I always acknowledge morality when discussing free trade. I, unlike you, also acknowledge reality in that free trade is not ever going away. You need to get past Smoot-Hawley and the 1950's and join us in the 21st century. It's not that bad here, I mean, we have Doritos.kalm wrote:I went to a public meeting with our superintendent of schools, and they are planning not 5 or 10, but at least 25 years into the future regarding growth, technology, facilities, etc. By some reports, the US military and CIA are even more future thinking regarding energy and climate change.GannonFan wrote:
I actually couldn't disagree more with your post to be honest with you.
Let's take them one at a time. Overpopulation. It's not that we are overpopulated, per se, it's that we are overpopulated with people who don't have the knowledge or skills or both to do more or be more than they are. People tend to throw that into an education issue and maybe it is, but people just don't have the initiative or the skills they need to thrive in a more and more competitive and technologically advanced world. That has nothing to do with the number of people who are alive - even if we cut the population or, as you say, limit the births, the problem would be we would still have the same percentage of people that just can't do things they need to do to be a productive employee.
And your second point about sustainable energy, to be polite, is jibberish. When we finally do run out of fossil fuels, and that could be 100 years from now, or 300 years, or even futher, we're going to still have a similarly cheap energy source somewhere. SImply from the idea that we need to have one and mankind is pretty resourceful and we'll find one. Solar power is just a nascent technology today, and it probably will take a good century to see it advance. But what really will make it advance is the need to have it advance if fossil fuels really do start to decline (and thanks to natural gas exploration, that decline has been postponed for a few decades at least). We don't have an alterante, viable replacement for fossil fuels right now simply because we don't need one. When the need arises, we'll develop something that will allow us to continue on the forward path we are on right now. We will never fall back to the weird scenario described in your link, to some kind of symbioitic realtionship with everything around us. Maybe we should do that, but that's not what the discussion is, the discussion is about what we will do. And we will develop/find an alternate cheap source of energy. We will keep moving in that direction. It's what we humans do, whether it's a good thing or not.
But it's good to see you at least acknowledge the question of morality when It comes to these issues. If only you could do that regarding "free trade."
7% & dropping
- GannonFan
- Level5

- Posts: 19233
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: 7% & dropping
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
-
kalm
- Supporter

- Posts: 69154
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: 7% & dropping
Free trade as a reality.GannonFan wrote:I always acknowledge morality when discussing free trade. I, unlike you, also acknowledge reality in that free trade is not ever going away. You need to get past Smoot-Hawley and the 1950's and join us in the 21st century. It's not that bad here, I mean, we have Doritos.kalm wrote:
I went to a public meeting with our superintendent of schools, and they are planning not 5 or 10, but at least 25 years into the future regarding growth, technology, facilities, etc. By some reports, the US military and CIA are even more future thinking regarding energy and climate change.
But it's good to see you at least acknowledge the question of morality when It comes to these issues. If only you could do that regarding "free trade."
- GannonFan
- Level5

- Posts: 19233
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: 7% & dropping
We didn't really manage the needs of people when the population wasn't this big. People are people, they are always going to be difficult to manage. I think you would get a temporary reprieve if the population stopped growing for a short time, but in the end we need the vitality and momentum that comes with a growing population. Hopefully, we give birth to more smart people, but that's a different thread.D1B wrote:Don't agree with first point. The more people, the more technology and skill (or tyranny) needed to manage them and their needs. We need to slow it down.GannonFan wrote:
I actually couldn't disagree more with your post to be honest with you.
Let's take them one at a time. Overpopulation. It's not that we are overpopulated, per se, it's that we are overpopulated with people who don't have the knowledge or skills or both to do more or be more than they are. People tend to throw that into an education issue and maybe it is, but people just don't have the initiative or the skills they need to thrive in a more and more competitive and technologically advanced world. That has nothing to do with the number of people who are alive - even if we cut the population or, as you say, limit the births, the problem would be we would still have the same percentage of people that just can't do things they need to do to be a productive employee.
And your second point about sustainable energy, to be polite, is jibberish. When we finally do run out of fossil fuels, and that could be 100 years from now, or 300 years, or even futher, we're going to still have a similarly cheap energy source somewhere. SImply from the idea that we need to have one and mankind is pretty resourceful and we'll find one. Solar power is just a nascent technology today, and it probably will take a good century to see it advance. But what really will make it advance is the need to have it advance if fossil fuels really do start to decline (and thanks to natural gas exploration, that decline has been postponed for a few decades at least). We don't have an alterante, viable replacement for fossil fuels right now simply because we don't need one. When the need arises, we'll develop something that will allow us to continue on the forward path we are on right now. We will never fall back to the weird scenario described in your link, to some kind of symbioitic realtionship with everything around us. Maybe we should do that, but that's not what the discussion is, the discussion is about what we will do. And we will develop/find an alternate cheap source of energy. We will keep moving in that direction. It's what we humans do, whether it's a good thing or not.
Agree with: "Maybe we should do that, but that's not what the discussion is, the discussion is about what we will do. And we will develop/find an alternate cheap source of energy. We will keep moving in that direction. It's what we humans do, whether it's a good thing or not."
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- CitadelGrad
- Level4

- Posts: 5210
- Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:19 pm
- I am a fan of: Jack Kerouac
- A.K.A.: El Cid
- Location: St. Louis
Re: 7% & dropping
Does anyone really believe these bullshit BLS numbers anymore? 7.0% my ass.






The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

- GannonFan
- Level5

- Posts: 19233
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: 7% & dropping
I never said perfect free trade, as there is no such thing. But in the manner that free trade as it exists today then yes, it is reality. Tell me again how we're just going to tariff ourselves to prosperity as the rest of the world buckles to our demands. I like to laugh.kalm wrote:Free trade as a reality.GannonFan wrote:
I always acknowledge morality when discussing free trade. I, unlike you, also acknowledge reality in that free trade is not ever going away. You need to get past Smoot-Hawley and the 1950's and join us in the 21st century. It's not that bad here, I mean, we have Doritos.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- BDKJMU
- Level5

- Posts: 36376
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: 7% & dropping
Old data. The US no longer imports 67% of its oil.D1B wrote:Good post.GannonFan wrote:
That's not going to happen. Manufacturing isn't going to de-automate and create processes that today take a person or two to run and de-engineer them to need double or triple those people. That's the real cause of the drop in manufacturing jobs - America still makes a heckuva lot of stuff (and is still the manufacturing leader in the world), many times more than we ever did. The problem is, technology is advanced enough that even though we may make say 100x more than we ever have, we need just a fraction of the people we used to have to do the work.
I agree it's a problem, because we basically need to find jobs and things for people to do that in past generations, could get by doing menial and low-skilled jobs. We just don't have enough menial and low-skilled jobs and, as BHBK indicates in his post, what are we going to do with all those people that don't have a skill or talent to do something harder than that?
One way to deal with this is to seriously tackle overpopulation. Like you said, there are too many people. Birth control and abortion should not only be on-demand and free, but birth control should be strongly promoted world-wide as a virtue. Of course your church, which has decimated whole continents (Africa, South America and soon North America) with its "have a shitload of kids to honor god" message, will and has strongly opposed any efforts to promote meaningful change here.
The other way to deal with it is through sustainable energy, specifically weaning ourselve off fossil fuel. Here's an article I posted a while back on the how our nation and economy would change (for the better) as fuel prices rise:
More stuff here http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 70,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Excerpt adapted from $20 Per Gallon, How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better, by Christopher Steiner.
There's something guttural, something personal, about the price of gas. Even though we've pared our driving, there's a feeling that there's more to this, more than $2 versus $4, more than the price of our weekly fill-up. At the gas pump, we're egregiously offended by big numbers and comforted by small ones. Big numbers make us sick. But why?
The price of commodities, the price of nearly everything we use in abundance, has shot up during the last five years. So what makes gasoline so special? We don't have the same visceral reaction to, say, the price of grain—even though it goes into half of everything we eat and its price has more than doubled in recent years. Why does gasoline set off different, shriller alarms than other things we consistently buy? Perhaps that's our human intuition — an evolved sense that there's more to a situation than the mere face of it. It turns out that our intuition, honed by millennia of survival, is quite canny. The inexorable rising price at the pump represents several worlds of change beyond smaller cars and cumbersome gas station charges.
The price of oil — and thus, gasoline — affects our lives to a degree few realize. It's not just the BP or Shell portion of your Visa bill. It's the bricks in your walls, the plastic in your refrigerator, the asphalt on your roads, the shingles on your roof, the synthetic rubber in your ball. With every penny that gasoline moves up, so, too, does the price of most things we consume. Stop what you're doing. Look around. Look on your desk, at your shoes, at your shirt, at your windows, your kitchen — how much of it comes from oil? More than you think. Look out your window — look out at the world—how much of it owes its existence to oil? Again, more than you think. The United States imports 67% of its oil, but only 40% of that goes into our vehicles' fuel tanks. The rest is used to make, fortify, and shape just about anything you can imagine.
But there's more to this than the price of our stuff. The mounting cost of gas will dictate cultural changes, housing changes, civic changes, education changes — it will leave nary a spot on the globe, or how we live, unchanged. There will be pain involved in our adaptations, yes, but not all of the change we face is gloomy. In fact, many people's lives, including many Americans' lives, will be improved across a panoply of facets. We will get more exercise, breathe fewer toxins, eat better food, and make a smaller impact on our earth. Giant businesses will rise as entrepreneurs' intrepid minds elegantly solve our society's mounting challenges. The world's next Google or Microsoft, the next great disrupter and megacompany, could well be conceived in this saga. It could be a battery company, a breakthrough solar outfit, or a radically innovative vehicle manufacturer. This revolution will be so widespread and affect so many that it will evoke the Internet's rise in the late 1990s.
But this revolution will be even bigger than that. The Internet allowed us to buy a book online, to peruse information at will and with speed. The rising price of gasoline, however, will reshape your house, your car, your town, your stores, your job, your life. America has never seen so great an innovation spur as escalating petroleum prices. This tale will bring with it all the global impact of a World War and its inherent technology evolutions — minus all the death. Some people even welcome oil's coming paucity and expense as one of humankind's grand experiments.
Many people, quite understandably, don't consider the implications of expensive gasoline so grand. The fact remains that the price of oil will inevitably rise, however. Two simple factors are responsible: first, we're running out of oil (albeit slowly) and second, world demand will continue to rise for decades. We use six barrels of oil for every one we find. Half of the world's petroleum comes from 3% of its oil fields — and those fields are old. The average age of the world's 14 largest oil fields: 50 years, the exact age when most fields' productions start an irreversible ebb. On the demand side, consider this: There are 1 billion people on the globe living what would be considered an American-style life, including ourselves. By 2040, that number will triple. The world's burgeoning middle class will demand oil and it will get oil. Steady price increases are academic. Economics 101: Supply down, Demand up = higher prices.
The changes to our society will begin at $6 per gallon and continue on from there, affecting things far beyond the kinds of cars we drive and how often we drive them. America's obesity rate will fall. Mass transit will spread across the country. Plane graveyards will overflow. We'll lose the option to cheaply travel by plane, but high-speed train networks will slowly snake state to state. Disneyworld will lock its gates, Las Vegas' strip will shrink to half its size. Our air will be cleaner. Cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee will revive at $12 per gallon, their streets rife with commerce, people and stores. The exurbs of America, where we've poured so much of our wealth during the last several decades, will atrophy, destroying the equity of those who held fast. Wal-Mart will go bankrupt at $14 per gallon and manufacturing jobs will return to the U.S. en masse. When gas reaches $16 per gallon, Michael Pollan will get the food world he lobbies for in The Omnivore's Dilemma.
Change, especially on such a wide level, is never easy nor is it popular. But this is the next step in mankind's evolution. We will adapt, and we will adapt well. Civilization's tale doesn't end here — it just gets more interesting. The easy stream of oil remade our world; so, too, will its demise.
"U.S. oil production surpasses imports
For the first time since February 1995, U.S. crude oil production has exceeded crude oil imports.
...."And world wide oil production is increasing every year. New fields are constantly being discoivered. New offshore drilling technology is allowing countries to reach fields that were previously unreachable, or economically prohibitive to do so. And while the US and Canada lead the world in the production of coal shale production, the number of countries assessed with recoverable coal shale reserves increases every year, but most aren't exploiting them- yet.
http://www.financialsense.com/contribut ... production" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We aren't going to run out of fossil fuels in our lifetimes, our kids lifetimes, our grand kids lifetimes, our great grand kids lifetimes........
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
- BDKJMU
- Level5

- Posts: 36376
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: 7% & dropping
Yep, you beat me to it..GannonFan wrote:I actually couldn't disagree more with your post to be honest with you.D1B wrote:
Good post.
One way to deal with this is to seriously tackle overpopulation. Like you said, there are too many people. Birth control and abortion should not only be on-demand and free, but birth control should be strongly promoted world-wide as a virtue. Of course your church, which has decimated whole continents (Africa, South America and soon North America) with its "have a shitload of kids to honor god" message, will and has strongly opposed any efforts to promote meaningful change here.
The other way to deal with it is through sustainable energy, specifically weaning ourselve off fossil fuel. Here's an article I posted a while back on the how our nation and economy would change (for the better) as fuel prices rise:
Let's take them one at a time. Overpopulation. It's not that we are overpopulated, per se, it's that we are overpopulated with people who don't have the knowledge or skills or both to do more or be more than they are. People tend to throw that into an education issue and maybe it is, but people just don't have the initiative or the skills they need to thrive in a more and more competitive and technologically advanced world. That has nothing to do with the number of people who are alive - even if we cut the population or, as you say, limit the births, the problem would be we would still have the same percentage of people that just can't do things they need to do to be a productive employee.
And your second point about sustainable energy, to be polite, is jibberish. When we finally do run out of fossil fuels, and that could be 100 years from now, or 300 years, or even futher, we're going to still have a similarly cheap energy source somewhere. SImply from the idea that we need to have one and mankind is pretty resourceful and we'll find one. Solar power is just a nascent technology today, and it probably will take a good century to see it advance. But what really will make it advance is the need to have it advance if fossil fuels really do start to decline (and thanks to natural gas exploration, that decline has been postponed for a few decades at least). We don't have an alterante, viable replacement for fossil fuels right now simply because we don't need one. When the need arises, we'll develop something that will allow us to continue on the forward path we are on right now. We will never fall back to the weird scenario described in your link, to some kind of symbioitic realtionship with everything around us. Maybe we should do that, but that's not what the discussion is, the discussion is about what we will do. And we will develop/find an alternate cheap source of energy. We will keep moving in that direction. It's what we humans do, whether it's a good thing or not.
Last edited by BDKJMU on Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
Re: 7% & dropping
Interesting conundrum you have forced yourself into.D1B wrote: One way to deal with this is to seriously tackle overpopulation. Like you said, there are too many people. Birth control and abortion should not only be on-demand and free, but birth control should be strongly promoted world-wide as a virtue. Of course your church, which has decimated whole continents (Africa, South America and soon North America) with its "have a shitload of kids to honor god" message, will and has strongly opposed any efforts to promote meaningful change here.
You're calling for severe controls on population, but the very policies you support so much...Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. all require more and more young people to pay for the ever growing population of older people. This is a prime example of why "progressivism" is such a fucking cancer on this earth.
-
kalm
- Supporter

- Posts: 69154
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: 7% & dropping
Yes, what we call "free trade" is indeed a reality. Glad you recognized that. But it's of course anything but free, or moral. Why do you hate freedom and morality?GannonFan wrote:I never said perfect free trade, as there is no such thing. But in the manner that free trade as it exists today then yes, it is reality. Tell me again how we're just going to tariff ourselves to prosperity as the rest of the world buckles to our demands. I like to laugh.kalm wrote:
Free trade as a reality.
- bluehenbillk
- Level4

- Posts: 7660
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:26 am
- I am a fan of: elaware
- Location: East Coast/Hawaii
Re: 7% & dropping
Jesus friggin Christ do you & Citadel need a reading comprehension course?BDKJMU wrote:No, the rates that needs attention are the U6, and while that dropped from 13.8% to 13.2%, which is still way above historic norms:bluehenbillk wrote:The unemployment rate continues to drop as I've said. It could be below 6% sometime in 2014. The "unemployable" rate still is the part that needs attention. Take it from somebody that sees resumes come across my desk everyday - there are a lot of people out there that are unemployed for a reason. Individuals & government agencies need to look at re-training opportunities or else there are a whole bunch of people that will be in line for food stamps & welfare....![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
By month since 2000:
http://www.portalseven.com/employment/u ... ate_u6.jsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and the workforce participation rate, which inched up from last month's 62.8%, the lowest month of the last 30+ years to 63%, the 2nd lowest month of not only the last 5, but the last 30+:
Month by month:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Of the millions that dropped out of the workforce in the last 5 years, most haven't come back, and you won't see that till the U6 gets below 10%, and the workforce participation rate gets back up to around 66%. And I don't know when we'll ever see that again...
What was my friggin point in the 1st post? Unemployment from "employable" people is dropping, the economy is trucking along. The Dow is over 16K, your 401k is having a banner year, consumer confidence is way up despite Congressional & Obama approval levels being way down.
My point is, and I'll say it again, rrrreeeeaalllll sssssllllloooowwww this time is the "unemployable rate". I don't know what you do for a living but I hire & manage people & I can tell you about the schlop that comes across not only my desk on a daily basis but across recruiters desks all over the country. From a business standpoint, most companies are doing well across the country and are hiring. Where the issue lies is finding qualified workers to fill those positions. I'd estimate 80%-90% of those people on your charts that have fallen out of the workforce would fit in that "unemployable" position.
Seriously, put yourself in the shoes of a hiring manager. You get a resume from an individual that hasn't worked since January-July 2012. What are the odds you'd even contact that person? If you did contact them you're going to ask what they've done since that point in time. Chances are 98%+ you're not going to be impressed with the answer. Ask yourself, is this the person I want to hire to work here??
There you go.
Make Delaware Football Great Again
Re: 7% & dropping
Here you go again - lying your conk ass off again.Baldy wrote:Interesting conundrum you have forced yourself into.D1B wrote: One way to deal with this is to seriously tackle overpopulation. Like you said, there are too many people. Birth control and abortion should not only be on-demand and free, but birth control should be strongly promoted world-wide as a virtue. Of course your church, which has decimated whole continents (Africa, South America and soon North America) with its "have a shitload of kids to honor god" message, will and has strongly opposed any efforts to promote meaningful change here.
You're calling for severe controls on population, but the very policies you support so much...Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. all require more and more young people to pay for the ever growing population of older people. This is a prime example of why "progressivism" is such a fucking cancer on this earth.
This is YOUR characterization of my position, fuckwad, not mine. I support some aspects of Obamacare, mainly it as a hammer to reform the current broken healthcare system and I support reform on both Social Security and Medicare. I acknowledge it's flawed but can be fixed.
Population control measures will save us billions and billions in healthcare, welfare, infrastructure and numerous other social costs its not even funny. You know this too.
- AZGrizFan
- Supporter

- Posts: 59959
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
- I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
- Location: Just to the right of center
Re: 7% & dropping
D1B wrote:Here you go again - lying your conk ass off again.Where in the fuck did I say "severe controls" you bag of rat shit? Lyin ass conkzaggeration.
![]()
This is YOUR characterization of my position, fuckwad, not mine.
Gettin' a taste of your own medicine there, D?
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12

- CitadelGrad
- Level4

- Posts: 5210
- Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:19 pm
- I am a fan of: Jack Kerouac
- A.K.A.: El Cid
- Location: St. Louis
Re: 7% & dropping
My reading comprehension is fine. I perfectly comprehend that you have no idea what you are talking about.bluehenbillk wrote:Jesus friggin Christ do you & Citadel need a reading comprehension course?BDKJMU wrote:
No, the rates that needs attention are the U6, and while that dropped from 13.8% to 13.2%, which is still way above historic norms:
By month since 2000:
http://www.portalseven.com/employment/u ... ate_u6.jsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and the workforce participation rate, which inched up from last month's 62.8%, the lowest month of the last 30+ years to 63%, the 2nd lowest month of not only the last 5, but the last 30+:
Month by month:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Of the millions that dropped out of the workforce in the last 5 years, most haven't come back, and you won't see that till the U6 gets below 10%, and the workforce participation rate gets back up to around 66%. And I don't know when we'll ever see that again...
What was my friggin point in the 1st post? Unemployment from "employable" people is dropping, the economy is trucking along. The Dow is over 16K, your 401k is having a banner year, consumer confidence is way up despite Congressional & Obama approval levels being way down.
My point is, and I'll say it again, rrrreeeeaalllll sssssllllloooowwww this time is the "unemployable rate". I don't know what you do for a living but I hire & manage people & I can tell you about the schlop that comes across not only my desk on a daily basis but across recruiters desks all over the country. From a business standpoint, most companies are doing well across the country and are hiring. Where the issue lies is finding qualified workers to fill those positions. I'd estimate 80%-90% of those people on your charts that have fallen out of the workforce would fit in that "unemployable" position.
Seriously, put yourself in the shoes of a hiring manager. You get a resume from an individual that hasn't worked since January-July 2012. What are the odds you'd even contact that person? If you did contact them you're going to ask what they've done since that point in time. Chances are 98%+ you're not going to be impressed with the answer. Ask yourself, is this the person I want to hire to work here??
There you go.
Most of the people that have fallen out of the work force over the past few years are not "unemployable" dregs. They were perfectly employable and mostly employed before the financial crisis. Now that they've been unemployed for an extended period through no fault of their own, they are suddenly "unemployable"?
Most companies outside of a few sectors are not doing well. Hiring is not robust. Any limited anecdotal evidence that you may have is meaningless.
The economy is not chugging along. Virtually all of the GDP growth is attributable to QE and rising inventory stocks. The stock market gains are an illusion fueled by QE. The equity risk premium hit a 40-year high about three or four months ago and is still near that high. How exactly do you think that will be resolved.
I probably read more economic data and analysis in a month than you've read in your entire life. If you want to bullshit about economics here, fine; but I'll call you on it every time.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

Re: 7% & dropping
Just handed him his ass, again.AZGrizFan wrote:D1B wrote:Here you go again - lying your conk ass off again.Where in the fuck did I say "severe controls" you bag of rat shit? Lyin ass conkzaggeration.
![]()
This is YOUR characterization of my position, fuckwad, not mine.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Gettin' a taste of your own medicine there, D?![]()
STFU, Z, or I'll sic houndawg on you, again.
Re: 7% & dropping
D1B wrote:Here you go again - lying your conk ass off again.Baldy wrote: Interesting conundrum you have forced yourself into.
You're calling for severe controls on population, but the very policies you support so much...Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. all require more and more young people to pay for the ever growing population of older people. This is a prime example of why "progressivism" is such a fucking cancer on this earth.Where in the fuck did I say "severe controls" you bag of rat shit? Lyin ass conkzaggeration.
![]()
This is YOUR characterization of my position, fuckwad, not mine. I support some aspects of Obamacare, mainly it as a hammer to reform the current broken healthcare system and I support reform on both Social Security and Medicare. I acknowledge it's flawed but can be fixed.
Population control measures will save us billions and billions in healthcare, welfare, infrastructure and numerous other social costs its not even funny. You know this too.
I didn't say you said anything, you hair splitting back peddaling piece of shit fucknut.
I just quoted your own words and embarrassed you.....again.

Re: 7% & dropping
Another Baldlie. It's a shame what you've become.Baldy wrote:D1B wrote:
Here you go again - lying your conk ass off again.Where in the fuck did I say "severe controls" you bag of rat shit? Lyin ass conkzaggeration.
![]()
This is YOUR characterization of my position, fuckwad, not mine. I support some aspects of Obamacare, mainly it as a hammer to reform the current broken healthcare system and I support reform on both Social Security and Medicare. I acknowledge it's flawed but can be fixed.
Population control measures will save us billions and billions in healthcare, welfare, infrastructure and numerous other social costs its not even funny. You know this too.![]()
I didn't say you said anything, you hair splitting back peddaling piece of shit fucknut.![]()
I just quoted your own words and embarrassed you.....again.![]()
Take your beating like man and don't resort to blatent dishonesty.
If you don't, I'll have houndawg waste you, again.

Good luck sleeping tonight.
- BDKJMU
- Level5

- Posts: 36376
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: 7% & dropping
Yep, the BLS numbers are BS. They have zero credibility after they were caught fudging the last jobs report before the 12' election when several emoyees imputed fabricated data into the unemployment report.CitadelGrad wrote:Does anyone really believe these bullshit BLS numbers anymore? 7.0% my ass.
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx_mobile.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I put more stock in Gallup, who has it at 8.1% and the U6 at 17.4%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/gallu ... force.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
-
kalm
- Supporter

- Posts: 69154
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: 7% & dropping
This is true. I just love how conks discovered the U6 somewhere around....2009?BDKJMU wrote:Yep, the BLS numbers are BS. They have zero credibility after they were caught fudging the last jobs report before the 12' election when several emoyees imputed fabricated data into the unemployment report.CitadelGrad wrote:Does anyone really believe these bullshit BLS numbers anymore? 7.0% my ass.
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx_mobile.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I put more stock in Gallup, who has it at 8.1% and the U6 at 17.4%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/gallu ... force.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: 7% & dropping
...and how Donks have conveniently forgotten about it.kalm wrote:This is true. I just love how conks discovered the U6 somewhere around....2009?BDKJMU wrote:
Yep, the BLS numbers are BS. They have zero credibility after they were caught fudging the last jobs report before the 12' election when several emoyees imputed fabricated data into the unemployment report.
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx_mobile.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I put more stock in Gallup, who has it at 8.1% and the U6 at 17.4%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/gallu ... force.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
kalm
- Supporter

- Posts: 69154
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: 7% & dropping
True.Baldy wrote:...and how Donks have conveniently forgotten about it.kalm wrote:
This is true. I just love how conks discovered the U6 somewhere around....2009?




