Whatever happened to that Hockey stick chart?

[Diogenes]

.
.
.

Oh, wait! Here it is!
.
.




http://www.businessinsider.com/details- ... ort-2011-7


Democrats are the handmaiden of disaster.

[krenshala]

OK, that makes me wonder what a comparison graph between that and temperature would show.

[IntLibber]

OK, that makes me wonder what a comparison graph between that and temperature would show.

A better comparison is to compare that jobs chart to increases in carbon regulation and taxation, increases in regulation of industrial development of any kind in the US. This is the sort of hockey stick you get when you try to fix another hockey stick (even if the first one is fake).

[ScottL]

I'd check your dates there champ, most of the upward trending of the graphs occur during Republican presidencies, although of course the last one, which didn't actually start in 2008, but a bit before. The problem with these graphs is that obviously don't take into consideration the previous trends. It could be claimed that Clinton road the windows of Bush Sr. or that Clinton turned the economy around for the good.

In the context of Obama for instance, we all know ~6 months before the start of his presidency, several major financial firms went bottom up and the trend from that point is likely to increase the unemployment percentage. That 6 month period was a boulder just starting its trip down the mountain...

[Scupperer]

I'd say the chart merely reflects the changing government policy of length of unemployment benefits, as when the benefits expire or people give up looking, those people are no longer counted. What's it: 99 weeks of eligibility now?

More telling is this graph: http://www.businessinsider.com/details- ... -surging-5. Add 26,000 (baseline of 60,000) to the official unemployment numbers.

[KitemanSA]

Make that 26,000,000 and 60,000,000. The chart was in "k-persons"

[Diogenes]

I'd check your dates there champ, most of the upward trending of the graphs occur during Republican presidencies, although of course the last one, which didn't actually start in 2008, but a bit before. The problem with these graphs is that obviously don't take into consideration the previous trends. It could be claimed that Clinton road the windows of Bush Sr. or that Clinton turned the economy around for the good.

In the context of Obama for instance, we all know ~6 months before the start of his presidency, several major financial firms went bottom up and the trend from that point is likely to increase the unemployment percentage. That 6 month period was a boulder just starting its trip down the mountain...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

[ScottL]

The music was entertaining, the conspiracy theory of being "banned from the internet" was most amusing. If all of this were the case and conservatives understood this, why from 2000-2004 did they do nothing about it? The Republicans were unopposed for 4 years and all we got out of it were 2 wars that cost a lot of money and a glaring economic trend downwards that everyone was calling since 2001 at least. You could chalk it up to one bad Republican president of course, there are bad ones on both sides.

My concerns are with low-income families without the knowledge, opportunity, or ability to succeed. Many of these families are hardworking people and they just don't have a voice within the political arena. As Americans how can we smugly sit by and dictate to the world how they should care for their people when we don't care for our own.

Anecdotal evidence aside, I would hope you would understand the concerns of that 9.2% of unemployed who see suggested cuts to unemployment and social welfare programs, many of which would love a job and to provide.

[Diogenes]

The music was entertaining, the conspiracy theory of being "banned from the internet" was most amusing.

It actually was. YouTube kept pulling the video. People kept posting it back. What you have seen isn't the original, it's just the best reproduction of it that I could find. The original was much better. It was a lot shorter, and they played much better music. ("Burning down the house", and other rock and roll)

If all of this were the case and conservatives understood this, why from 2000-2004 did they do nothing about it? The Republicans were unopposed for 4 years and all we got out of it were 2 wars that cost a lot of money and a glaring economic trend downwards that everyone was calling since 2001 at least. You could chalk it up to one bad Republican president of course, there are bad ones on both sides.

There are idiots and opportunists on my side too! They paid lip service to the idea, but never tried very hard.

My concerns are with low-income families without the knowledge, opportunity, or ability to succeed. Many of these families are hardworking people and they just don't have a voice within the political arena. As Americans how can we smugly sit by and dictate to the world how they should care for their people when we don't care for our own.

Anecdotal evidence aside, I would hope you would understand the concerns of that 9.2% of unemployed who see suggested cuts to unemployment and social welfare programs, many of which would love a job and to provide.

I hear you brother! I am quite well acquainted with low income conditions, and I am quick to help people in need. However, you can't help people by giving them stuff. I have learned that lesson over and over again. Unfortunately, I can't always seem to remember it, because much of the time I end up helping people by giving them stuff.

Welfare needs to be reformed. It is too comfortable of a lifestyle for some. Minimum wage laws need to be eliminated. All they do is chop off the bottom rung of the employment ladder. With the coming economic storm, people will be lucky if they can get work at ANY wage.

The approaching storm has been a long time brewing, and unless the nation takes steps to steer around it, I fear it will sink us. It may already be too late.

[ScottL]

Remember it was during Clinton's era that time-limits of welfare were first implemented. Now Michigan has a 4 year time-limit in which if you're able-bodied, will need to find a job. Of course many of these people at minimum wage which is grossly low will struggle. Perhaps reform should be in the form of supplementing their income or offering education training in a field of their choosing.

[ladajo]

Is that cumulative or does it reset each time you "find" a job and "go to work"? As I recall, that is the big loophole, folks go back to work for the minimum time possible, then "loose the job" and return to maximum duration un-employment. As I also recall, in some places they earn more doing this than actually working.

[ScottL]

There should be some regulation as to eligibility. There are always people trying to best the system, but I think in general the majority are just looking to get by until they find a full time job again. As I understand it though, unemployment only pays out a percentage of what you previously made, so it requries you getting a rather well paid job for that minimum time.

[seedload]

My concerns are with low-income families without the knowledge, opportunity, or ability to succeed.

Perhaps reform should be in the form of supplementing their income or offering education training in a field of their choosing.

The unemployed don't lack knowledge or ability. At least half of them were previously employed. The problem isn't that they need to be re-educated. The problem is that there are no jobs. Re-education doesn't make jobs except for a few more unnecessary government ones.

I find it odd that you talk about people as if they have no 'knowledge' or 'ability' and that they can't educate themselves. Most people, even low-income people, are capable of a lot more than you give them credit for.

And Republicans are supposed to be the snooty ones?

As long as we continue to think of this as one big social project, where government is going to decide what people should be re-educated to do, and government is going to decide what we should make (windmills, electric cars, etc) and government is going to decide who's income to take and who's to supplement, we are screwed.

I prefer to think that people can be responsible for themselves and are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, even in a time of personal crisis.

Government tinkerers are not the answer.

Just my two cents.

There should be some regulation as to eligibility.

More government tinkerers.

[ScottL]

seedload, I never stated that the government should tell them what to do, nor did I suggest that those on unemployment need re-education or further training. What I said was those on welfare might need more options in the way of education to allow them to become more productive. This is the equivalent of offering to teach them how to fish if they don't have a method for catching fish already.

As for my regulation of eligibility, what suggestion would you make? That they simply cut unemployment? That's one of those things the conservative base is definitely considering. If there are no jobs and you cut unemployment funding, you now have 9.2% more homeless.

[Diogenes]

Remember it was during Clinton's era that time-limits of welfare were first implemented.

That is absolutely correct. However to associate the idea with Clinton is to give the Rooster credit for the Sunrise. Welfare reform came in the second half of his term after he was shell shocked from the massive bloodletting of his party in the midterm elections because of his previous hard leftward swing. Being a pragmatist first, Clinton undertook a campaign of moving right and taking credit for ideas he had previously derided. Welfare reform was VERY UNPOPULAR among his constituency, but what were THEY going to do ? Vote Republican? HA!

After his mid-term election shellacking, my side noticed that Clinton was stealing many of our ideas faster than we could propose them. Dick Morris was his adviser (That D@mned turncoat Republican.) and he helped Clinton respond to the political wind shift in a timely fashion.

Now Michigan has a 4 year time-limit in which if you're able-bodied, will need to find a job. Of course many of these people at minimum wage which is grossly low will struggle. Perhaps reform should be in the form of supplementing their income or offering education training in a field of their choosing.

Minimum wage is not sufficient to support a family, nor should anyone attempt to do so with a minimum wage job. Most minimum wage jobs are useful only for entry into the jobs marketplace. Until people have some training and a work record indicating they are responsible and trustworthy, people have no interest in hiring them at higher rates of pay. For some, even minimum wage is too high. The bottom line is, if the employee can't make excess money for the employer, the employer has no interest in providing a job. The bottom line is always "What's in it for me?"

A non-profit business is usually a charity, or not in business for very long. If minimum wage were eliminated, employees could be hired for jobs that are otherwise not worth doing. These jobs should not be regarded as careers, but only as a means of getting into the work force.

Teenage unemployment is a serious problem right now. (20% I believe.) Were it possible to hire people at $2.50 an hour, Jobs would come available, and teenagers would start making SOME money, but more importantly they would get their foot in the door along with some employment experience.

It is only the result of government interfering with the natural market that causes the artificial problem we are dealing with now.