No, it has nothing to do with Obama or Congress. Our capitalist masters don't want full employment because a) the world economy is in shambles and it's a bad time to invest (the US can't do anything about what goes on in Europe or Japan), b) full employment means MASSIVELY increased worker bargaining power, c) a long stagnation period like this means they can slash wages, benefits, attack unions and move to privatize and undermine public programs.

Also, private companies control the government and society. Duh.

Have you ever had a job? You attribute much more intelligence to corporations than they warrant and private companies do not control the government and society.

Our system now is a mish-mash of both government and corporate deal-making. Big companies like the fed keeping its peddle on fake dollars. They like "too big to fail." They likes rent seeking. They like barriers to entry being so high, due to stupid regulations, that small companies have a difficult time penetrating the market.

Since we are controlled by our corporate overlords, who presumably are in cahoots with each other, why can't they "do anything about what goes on in Europe or Japan"? They control what goes on here, they should be able to control what goes on over there too, no? If not, why not?

Why would our capitalist overlords want prolonged stagnation? That enables people to attack capitalism (which is not what we now have) for its "faults" and plan for more and more government, kind of like what you are doing. Health care, increased unemployment benefits, increases in SNAP allocations, etc. have all occurred during this stagnation. I see no cutting or undermining, except for maybe the fact that some (few) people have come to the realization that our social safety net is a fraud peddled by years of politicians pushing fake crap down our throats with no consequences whatsoever.

Do you wish we all lived in the 1950s where we could push a drill bit into a piece of a car over-and-over for 8 hours a day for 30 years and retire? No thinking whatsoever but sticking it to the man? Should we all be equal? Doctors get the same benefits that the drill bit assembly-line worker gets? A democratically elected wage and benefit board could make calculations for all laborers and make things much more egalitarian. That would be great.

Yes.



Not really. It's pure class interest.



LOL. Don't make me laugh. Where's a ton of that legislation coming from in state legislatures other than corporate think tanks?



Duh. It's been this way since industrialism took over, and capitalism tends towards monopoly and concentration.



They aren't gods and Japanese and European companies and banks have their own interests. European capital especially is glad to use the recession as a sticking point to attack labor and the social safety net, because they've been meaning to do it for thirty years. Like Margaret Thatcher used to say, there is no alternative. You could probably stop the recession tomorrow if there was a private debt jubilee, which would clear out a lot of dead capital, but...



LOL what? Actually no, cutting wages and labor power makes people *less* likely to confront their bosses. Strikes happen most during times of prosperity and high employment. Health care "reform" is a health insurance cartel life extension policy with a patina of reform. Kalecki's Political Aspects Of Full Employment turned out to be prophetic.

We don't have capitalism? Let me guess, it's "crony capitalism"? Same thing. Capitalism was never defined as some Randian or libertarian ancap wankfest. It was always defined to describe the actually existing world economic system.

The "I want more government" thing is a strawman argument anyway. It's not like government is an independent social force. Who controls society itself is important. I don't particularly care about government.



It's happening mainly on the city and state level, though there's been minicuts from stuff like the sequester. Public sector jobs have been cut to the bone too.



Democratically-elected management and ownership would be an improvement. At least the 50s had consistently rising wages and compensation, not four decades of people eating it. Maybe less people would feel the need to shoot up the workplace. Ever notice how rarely that happened before the 80s?

FYI, so many companies are doing everything that they can to get out of obamacare, that in the future, it will have an effect on lots of jobs. Maybe not as a total %, but it is big enough that I bet it is being discussed at every company, on what to do and do we want to make changes.

Interestingly, our CEO, at out company's last all-hands meeting, commented that "your healthcare will not be going away or be curtailed, contrary to what some talking heads are trying to scare you into believing." Take that for what little it is worth.

Major Problem is when the recession occured companies fired a lot of people to lower costs.

They then realized people are more desperate and willing to work more for less.

Meaning where there was 10 people in a department, 8 people are doing the same amount of work as before.

That is the reason why many jobs have not been created.

Many companies have been able to make a lot of changes that would have in normal times caused employees to threaten to leave a company.

Now for every person in a office desk there are 1000 to take his place

Right. So why would companies want to change that as long as the world economy looks risky? They like having a terrified labor force. Less likely to get uppity.

Isn't that 63.3% number simply a result of the fact that the babyboomers have just started to go for retirement? Seems pretty obvious to me. That's why usually we talk of unemployment numbers of the people who are in the working age, not the employment numbers of the overall population.

The number is going to grow, because more babyboomers are going for retirement. It's unfortunate that the birth rates in the last 65 years are skewed, but that's just how it is.

(That's also why you need immigrants to balance the economy)

Did you know: The birthrate right now is the lowest it's ever been.

No those are lame excuses to point out a clear problem that many Americans on the lower end will no longer find work.

I am sorry but a lot other nations have far older populations have a much higher employment rate.

Canada, and the Northern European countries are examples.

This is a clear case of many people dropping out of working and having no choice but to either live off a family member or on the govt.
Add in the other examples of lower birth rates and more people retiring.

Nonetheless a lower employment rate spells a lot of trouble for the US govt as more and more people need govt programs and there are fewer and fewer tax payers.

wah wah

Here's the problems that I see as far as employment growth. My company is expanding and always looking to hire people. If you have relevant experience, and/or the right personality, you will get a shot. Then we give you a timed test to see if you can do this kind of job and/or are smart enough to pick it up quickly. Most people fail For example, a total of 3 sections of the test (about 25%) has to do with basic math (a few fractions, +-X /) and/or problem solving, important in business. I gave 5 tests yesterday. The combined scores of those 3 sections on the tests for each person were 69%, 66%, 40%, and two 23%'s. The combined score across all 5 tests for just the problem solving was 24%. That's pathetic. People either can't do math, can't handle timed pressure, or both. They're applying for a job they are ill-equipped to handle. They get frustrated and stop trying, because the jobs they're qualified for are jobs nobody wants.

To increase employment, we need to better educate our people AND make the less attractive jobs more appealing. Bettering our education system takes time and money, which makes it difficult because you don't see results right away, just money being spent. Making jobs seem more attractive also costs money, but the result is likely to be faster. To offset the cost, we need to reduce or eliminate the benefits of people who are not looking for jobs. I'm not saying all, say disabled people, shouldn't receive benefits. But how many disabled people can still work but don't because they get paid more in benefits?

Personally, I don't care about taxes. I say tax me more if the money is put to good use. But that's the key. Right now the money isn't being put to good use because the people in office in the Senate and House can't agree on anything.

I wonder what would happen if all the people elected to office were in the moderate range of the Democratic and Republican parties. No super-liberal Dems and no crazy tea party Reps. I have a feeling a lot more would get done because they might actually be able to compromise.

Are you hiring? Sounds like an easy gig.

Reality is everyone wants a white collar job but there is a finite number of such jobs.

As the supply and demand of the job market has changed, employers are wanting experienced workers in such roles.

TBH the Only way I landed a bank job was working for a few month selling insurance.

If everyone is getting university educated but don't have the skills to the jobs we are just making a generation of young people with tens of thousands dollars of debt with useless degrees who can only do low skilled jobs.

Also I disagree about raising my taxes because I think government mostly waste the money and should the well off more as I rather have more money for myself.

Everyone doesn't want white collar jobs.

Why is everyone told to go to college and treated like they are a disappointment if they do not?

That literally has nothing to do with what I said.

Most white collar jobs "require" that one goes to college. I am not saying that to actually perform the job that one needs a college education. Just that the door is typically closed to those that do not. Typically a meaningless prerequisite.

But going to college doesn't require getting a white collar job. You're implying one thing that does not result in the other.