~97 percent of new US jobs are part-time [Report]

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,961
Reputation
4,416
Daps
89,048
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
Are you trully this idiotic of just trolling? :laff:
Do you even live in America?
:beli: Can you produce evidence of this fact? or are you just talking out of your ass?


:heh: I know you can't cause none exist. You have been fed that story, and its all you know... not your fault.
Capitalism is a system of economic mobility, where the people in the bottom 20% will not be the the same people in that bottom 20% 5 yrs from now.

What you are fed is just the numbers(the bottom 20-40%), but these numbers don't actually represent flesh and blood human beings, they represent a set income bracket that people move in and out of. With the vast majority of people moving upwards earning more money as they get older.
 

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,711
Reputation
555
Daps
22,613
Reppin
Arrakis
i know a solution to this, we should flood the labor pool by legalizing 11 million illegal aliens and bring in 30 million more over the next 10 years, im sure that will fix this issue
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,961
Reputation
4,416
Daps
89,048
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
Immigrants are not the problem. The social programs, that the immigrants qualify for and take advantage of are the problem. If they came to the U.S. and were not a burden to the tax payers(through government run programs), it wouldn't be an issue at all.

But instead, they come here, tax payers pay their rent(section 8/low income housing), pay for their food(foodstamps), Medical care(obamacare/medicaid) etc.




and to be fair the majority of immigrants have a better work ethic than most of today's youth. They are really an asset. :manny:



The "there isn't enough jobs for all of us" argument is a weak one since it isn't their fault the U.S. is hemorrhaging jobs. Cutting competition in the job market is just another "quick fix" that will do more damage than good in the long run.




:dwillhuh:My question is why do you see the immigrants as serious competition fam? You work in the fields?
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,961
Reputation
4,416
Daps
89,048
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
l6MXzJf.jpg
 

Just like bruddas

Couple shooters in the cut.
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
24,803
Reputation
4,166
Daps
51,661
How I see it, the only thing obama did wrong was giving them a better reason on why they cant make workers full time. Beforethat them muthafukka just didnt wanna do it to save money on benefits, but now its "oh its because of the black guy in house is forcing our hand.
 

Slystallion

Live to Strive
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
13,106
Reputation
-10,437
Daps
17,422
:beli: Can you produce evidence of this fact? or are you just talking out of your ass?

:heh: I know you can't cause none exist. You have been fed that story, and its all you know... not your fault.
Capitalism is a system of economic mobility, where the people in the bottom 20% will not be the the same people in that bottom 20% 5 yrs from now.

What you are fed is just the numbers(the bottom 20-40%), but these numbers don't actually represent flesh and blood human beings, they represent a set income bracket that people move in and out of. With the vast majority of people moving upwards earning more money as they get older.

ignore that dude he just responds with insults and archaic talking points when you hit him with facts he goes on an hours search to find some super biased article with the "facts" he's looking for

i nominate this guy for best new poster award
 

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
24,352
Reputation
3,848
Daps
107,204
Reppin
Detroit
:heh: I know you can't cause none exist. You have been fed that story, and its all you know... not your fault.
Capitalism is a system of economic mobility, where the people in the bottom 20% will not be the the same people in that bottom 20% 5 yrs from now.

What you are fed is just the numbers(the bottom 20-40%), but these numbers don't actually represent flesh and blood human beings, they represent a set income bracket that people move in and out of. With the vast majority of people moving upwards earning more money as they get older.

It's like you live in some sort of Libertarian alternate universe that has little in common with real life. :smh:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement “up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.” National Review, a conservative thought leader, wrote that “most Western European and English-speaking nations have higher rates of mobility.” Even Representative Paul D. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who argues that overall mobility remains high, recently wrote that “mobility from the very bottom up” is “where the United States lags behind.”

Liberal commentators have long emphasized class, but the attention on the right is largely new.
“It’s becoming conventional wisdom that the U.S. does not have as much mobility as most other advanced countries,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an economist at the Brookings Institution. “I don’t think you’ll find too many people who will argue with that.”

One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind. Another may be the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees. Since children generally follow their parents’ educational trajectory, that premium increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling.

At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.

Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes.

Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.


If you actually look at the economy instead of just repeating libertarian talking points, you'd realize that people countries you'd probably call "socialist" actually have much more economic mobility than the US. This isn't opinion, it's fact.
 

chkmeout

marshawn lynch handshake
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
8,519
Reputation
-591
Daps
23,446
Texans keep hyping up their state jobs creation (Perry is everywhere these days)...
yet they lead in nation in minimum wage jobs and people without health insurance :beli:

You realize that you can't make a living on minimum wage, right? Those folks still need/take food stamps.
Texas also leads the country in kids without health insurance :beli:

true.

low wage generally unskilled workers flooding texas....

schools pumping out idiots...

non progressive ideas...

thick good ol boy atmosphere ....




:beli:cmon nigguhs...



you can "survive" in Texas, but they really fukking with the ppl.
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,961
Reputation
4,416
Daps
89,048
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
It's like you live in some sort of Libertarian alternate universe that has little in common with real life. :smh:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0




If you actually look at the economy instead of just repeating libertarian talking points, you'd realize that people countries you'd probably call "socialist" actually have much more economic mobility than the US. This isn't opinion, it's fact.
I was going to explain everything that is wrong with this study, but a quick skim over the article tells me you didn't read the whole thing.

If you did read the whole thing and just said "f:ck it I'm posting this as a factual counter argument anyway" :salute: but there isn't much for us to discuss...



Let me give you some sound economic(and social) advice. Scrutinize everything...literally everything. Not just the things you disagree with, but the things you believe to be true.

If they are factual, the will stand up to the scrutiny.


Applying that to the part of the article you chose to post, we see that this is based off of the work of one man, not named, who doesn't even take the time to breakdown what these income brackets are... He gives you percentages of incomes... What income? What are we talking about? The bottom 42%? What's that? People making a billion, or just a million? None of this is explained(for obvious reasons). The "comparable nations" aren't even named:heh:

You know why? Cause he doesn't have to. It's what you want the case to be and you will readily accept his study as a fact as long as it coincides with your preconceived notions.
 

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
24,352
Reputation
3,848
Daps
107,204
Reppin
Detroit
I was going to explain everything that is wrong with this study, but a quick skim over the article tells me you didn't read the whole thing.

If you did read the whole thing and just said "f:ck it I'm posting this as a factual counter argument anyway" :salute: but there isn't much for us to discuss...

Let me give you some sound economic(and social) advice. Scrutinize everything...literally everything. Not just the things you disagree with, but the things you believe to be true.

If they are factual, the will stand up to the scrutiny.

This has nothing to do with anything and is a deflection. :rudy:


Applying that to the part of the article you chose to post, we see that this is based off of the work of one man, not named, who doesn't even take the time to breakdown what these income brackets are... He gives you percentages of incomes... What income? What are we talking about? The bottom 42%? What's that? People making a billion, or just a million? None of this is explained(for obvious reasons). The "comparable nations" aren't even named:heh:

You know why? Cause he doesn't have to. It's what you want the case to be and you will readily accept his study as a fact as long as it coincides with your preconceived notions.

So basically, since you have no actual counterargument you're just casting doubt on the legitimacy of the study. Like the NY Times doesn't check their sources.:aicmon:

Pretty much EVERY economist agrees that economic mobility is lower in the US than many other developed countries. Even right-wingers are admitting as much these days. Here's another source that lists specific countries, though I wouldn’t be surprised if you accuse that one of being biased or something too.

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP_InternationalComparisons_ChapterIII.pdf

economic%20mobility%20us%20europe.JPG



Another: http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

snapshot-mobility.png.608


The relationship between father-son earnings is tighter in the United States than in most peer OECD countries, meaning U.S. mobility is among the lowest of major industrialized economies. The relatively low correlations between father-son earnings in Scandinavian countries provide a stark contradiction to the conventional wisdom. An elasticity of 0.47 found in the United States offers much less likelihood of moving up than an elasticity of 0.18 or less, as characterizes Finland, Norway, and Denmark.


EPI is non-partisian, so miss me with the bias stuff, please.
 
Top