Good News? BLS Report 213K jobs added in June

Snow96 · 2018-07-07T11:46:02.161Z

It doesn’t necessarlily mean more kids home alone, more people working past retirement, and fewer people getting an educations.

I’ve stated there are people who don’t necessarily belong in the workforce. We have many two income families in the country becuase they “have to keep up with the jones’”. You know every family member with the latest 1,000 buck phone that comes out every year, have to have a car for every family member who can drive, big screen tv in multiple rooms, have the latest and greatest toys (boats, atv’s, campers).

If more people were like me – drive a car that’s 10 years old, motorcycle that’s 10 years old, atv that’s 20 years old, bought a camp trailer that’s 15 years old – all with no payments. My cell phone is an “older” phone (bought new, but it’s 3 or 4 generations behind) that was under 100 dollars. people wouldn’t need to have two income families.

Snow96 · 2018-07-07T11:47:42.534Z

You were on the old forum. Did you ever see me ONCE saying anything other than I’ve said in this thread. You know, that participation rates have been MUCH lower in the past. And that there are legitimate reason why some are not counted in the workforce?

Be honest now.

tnt · 2018-07-07T12:31:47.854Z

There are more americans who need to have two working parents just to pay the rent and put food on the table.

Snow96 · 2018-07-07T13:52:10.191Z

Didn’t say all family should be single income. Gave an example of a family that has luxuries they could do without. I know someone like that. Both Hubby and Wife work (both make more than me). Both drive brand new vehicles. Both get the latest phone every year. Take 2 or 3 vacations every year. Have all the latest little gadgets and such. Listened to Wifey fret one day about how they were going to pay an unexpected bill of $1,000. All I could do was shake my head and keep my mouth shut.

tnt · 2018-07-07T15:07:12.448Z

right - those types of families are the minority of dual income homes. And since they are both working, they are already propping up the participation rate.

What started this discussion was, why do you want a higher labor participation rate? Why do you want more americans to be working?

Snow96 · 2018-07-07T15:09:51.174Z

Get them off welfare. Have them fell better about themselves. Get them out of their homes doing something. Have them participating more in the economy.

Ones that are legitimatly not in the workforce . . . I’m not concerned about. Ones that have kind of dropped off the radar that could and should be working are the one’s that I want to see be able to get jobs.

tnt · 2018-07-07T16:15:49.668Z

That chart someone posted above - that shows labor participation of around 55% in the 50’s…why don’t we aim for that - less participation - wages such that one working parent can sustain a household. People retiring early enough to enjoy life.

Snow96 · 2018-07-07T16:36:57.129Z

I’m the one that posted the chart.

Idealy teh 55% participation rate in the 50’s would be wonderful – if for the same reasons. You had two parent households, and only the dad worked and the mom stayed home (don’t get all in a huff about what I just posted). If we had two parent family’s today where only one parent worked (husand or wife) and one stayed home and took care of the kids (husand or wife), society would probably be much better.

Won’t happen again. Society has changed too much and the two parent one earner family is pretty much gone. Two parent family’s are a far cry from what they used to be as well.

Wages today are still “livable” is you don’t to all the extra non necessaties I mentioned in an earlier post.

tnt · 2018-07-07T16:40:41.802Z

So then, join me in fighting for LOWER participation rates by working toward higher wages, workers rights and protections, policies that minimize income inequality…fight for universal health care and better education and the infrastructure, both legislative and physical, that makes single income households possible again.

Snow96 · 2018-07-07T17:34:01.553Z

Hope you didn’t hurt yourself with that kind of a stretch.

Higher wages - should be earned not mandated or required.
Workers rights – should only involve health and safety issues.
There should NOT be policies for income inequity. If a company thinks a person needs to be paid whellbarrow loads of money then so be it. If a person starts a company and keeps a percentage of the stock for himself so be it.
Healthcare - companies can sell policies nationwide. Set amount re-embursed to hospitals/doc. Companies can not charge US citizens/pharmacies/insurance company more than they charge to sell a drug in another country. If a person could have afford insurance, any bills may not be discharged in bankrupcy court.

I think you get the idea on your list

tnt · 2018-07-08T02:18:52.279Z

so then you are ok with the status quo, and are happy with high labor participation rates.

oh well…your kids will get to work longer for less. MAGA.

ImRightYoureWrong · 2018-07-08T02:37:20.053Z

Yes, praise the 1% lords

Tilly_jow · 2018-07-08T04:24:20.493Z

Snow96:

Workers rights – should only involve health and safety issues.

Sorry, but there’s a lot of your kind on the right that don’t want workers to even have those rights.

reflechissez · 2018-07-08T05:51:29.834Z

Snow96:

Healthcare - companies can sell policies nationwide.

They don’t want to. Guess why.

Vigilante · 2018-07-08T07:43:28.423Z

It was really only 106K because they were such crap jobs that they had to get 2 of them each to make ends meet.

biggestal99 · 2018-07-08T09:03:15.959Z

But we do need a minimum wage law, right?

Allan

Snow96 · 2018-07-08T11:18:08.439Z

Yes we do.

Not $15 an hour however.

biggestal99 · 2018-07-08T11:29:35.482Z

What wrong with 15?

Allan

Snow96 · 2018-07-08T11:31:27.347Z

essentially double what it is now. You would need to phase it in over a dozen years.

biggestal99 · 2018-07-08T11:34:05.271Z

7 is ridulous, 15 might be too high
How about 11. Phased in over 4 years.

Allam