Posted on 09/07/2013 4:40:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
Yes, I know. You seem perfect. You act like you’re perfect too.
But, it’s not me; it’s you.
I say that because you don’t really seem to understand where the problem lies.
The new jobs report was out and man was it disappointing.
169,000 jobs created versus the expectation from economist that 180,000 jobs should have been be created.
It’s not me; it’s you.
Even the New York Times agrees.
“If the economy were to fill the jobs gap left by the recession within the next four years,” writes the New York Times, “around 300,000 jobs a month would need to be created, according to the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution.”
And it’s not just the number of jobs that have been created; it’s also the poor quality of jobs that have been created.
Continues the NYT: “Employment gains in the recovery have been disproportionately in lower-wage sectors like food service and retail, causing concern about not only the quantity of the new jobs but also their quality. The industries are more likely to hire part-time workers and operate on just-in-time schedules, making it difficult for employees to predict how many hours they will have from week to week.”
It’s not them; it’s you.
You’ve broken the system.
312,000 people dropped out of the labor force last month. There are 115,000 fewer people with jobs this month over last month.
Yet your statistics say unemployment has gotten better.
Ha, ha!
Your Labor Secretary, Thomas Perez, went on CNBC this week to tout the fact that 90% of all jobs created since the passage of Obamacare have been full-time jobs.
Since Obamacare was enacted through July, only about 20% of jobs created have been full-time.
“According to a survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,” says Forbes, “71% of small businesses say the health care law makes it harder to grow. One-half of small businesses that must comply with the employer mandate say they will either cut hours of full-time employees or replace them with part-time workers. Twenty four percent say they will reduce hiring to stay under 50 employees.”
This month was a bright spot for full-time jobs, even if the quality of jobs sucked.
“While we already have the quantiative components of today's jobs number (horrendous),” writes ZeroHedge, “here is the qualitative breakdown. For the time constrained readers we will jump to the conclusion: absolutely abysmal, to a degree perhaps not seen in years. Of the 169K jobs added, the vast majority, some 144K or 85% of the entire August gain, consisted of the lowest paying jobs possible.”
You sure picked a great time to have fast food workers, who are paid the minimum wage, walk off the job.
Fast-food workers strike for higher pay, trumpets USAToday.
The three-color sign that the person holds in the accompanying photograph, along with the sign’s union label, is far-above the means of the minimum wage worker holding it.
It’s not me; it’s you.
Could it be that your White House coordinated these “faux” strikes?
Any job that pays is a good job to have at this point in our economy. But your unions in cooperation with the Labor Department are picking on the one area where poor people can find jobs today.
Why?
Not because it will create more jobs but because it will create more politics.
This from your ally at NBCNews: “U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez told The Associated Press the strikes were a sign of the need to raise the minimum wage. ‘For all too many people working minimum wage jobs, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity are feeling further and further apart,’ Perez said.”
You want to raise the minimum wage, using the workers who are the most vulnerable to accomplish it.
You even said so in late July.
“And because no one who works full-time in America should have to live in poverty,” you said at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois, “I am going to keep making the case that we need to raise the minimum wage.”
No, actually we don’t.
You said in that speech that the minimum wage was is now less than when Ronald Reagan was president. Perhaps it is in purchasing power. But you forgot to mention that Reagan refused to increase the minimum wage. Yet still incomes when up substantially.
That's because Reagan didn't interfere with job creation.
If put in today’s dollars, Reagan took median household income from $45,260 to $50,624. After reaching a high water mark in 1999 at $54,932 and then in 2000 at $54,841 and then again in 2007 at $54,489, median wages are, as of 2011, less than when Reagan left office.
They have fallen every year you have been in office.
That’s because wages don’t go up by an act of government; they go up because jobs are created.
There’s a record amount of money out there. There are record numbers of people ready to work.
It’s not them; it’s you. Ps. This is what a real jobs program looks like: VIDEO: The $3B Job-Creating Industry
Dear Blacks...>WAKE UP, you’ve been on the DEMOCRAT PLANTATION for too long!! Your families are in CHAOS....your cities are in CHAOS.....your schools are in CHAOS....ALL RUN BY DEMOCRATS, YOU included!!!
John Ransom just keeps getting better and better.
Hopefully they will listen to you
I love going back to Joe (the drunk) Bidens statement that Obammy is clean, literate, and has a nice smile.
I heard a statement the other day that keeps rattling around in my head:
Slaves don't want to be free; the want to be master.
LBJ's infamous (and racist) quote explains why 95% continue vote/support leftwing socialism and CommieCare.
Minimum Wage laws ought to be re-named Black and Teenager Unemployment Creation Acts: BATUCA.
I’d say bring him on the Jerry show and git him out there and tell him to step to the curb; “We wants another bitch.”
Now you be pickin' my cotton, Cracka!
Yowza, I gets you sum wata iffin you be thirsty.
(BTW, I quoted you on my profile page. You’re famous now.)
Another thing this article fails to mention: the “median” household in 1988 (when Reagan left) was $50K and it “peaked” in 2007 at under $55K speaks volumes when you take that the erosion is from BOTH “inflation” and the DEVALUATION of the Currency ($USD)!!! To have kept up with those two eroding factors the median income today would have to be over $100K! I’m amazed how Conservatives can’t relay this message more than anything else! It feels as only the so called “Libertarian cooks” are the ones who’ve been yelling at the top of their lungs to explain this to the American people! The Socialists (yes and O isnt the only one) that have taken over the US have used the US Dollar against the American people!
Hmmm .... 80% blacks outside a fried chicken place .... no stereotypes here
No one seems to be willing to tell the truth about how much less the dollar is worth today compared to the past. I was just watching a tv documentary about Henry Ford’s attempt to grow natural rubber in the Amazon rain forest in the late twenties. He called it Fordlandia and he bought a tract of land three times the size of Rhode Island for $125,000 in 1927. The narrator says that that would be worth “more than a million dollars” now. I thought yes, it would in fact be worth one HELL OF A LOT MORE than a million now. In those days any everyday American would have thought that if he could be handed $125,000 he would be able to live well on three percent interest without ever thinking of working again and still leave his children money. Who would think the same of one million today? My answer would be only a complete and utter fool.
I clearly remember how Mutual of New York (MONY) used to run ads in magazines in the late fifties offering to explain how, with their annuity, you could retire in only fifteen years with an income of THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH!! In the ad there was usually a picture of a happy silver haired couple on the golf course. It made perfect sense back then, now it would only make sense if you are talking about three hundred dollars a DAY, seven days a week and only a fool would think that would be enough fifteen years in the future. It may not be enough six months from now, the dollar could totally collapse if we keep doing the same stupid things.
The current inflation figures are absurdly understated and some so called news stories quote figures that are even more absurd, apparently many writers just write whatever they feel like without consulting any source, not even one as flawed as the official inflation adjustment figures of the government.
If a person is too young to remember their only way to learn the truth is to talk to those who are old enough to know the reality of the past.
Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.