WP: U.S. economy grows nearly twice as fast in 3rd quarter

[Wrong Direction]

I can't attest to any of this, but I googled "for every green job created" and came up with these links:

1. 3.7 jobs lost (UK)

http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news/2011/for-every-green-job-created-3-7-jobs-are-lost-united-kingdom/

2. 2.2 jobs lost (per an economist in spain...note, this link actually disputes the study saying it's 2.2 jobs lost for every job created - which is linked in the article - on grounds of cause and effect)

http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/04/07/truthiness-unveiled-every-green-job-created-resulted-in-22-jobs-destroyed/

So...he didn't pull that quote out of his arse.

[Heisenberg]

No bias in either of those sources.

[Larry]

Yes, the certainly can. But its far more expensive to do so.

Because their salaries are so inflated.

[allannis]

Or job growth needs to come in new businesses and new industries.

This is the key. We need to start buying American,and bring back industry, such as electronics, and textiles that we let go decades ago. building american and buying american will go a long way to bringing back jobs. Its better to pay a little more for american products then to lose jobs and have to pay people not to work.

[Teller]

Yay corporations...our saviors!!! Oh.......

The sarcasm has really grown tiresome.

Let me ask you something. Who do the overwhelming majority of Americans work for?

*Hint: It starts with a "C" and you can find the answer hidden in this post.*

[Hubbs]

The sarcasm has really grown tiresome.

Let me ask you something. Who do the overwhelming majority of Americans work for?

*Hint: It starts with a "C" and you can find the answer hidden in this post.*

The majority of Americans work for "can"?

:pfft:

[mjah]

Every made up statistic takes the place of 3 actual facts.

The majority of Americans work for "can"?

:ols:

Some solid humor in this thread. Very well done.

[Teller]

The majority of Americans work for "can"?

:pfft:

The majority of HUSBANDS do.

[Larry]

Let me ask you something. Who do the overwhelming majority of Americans work for?

I think you mean a majority of those Americans who haven't been laid off, yet.

(Do a majority of Americans even have jobs, right now?)

[allannis]

I think you mean a majority of those Americans who haven't been laid off, yet.

(Do a majority of Americans even have jobs, right now?)

I think you need to find someone to talk to, you seem a little stressed lately.

[Wrong Direction]

No bias in either of those sources.

Interesting analysis.

[Larry]

I think you need to find someone to talk to, you seem a little stressed lately.

Meaning, someone who will actually respond to a question with something other than an insult, and an evasion?

[PeterMP]

I think you mean a majority of those Americans who haven't been laid off, yet.

(Do a majority of Americans even have jobs, right now?)

In Jan. only 47% of Americans 16 and over and not in an institution had full time jobs.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-24/markets/29974517_1_part-time-unemployment-labor-force

I doubt the number has gotten better. Taking out highschool students would lower the number, but it is certainly gotta be close.

[Redskins Diehard]

In Jan. only 47% of Americans 16 and over and not in an institution had full time jobs.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-24/markets/29974517_1_part-time-unemployment-labor-force

I doubt the number has gotten better. Taking out highschool students would lower the number, but it is certainly gotta be close.

Do we want 16 year olds and 17 year olds to have "full time jobs"? I didn't have a full time job until I was almost 19 when I went into the military. Don't a lot of people not have full time jobs until they are out of college? I am just wondering why the age is 16 for the study.

[Burgold]

Do we want 16 year olds and 17 year olds to have "full time jobs"? I didn't have a full time job until I was almost 19 when I went into the military. Don't a lot of people not have full time jobs until they are out of college? I am just wondering why the age is 16 for the study.

Yup, and darn those 93 year olds for not being gainfully employed and working full time. What a bunch of leaches!!!

[allannis]

Meaning, someone who will actually respond to a question with something other than an insult, and an evasion?

Sorry didn't mean to insult, I didn' t think the question was real,thought you were just being sarcastic. evasion?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Yup, and darn those 93 year olds for not being gainfully employed and working full time. What a bunch of leaches!!!

It just goes to show that statistics are meaningless...you can manipulate and nuance any statistic to make your point.

[Larry]

Do we want 16 year olds and 17 year olds to have "full time jobs"?

We're getting off topic. (And I probably started it.)

The assertion was that the vast majority of Americans are employed by corporations. (And, I suspect, attempting to imply that, therefore, we should all be grateful for corporations generously saving us from starvation.)

My (admittedly snarky and sarcastic) observation was to question whether the vast majority of Americans were employed, at all.

Not to make some conclusion as to what percentage of people are employed, as a percentage of people that we think ought to be employed.

It was a joke, and a diversion.

[grhqofb5]

Screw the corporations and all those little eichmans.

[PeterMP]

Sorry didn't mean to insult, I didn' t think the question was real,thought you were just being sarcastic. evasion?

I thought he was joking too. Then I really started thinking about what that would mean, and they I decided that I'd bet it would actually be close.

I agree 16 is too young. I'd have made it 18 as I alluded in my post.

Despite the issues (including non-institutionalized 93 year old grandmas), does anybody believe that over long periods of time that a society where nearly (if not quite) 1/2 of its "adult" population can support the 1/2 PLUS the kids?

[DjTj]

I thought he was joking too. Then I really started thinking about what that would mean, and they I decided that I'd bet it would actually be close.

I agree 16 is too young. I'd have made it 18 as I alluded in my post.

Despite the issues (including non-institutionalized 93 year old grandmas), does anybody believe that over long periods of time that a society where nearly (if not quite) 1/2 of its "adult" population can support the 1/2 PLUS the kids?

It worked fine for centuries when men worked and women stayed at home.

[Predicto]

It worked fine for centuries when men worked and women stayed at home.

Actually, to be picky, that model didn't exist for centuries. Maybe a few decades, but even then, only in the upper classes.

Prior to the industrial revolution, men and women both worked. Men might be working in the fields, but women were making cloth and tending animals and so forth. Both provided income. Even after the industrial revolution, the factories were full of women.

The idea of a male "breadwinner" and a female "homemaker" is really a very recent concept, one that was only possible because the nature of work changed and there was a rise in the numbers and wealth of the American middle class that began in the late 19th century.

[NoVaO]

The sarcasm has really grown tiresome.

Let me ask you something. Who do the overwhelming majority of Americans work for?

*Hint: It starts with a "C" and you can find the answer hidden in this post.*

We need to stop acting like corporations hire people out of the goodness of their hearts just so Americans have jobs and make money.

They hire people only if they think the person they hire will make the company more money than they pay to the worker.

If the demand is not there for the product/service a corporation is selling, they will not hire. They will layoff people until the number of workers matches the level of demand. If a corporation thinks outsourcing jobs to other countries with people willing to work for slave-like wages will make the company more money in the long wrong, they will do so.

They care about an educated workforce, they want their workers to be healthy, they want the necessary infrastructure built so their company can grow, but they want those things so the company will have a better chance at making money, not because they actually care whether their employee has a job or not.

We need to stop thinking that if we shower them with benefits and less regulations and taxpayer money and kind words, that these corporations will suddenly start creating jobs, because they are not -- not without consumer demand. Yeah, you may be able to get them to move from one state to another, but you aren't creating any new jobs in this country. And this comes from someone who thinks, just to create a level playing field and for efficiency purposes, that we should lower the corporate tax rate and clean out many of the corporate tax loopholes.

[PeterMP]

Actually, to be picky, that model didn't exist for centuries. Maybe a few decades, but even then, only in the upper classes.

Prior to the industrial revolution, men and women both worked. Men might be working in the fields, but women were making cloth and tending animals and so forth. Both provided income. Even after the industrial revolution, the factories were full of women.

The idea of a male "breadwinner" and a female "homemaker" is really a very recent concept, one that was only possible because the nature of work changed and there was a rise in the numbers and wealth of the American middle class that began in the late 19th century.

The VAST majority of people that died in the Triangle Factory fire were women/girls. The youngest was 14. I'll bet at least 10% were 18 or under.

My wife's grandfather was done with school and working full time at 14.

[DjTj]

Actually, to be picky, that model didn't exist for centuries. Maybe a few decades, but even then, only in the upper classes.

Prior to the industrial revolution, men and women both worked. Men might be working in the fields, but women were making cloth and tending animals and so forth. Both provided income. Even after the industrial revolution, the factories were full of women.

The idea of a male "breadwinner" and a female "homemaker" is really a very recent concept, one that was only possible because the nature of work changed and there was a rise in the numbers and wealth of the American middle class that began in the late 19th century.

19th-century factory workers were generally young unmarried women, weren't they? So they still made up a relatively small percentage of the workforce. And it's not clear how we would count home economics kind of labor in our statistics today.

In any case, I think the statistic of what percentage of people are working is not really that useful ... and I think NoVaO's post is more salient to the discussion in this thread.

We need to stop acting like corporations hire people out of the goodness of their hearts just so Americans have jobs and make money.

They hire people only if they think the person they hire will make the company more money than they pay to the worker.

If the demand is not there for the product/service a corporation is selling, they will not hire. They will layoff people until the number of workers matches the level of demand. If a corporation thinks outsourcing jobs to other countries with people willing to work for slave-like wages will make the company more money in the long wrong, they will do so.

They care about an educated workforce, they want their workers to be healthy, they want the necessary infrastructure built so their company can grow, but they want those things so the company will have a better chance at making money, not because they actually care whether their employee has a job or not.

We need to stop thinking that if we shower them with benefits and less regulations and taxpayer money and kind words, that these corporations will suddenly start creating jobs, because they are not -- not without consumer demand. Yeah, you may be able to get them to move from one state to another, but you aren't creating any new jobs in this country. And this comes from someone who thinks, just to create a level playing field and for efficiency purposes, that we should lower the corporate tax rate and clean out many of the corporate tax loopholes.

The WSJ had a good op-ed about this today: Are Companies Responsible for Creating Jobs?

We shouldn't be looking at corporations as some kind of fountain for jobs. Kissing their ass and giving them tax breaks is not going to magically create jobs. Corporations use the promise of jobs to bribe us into giving them free stuff, like the AT&T commercials that keep promising us jobs in return for approving their merger with T-Mobile. But there isn't really a direct correlation between giving corporations free stuff and corporations creating jobs.

What if, instead of giving corporations our tax money directly, we gave them our tax money in the form of more productive workers? Maybe it would make more sense for us to invest in ourselves, to make ourselves more worthy of being hired. Instead of giving tax breaks to corporations, would our tax money be better spent on job training and education? If we invested in labor, and labor became more valuable, wouldn't the free market push corporations to hire that labor and profit from it?