• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Obama's dilemma: More jobs, same unemployment rate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
So it is pretty much impossible to have both a rapidly growing economy and low gas prices at this point. So no matter what, people will have something to complain about . . . a bad economy or high gas prices.

Didn't we have this in the 90s?

Now some economists among you are saying "That's wrong . . . just pump more oil!" But we just don't have any new easy cheap supplies of more oil. In fact we have been using more oil each year than we have been discovering each year for the past 20 years. The only way out is to find substitutes . . . and we've been trying for some 40 years now. It is very very hard since oil is magic treasure . . . an extremely energy dense substance that you just dig out of the ground.

We could have tapped ANWR when we had the chance.

We could have built the Keystone XL when we had the chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjfssrKGsBU


And we could have been greatly encouraging nuclear power and battery tech. But apparently no one wanted to do that, either.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Theoretically possible, but man, you'd get some serious inflation going if that were the case.

I don't see how its even that. In order for any businesses to hire new people there would have to be exactly that many people laid off around that period, and they'd all have to be of the exact qualification distribution needed by employers.
 
The problem isn't the unemployment rate or if there are more or less jobs, the problem is job quality. A lot of folks these days are taking jobs just to take jobs...both the unemployment rate and the "jobs created" does not address (or keep track of) their problem at all.
 

Kabouter

Member
I don't see how its even that. In order for any businesses to hire new people there would have to be exactly that many people laid off around that period, and they'd all have to be of the exact qualification distribution needed by employers.

You just said 0% unemployment, not 0% unemployment and no labour shortages. 0% unemployment implies massive labour shortages.
 

Puddles

Banned
I don't see how its even that. In order for any businesses to hire new people there would have to be exactly that many people laid off around that period, and they'd all have to be of the exact qualification distribution needed by employers.

The skills mismatch between unemployed workers and job vacancies is called structural unemployment. We have a bit of this in the engineering fields right now. We should be combating this with huge investments in worker training programs, but we aren't.

Frictional unemployment is the natural churn of people moving between jobs.
 

Big-E

Member
EDIT: Wrong thread.

In terms on unemployment discussion, it is such a difficult problem to address and I don't know how to solve it.
 
We could have tapped ANWR when we had the chance.

We could have built the Keystone XL when we had the chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjfssrKGsBU


And we could have been greatly encouraging nuclear power and battery tech. But apparently no one wanted to do that, either.

ANWR won't make a noticeable difference.

The Keystone XL pipeline is great for Canadian oil companies as it will help them get their oil down to the Gulf where it can get onto international markets .. . but it will actually raise oil prices in much of the mid-west where they are getting artificially cheap oil since that Canadian tar-sands oil is kinda stuck there with no easy way out to world markets.

We are working on nuclear power and battery tech fortunately. The first new nuclear plants since 1978 have been approved. The DoE provided funding to help battery makers Enerdel and A123. But it is really hard to compete with the energy density and low price of oil.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/business/economy/19grads.html?_r=1

working = 55.6%

working in jobs that do not require degree = 22%

not working = 22.4%



RECENT COLLEGE GRAD UNEMPLOYMENT IS FRICKIN 22.4%, AND UNDEREMPLOYMENT IS 44.4%

its pretty fuckin terrible

I haven't found a job yet since I graduated in August.

Add to the fact that I'm applying for GOVERNMENT jobs, which takes infinitely longer than to hire than the priate sector. Right now I'm just waiting to hear back from:

-U.S. Marshals
-ATF
-USAID
-AFPC Intel Specialist
 

codhand

Member
I haven't found a job yet since I graduated in August.

Add to the fact that I'm applying for GOVERNMENT jobs, which takes infinitely longer than to hire than the priate sector. Right now I'm just waiting to hear back from:

-U.S. Marshals
-ATF
-USAID
-AFPC Intel Specialist

Good luck, I don't envy any recent grad's job prospects right now, but you'll get one, maybe after a couple bad ones, like me. :)
 

Volimar

Member
ANWR won't make a noticeable difference.

The Keystone XL pipeline is great for Canadian oil companies as it will help them get their oil down to the Gulf where it can get onto international markets .. . but it will actually raise oil prices in much of the mid-west where they are getting artificially cheap oil since that Canadian tar-sands oil is kinda stuck there with no easy way out to world markets.

We are working on nuclear power and battery tech fortunately. The first new nuclear plants since 1978 have been approved. The DoE provided funding to help battery makers Enerdel and A123. But it is really hard to compete with the energy density and low price of oil.

Yup.
 

RDreamer

Member
The Keystone XL pipeline is great for Canadian oil companies as it will help them get their oil down to the Gulf where it can get onto international markets .. . but it will actually raise oil prices in much of the mid-west where they are getting artificially cheap oil since that Canadian tar-sands oil is kinda stuck there with no easy way out to world markets.

Whoa, really? I haven't heard this before. It would be kind of crazy if doing Keystone would actually be a slight kick in the balls to some of our country... Got a link to any more info on this?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Not really.
Whoa, really?
Not really.

ANWR won't make a noticeable difference.
The extra domestic capacity would have been nice to have now. It's not like this one area is supposed to be the savior of our entire energy industry. The extra economic activity would have also been nice and noticeable to those people without a job now.

The Keystone XL pipeline is great for Canadian oil companies as it will help them get their oil down to the Gulf where it can get onto international markets .. .

Both international and domestic. More domestic than international, with the right policies.

http://www.masterresource.org/2012/...fix-for-keystone-xl-protectionism-in-reverse/

Markey claims that without an export ban, Keystone crude will bypass rather than supply the domestic U.S. motor fuels market. That is implausible. Of the 1.2 billion barrels of finished petroleum products refined in the Gulf Coast region (PADD III) from January through October 2011, approximately half was sold in domestic markets. New supplies of Canadian oil will undoubtedly increase exports, but much of it will be used to offset declining PADD III imports of Mexican and Venezuelan crude. DOE analyst Carmen Difiglio observes:
Taken together, U.S. imports of crude oil from Mexico and Venezuela are about 1 million barrels/day lower than their previous peak levels. With an expected decline of Mexican crude oil production of 500,000 barrels per day and the likelihood of increased exports of Venezuelan crude to Asia, current heavy imports to PADD III are likely to decrease by a significant amount within the next five years.

Keystone XL opponents note that PADD III exports of finished petroleum products have increased rapidly in recent years. No dispute there. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), total U.S. exports of finished petroleum products “increased more than 60% since 2007 as markets have become more globally integrated,” and most of those exports came from PADD III.

But to view this as a market failure is deeply weird. Can you think of another U.S. industry that is castigated for becoming more competitive in the global marketplace?
Waxman and Markey profess to believe that banning exports made from Keystone crude will benefit consumers. But why stop there? Why not force refiners to sell all their products exclusively in the U.S. domestic market? Such a policy would produce a glut, gasoline prices would plummet. Great idea, right?

No, it would be just as dumb as banning exports of food, automobiles, computers or any other product on the grounds that decreased sales abroad means a more abundant market here at home.

but it will actually raise oil prices in much of the mid-west where they are getting artificially cheap oil since that Canadian tar-sands oil is kinda stuck there with no easy way out to world markets.
Which, as "artificial" imbalances usually are, an inefficient use of scarce resources that would be more beneficial to the nation as a whole if they were properly allocated.

Not to mention how increased domestic production introduces more competition into the global market and takes away business from other oil-producing countries that hate us and funnel their profits into organizations that would wish to harm us.

We are working on nuclear power and battery tech fortunately.
Yeah, I know, but we're all tragically late to the party. Better late than never, I guess.

But it is really hard to compete with the energy density and low price of oil.
Getting a head start on R&D decades ago would have helped.
Making money off of domestic energy, taxing it, and using that money to fund such R&D would have helped, too.

But luddite protesters in the 60s were too busy bemoaning the evils of nuclear power, and in doing so, doomed us to decades longer reliance on dirty fossil fuels than we otherwise would have needed.
 

VALIS

Member
I dont understand when they say people just give up looking for work...so they just decide not to eat and decide not to have bills? or what....

Yeah, Mitt Romney said that a couple weeks ago to try and downplay the better job news, and I was like what the fuck. People don't stop looking for work. A small fraction somehow come into situations where they don't have to work anymore, and the rest keep looking for work until they die.
 

Canuck76

Banned
Whoa, really? I haven't heard this before. It would be kind of crazy if doing Keystone would actually be a slight kick in the balls to some of our country... Got a link to any more info on this?

Really? Does TransCanada export to International markets? My Dad's a land agent for them and he's never talked about them exporting or anything. I was always under the impression it was just domestic
 

Puddles

Banned
Waxman and Markey profess to believe that banning exports made from Keystone crude will benefit consumers. But why stop there? Why not force refiners to sell all their products exclusively in the U.S. domestic market? Such a policy would produce a glut, gasoline prices would plummet. Great idea, right?

No, it would be just as dumb as banning exports of food, automobiles, computers or any other product on the grounds that decreased sales abroad means a more abundant market here at home.

This is ridiculous. Food, automobiles, and computers aren't nearly as supply-constrained as oil.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
If there's sufficient local demand (there is)
100% of the crude from Canada would be refined in the USA anyway. All the supply coming from Canada is taken up by the demand of the Gulf refineries.

Refined petroleum recently became one of the USA's top exports.
(Which is different from crude petroleum, where we still have a significant trade deficit)

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/12/us_net_exports.html


If it wouldn't provoke a backlash by the international community, sure. The latter is what I'd be more concerned about.

If your main concern is preventing an international backlash, then not banning it shouldn't be that hard a decision to make.
 

bill0527

Member
Yeah, Mitt Romney said that a couple weeks ago to try and downplay the better job news, and I was like what the fuck. People don't stop looking for work. A small fraction somehow come into situations where they don't have to work anymore, and the rest keep looking for work until they die.

I went back to school in 2004, finished my BS in Finance in 2007, spent the next year and a half looking for a job - any job and no luck, so my wife and I decided that since we could afford it, I would be a stay at home dad and that's what I've been doing for 5 years.

I would have rather had a full-time job.

Yesterday I pulled up 400 sq. ft. of carpet, padding, tack board, and pulled about 1000 staples out of the subfloor in our dining room and I'm putting a new hardwood floor in on Monday.. and I also did 6 loads of laundry, dried, folded and put away, then cooked rotissiere chicken, steamed veggies, and real mashed potatoes for dinner. Then I fell over dead of exhaustion at 7:30pm right as my wife got home from work. Days like yesterday, I'd give anything for a 9-5 job.
 
He is wrong, it's actually closer to 80%

"A survey of last year's college graduation class showed that 80 percent moved back home after getting their diplomas"

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...0_1_job-market-graduate-school-marketing-firm

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/10/survey-85-of-new-college-grads-moving-back-in-with-mom-and-dad/ 85% according to this one.

You shouldn't generalize large groups of people.

I moved back in with my parents for a few weeks after I graduated in between finishing school and starting a job and moving out. I'm sure its very common for this to happen, and isn't the best indicator of employment out of college.
 

SolKane

Member
Currently living with parents, underemployed, but about to start a full-time position. Planning on going back to school shortly, hopefully will "pick a better major."
 
Well if ANWR won't decrease prices why drill there?

The oil there won't last long, what 20 years? There is just far-far more oil in the middle east to be had and that actually makes a difference.


Conservatives want their money now, but i'd rather that ANWR be kept environmentally untapped.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/business/economy/19grads.html?_r=1

working = 55.6%

working in jobs that do not require degree = 22%

not working = 22.4%



RECENT COLLEGE GRAD UNEMPLOYMENT IS FRICKIN 22.4%, AND UNDEREMPLOYMENT IS 44.4%

its pretty fuckin terrible

Right, but that one poster insinuated that if you can't find employment and you are in possession of a college degree then you're obviously a loser. People are clueless and blind from their ivory towers.
 

LM4sure

Banned
Most of the people I graduated college with (I'd estimate at least 75%) have moved back in with their parents. I still live at home and I work two jobs.

Sounds like you went to a pretty piss poor school, or you and your friends are huge underachievers. I know very, very few people I went to school with that are unemployed.
 
Sounds like you went to a pretty piss poor school, or you and your friends are huge underachievers. I know very, very few people I went to school with that are unemployed.

Read the article above. It has nothing to do with what school you attended. Gaining employment essentially boils down to connections and nepotism nowadays.

College graduates:

working = 55.6%

working in jobs that do not require degree = 22%

not working = 22.4%

That is huge number.
 

LM4sure

Banned
Read the article above. It has nothing to do with what school you attended. Gaining employment essentially boils down to connections and nepotism nowadays.

Completely false. I had no connections and there was no nepotism involved when I got a job right out of college. When I got a new job in a new city, my girlfriend moved with me and got a job within a week on her own merits, not because she knew anyone.

Connections and nepotism definitely help a lot of people get a job but saying that is the primary way people get employment is ridiculous.
 

LM4sure

Banned
Read the article above. It has nothing to do with what school you attended. Gaining employment essentially boils down to connections and nepotism nowadays.

College graduates:

working = 55.6%

working in jobs that do not require degree = 22%

not working = 22.4%

That is huge number.

These statistics do nothing to prove your allegation that nepotism and connections are the primary ways people get jobs.
 

LM4sure

Banned
Those statistics do, however, prove that many people with a college degree are underemployed or flat out unemployed.

Where are these statistics coming from? And what types of schools are we talking about? I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of people who graduated Phoenix University are unemployed.

Also, being in a job that doesn't "require" a college degree does not necessarily mean one is underemployed.
 

thefit

Member
There is another dilemma . . . the economy or gas prices.

If the economy gets better then people get hired to jobs, more people drive to jobs, and thus we burn more oil. This drives up the price of oil & gasoline.

So it is pretty much impossible to have both a rapidly growing economy and low gas prices at this point. So no matter what, people will have something to complain about . . . a bad economy or high gas prices.



Now some economists among you are saying "That's wrong . . . just pump more oil!" But we just don't have any new easy cheap supplies of more oil. In fact we have been using more oil each year than we have been discovering each year for the past 20 years. The only way out is to find substitutes . . . and we've been trying for some 40 years now. It is very very hard since oil is magic treasure . . . an extremely energy dense substance that you just dig out of the ground.

On the whole oil thing this should piss you off for the first time in a long time we be came and [/b]EXPORTER[/B] of oil.

U.S. Becomes Net Oil-Product Exporter
Gasoline futures rise on report of newfound net exporter status
Mar 1, 2012, 10:56 am EST


http://www.investorplace.com/2012/03/us-becomes-net-oil-product-exporter/

The Department of Energy recently reported that the United States now stands as a net exporter of refined gasoline, diesel and other fuels for the first time since 1949. Daily shipments of petroleum products abroad now exceed net imports by 439,000 barrels per day according to the Energy Department’s monthly report. This shift towards net fuel exporting was likely motivated by U.S. refiners’ notable increase in fuel production in tandem with America’s waning monthly consumption

Gasoline futures are rising on the news of America’s development into a net-fuel exporter. Gasoline futures for March delivery settled at $3.04 per gallon today, up 11% from last year. Similarly, heating oil was up 9% to $3.19 per gallon over the same period.


The United States has made broad changes to its refinery infrastructure — closing unproductive facilities along the Eastern seaboard and bolstering refining operations throughout the Gulf Coast and Midwest. Output has risen correspondingly over the past year; overall operable capacity rose to 17.7 million barrels per day in December, a 0.8% increase from the figures drawn a year prior. In its fourth quarter, Valero Energy (NYSE:VLO), the largest independent U.S. refiner, exported 5% of its gasoline production and a marked 17% of its diesel production.


DRILL, BABY, DR......oh wait what?
 
Completely false. I had no connections and there was no nepotism involved when I got a job right out of college. When I got a new job in a new city, my girlfriend moved with me and got a job within a week on her own merits, not because she knew anyone.

Connections and nepotism definitely help a lot of people get a job but saying that is the primary way people get employment is ridiculous.


How old are you? and which field is your employment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom