Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The debates would certainly be be interesting, I'll give you that.

Second Google result for labor participation rate:

http://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/

Damn baby boomers...

First Google search:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000



https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART

Baby boomers don't account for all of that...

538 has an article on this:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/march-jobs-report/

...
But even after adjusting for the aging population there are still millions more people neither working nor looking for work than when the recession began. Many experts feared they would never come back.
...

Not to mention, most of the new jobs tend to be part-time jobs. Which may explain part of the pressure post-PPACA has on the economy...


Thanks Obama.

 whembly wrote:

Not to mention, most of the new jobs tend to be part-time jobs. Which may explain part of the pressure post-PPACA has on the economy...

I do seem to recall when ACA was new and shiny, some users, perhaps even yourself were claiming that ACA was "forcing" employers to shift over to more part-time positions..... and others clearly showing that that trend was happening, whether ACA happened or not.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Not to mention, most of the new jobs tend to be part-time jobs. Which may explain part of the pressure post-PPACA has on the economy...

I do seem to recall when ACA was new and shiny, some users, perhaps even yourself were claiming that ACA was "forcing" employers to shift over to more part-time positions..... and others clearly showing that that trend was happening, whether ACA happened or not.

Part of it is the government re-classifying what's "full time".

It used to be 40 hours.

Then, it got shifted to 38 hours (some states had their own twists)...

Under ACA, it's now 30 hours a week. You work at least 30 hours, you're considered "full time".

Lowering that threshold put many business under pressure to reduce the number of fulltimers on staff to avoid being shoehorned under the mandatory requirements.

Hence the phrase, it's an increasingly Part-Time Employment Market.

This year is the big WHAMMER:
https://www.sba.gov/managing-business/small-business-health-care/employers-50-or-more-employees

Interestingly, this went into effect this year... when Obama is on his way out...


Hillary is going to say...

So businesses that have a lot of full time employees have to get them health insurance. I don't get the big problem?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So businesses that have a lot of full time employees have to get them health insurance. I don't get the big problem?

Great way to shake up the labor cost!

So, do you believe business will simply allow that to eat into their profit margins? Raise the good & services they provide to cover the increase costs?

Or, do you think it's likely that, as rational business operators, they'll play the game of not offering fulltime employment... increase the number of parttimers (29 hrs or less / week) to skirt this requirement?

See why this is just one poorly thought out design of the PPACA?

If there is a lack of people choosing 28 hr/wk jobs over 30+ hr/wk jobs, they will start to offer health insurance.

It's fun to look at numbers in a vacuum and pretend market forces don't exist.


Did you know that ever single business can save money by only paying minimum wage? Thanks Obama!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So businesses that have a lot of full time employees have to get them health insurance. I don't get the big problem?

They shouldn't have to worry about anything but profit because FREEDOM.

 whembly wrote:

Now who's tugging the goalpost now?

You. You're doing it right...

 whembly wrote:

You've listed those accomplishments above. I'm not arguing that it's not an achievement.

Which of those do you think prepared her for the WH?

...here. In the very same post.

 whembly wrote:

I don't think anyone isn't asserting that HRC hasn't been successful in her career.

How about you just say "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a successful woman."

 whembly wrote:

The issue here is that those "accomplishments" you've listed isn't what's defining HRC.

So they aren't accomplishments, to your mind?

And so it begins...

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/04/president-fox-apologizes-invites-trump-mexico/

President Fox Apologizes, Invites Trump to Mexico

You know what. I'm gonna give him props. It takes balls to do something I think he hates doing, because he has to face the reality that this guy might actually somehow maybe become president of America.

Really, we're the real villains here XD

 LordofHats wrote:
You know what. I'm gonna give him props. It takes balls to do something I think he hates doing, because he has to face the reality that this guy might actually somehow maybe become president of America.

Really, we're the real villains here XD

Mexico may have rolled up the white flag, but here in Britain, David Cameron refuses to apologise for calling Trump an idiot, and up here in Scotland, moves are still afoot to ban Trump from entering Scotland!

Should President Trump wish to send in the Marines, I've got my trench dug, and my grandfather's steel helmet on standby

Bring it on America!

 whembly wrote:
Is it that simple? That Trump's rise is simply a candidate that the voters recognized that he'll fight "dirty"?

That's a big part of it, sure. Thing is, there were lots of accusations thrown around about Obama - he was a socialist, he had ties to terror organisations, he wasn't a naturally born American citizen. The reason McCain and Romney didn't 'fight' and use those accusations is because they were absolute nonsense. Neither candidate was a shameful liar nor insane, so they didn't use them.

Trump, of course, was a major figure in the birther nonsense. Because he is a shameless liar. Not just then, but now - did you see just the other day Trump was repeating the tabloid claim that Cruz's dad was involved in the JFK assassination?

So yeah, a large portion of the GOP base wants Trump's kind of fight. The problem, though, is that it won't be a fight based on policy or national vision, it'll just be Trump repeating a bunch of utterly stupid rumours he read on the internet.

Which unfortunately is exactly what a large portion of the Republican base want. They've been immersed in lies and nonsense from the fringes of the right wing for decades now, they've bought in to every part of it. And now there's enough of them that they've actually managed to secure someone like that as the Republican presidential nominee.

This really should be a big wake up call for the Republicans, but then a lot of things should have been.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Is it that simple? That Trump's rise is simply a candidate that the voters recognized that he'll fight "dirty"?

That's a big part of it, sure. Thing is, there were lots of accusations thrown around about Obama - he was a socialist, he had ties to terror organisations, he wasn't a naturally born American citizen. The reason McCain and Romney didn't 'fight' and use those accusations is because they were absolute nonsense. Neither candidate was a shameful liar nor insane, so they didn't use them.

Trump, of course, was a major figure in the birther nonsense. Because he is a shameless liar. Not just then, but now - did you see just the other day Trump was repeating the tabloid claim that Cruz's dad was involved in the JFK assassination?

So yeah, a large portion of the GOP base wants Trump's kind of fight. The problem, though, is that it won't be a fight based on policy or national vision, it'll just be Trump repeating a bunch of utterly stupid rumours he read on the internet.

Which unfortunately is exactly what a large portion of the Republican base want. They've been immersed in lies and nonsense from the fringes of the right wing for decades now, they've bought in to every part of it. And now there's enough of them that they've actually managed to secure someone like that as the Republican presidential nominee.

This really should be a big wake up call for the Republicans, but then a lot of things should have been.

The last time the Republican went down that route, they got steamrolled by LBJ. I can see HRC doing something similar to Trump, assuming of course some scandal doesn't derail her.

Don't you mean 'scandal'? The Republicans love manufacturing fake scandals to accuse the Clintons of...

It's now to the 'boy who cried wolf' point.

 skyth wrote:
Don't you mean 'scandal'? The Republicans love manufacturing fake scandals to accuse the Clintons of...

It's now to the 'boy who cried wolf' point.

There's enough skeletons in the Clinton closet to give Vlad Von Carstein another shot at invading the Empire!

The Republicans don't have to manufacture anything.

 Frazzled wrote:
*People are hurting in this country. Our economy is turning into a South American one with lots and lots of lower class, and a very small elite. The supposed recovery did nothing but accelerate that. Both parties dither and dither, very content in how things are working-because the people that run them are the elites benefiting from it.

I think you're making a big mistake in assuming there - the widening divide isn't a plot by any kind of 'elites'. People like to think the wealthy plot to take from the working class, the reality is that the wealthy are indifferent to the working class.

The growing inequality, the shortage of jobs that pay a livable wage, these are all driven by basic changes in the economy. Here’s a wonderful quote that sums it all up perfectly;
“The automatic machine... is the precise equivalent of slave labour. Any labour which competes with slave labour must accept the economic conditions of slave labour.”

That quote was from a guy called Norbert Weiner, from the 1950s. He was right 60 years ahead of time – anything which can be done by machine will displace a worker, unless that worker accepts wages close to zero.

Everything that causes so much angst, international trade, migration (either legal or illegal), is all just a distraction from this basic reality about the modern world – automation is replacing human labour.

If you don’t believe this just look at the angst over the supposed decline of US manufacturing. Except US manufacturing is bigger than its ever been – it’s more than 2 trillion a year. There’s no shortage of things being made in the US. What’s disappeared is manufacturing jobs – replaced by automation.

That’s the issue with Trump – he is right that people are anxious, but he is dangerously wrong in what the actual problem is.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Don't you mean 'scandal'? The Republicans love manufacturing fake scandals to accuse the Clintons of...

It's now to the 'boy who cried wolf' point.

There's enough skeletons in the Clinton closet to give Vlad Von Carstein another shot at invading the Empire!

The Republicans don't have to manufacture anything.

Then why do they do it? If there's real skeletons, why are we on the 100th iteration of Benghazi hearings?

 whembly wrote:
I'll be honest with you...

Your reservation here was exactly how I felt prior to Obama winning.

This is the problem with the extreme rhetoric of the Republican party during the Obama administration. You spent so long calling a perfectly ordinary politician like Obama a dangerous radical that you lost the ability to see a genuinely dangerous crazy when he ran in the Republican primary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Don't be happy if thats so. One party states are dictatorships.

If the Republicans were to come apart or otherwise stop competing at the national level, then the Democrats will split in to two parties soon enough. Similarly if the Democrats ever stopped being competitive, the Republicans would quickly form in to two new parties. Americans wouldn't tolerate that lack of choice for too long, it's in your cultural DNA.

... well it might happen .......





and from there it's just a short wait

 triplegrim wrote:
Dont listen to the radio. They consistently dont add the 500+ superdelegates who can vote for whovever they choose. If they see Sanders have momentum or Clintons poor health (according to scott adams!) they can pretty much choose which candidate should become presidential candidate.

They can... but the idea that 'poor momentum' or anything else will get Sanders to convince the super-delegates to flip to him is the delusions of a man who it turns out wants to be president way more than anyone realised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
First Google search:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000



https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART

Baby boomers account for most, and most of the rest is accounted for by the growing number of college entrants. You can see this is if look restrict both the upper and lower ages, so you're looking at people just in their prime working years.



And the best thing about that graph - France has you guys owned. Turns out favourable conditions for working women, and limiting work hours do wonders to draw more people in to the economy. Damn socialists with their sensible and well constructed working conditions.

Not to mention, most of the new jobs tend to be part-time jobs. Which may explain part of the pressure post-PPACA has on the economy...

That's a tired and very, very mistaken conservative myth. PPACA didn't impact part time jobs at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There's enough skeletons in the Clinton closet to give Vlad Von Carstein another shot at invading the Empire!

The Republicans don't have to manufacture anything.

People keep saying that, and yet when asked it just goes back to Whitewater, Vincent Price, Benghazi! and emails.

I'm not saying its a perfect method, but I figure if people can only ever come up with bs to attack someone, there might only be bs to attack them over.

For a minute there, Sebster, I thought you meant Vincent Price the actor!

I think the fact this exists tells you everything you need to know about what sort of nonsense has been thrown at the Clintons, and the reason most people think it's bunk.

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc-body.html

If there is a labor statistics people should point out, it would be wage stagnation. But that's an area Republicans don't want to touch, so they focus on bogus numbers instead.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Mexico may have rolled up the white flag, but here in Britain, David Cameron refuses to apologise for calling Trump an idiot, and up here in Scotland, moves are still afoot to ban Trump from entering Scotland!

Should President Trump wish to send in the Marines, I've got my trench dug, and my grandfather's steel helmet on standby

Bring it on America!

Lol, depending on who they send, it could very well be like that scene in Braveheart when the Irish show up.... we're all charging at each other, blood and guts and all that, and right at the last minute it's slowing down for hugs, handshakes and warm welcomes all around


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

And the best thing about that graph - France has you guys owned. Turns out favourable conditions for working women, and limiting work hours do wonders to draw more people in to the economy. Damn socialists with their sensible and well constructed working conditions.

While I don't disagree with you.... don't French workers go on strike like, every other week because the croissants aren't flaky enough, or if a Frenchman continues to NOT with the Tour de France?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If there is a labor statistics people should point out, it would be wage stagnation. But that's an area Republicans don't want to touch, so they focus on bogus numbers instead.

That's because the Republicans are thoroughly wedded to the bogus idea that trickle down works. Naturally their biggest donor base is going to be against this topic coming up, so naturally the Republicans (and by extension, any politician who's received large sums of money from business interests) are going to avoid this topic.

Interesting read...
http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard

D: 304 Electoral Votes v. R: 190 Electoral Votes w/ 44 "Toss ups".



Although... if Sanders goes 3rd party... would he pull that 304 number down?

Man... the Clinton campaign really needs to kiss&makeup with the Sanders...

 sebster wrote:

Everything that causes so much angst, international trade, migration (either legal or illegal), is all just a distraction from this basic reality about the modern world – automation is replacing human labour.

If you don’t believe this just look at the angst over the supposed decline of US manufacturing. Except US manufacturing is bigger than its ever been – it’s more than 2 trillion a year. There’s no shortage of things being made in the US. What’s disappeared is manufacturing jobs – replaced by automation.

That’s the issue with Trump – he is right that people are anxious, but he is dangerously wrong in what the actual problem is.

Automation isn't exactly the issue. Building machines so that people can make the same amount of stuff for less work is a great idea from a worker's perspective. The problem is that production is not done to fulfil need, production is done to create profit. Capital has been driving the development of automation because they want to make fewer people work longer hours to produce even more to be sold at a greater profit margin. If people did not need to work for a wage then automation would be one of our greatest allies.

Trump does understand that people are anxious. Mainly it's white americans who can see the decline of white supremacy to demographic pressure and are very much unhappy about it because it means that they'll be subjected to the same conditions as any other worker and won't have their guaranteed employment with raises and promotions.

VP considerations for Trump:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/13-potential-running-mates-for-donald-trump/

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


That's because the Republicans are thoroughly wedded to the bogus idea that trickle down works. Naturally their biggest donor base is going to be against this topic coming up, so naturally the Republicans (and by extension, any politician who's received large sums of money from business interests) are going to avoid this topic.

When you explain it that way, Trickle Down economics does work for Rs!