majorspark;953272 wrote:How about using your skills to create your own job. Be flexible to move to good job markets within the country.

I Wear Pants;953280 wrote:Because moving all over the country is a realistic option for everyone.

Glory Days;953290 wrote:not realistic or not willing to do?

I Wear Pants;953299 wrote:Not realistic.
How is one going to school part time while working what we've termed a not real job able to afford such a move?

Glory Days;953302 wrote:well not during that process, but once the degree is obtained maybe. the few people i know with "not a real job" when asked why dont they relocated to get a real job, they say they cant because they dont want to move away or whatever. which is fine, just dont complain about not getting a real job.

Cleveland Buck;953336 wrote:If you chose to get a degree in a field where they don't need you and you refuse to do anything else, that is your fault, not the "Wall Street fat cat 1%'s" fault.

Footwedge;952736 wrote:Exactly how has "King Obama's" policies differed from King George the 43rd? It's truly a head scratcher to me to read such nonsense. Bush 43 exerted more executive powers than the new guy has. Care to explain that?

King George started a few wars....none of them declared by Congress either. Not saying Obama is any cleaner in this regard....it's just that both their names would be mentioned during role call.

I Wear Pants;953238 wrote:It's how we should best make it so that as few people have to settle for a "not real" job as possible.

Footwedge;952726 wrote:You did not answer BS's question. Citing one commodity hardly validates your argument, especially given the volativity of that commodity caused outside the normal realm. The question is INFLATION. We have a deflated market and have had one for several years. This...inspite of the the monetary and fiscal policies that have been used in order to heat the economy up. Our interest rates are at it's lowest level ever. Taxes remain at record lows collectively. We continunue to monetize our debt through the printing presses. These are the exact same policies utilized for over 60 years in an attempt to kick start an ailing economy. It hasn't worked...and the question beckons...why?

Well, IMHO, you can place the blame squarely on the impact of globalization...and the continuing outsourcing of American prosperity. How ironic is it...that a large segment of our society are oh so pro "nation sovereignty" and "Constitution" and all....but turn a blind eye to doing what is in the best interests of our own sovereignty and our own people.

I Wear Pants;953316 wrote: Also, I take a "how can we make the job market here better" approach rather than a "just move you lazy shit bag" approach to things.

Glory Days;953552 wrote:yeah, but that doesnt get YOU a job. thats more for the people who have a job and are in a position to create jobs or a better market for jobs etc.

Cleveland Buck;953336 wrote:This idea that there are supposed to jobs available in your chosen field just because you want them to be there is ridiculous. It is another version of the entitlement mentality. Companies don't grow based on who is graduating in that field, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is how the world works. If you don't want to move you might have to work in some other field. College isn't a job training program. If you feel so strongly that you have to work in that field and won't move away to do it then start your own business.

When you start demanding that companies have jobs available for college graduates in their field whether they need to hire them or not that is when you get the government involved distorting the market in that field and ultimately crashing it. This is another side effect of the problem of the government encouraging everyone to go to college. If everyone has a degree it is worth less, and people expect to be able to get a job in that field whether or not the industry needs more workers. If you chose to get a degree in a field where they don't need you and you refuse to do anything else, that is your fault, not the economy's fault.

I Wear Pants;953673 wrote:No one said anything about demanding companies have jobs available. Ever.

What I was speaking of was creating an environment where the answer isn't simply "well move to where there is a job you lazy shitbag". Because I don't think that's really going to solve anything.

Cleveland Buck;953746 wrote:How do you propose we create that environment? The only way to do it is to have government mandate who companies hire. Otherwise businesses aren't going to hire people they don't need regardless of what they went to school for.

sleeper;953382 wrote:Quit taxing success and subsidizing unemployment. Lower regulations in just about every field would help as well as eliminating unions and ObamaCare.

Cleveland Buck;953746 wrote:How do you propose we create that environment? The only way to do it is to have government mandate who companies hire. Otherwise businesses aren't going to hire people they don't need regardless of what they went to school for.

sleeper;953154 wrote:You are definitely lazy if you don't have a job.

BGFalcons82;952637 wrote: "Headline Inflation Statistics"? What in the hell? Why not just deal in the truth instead of concocting figures to match an agenda rather than measuring an agenda with figures?

BoatShoes;953908 wrote:The FED could target a higher nominal GDP but you don't believe the FED should exist and your ideas would make things drastically worse so why even ask?

I Wear Pants;953751 wrote:I disagree that the only way to achieve that is through a government mandate.

What I'm saying is not "how do we get companies to hire people they don't need" but rather "how do we get companies to need to hire people". IE, how to best raise demand. I don't think direct government mandate is really a viable candidate in that regard. Some government actions could help but also the lack of interference in areas/removal of mandates could be beneficial as well.

BoatShoes;953920 wrote:Wow. You claim that the BLS releases inflation statistics without food and energy prices. headline inflation is Inflation with Food and Energy Prices!

No one is hiding statistics from you! Did you read the bloomberg link? People are expecting Headline inflation to dip again as well as Core inflation. You clearly don't seem to know what headline inflation and neither your no cleveland buck as provided evidence for you claims of rampant inflation.

BGFalcons82;953369 wrote:When you can't defend Barry, by all means, bring Bush into the discussion and either blame him for X or say Barry is just like him, so what's the beef? Typical....tsk tsk tsk.

Have you been reading any current events about how Barry wants to circumvent Congress and implement as much of his agenda as he can without their approval? Doesn't that sound like somebody who thinks they are indeed a King??

Here's just one of over 5,000,000 Google links to the search words, "Obama bypasses Congress" - http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-26/obama-says-he-ll-bypass-congress-to-get-elements-of-jobs-plan.html Feel free to catch up on what's going on around the country besides babies peeing and moaning in a certain park in NYC.

Since you brought up Bush, find some threads where he said the same things as Barry.

By the way, he went to Congress for approval to attack Iraq and Afghanistan, but Barry purposely chose not to get it for his Libyan assault. King's don't need no stinking authority, they just do what pleases them. Wake up.

Cleveland Buck;953932 wrote:Headline inflation is also understated. Using owner's equivalent rent instead of house prices is convenient now that rents are plummeting but the government is propping up housing prices. They can also weigh consumer electronics more heavily than in the past where the government largely stays out of the industry and therefore prices fall over time despite monetary inflation.

Fact is if people are broke, they can stop buying TVs and iPads and PS3s, but they still have to buy food, where prices are up 7% over last year, and heat their homes and drives their cars, where energy prices are up 20% over last year. Milking them some more to target nominal GDP growth would destroy them.

BoatShoes;953904 wrote:Gosh can you provide any evidence for this assertion? Here's former Reagan Adminstration economist saying there's none and he provides ample support for his argument. As he says it's simply asserted as self-evident and repeated through the conservative echo chamber.

[LEFT]http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/
[/LEFT]