Unemployment Map of Doom...

The sad thing is those employed are getting those 32 hour jobs so the employer can skip out on benefits. Employment in America is starting to basically mean "two part time jobs."
 
Green acres is the place to be
Farm living is the life for me
Land spreading out,
so far and wide
Keep Manhattan,
just give me that countryside.
 
On the bright side, unemployment is decreasing in the North Slope of Alaska.

And Slope County, North Dakota, for that matter.

I'm sensing a theme here.
 
Nice colors, the spreading black death...

I'm in the nice remaining red spot in the middle of PA, lol.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/200...omy-101-Unemployment-by-the-Numbers.html?_r=2

I saw this. It is almost good news.[/QUOTE]

Basically, it's damn near impossible to get hired if you've been out of work for a long time. Employers see it as a warning sign even if you say no one was hiring because we all know some people were hiring.

From experience, employers would rather have you doing anything even if it was a minimum wage job at a burger joint or clothing store.
 
[quote name='depascal22']

From experience, employers would rather have you doing anything even if it was a minimum wage job at a burger joint or clothing store.[/QUOTE]

That's very true.

Or, what I found works, just say you've been a 'consultant'....
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's very true.

Or, what I found works, just say you've been a 'consultant'....[/QUOTE]

I sold stuff on eBay during the last 7 months I was unemployed.
 
need a job? apparently go to Nebraska...

I love the inverse relationship between giving "corporate america" a crushing set of rules & taxes and then complaining that people aren't getting enough job opportunity. Not to be all Gordon Gekko here, but in terms of large corporations, greed is indeed good. If a business gets to keep more of its money, it tends to want to make more of its own money. Business therefore invests in itself to create more, which seeds opportunity since a businees needs more people to produce/market/ship/sell/service its product.
 
Yeah, but what people here talk about in terms of regulating business are things like:

Not having such high executive salaries, which leaves more money for more positions at lower levels.

Regulations on how much debt (especially toxic assets, credit default swaps etc.) a company can have relative to their cash reserveres to prevent companies from having to layoff employees, or completely going under and taking thousands of jobs with them.

Greed isn't good when it hurts the workers. It's not good when executives make huge salaries and bonuses while lower levels are getting laid off and no raises. It's not good when greed drives companies to take risks that result in layoffs and terminations.

They key is finding the balance of regulations that prevent those things from happening as often, while still allowing companies to grow and expand and hire more people.
 
Gordon Gekko's philosophy is horse shit. Companies today just want to keep the money. They figured out it's cheaper to just hire two parttime workers instead of one fulltime worker. And it's cheaper to offer buyouts for the people with seniority so you can hire in newbies at the bottom of the pay scale. Don't offer enough hours to be required to give benefits. Give your executives $10,000 raises and your blue collar workforce $0.10 raises. Greed is not good. fuck Gordon Gecko.
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry']Gordon Gekko's philosophy is horse shit. Companies today just want to keep the money. They figured out it's cheaper to just hire two parttime workers instead of one fulltime worker. And it's cheaper to offer buyouts for the people with seniority so you can hire in newbies at the bottom of the pay scale. Don't offer enough hours to be required to give benefits. Give your executives $10,000 raises and your blue collar workforce $0.10 raises. Greed is not good. fuck Gordon Gecko.[/QUOTE]

geico-gecko-1.jpg


fuck you and your inferior cereal. I'm trying to save people money on car insurance.
 
Here's something I'd like to throw out there and see what kind of support it gets...

Let's have some tax cuts. But not your normal tax cuts.

You know all those various taxes payed in by employers for their employees? Let's get rid of those, even for a limited time, as a type of stimulus.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking... just getting rid of those taxes won't do anything - the mega corporations will just keep the money and give the executives a higher bonus.

How's this - the employer will still pay in the tax, like normal. However, at the end of the quarter, the Federal Government can cut a check to each employee, refunding them each their part of the employer's taxes.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Here's something I'd like to throw out there and see what kind of support it gets...

Let's have some tax cuts. But not your normal tax cuts.

You know all those various taxes payed in by employers for their employees? Let's get rid of those, even for a limited time, as a type of stimulus.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking... just getting rid of those taxes won't do anything - the mega corporations will just keep the money and give the executives a higher bonus.

How's this - the employer will still pay in the tax, like normal. However, at the end of the quarter, the Federal Government can cut a check to each employee, refunding them each their part of the employer's taxes.[/QUOTE]

Did you just make a suggestion that would create more beauracracy? You've been railing against health care reform FOR THE SAME EXACT REASON. You're turning out to be an exceptional hypocrite.

I'd have no problem with it but the average American would just blow it on plasma TVs, weed, and Bud Light. The rest they'd blow by going out to crappy chain restaurants and Wal-Mart.

So you'd just be giving stimulus from the government to the biggest corporations in America. Whoops, there's another thing you've been railing against for the last few months.

Also, the richest would get the most money in this plan. Payroll tax is based on percentages just like anything else. You'd be giving larger sums of money to people that don't need the extra cash as much as the bottom 20% of the country. You think that money is going to charity? Shit. You just made Lexus and Louis Vuitton very happy with this plan.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Did you just make a suggestion that would create more beauracracy? You've been railing against health care reform FOR THE SAME EXACT REASON. You're turning out to be an exceptional hypocrite.[/quote]

Well, I'd rather just cut payroll taxes and let the employers give the money to employees, but I'm sure too many people would rally against that under the claims that the employers would just pocket the money.

The government cuts millions of checks every day. I don't think they'd need a whole new department to cut some more.

[quote name='depascal22']I'd have no problem with it but the average American would just blow it on plasma TVs, weed, and Bud Light. The rest they'd blow by going out to crappy chain restaurants and Wal-Mart. [/quote]

Would you prefer the money be spent on killing Iraqi terrorists or given to to big to fail banks?

[quote name='depascal22']So you'd just be giving stimulus from the government to the biggest corporations in America. Whoops, there's another thing you've been railing against for the last few months. [/quote]

No, I'd be giving money back to those who have earned it. What those people choose to do with it (Personally, I'd quickly knock out the last of my credit card debt, stack a few more layers on my emergency fund, then start paying off the house faster) is up to them.

[quote name='depascal22']Also, the richest would get the most money in this plan. Payroll tax is based on percentages just like anything else. You'd be giving larger sums of money to people that don't need the extra cash as much as the bottom 20% of the country. You think that money is going to charity? Shit. You just made Lexus and Louis Vuitton very happy with this plan.[/QUOTE]

Oh, the rich don't pay taxes anyway - y'all have opened my eyes to the fact that they just hide all their money offshore anyway.

Let's not shape policy around the upper 1% - let's take care of the rest of us 99% folks.

That's not to say we can't reach an accord with this idea. How about, no payroll taxes on the first $250,000/employee/year?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Now go run for Congress on that platform, Bob. Anything to get you off this forum.[/QUOTE]

You know there's an ignore feature if I annoy you that much, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top