We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Read it, and Chomsky’s technique becomes obvious, a three-step bit of linguistic legerdemain that begins by emptying words of their meaning, continues by assigning them some random and temporarily advantageous value, and ends with accusing anyone who questions the new meaning as a depraved monster oblivious to the misfortunes of others.
Why did 'diversity' become so important? Probably a naturally diverse staff suggests that the cultural systems are working well, but forcing diversity does not cause these deeper issues to be any better, any more than setting your alarm clock earlier produces an earlier sunrise.
If pressed, diversity advocates will point to the usefulness of diversity in nature. But diversity in nature is a life and death competition, between species, between groups, between genes. The best adapted win at the cost of others. I suspect that's not what they are picturing.
My economics profs taught that 5% unemployed signaled 'full employment', meaning that everyone who wanted a job, had one. The 5% represented people "in between jobs" either looking for something better or different. It also signaled that there would be rising wages as employers bid for scarce workers.
Does that sound like the 5.4% unemployment we have today?
In Jan 2012 the unemployment rate was 8.3% At the rate the unemployment rate is falling, one wonders if the BLS will be penciling in a 4.3% unemployment rate by Nov. 2016?
Happy Days are here again! I am just to feeble minded to see it.
I'm having a lot of difficulty finding employment numbers that are actually useful - I suspect they're obtainable though the IRS, but no where else that I can find (and the IRS isn't likely to publish the numbers)
From FRED (federal reserve economic data) workforce employment in 08 63% and unemployment was 5.8% and the in 2015 the workforce employment is 59% and we're back to 5.4 - we seem to be missing 4% - The problem is that none of these numbers tracks part time and underemployment.
workforce employment has only gained 1% since Jan 08.
What I really need is a source of hours worked for hourly/part time. and numbers of salaried employees. You might think they just don't want us to actually know those numbers.
Anyway - just ignore Unemployment - it means nothing, their inflation numbers don't mean anything either.
You should ignore all the numbers since Obama shifted the task of compiling labor statistics to the thoroughly corrupt Census Bureau (and from the mildly corrupt Labor Dept). The data on unemployment released just before the 2012 election was completely bogus.