Thread for obviously newsworthy stuff

[Kidlicious]

The people below the median* will be ... not in terms of raw money, but in terms of purchasing power ...
they may earn the same amount as before, but due to the pürices having risen (more than their pay rises) they will be able to buy less for their money

The people above the median will usually have less problems, as they have to spend a smaller percentage of their money in raw living costs (and prices for luxury goods most likely will be less affected by price increases(and/or may be easier purchased from outside of the country))

*to add/clarify: with median I mean the median with regards to earned money per year ... i.e. above the median you have the 50% of the population who earn the most money / year, below the median there are the 50% who earn the least money

You have no idea what you are talking about. 1) Every unemployed person in the US is better off with a job. 2) Inflation is under 3%

[Kidlicious]

It's the most telling aspect of these reports. Wages and hours worked also matter. Everything else is just spin. (Your focus is on a number that doesn't tell you whether people are just giving up or finding work, and doesn't let you know if jobs created are keeping up with population trends.) The reality is that the % of people working in the US hasn't materially changed since 2014, when it reached the current terrible level. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

You are talking about people that haven't even applied for a job in the last year. You can't blame Trump for not forcing them to look for a job. But the lower unemployment rate makes it more likely that they will actually get a job if they apply.

[Aeson]

Work force participation rate isn't very telling.

It's the most telling aspect of these reports. Wages and hours worked also matter. Everything else is just spin. (Your focus is on a number that doesn't tell you whether people are just giving up or finding work, and doesn't let you know if jobs created are keeping up with population trends.) The reality is that the % of people working in the US hasn't materially changed since 2014, when it reached the current terrible level. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

[Proteus_MST]

The median is not getting poorer. Nothing you said here is representative of reality.

The people below the median* will be ... not in terms of raw money, but in terms of purchasing power ...
they may earn the same amount as before, but due to the pürices having risen (more than their pay rises) they will be able to buy less for their money

The people above the median will usually have less problems, as they have to spend a smaller percentage of their money in raw living costs (and prices for luxury goods most likely will be less affected by price increases(and/or may be easier purchased from outside of the country))

*to add/clarify: with median I mean the median with regards to earned money per year ... i.e. above the median you have the 50% of the population who earn the most money / year, below the median there are the 50% who earn the least money

[Kidlicious]

If your percentage of unemployed people decreases by 2 percent, but at the same time the percentage of underemployed people rises by 10% (for example due to rising living costs that aren't compensated for by wage rises) then obviously the Median of your population gets poorer (and, obviouisly, something is running wrong in your economy)

The median is not getting poorer. Nothing you said here is representative of reality.

[Proteus_MST]

If you have zero jobs and you get 1 job that's very good. VERY GOOD!

If your percentage of unemployed people decreases by 2 percent, but at the same time the percentage of underemployed people rises by 10% (for example due to rising living costs that aren't compensated for by wage rises) then obviously the Median of your population gets poorer (and, obviouisly, something is running wrong in your economy)

[Kidlicious]

Well, if you need 2-3 jobs to cover your families costs (due to there being no minimum wage standards and due to the aforementioned soaring costs)
then, I guess, people would rather prefer less available jobs who pay better, incombination with lower overall costs
(so they need just one job and don't have to work 10+ hours per day and maybe even on weekends and actually have time to recuperate)

Businessinsider therefore sees "underemployment" (i.e. whre you have a job but it isn't sufficient to make ends meet) to be a more important statistics than unemployment:
https://www.businessinsider.de/more-...17-8?r=US&IR=T

Or to say it with an example:
Say I hire some jobless person for 5 hours a workday to do daily chores (like caring for the garden, doing telephone calls and courier tasks, washing dishes and so on) but only pay him 5€ $ an hour with no paid leave (due to there being no minimum wage and holiday standards), that would bring in ~500 $€ per month.
Maybe sufficient for a student (whose study would suffer from the long work hours, however), but not sufficient to raise a family of 3.

Nevertheless the formerly jobless person would fall out of the unemployment statistics (due to now having a job)

If you have zero jobs and you get 1 job that's very good. VERY GOOD!

[Kidlicious]

Kid would be the first to point out that the strong jobs reports under Obama were missing the fact that the workforce participation rate (basically the real number of people employed vs everyone else) was terrible. Guess what? Workforce participation rate is the same under Trump as it was under Obama the last couple years. But Kid thinks it was terrible 2 years ago, and great now.

Work force participation rate isn't very telling. 476,000 long term unemployed persons have been employed over the last year. There are now only 1.2 million people long term unemployed. Of people marginally attached to the labor force there hasn't been any significant change. Those people aren't really looking for work. The more they hear about how good the job market is the more they will look for work. Also, the lower the unemployment rate is the more of them will get jobs. That's why a high unemployment rate, like that under Obama, is very bad for those people.

[Uncle Sparky]

Sound like a Kidiot to me!

[Aeson]

Kid would be the first to point out that the strong jobs reports under Obama were missing the fact that the workforce participation rate (basically the real number of people employed vs everyone else) was terrible. Guess what? Workforce participation rate is the same under Trump as it was under Obama the last couple years. But Kid thinks it was terrible 2 years ago, and great now.

[Proteus_MST]

Pelosi must read the same blogs as Dinner.

50 yr low

Well, if you need 2-3 jobs to cover your families costs (due to there being no minimum wage standards and due to the aforementioned soaring costs)
then, I guess, people would rather prefer less available jobs who pay better, incombination with lower overall costs
(so they need just one job and don't have to work 10+ hours per day and maybe even on weekends and actually have time to recuperate)

Businessinsider therefore sees "underemployment" (i.e. whre you have a job but it isn't sufficient to make ends meet) to be a more important statistics than unemployment:
https://www.businessinsider.de/more-...17-8?r=US&IR=T

Or to say it with an example:
Say I hire some jobless person for 5 hours a workday to do daily chores (like caring for the garden, doing telephone calls and courier tasks, washing dishes and so on) but only pay him 5€ $ an hour with no paid leave (due to there being no minimum wage and holiday standards), that would bring in ~500 $€ per month.
Maybe sufficient for a student (whose study would suffer from the long work hours, however), but not sufficient to raise a family of 3.

Nevertheless the formerly jobless person would fall out of the unemployment statistics (due to now having a job)

[Kidlicious]

Pelosi must read the same blogs as Dinner.

“May’s jobs report shows that strong employment numbers mean little to the families hit with soaring new costs under the Republicans’ watch,”

50 yr low

[Broken_Erika]

A team at M.I.T. .have successfully created a psychopathic A.I. algorithm.

Norman is an algorithm trained to understand pictures but, like its namesake Hitchcock's Norman Bates, it does not have an optimistic view of the world.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44040008

[Wezil]

she's the anchor of the show...not that I watch it

Ditch Roseanne and call it "The Conner Family".

Of course they would have to go for a more liberal demo but that is better for ratings anyway.

Roseanne may still have some sort of $$ rights though, and if so I doubt it would happen (she can't be seen to be profiting of a reboot at this point).

[Kidlicious]

More details on the Samantha Bee insult. She got wild applause for the comment. It was edited and put on air with the conscious purpose of insulting the First Daughter. The President suggested she be fired.

I don't see her getting fired. This is going to be an ongoing issue and will cost the D's votes.