jobs instead of remaining in an assistance program.
"Government assistance should be just that, a safety net, not a long-term way of life," Couture-Lovelady said. "Government assistance should be a hand up, not a hand-out. Individuals who take short-term assistance to avoid long-term dependency need to maintain empowerment over their lives, and a work requirement does just that."
Progressives in the state say the policy change will only hurt the less fortunate. Topeka Councilman Chad Manspeaker (D), a leader of the state's progressive movement, told HuffPost that the policy shift will force more adults in the state to turn to soup kitchens and food pantries in order to eat. He said this will put an additional strain on nonprofits, along with shifting the expense to local governments, which fund many of the emergency food programs.
"We have not shifted the long-term problem," Manspeaker said. "There aren't jobs out there, and we don't solve it by starving them."
State Rep. J.R. Claeys (R-Salina) told HuffPost that part-time jobs are available around the state and that those looking to meet the minimum work requirement just need to know where to look.
"The jobs that are 20 hours a week are in the service and retail industries, and those jobs are not hard to find in any part of the state," Claeys said.
Manspeaker believes that the policy shift is an attempt by Gov. Sam Brownback (R) to "rally up the base" as he heads into his 2014 reelection campaign. The move does come as Kansas politics continues to take a sharp right turn, the impact of conservative Republicans seizing complete control of state government in 2012. Former state Senate President Steve Morris (R-Hugoton), a moderate Republican, last year accused Brownback and his allies, including billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, of wanting to turn Kansas into an "ultraconservative utopia."
Manspeaker said food stamps continue to be a touchy subject with many in the state, and Wednesday's action could help Brownback in his reelection battle against state House Minority Leader Paul Davis (D-Lawrence) next year.
"Anytime I've talked about food stamp programs, tempers fly fast, because people assume they are abusing the system," Manspeaker said. "Try living on $300 a month for food -- you can't. It's a pittance, it is nothing."


Kansas Changes Food Stamp Requirements To Mandate Work

Yes, having a job is the way top escape poverty. But not all jobs can help feed someone, let alone pay the bills and keep a roof over their heads. Sure, retail and service jobs are always there, but they don't pay much and don't offer enough hours for a person to survive on.

I know there are some Americans who do abuse the welfare system, but does that mean every honest user needs to be punished? I could see people who lost their stamps start overwhelming food banks and kitchens to the point that they'll start having problems.
 
The jobs report this month was actually pretty bad, though not as bad as last month's, which was even worse than we thought.
 
So, the unemployment rate is now at 7.3% according to CNN.

However, millions are still struggling and there are some who aren't being wise about how to deal with it:


Yes, having a job is the way top escape poverty. But not all jobs can help feed someone, let alone pay the bills and keep a roof over their heads. Sure, retail and service jobs are always there, but they don't pay much and don't offer enough hours for a person to survive on.

I know there are some Americans who do abuse the welfare system, but does that mean every honest user needs to be punished? I could see people who lost their stamps start overwhelming food banks and kitchens to the point that they'll start having problems.

Is this materially different than the welfare reform signed by Clinton?

I would guess there is universal support for a safety net system – helping those who are beset by temporary trouble. How can you keep that system and not turn it into a process that creates permanent, generational recipients.

People are not stupid. They will gravitate towards the optimal balance of work vs. reward. I’ve seen this countless times in the business world where people will change their behavior based on how they are compensated.

Even if you could make more with a full time job, why work 20-40 hours a week when you can receive a sizable percentage of that wage for zero work?
 
The jobs report this month was actually pretty bad, though not as bad as last month's, which was even worse than we thought.

The jobs number is terrible and the drop in the unemployment rate is largely due to people dropping out of the workforce. It gets even worse if you break out part time employment and those who consider themselves underemployed.

A good question for everyone - for all the money spent by the government in the last 5 years to get us out of a recession – who do you think has benefited the most?
 
So, the unemployment rate is now at 7.3% according to CNN.

However, millions are still struggling and there are some who aren't being wise about how to deal with it:

Kansas Changes Food Stamp Requirements To Mandate Work

Yes, having a job is the way top escape poverty. But not all jobs can help feed someone, let alone pay the bills and keep a roof over their heads. Sure, retail and service jobs are always there, but they don't pay much and don't offer enough hours for a person to survive on.

I know there are some Americans who do abuse the welfare system, but does that mean every honest user needs to be punished? I could see people who lost their stamps start overwhelming food banks and kitchens to the point that they'll start having problems.

Did you read the article?

I don't understand why people blow up about decisions like this when it clearly states a job is NOT the only option.

I don't always agree when it comes to matters of this topic, but I think something has to be done to jump-start people to get OFF of food stamps.

I understand that not everyone can find a job, but it looks to me like the point of this is to help steer people in that direction, through the job training option.

I am, of course, assuming this job training is not something the individual must pay for. If that's the case, I do agree this is pretty screwed up.
 
the American people who avoided a second Great Depression and have a much stronger economy than most of the rest of the Western world, and much better than those countries that pursued austerity policies. people forget how scary September 2008 was.
 
Did you read the article?

I don't understand why people blow up about decisions like this when it clearly states a job is NOT the only option.

I don't always agree when it comes to matters of this topic, but I think something has to be done to jump-start people to get OFF of food stamps.

Of course I read the article. It looks like you and I read it differently.

I'm for getting people off food stamps so they wouldn't be dependent on them. But how much can job training help? That doesn't always guarantee a job with good pay.

Yeah I know Kansas is allowing them to stay on food stamps while working low wage jobs but still. I just think Kansas should be focusing on bringing better industries to their state than welfare. People want jobs that fit their skills, and there is some shame in not having that. I actually got more sympathy when I had no job than when I did holiday work in the mall during my job search after getting my MA. I wonder how many others got the same treatment.
 
Even if you could make more with a full time job, why work 20-40 hours a week when you can receive a sizable percentage of that wage for zero work?

Why indeed. And this is just the beginning (and I think this is a good thing).

I am fortunate enough right now to be employed and to have some skills that are "employable" - but there is no guarantee that my skills will always be needed - although since I am in IT, I feel fairly decent about my chances for the next few years. But what of those that spent many years learning a very specific skill, only to have that demand for the skill fade away because of outsourcing or automation? Eventually - no job is safe. And not everyone has the desire to learn programming or robot repair.

A post-scarcity world is approaching - where cheap, abundant materials and energy will give people the freedom (true freedom) to pursue whatever it is they want. The only real question is - can civilization hold on until then?
 
Here's the biggest question in my mind: is automation going to end up hurting much of the world?

Standard economic theory says no, and the theory is pretty sound. As productivity increases, the marginal product of labor increases (the amount companies can make from each additional input of labor), and, mathematically, it's relatively simple to show how this will both increase demand for labor and real wage (real wage being a function of nominal wage and price level). My hope is that this is true and that we really are just in a cyclical (or policy-driven) funk. I believe that most economists do not believe that we are structurally screwed in this sense. But it some sense it feels like we are.
 
Why indeed. And this is just the beginning (and I think this is a good thing).

I am fortunate enough right now to be employed and to have some skills that are "employable" - but there is no guarantee that my skills will always be needed - although since I am in IT, I feel fairly decent about my chances for the next few years. But what of those that spent many years learning a very specific skill, only to have that demand for the skill fade away because of outsourcing or automation? Eventually - no job is safe. And not everyone has the desire to learn programming or robot repair.

A post-scarcity world is approaching - where cheap, abundant materials and energy will give people the freedom (true freedom) to pursue whatever it is they want. The only real question is - can civilization hold on until then?

Its very true that no job is safe. Many employment seminars I go to speak heavily on this, and Thomas L. Friedman often writes about how skills and education are not alone in finding and keeping a job.

I haven't thought much about the last paragraph you wrote. But do you mean people can pursue any job they want, or any material item?
 
I haven't thought much about the last paragraph you wrote. But do you mean people can pursue any job they want, or any material item?

I meant any "job" - or hobby, craft, project...etc. I don't think most people are lazy - people get energized when they are doing what they really want to do vs. what they have to do...
 
Here's the biggest question in my mind: is automation going to end up hurting much of the world?

Standard economic theory says no, and the theory is pretty sound. As productivity increases, the marginal product of labor increases (the amount companies can make from each additional input of labor), and, mathematically, it's relatively simple to show how this will both increase demand for labor and real wage (real wage being a function of nominal wage and price level). My hope is that this is true and that we really are just in a cyclical (or policy-driven) funk. I believe that most economists do not believe that we are structurally screwed in this sense. But it some sense it feels like we are.

It seems most of the mainstream economists (the ones we see on tv and the main news sites) are out of sync with rapidly (as in exponentially) accelerating technology. They are not talking about virtually free energy within 15 years (if you follow solar power, you will see that Moore's law certainly applies - and if so - within 15 years it will be dirt cheap), world wide desalination, additive manufacturing, protein in a dish, drone builders (quadcopters are already here)...etc.
 
From a Freakonomics interview...

Peter Diamandis, founder and CEO of the X Prize Foundation,

Our problem is not that we don’t have enough stuff—it’s that we don’t have enough ways for people to work and prove that they deserve this stuff.

Part of the problem is that most contemporary thinking about money and markets and such has its roots in the scarcity model. In fact, one of the most commonly used definitions of economics is “the study of how people make choices under conditions of scarcity, and the results of those choices for society.” As Traditional Economics (which believes that markets are equilibrium systems) gets replaced by Complexity Economics (which both fits the data significantly better and believes markets are complex adaptive systems), we may begin to uncover a post-scarcity framework for assessment, but there’s no guarantee that such thinking will result in either more jobs or a different resource allocation system.
 
Complexity Economics sounds interesting and promising, but it is far from being on the road towards replacing "Traditional Economics". Indeed, traditional neoclassical economics seems to have been only increasing in popularity as of late... to the point where probably 75% of academic macroeconomists subscribe to it. Even Keynesianism is rather rare. And maybe they are out of sync, but the economic argument of increasing productivity increasing labor demand does not depend of the economy being in equilibrium.
 
It seems most of the mainstream economists (the ones we see on tv and the main news sites) are out of sync with rapidly (as in exponentially) accelerating technology. They are not talking about virtually free energy within 15 years (if you follow solar power, you will see that Moore's law certainly applies - and if so - within 15 years it will be dirt cheap), world wide desalination, additive manufacturing, protein in a dish, drone builders (quadcopters are already here)...etc.



Am watching a piece on 60 Minutes about automation and what it's done to the recovery. By every measure but job creation, we are in a strong recovery, and job creation has been hindered by the acceleration of smart technology in a manner that's never been seen before. New jobs and industries are being created, but they don't need as many people to work in these jobs.
 
Am watching a piece on 60 Minutes about automation and what it's done to the recovery. By every measure but job creation, we are in a strong recovery, and job creation has been hindered by the acceleration of smart technology in a manner that's never been seen before. New jobs and industries are being created, but they don't need as many people to work in these jobs.

I'll have to check that out. That sounds interesting.

Technology doesn't seem like it's going to slow down anytime soon, so we need to consider some adaptive economic policies pretty soon or we'll face certain unrest.

EDIT: Recording tonight's episode - thanks for the tip!
 
can we stop with the socialism talk?

The top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country’s total income in 2012, the highest level recorded since the government began collecting the relevant data a century ago, according to an updated study by the prominent economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty.

The top 1 percent took more than one-fifth of the income earned by Americans, one of the highest levels on record since 1913, when the government instituted an income tax.

The figures underscore that even after the recession the country remains in a new Gilded Age, with income as concentrated as it was in the years that preceded the Depression of the 1930s, if not more so.

High stock prices, rising home values and surging corporate profits have buoyed the recovery-era incomes of the most affluent Americans, with the incomes of the rest still weighed down by high unemployment and stagnant wages for many blue- and white-collar workers.

“These results suggest the Great Recession has only depressed top income shares temporarily and will not undo any of the dramatic increase in top income shares that has taken place since the 1970s,” Mr. Saez, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in his analysis of the data.

The income share of the top 1 percent of earners in 2012 returned to the same level as before both the Great Recession and the Great Depression: just above 20 percent, jumping to about 22.5 percent in 2012 from 19.7 percent in 2011.

That increase is probably in part due to one-time factors. Congress made a last-minute deal to avoid the expiration of all of the Bush-era tax cuts in January. That deal included a number of tax increases on wealthy Americans, including bumping up levies on investment income. Seeing the tax changes coming, many companies gave large dividends and investors cashed out.

But the economists noted that the trends looked the same for income figures including and excluding realized capital gains — implying that the temporary tax moves were not the only reason the top 1 percent did so well relative to everyone else in 2012.

More generally, richer households have disproportionately benefited from the boom in the stock market during the recovery, with the Dow Jones industrial average more than doubling in value since it bottomed out early in 2009. About half of households hold stock, directly or through vehicles like pension accounts. But the richest 10 percent of households own about 90 percent of the stock, expanding both their net worth and their incomes when they cash out or receive dividends.

The economy remains depressed for most wage-earning families. With sustained, relatively high rates of unemployment, businesses are under no pressure to raise their employees’ incomes because both workers and employers know that many people without jobs would be willing to work for less. The share of Americans working or looking for work is at its lowest in 35 years.

There is a glimmer of good news for the 99 percent in the report, though. Mr. Piketty and Mr. Saez show that the incomes of that group stagnated between 2009 and 2011. In 2012, they started growing again — if only by about 1 percent. But the total income of the top 1 percent surged nearly 20 percent that year. The incomes of the very richest, the 0.01 percent, shot up more than 32 percent.

The new data shows that the top 1 percent of earners experienced a sharp drop in income during the recession, of about 36 percent, and a nearly equal rebound during the recovery of roughly 31 percent. The incomes of the other 99 percent plunged nearly 12 percent in the recession and have barely grown — a 0.4 percent uptick — since then. Thus, the 1 percent has captured about 95 percent of the income gains since the recession ended.

Mr. Saez and Mr. Piketty have argued that the concentration of income among top earners is unlikely to reverse without stark changes in the economy or in tax policy. Increases that Congress negotiated in January are not likely to have a major effect, Mr. Saez wrote, saying they “are not negligible, but they are modest.”

Mr. Saez and Mr. Piketty, of the Paris School of Economics, plan to update their data again in January, after more complete statistics become available.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-through-the-recovery/?_r=0



what no one in the supposed "liberal" media ever talks about is income inequality.
 
what no one in the supposed "liberal" media ever talks about is income inequality.

There's a lot the liberal media doesn't talk about. That's because the corporations own them
 
Another editorial on "income inequality". Hardly ignored by the liberal media (a Google search generate plenty of results). This has been a talking point ever since the Occupy movement began. Oddly, income inequality has existed for as long as humans have traded.

I'm not sure what socialism has to do with this. Socialism doesn't cure income inequality. I find it favors the government and union classes at the expense of everyone else.
 
Another editorial on "income inequality". Hardly ignored by the liberal media (a Google search generate plenty of results). This has been a talking point ever since the Occupy movement began. Oddly, income inequality has existed for as long as humans have traded.

I'm not sure what socialism has to do with this. Socialism doesn't cure income inequality. I find it favors the government and union classes at the expense of everyone else.

I remember income inequality being discussed in the mid 90s where some wondered if the gap between the rich and poor will continue to expand.

And if this isn't an example of income inequality, then I don't know what is:

Saez points out that the wealthiest Americans' share of U.S. income is higher than at any point since before the Great Depression. Unlike the Depression, though, this recovery has not brought in new policies aimed at equality. If anything, we are getting right back to the pre-crisis business of letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/uneven-financial-crisis-recovery-charts_n_3913882.html

Notice the job sector that has increased the most is the service jobs - retail, hospitality, etc. Doesn't sound very promising.

ETA: In regards to how "oddly" it is that income inequality has always existed, I don't think the issue should be treated flippantly, even if poor people will always be around for various reasons
 
I find it favors the government and union classes at the expense of everyone else.

I don't think that's what socialism is???

It is the common ownership of the means of production. Would have to be the most incorrectly defined term going around.
 
Back
Top Bottom