Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

unemployment 8.3%Follow

#1 Dec 06 2012 at 9:11 AM Rating: Unrated
**
288 posts
That's right in it's going to be well over 10% when obamacare is fully implemented.

All part of Obama's and the Democrats plan to get as many people dependent on government as possible.
____________________________
BANNED
#2 Dec 06 2012 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,326 posts

278 posts
That's right in it's going to be well over 10% when obamacare is fully implemented.

All part of Obama's and the Democrats plan to get as many people dependent on government as possible.


Phew, good thing it was under 8% for the election or Romney probably wins easily. Oh well, maybe when Obama runs for his third term after we pass that constitutional amendment it'll be higher.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#3 Dec 06 2012 at 9:13 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Just like the accuracy of your election predictions, huh.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Dec 06 2012 at 9:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Reuters wrote:
The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell for a third straight week last week, dropping back to their pre-superstorm Sandy range.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 25,000 to a seasonally adjusted 370,000 in the week ended December 1, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

Last week's drop brought them back to their pre-storm's 360,000-370,000 range, which economists said suggested there had been no marked weakening in the labor market. They had forecast claims falling to 380,0000.
[...]
"We should still have a relative poor payroll reading tomorrow, but we should have some confidence that payrolls would bounce back in December."
[...]
Last week's claims data has no bearing on Friday's employment report. Economists estimate the monster storm, which slammed into the densely populated East Coast, could subtract between 25,000 and 75,000 jobs from November's nonfarm payrolls.

The closely watched report is expected to show payrolls increased only 93,000 last month after advancing 171,000 job in October, according to Reuters survey of economists. The unemployment rate is seen holding steady at 7.9 percent.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Dec 06 2012 at 9:19 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,326 posts
No, Joph, Gallup's unemployment number. You know, the "unskewed" one.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#7 Dec 06 2012 at 12:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
No maybe about we're easily going to pass 10% unemployment.
Maybe you should have paid attention in school, or you wouldn't be so worried about being unemployed.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#9 Dec 06 2012 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
I'm more concerned for bums like you.
So transparent, what with all your crying about unemployment. What's the matter? Daddy going to fire you?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Dec 06 2012 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,896 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:

I'm more concerned for bums like you. You think I like paying for your food stamps?

Then you should pay your debts.

When my paycheck can no longer support hot-pockets and Jeno's pizza I can forage a living from my back yard - no worries.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#12 Dec 06 2012 at 12:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
You just can't get your **** father out of you mind can you.
So that's a yes? Daddy is firing you? That's so sad, I'm sorry for you. Smiley: frown
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#13 Dec 06 2012 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
When my paycheck can no longer support hot-pockets and Jeno's pizza I can forage a living from my back yard - no worries.

Works best if you plant a Hot Pocket bush.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Dec 06 2012 at 2:29 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
Elinda wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:

I'm more concerned for bums like you. You think I like paying for your food stamps?

Then you should pay your debts.

When my paycheck can no longer support hot-pockets and Jeno's pizza I can forage a living from my back yard - no worries.

God willing, his okra farm will provide enough to sustain him.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#15 Dec 06 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,277 posts
this troll is so ridiculous he isn't even really fun.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#16 Dec 06 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
Olorinus wrote:
this troll is so ridiculous he isn't even really fun.

Yeah, varus was so much better. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#17 Dec 06 2012 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,054 posts
Don't worry, the $50 billion in new stimulus spending will solve unemployment.

Because the first round was so successful.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#18 Dec 06 2012 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,224 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
When my paycheck can no longer support hot-pockets and Jeno's pizza I can forage a living from my back yard - no worries.

Works best if you plant a Hot Pocket bush.



That sounds filthy.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#19 Dec 06 2012 at 8:49 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,842 posts
Samira wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
When my paycheck can no longer support hot-pockets and Jeno's pizza I can forage a living from my back yard - no worries.

Works best if you plant a Hot Pocket bush.



That sounds filthy.



Very filthy, and not in the good way.

Gotta at least trim that stuff.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#20 Dec 06 2012 at 10:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,883 posts
Debalic wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
this troll is so ridiculous he isn't even really fun.

Yeah, varus was so much better. Smiley: rolleyes


Budget cuts. We couldn't afford premium grade. Also, Swazispring finally got himself banned if anyone was curious.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#21 Dec 06 2012 at 10:29 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Swazispring finally got himself banned if anyone was curious


Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
if anyone was curious.


Oh, you.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#22 Dec 06 2012 at 11:08 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
Hadn't realized he wasn't around.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#23 Dec 06 2012 at 11:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So now who's going to ask my opinion on parliamentary elections in Togo?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Dec 07 2012 at 12:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,883 posts
I dunno, what is your opinion on parliamentary elections in Togo?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#25 Dec 07 2012 at 7:56 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,896 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So now who's going to ask my opinion on parliamentary elections in Togo?

I'm not Ghana.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#26 Dec 07 2012 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,948 posts
In other news (in case you missed it), the unemployment rate is 7.7%, the lowest since 2008.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#27 Dec 07 2012 at 8:41 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Yeah, but that one doesn't count because it isn't Gallup, which didn't count a couple of months ago because of oversampling, but totally is the only accurate source now.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#28 Dec 07 2012 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Edit: **** it Locke. That'll teach me not to check recent posts first. Smiley: frown

Edited, Dec 7th 2012 9:42am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#29 Dec 07 2012 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,751 posts
It's okay the reliable news sources have the appropriate spin on it.

Quote:
At the same time, the jobless rate fell to a near four-year low, but that was largely because so many Americans gave up the hunt for work.


As a bonus when unemployment fails to reach 10% now you'll know why. Smiley: schooled

Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Dec 7th 2012 7:41am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#30 Dec 07 2012 at 9:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,948 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
It's okay the reliable news sources have the appropriate spin on it.

Quote:
At the same time, the jobless rate fell to a near four-year low, but that was largely because so many Americans gave up the hunt for work.


As a bonus when unemployment fails to reach 10% now you'll know why. Smiley: schooled

Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Dec 7th 2012 7:41am by someproteinguy

You'd think they like this? Less people who are classified as unemployed = less unemployment benefits doled out = smaller government!
(Am I doing this right?)
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#31 Dec 07 2012 at 9:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,751 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:

You'd think they like this? Less people who are classified as unemployed = less unemployment benefits doled out = smaller government!


Well see you have to balance it with this story, and then ignore the Hostess asterisk or something.

LockeColeMA wrote:
(Am I doing this right?)


I have no idea, just making this up as I go along.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#32 Dec 07 2012 at 10:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,246 posts
Damned anchor babies!

Can I play too?
____________________________
Banh
#33 Dec 07 2012 at 1:54 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,560 posts
Not exactly relevant but Olive Garden isn't going to change all employees to part time just yet.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#34 Dec 07 2012 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,354 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Not exactly relevant but Olive Garden isn't going to change all employees to part time just yet.


So their own internal tests of running on sub 30 hour a week part timers showed that the overhead involved with shaving off those 10 hours from each person wasn't worth the actual savings from not having to insure the individuals.

Meaning: Full timers with health insurance are more likely to stick with their schedule and come in to work when expected, be happy to come to work (as they're more likely to not be worried about paying rent when they're working 40 hours guaranteed), and have less to hate about their job and their life in general. Additionally, for every three full time employees you drop down to 30 hours a week, you have to hire a 4th person to cover those hours, and pay all the associated payroll taxes that come with having a 33% greater workforce in numbers, even if you don't have to provide health insurance for them.

Edited, Dec 7th 2012 3:21pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#35 Dec 07 2012 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,560 posts
Not to mention the negative feedback from the consumer.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#36 Dec 07 2012 at 5:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
It's okay the reliable news sources have the appropriate spin on it.

Quote:
At the same time, the jobless rate fell to a near four-year low, but that was largely because so many Americans gave up the hunt for work.


Umm...

Locke's reliable source also wrote:
The unemployment rate fell to 7.7% in November, the lowest level since December 2008, but the drop was largely because workers dropped out of the labor force.



You're trying way way way too hard.

Edited, Dec 7th 2012 3:11pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Dec 07 2012 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,751 posts
gbaji wrote:

You're trying way way way too hard.


Sorry, I was bored this morning. I promise it'll never ever happen again. Smiley: grin

*crosses fingers secretly behind his back*
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#38 Dec 07 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Wait. I see you! No fooling me (much)!


Seriously though, we should be creating 250k jobs a month just to break even in normal economic times. During a "recovery" we should be generating 300-400k jobs per month. This should have started happening back in 2010, but hasn't. We can debate and argue about why the economy acted more like a lead weight hitting the economic floor rather than a basketball (ie: no bounce back), but that is what happened. Jumping on any glimmer of economic good news in a fog of bad is just avoiding the main issue. The economy is not recovering, not because the government isn't spending enough money, but because the private markets are not spending enough money (on the right things) to make it happen.

As long as the Dems continue to pursue higher taxes as the means to increase revenue, we will continue to have poor job creation rates and poor economic outcomes. We've made the floor of the recession the new normal. That's not good at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Dec 08 2012 at 11:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Yeah, just like what happened when Clinton raised taxes. Oh wait, those were boom years.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#40 Dec 08 2012 at 11:46 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Yeah, just like what happened when Clinton raised taxes. Oh wait, those were boom years.


But Clinton was riding on the awesomeness that was Bush Sr. and shafted Bush Jr with his poor democratic choices. The only reason things aren't getting better for Obama is because he screwed over the economy so badly that it will effect him and the next president (if said president is republican and has a poor economic record).

After all, it's so obvious!
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#43 Dec 10 2012 at 8:44 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
We can debate and argue about why the economy acted more like a lead weight hitting the economic floor rather than a basketball
Or more likely we'll tell you why and you'll throw a kanipshin fit over how that isn't right because someone told you it wasn't.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#44 Dec 10 2012 at 9:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"kanipshin"?

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Dec 10 2012 at 9:08 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
"Coffee." Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Dec 10 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Yeah, just like what happened when Clinton raised taxes. Oh wait, those were boom years.


So you're arguing we should raise taxes on everyone, not just the top 2%? I'm just curious because everyone talks about the Clinton tax rates and how they must have been a key cause of the great economy we had back in the 90s, but then they insist that they only want to raise taxes on one group of people. It's an interesting bit of self delusion that goes on here. If you truly believed that it was the Clinton tax rates that created economic prosperity in the 90s, then you'd be arguing for the full set of Clinton tax rates to be re-established. But I'm assuming that if someone asked if you wanted on increase taxes on the working class by half again, you'd say "Of course not! We're just trying to make the rich pay their fair share".


Which is why your claimed reason is clearly just BS. You've accepted the idea that somehow by just taxing "the rich" more it'll create economic prosperity. But since there's no actual evidence of this, you are willing to kinda ignore all the other tax rate differences between today and when Clinton was in office. Not because it's an honest way of assessing things, but because it would be inconvenient with regard to implementing something you believe should be implemented.

Of course, that begs the question of why you think we should raise taxes on the top 2% in the first place, but that's a whole other set of self delusion and denial.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Dec 10 2012 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Actually, I'm claiming tax rates have **** to do with job creation. DEMAND has to do with job creation, ****
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#48 Dec 11 2012 at 8:10 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's an interesting bit of self delusion that goes on here.
Mildly amusing, don't know about interesting though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Dec 11 2012 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,896 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's an interesting bit of self delusion that goes on here.
Mildly amusing, don't know about interesting though.

gbaji deluding himself again?....[:yawn:]
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#50 Dec 11 2012 at 5:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,572 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Actually, I'm claiming tax rates have **** to do with job creation. DEMAND has to do with job creation, dipsh*t.


Follow the logic though. How does demand increase job creation? Assuming you mean demand for products and services provided by working people, then that demand will only result in increased job creation if the resulting profits from the employer fulfilling that demand is greater if he hires more people than if he doesn't. It's an easy concept to test. If a million people demand $5 widgets, but the cost to build a widget (which includes labor cost) is $6, that demand will never be met. Demand only results in increased product creation (and the labor to do so) if meeting the demand results in more profit for the employer. If there's demand for 500,000 widgets at $10, then the employer will hire enough people to fill that demand, making a $4/widget profit. Since that will generate $2M in total profit, while meeting the 1 million unit demand would result in a loss of $1M, he's going to employ enough to build 500k instead of 1M. Simple economic theory at this point, right?

Now, while you can correctly argue that tax rate changes wont affect hiring decisions with regard to widget production, it *will* affect external choices like whether to invest in a widget factory or a business generating intellectual property, or in commodities, or bonds, or even foreign markets. Imagine you are the owner of that widget factory. Let's imagine that you're currently building 500k widgets a year, but think that the demand has increased for widgets and you could now sell 1M units at $8 per widget. That's not a good choice because your current costs are $6/widget, so you make the same profit of $2M whether you sell 500k at $10 ($4/widget profit) or 1M at $8 ($2/widget profit). But what if, as you suggest, demand just straight up increases? What if now there's demand for 700k widgets at $10/widget? Hmmmm... But you currently only employ enough to product 500k. You'd need to hire more workers. You'd also need to expand your factory to meet this new demand. Here's the problem. It'll cost you $4M dollars to build the new facilities. This means that the increased $400k per year in profit from the increased demand will pay you back in 10 years. After that, you're golden. So that's a possible choice. But what if you could just toss that $4M into some other investment that'll earn you some interest rate back each year. Let's also imagine that you're not sure how much labor costs may increase over the next 10 years. You might not want to commit to a venture that will require that long to get a return. It's not as simple as assuming that increased demand will always result in increased jobs. It only creates the potential for increased jobs. That potential has to be filled, and the choice to fill it is absolutely based on relative profits. And guess what? Tax rates absolutely can affect those choices.


There's also a more direct way it affects job creation. I've mentioned this in the past, but I'll repeat it here. There's also a matter of the rate at which a business can grow in the first place. Let's assume that in the last example, the factors are such that the widget factory owner does decide to spend $4M in profits to fill that increased demand (and hire more people). But he has to have $4M to spend. Assuming his $2M profit rate, it should take him 2 years to save up the money, right (24 months)? But if he's paying a 30% tax rate, then he only actually has $1.4M in profit each year. Thus, it'll take him 34 months to save up the money. Similarly, if we raise his taxes to $50, it'll take him 48 months to save up enough to expand his business and hire those employees.

Thus, assuming that employers don't normally have idle money sitting around doing nothing at all, the rate at which they can create new jobs to meet new demand for their products is directly affected by the tax rate on past and present profits. It's in direct relation. Tax half the profit, and it'll take twice as long to hire X number of workers as if you didn't tax at all. Tax rates directly affects the amount of profit retained, thus it directly affects the rate at which those profits can be spent expanding the business and hiring new workers. Obviously, this is a simplification of the process (cause we have things like loans), but future profits after tax affects the rate at which a business can pay back those loans. No matter how we manipulate the dollars, the tax rate on profits ends out directly affecting the rate at which anything can be done with those profits. Assuming some ratio of profits to job creation, it will therefore directly affect job creation.


Demand affects the potential for labor creation. But profits off past (and future) labor affects how quickly the economy actually reacts to that demand. That's particularly relevant right now where businesses aren't sure what their future profits will be from labor, thus are hesitant to invest in ventures which may require many years to earn a return off said labor. They're much more likely to put that money somewhere where they can earn some profit right now and is flexible enough that they can shift that money somewhere else later if they need to. Once you've spent the money on a new widget factory, you're kinda stuck with hiring enough people to make enough widgets to earn back the money you spent. And if something happens to upset your apple cart, you may go out of business as a result of that choice. You can't just move the money you spent somewhere else. You're stuck.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Dec 11 2012 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
You seem to be forgetting a key part of your equation. For you it's all about profits, more profits = more goodness. However, you need a broad base of people to buy your product. For the last 12 years or so, corporations have decided that their employees don't need raises. They are actively strangling the middle class. A large number of Wal Mart employees can't even survive without assistance.

That. Is. Wrong.

Maybe if those corporate big wigs took some serious pay cuts, and gave their employees better wages, things would start picking up.

I know, how can those poor poor CEO types survive on less than 18 million a year (what the Wal Mart CEO made last year)..

Until these corporations decide to fix things, we're screwed. No amount of tax breaks will make that happen.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CDT