It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Record Low Unemployment In Some States, And Americans Won't Take Jobs

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

all the while making more and spending more and taking more vacations and just living better than they ever have..

That is the funny thing.. Even the DOOM SAYING libs are all watching their big screen TV's. on their HD DVD players, driving their new cars and vacationing on their new boats...


Semper,

I'm so glad to hear that you're doing so well.
It's great that you have more vacation time, have all that extra money, a big screen TV, new car, and a nice boat.

But look around you, and that's not the case for most Americans.
The rich are living off the backs of the poor, whether they are in your country or some third world nation.

The best medical care in the world is in the USA, but it's only available to the wealthy. The best education in the world is available in the USA, but again, only for people of means.

The system doesn't seem very fair.




posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:41 AM
link   
That debt "clock" is the typical liberal scare tactic, but they did put a small snippet of truth in there if you look....

Do any of you know how much of the National Debt we have carried as of WWII?

Can anyone tell me when that particular debt caused the downfall of this country?

Can anyone tell me what negative effect that debt, that has been there for over 60 years, has had on anyone?

EXACTLY...

The economics of a free market society are not really all that complex when you see them with eyes not blinded by hate.

The comment on that page about "Tax Cuts" being part of the problem in reference to the national debt is pure lies...

The facts are this...

The Bush Tax cuts have caused one thing...... THE GREATEST INCREASE IN MONEY FLOWING INTO THE GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY...

Now let's look at that shall we...

That money that flows into the government coffers is being spent, yes, we are in a war. But we are not discussing the validity of the war, we are discussing economics...

It is a FACT that higher taxes cause a slow down in the money that the government receives from the people. that is historically true and accurate. Again, simple economics.

Lower taxes cause the economy to "Super Charge" , much as it is now. A good healthy economy causes business growth... JUST LIKE NOW.

Business pays the LIONS SHARE of tax to the Government...
(Actually your taxes pay a very small amount of what the Government gets)

More business, more healthy current business, means more money to the Government...

If you are ever in doubt, just check the very clear and easy to understand amounts being received by the Government prior to the tax cuts, and now after them.

TAXES
US TREASURY
INCOME TAX NOT NECESSARY

The FACTS, not predictions, FACTS are there for all the read...

Semper



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I'm through posting in this thread.

I say this out of politeness more than anything, so if anyone quotes me in the future
on this thread, don't be to terribly offended I don't respond.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:54 AM
link   

But look around you, and that's not the case for most Americans.


But AD, that is the case my friend...

The FACT is that the standard of living is the highest it has ever been...


So why do we only hear bad news? Adam Smith knew.

"A continued Series of Prosperity," he taught his rhetoric students, "would not give us near so much pleasure in the recital as an epic poem or a tragedy which make but one continued Series of unhappy Events." In the rhetorical marketplace nothing succeeds like failure.
members.forbes.com...


And I don't own a Boat...

But everyone I know owns a DVD player, Cell Phone, ALL kinds of luxuries, Well just read the link...

Semper



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:55 AM
link   
I'll read the links a bit later Semper, but I only have 40 minutes to make it to early Mass.

I'll leave you with this thought though......

The U.S. economy is based on business making money off of war. As long as you keep fighting someone, anyone, the corporations are making huge amounts of money at the expense of human lives.

Maybe the powers that be are just culling the herd. :shk:


(now I'm late, gotta go......)



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   
See?

Like the link exemplifies, good news in not attractive. Combine that with so many wanting President Bush to fail at everything, and you have an environment where nothing good will be reported.

Even if it is reported, things will be made up to refute the FACTS.

Now, one has to remember this is economics on a National scale and NOT personal experiences...

I too know poor people and people that struggle. It is the shame of a world society that with our technology people like that still exist, but they do. So do drug abusers, homeless and alcoholics.

But on a national scale, on the average, everyone in the US is MUCH better off now after the tax cuts.. FACTS my friends, facts..

By the way, just a note here...

I came from a dirt farm in West Virginia, my Granny raised me on 123.00 a month in social security. I left home at 17 with all I owned on the back of a 175cc Honda Motorcycle...

I have WORKED, struggled and saved for all that I have. Neither the Government, or any other person ever gave me anything.

So I know what I am talking about.

Semper



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
That debt "clock" is the typical liberal scare tactic, but they did put a small snippet of truth in there if you look....


LOL ! I tend to vote along Conservative lines and I would cry foul if my government borrowed heavily because it failed to reduce spending after putting tax cuts.


Do any of you know how much of the National Debt we have carried as of WWII?


You don't suppose that WW2 was expectational circumstances and that when the economy is in good shape that the US government should stay out of the red.


Can anyone tell me when that particular debt caused the downfall of this country?


You are forgetting that the US now faces economic competition from the likes of China who are competing at the same game the US is. IMO the US can only live off credit for as long as it remains the worlds number one economic power.





The Bush Tax cuts have caused one thing...... THE GREATEST INCREASE IN MONEY FLOWING INTO THE GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY...


So the US government has the benefit of increased cash flow and yet is still borrowing money I'm not even going to point out what is wrong with that picture.




That money that flows into the government coffers is being spent, yes, we are in a war. But we are not discussing the validity of the war, we are discussing economics...


Yeah and if the defence sector operated in the Free Market the US tax payer would save a lot of money.
You don't suppose that the US government should end corporate welfare and spend the US tax payer dollars responsible rather then having to borrow money to cover any short fall ?




Business pays the LIONS SHARE of tax to the Government...
(Actually your taxes pay a very small amount of what the Government gets)


Personally I am in favour of a flat tax and having regulations in place that ensure that the Free Market can operate. Once the regulations are in place people would be able to better themselves via the Free Market.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
Americans don't want to raise wages, they've proven that by turning to retailers like Wal-Mart. They want to pay as little as possible for the crap they buy, and they're not willing to pay workers to produce those products.

The end result is to outsource high paying manufacturing jobs to countries like China, India, Mexico, etc.......

It looks like you've made your bed, now your economy will suffer for it.


I couldn't agree more with this statement. However, I'd like to add that it's both businesses and society that's at fault for the situation. And I'm not so sure that the solution to the problem is obvious. Businesses need to make money and they need to make a profit. Many companies, large and small, are at the mercy of shareholders. Society needs to pay its bills, it needs certain level of quality of life that's beneficial, and it needs to save money. In a capitalist society where the idea is that the more one makes the better their lives will be there are obvious problems from this kind of thinking. The first one is greed. Those who want to live "best" will seek to make the most money; that includes businesses and individuals. From the start all participants in this frame of mind will be shooting themselves in the foot. They will be compelled to seek opportunities that increases monetary gain at reduced costs. Eventually jobs will be exported and wage increases stifled because of the effects of businesses and individuals driven to increase corporate and individual wealth at the sake of quality of life for society in general.

Add to that corporate sponsored lobbying in Washington, D.C. and you get a recipe for special interests taking precedent over the interests of the welfare of most American people. Conservatives and Liberals are both responsible.

Businesses and individuals at the lower end of the spectrum are then faced with the prospect of making very little money or none at all because all of their choices are dictated by businesses and individuals at the upper end of the spectrum. Things become cheaper and cheaper all across the board, but quality of life suffers for those at the lower end and very little money is saved. So all of those sales signs that say, "Buy 3 for $3.00 - Save $2.00" do not represent real savings. It represents a psychological saving of having to come up with an extra $2.00 for something that the consumer needs. After all there are still other, perhaps more or equally important, living expenses to pay.

Eventually individuals faced with the choice of working jobs that pay little and offer low job satisfaction and little chance for advancement will be rejected. As another pointed out, alternative ways to make more money in order to increase one's quality of life will be sought.

I agree, $10.00 an hour is still $10.00 an hour, but it doesn't even come close to being a livable wage given the cost of living in some cities. One cannot live on that wage alone in New York City or Boston or Chicago or Los Angeles or Miami or Atlanta, or many other major cites. With rent for two bedroom apartments running at least $1600 a month in the city of Boston, try and figure how one is going to live on $10.00 in the other cities mentioned, many which have housing shortages. Of course one could choose to live in less desirable sections of those cities, but either way one looks at it the quality of life and the ability to save money is greatly reduced. So taking on another job becomes necessary. Taking out loans to get more education credentials only increases the debt load. And so folks buy cheap things because they can afford to buy them, not because they want to buy them, and still they can hardly save a dime. Never mind zero health benefits that are offered by many business. Try getting health benefits to work telephones for opinion research or telemarketing firms that are paying only $7.00 or less an hour as base pay minus commission. Those companies won't even bother hiring you.

Anyway, if the McDonald's manager is looking for workers maybe he should try raising the wage to $15.00 per hour. He'd sure find workers then. Folks will commute and relocate for $15.00 per hour.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   

I would cry foul if my government borrowed heavily because it failed to reduce spending after putting tax cuts.


Well I was not commenting on the overall behavior of the Government. That is a different topic, but your correct..


You don't suppose that WW2 was expectational circumstances and that when the economy is in good shape that the US government should stay out of the red.


I was using this as an example that that particular debt has not caused any ill effects like the "Doomsayers" keep predicting and never comes true.


IMO the US can only live off credit for as long as it remains the worlds number one economic power.


Possibly so, but the numbers of economic professionals are almost perfectly split on the future of "Gross" "Macro" economics in the future. With India and China coming strong, there are a lot of variables. Not the least is the futures of those particular countries as a whole.


So the US government has the benefit of increased cash flow and yet is still borrowing money I'm not even going to point out what is wrong with that picture.


War is expensive. But I already stated I was not going to debate the war...


You don't suppose that the US government should end corporate welfare


Depends on what you mean by corporate welfare.

The Governments propensity for tax breaks to corporations are one perfect example of supporting a strong corporate base to increase revenue and taxes. The more healthy the corporations prosper, the more the economy prospers and the more we prosper. Such as now.


personally I am in favor of a flat tax


Fair Tax for me my Friend...

Semper



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Semperfortis I want to clear up some things.
I never mentioned any war all I said was that the defence should operate in the Free Market so I don't know how you misunderstood me. By corporate welfare I means the likes of the billions of dollars spend on the likes of agriculture subsides and permitting anti free market practices such as not permitting the sale of Canadian drugs in the US.

BTW we have had GST in NZ for twenty odd years and it has been far from any thing wonderful but that's another topic your welcome to drop me U2U if you want to discuss the matter further..



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Oh, I basically agreed with you xpert....

It's early and I guess maybe I came across wrong.. Sorry if that was the case my Friend...

Semper



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   
No worries I just wanted to clear up any misunderstandings.
Now back to the topic. In my own experience many people who cry poor are simply bad manages of money who have never learnt to budget. Having to many hire purchases , going on holiday three time a year and spending all your money before the bills are paid doesn't make you poor.


If you don't have enough money to buy food after paying the bills or you have no money left over after doing those things then you are doing it tough. It is always worth remembering that there is always someone else who is worse off then you are.

Shouldn't this thread be on AP rather then BTS ?

[edit on 26-8-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
If you don't have enough money to buy food after paying the bills or you have no money left over after doing those things then you are doing it tough. It is always worth remembering that there is always someone else who is worse off then you are.


But that doesn't help those in that position, now does it? How is thinking like that supposed to make those in that position feel better? True, things could always be worse, but why should they worry about that when they should be worrying about how they're going to make their next rent payment?

I'll be quite honest. Living on $10/hr in South Seattle isn't exactly easy. Rent here is in the $1100 range, and that means that I have to stay with my family, so that we can share bills. Otherwise, I'd be out on the streets. Yes, I know it could be worse, and I could be out there right now, but I'm not. I chose to fight for at least what little I've achieved. I have several things that I would call luxuries, like DVDs and books, and games. However, I'm not wealthy. No matter what happens, I can't afford to live alone on what I'm making right now; it's just not possible. There's no debating that, as the numbers don't lie.

Also, it's not just me. It's just about everyone in this area that's experiencing this same problem. What I'm most interested in isn't the fact that so many are without the necessary means to support themselves and keep themselves healthy. It's why this is being allowed to happen. What's the driving force behind so many being so low on the sustainability bracket?

One last thing. Yes, it's true that more people than ever are making more money than ever, but those are just numbers. It's the value of said money that's so important. Unfortunately, we're not making any more today than we were back in the 70s, based on the value of the money. No, the numbers don't lie, but they speak more about the corporate agenda than they do about the economy in general.

Am I ungrateful to be where I am? Of course not!! I just aspire to be more than I am. I'm of the firm belief that some things should be given to all, without exception. Those are food, clothing, shelter, and proper health coverage. The fact that so many of us are lacking on the health coverage end of this speaks to support the fact that we're in need of some sort of reform.

But I digress... I'm beginning to ramble. Suffice it to say that I'm a little disgusted with the way things are right now. Change will come, but in what form remains to be seen.

TheBorg



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
But that doesn't help those in that position, now does it? How is thinking like that supposed to make those in that position feel better?


Well I am position that I have little money left after paying the bills and buying food but I still know that there are people out there worse off then me that all there is to it.



True, things could always be worse, but why should they worry about that when they should be worrying about how they're going to make their next rent payment?


Huh ?
I don't get what your point is here. I'm just speaking from my own experience and nothing more.


I'll be quite honest. Living on $10/hr in South Seattle isn't exactly easy. Rent here is in the $1100 range, and that means that I have to stay with my family, so that we can share bills.


I understand where your coming from but if wages go up to much at once inflation will kill any real gains made in your pay packet. Wages are higher in Auckland then Christchurch but the cost of living is higher in Auckland so those in live in that city don't gain anything from the higher wages.



I have several things that I would call luxuries, like DVDs and books, and games.


From my experience the likes of a DVD player doesn't indicate how well off a person is instead how much they spend and if they could afford to just go out and casually buy a DVD player or if they had to use the maxim lay bye time
to buy the DVD player. There is a difference between owning a few DVDs which cost a lot of money when your on a tight budget and being a poor manager of money.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
You can't really discuss economics on a national scale and use specific dollar amounts as examples...

As "Expert" pointed out in perfect detail, it is all relative.

As for the health of the overall economy on that same national scale, certain indicators are relevant...

Such as...

Gas prices hit historic highs this year, and yet Americans took more vacations than ever before, and guess what?
More of them drove to their destination than ever before as well.

As evidenced by the OP, more Americans are happily employed and reluctant to leave their jobs to seek employment elsewhere. (Thus the happily part)
Unemployment is extremely low nationwide.

Even counting the recent fluctuation's in the stock market, more Americans are invested in the market than ever before. This would indicate more liquid assets per American and a desire to prepare for the future. Thus satisfaction with the economy.

On and on go the indicators of a healthy growing economy. The only down side is the liberal media looking for anything to report that seems negative to cast dispersions on the current administration, and reluctant to report anything that appears positive.

Semper



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 02:35 AM
link   
A lot of these places has housing shortages, so even if someone were willing to relocate to obtain employment, where would he/she live?

I looked up Sidney, Montana. It's a small town according to wikipedia. The local paper does not show a McDonalds advertising for help. Perhaps Americans would relocate and work for these places if they had the means to do so.


apc

posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   
It's interesting to note one variable is often overlooked when compiling opinions on the issue.

These jobs are jobs where the only people you used to see working were greasy pimply teenagers. Kids trying to buy their first car or a sack of pot.

However so many children are being raised with an entitlement mentality. They expect their parents to provide them an allowance and everything they need. They don't understand that work=money, and are content with playing the latest Xbox game every day after school. When they grow up they still haven't fromed a strong association between work and money, go deeply into debt and/or buy houses they can't afford. If their parents won't or can't bail them out, they turn to the Government. And look where that's gotten us.

Without pubescent applicants, employers are forced to draw from another workforce that is willing to work for the low salaries the employers can afford to pay.

This is a symptom of a much more serious problem. Address that problem and this issue will simply go away.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


I'm gonna hafta agree. Frankly, I fall into that category. I am, at 25 (almost 26) beginning to learn what it means to have a work ethic, that Immediate Gratification is NOT where it's at. Finances were taught for 1 semester my freshman year in high skool. Now I've graduated from college, I've got $80k in student loan debt, and I live in a town where my job options are McDonalds (who, btw, is not paying $10/hr here. More like $7, if you're lucky), a gas station, or (to be crude) cleaning old and retarded people and their houses.

Which brings me to my main point, and one that I think has been slightly overlooked.

The numbers that are being pointed to are averages -- the 'over-wealth' of a few negates, or, rather, fills in the gaps of the 'under-wealth' of the many.

Not that I'm saying that all people everywhere are broke. It's quite obvious that they're not. But I am saying that there's a good number of people who have next to nothing (and I'm not getting into where they went wrong -- that's another topic), but are overlooked because of these national averages.

Just because the class, as a whole, has a C average doesn't mean that everyone is passing.


...Semper, still got that dirt farm? I'd love to return to the land.


Oddly enough, that kind of work (farming) makes the most sense to me out of all my available options. No, it won't pay my student loans back, or get me a working car with 4 wheels... But it gives a sense of accomplishment.

What sense of accomplishment can I get by working at the gas station? Or McDonalds?

Work=Money is only valid in the current system. Work should = a sense of accomplishment.


Edited for clarification.


[edit on 1-9-2007 by Diseria]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join