Sign in to follow this  
Azazello1313

McJobs

Recommended Posts

Anyone want to talk about the striking teachers in Chicago, who earn an average salary of $75,000, without lifetime pension and healthcare benefits included. They rejected a 16% pay raise. Yes, you read that right. Did you see their rally? They spoke without coherence and without correct sentences. Those people should be fired and not allowed to teach anyone.

 

 

Whole thread about it here

 

No need to Hijack this one after your initial argument is resting on some very shaky ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment was not about a federal employee that has worked from the early 80's - and you know that. It was about the 200,000+ that Obama has added. They are mostly high salaried folk.

 

 

How do you know this? Seriously, do you have a break-out of their salaries? I've looked to try and verify the numbers, post 2011 they really don't exist and post 2010 the data is extremely bereft of details.

 

I would be more than happy to look at any data you have that supports your statements, but alas, I'm afraid that it is not readily available and what we have found does not support your theory.

 

On a side note, I would love to have substantial proof of what you claim, it would reinforce my bias against the current admin. But, I think yer chasing a red herring here.

 

Finally, you seem to not want to address the "fact" that most of these jobs were created in departments that the Republicans are fighting to keep fully funded at today's levels, therefore, the Republicans seemingly approve of these hirings... how do you square that with the rhetoric coming out of the right wing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But somehow its Obama's fault that both: (1) unemployment sucks; and (2) the federal government is simultaneously hiring *too* many people.

 

 

these two are not even remotely mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note with regard to the additional federal jobs under the Obama administration, it is quite interesting to note the idea that the Repubs are attacking him on the jobs added by this admin when seemingly a bulk of them are going to defense and national security. In most of the debate over spending has it not been the Republicans who are fighting to keep from having to cut these two budgets? If so, why would they complain about these jobs being created in departments that they feel need to continue to be funded to the extent that they are currently?

 

 

well, a few things. one, I'm not seeing where all the new jobs are in the defense department. your link didn't seem to indicate that. but in any case, you're right, at this point the number of federal employees is not really a strong argument against the obama economy. it was a slightly stronger argument before there was a hiring freeze in 2010, when the federal government was indeed adding jobs while the rest of the economy was shedding them like crazy. but even then it missed the real point, which concerns not the number of federal versus private employees, but:

1) federal spending as a share of GDP

2) the amount of power being given to bureaucrats to direct the economy

3) dirigism and favortism as massive amounts of federal spending are directed to croneys and politically favored factions

4) all of which results in inefficient market distortions, and a chilling long-term fiscal outlook

 

look at the stimulus bill, for example. to the extent it created jobs, it created ones that were dependent on federal largesse, but very little of that $800 billion or whatever went to the direct hire of federal employees. of all the things to criticize about that fubared endeavor, the number of direct federal employees doesn't even register.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment was not about a federal employee that has worked from the early 80's - and you know that. It was about the 200,000+ that Obama has added. They are mostly high salaried folk.

 

 

umm, my point was that no one hired SINCE the early 80s has had a particularly generous pension promised to them. that obviously includes anyone hired since obama came in.

 

where do you get your assertion that "they are mostly high salaried folk"? pulling it out of your a.. thin air, I take it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, a few things. one, I'm not seeing where all the new jobs are in the defense department. your link didn't seem to indicate that. but in any case, you're right, at this point the number of federal employees is not really a strong argument against the obama economy. it was a slightly stronger argument before there was a hiring freeze in 2010, when the federal government was indeed adding jobs while the rest of the economy was shedding them like crazy. but even then it missed the real point, which concerns not the number of federal versus private employees, but:

1) federal spending as a share of GDP

2) the amount of power being given to bureaucrats to direct the economy

3) dirigism and favortism as massive amounts of federal spending are directed to croneys and politically favored factions

4) all of which results in inefficient market distortions, and a chilling long-term fiscal outlook

 

look at the stimulus bill, for example. to the extent it created jobs, it created ones that were dependent on federal largesse, but very little of that $800 billion or whatever went to the direct hire of federal employees. of all the things to criticize about that fubared endeavor, the number of direct federal employees doesn't even register.

 

 

http://www.thefactfile.com/2012/01/23/the-size-of-the-federal-workforce-rapid-growth-for-some-stagnation-for-others/

 

Check out the graph in the middle of the page that shows which departments added jobs. You'll see that the Homeland Security, VA and Defense departments accounted for the bulk of these jobs.

 

I don't remember singling out the Def Dept, I thought I had stated that they growth was in these 3 departments, If I did, I misspoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these two are not even remotely mutually exclusive.

 

Either the federal government has a responsibility to create jobs (which they have, in the public sector) or its not the federal government's job to create jobs at all (in which case don't blame Obama for unemployment). You can't have it both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interracial, ghey secks doesn't play well in FL.

 

 

Even when one of them is a Republican :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either the federal government has a responsibility to create jobs (which they have, in the public sector) or its not the federal government's job to create jobs at all (in which case don't blame Obama for unemployment). You can't have it both ways.

 

 

Or it could be that the federal jobs are merely a by-product of carrying out the functions of government, NOT a "responsibility" of government at all. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even when one of them is a Republican :shrug:

 

 

Nope, Floridians don't like interracial, ghey secks, period.

 

Well, outside of Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/The Keys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interracial, ghey secks doesn't play well in FL.

 

 

Well, that's what the 2nd term looks like bizattches!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not endorsing their actions, just calling you out for being purposely or unwittingly misleading

 

 

I think she is purposely misleading, AND unwitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or it could be that the federal jobs are merely a by-product of carrying out the functions of government, NOT a "responsibility" of government at all. :shrug:

 

I'm not sure you fully grasped what I was aiming for.

 

Does the federal government have a responsibility to create jobs? If one feels the answer to that questions is "no" then one should not blame unemployment on the president. On the other hand, if one feels that unemployment is the fault of the federal government then its a bit disingenuous to criticize the federal government for actually hiring some people... especially if such hiring is byproduct of carrying out necessary governmental functions.

 

Lots of folks are mad at Obama because of unemployment. But I just don't understand that. Seems like our collective frustration is more naturally directed at the self-professed "job creators" for doing a shitty job in that regard, despite record corporate profits and the fact that the rich have never been richer.

Edited by yo mama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you fully grasped what I was aiming for.

 

Does the federal government have a responsibility to create jobs? If one feels the answer to that questions is "no" then one should not blame unemployment on the president. On the other hand, if one feels that unemployment is the fault of the federal government then its a bit disingenuous to criticize the federal government for actually hiring some people... especially if such hiring is byproduct of carrying out necessary governmental functions.

 

Lots of folks are mad at Obama because of unemployment. But I just don't understand that. Seems like our collective frustration is more naturally directed at the self-professed "job creators" for doing a shitty job in that regard, despite record corporate profits and the fact that the rich have never been richer.

 

 

You're likely to be told that its Obama's fault because he scares the job creators with his actions, they don't want to create jobs because they are afraid and uncertain. If only Romney or any other Republican were in charge they'd take it easy on businesses and BANG the jobs would be created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're likely to be told that its Obama's fault because he scares the job creators with his actions, they don't want to create jobs because they are afraid and uncertain. If only Romney or any other Republican were in charge they'd take it easy on businesses and BANG the jobs would be created.

 

 

Which is collectively the biggest crock of crap evah. Taxes are at record lows, profits are soaring becasue of sqeezing lower tier employees for more productivity with less pay and wages are stagnant or decreasing because of a larger labor pool.

 

Yep . . sure is scaaaary out there for "job creators".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either the federal government has a responsibility to create jobs (which they have, in the public sector) or its not the federal government's job to create jobs at all (in which case don't blame Obama for unemployment). You can't have it both ways.

 

 

the idea is that fiscal and regulatory policy can have significant impacts on the economy as a whole. in fact, that is the whole rationale for "stimulus" spending in the first place. when politicians sell their policies promising they will "create" millions of new jobs, I don't think they are talking about adding millions directly to the federal payroll. is that really what you think they mean? "Blaming Obama for unemployment", as you put it, is really just judging the performance of the economy against those very same promises used to sell his policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the idea is that fiscal and regulatory policy can have significant impacts on the economy as a whole. in fact, that is the whole rationale for "stimulus" spending in the first place. when politicians sell their policies promising they will "create" millions of new jobs, I don't think they are talking about adding millions directly to the federal payroll. is that really what you think they mean? "Blaming Obama for unemployment", as you put it, is really just judging the performance of the economy against those very same promises used to sell his policies.

 

I don't have a problem with how the Obama administration has run the country. Yes, the fed's policies obviously do have an impact on the economy but the ultimate responsibility for creating private sector jobs rests with the private sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with how the Obama administration has run the country.

 

 

well that certainly explains why you don't like to see his promises and predictions for his policies measured against reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well that certainly explains why you don't like to see his promises and predictions for his policies measured against reality.

 

No, I'm just a lot better off than I was four years ago so I have no reason to complain.

 

Regardless of what was or was not promised, by my account the president - while far from perfect - has done an adept job of navigating the country through some of the rockiest economic times the planet has seen in long while. I am also convinced that the average American would be worse off under current GOP leadership, which I view as largely detached from reality, and fixated on meaningless and divisive social issues.

Edited by yo mama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm just a lot better off than I was four years ago so I have no reason to complain.

 

Regardless of what was or was not promised, by my account the president - while far from perfect - has done an adept job of navigating the country through some of the rockiest economic times the planet has seen in long while. I am also convinced that the average American would be worse off under current GOP leadership, which I view as largely detached from reality, and fixated on meaningless and divisive social issues.

 

 

so, he fares well when you judge him against a nefarious strawman, and very poorly when you judge him against his own claims and promises. sums up the 2012 election pretty well, I suppose.

 

and speaking of meaningless, divisive social issues, did you see any of the conventions? if you did, I don't see how you could argue with a straight face that it is the GOP which is more fixated on divisive social issues. sandra fluck? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, he fares well when you judge him against a nefarious strawman, and very poorly when you judge him against his own claims and promises. sums up the 2012 election pretty well, I suppose.

 

and speaking of meaningless, divisive social issues, did you see any of the conventions? if you did, I don't see how you could argue with a straight face that it is the GOP which is more fixated on divisive social issues. sandra fluck? :lol:

 

I think Obama has done a decent job based solely on the merits of his performance. Not a perfect job. But certainly not "very poorly" by any standard.

 

The only reason you know the name Sandra Fluck is because "conservatives" called her a slut and a whore for having the audacity to use contraceptives. So, yeah, I believe the GOP is more fixated on divisive social issues than the democrats.

Edited by yo mama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm just a lot better off than I was four years ago so I have no reason to complain.

 

Regardless of what was or was not promised, by my account the president - while far from perfect - has done an adept job of navigating the country through some of the rockiest economic times the planet has seen in long while. I am also convinced that the average American would be worse off under current GOP leadership, which I view as largely detached from reality, and fixated on meaningless and divisive social issues.

 

 

Are you on the Federal dole? A retired worker with a lifetime pension? Please specifically enlighten us as to how you are better off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.