Taxing the rich in Minnesota

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

To a certain extent yeah, but then look right across the border to Wisconsin and check out how their economy is doing under right winger Walker.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...0000-new-jobs/

"The government doesn't create jobs. So, vote for me and as your governor, I will create jobs."

I guess Republican politicians don't see themselves as part of the government?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by icenine

There are millions of places without pay scales....do not assume everyone is getting paid equally for the same work. I think you are assuming every company is like yours or the US military. Remember people negotiate for salaries all the time. And historically women git paid less for the same work.

This is why the post was phrased as a question. I was not offering an opinion, I was seeking input.

Dave

[doucanoe]

First off, lets not forget how Unemployment numbers are calculated. It's not really employment based unemployment compensation based. Meaning, once you fall off the book as collecting said insurance, your considered employed. Maybe more accurately, not unemployed.

The majority of the jobs "created" here have been public sector and service/retail related. Many 50 somethings here in MN [like myself] are gainfully under employed again after the shakeup but it's in one of these areas. I consider myself fortunate earning around 65% of my income for the last 10+ years in one of these jobs but I'm certainly not going to get in line to shake his hand. He had nothing to do with it.

Here is a interesting read for ya. You can hardly argue the source either. The "RED" Star and Tribune is about as left leaning as it gets.

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/277231662.html

I personally know dozens of folks around here under 65 who just gave up looking. I wonder how big that category of folks really is.

Come on to MN. I think Orange Julius is hiring.

RC

[mpholland]

It would be nice to see jobs figures reported as "full time with benefits" vs "all the rest" and see where the numbers lie. Is an available minimum wage, part time job statistically considered a job? What about the one person that may be holding two or three of those? How does that affect the statistics?

[Boreas]

All that data really shows is that the rate of growth is slowing down. That's what happens as you approach full employment. I mean look at NoDak! From 45.1% ten years ago to 3.9% now and nobody would say that the oil boom has hit reverse there.

John

[BlueStreak]

People near "retirement age" ~60-65 and older, have a hard time finding quality employment in any economy. Once we go past our prime years in our 40s and 50s the older we get, the harder it will be. Who doesn't know this?

The real problem is with those entering the work force. The jobs worth having are gone. We outsourced them. Millions of them and replaced them with shit. The complaint I hear from younger folks is that;

A). Even the crappy jobs are hard to get and even harder to hold on to.

B). The fact that we have rid our society of high paying blue collar jobs, in the name of "keeping costs down" means that there is little or nothing to look forward to. Crappy, worthless jobs are all that's left. So, these kids feel stuck with nothing better to move into.

You see, some large and quite fanatical movement of tightfisted assholes have been on a narrow, self-serving crusade to outsource or otherwise eliminate any and every source of employment they think offers workers more than the "market will bear". Gee, I wonder who THAT could be?

I don't blame these kids. I wouldn't do a goddamned thing for you, either. You suck.

Have a great day!

Dave

[merrylander]

^^^ Wonder what I did wrong, the last job I held gave me a signing bonus and I was 68.

[CarlV]

I thought it was we rather pay out the unemployment money and get nothing in return for it than to put people to work fixing our broken down infrastructure with good paying jobs that would stimulate the economy.


Carl

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by CarlV

I thought it was we rather pay out the unemployment money and get nothing in return for it than to put people to work fixing our broken down infrastructure with good paying jobs that would stimulate the economy.


Carl

The former gives the Rs something to bitch about, while the latter would signify a success for the Ds.

John

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by Boreas

All that data really shows is that the rate of growth is slowing down. That's what happens as you approach full employment. I mean look at NoDak! From 45.1% ten years ago to 3.9% now and nobody would say that the oil boom has hit reverse there.

John

I haven't looked poked my head into Political Chat for what I believe to be a couple of years now. Just swinging through because of the AK retooling. Just for the record and for those who have forgotten or didn't care to begin with, I'm the guy that has a distinct dislike our current representatives from both the left and right.

Be that as it may, using the term full employment or even approaching full employment is a bit silly based on how these figures are calculated.

Our numbers really kicked ass during the holidays with all the part time and student hiring. Alas, all good things and much ballyhooed employment figures eventually come to an end. This usually happens after the 1st of the new year.

You really have to look at the time frames of the Pawlenty and Dayton policy's then account for the amount of time elapsed to accurately judge the results of each.

Oh and Rob, I received a hiring bonus also that was paid out in my second year. I was happy to get it but hardly viewed it as the sign of a robust hiring economy.

Once again, ladies and gentleman of Political Chat. Have fun pointing fingers and chastising your chosen opposition. Until we meet again, Adios and farewell.

RC