10 percent unemployment now new "norm"

President Obama stated at a news conference yesterday that the new unemployment rate will now be at 10 percent because businesses have learned to do more work with fewer workers. To bad the government can't find that way to reduce their bloated ranks. What a great President giving so much hope to those unemployed and giving more jobs away to overseas.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...3Rrc8J&usg=AFQjCNEwuSbtxHlkvBMyeS_Qq4dsEFSQPg

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it nice to see the right wing still living in reality

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wouldnt that mean even more unemployment?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But that would mean less taxes and less debt.

 

Oh boy, more Republican/Tea Partier fear mongering.

Cosmic, your article is a wee bit out of date. It was published in March of this year and referencing an unemployment number that was published 5 months prior to that...not a very relevant post. We are now in November and the unemployment rate is 9.6%. And in total this year, almost a million jobs have been created (874,000 to be more exact).

Now put that into perspective. In 2009 the nation lost 4.7 million jobs. And in 2008 the nation lost 3.6 million jobs. No matter how you want to look at it that is a dramatic turnaround.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Sur...&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth

 

WTF how in god's name does decreasing revenue equal less debt?

 

If the people are off the government rolls they would then get work on regular working businesses as many others have now. By being a part of the civilian work force you pay taxes, where do you see that they don"t? That means fewer people on the governments payroll but more contributing into it which should help reduce the debt not increase it like hiring more government workers that only add taxes to the civilian taxes.

 

As the article stated "The unemployment rate hit its recent high of 10.1 percent in October"

 

Yeah, about a year out of date.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You forgot to mention it was October of 2009.

 

I thought it meant this year because that's what the unemployment rate was. But he did say that 10 percent was now going to be the new "norm" yesterday at the press conference.

 

I don't think that is what he said. He probably said that it was going to take time to bring down the number as 8 million jobs were lost in this recession. And it is going to take time to recover 8 million jobs given the fact that in normal times the nation adds between 100K-150k thousand jobs a month.

 

???????so people should quit their jobs working for the government so they can probably not get a job in the private sector ?????????????????????????????????? your entire argument is based on an assumption that is pure idiocy. also government employees pay taxes. you clearly have a clue how the real world works

 

How come socialist nations like Norway, Denmark, or even capitalist nations such as the Netherlands can have unemployment rates hovering around or below 5%?

Wouldn't they face the same problem of businesses being run with less people?

I think Obama is just using an excuse.

 

10%? Meh. Hitler told all the women to quit their jobs, go home and make babies which they did- and overnight unemployment went away.

 

Hitler also killed millions of his own citizens. I'm sure that helped open up a couple more jobs as well...

 

Just transfer the jobs to the private sector. So that , for example, the TSA which is checking people at airports would be assigned a private business status and let the airports pay them for all of their good work. Many agencies can be put into the private sector but the main point is letting the private companies hire everyone instead of always having a government agency do whatever it is they are to do. As in the case of building roads, we now use private companies to do so so put Amtrak into a private business and let them develop it rather than the government watching it bleed away billions.

 

They already did that. TSA forerunners were first administered by private industry. But security was bad, people could easily smuggle weapons past security. That is why it became an agency of the federal government.

 

So because it was improperly managed the Feds had to take it over? Why not just fire those in charge and get better managers? Why is it that the Feds always have to end up taking over a losing business or supplying them with billions of dollars? Can't they just get better managers or just let them fail ?

 

Yes but was it any cheaper?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!