Where is the US economy headed?

@BillRM,

You might want to rethink that Bill. During the Korean war we learned that being out numbered 10 to 1 was a problem when the Allied forces were overrun by the Chinese forces. But I agree that they will not start a war over finances.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

During the Korean war we learned that being out numbered 10 to 1 was a problem when the Allied forces were overrun by the Chinese forces.

Sorry first how are they going to get those numbers across the world as we do not have a common border with them.

If Germans could not get their troops across the few miles of the channel in the face of the Royal naval and the English air forces how in the hell are you going to move millions of troops over thousands of miles of ocean against the most powerful naval force that the world had even seen?

Second our current technology give us total control of the air and our smart weapons allow us to destroy any target at will.

You can not move troops or even keep them supply in place when the other side rule the sky.

If the North Korea go south for example I would assume we will fall back and just destroy all the infrastructure behind them that allow them to support a force in the field.

Without resupply they will either need to surrender or die for their beloved leader for all the million plus troops.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Second our current technology give us total control of the air and our smart weapons allow us to destroy any target at well.

Surly we may be more advanced than others but are you certain that people that we think are less advanced than us could not deliver 10 nuclear weapons upon our own soil?

Do you think that there may be others who are more advanced than yourself and even though you had a 100 nuclear weapons that they would be unable to prevent you from delivering ten?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

but are you certain that people that we think are less advanced than us could not deliver 10 nuclear weapons upon our own soil?

Do you think that there may be others who are more advanced than yourself and even though you had a 100 nuclear weapons that they would be unable to prevent you from delivering ten?

Yes, of course if China for example wished to commit suicide as a nation and as a people they could kill a few millions Americans.

If North Korea is willing to trade it nationhood in order to killed a few thousand or even tens thousands of Americans by placing a small nuclear device on a ship and sailing it into one of our harbors they have a chance of doing so.

footnote a nuclear device in terms of a ship in our harbor is the hard way of doing harm as with the right or wrong type of cargo in it holds a freighter can be blown up with kilotons of TNT force with no need for a nuclear device and it in fact that had happen in our history by accident.

0 Replies

Obamanomics = killing the U.S. economy slowly, but surely.

U.S. employers added just 88,000 jobs in March, the fewest in
nine months and a sharp retreat after a period of strong hiring.

1 Reply

How many American citizens have stopped looking for work since Obama took office?

Why is it that Obamanomics hurts black Americans more than any other group?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

And you kept telling us the sequester wasn't going to make a difference Spurt.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parasite, we all knew Obama was going to make it hurt the people.
Everything he has done and plans to do is intended to hurt the people.

The difference Obama's sequester has made is that it has
shined a bright light on liberalism and all of it's failures.

0 Replies

The BLS is out today with the employment report for March. It was not good. I would argue though that it really was not awful.
> The "official" unemployment rate (U-3) came in at 7.6% which was down a bit. I wouldn't read anything into that at all.
> Underemployment (U-6) was unchanged and there were no major changes by age, race etc.
> Net new jobs came in at 88,000, which was about 1/2 what was expected by economists. That got some ink but the new jobs for January and February were revised upward. For the first quarter the number of new jobs increased albeit at a lackluster rate as the recovery slowly continues.
> Much was made of the fact that 500,000 people left the work force in March. I think, though, that fully 1/3rd was due to the fact that a lot of older folks are retiring and the number of people entering the job market is not keeping pace, That will continue for several more years. (Expansion needed on that point.)
> Jobs in the retail sector showed declines. Sequestration is blamed as well as doubts about Obamacare. I consider those bogus. Retail sales have been remarkably stable despite the expiration of the payroll tax breaks in January.
The problem in retailing remains that it was overbuilt in the last decade or two. (Expansion on that point is needed also, but we've talked about changes in retailing before.)
Anyway, that is my start on the employment numbers.

3 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Unemployment rates are far greater than that John if you count in those who don't do any useful work.

1 Reply

@spendius,

And in the meantime, the next cut will hit social security benefits and medicare payments to health care providers.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

How many American citizens have stopped looking for work since Obama took office?

They stopped looking because they went on SS disability claiming they were suffering from mental health issues.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

> Much was made of the fact that 500,000 people left the work force in March. I think, though, that fully 1/3rd was due to the fact that a lot of older folks are retiring and the number of people entering the job market is not keeping pace, That will continue for several more years. (Expansion needed on that point.)

doubtful

http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/4/4/saupload_LFPR-growth-by-age-since-1995_thumb1.png

the old have been working more and everyone else less

more recent data here but I cant get the image to post

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/employment-data-has-some-scary-demographic-trends.html/?ref=RAT

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/2/9/1085733-13288129541538267-Robert-Brusca_origin.jpg

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

> Jobs in the retail sector showed declines. Sequestration is blamed as well as doubts about Obamacare. I consider those bogus. Retail sales have been remarkably stable despite the expiration of the payroll tax breaks in January.
The problem in retailing remains that it was overbuilt in the last decade or two. (Expansion on that point is needed also, but we've talked about changes in retailing before.)
Anyway, that is my start on the employment numbers.

From my own very narrow perspective, it looks like the BORGs have decided they can move about the same amount of merchandise with far fewer employees. Also, for some purchases, more people are going to Amazon and other online retailers. We're just tired of inadquate and uninformed clerks, poorly organized stores, and a selection of merchandise determined by dollars per square foot formulas.

1 Reply

@roger,

I knew that there are a lot of stores with few people because sales will not support them, but I was reading that walmart has slashed their labor in recent years even though sales are fine. I know I don't go anymore because the checkout lines are so long, but I am told that unstocked shelves are now routine.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye: Thank you for replying.
I am sticking with my contention about the overall size of the workforce stagnating over the past decade IN PART because of the baby boomers retiring in greater numbers than they are being replaced. I realize, and acknowledged, that there are other factors in play. Namely the effects of the recession and how many employers are trying to downsize by reducing their headcounts. Hence the parenthetic comment about the need for elaboration.
I goggled in U.S. Workforce Size. I searched further under U.S. Labor Force Size and scrolled down to a Post article entitled The Incredible Shrinking Labor Force from a year ago. Believe it or not, I found that article after I posted here!
I am lousy at linking articles. Sorry.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Or maybe the others are right that the official workforce is shrinking because our economy can not employ enough people, and our government refuses to count those who no longer put in three job applications a week as members of the workforce. We sbould only ignore those who don't want work, but we ignore those who figure out that they will never get a job and thus stop going through the soul killing wasted energy of looking.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Another point.....the demographics will eventally cut the labor force as the boomers retire, but the system does not care because fewer workers are needed all the time in order to run the economy. The governments problem of not having enough young workers to tax in order to pay what was promised to the boomers in their old age Is irrelevant to the capitalists.

0 Replies

I was playing around with census numbers from 2010:
306 million = total population (315 mil in 2013)
-83 million = aged 19 & under
-40 million = aged 65 & over
= 183 million = aged 20-64
We will call that number the Working Aged Population.

From that we deduct active duty military, those incarcerated, stay-at-home-by-choice moms/dads, full-time students, fully disabled and "others" = Not In The Work Force. I put that number at 23 million. I welcome your better guess.
183 million - 23 million = 160 million in our Work Force as the government defines it; that is, employed or actively seeking employment. Lo and behold, the "actual" number is estimated at closer to 155 million as of 3/2013.
Can we continue the discussion with those or different numbers?

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

A record 7.2 million Americans age 65 and older are working — double the number 15 years ago — partly because many older Americans love to work and partly because many feel too financially squeezed to retire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/business/retirementspecial/for-many-reasons-older-americans-remain-at-work.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Quote:

For much of the past 60 years, the proportion of 16-to-19-year-olds who held jobs — either part or full time — was around 40%. In fact, in 2000 it was a relatively high 45%. In all, nearly 7.3 million teens were getting a regular paycheck.

Then something changed. Suddenly teens were being expelled from the workforce. It started during the pullback that followed the bursting of the tech bubble, but it never really stopped, not even during the housing- and finance-fueled expansion of the mid-2000s. From 2000 to early 2008, overall employment rose by about 10 million jobs. Teen employment headed in the other direction. By early 2008, teen employment had dropped by more than 1.5

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1952331,00.html#ixzz2PejZCOkH

7.2 million over 65 working
6 million teens working
your 160 million number
-------------------------
173.2 workers ready to work

where sir are the 20 million missing workers?

and for damn sure you dont want to talk about how many full time equivalent jobs this economy supplies

and living wage full time equivalent jobs??? not on your life!

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know