There's little govt can do in terms of full time vs part time for private sector businesses. And there is no metric to determine which citizens retired vs which stopped looking.

It can eliminate all the loopholes the megacorps use to pay no taxes (or even negative taxes in some cases) and then lower overall tax rates to keep the total tax revenue stable. Right now, small businesses are subsidizing their big business competitors, which has no end of negative economic effects.

Since jobs are historically created by small businesses - not big ones - leveling the playing field will go a long way towards creating jobs.

Sadly, small businesses don't make massive campaign donations and can't afford lobbyists.

I am absolutely, incontrovertably and indisputably convinced that the reason the economy is going nowhere is that all the money that would normally be recycled into investment and growth is instead being siphoned off into the pockets of the 0.1%ers, much of that by way of these tax loophole mechanisms.

Sad that right-wing rhetorical bullshit, once again, has established such a foothold in conventional wisdom.

Small businesses, as defined by the SBA, can employ up to 1,500 workers and/or generate up to $21.5 million in annual revenue:

What is SBA's definition of a small business concern?

Conservative media established this meme as a mainstay for decades. It sounds so comfy and reassuring: "Look, citizens! The mom and pop eatery across the street hires more than Exxon!" 'Taint true, of course, but that's the point, right?

The actual statistics are that,historically, most jobs are created by NEW businesses (most of which happen to be small). That stat comes from a study by the Census Dept and (I believe) Univ of Maryland. One of the reasons full time employment stinks (we LOST 150,000 full time jobs according to todays BLS household survey) is that new businesses formation is VERY slow.

Fantastic even. Incredible perhaps. Common sense, of course, would suggest that "new" businesses will always add "new" jobs (because they're... well... "new&quot but that said jobs are likely not "additional" jobs.

I'd love to see a cite. Until then, I'll remain a wee bit skeptical.

Also a cite from the BLS on your second claim, if you please.

Employed, Usually Work Full Time:
Oct - 119,632,000
Nov - 119,482,000

A decline of 150,000

Numbers come from the BLS Household survey...the same data set that the Unemployment Rate comes from.

They are easily accessible via the user-friendly St Loius Fed's website. Data is Series LNS12500000.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12500000

i'm concerned with Full Time employment. Those are the kind of jobs that a person might have a chance of building a life on. Part time .... Not really

Employed, Usually Work Full Time is my go-to jobs stat. As I indicated before, full time jobs are the kind that provide a chance to build a life on.

Part time. Not so much.

Not exactly sure how BLS aggregates and adjusts their data. But it is frequently the case with BLS data of all sorts that the subsets don't sum up to the aggregate. THAT is the abstract art.

But focusing on minor iterations of an ill-defined data point is cherry-picking.

BLS data are principally useful for trends. Data points are mostly good for spot trading and arguments.

BTW: "Not exactly sure how BLS aggregates and adjusts their data." Perhaps you should find out.

which is always in the BLS summary. The average workweek for November was 34.6 hours, all employees counted. That's up from 34.5 hours the month before, so there's been the same gradual trend toward improvement (depending on how one feels about working long hours) that we've had throughout the recession. Any big shift from full-time to part-time employment would show up there.

Needless to say, all the media hype about Obamacare destroying full time jobs and so forth wasn't ever based on reality, and didn't happen. There's a lot of data, and a lot of narratives can be spun from it, but if you stick to the basics and read the summaries consistently its easier to keep a clear head about what is really going on; a long gradual recovery, and a good basis for a sound economy. Wages have been moving in the right direction this year, slowly, and there is some hope that will be the big story next year.

Think this is it

https://www.ces.census.gov/docs/bds/bds_paper_CAED_may2008_dec2.pdf

I'd like to see if they've done anything since. Maybe they have a supportable theory, but I still find it unlikely... unless they consider spinoffs, rebranding and/or deconsolidation "new" businesses. Then, maybe.

Of course there's this:

misinformation has been going on for decades.

All the Fed can do is keep interests rates as low as possible.

We gain jobs ... oh wait ... they all suck.

UE down from 10.2% to 5.8% ... and all the jobs ... suck.

and it's devastating for millions. that's hardly breaking news. I give credit to the President for what he's done, but this is the the way things are now.

... she seems to be unsure as to why the same metrics that we have always used, are now wrong, wrong, wrong.

From last night, Dec 5th. You should watch it.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

Labor Participation Rate?

Yeah, I imagine you don't. On the other hand, you could call me a hater and move the goal posts, that is also fun.

The Baby Boomers are retiring, in huge numbers. Leading to a drop in the overall participation rate. This was predicted DECADES ago.

Meanwhile, let's look at the key measures that are always used to judge US economic performance ...

UE fallen almost 5%, to 5.8%.

Dow up ~10,000.

Home prices recovering (where most of middle class wealth is found).

GDP positive for almost every quarter.

Gas prices down.

We've added jobs for about 50 straight months. Most since 1999.

And wages, now that UE is dropping, are starting to rise (wages will not go up when UE is high, if you don;t know why, I can explain it to you).

All of the traditional measures are moving in the right direction.

And yet, some often on the right, occasionally on the left, throw all of that OUT ... and now focus on one measure, labor participation rate, and pretend to not know that a drop in the labor rate was PREDICTED more than a decade ago. Its simple demographics.

Rachel Maddow covered all of this last night (Dec 5th), you should watch it.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

I think that no matter how good things may get, some will NEVER be able to give President Obama credit for what he has done. Others seem to like the "doom and gloom" no matter what the "good" news might be.

I think things are getting better, sure we need higher wages, but as long as republicans in congress fight any kind of raise in the national minimum wage, the only way to get higher wages will be at state levels. People have to fight their state government for any raise. I know that isn't going to work in red states, but if enough people get organized they can make a difference, and they can VOTE those who won't support higher minimum wages out of office.

The president has done one hell of a job since he took office, even with all the opposition from republicans. He has prevented us from going over the cliff, yet so many simply refuse to admit it. Bush had 8 years to take us to the bottom, it will take a lot longer to fix the mess he left, but at least we are making progress.

The louder they cry the more you have wounded them.

By all mean JoeShilly, continue

Unlike you, in addition to weak insults, he occasionally brought some data to the discussion.

You appear unable to move beyond the weak insult stage.

You've been reduced to a whining caricature, who lacks data to back up "their eyes".

Outstanding!!

I hope you post for many, many years to come. Every message board needs a shill. At least you are honest about your lack of intellectual honesty.

First JoeSchilly, which you had heard before from a whinger. Second being "cool story", a typical obfuscation used by asshats.

I think we got a live one.

The Boomers are NOT retiring en masse. Labor force participation for all ages under 55 dropped from 2002 to 2012. It increased for all ages 55+.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm

The "official" unemployment rate has been criticized for many years because it understates actual unemployment (and underemployment) by not including those considered officially discouraged and those working less than full-time. The difference now is that the criticism is a lot louder because things are a lot worse.

The Dow has no bearing on the real economy and hasn't for decades, if it ever did. That being said, the primary reason stock prices are so high these days are because companies are taking advantage of near-zero borrowing rates to buy back their stock and artificially boost it. Bloomberg is regularly reporting on the record highs of corporate buybacks, but I guess it hasn't made the nightly news just yet.

The recovery in house prices is debatable. There was quite a bit of price jump in some markets because PE firms went nuts several years ago buying up all the houses they could find. They bought in cash and paid premiums of up to 20%. They then packaged these houses into a rental version of MBS and tried to find buyers. That effort is having some difficulties. As a result, the buying spree ended and ordinary people have been priced out of quite a few big markets (unless they go for less desirable areas). Prices are dropping as a result.

GDP has been positive. It was mostly positive during the Long Depression, too.

Gas prices are down because the Saudis and OPEC seem to decided to kill off the competition. It also doesn't hurt that there's a glut of production because of American production, increased oil from countries like Libya and Iraq, and generally decreased demand as a result of the ongoing global economic depression.

The jobs added have mostly been in retail.

The only data I've seen regarding wage rises have been talk about expectations, not actual rises.



The data is, at best, unclear. Your claim that it is mostly going in the right direction is wrong.

Throw out all of the standard measures, the measures we're used for decades, and focus on just one.

btw ... http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/pdf/labor-force-projections-to-2022-the-labor-force-participation-rate-continues-to-fall.pdf

Labor participation is a standard metric. It goes back almost 100 years. The difference today is that we've seen a large drop in participation and that really matters. The "standard measure" you repeatedly cite is profoundly influenced by participation. The standard unemployment measure is completely dependent on participation because participation is the denominator.

The problem with the BLS' argument about Boomers shifting from one segment to the other is the fact that it's irrelevant. If a cohort of people move out of one age range to another, they don't drop participation in the original range because they no longer count in the original range. The issue I pointed out is that the age ranges measured are declining within the ranges under 55, not the overall rate.* At the same time, the over 55 ranges continue to increase. If the under 55s participation is dropping and the Boomers, or most of them, no longer count toward measuring that participation, then why would their claimed retirement affect under 55 participation rates?

Across the board? If you pay attention to the headlines, I guess. If you actually look at the meat, not so much. The data is equivocal, at best. Though the lost potential GDP, 4 points according to the CBO, is a strong indicator that things are not well at well.



*I don't mean that the overall hasn't dropped because it has. I'm addressing your point about the overall rate, which is irrelevant, when measuring the drops in individual segments of the age ranges.

Anything to bemoan progress.

A lot of Americans simply don't believe government numbers, anymore, and for good reason.

The "official" numbers, which are based on the fake "growth" created by the Banksters, is increasingly out of touch with The REAL EVERY-DAY REALITY of working-class Americans.

unemployed and working part-time or temp jobs for over 3 years. That's my family's reality. And more state jobs are being filled in their locations.

You should watch it.

I have never been "contract" worker before. I'm in Virginia which is a "right to work" state, that means they can let you go for any reason or no reason. The contract part means they don't pay holiday, vacation, sick leave, no 401k, or medical insurance.
To me, this is a major breakdown in the deal with workers that 'full employment' usually means. But as I am a professional in my late fifties, I am supposed to be glad to be working at all. Even though this job without any benefits is back at the pay level I was earning 15 years ago.
On the brighter side, it is the first time in a decade I have not been forced into unpaid overtime (I was doing 60 hours weeks regularly), the work is easy and the folks I work with are nice.
But still - this contract work that is SO common now is simply a way for companies to NOT pay for holidays (even tho they close the office so I could not work if I wanted to), sick leave, health insurance. Effectively cutting the wages for workers dramatically.
Greedy mo-fo's.

And I believe it does a disservice to effective discussion.

"Right to Work" has nothing to do with being able to fire you for no reason. It refers to the fact that as a condition of employment you are not forced to join a union or pay dues to one if one exists in your workplace.

You are thinking of "employment-at-will", and it is in effect in 49 states. Many states have exceptions, such as public policy and implied contract, but everywhere but Montana (where true at will exists only during a probationary period) you and your employer are free to terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason other than a protected reason (under EEO guidelines).

Hope that makes sense.

Oh and welcome to DU

I cannot say that I agree that they are tools of enslavement, they are simply elements of employment that exist. I've found in my work experience that they cut both ways.

My main point was just to offer clarification on something I've seen wrongly interpreted through my years of lurking.

Cheers!

I was just discussing this with someone, needed to look up the particulars... This is very helpful.

Gives the government the tools it needs to shut down unions. I can see (link below) where it gives the government a lot of authority to go after the people who might suggest forming a union at any place or at any time, but I don't see any protections for people who were fired for no reason.

While the 'employment at will' standard may be in effect in 49 states, states where unions have been essentially outlawed and employers protected from 'the evils of unions' by expanded authority given to prosecuters by 'right to work' laws employers have more opportunities to' fire you for no reason' because there isn't the protection normally afforded an employee by a union.

So when people say that they can fire you for no reason because it's a right to work state - I'd say that's plenty accurate.

Right to work gives the employers rights while granting the local government the authority to prosecute anyone who might suggest that employees should improve working conditions.

It's kind of odd seeing someone here defending right to work laws. What's that about?

http://alecexposed.org/w/images/c/c8/1R10-Right_to_Work_Act_Exposed.pdf

I work in the industry so I thought it would be helpful to provide the working definition of the 2 terms. That is in no way advocacy or defense.

I would recommend the link below as offering a better definition. It comes from the National Labor Relations Board, which has, as one of it's responsibilities, the obligation to protect employees' (both union and non-union) Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

http://nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employerunion-rights-and-obligations

In fact, the Board has been making a name for itself over the last few years by inserting itself into non-union environments (e.g. Atlas Tire, Hispanics United) and causing a dramatic change in the way non-union employers handle certain employee issues.

Your comment that firing for no reason in a right-to-work state being plenty accurate, is simply incorrect. If you are subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement, you are not an at-will employee and can only be let go under the terms of your contract. That applies in both right to work states and non right to work states.

you say:

If you are subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement, you are not an at-will employee and can only be let go under the terms of your contract.

with companies gearing up for Christmas. Will they be temporary through the holidays?