Interesting read I found today that I thought I would share.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...tPpO_blog.html

 

100% correct. The only reason the unemployment rate dropped was because of people giving up. U6 is the real indicator and is how unemployment used to be calculated.

 

Ah, but Frank, I'm surprised that you missed the real reason the unemployment rate went down. The current administration (no names mentioned) needs to show progress on this front. Remember, there's an election next year!

 

Good point. And also the media is in Obama's back pocket. They're going to play offense for him time after time.


"Well, we got him elected."---Tom Brokaw, election night 1992.

 

Geez, I wonder what the unemployment rate will be up to in Obama's secoond term, because at this point it's looking like he's going to get another. I believe that we will then witness, in real time, the end of the republic as we've known it.

 

And what makes this so irritating is that the left keeps talking about how for to the right the right has gone. I mean when a relatively left leaning representative has to leave the party one election cycle after being the VP nominee, that is a serious step to the left.

Heck yesterday morning I see Obama made the claim that the free market doesn't work and that is why we had the recession. Uh, no we had the recession because of government meddling in the free market. My wife saw many of the problems and had to underwrite many loans that were bad loans from the start so her company could comply with government standards.

Recessions and depressions are the free market's way of telling producers that they are in over supply and getting rid of that over supply. So I guess in a way he is correct. But what are the options? Either have a recession/depression every few years and live with a mostly booming economy, or have a boom every few years and live with a mostly recession/depression economy. I'll take the mostly fun and a little pain, thank you.

 

If you only see the finished movement with everyone standing in one group and to the right of them one guy standing by himself, did the group move to the left, or did one guy move to the right ?
- The MSM ( due to the short attention span of the average voter ) can show the finished picture and say the one guy moved to the right, even though he stood still the entire time. I don't know who to thank for this action to be allowed to happen, the MSM or the average US voter. Which ever group has the accountability for this, it is going to be a huge issue come the next election for the administration and the 113th congress.

The short attention span voters will take this as what must have happened. Forget that free markets made the good years as well.
I would be curious to know how many voters that blame the GOP for allowing free markets to create the mess are now in, no longer live in their McMansion due to it being foreclosed. You know the one that they bought the house they could barely afford, refi;d 14 months later to pull out cash to buy a new car, and then again 14 months later to buy a boat or some other possession they could not afford.

It would be all recession/depression economy for the general population. Look at Russia all those years. Everyone did bad, excluding politicians.
North Korea even has this today. The general population is not allowed to be in the area the political party members live in, as it is all boom.

 

True, but you still have to account for countries like China that have a fairly decent economy under communism.

 

Very true.

China has the process of Freedom or Prosperity? You can't have both.
How many decades did they have neither ?
- I would say from about the time we left them high and dry in WW-II until the turn of the century.
This is new to them, and they are having the wage inflation issue and the China's China issue with India and other PacRim countries.

 

Amen. I have to agree with you there.

 

I keep having this nagging thought in the back of my head..

If things go as bad as they look to be, when the Health Care Law hits, why would companies keep W-2 employees ?

If they changed all W-2 employees to 1099 contractors, they could be under the limit for the rules of the Health Care law. This is if I am counting 1099 contractors correctly as non payroll employees ( the guy that takes care of the landscape at an office is not employed by the company they are not part of payroll ).

If the company sends a check for hours worked as a 1099 contractor to the "employees" they no longer have social Security filings or Medicare filings for them, they don't have benefits they need to provide, it is all on the employee.

This makes it nasty, as now the individual is responsible for both sides of social security & medicare ( SE tax ) as well as income tax in addition to having to get their own health care insurance ( it is a law in 2013 ).

If companies make this change, is there really any significant UE ?

If a plumber that works construction does not have a job 1 week, they are not unemployed, they just do not have a job at that time, they work for themselves, and are still employed by themselves.

Just a thought that I had after reading the slides from AT&T where they figured out they could eject the health care benefits for all employees, and pay the fine and be better off.
This is what started the waiver program for the Health Care Law ( these were issued by the dept of labor I think ).

So if this starts to happen, and the company cuts their contractors, they are not in the UE number, which looks better for the POTUS. Everyone is hurting worse, but UE rate is at 6%.
Given there is some time to convert everyone to 1099 contractor, and then the UE rolls have to get a new 1099 contract position to be pulled off the UE count, and theoretically never put back on it regardless of what happens.

Just an application to this nasty thought I have in the back of my mind, and the UE implications of it.

 

You're 100% correct SSCULLY. This is the end game of what people like Obama want. They want to force this country into a full-on "single payer" socialized healthcare system.

Obamacare is nothing more than placing an iron foot in the door.

 

I also agree, but very few see this coming. (Politicians aside that is.)

 

I never understood the UK to US comparison.

The hospitals and clinics here are owned by individual companies.
- You have some all in one companies like Humana but I think they are completely out of the clinic game, the hospitals were gone in the 90s. They bought Michael Reese Health Plan in Chicago, I am not sure if they keep the clinics from that, or got rid of them ??

If I am not mistaken, in the UK the doctors that work at hospitals are govt employees. The DHS articles talk as if they are all govt owned and employed by govt employees. This could be my misunderstanding on the topic.

If this is the case, in the metro area, I can only think of Cook County hospital as the only govt owned and operated hospital.
Not too sure if the surrounding counties have similar or not.

long preamble to the question.

If everyone goes to a single payer govt run insurance company like UE Ins, what is the drive for new clinics and hospitals to be opened ?
Everyone gets paid the same amount for medical care in a given area, no need to attract the best of the best from the best schools.
Just like Medicare, it does not matter if you paid 500,000.00 for your medical degree from Harvard and got a 4.0 or $300,000 from the medical school in PR and got a 2.0, it all pays the same.

This puts a crimp on the revenue generated by Humana and changes them to the secondary insurance policy writer like CAN has.

Just curious, I read articles on how booked Hospitals are today, and if this happens, is the govt going to be in a position to do anything about expanding the number built to meet the demand ?
This administration does not look to the private sector to do things like develop and fund alternative energy options, they have the departments push it through with loans that have less of a chance paying off than your original issue GM stock.
The private sector is not putting up all the money in alternative energy, as the ROI is not there, and even at the 50% level VCs are not wanting to go in too deep. This is based upon companies like Beacon Power, not Solyndra ( that was a setup, to a pay off for services rendered ).

If the system all pays the same, the ROI is not going to be there for private hospitals to be built, can the govt afford to step in and fund building 100s of hospitals & clinics ?
They can't build bridges correctly for a reasonable amount of money, what makes anyone think they can do better with clinics and hospitals ?

 

Speaking of alternative energy, has anybody seen Bloom Energy. They are using a fuel cell to generate electricity. Several have already been placed in service at large companies (that's where they are concentrating now). One the size of a loaf of bread can generate enough electricity to run an average sized house. I'd buy one in a heartbeat, if the price were right. The area I live is susceptible to extreme weather and the power lines go down a lot. Having the ability to generate my own electricity would be a huge advantage.