The explanation that I heard is that the data for the unemployment rate was collected at the beginning or middle of the month when the government was shut down, leaving some government employees (temporarily) unemployed, while the jobs count was taken at the end of the month, after the shutdown was over, and the economy could again move ahead, and the nation was no longer holding it's breath and waiting to see what happened.
SS, if it's not the prime contributor, than what is the prime contributor?
Productivity increases are not just the prime contributor, but, essentially the only contributor.
In the 19th century, about 75% of americans worked on farms producing the food and fiber we needed to live. During the 19th century, and the early part of the 20th century, farm productivity increased so much that only about 5% of Americans now need to work on farms to produce all the food and fiber that we need.
Exactly the same sort of productivity increases are now happening in our factories. In the 1950's or so, about 2/3 of Americans worked in factories making stuff that we needed. We can now manufacture everything that we need, with less than 25% of us doing the work now. With technologies like those that w.h. listed, we will soon be able to produce everything that we need with no more than 5% working on factories.
So, if 5% of us grow all the food that we need, and another 5% of us manufacture everything that we need, then the real question is what will the other 90% of us do?
That's an old one ;)
That sort of paranoia has been with us for - well -, forever. It doesn't matter whether it's the Tea Party, or those preppers who store 10 years worth of food and water, just in case, or those anti-GMO and extreme vegan types who want everyone to eat just what they eat. Or those "they are coming to get me" folks who store an arsenal of hundreds of guns, and a million rounds of ammunition. Or the government is evil and must be abolished people.
Now I'm sure there are some here who will now try to tell me that I think the government is always right, and that it's dumb not to protect myself, or that I'll starve to death in the coming apocalypse. It's perfectly fine to can, dry, freeze, and bake food for the winter. It's fine to keep a hunting rifle, and to carefully chose the food you eat. And our Constitution still tells how we can change our government, when we wish to do so, and when it is doing the wrong thing, as sometimes happens..
When you carry anything to a huge extreme, you end up hurting both yourself, and often, many others. And, those extremes are almost always related to some form of paranoia.
A better policy is one that actually covers your costs if you are diagnosed with cancer, or have a serious motorcycle accident. As opposed to a policy that doesn't really cover serious, and big, medical expenses, and that lets you go bankrupt, while forcing you and I to actually pay their costs through our taxes, and extra insurance payments, to cover the uninsured, and not well insured.
Having secret service protection is not Biden's choice., just like it wasn't GW Bush's choice when he rented a house on his property to the secret service when he was president. And certainly you know that the 3rd amendment makes it impossible to force Biden or any other American to quarter soldiers in their house, or on their property.
Springer, I'll absolutely sure that some people who have policies that are not now compliant with the ACA rules are losing those old polices and being asked to replace them with other, better policies. Absurdly sure of that. And it's just like what HPQ asked me to do with my health insurance that they provided me a few years ago, before ACA was even a glimmer in Obama's eye. (I and many others HPQ employees had to switch plans and providers then.)
But what is your alternative? Shut down Obamacare?
And take the health insurance away from 100+ million Americans who have it now because of Obamacare?
Sig, so let's do the math.
Since 2011, the cost of living has risen by 6.2%, according to the social security administration. They will increase social security another 1.9% in January. When you add that up, you get about an 8% cost of living increase. So, although Biden's costs have risen by about 8%, given the recent cost of living increases, he has not increased what he gets from the secret service to cover his costs. It looks Biden got the same 7.8% cut in federal spending that everyone else got.
As a related story, one of the federal cabinet secretaries bought the farmhouse that my family owned for the past 2 centuries, a little less than 10 years ago. He got the house on a couple of acres, while the land remained in the hands of the family, most of which was sold to the local land trust. The new owner of the house wanted the family to continue to use the property in a few ways to keep the farmland open and in use to some degree. So, among other things we continue to use the sugar house when trees are tapped in the spring. But, the secret service needed a similar staging area for the new secretary, when he was at home. The only possibility at that house was the sugar house. So, they camped out in the sugar house, while we were boiling sap one spring when the new secretary returned home. It only took then a couple of days to realize that wearing the standard secret service coat and tie in the sugar house made them stand out a lot, so pretty soon they joined in and, with a little training, helped watch the sugar pan and keep sap flowing into it, and feeding the fire.
I don't know if he charged the secret service for the use of the sugar house or not, but they did get to take some syrup home with them. Given the shape of the building, he couldn't have charged much. There were and still are lots of old engine parts and metal pieces on the roof to keep the metal roofing from blowing off, and extra posts have been added inside to keep the old roof up.
I wonder how many people in those towns along those US railroads will remember Lac-Mégantic? Especially given the fact that most US railroad tracks are more poorly maintained that their Canadian equivalents.
Well, well, well. The sequester is beginning to have an effect - even before the biggest part of it begins next year., and continues over the next few years. And defense spending is still expected to grown by about 2% a year between FY2014 (the current FY), and 2023, even with the sequester.. What'll happen if those Congressmen who support the sequester and really want a much smaller government get their way? If you are truly cutting the government, you gotta get rid of both the generals and the pfc's.
the other interesting historical point is the association between Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln, by far the most venerated of Republican presidents. Marx and Lincoln were contemporaries and they exchanged a number of letters, often concerning Marx's columns in the New York Tribune. Lincoln made use of his contact with Marx and other European communists in order to pressure European governments to not recognize or support the confederacy. I wouldn't call Lincoln a Marxist, but they certainly had some common ideas and goals, as Lincoln's letters to Marx show. Read the book, "An Unfinished Revolution: Marx and Lincoln", by Robin Blackburn.
When you say "catastrophic health care coverage", i assume that you don't just mean converge for the traditional catastrophic problems like car accidents and heart attacks., but also expensive long term conditions like hemophilia, HIV, and diabetes, which usually cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. . A diabetic who can't pay the $300 to $500 or more monthly co-pays for various medications and medical equipment, will either end up bankrupt, or in the hospital, costing the insurance company a lot more. With proper, but expensive, prescriptions people with HIV, hemophilia, or diabetes can live relatively normal lives for decades. Their conditions are not really catastrophic in the normal sense of the word, unless they are untreated. But they will be very expensive, both for the person, and for their insurance company. The more expensive problem is when people with conditions like these end up in the ER and hospital because they could not pay for their medication. A single visit to the hospital costs much more than the annual cost to treat these considerations.
You seem to have missed his biggest point, at the top of his list.
That's the political interactions. The fact that red state republicans have worked hard to make it nearly impossible for people to sign up for health care insurance, and to make important parts of it difficult or nearly impossible to implement in the red states. The net result is that the blue state may continue to have to pay for the health care of many people in the red states, something that they are getting more and more tired of doing, while the red states refuse to care for themselves, and do everything they can to continue that state of affairs.
Social Security is really quite easy to fix, with some combination of increasing the income cap, raising the retirement age a little, and cutting the cost of living increases a little. Just increasing the income cap would be enough.
But fixing Medicare is a completely different story, and much more difficult to solve. Some of the ACA change are a start, but still not nearly enough.
I don't know any details, but I would suspect that as we are now less than a moth to the HPQ quarterly and annual report, that there are a good number of investors who expect a good report this time. And in many cases in the past, the HPQ stock value has risen like this before a quarterly or annual report.
But, there may be something else that I haven't seen yet.
So, springer, do you really think that your local hospital will refuse to treat you because you will pay them with your Obamacase compliant insurance policy?? Give me a break. Every insurance policy will be Obamacre compliant. No hospital is going to shut down and refuse to treat patients because all their patients have Obamacare compliant insurance policies.
You are exactly right., Lang. the only way that a factory had "less staff" in the past is when they were smaller factories (as was usually the case), producing much less stuff.
It now takes 1/4 or less workers to build a car now, compared with the number needed 25 or 30 years ago. There is a video floating around now showing how a Tesla auto is built now. In most of the views of the factory floor, there are NO workers visible, none. And when people are visible, there only 2 or 3 of them. You'd see dozens, if not hundreds of workers in any factory floor picture 30 years ago.
Many companies, like the one that published the CRC books of tables, had rooms filled with people doing calculation on mechanical calculators.
Companies like HPQ had hundreds of secretaries to take handwritten notes and letters to type up Dozens, if not hundred used T-squares, triangles, and compasses to draw engineering drawings of parts to be built.
All those jobs are gone now, replaced by robots, computers, or just gone because they are no longer needed, or because new tools and methods allow one person to do what 2 or 3 people did 30 years ago. Productivity is way up now, and a single worker can produce at least twice, and maybe 3 or 4 times as much as his counterpart 30 years ago.
So what parts of Obamacare are they opting out of? They certainly can't refuse care to to people who have insurance policies that conform with the Obamacare rules, because that is all of us. And refusing to care for all of us would put them out of business. Will the refuse ot hire new doctors who got med school scholarships? If so, then staffing will get more and more difficult. Will they refuse to provide performance information and infection rates for public review? If so, they will probably have a hard time attracting customers who don';t want to go to a hospital that appears to be hiding poor performance.
What parts of Obamacare would any hospital opt out of if they ant to continue to attract customers?
So, Springer, please tell us when the House will pass a multi-billion dollar workfare program that sends billions to the states to hire the 10 or 20 million unemployed folks and get them working for their benefits? You really think that's got a chance today?
If you could get the House to pass something like that, I expect that you would get support for it from Obama and many others, as it would both address the unemployment problem, and help to fix a lot of the existing infrastructure problems. It would also give the economy a good boost, too.
It would require some tax or debt increases to pay for it, though. But., it's a good idea to consider.
Springer, that is not at all a tried and true recipe for failure, but instead it has succeeded in the past, and could be equally successful now.
In the 1950's under president Eisenhower the top marginal tax rate had been raised to 92%! And Eisenhower also raised the minimum wage by 33%. The current minimum wage is about the same as it was in 1955. Raising it the same amount that Eisenhower raised it in #$%$ would take it to about $10/hour.
In the 1950's we had a very similar post-war debt. Eisenhower's policies resulted in both a strong economy, and a reduction in the national debt, as a percent of the current GDP.
Although there are some demographic issues now that Eisenhower did not need to deal with, we could do a good job improving the economy and bringing down the deficit and debt, in just the same way that Eisenhower did. Eisenhower was successful, and we could be successful in the same way, if we just had the courage to address the problems, as he and Congress did then.