Thread for obviously newsworthy stuff

[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)

[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.

[Uncle Sparky]

Sound like a Kidiot to me!

[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.

[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!

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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.

[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%

[Broken_Erika]

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%

It's not so much that they need more jobs, it's that they need better jobs. Part-time work just doesn't cut it anymore(not that it ever did)
This video pretty much explains the problem.

[Broken_Erika]

This is why you don't dance with a loaded gun with the safety off

Dancing FBI agent drops gun during backflip and shoots man in leg

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44349521

[Kidlicious]

No one has said that people don't need full time jobs. Most people have them.

[Proteus_MST]

Manafort got himself into lots of trouble ...
seems like he vastly overestimated the willingness of witnesses to work with himself instead of Mueller

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/4/1742780...ness-tampering

Perhaps now it may be the right time for him to work together with Mueller on a full and unconditional level,
instead of counting on having a Pardon by Trump wipe everything away

[Dinner]

Manafort has committed so many state level crimes even if Trump pardons him for Federal crimes he will spend decades, probably the rest of his life, in prison. Manafort is key because he ran the efforts to conspire with Russia to subvert the American election. After Manafort was out and facing arrest Mike Cohen took over. Either of those guys could deliver the smoking gun of Trumps criminal conspiracy so Mueller is putting them under maximum pressure and rightly so.

As for Trump talking about pardoning himself... Only criminals get pardons so Trump is admitting he is guilty.