"Scariest Jobs Chart Ever"!!

[Vast LWC]

Except the Unemployment rate isn't a percentage of the population. It's a percentage of the Labor Force, which is the sum or Employed and Unemployed. So if you added in the women's participation, you'd be adding to the numerator and the denominator of the equation.

Yes, that is true, but that only proves my point.

There are more people employed in the US than there were in the past,

and less people who are able to work who are unemployed, as a percentage of the population.

However, there are now more people willing and able to work relative to the number who are working, so the unemployment rate is higher.

One must remember that the fact that there are more workers available to work does not create jobs in and of itself. Jobs are created by demand for products or services.

To some extent, having more people working creates more capital to create a larger demand, but the US is not an enclosed economy, and US citizens certainly do not spend their money on their own products only.

Add to all this the fact that automation is driving millions of people out of work, and you have the situation we have now.

In my personal opinion, the number of unemployed may never go down again. However, the unemployment rate may go down as some people give up looking for work and decide that having one family member at home might not be so bad after all.

And before someone goes and accuses me of sexism for that last statement, I did not say the person who stays at home and takes care of things there has to be a woman.

 

[Vast LWC]

Depression era unemployment, record poverty, ahhh the sweet smell of Progressive success. See most people mistakenly assumed Obama was talking about a change for the better, I know he wasn't; this is what he wanted all along

Except, as I pointed out, there is no depression-level unemployment.

In fact, unemployment was higher at this point in Reagan's presidency. It reached 10.8% in mid-1983.

And that's not even counting my point about women in the workforce, those are just the bare numbers.

(Oh, and, for those of you who were paying attention, Reagan's approval rating at the time was 35%.)

To be depression era unemployment, with todays workforce, we'd have to have a 48% unemployment rate.

 

[Vast LWC]

LOL. Right. Except 2 years after the Reagan tax cuts were passed, the economy was booming.

Obamavilles are springing up all over the county

Yeah, that is a false statement. The unemployment rate was at 10.8% at that particular point in time.

 

[Vast LWC]

It doesn't matter where the tax rates are or have been. What matters if you want growth, cut taxes. If you want to cool the economy, raise them.

Historically:

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation

Yeah, conservative think tank, who'd have thought?

(Article)

Yep, the heritage foundation really knows how to spin. They've gotten quite good at it after doing it for decades now.

 

[Cuyo]

Depression era unemployment, record poverty, ahhh the sweet smell of Progressive success. See most people mistakenly assumed Obama was talking about a change for the better, I know he wasn't; this is what he wanted all along

???? We've had a Progressive in office lately? When? I remember a progressive on the campaign trail, but that's about it...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

More people are living in Poverty now than has ever been recorded before. The numbers are the highest in the 50yr. history of Poverty Record Keeping. Things are very bad. Don't kid yourself. Hopey Changey has been a real disaster. It is what it is...

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6775860-us-poverty-rate-highest-in-15-years

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL. Right. Except 2 years after the Reagan tax cuts were passed, the economy was booming.

Obamavilles are springing up all over the county

Yeah, that is a false statement. The unemployment rate was at 10.8% at that particular point in time.

I realize you are only writing an approximation of the truth and by your own admission no one should take you seriously.
In fact unemployment is a lagging indicator (the last thing employers do is hire). GDP growth under Reagan at this point was far higher than it is today.

 

[Annie]

It doesn't matter where the tax rates are or have been. What matters if you want growth, cut taxes. If you want to cool the economy, raise them.

Historically:

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation

Yeah, conservative think tank, who'd have thought?

(Article)

Yep, the heritage foundation really knows how to spin. They've gotten quite good at it after doing it for decades now.

Can't wait to see you dispute the facts, note at site the citations given.

 

[The Rabbi]

It doesn't matter where the tax rates are or have been. What matters if you want growth, cut taxes. If you want to cool the economy, raise them.

Historically:

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation

Yeah, conservative think tank, who'd have thought?

(Article)

Yep, the heritage foundation really knows how to spin. They've gotten quite good at it after doing it for decades now.

Can't wait to see you dispute the facts, note at site the citations given.

They can't. It's a Catch-22: If the sites linked are so biased then it ought to be easy to refute their statements. If they can't refute the statements then the site must be biased.

 

[edthecynic]

It doesn't matter where the tax rates are or have been. What matters if you want growth, cut taxes. If you want to cool the economy, raise them.

Historically:

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation

Yeah, conservative think tank, who'd have thought?

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
Published on August 13, 2003 by Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D. WebMemo #327

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

Come on, Heritage, you can't be serious! The extreme Right wing think tank pays people to find the most deceptive way to use stats to lie by half truth.
It's half true St Ronnie cut taxes in 1981, but revenue went down, not up the next 2 years. Revenue didn't go up until Ragan RAISED taxes throughout the rest of the 1980s. That's why CONS always talk about the WHOLE DECADE when they talk about increased tax revenue CHRONOLOGICALLY after the 1981 tax cut. Heritage leaves that other part of the truth out, all the tax increases, pretending they never happened and implying only tax cuts caused the increased revenue.
Reagan was a tax raising fool!!!

Tax Increases

First term

1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982

3. Social Security Amendments of 1983

4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983

5. Railroad Retirement Act of 1983

6. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

Second term

7. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

9. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

10. Tax Reform Act of 1986

11. Continuing Resolution for 1987

12. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

13. Continuing Resolution for 1988

 

[Revere]

Lower across the board marginal rates in exchange for some loopholes closed.

So that eliminates tax cuts as a reason for deficits.

 

[DiveCon]

^^^^ WRONG

more accurate

 

[DiveCon]

What's the unemployment rate for people making over 250,000 taxable?

What was the unemployment rate in the 50's when the top tax rate was about 90%?

hmmm...guess what...

...it's not taxes causing the problem. You're retarded if you think so.

Well, let's have a look at those unemployment rates in the 1950's, when the top rate was 90%

Oh my, look. One little blip over 7%, and otherwise...eh?

Looks like a top tax rate of 35% isn't exactly crucial to having low unemployment is it?

Next question: how do you think the deficit/debt looked back then? With those job killing (lol) income tax rates in place?

Any guesses?

uh, that graph is of the current rates

 

[The Rabbi]

What's the unemployment rate for people making over 250,000 taxable?

What was the unemployment rate in the 50's when the top tax rate was about 90%?

hmmm...guess what...

...it's not taxes causing the problem. You're retarded if you think so.

Well, let's have a look at those unemployment rates in the 1950's, when the top rate was 90%

Oh my, look. One little blip over 7%, and otherwise...eh?

Looks like a top tax rate of 35% isn't exactly crucial to having low unemployment is it?

Next question: how do you think the deficit/debt looked back then? With those job killing (lol) income tax rates in place?

Any guesses?

uh, that graph is of the current rates

WHOOPS!
The Left cannot engage in intelligent debate because htey lack the skills and tools to do so. They read an article and if it tangentially mentions whatever the topic is, they claim it supports their position.

 

[Annie]

It doesn't matter where the tax rates are or have been. What matters if you want growth, cut taxes. If you want to cool the economy, raise them.

Historically:

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation

Yeah, conservative think tank, who'd have thought?

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
Published on August 13, 2003 by Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D. WebMemo #327

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

Come on, Heritage, you can't be serious! The extreme Right wing think tank pays people to find the most deceptive way to use stats to lie by half truth.
It's half true St Ronnie cut taxes in 1981, but revenue went down, not up the next 2 years. Revenue didn't go up until Ragan RAISED taxes throughout the rest of the 1980s. That's why CONS always talk about the WHOLE DECADE when they talk about increased tax revenue CHRONOLOGICALLY after the 1981 tax cut. Heritage leaves that other part of the truth out, all the tax increases, pretending they never happened and implying only tax cuts caused the increased revenue.
Reagan was a tax raising fool!!!

Tax Increases

First term

1. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

2. Highway Revenue Act of 1982

3. Social Security Amendments of 1983

4. Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983

5. Railroad Retirement Act of 1983

6. Deficit Reduction Act of 1984

Second term

7. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

8. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

9. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

10. Tax Reform Act of 1986

11. Continuing Resolution for 1987

12. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

13. Continuing Resolution for 1988

Raise taxes when the goal is cooling the economy, cut when goal is to stimulate. Now, about the citations in the Heritage, attack those not the host.

 

[editec]

It was hyperbole to prove a point.

Of course there were some women in the workforce, but nowhere near the levels we have today.

And the hyperbole is in fact basically accurate for pre-WWII data.

But what we didn't have in the workforce back in the '50s were Chinese workers willing to work for a dollar a day and competing for jobs with American workers.

Also a good point.

But the fact of the matter is, when one takes into account the larger percentage of the population that is now available and willing to work in the workforce, the unemployment rate is not high at all. Just saying.

Of course the thing your analysis ignores is that back in the 50's ONE SALARY could support a family.

Now for most Americans TWO INCOMES still isn't enough.

But for the guy who noted that comparing the 1950s economy to this one is simply nuts, I TOTALLY agree.

 

[pinqy]

Of course the thing your analysis ignores is that back in the 50's ONE SALARY could support a family.

Now for most Americans TWO INCOMES still isn't enough.

Sort of. One income would be plenty for most Americans IF they were to live in the same style as the 50's: one car, no power steering, A/C, AM radio only etc,; a smaller house, one phone (no cell phones or computers); one television receiving broadcast channels only; no microwave or dvd player. But we have more stuff now, and wages can't catch up to the increased spending on all that stuff.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course the thing your analysis ignores is that back in the 50's ONE SALARY could support a family.

Now for most Americans TWO INCOMES still isn't enough.

Sort of. One income would be plenty for most Americans IF they were to live in the same style as the 50's: one car, no power steering, A/C, AM radio only etc,; a smaller house, one phone (no cell phones or computers); one television receiving broadcast channels only; no microwave or dvd player. But we have more stuff now, and wages can't catch up to the increased spending on all that stuff.

Really the issue is the inflation of the 1970s. Back in 1960 Gold was about $35/oz. Multiply all prices from then by about 15 and you get todays prices on a lot of stuff. But that does not hold true for wages, which have seriously lagged.

 

[skookerasbil]

^^^^ WRONG

more accurate

win

 

[skookerasbil]

You know.........went through this thread, and the k00ks are right!!!

Things are awesome right now and getting more awesome by the day.

Not sure why I even posted this thread up given the level of bliss the country is experiencing right now..........