94,609,000 Not in Labor Force

originally posted by: eXia7
Such as? They are either low wage jobs, or seasonal jobs.

You just answered your own question.

Where is a poor person with no education going to find a job that will pay their bills, pay for school, and try and survive? So they go to college, there is no guarantee they will have a career waiting for them.

I guess they could just work 3 Sh# jobs and scrape the bottom of the barrel to maybe move up to management for mcdonalds, but that's not the type of future anybody deserves.

Hey I'm all for raising the minimum wage and making sure everyone can have a decent salary to live, but conservatives don't agree with social programs or raising the minimum wage so these people are stuck with low paying jobs. That's the reality we live in.

Those people aren't unemployed though.

originally posted by: eXia7

Where is a poor person with no education going to find a job that will pay their bills, pay for school, and try and survive? So they go to college, there is no guarantee they will have a career waiting for them.

I guess they could just work 3 Sh# jobs and scrape the bottom of the barrel to maybe move up to management for mcdonalds, but that's not the type of future anybody deserves.

Low end jobs are what we have the most of, it's a service sector economy. There isn't necessarily a living wage from that job, but that's not what these numbers are measuring.

originally posted by: In4ormant
Whatever the reason. Only having half the population working isn't sustainable.

Yes it is. Normally only about 35%-40% of the population works. Historically it used to be even lower than that when everyone was a single income family. Remember when women couldn't work? We sustained that just fine, and that was half the population right there not even including retired people, children, and students.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eXia7
Such as? They are either low wage jobs, or seasonal jobs.

You just answered your own question.

Where is a poor person with no education going to find a job that will pay their bills, pay for school, and try and survive? So they go to college, there is no guarantee they will have a career waiting for them.

I guess they could just work 3 Sh# jobs and scrape the bottom of the barrel to maybe move up to management for mcdonalds, but that's not the type of future anybody deserves.

Hey I'm all for raising the minimum wage and making sure everyone can have a decent salary to live, but conservatives don't agree with social programs or raising the minimum wage so these people are stuck with low paying jobs. That's the reality we live in.

Those people aren't unemployed though.

So.. if we raise minimum wage to 15$ an hour, then why wouldn't inflation just nullify that considering the federal reserve is still pumping faux cash into the economy? And if you raise minimum wage, you're just going to promote businesses to cut hours and staff reqs. Also, robots are looming.. pretty soon there will be a robot for every job.

We can't stand in the way of progression, but how do we get people creating wealth? Tough decisions are ahead, and it seems nobody has a solid answer.

originally posted by: Edumakated
It is almost getting easier to just be a deadbeat instead of being productive.

Free healthcare, food, housing, education, etc. Yet once you start working and making a little money, they snatch the support and then you can't afford anything.

Wells thats kinda the point. Make us so dependent on the Government we wouldnt dare bite their hand.

I just curious how long it will be until countries like China and Israel are going to be sending us money to keep us afloat.

I have a great gauge on the economy. Ive been selling things on ebay for years and you can always tell the state of the real economy by how quickly items are selling. Right now they are slow. The economy is slowing and cash is tighter than it has been.

a reply to: eXia7

At least Democrats are ATTEMPTING to help these people. The Republicans are just like, "hey get out of the way and things will fix themselves." Yet every Republican policy just ends up funneling more wealth to the top and creating more poor.

originally posted by: eXia7
So.. if we raise minimum wage to 15$ an hour, then why wouldn't inflation just nullify that considering the federal reserve is still pumping faux cash into the economy? And if you raise minimum wage, you're just going to promote businesses to cut hours and staff reqs. Also, robots are looming.. pretty soon there will be a robot for every job.

We can't stand in the way of progression, but how do we get people creating wealth? Tough decisions are ahead, and it seems nobody has a solid answer.

Three reasons:
1. That's not how inflation works. You can graph inflation, on the up/down axis is the value of the currency, on the left/right axis is the demand for that currency. Under certain points on the curve you run into hyper inflation/deflation. When the demand for currency goes down, and the value of the currency also goes down you get inflation. If the demand for currency remains the same, even when the value of it goes down people simply want to obtain and spend more.

This is why economic growth is such an important number, the whole system works only as long as people want to spend money. The instant they start saving it, demand for money goes down and the whole thing goes to hell.

2. Increases in the minimum wage don't result in increases for everyones salary, nor do they result in equal increases for all. Some make less after an increase.

Those at the bottom will see more, but those above the new minimum wage point see less. The point of minimum wages is to decrease the gap between the top and the bottom, or more practically the average and the bottom. If you're making $16/hour right now, you're at double the minimum wage, but at a $15/hour minimum you're now only at 10% above the minimum, and between some price increases to cover costs, and the fact that the people you're comparing yourself to are now in much better situations. You're going to be less than happy with the result.

3. The price of a product is not 100% contingent on the price of labor. Lets say the store markup is 300% and you're selling an item that costs $2 wholesale. The store is selling that item for $8 and from that $6 they get in the markup comes your salary. Setting aside all of the random expenses for now and looking purely at your salary, that means the break even point is in you selling 1 and 1/3 items per hour, and your salary would allow you to purchase 1 item per hour. After a minimum wage increase which bumps your salary to $15/hour, you would now need to sell 2 1/2 items per hour. After a price increase though from say $8 to $14, you're back down to selling 1 and 1/3 items per hour. So in this scenario, your salary goes from $8 to $15, an 87.5% increase but the product only needed to go from $8 to $14, a 75% increase. As a result, you're now 12.5% better off while the same volume of items are sold.

This ignores the secondary effect of a wage increase though, which is that with more disposable income (which I just showed you have), businesses deal in higher volumes, which results in lower additional markups.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated
For example, Democrats will fight school choice and charter schools. Rich Democrats don't care because they don't send their kids to public schools. So they prevent YOU from having a say in where your kid goes to school, but they can afford to opt out by sending their kid to elite private schools.

This is why they also don't care about illegal immigration. It isn't their jobs being lost. Illegal Immigrants aren't moving to their rich enclaves. Going to their schools.

Spoken like someone who hasn't even TALKED to a Democrat let alone knows any. I feel like you totally built that opinion from conservative news sites. You do realize that the majority of Democrats live in the cities (rich and poor) which is where most of the illegals are? Thus they'd have just as much exposure to them as the next person.

I live in one of the world's largest cities (Chicago). I talk to Democrats everyday as I am practically surrounded by them 24 hours a day.

You obviously have never been to a big city if you really believe rich Democrats actually socialize with the under classes beyond an occasional charity event.

Are you denying that Democrats generally do not support school choice/charter schools?

When Obama lived in Chicago, he sent his kids to the UC Lab School. One of the most prestigious private schools in Chicago, if not the country. Cost a whopping $30k/yr to attend. Why, because the public schools in Hyde Park suck. So he is able to take advantage of private education.

Meanwhile, his administration basically shut down a successful voucher program in DC that helps low income and minority students. It is no secret teachers unions hold priority over blacks in the Democrat hierarchy of needs. I guess Obama had to sell out his people on this one.

Obama Wrong on DC Schools

So again, hypocritical libs forcing something on the rest of us while exempting themselves, just like I said.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eXia7

At least Democrats are ATTEMPTING to help these people. The Republicans are just like, "hey get out of the way and things will fix themselves." Yet every Republican policy just ends up funneling more wealth to the top and creating more poor.

That is always the problem with you guys. It is not about results, just that you tried. We've been attempting to help the poor through your War on Poverty policies for 50 years. The results is trillions spent and all we have to show for it is the same poverty rate from 50 years ago.

Maybe not doing anything would offer better results.

a reply to: Edumakated

Yeah. Things aren't perfect yet, new problems have arisen, and we are battling partisan landscape that refuse to compromise but we DEFINITELY failed.

PS: I've lived around and in Baltimore for the last 10 years.

a reply to: eXia7

I think some of the other posters have addressed that. Read them. Not all Americans are in the 'work force".
You can always refigure it and include newborns and children if you like. Might as well. Maybe then you'll get a number you can really use to further skew the facts.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eXia7

At least Democrats are ATTEMPTING to help these people. The Republicans are just like, "hey get out of the way and things will fix themselves." Yet every Republican policy just ends up funneling more wealth to the top and creating more poor.

I don't know man, I'm pretty sure the last 8 years have made us so prosperous. *rolls eyes*

I don't see solutions from either side of the aisle. There needs to be fresh blood brought into the ranks, real thinkers, not people just showing up to collect a check.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: eXia7

I think some of the other posters have addressed that. Read them. Not all Americans are in the 'work force".
You can always refigure it and include newborns and children if you like. Might as well. Maybe then you'll get a number you can really use to further skew the facts.

Those figures are based on WORKING age people. Per multiple sources.

originally posted by: eXia7
Those figures are based on WORKING age people. Per multiple sources.

No, they're everyone age 16 and over. Labor force participation isn't a great gauge to use because the scale isn't very clear. The highest participation rate we've ever had was the year 2000 at 67.3%. The lowest we've ever had is 58.1% in 1954.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: In4ormant
Whatever the reason. Only having half the population working isn't sustainable.

Yes it is. Normally only about 35%-40% of the population works. Historically it used to be even lower than that when everyone was a single income family. Remember when women couldn't work? We sustained that just fine, and that was half the population right there not even including retired people, children, and students.

Just No.
Your using figures from an era where 1 income could sustain a family and social programs and taxes didn't crush a single earner income.

This isn't that era.

May be appropriate for this debate if you're from the UK.
ESA Suicide petition

originally posted by: In4ormant
Just No.
Your using figures from an era where 1 income could sustain a family and social programs and taxes didn't crush a single earner income.

This isn't that era.

Your premise was that only 50% of the population working is unsustainable, I showed that it wasn't the case.

If we kicked all the women out of the work force today, the value of labor would rise and 1 income could again sustain a family. I'm not saying we should do that, but it's one route to go if we wanted to increase salaries. The value of labor is proportional to the supply of that labor. My generation, the dirty millennials are the most skilled, most educated generation to have ever existed on Earth, and there's a lot of us. That means there's a lot of talented labor available, more than employers need. In turn, that destroys the value of labor.

If you want to do something like make work pay again, you need to convince more people to get out of the work force.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: In4ormant
Just No.
Your using figures from an era where 1 income could sustain a family and social programs and taxes didn't crush a single earner income.

This isn't that era.

Your premise was that only 50% of the population working is unsustainable, I showed that it wasn't the case.

If we kicked all the women out of the work force today, the value of labor would rise and 1 income could again sustain a family. I'm not saying we should do that, but it's one route to go if we wanted to increase salaries. The value of labor is proportional to the supply of that labor. My generation, the dirty millennials are the most skilled, most educated generation to have ever existed on Earth, and there's a lot of us. That means there's a lot of talented labor available, more than employers need. In turn, that destroys the value of labor.

If you want to do something like make work pay again, you need to convince more people to get out of the work force.

Like not importing unskilled illegal immigrants...

originally posted by: Edumakated
Like not importing unskilled illegal immigrants...

The only jobs that unskilled illegals devalue are unskilled positions. If that's all you can aspire to, you might have other issues.

That said, prison labor has a bigger impact than illegals do. Prison labor is usually offered for free or low cost as a service to the community, and it results in prisoners working for pennies doing jobs that honest citizens actually have to charge for.

Even illegals have a floor as to how low they'll go because they need a roof and shelter. Not so with convict labor. We have A LOT of convict labor in the US