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

Because moving all over the country is a realistic option for everyone.

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

not realistic or not willing to do?

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

They can complain as long as they're attempting to find a real job, maintaining their skills/marketability in their field. Of course they also need to admit that they could have a better prospect of finding a suitable job in a better market. But I don't think that needs to make it so any of their complaints are invalid (again, as long as they're being honest about the market situation).

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.

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.

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.

FIFY

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Just because I chose not to list every farking commodity on the planet and type 10,000 words like your referenced OC poster, doesn't mean the price of them has been stable. Here's a neat chart for you to review - http://futures.tradingcharts.com/historical/OA/2009/0/continuous.html There are literally over 100 items to track. Pull up corn, oats, soybeans, oil, whatever suits your pallette. For a quick example, corn, which is in just about EVERYTHING we eat, has increased over 60% since the King took his throne in January, 2009. What's that per annum?...about 24%. While it's true food and hard commodities rise and fall, the overall trend is definitely on the way up since Barry and Bernacke decided to see how fast their printing presses can work.

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.

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.

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.

I wasn't talking about for me. I was talking about how I view the problem on a macro level.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?

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

Again. You don't seem to understand what the unemployment statistic means. It means that if every single unemployed individual magically became a hard working true conservative willing to take any job whether it be cleaning up poo or wiping down toilets there would not be enough available jobs for everyone.

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?

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.

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?

Target a higher nominal GDP means jack up price inflation. I understand you believe higher food and energy prices will do wonders for the economy, but most don't people won't take to well to it. Why do you think we have all of these riots and protests all over the world? i'm sure we had fantastic nominal GDP growth in the 70s. How well was that received?

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.

I wasn't talking about the whole economy. You are talking about specific fields. If the economy is booming and you graduate with an accounting degree but that field is filled up, how are you going to create an environment that forces businesses to hire more accountants?

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.

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.

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.

The correlation that I cited between Bush and Obama are exemplorary...your partisan hackery fails to grasp nor understand.

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??

No different than King George the 43rd. Are you suggesting Pinnochio didn't exert executive orders? I mean....really? Did not King George overstep his executive bounds by tacitly agreeing to torture? Hmmm? Or the dismantling of the constitutionsal tenet of habeous corpus? Or fabricating evidence in order to sate the lust of the pro world hegemony crowd...through bloodshed?...leading to the death of 5,000 hoodwinked American kids? Priorities dude, priorities.

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.

Again...substitute Bush 43 in place of Obama...tell me how many "hits" there are.

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

LOL. As McEnroe yelled.."you cannot be serious". I would break bandwith limits if I cited Bush's desecration of the Constitution.

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.

Condensing a litany of out and out lies and presenting them as facts does not constitute "going to Congress" with anything. You are as uneducated on the subject as one can be. Use your God given free will and research the damn subject before you make such lucid claims. You can start by googling the "office of special plans"....an operation of absolute pure evil...that greatly transcends anything a king would do.

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.

Precisely.

You have to be an idiot to not see where inflation is already in high-gear. Food and energy prices are up significantly while wages remain stagnant due to an anemic jobs market.

People will channel their resources to keeping up with the increasing cost of basic necessities like fuel, energy, and food. They'll delay purchases of luxury items such as consumer electronics, cars, and durable goods until they feel more confident in the labor market and the overall economy.

This, of course, puts an additional strain on the consumer economy and further retards jobs growth. It's a vicious cycle. If we believe the economy is in the tank, then we are less likely to spend. If we think the economy is on the mend, then people do not mind pulling out those credit cards to purchase those 90" flat-screen TV's and buying new cars.

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]

I don't need evidence its common sense. Do you know how incentives work? Why take risks to try and be successful if you know the government wants to take more of it? Why work when you have an indefinite length of unemployment and welfare coming in? Unions demand higher wages for their employees and restrict the employers ability to let the true market value of labor be reached for that position. Higher wages = less jobs. And Obamacare is an absolute joke and is definitely causing a lot of uncertainty for employers everywhere.

You don't even need a PhD in Economics to understand these basic principles.