Where are the jobs?
 

I'm under the impression that they are creating more Gov't jobs. That's what they're advertising around here anyway. Gov't is growing very rapidly here in ore-gone. We do have second highest unemployment though.:woot:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aUuHhaDx8Hr8

He inherited the problem.:yawn:
oh, okay. Everyone, it's not obama's fault. He was just present.:yeah:

The jobs may never come back.

I don't think consumers will be spending like they did prior to the crisis. I think it scared a lot of people into pulling their head out of their butts and start really thinking of what they are spending their money on.

I know it is true in my family. We are cutting way back on our discretionary spending -- really looking at what we are buying and why we are buying it. For example, Christmas. There was a time when our total bill for Christmas shopping for the entire families was about $5,000. This year our budget for everyone is $1,000 and that includes for all the families. I am not going into debt any more for Christmas shopping. If I don't have the money in the bank, the money does not exist.

I am almost finished with moving my family to a cash only operation. If we want something we are saving our money and not just reaching for the credit cards like we used to. And we are closely examining why we are buying the stuff we need and frankly, often deciding that we really don't need to spend the money.

If a large number of families are of like minds with me, the businesses that cater to "discretionary" spending may be facing an uncertian future.

I am simply not buying the same stuff that I was buying a year ago, and when the economy gets better, I have no intention of changing back to my old wasteful ways. I was spending way too much way too fast. I could afford to do so, but did I really need to spend that much? Absolutely not!

I doubt I am the only one of this mind set.

So there may be some businesses that will never recover.

Interesting post.
How does that affect previous trends for a point of measure?

Wow, people thought that credit was money?
I thought Charles Dickens had thoroughly ridiculed that notion in All the year round years ago and Wilde had finished it off entirely long before Pinter or Bleasdale felt the need to rip the notion to pieces again

Well yeah- he did inherit the problem. You forget that the economy went sour when Bush was in office in 2008, after the housing market and subprime mortgage crisis in addition to the dollar's decline in value; which led to record unemployment levels and a huge decline in the country's GDP. For that matter, NBER announced that the recession had officially began in December 2007.

:03:

You mean Barney Frank.

In the context of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?

Back on topic

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...tor-abuse.html

Lol, ABC. "Political punch".:haha:

Thats strange I thought it was Kool Aide... :03:

I am sure that I am not the only citizen that is intellectually "from Missouri"

I won't believe what either a Republican nor a Democrat tells me any more. They are all politicians which means they have an agenda.

Show me the data.

Democrats say they have created x number of jobs
Republicans say they have not

Show me the data

Democrats say the new health plan won't increase the deficit
Republicans say it will

Show me the data.

Republicans and Democrat politicians, you have lied to me too often to take anything any of you says at face value.

Show me the data please.

They arent going to show you the time of day unless mandated to do so.

You will just have to go find it for yourself.

I agree and there is a buttload of data about our government online, you just have to know where to dig for it.

My point is that if either side wants to get "the public" on their side, emotional rhetoric may no longer be the way. I think more people can come online if the sides start educating the people with the data instead of adopting the traditional "If you are a Republican/Democrat you should believe what a Republican/Democrat tells you"

As an independent I don't believe either out of hand. :nope:

Platypus,

I can't "show you the data" on what they based the claim on, but I can give you some info on where it was derived from. I think I posted about this previously.

I have a friend who owns his own business. He got an order that came with a single page questionaire from some "department" of the government - it wasn't labor, I just can't recall the name of it right now. I will check and get it for you if needed.

Anyway, the form just asked how many jobs were created, how many jobs were saved with the order, how many jobs were sustained by the order, etc. The firm placing the order needed him to fill it out because they were using stimulus money to pay for it. His business was doing fine without the order, so he answered as honestly as he knew how, and put 0 for "saved", "sustained" and 0 for "created" as well.

A couple of weeks later, he got a phone call from someone with that same "department" that told him he obviously misunderstood the questions because he filled them out all wrong. After he assured them that his business was firm without the order, they accepted that no jobs had been saved. They struggled over the "creation" part a litle, continually asking him if he had hired anyone during the time the order came in to when it was filled. He had, though the position (sales rep) had nothing to do with filling the order, yet they insisted that met the requirements for a "job created" by the order. The real sticky one was "jobs sustained" - because they wanted to know how many people "touched" the order, for the secretary who answered the phone, to the person who set the box on the dock for the delivery carrier to pick up. According to this department's criteria, every person's job involved was "sustained" because it took them some time - from seconds to hours - to do the job.

Needless to say, the criteria for what amounts to a "sustained" job are set in such a manner that no matter what the real result was, the numbers look good for those that want them to.

http://jobsearch.usajobs.gov/a9recoveryjobs.aspx

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Jobs

Dunno about you yankey-doodles, but us stiff-upper-lips are faring well, according to the guy in my sig :roll: (and you all know what I think of him).

There's 'thousands' of jobs every week apparently... As I'm currently waiting to receive income based Jobseekers Allowance (I've been waiting for a decision for the last 6 weeks) I have access to the fabulous range of exciting opportunities for the financially challenged.
These 'thousands of jobs' mostly include weird positions that require such a narrow skill-set that the mind boggles as to who actually has the qualifications for such jobs - Diversity Manager? wtf is that?
Other jobs are the sort that only bored housewife's, who's husbands are the bread winners and who have grown-up children and need something to occupy a couple of hours a week to supplement the housekeeping money. Not the kind of thing you could actually earn a living from...

Not to mention all of those fantastic job adverts that are what I call 'non-jobs' - when you get the advert from the jokecentre and ring the number to apply for the job, you discover that what has just cost you time and a half hour phonecall later (sitting in one of those 'your call is important to us cues') is not actually a job at all! What you are in fact doing is applying for a potential job, not an actual job; you're applying to register for notification of jobs that don't actually exist yet :yeah: How cool and forward thinking is that? I'm sure it looks great for the figures that are thrown about like so much confetti by over-paid politicians, but it's damn annoying for anyone who actually wants a real job.

Our current DWP employment system is like the emperors new clothes; all of the sycophants and government and departmental toadies extol the virtues of how great the system is (having no direct experience of it themselves) but the rest of us who futilely try to navigate its tortuous byways, see right through it to the rather sad and dangly soft under-parts.

You're absolutely right. Bush was president. And the DEMOCRATS had control of congress. AND Obama was a Senator.

I'm trying to figure which legislation the Democrats passed that would have helped prevent any of this from happening, that Bush vetoed.

Frankly, I think the problem goes beyond politics. Government only has SOME influence regarding our economic system.

My problem is that the Democrats are quick to lay the blame squarely at Bush while completely ignoring their own contributions to the problems

Why do people try to assign blame to one person or one political party?

Everyone in the government F-ed up the economy and everyone in the government will be involved in the recovery effort.

No one has their hands clean, and no one or group can take any moral high ground in this mess.

The important thing should be working together to fix the problem and making sure it does not happen again. :yep: