US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[edthecynic]

Actually the criticism came from Republicans like Issa. OMB actually said the old reporting underestimated the number of jobs created or saved and gave this example:

"The tricky part is deciding whether a job would be lost or not," said Craig Jennings, senior federal fiscal policy analyst for the watchdog group OMB Watch. "It's impossible to know the alternate universe in which an employer did not receive Recovery Act funds."

Jennings said the reporting change is wise because it takes the judgment out of the hands of recipients by providing a clearer definition of jobs saved or retained. For example, Chrysler received $53 million in stimulus money but reported zero jobs created or saved because it used an existing workforce that it determined was not in danger of losing jobs. Using the new guidance, any Chrysler employee whose job was funded by the stimulus during that quarter now would be included.

"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts. It might do that and it might not, but at the end of the day this is just a better way to get more accurate job counts."

"These changes are designed to make definitions clear, simplify the process, and increase accuracy so we achieve the transparency and accountability the process was designed to promote," wrote OMB spokesman Tom Gavin in an email.

Let's be honest here, Ed...the "criticism" came from many quarters...including the GOP...and reporters that had started to look into the reporting. The OMB really had no choice but to question the validity of the numbers coming from the ACCA reports because to be blunt...it was obvious there were huge problems with the numbers!

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf

"United States Government Accountability Office
(continued)
For example, GAO’s review of prime recipient reports
identified the following
•
3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount
received or expended
but included more than
50,000 jobs created or retained;

9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included
expended amounts approaching $1 billion
•
Instances of other reporting anomalies such as
discrepancies between award amounts and the
amounts reported as received which, although
relatively small in number, indicate problematic
issues in the reporting"

With all due respect to Mr Jennings lauding the OMB for "political braveness"...the problems in the reports were so glaringly obvious...the OMB really had no choice but to point out their existence. To do anything else would have made them a laughingstock.

Gee, you left this out:
"Data Reporting and Quality

While recipients GAO contacted appear
to have made good faith efforts to
ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO’s fieldwork and initial review
and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate that there are a
range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."

And the OMB immediately made the changes the GAO recommended so only the first quarter reports were of lower quality:

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the consistency of FTE data collection and
reporting, OMB should (1) clarify the definition and
standardize the period of measurement for FTEs and
work with federal agencies to align this guidance with
OMB’s guidance and across agencies; (2) given its
reporting approach, consider being more explicit that
“jobs created or retained” are to be reported as hours
worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds; and (3)
continue working with federal agencies and encourage
them to provide or improve program-specific guidance
to assist recipients, especially as it applies to the full-
time equivalent calculation for individual programs.

What the OMB was pointing out in that VERY diplomatic statement is that the reports that had been filed by ACCA recipients were a disaster and that the Federal agencies in charge of monitoring those reports and providing guidance to those filling out the reports had done almost as bad a job at THAT as the recipients themselves!

OMB was hardly being "diplomatic!" They simply followed the advice of the GAO. Again the only report you can gripe about was the first quarter which I showed UNDERESTIMATED the number of jobs created or saved.

Again, Ed...the number of jobs created or saved would have only been UNDERESTIMATED if you followed their premise of a multiplier effect taking place...something which is totally debatable. As for that first quarter? The numbers were so badly over stated by the ACCA recipients it's hard to see how you could possibly end up underestimating how many jobs were created.

Except the OMB gave a specific example of how the first quarter rules underestimated the jobs and then pointed out how Obama would be attacked because the GAO recommended changes would give higher job counts, which the GOP did, so the first quarter numbers were not understated the GAO rule change would not have given higher job counts. DUH!

Remember this?
"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts."

 

[Rshermr]

Let's be honest here, Ed...the "criticism" came from many quarters...including the GOP...and reporters that had started to look into the reporting. The OMB really had no choice but to question the validity of the numbers coming from the ACCA reports because to be blunt...it was obvious there were huge problems with the numbers!

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf

"United States Government Accountability Office
(continued)
For example, GAO’s review of prime recipient reports
identified the following
•
3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount
received or expended
but included more than
50,000 jobs created or retained;

9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included
expended amounts approaching $1 billion
•
Instances of other reporting anomalies such as
discrepancies between award amounts and the
amounts reported as received which, although
relatively small in number, indicate problematic
issues in the reporting"

With all due respect to Mr Jennings lauding the OMB for "political braveness"...the problems in the reports were so glaringly obvious...the OMB really had no choice but to point out their existence. To do anything else would have made them a laughingstock.

Gee, you left this out:
"Data Reporting and Quality

While recipients GAO contacted appear
to have made good faith efforts to
ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO’s fieldwork and initial review
and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate that there are a
range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."

And the OMB immediately made the changes the GAO recommended so only the first quarter reports were of lower quality:

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the consistency of FTE data collection and
reporting, OMB should (1) clarify the definition and
standardize the period of measurement for FTEs and
work with federal agencies to align this guidance with
OMB’s guidance and across agencies; (2) given its
reporting approach, consider being more explicit that
“jobs created or retained” are to be reported as hours
worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds; and (3)
continue working with federal agencies and encourage
them to provide or improve program-specific guidance
to assist recipients, especially as it applies to the full-
time equivalent calculation for individual programs.

What the OMB was pointing out in that VERY diplomatic statement is that the reports that had been filed by ACCA recipients were a disaster and that the Federal agencies in charge of monitoring those reports and providing guidance to those filling out the reports had done almost as bad a job at THAT as the recipients themselves!

OMB was hardly being "diplomatic!" They simply followed the advice of the GAO. Again the only report you can gripe about was the first quarter which I showed UNDERESTIMATED the number of jobs created or saved.

Again, Ed...the number of jobs created or saved would have only been UNDERESTIMATED if you followed their premise of a multiplier effect taking place...something which is totally debatable. As for that first quarter? The numbers were so badly over stated by the ACCA recipients it's hard to see how you could possibly end up underestimating how many jobs were created.

Except the OMB gave a specific example of how the first quarter rules underestimated the jobs and then pointed out how Obama would be attacked because the GAO recommended changes would give higher job counts, which the GOP did, so the first quarter numbers were not understated the GAO rule change would not have given higher job counts. DUH!

Remember this?
"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts."

[/QUOTE] One must remember that republicans and other cons simply lie as a matter of course. Without compunction. Without any concerns. And then they will use their lies, which they know are lies, to try to attack you. So, the thing is, NEVER GIVE A CON TROLL A CHANCE TO BE HONEST AND FAIR. BECAUSE, LIKE OLDSTYLE, THEY SIMPLY LIE, CHEAT, AND STEAL. JUST THE WAY THEY ARE.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let's be honest here, Ed...the "criticism" came from many quarters...including the GOP...and reporters that had started to look into the reporting. The OMB really had no choice but to question the validity of the numbers coming from the ACCA reports because to be blunt...it was obvious there were huge problems with the numbers!

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf

"United States Government Accountability Office
(continued)
For example, GAO’s review of prime recipient reports
identified the following
•
3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount
received or expended
but included more than
50,000 jobs created or retained;

9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included
expended amounts approaching $1 billion
•
Instances of other reporting anomalies such as
discrepancies between award amounts and the
amounts reported as received which, although
relatively small in number, indicate problematic
issues in the reporting"

With all due respect to Mr Jennings lauding the OMB for "political braveness"...the problems in the reports were so glaringly obvious...the OMB really had no choice but to point out their existence. To do anything else would have made them a laughingstock.

Gee, you left this out:
"Data Reporting and Quality

While recipients GAO contacted appear
to have made good faith efforts to
ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO’s fieldwork and initial review
and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate that there are a
range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."

And the OMB immediately made the changes the GAO recommended so only the first quarter reports were of lower quality:

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the consistency of FTE data collection and
reporting, OMB should (1) clarify the definition and
standardize the period of measurement for FTEs and
work with federal agencies to align this guidance with
OMB’s guidance and across agencies; (2) given its
reporting approach, consider being more explicit that
“jobs created or retained” are to be reported as hours
worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds; and (3)
continue working with federal agencies and encourage
them to provide or improve program-specific guidance
to assist recipients, especially as it applies to the full-
time equivalent calculation for individual programs.

What the OMB was pointing out in that VERY diplomatic statement is that the reports that had been filed by ACCA recipients were a disaster and that the Federal agencies in charge of monitoring those reports and providing guidance to those filling out the reports had done almost as bad a job at THAT as the recipients themselves!

OMB was hardly being "diplomatic!" They simply followed the advice of the GAO. Again the only report you can gripe about was the first quarter which I showed UNDERESTIMATED the number of jobs created or saved.

Again, Ed...the number of jobs created or saved would have only been UNDERESTIMATED if you followed their premise of a multiplier effect taking place...something which is totally debatable. As for that first quarter? The numbers were so badly over stated by the ACCA recipients it's hard to see how you could possibly end up underestimating how many jobs were created.

Except the OMB gave a specific example of how the first quarter rules underestimated the jobs and then pointed out how Obama would be attacked because the GAO recommended changes would give higher job counts, which the GOP did, so the first quarter numbers were not understated the GAO rule change would not have given higher job counts. DUH!

Remember this?
"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts."

Yes they did give several examples of how the first quarter rules MIGHT have underestimated jobs at the same time they admitted that the ACCA reporting was so flawed it was reporting jobs that didn't exist or were not created by the stimulus.

As I pointed out earlier, Ed...admitting the obvious doesn't take "braveness"...it's what the OMB was forced to do because of all the stories that were coming out about ACCA reports that were at best badly done and at worst deliberately skewed! I'm curious...where are you getting the idea that the reports were fixed by the second quarter? Were they fixed...or did they simply improve a little? Between you and I, Ed...I'm more of a cynic than you are when it comes to the truthfulness of government when it reports on it's own performance!

 

[Rshermr]

Gee, you left this out:
"Data Reporting and Quality

While recipients GAO contacted appear
to have made good faith efforts to
ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO’s fieldwork and initial review
and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate that there are a
range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."

And the OMB immediately made the changes the GAO recommended so only the first quarter reports were of lower quality:

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the consistency of FTE data collection and
reporting, OMB should (1) clarify the definition and
standardize the period of measurement for FTEs and
work with federal agencies to align this guidance with
OMB’s guidance and across agencies; (2) given its
reporting approach, consider being more explicit that
“jobs created or retained” are to be reported as hours
worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds; and (3)
continue working with federal agencies and encourage
them to provide or improve program-specific guidance
to assist recipients, especially as it applies to the full-
time equivalent calculation for individual programs.

What the OMB was pointing out in that VERY diplomatic statement is that the reports that had been filed by ACCA recipients were a disaster and that the Federal agencies in charge of monitoring those reports and providing guidance to those filling out the reports had done almost as bad a job at THAT as the recipients themselves!

OMB was hardly being "diplomatic!" They simply followed the advice of the GAO. Again the only report you can gripe about was the first quarter which I showed UNDERESTIMATED the number of jobs created or saved.

Again, Ed...the number of jobs created or saved would have only been UNDERESTIMATED if you followed their premise of a multiplier effect taking place...something which is totally debatable. As for that first quarter? The numbers were so badly over stated by the ACCA recipients it's hard to see how you could possibly end up underestimating how many jobs were created.

Except the OMB gave a specific example of how the first quarter rules underestimated the jobs and then pointed out how Obama would be attacked because the GAO recommended changes would give higher job counts, which the GOP did, so the first quarter numbers were not understated the GAO rule change would not have given higher job counts. DUH!

Remember this?
"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts."

Yes they did give several examples of how the first quarter rules MIGHT have underestimated jobs at the same time they admitted that the ACCA reporting was so flawed it was reporting jobs that didn't exist or were not created by the stimulus.

As I pointed out earlier, Ed...admitting the obvious doesn't take "braveness"...it's what the OMB was forced to do because of all the stories that were coming out about ACCA reports that were at best badly done and at worst deliberately skewed! I'm curious...where are you getting the idea that the reports were fixed by the second quarter? Were they fixed...or did they simply improve a little? Between you and I, Ed...I'm more of a cynic than you are when it comes to the truthfulness of government when it reports on it's own performance!

[/QUOTE]

So, lets try to agree on a little logic, oldstyle. There is only one organization in the US known broadly as the ACCA. That is the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. There is no organization related to the stimulus called the ACCA. Period. And since it takes actual people to make a report, and any act is incapable of making a report, your reference to an "ACCA reports" is nonsense. BS, me boy. And you seem incapable of suggesting who made the phantom reports you are referring to.

But you miss the point. You are just a simpleton food services worker. We are still waiting to see an example of an "ACCA report", me boy. But you do not seem capable of finding one. All you can find is reference to a few ARRA recipient surveys. Individual company surveys made by individual recipient companies of their own results. So, not ACCA reports. Just surveys reporting on the ARRA recipient organizations.
So, lets look at facts and not Oldstyle talking points:
1. There are no "ACCA" reports done by an entity called the ACCA. Unless you like accountants reports.
2. Oldstyle is a food services employee, with two classes of Econ in his far flung history.
3. Oldstyle is not an economist, nor does he have any economists working for him.
4. Being a food services employee, he has no staff of researchers.
5. Oldstyle only posts concepts that line up EXACTLY with Bat Shit Crazy Con Web Sites and nut case Con sources.
6. Apparently Oldstyle can not find impartial sources, though the rest of us find them easily
7. The facts prove that Oldstyle is a con troll, incapable of rational argument. Only capable of posting con talking points.
8. Oldstyle lies continually.

So, at any rate, since you have no impartial sources backing up your statements, why is it you think anyone should care what a food services employee who is a proven liar and can not find a source to back up his drivel?

What your line of bullshit is all about is you trying to say that the ARRA failed to save and create jobs. But you are up against several organizations that disagree with you, and have:
1. Staffs of employees working for them.
2. Among those employees are economists and researchers.
3. Have a solid reputation for honesty and impartiality.
4. Have research that is available to prove their resulting statements.

Those are all things that you have NONE of. Which then requires you to lie like a rug to try to negate the truth that these organizations have, and that you do not. All you have, me boy, are lies. Which is why you have no one paying attention to you.

Are you now relying on the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants? LOL

 

[Rshermr]

Actually the criticism came from Republicans like Issa. OMB actually said the old reporting underestimated the number of jobs created or saved and gave this example:

"The tricky part is deciding whether a job would be lost or not," said Craig Jennings, senior federal fiscal policy analyst for the watchdog group OMB Watch. "It's impossible to know the alternate universe in which an employer did not receive Recovery Act funds."

Jennings said the reporting change is wise because it takes the judgment out of the hands of recipients by providing a clearer definition of jobs saved or retained. For example, Chrysler received $53 million in stimulus money but reported zero jobs created or saved because it used an existing workforce that it determined was not in danger of losing jobs. Using the new guidance, any Chrysler employee whose job was funded by the stimulus during that quarter now would be included.

"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts. It might do that and it might not, but at the end of the day this is just a better way to get more accurate job counts."

"These changes are designed to make definitions clear, simplify the process, and increase accuracy so we achieve the transparency and accountability the process was designed to promote," wrote OMB spokesman Tom Gavin in an email.

Let's be honest here, Ed...the "criticism" came from many quarters...including the GOP...and reporters that had started to look into the reporting. The OMB really had no choice but to question the validity of the numbers coming from the ACCA reports because to be blunt...it was obvious there were huge problems with the numbers!

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf

"United States Government Accountability Office
(continued)
For example, GAO’s review of prime recipient reports
identified the following
•
3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount
received or expended
but included more than
50,000 jobs created or retained;

9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included
expended amounts approaching $1 billion
•
Instances of other reporting anomalies such as
discrepancies between award amounts and the
amounts reported as received which, although
relatively small in number, indicate problematic
issues in the reporting"

With all due respect to Mr Jennings lauding the OMB for "political braveness"...the problems in the reports were so glaringly obvious...the OMB really had no choice but to point out their existence. To do anything else would have made them a laughingstock.

Gee, you left this out:
"Data Reporting and Quality

While recipients GAO contacted appear
to have made good faith efforts to
ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO’s fieldwork and initial review
and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate that there are a
range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."

And the OMB immediately made the changes the GAO recommended so only the first quarter reports were of lower quality:

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the consistency of FTE data collection and
reporting, OMB should (1) clarify the definition and
standardize the period of measurement for FTEs and
work with federal agencies to align this guidance with
OMB’s guidance and across agencies; (2) given its
reporting approach, consider being more explicit that
“jobs created or retained” are to be reported as hours
worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds; and (3)
continue working with federal agencies and encourage
them to provide or improve program-specific guidance
to assist recipients, especially as it applies to the full-
time equivalent calculation for individual programs.

What the OMB was pointing out in that VERY diplomatic statement is that the reports that had been filed by ACCA recipients were a disaster and that the Federal agencies in charge of monitoring those reports and providing guidance to those filling out the reports had done almost as bad a job at THAT as the recipients themselves!

OMB was hardly being "diplomatic!" They simply followed the advice of the GAO. Again the only report you can gripe about was the first quarter which I showed UNDERESTIMATED the number of jobs created or saved.

Again, Ed...the number of jobs created or saved would have only been UNDERESTIMATED if you followed their premise of a multiplier effect taking place...something which is totally debatable. As for that first quarter? The numbers were so badly over stated by the ACCA recipients it's hard to see how you could possibly end up underestimating how many jobs were created.

there are no acca reports. You are living a delusion. Though the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants does indeed support the ARRA.

 

[Rshermr]

Gee, you left this out:
"Data Reporting and Quality

While recipients GAO contacted appear
to have made good faith efforts to
ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO’s fieldwork and initial review
and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate that there are a
range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."

And the OMB immediately made the changes the GAO recommended so only the first quarter reports were of lower quality:

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the consistency of FTE data collection and
reporting, OMB should (1) clarify the definition and
standardize the period of measurement for FTEs and
work with federal agencies to align this guidance with
OMB’s guidance and across agencies; (2) given its
reporting approach, consider being more explicit that
“jobs created or retained” are to be reported as hours
worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds; and (3)
continue working with federal agencies and encourage
them to provide or improve program-specific guidance
to assist recipients, especially as it applies to the full-
time equivalent calculation for individual programs.

What the OMB was pointing out in that VERY diplomatic statement is that the reports that had been filed by ACCA recipients were a disaster and that the Federal agencies in charge of monitoring those reports and providing guidance to those filling out the reports had done almost as bad a job at THAT as the recipients themselves!

OMB was hardly being "diplomatic!" They simply followed the advice of the GAO. Again the only report you can gripe about was the first quarter which I showed UNDERESTIMATED the number of jobs created or saved.

Again, Ed...the number of jobs created or saved would have only been UNDERESTIMATED if you followed their premise of a multiplier effect taking place...something which is totally debatable. As for that first quarter? The numbers were so badly over stated by the ACCA recipients it's hard to see how you could possibly end up underestimating how many jobs were created.

Except the OMB gave a specific example of how the first quarter rules underestimated the jobs and then pointed out how Obama would be attacked because the GAO recommended changes would give higher job counts, which the GOP did, so the first quarter numbers were not understated the GAO rule change would not have given higher job counts. DUH!

Remember this?
"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts."

Yes they did give several examples of how the first quarter rules MIGHT have underestimated jobs at the same time they admitted that the ACCA reporting was so flawed it was reporting jobs that didn't exist or were not created by the stimulus.

As I pointed out earlier, Ed...admitting the obvious doesn't take "braveness"...it's what the OMB was forced to do because of all the stories that were coming out about ACCA reports that were at best badly done and at worst deliberately skewed! I'm curious...where are you getting the idea that the reports were fixed by the second quarter? Were they fixed...or did they simply improve a little? Between you and I, Ed...I'm more of a cynic than you are when it comes to the truthfulness of government when it reports on it's own performance!

Why, Oldstyle, do you think anyone really cares what the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants say?

 

[Markle]

Blacks at 20 percent unemployment. Black OP proud though.

Why do you lie?

(Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American

8.6%

White youth unemployment 16-19 14.8%
Black youth unemployment 16-19 30.0%

E-16. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

 

[Markle]

Does any of you actually read all this garbage?

If so, why?

 

[Faun]

Blacks at 20 percent unemployment. Black OP proud though.

Why do you lie?

(Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American

8.6%

White youth unemployment 16-19 14.8%
Black youth unemployment 16-19 30.0%

E-16. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

Why do you lie?

The poster I responded to did not say what you're saying. He said, "blacks at 20 percent unemployment."

Nothing about black "youths." You added that because his numbers are bullshit.

But your numbers are not bullshit. They are valid figures from the BLS. However, some perspective is glaring .... comparing the numbers you posted with the numbers Obama inherited...

White youth unemployment 16-19 18.6%
Black youth unemployment 16-19 35.3%

... which were growing due to Bush's Great Recession to 24.8% and 48.8% respectively.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Blacks at 20 percent unemployment. Black OP proud though.

Why do you lie?

(Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American

8.6%

White youth unemployment 16-19 14.8%
Black youth unemployment 16-19 30.0%

E-16. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

$15 an hour will surely rectify that. After all, $30K on top of all the other costs for entry level work is sure to make employers hire.

 

[Rshermr]

Blacks at 20 percent unemployment. Black OP proud though.

Why do you lie?

(Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American

8.6%

White youth unemployment 16-19 14.8%
Black youth unemployment 16-19 30.0%

E-16. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

$15 an hour will surely rectify that. After all, $30K on top of all the other costs for entry level work is sure to make employers hire.

Well, that is the constant refrain from cons. That the new minimum wage will kill employment and small businesses. The fact that it never has, and never does, is of no concern to the con pushing con talking points. Because that is what you do. You believe what you are told to believe. And without any reason, you think someone will believe your drivel, the drivel of a clown with no expertise. You see, dipshit, being a con troll is not expertise.

Does any of you actually read all this garbage?

If so, why?

Your garbage? NO
Why would anyone care about the drivel of a brain dead con troll?
But you do read the posts. All of them and make replies to nearly all, replies that are too stupid to consider. Just to prove you are a congenital idiot.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Blacks at 20 percent unemployment. Black OP proud though.

Why do you lie?

(Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American

8.6%

White youth unemployment 16-19 14.8%
Black youth unemployment 16-19 30.0%

E-16. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

$15 an hour will surely rectify that. After all, $30K on top of all the other costs for entry level work is sure to make employers hire.

Well, that is the constant refrain from cons. That the new minimum wage will kill employment and small businesses. The fact that it never has, and never does, is of no concern to the con pushing con talking points. Because that is what you do. You believe what you are told to believe. And without any reason, you think someone will believe your drivel, the drivel of a clown with no expertise. You see, dipshit, being a con troll is not expertise.

You don't know the first thing about business, do you?

 

[Rshermr]

Blacks at 20 percent unemployment. Black OP proud though.

Why do you lie?

(Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American

8.6%

White youth unemployment 16-19 14.8%
Black youth unemployment 16-19 30.0%

E-16. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

$15 an hour will surely rectify that. After all, $30K on top of all the other costs for entry level work is sure to make employers hire.

Well, that is the constant refrain from cons. That the new minimum wage will kill employment and small businesses. The fact that it never has, and never does, is of no concern to the con pushing con talking points. Because that is what you do. You believe what you are told to believe. And without any reason, you think someone will believe your drivel, the drivel of a clown with no expertise. You see, dipshit, being a con troll is not expertise.

You don't know the first thing about business, do you?

Just a ba in Econ. An MBA. And over 40 years in the IT industry. Through sr. vp of sales and marketing of an international corp. Yeah, a fair amount actually.
You?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Why do you lie?

(Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American

8.6%

White youth unemployment 16-19 14.8%
Black youth unemployment 16-19 30.0%

E-16. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

$15 an hour will surely rectify that. After all, $30K on top of all the other costs for entry level work is sure to make employers hire.

Well, that is the constant refrain from cons. That the new minimum wage will kill employment and small businesses. The fact that it never has, and never does, is of no concern to the con pushing con talking points. Because that is what you do. You believe what you are told to believe. And without any reason, you think someone will believe your drivel, the drivel of a clown with no expertise. You see, dipshit, being a con troll is not expertise.

You don't know the first thing about business, do you?

Just a ba in Econ. An MBA. And over 40 years in the IT industry. Through sr. vp of sales and marketing of an international corp. Yeah, a fair amount actually.
You?

I've met plenty of hack (purported) econ majors, tbh. And I'm guessing your company does not operate on strict margins. Grocery stores, restaurants, etc. cannot pay these astronomical costs; and the ones that can will be passing on major price hikes to consumers.

 

[Rshermr]

White youth unemployment 16-19 14.8%
Black youth unemployment 16-19 30.0%

E-16. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

$15 an hour will surely rectify that. After all, $30K on top of all the other costs for entry level work is sure to make employers hire.

Well, that is the constant refrain from cons. That the new minimum wage will kill employment and small businesses. The fact that it never has, and never does, is of no concern to the con pushing con talking points. Because that is what you do. You believe what you are told to believe. And without any reason, you think someone will believe your drivel, the drivel of a clown with no expertise. You see, dipshit, being a con troll is not expertise.

You don't know the first thing about business, do you?

Just a ba in Econ. An MBA. And over 40 years in the IT industry. Through sr. vp of sales and marketing of an international corp. Yeah, a fair amount actually.
You?

I've met plenty of hack (purported) econ majors, tbh. And I'm guessing your company does not operate on strict margins. Grocery stores, restaurants, etc. cannot pay these astronomical costs; and the ones that can will be passing on major price hikes to consumers.

Here is your problem, dipshit. I never ever lie. So shove the purported up your ass. I worked hard to get where I got to, and some clown saying purported is more than tacky.
But, if you are a person of any integrity of all, which I doubt, put some money down. Make it enough to be worth the time. If I can not provide the diplomas, and proof of my past career titles, I loose. If I can do so, you loose. Let's see what you have, me poor ignorant clown.
Beyond that, everything you have said is nonsense. While it is true that at some point any minimum wage can be so high as to cause unemployment and loss of many businesses. But based on the proposed minimum wage and it's suggested time table, when washed against the real value of prior minimum wages, it should not be a problem. What it is, me ignorant con troll, is simply against your favorite bat shit crazy con talking points. Nothing more.
Really, you need to get a clue.

 

[Rshermr]

White youth unemployment 16-19 14.8%
Black youth unemployment 16-19 30.0%

E-16. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

$15 an hour will surely rectify that. After all, $30K on top of all the other costs for entry level work is sure to make employers hire.

Well, that is the constant refrain from cons. That the new minimum wage will kill employment and small businesses. The fact that it never has, and never does, is of no concern to the con pushing con talking points. Because that is what you do. You believe what you are told to believe. And without any reason, you think someone will believe your drivel, the drivel of a clown with no expertise. You see, dipshit, being a con troll is not expertise.

You don't know the first thing about business, do you?

Just a ba in Econ. An MBA. And over 40 years in the IT industry. Through sr. vp of sales and marketing of an international corp. Yeah, a fair amount actually.
You?

I've met plenty of hack (purported) econ majors, tbh. And I'm guessing your company does not operate on strict margins. Grocery stores, restaurants, etc. cannot pay these astronomical costs; and the ones that can will be passing on major price hikes to consumers.

You don't know the first thing about business, do you?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

$15 an hour will surely rectify that. After all, $30K on top of all the other costs for entry level work is sure to make employers hire.

Well, that is the constant refrain from cons. That the new minimum wage will kill employment and small businesses. The fact that it never has, and never does, is of no concern to the con pushing con talking points. Because that is what you do. You believe what you are told to believe. And without any reason, you think someone will believe your drivel, the drivel of a clown with no expertise. You see, dipshit, being a con troll is not expertise.

You don't know the first thing about business, do you?

Just a ba in Econ. An MBA. And over 40 years in the IT industry. Through sr. vp of sales and marketing of an international corp. Yeah, a fair amount actually.
You?

I've met plenty of hack (purported) econ majors, tbh. And I'm guessing your company does not operate on strict margins. Grocery stores, restaurants, etc. cannot pay these astronomical costs; and the ones that can will be passing on major price hikes to consumers.

Here is your problem, dipshit. I never ever lie. So shove the purported up your ass. I worked hard to get where I got to, and some clown saying purported is more than tacky.
But, if you are a person of any integrity of all, which I doubt, put some money down. Make it enough to be worth the time. If I can not provide the diplomas, and proof of my past career titles, I loose. If I can do so, you loose. Let's see what you have, me poor ignorant clown.
Beyond that, everything you have said is nonsense. While it is true that at some point any minimum wage can be so high as to cause unemployment and loss of many businesses. But based on the proposed minimum wage and it's suggested time table, when washed against the real value of prior minimum wages, it should not be a problem. What it is, me ignorant con troll, is simply against your favorite bat shit crazy con talking points. Nothing more.
Really, you need to get a clue.

It's purported. Deal with it. And look at you trying to gain money on this. If this is a point of pride, you would offer to prove it straight up. As it is, I don't care about your scam. And you spazzing doesn't prove you know sh**, tbh. You're the troll telling us that doubling wages has no negative economic impact. What a load of utter horse shit. You are a hack and a half.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

$15 an hour will surely rectify that. After all, $30K on top of all the other costs for entry level work is sure to make employers hire.

Well, that is the constant refrain from cons. That the new minimum wage will kill employment and small businesses. The fact that it never has, and never does, is of no concern to the con pushing con talking points. Because that is what you do. You believe what you are told to believe. And without any reason, you think someone will believe your drivel, the drivel of a clown with no expertise. You see, dipshit, being a con troll is not expertise.

You don't know the first thing about business, do you?

Just a ba in Econ. An MBA. And over 40 years in the IT industry. Through sr. vp of sales and marketing of an international corp. Yeah, a fair amount actually.
You?

I've met plenty of hack (purported) econ majors, tbh. And I'm guessing your company does not operate on strict margins. Grocery stores, restaurants, etc. cannot pay these astronomical costs; and the ones that can will be passing on major price hikes to consumers.

You don't know the first thing about business, do you?

I do. And unlike you, I actually took economics college classes and learned about the devastating effects of extreme artificial costs. Hell, take the extreme out of it, the technical term is literally waste created from artificial costs.

BTW. Face. You tried to steal my line and I gave you some.

 

[Rshermr]

Well, that is the constant refrain from cons. That the new minimum wage will kill employment and small businesses. The fact that it never has, and never does, is of no concern to the con pushing con talking points. Because that is what you do. You believe what you are told to believe. And without any reason, you think someone will believe your drivel, the drivel of a clown with no expertise. You see, dipshit, being a con troll is not expertise.

You don't know the first thing about business, do you?

Just a ba in Econ. An MBA. And over 40 years in the IT industry. Through sr. vp of sales and marketing of an international corp. Yeah, a fair amount actually.
You?

I've met plenty of hack (purported) econ majors, tbh. And I'm guessing your company does not operate on strict margins. Grocery stores, restaurants, etc. cannot pay these astronomical costs; and the ones that can will be passing on major price hikes to consumers.

Here is your problem, dipshit. I never ever lie. So shove the purported up your ass. I worked hard to get where I got to, and some clown saying purported is more than tacky.
But, if you are a person of any integrity of all, which I doubt, put some money down. Make it enough to be worth the time. If I can not provide the diplomas, and proof of my past career titles, I loose. If I can do so, you loose. Let's see what you have, me poor ignorant clown.
Beyond that, everything you have said is nonsense. While it is true that at some point any minimum wage can be so high as to cause unemployment and loss of many businesses. But based on the proposed minimum wage and it's suggested time table, when washed against the real value of prior minimum wages, it should not be a problem. What it is, me ignorant con troll, is simply against your favorite bat shit crazy con talking points. Nothing more.
Really, you need to get a clue.

It's purported. Deal with it. And look at you trying to gain money on this. If this is a point of pride, you would offer to prove it straight up. As it is, I don't care about your scam. And you spazzing doesn't prove you know sh**, tbh. You're the troll telling us that doubling wages has no negative economic impact. What a load of utter horse shit. You are a hack and a half.

Right. Says the clown who has no credentials at all. Really, me boy, you are a simpleton clown, a conservative troll with nothing but con talking points.
If I remember, and I do, it was you that suggested I was lying. So, put your money where your mouth is, or you can simply admit you are a coward. No guts, just empty attacks.
It costs to prove anything, me boy. It costs for a referee, it costs to put money in escro. And it would show you had some integrity if you would try to back up your accusations. But, refusing to simply shows what we all know. You know you are going to loose money, and you know you will look like a fool. Unless you are correct. Really, you are such a small time tiny minded clown.

And, me boy, despite your best efforts at personal attacks, you are out of your comfort zone. I can prove what I say. You can not. All you can do is rely on totally agenda driven bat shit crazy sources. Because no impartial sources will back you up.
Consider:
"Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.""
Minimum Wage Mythbusters

Damn. so, over 600 economists say the new minimum wage law is a good idea. You say it is not. So, 600 economists, to one con troll with absolutely no credentials. That is 600 to zero. You did not just loose, you were just destroyed.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You don't know the first thing about business, do you?

Just a ba in Econ. An MBA. And over 40 years in the IT industry. Through sr. vp of sales and marketing of an international corp. Yeah, a fair amount actually.
You?

I've met plenty of hack (purported) econ majors, tbh. And I'm guessing your company does not operate on strict margins. Grocery stores, restaurants, etc. cannot pay these astronomical costs; and the ones that can will be passing on major price hikes to consumers.

Here is your problem, dipshit. I never ever lie. So shove the purported up your ass. I worked hard to get where I got to, and some clown saying purported is more than tacky.
But, if you are a person of any integrity of all, which I doubt, put some money down. Make it enough to be worth the time. If I can not provide the diplomas, and proof of my past career titles, I loose. If I can do so, you loose. Let's see what you have, me poor ignorant clown.
Beyond that, everything you have said is nonsense. While it is true that at some point any minimum wage can be so high as to cause unemployment and loss of many businesses. But based on the proposed minimum wage and it's suggested time table, when washed against the real value of prior minimum wages, it should not be a problem. What it is, me ignorant con troll, is simply against your favorite bat shit crazy con talking points. Nothing more.
Really, you need to get a clue.

It's purported. Deal with it. And look at you trying to gain money on this. If this is a point of pride, you would offer to prove it straight up. As it is, I don't care about your scam. And you spazzing doesn't prove you know sh**, tbh. You're the troll telling us that doubling wages has no negative economic impact. What a load of utter horse shit. You are a hack and a half.

Right. Says the clown who has no credentials at all. Really, me boy, you are a simpleton clown, a conservative troll with nothing but con talking points.
If I remember, and I do, it was you that suggested I was lying. So, put your money where your mouth is, or you can simply admit you are a coward. No guts, just empty attacks.
It costs to prove anything, me boy. It costs for a referee, it costs to put money in escro. And it would show you had some integrity if you would try to back up your accusations. But, refusing to simply shows what we all know. You know you are going to loose money, and you know you will look like a fool. Unless you are correct. Really, you are such a small time tiny minded clown.

And, me boy, despite your best efforts at personal attacks, you are out of your comfort zone. I can prove what I say. You can not. All you can do is rely on totally agenda driven bat shit crazy sources. Because no impartial sources will back you up.
Consider:
"Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.""
Minimum Wage Mythbusters

Damn. so, over 600 economists say the new minimum wage law is a good idea. You say it is not. So, 600 economists, to one con troll with absolutely no credentials. That is 600 to zero. You did not just loose, you were just destroyed.

Dude, you're on a message board; not a college symposium. Nobody here has "credentials," jackass. As it is, you are a sh** economist if you think you're one. You ignore the most basic of concepts while spouting wild erroneous ideas as if they were absolute truth (which is really not what non-hack economists do).

And tell AYSO is costs (money) for their volunteer referees lmao: You're such a tool). Again though, I'm not at all interested in your stupid little scam. I don't care about getting a PDF of someone else's economics degree (along with a virus). And if you weren't such a poor excuse for an economist, you wouldn't be worried about that sh**. Really, you're just some phony ass peddler. And in the event that you did get a degree, you're a fucking disgrace to the discipline.

Citing numbers of libtard infiltrators doesn't mean a thing, dude. You know what their economics are? Get as much money from the government to publish sh** like that. It's a glorified crime syndicate. That's basic fucking economics. This sh** goes right over your peabrain fucking head, you mother fucking country nugget.