U.S. unemployment numbers in Q4 '07 vs Q4 '09, broken down by income range

[yllus]

Rich people still have jobs, poor people don't

The data, which are for the fourth quarter, come from a new study (PDF) by Andrew Sum, Ishwar Khatiwada and Sheila Palma at Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies. The researchers conclude that "what has been missing from the public debate over the labor market crisis is an honest and detailed analysis of which American workers have been most adversely affected by the deep deterioration in labor markets."

I know this thread will degenerate into class warfare from reply #3 max, but it's interesting data nonetheless, even if I don't myself come to any specific conclusions from it.

 

[spidey07]

This is just common sense. If you are highly compensated it means your skills and experience are in high demand, so not everybody can do that job.

This means there should be a direct correlation between unemployment and compensation as shown by the table. It makes perfect sense really. Notice how it's almost a perfect 100% increase across the board.

-edit-
The conclusion is compensation is based on supply and demand. The higher the compensation the lower the supply and greater the demand. Converse for lower income.

 

[StageLeft]

Surprised to see an almost perfect doubling as mentioned. Not surprised to see highly compensated and likely better educated/competent people more likely to hold down a job.

 

[Moonbeam]

All I see is that the unemployment rate has about doubled in two years of all workers.

 

[sandorski]

This is just common sense. If you are highly compensated it means your skills and experience are in high demand, so not everybody can do that job.

This means there should be a direct correlation between unemployment and compensation as shown by the table. It makes perfect sense really. Notice how it's almost a perfect 100% increase across the board.

-edit-
The conclusion is compensation is based on supply and demand. The higher the compensation the lower the supply and greater the demand. Converse for lower income.

It's also Common Sense to direct Job Creation Policy at those groups with the greatest lack of Jobs.

 

[spidey07]

It's also Common Sense to direct Job Creation Policy at those groups with the greatest lack of Jobs.

Negative. Needs to be targeted on the producers of jobs, the highly compensated. Then the growth will trickle down.

 

[sandorski]

Negative. Needs to be targeted on the producers of jobs, the highly compensated. Then the growth will trickle down.

Fail

 

[HumblePie]

This is just common sense. If you are highly compensated it means your skills and experience are in high demand, so not everybody can do that job.

This means there should be a direct correlation between unemployment and compensation as shown by the table. It makes perfect sense really. Notice how it's almost a perfect 100% increase across the board.

-edit-
The conclusion is compensation is based on supply and demand. The higher the compensation the lower the supply and greater the demand. Converse for lower income.

Add, as noted as part of the percentage, the "hardest hit" is actually the middle class. Unemployment more than doubled. Everything else was less thank double.

The other thing to note is the higher classes if they lose their job, typically have the cash reserves to wait for a better opportunity. I know quite a few people in this segment actually. Since they aren't looking, they aren't counted for unemployment.

So while there is a larger segment of the poorer population unemployed, there are actually even more middle to higher not working compared with before.

It is interesting data, but really hard to draw full conclusions upon. The only conclusions we can draw is that A) we are in a recession B) unemployment is sky rocketing C) the unemployment levels for all classes don't seem to be going down anytime soon and D) whether it's a recession or not, the rich are always better off.

 

[spidey07]

Fail

Not at all. Lower wage earners do not produce any jobs at all. Zero, they're an expense, a cost of doing business, straight labor costs/manhours.

Higher wage earners DO create jobs and that's why most of the incentives and breaks need to be targeted at them.

 

[HumblePie]

Negative. Needs to be targeted on the producers of jobs, the highly compensated. Then the growth will trickle down.

Just like the other thread where Dems gave a bunch of money out for renewable energy sources such as solar and wind farms to be produced to companies in hopes it would add new jobs? Unfortunately, they didn't stipulate all the money must stay in the US in hope of creating a manufacturing process here. Instead it went to China and created tons of jobs for the poor there because it's cheaper.

Your theory works perfectly fine without considering out sourcing. Now if we could force companies we give money to use only American workers, then your theory would work perfectly.

 

[sandorski]

Not at all. Lower wage earners do not produce any jobs at all. Zero, they're an expense, a cost of doing business, straight labor costs/manhours.

Higher wage earners DO create jobs and that's why most of the incentives and breaks need to be targeted at them.

You like banging your head against a wall. That is clear. Trickle Down does not work.

 

[spidey07]

Just like the other thread where Dems gave a bunch of money out for renewable energy sources such as solar and wind farms to be produced to companies in hopes it would add new jobs? Unfortunately, they didn't stipulate all the money must stay in the US in hope of creating a manufacturing process here. Instead it went to China and created tons of jobs for the poor there because it's cheaper.

Your theory works perfectly fine without considering out sourcing. Now if we could force companies we give money to use only American workers, then your theory would work perfectly.

Absolutely. But then you'd be labeled a nationalist (as if that is some kind of insult, it's a compliment).

 

[Atreus21]

Just like the other thread where Dems gave a bunch of money out for renewable energy sources such as solar and wind farms to be produced to companies in hopes it would add new jobs? Unfortunately, they didn't stipulate all the money must stay in the US in hope of creating a manufacturing process here. Instead it went to China and created tons of jobs for the poor there because it's cheaper.

Your theory works perfectly fine without considering out sourcing. Now if we could force companies we give money to use only American workers, then your theory would work perfectly.

Any way you look at it, it's going to benefit more Americans. If the employer outsources, we get a less expensive product, by which consumers save money. If he doesn't outsource, he creates jobs for Americans.

If I weigh my options of to whom to give tax breaks and incentives, I simply think you can benefit more people long term by starting at the source, the employer, than trying to benefit each low-level worker individually.

 

[dmcowen674]

Rich people still have jobs, poor people don't

I know this thread will degenerate into class warfare from reply #3 max, but it's interesting data nonetheless, even if I don't myself come to any specific conclusions from it.

No way this has to be a lie because all Republicans in here say so.

Why did you post it if you don't have "any specific conclusions from it?"

More importantly why would you care as a Canadian?

 

[sandorski]

No way this has to be a lie because all Republicans in here say so.

Why did you post it if you don't have "any specific conclusions from it?"

More importantly why would you care as a Canadian?

Ever try to Sell shit to some Broke Ass customer?

 

[HumblePie]

Any way you look at it, it's going to benefit more Americans. If the employer outsources, we get a less expensive product, by which consumers save money. If he doesn't outsource, he creates jobs for Americans.

If I weigh my options of to whom to give tax breaks and incentives, I simply think you can benefit more people long term by starting at the source, the employer, than trying to benefit each low-level worker individually.

Not really. Less expensive doesn't mean much when your net income and worth is a big goose egg. Double nothing is still nothing. Meaning if you don't have the income to spend it doesn't matter how cheap something is unless it is free. In which case the only people with money to spend are the ones that don't need it in the first place.


Trickle down CAN work, same with the other ways of stimulating growth, jobs, and the economy. The thing is everything has flaws, and people will always exploit those flaws for personal gain if they can. The trick is making it so they can't exploit flaws no matter which course of action the government takes.

 

[MJinZ]

Negative. Needs to be targeted on the producers of jobs, the highly compensated. Then the growth will trickle down.

That would only be true if job creation were legally restricted to US.

Top down, they would use cheap international labor if they can help it.

 

[Throckmorton]

Negative. Needs to be targeted on the producers of jobs, the highly compensated. Then the growth will trickle down.

What are you trying to say? We should create jobs programs for the top brackets? How improving their unemployment from 3% to 2% help folks in lower brackets?

 

[classy]

This is just common sense. If you are highly compensated it means your skills and experience are in high demand, so not everybody can do that job.

This means there should be a direct correlation between unemployment and compensation as shown by the table. It makes perfect sense really. Notice how it's almost a perfect 100% increase across the board.

-edit-
The conclusion is compensation is based on supply and demand. The higher the compensation the lower the supply and greater the demand. Converse for lower income.

I agree. Nothing surprising about that chart at all.

 

[cubeless]

What are you trying to say? We should create jobs programs for the top brackets? How improving their unemployment from 3% to 2% help folks in lower brackets?

yup... i may have to let the gardener and the maid and golf coach and the tutor and the music teacher and a few others all go if i get laid off... us evil bastards keep a lot of little people employed even if we aren't companies...

 

[Atreus21]

Not really. Less expensive doesn't mean much when your net income and worth is a big goose egg. Double nothing is still nothing. Meaning if you don't have the income to spend it doesn't matter how cheap something is unless it is free. In which case the only people with money to spend are the ones that don't need it in the first place.

How many people in the US have zero income and zero money? Unemployed doesn't mean utterly destitute.

Trickle down CAN work, same with the other ways of stimulating growth, jobs, and the economy. The thing is everything has flaws, and people will always exploit those flaws for personal gain if they can. The trick is making it so they can't exploit flaws no matter which course of action the government takes.

Then, no disrespect, I think your fighting a losing battle. I think at every turn the government will be frustrated by the sheer elusiveness of some of our country's more crafty entrepreneurs. Taxes can be loopholed if they get too heavy. I think if the government ever achieved such a level of enforcement, you would not see employers quietly comply, but rather throw up their hands and quit in exasperation, or move their business (and with it their resources) elsewhere, assuming they were allowed to do so.

I mean, it seems intuitive to me to think of it from their perspective. These are, we assume, smart people. They bring their mental prowess to the table and create something of value, which makes them money. If they succeed well enough, they will benefit other people by employing them (which in turn increases the owners wealth). In return for this, the government acts as a deadening hand to his progress. I think I'd say to myself, "If they're so hell bent on slowing me down, when I'm doing more for their citizens than they are, I'll go elsewhere and employ others for cheaper."

I think a basic difference between the conservative and liberal worldview is this. Liberals see the wealthy as greedy. Conservatives see them as resourceful, and contributive; people we need more of.

 

[MJinZ]

How many people in the US have zero income and zero money? Unemployed doesn't mean utterly destitute.



Then, no disrespect, I think your fighting a losing battle. I think at every turn the government will be frustrated by the sheer elusiveness of some of our country's more crafty entrepreneurs. Taxes can be loopholed if they get too heavy. I think if the government ever achieved such a level of enforcement, you would not see employers quietly comply, but rather throw up their hands and quit in exasperation, or move their business (and with it their resources) elsewhere, assuming they were allowed to do so.

I mean, it seems intuitive to me to think of it from their perspective. These are, we assume, smart people. They bring their mental prowess to the table and create something of value, which makes them money. If they succeed well enough, they will benefit other people by employing them (which in turn increases the owners wealth). In return for this, the government acts as a deadening hand to his progress. I think I'd say to myself, "If they're so hell bent on slowing me down, when I'm doing more for their citizens than they are, I'll go elsewhere and employ others for cheaper."

I think a basic difference between the conservative and liberal worldview is this. Liberals see the wealthy as greedy. Conservatives see them as resourceful, and contributive; people we need more of.

Actually the basic difference is that for the most part, Liberals are have-nots and the Conservatives are the haves.

 

[Atreus21]

Actually the basic difference is that for the most part, Liberals are have-nots and the Conservatives are the haves.

Tell that to John Kerry.

 

[Hacp]

So everyone's numbers doubled.

 

[Robor]

Tell that to John Kerry.

Actually the basic difference is that for the most part, Liberals are have-nots and the Conservatives are the haves.

Did you miss the bolded or is it me who missed something?