President Donald Trump

[Teenwolf]

"How many of those jobs are being added because folks can no longer survive with just one job, they need 2 jobs and a side hustle just to get by?"

flavor of the day Ocasio-Cortez unfortunately knows nothing about employment statistics, it appears

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...l-counts-abou/

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described democratic socialist and former organizer for Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign, attracted national attention after her upset primary victory over Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley in a Queens- and Bronx-based district. But critics pounced on some of her remarks during an interview on the PBS show Firing Line with Margaret Hoover.

During the interview, Ocasio-Cortez said, "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family."

In our review, we found many reasons why unemployment is low, and not for the overwork that Ocasio-Cortez cited. The biggest factors include strong economic confidence and the long-running economic recovery.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps track of how many people work two jobs rather than just one.

Over the past 12 months, the number of multiple job holders has ranged between 6 million and 7 million. That compares to more than 148 million Americans who are employed in a single job.

So by the official statistics, multiple job holders account for a tiny fraction of American workers.

And this percentage isn’t high by historical standards.

The percentage has moved in a pretty narrow band — 4.7 percent to 5.2 percent — during the recovery from the Great Recession. That range is actually below where it was between 1994 and the Great Recession. In fact, the percentage was at its highest (as high as 6.5 percent) during the peak of the 1990s boom.

"People are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week"

This assertion is equally dubious.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics breaks down its count of people with multiple jobs into three categories: people working one full-time job and one part-time job; people with two part-time jobs; and people working two full-time jobs.

A worker with two full-time jobs is the smallest category of the three.

When the BLS determines the unemployment rate, a person is counted as employed as long as they have at least one job. They don’t get counted twice if they have two jobs. So Ocasio-Cortez is wrong in saying multiple job holding and long hours affect the unemployment rate.

We rate the statement "Pants on Fire.'"

........................

[now, if you are mad at PolitiFact, just peruse their conclusions about Trump claims - he has more 'pants on fire' than The Towering Inferno. neither political philosophy is immune from utter nonsense. it IS true that almost all of the gains in real income over the past 20 years have gone to the top 1 percent. but that happened thru Presidents and Congresses of both parties. the problem is a real one. but O-Cs wild-ass guess to try to ding the job numbers - is just that.]

Thanks for the response, much appreciated.

I worded my previous post carefully because I have limited time for sourcing. However, the statistics I've seen on economic vulnerability are staggering. My 50% claim refers to the number of people who would be financially devastated by an unexpected $400 charge, the number of people living paycheck to paycheck with zero safety net, the number of people making under $30K per year over 50%, all around 50% of the country.

This talking point about how "nobody cared under Obama, so your outrage isnt legit".... that's some BS. Progressive media was very critical of Obama's caving in to the right wing, including ACA modeling after Romney, and heavy deportations, a calculation which did nothing to endear him to Republicans. It only gives them this constant excuse, "Obama did it, so you dont actually care." Phony MFers.

This is why Democrats need to push to the left instead of the middle. The right dont respect compromise, they just take the compromise, laugh, and spit in your eye.

[revo]

Data to support? Everything I've read indicates there are two primary drivers to recent inflation - full employment and greater cash entering the market both from industrial/corporate investment and personal purchases. Here's one reference that is fairly clear, and suffice to say that Reuters is not some Trump mouthpiece:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-inflation-explainer/explainer-rising-u-s-inflation-and-what-it-means-for-markets-idUSKCN1FX32F

The Iranian oil shipping restrictions have caused prices to rise at the pump, but at a much lower level than in past major Middle East incidents. In my state, at least, prices have risen about 11% at the pump, which is significant, but nowhere near the spikes during other Middle Eastern upsets, where prices rose 30 - 50%.

My position is that inflation is higher due to the things you say with a small, but growing, impact from tariffs (of which the vast majority only went into effect midway through the 2nd Qtr, as you well know), but will continue to get higher once the impact of his ill-advised tariffs are felt. That impact is coming soon, like within the next few months. Some industries which had tariffs added earlier this year (steel, washing machines) have already been wracked by wild inflation.

This article believes tariffs are already affecting inflation:

https://www.apnews.com/78c2df3ec38449a493be1d467f2652aa

This one supports that tariffs are the cause for the soaring price of steel:

https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/steel-tariffs-inflation-costs-rebar/527045/

As does this one on the soaring price of washing machines thanks to tariffs (2nd qtr prices are up the greatest % in the 40-year history of data on the subject):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenroberts/2018/08/20/__trashed/#630a3e0792fe

Plus, I said this:

We're in a very low inflationary environment and have been for the last 10 years. The 2.9% rate is, besides the single year of Obama's administration that you pointed out, nearly double this 10-year average. That's not high in this environment? Adding a 25% tax on many imports -- and some are getting double tariffed -- won't add to it? Rising gas prices, helped by Dumb Donald's Iran policy, won't add to it?

Isn't it common sense that if you add a 25% tax on the stuff that makes a lot of stuff (steel, aluminum), and then are taxed another 25% on the finished product which is already higher due to the increased costs of that stuff, that these higher costs will be passed down to consumers? It's already happening.

Warren Buffett agrees:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/30/berkshires-warren-buffett-tariffs-will-aggravate-rising-costs.html

Bloomberg agrees:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-26/inflation-is-coming-thanks-to-trump-s-tariffs

[revo]

In other words, inflation is a symptom of success.

J

LOL. Tell that to Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter!

[DMT]

Republicans are reactionary...inflation isn't worth addressing right now for them because trends are predictive, and, like global warming, open to interpretation.

[DMT]

This talking point about how "nobody cared under Obama, so your outrage isnt legit".... that's some BS. Progressive media was very critical of Obama's caving in to the right wing, including ACA modeling after Romney, and heavy deportations, a calculation which did nothing to endear him to Republicans. It only gives them this constant excuse, "Obama did it, so you dont actually care." Phony MFers.

The right dont respect compromise, they just take the compromise, laugh, and spit in your eye.

So true, and so tiresome.

[Ken]

Republicans are reactionary...

Who are you kidding, everyone is reactionary

[DMT]

Who are you kidding, everyone is reactionary

Ken I'm not going to get into a semantics argument and derail the discussion. Obviously it was an overgeneralization but in general, Republicans are extremely less likely to take preventative measures when it comes to taxes, health care, environmental protections, consumer protections, etc. Anti-regulation is their calling card.

[Ken]

Ken I'm not going to get into a semantics argument and derail the discussion. Obviously it was an overgeneralization but in general, Republicans are extremely less likely to take preventative measures when it comes to taxes, health care, environmental protections, consumer protections, etc. Anti-regulation is their calling card.

Derailing a 543 page thread is a funny concept. Not sure that's even possible.

But I could just as easily argue the opposite, anti-regulation, conservativism means they prefer the status quo, and the liberal side is more interested in change and reactionary policies.

These type labels are not useful though.

[DMT]

Derailing a 543 page thread is a funny concept. Not sure that's even possible.

But I could just as easily argue the opposite, anti-regulation, conservativism means they prefer the status quo, and the liberal side is more interested in change and reactionary policies.

These type labels are not useful though.

That argument would make sense if the universe was static.

Preserving the status quo only benefits those with privilege, particularly straight white rich men.

[Mithrandir]

That argument would make sense if the universe was static.

Preserving the status quo only benefits those with privilege, particularly straight white rich men.

The truest post ever.

[Ken]

That argument would make sense if the universe was static.

Preserving the status quo only benefits those with privilege, particularly straight white rich men.

Huh? What does that have to do with whether they are reactionary? Field goals always gotta move huh?

[Mithrandir]

Huh? What does that have to do with whether they are reactionary? Field goals always gotta move huh?

But it seems like the GOP field goals usually move closer to the straight white male.

[Ken]

But it seems like the GOP field goals usually move closer to the straight white male.

Got it, no rational discussions allowed here. Not sure why I chimed in

[Gregg]

The truest post ever.

You are reacting... stop it.

[Gregg]

Got it, no rational discussions allowed here. Not sure why I chimed in

You are reacting to his reacting...stop it.