Number of unemployed persons per job opening

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll excuse your misunderstanding

Illegals are one thing, 2nd and 3rd gen Mexican Americans are someting altogether different.
Most that have been here and are naturalised, dont work in the fields, but it isnt that far off, as their grand parents or parents worked their tails off there.

My point was many points, many failings seen in California, and people need to open up to see a bigger picture, not pick and choose misunderstandings.
The pols there allowed for the illegals to use the fruit industry
They also allowed for higher so called green demand, where thru regulastion, it drove many a business out.
They also backed unions to the hilt, where if certain businesses werent union, they too got driven out thru competition from other states.
I still remember, with a gleem in his eye, my Mexican American friend telling me, I only eat hand picked oranges heheh
The blame falls squarely on our pols/officials, as with business losses, the already high taxed state, since prop 13 ran thru, the only taxation/revenue came thru the businesses that remained, which decline more and more.
The people got theirs, low property taxes, the unions do well comparatively to other states on a percentile basis, state jobs have better returns in their retirement packages, as well as higher wages.
Its the pols, no one else to blame there
 

Yeah, that's basically true. We need laws to restrict the sorts of things that any business is bound to do if it maximizes profits.
 

do you live here? no. well i do so wouldnt that tell you i know what im talking about? the only right wing news we have here is talk radio. the rest is left wing papers local news etc. there is not much that i can show you on it.
 

If here is the US, I do. I'm sure there are a lot of individual cases where unions win, but I would need to see a large sample to agree that it's the norm. Teachers' unions seem to wield a lot of power, the New York police union has made the news lately, e.g., but I don't see workers' unions winning any major battles.
 

Oh ok. Well I could definitely see unions being stronger in California, because it's a comparatively liberal state. Nationwide union membership is only 12.4% (vs. 16.7% in California) of the workforce, though, and the strength of unions has traditionally been in their numbers (Wikipedia, citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics). They need numbers to pressure lawmakers with votes and they need membership dues for money.
 

I live in California and I disagree with you, and I also work in one of the largest industries that employ the unions; Transportation/Logistics. There is a lot that you don't know about the concessions that have been made to the Unions, by the terminals/employers, that could have been dealt with 20 years ago, but instead the terminals/employers decided that placating the union was more efficient (and thus giving the unions more power) than fighting for or arbitrating for certain aspects of the labor. As this has gone on for upwards of 20 years, the employers have a hand in the creation of their own monster. I see this everyday as I have to fight for work that is ours (IT Department) while the mechanics attempt to claim work as their own.

As much as you want to scapegoat all the problems of California on the unions, it's more complicated than that.
 
As much as you want to scapegoat all the problems of California on the unions, it's more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
youre right the politicians here are very incompetent. instead of fixing the massive debt they are trying to give illegal aliens free education and trying to spend money on a high speed train that costs about 100 billion dollars and it will never make any money because it will be too expensive.
 


I dare you to name one period of time in which a person making our (assumed comparable, consider inflation too) wages was paying anywhere near that. The reason is that the max tax brackets have been upwards of 90%... immediately following major wars we had to pay for and the in no way applied to the middle class as you are trying to perpetuate.

Bill Maher said something, which I know will spark it's own sentiments, that when we waged a major war in the history of the US, we always paid on our debts after the fact; generally by raising taxes. We paid on our debts not because it was socialism as what it is being made out to be now, but because it was what you did when you borrowed the money. This was one of the reasons that American debt was rated at AAA; this is the reason that S&P lowered our rating because Congress unnecessarily brought us unnaturally close to disaster. But I digress, if the Bush tax cuts were repealed and our corporate tax holes were plugged, this conversation wouldn't be taking place but there would still be someone like you complaining against raising taxes that will never affect them.

Starving the beast only further leads to economic decline, and 80% taxes will never happen again, especially considering that your average income in Congress is over $250,000. Why would anyone vote to increase their own taxes, even if thousands, perhaps millions of their constituents would be unaffected or possibly have their quality of life improved? Greed and selfishness; two of the most discernible characteristics of politicians of any color.
 
Yes, the US has always paid its debts.
Japan took a different route
They charged their own people huge monies to purchase electronics, fueling the dumping of extremely affordable electronics here in the US and elsewheres
The difference is, the US stifled investment here, while Japan overtook markets
This is similar to what China is doing today

So, in the past, the rich got hammered, and investment was stifled
Today, the markets are fast moving, alot fasyer than back then, and capital is severly needed, so removing that capital, or even the threat of eating it thru taxation thru health care or whatever the government chooses as being "moral", fat foods, smoking etc, whatever reasons they need to promote their "thing" in their name, it harms the jobs creation chances, and even worse, people hold onto their money, and guess what, things slow down
If this isnt what were seeing, then it must be those rich people just hording that cash, and not wanting to make any more, and if you believe that, Ive got a house for sale in some swamp land
 
Regarding the so called 1% - How can you compare a very few people against tens of millions of people? The law of averages will hose up that comparison all day long.

If we want to compare on the scale of 1%, every percent should be broken down. What are those in the 98 percentile making? If I recall the 1% consistented off less than a thousand people out of over 300 million people.

They are the few people who have a very high level skillset to do what the do.

What about the 53%? The people who actually pay taxes.

Regarding stagnent pay, against inflation, yes, it isn't really changing. People make more money, inflation goes up to counter paying higher salaries. It really is very common.

I don't blame the so called 1%. I do not consider myself in the 99% or the 1%.

Government is printing money creating borderline hyper inflation. Our debt is unsustainable.

Liberal companies like GE and Pepco Holdings who are heavily backed by the US government paid ZERO dollars in Federal Taxes last year. Both have record profits. They promote the 'green' agenda and therefore are exempt from taxes. Then you look at Big Oil companies who all paid their fair share in taxes. Yet, the so called 99% want those big corporations to pay their fair taxes? They don't, they won't. Who controls that? The government.

Every basic cost we have is based off the cost of producing something. The more the production costs go up, the higher the cost to the consumer. Thus the assembly line was born to reduce cost by increasing productivity. That made an automobile very affordable to many people. Today we are far more efficient, produce more with less workers.

Government is the root cause of inflation. Inflation is actually good for the government. As people get small pay raises, that money comes from somewhere -> the consumer in paying more.

McDonald's, a year or two ago reduced the size and/or quantity of nuggets in their dollar value from 3 nuggets to 2. The cost stayed the same. Minimum wage went up, the cost stayed the same technicall, but only two instead of three. A lot of people were upset. This was directly related to the cost of minimum wage going up. People are getting paid more, but everything else changed with it. This would result in stagnant wages I suppose.

As for the 1%. What's the big deal? I know several people who make a lot of money. I wouldn't, couldn't do their job for that money. They're not all sitting on golf courses and drinking martinis all day. These people work very hard and sacrifice much of their lvies to do what they do. A company on the other hand needs a strong leader and the cost is priceless for that.

Again, we are comparing a very, very few people against the masses. It is a stupid comparision used to anger a mob of people. If you really deep dive into the numbers you'll realize what a hoax it is and how the wool is being pulled over.
 
I think you're missing the point. OWS is saying that the 99% have almost no influence over policy decisions. The 1% buys lobbyists, organizes PACs, gets elected, etc.
 


Youre making an ASS of U and ME.

Kinda hard to understand people when you assume whatever it is you think is going on.

BTW I might be making an appearance at OWS in NYC this weekend or next. Ill take some pics of all the Hippies.
 

I'd like to see a stat showing that.

But even if it's true, it just demonstrates one of their points. "This is what democracy looks like." Participation is not just voting every election.
 


Now that's a completely different answer from what others have said. Previously it was they wanted others to pay their taxes, companies were over charging, they wanted higher paying jobs, etc.

Why are they targeting Wall Street? They should be targeting the government. OWx really stands as a bunch of whiny people who don't want to put in the time to get a job and build a skillset to better themselves. The overall argument is appealing to many. The reality of it is this is not the movement many want to be associated with. OWx pales in comparison to something like the Tea Party Movement.
 

You should definitely check out some statements from the actual OWS people, instead of watching or reading the news. There's a lot of misinformation out there.
 

Ok, so that's different from what I thought you were claiming, that the OWS people themselves say they don't vote.

And my second point?
 

And as I stated, these didn't affect the BULK of Americans, they affected the most wealthy. Since then the funnel from the top has only further extended the gap between the richest and poorest.




1.) The law of averages is showing that the average income of ~3000 people (the ~1%) is 185x the average of the rest of the nation. That's hardly fair by any stretch, and when I mean fair you claim that these people are the "best and brightest," a talking point slogan that's been thrown around for awhile now, yet these 1%ers are the root cause of the financial meltdown. Government deregulation, as originally facilitated by Clinton as concessions to Republicans, was an enabling mechanism along with the deregulation of the secondary market allowed casino-style gambling with the funds of the public. I use "public" as those people who lost a large portion of their own wealth due to the direct negligence of a few.

Please show me some material from the "best and brightest" that is worth their exorbitant salaries: I'm mostly focusing on the finance industry, but the salaries of CEOs in all industries has skyrocketed over the last 20 years while the average salary has completely stagnated. Now couple the profit seeking efforts of corporations and the exportation of jobs to seek lower costs of labor (which has been slowly shifting back to the US as I stated earlier), then we are left with CEOs who export jobs (manufacturing, non-finance), sue their customer base and push through legislation that stifles digital innovation (MPAA, RIAA - Viacom's CEO just got a $50million bonus) to show profits that have done what for their companies?

2.) So big oil paid their taxes last year, and your point is? According to Forbes, they paid last year, and the year before the paid next to nothing: That's nearly $20 billion that wasn't paid, but I guess we can all overlook that considering they paid last year. Now to move to Federal Income Tax, most oil companies pay below 20%, which is 15% lower than where they should be at 35%. So, if all of these oil companies paid their actual tax bracket rather than benefiting from tax breaks and off shore shelters, the numbers would be far heavier in your favor. However, as it sits now, you and I pay a higher tax percentage than our oil companies do.

3.) Of the 1%ers I can only think of a handful of CEOs and company leaders that truly reflect the ethics and values of the people they hire - Not that this really has anything to do with the topic, but ethics is a huge portion of business, at least it was in college. Their are many tech companies I could list here that have exceptional leadership teams and who's goal are more aligned with their workforce and not just their out-of-touch board of directors like so many of these ancient finance firms. I'm not saying that being a major decision maker at a company shouldn't pull a decent wage, but I hardly see the justification of a $50million salary (Viacom) as fair considering that the only "idea" to come out of some of these leaders is bribing politicians for toothless legislation, suing their customer base, refusing to lend money to small businesses and foreclosing on homes already free and clear, outsourcing jobs to show a profit, providing bonus' for the top 10% of a company while not increasing the wages of the average worker, etc. etc. etc.

So your anecdote is noted as being an anecdote with no real world significance other than justifying a few friends and your own conscience

4.) Show something to support this garbage statement. The very few people you speak of are the very people who are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The "best and brightest" were the ones to put us into this major economic recess and in turn has permanently funneled the wealth from the majority of the US population to the privileged few who bet against the markets, seeing the systemic failures for what they were and making boatload off of a system that our finance industry fixed, facilitated by politicians who are bought and paid for by money the help deregulate.


Yes, a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

Slightly off topic but directly relating to the voting in a democratic republic, House Speaker Zellers went on record to say that voting is a privilege and not a right, the exact opposite of reality. To go along with the very true statistics Oldman listed about the 18-29 year old demographic, would Compulsory Voting be the answer? Sounds like it would decimate the GOP as a whole, specifically with all their underhanded schemes to limit voting, as seen in Wisconsin and Ohio.
 

Sure, we are an indirect democratic republic governed by a constitution. A democracy by definition refers to a direct democracy; a republic by definition is a democratic oligarchy. Together they form VOLTRON, I mean they form a democratic republic.

Not that this has a whole lot to do with anything else I put down in my last post. 😀
 

And yet the First Amendment protects our right to assemble. It seems like a pretty important part of our republic.
 


Your right oldman just because 1% are being idiots we should ignore the 99%.
 


My information comes directly from my local OWx people. They're supposed to be the same.. if they're not then that proves they're all a joke. :)
 
Don't get so worked up on this. It is all speculation at best.

As far as those CEOs, you can't pay enough for what is asked of them. So obessed with 3000 people in a country of 300,000,000. Yes, they make the money. Someone, somewhere, will do that.

When the vast majority make more money, all cost of goods go up. Our wages will stay stagnant. The top level people will always make more. $20 to me is nothing, but a poor person is all over it. A guy making $5 million a year might not change jobs for $100,000 extra a year. It is all relative.

As they say, the wind blows stronger at the top. I personally know a CEO of a medium size company. I meet up with him on holidays. That's the only time he isn't working. He's divorced, his kids barely get along with him, he has few friends outside of business, he doesn't do anything. He works. He has sacrificed everything.

I asked him what good is making nearly a million dollars a year with the life he has.

His answer?

All of his employees lead better lives because of him. They have opportunties they wouldn't had have if he wasn't doing his job.

He lives in a $400,000 house. He has a country club membership that costs him $100,000 a year - which he opens up to all his workers to go to.

He had the chance to take over and own the company. He turned around and made it an ESOP - employee owned.

I couldn't, wouldn't do what he has for that money.

You're spewing talking points and don't realize what many, not all, of those people are doing. We are always going to have people who are flat broke and poor. We are always going to have the super wealthy.

We will always have this as long as we have a capitalist economy. Look around the world - our poor have better lives than most people.

I saw a sign from OWS. They had the 99% and 1% marked up. Then another guy had a sign with the OWS people protesting that said 1% and then poor people out of Africa that said 99%.

It is all relative.
 

Ahh so you have been watching the high-flying antics of our out-of-touch 1%ers! Why else would you highlight their extracuricular activites with such accuracy?

Not to mention that I'm willing to bet everything on OWS comes from a News Corp outlet, something similar to the "Daily Caller," or other talking head programming.

I spent 2 hours after work last night listening to KPCC (NPR - Pasadena Public Radio - No slant; no rant) on the OWS topic and there was some brilliant people on the radio program, not the derelict tag-a-longs that get interview by the mainstream press to downplay the movement.

If you seek out the least common denominator, you will generally always find it, and next to him you will find the reporter making a story out of it for their own particular lean.



A couple anecdotes and some personal experience make it all relative. The second line is the most laughable of what you said here, mostly because you provide an example from some "medium sized business" which does not equate to the group of which is the target of this whole topic.


That's great! You've found a good company, I'm so proud of you! I also work for a good company, a good Japanese owned company that invests in the individual for the long run, something American businesses seem to be lacking whole-heartedly.

When the average, everyday, main street person stops telling themselves they are going to make as much as some big-wig some day in the future, then this whole topic will be shifted. Until then "Da-Nile" isn't just a river in Egypt.

But it's fine, shift the topic of conversation to a credibility aspect and again, I'm one of the few that posts real world statistics, not blog entries passing it off as facts.

Same wing-nuts, different place.
 

I do see the difference. So I suppose you support the majority of them.


I'm not sure why you think all OWS people are the same. It's a way to build consensus among the 99%, who have diverse opinions.

There are legitimate economic complaints. A big part of it is also what I said: the 99% have no political representation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom