HKBear97! said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

America is sorely in need of more semi-skilled and higher paying jobs than what today's service economy offers. I've seen numerous students today that feel capitalism is evil and socialism is the answer and I think a part of that is because they simply don't have the skills to succeed in an economy that's dependent on highly skilled service industries.

---

America is sorely in need of more skilled manufacturing labor.
We don't have it.

Nearly 2.1 million manufacturing jobs are projected to go unfilled by 2030.

So even if you "reshore" manufacturing back to the United States, where is the skilled labor going to come from?

Persistent Labor Shortages are Endangering US Manufacturing Output

---

Certainly seems like it will take some time for this to right itself. From this NPR story, sounds like it is already in process. Why aren't Americans filling the manufacturing jobs we already have?

---

This part was eye opening
"It employs leading scientists at $10 an hour to develop extraordinary cures."

Interesting read I have many initial thoughts and questions.
An informational piece but I see glaring misses/omissions.

The ethos is missing where and exactly why things went off course. Some bad people caused these problems because they benefited and were and still are greedy selfish andevil.

America sold America out

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

It's sad just how pathetically poor the reading comprehension is of the typical Trump "Kool-Aid" drinkers.

Notice that these people that question the Unemployment number have conveniently left out the fact that they are talking about the measure of unemployment called U-6 and not U-3.

Notice that Oski didn't even bother to make the distinction.
It's because he's just plain ignorant of basic economic data.

This pretty much tells you that the typical Trumpanzee has no comprehension of the tweets or memes that they read from right-wing media hacks like Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch.

U-3 is the official unemployment rate.
U-3 is the total number of unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force.

U-6 is the total number of unemployed, plus all people marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part-time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian work force plus all people marginally attached to the labor force.

This is similar to when Bearscat was yapping about the massive revision in the jobs number, without having a clue that the Bureau of Labor makes an annual revision.



It's too bad that people like Oski have such a poor understanding of basic economic statistics.
He probably never had Econ.1 with Professor Sutch in Wheeler Auditorium like I did.
Probably never went to Cal either.

Richard Sutch
RIP 2019, Kensington, Ca



Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization - 2025 M04 Results

---

If you want to restrict this conversation to the U3, which was introduced as the official unemployment number during Clinton's term, you should acknowledge it counts part-time workers as fully employed and excludes anyone who hasn't actively been looking for jobs in the last 4 weeks. Again, this calculation also largely favored Biden in the reopening of the economy post-pandemic. Many folks, such as the Biden administration, touted the U6 number. They also generally lie about the unemployment numbers.

---

is "tout" the right word here? Having studied Unemployment Theory "extensively (for me at least)" at Cal I appreciate the refresher in these calculations …and it's kinda important when people are throwing out numbers, twisting the narrative and/or developing yet more conspiracy theories.

---

Yes.

oski003 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

It's sad just how pathetically poor the reading comprehension is of the typical Trump "Kool-Aid" drinkers.

Notice that these people that question the Unemployment number have conveniently left out the fact that they are talking about the measure of unemployment called U-6 and not U-3.

Notice that Oski didn't even bother to make the distinction.
It's because he's just plain ignorant of basic economic data.

This pretty much tells you that the typical Trumpanzee has no comprehension of the tweets or memes that they read from right-wing media hacks like Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch.

U-3 is the official unemployment rate.
U-3 is the total number of unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force.

U-6 is the total number of unemployed, plus all people marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part-time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian work force plus all people marginally attached to the labor force.

This is similar to when Bearscat was yapping about the massive revision in the jobs number, without having a clue that the Bureau of Labor makes an annual revision.



It's too bad that people like Oski have such a poor understanding of basic economic statistics.
He probably never had Econ.1 with Professor Sutch in Wheeler Auditorium like I did.
Probably never went to Cal either.

Richard Sutch
RIP 2019, Kensington, Ca



Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization - 2025 M04 Results

---

If you want to restrict this conversation to the U3, which was introduced as the official unemployment number during Clinton's term, you should acknowledge it counts part-time workers as fully employed and excludes anyone who hasn't actively been looking for jobs in the last 4 weeks. Again, this calculation also largely favored Biden in the reopening of the economy post-pandemic. Many folks, such as the Biden administration, touted the U6 number. They also generally lie about the unemployment numbers.

---

is "tout" the right word here? Having studied Unemployment Theory "extensively (for me at least)" at Cal I appreciate the refresher in these calculations …and it's kinda important when people are throwing out numbers, twisting the narrative and/or developing yet more conspiracy theories.

---

Yes.

---

so you say Biden favored u3 and yet they touted u6?

cal83dls79 said:

---

so you say Biden favored u3 and yet they touted u6?

---

He actually said Biden favored U 2 and specifically touted the tune, Party Girl.

bearister said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

so you say Biden favored u3 and yet they touted u6?

---

He actually said Biden favored U 2 and specifically touted the tune, Party Girl.

---

they are undoubtedly under investigation by the DOJ along with Beyonc and Taylor

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

It's sad just how pathetically poor the reading comprehension is of the typical Trump "Kool-Aid" drinkers.

Notice that these people that question the Unemployment number have conveniently left out the fact that they are talking about the measure of unemployment called U-6 and not U-3.

Notice that Oski didn't even bother to make the distinction.
It's because he's just plain ignorant of basic economic data.

This pretty much tells you that the typical Trumpanzee has no comprehension of the tweets or memes that they read from right-wing media hacks like Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch.

U-3 is the official unemployment rate.
U-3 is the total number of unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force.

U-6 is the total number of unemployed, plus all people marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part-time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian work force plus all people marginally attached to the labor force.

This is similar to when Bearscat was yapping about the massive revision in the jobs number, without having a clue that the Bureau of Labor makes an annual revision.



It's too bad that people like Oski have such a poor understanding of basic economic statistics.
He probably never had Econ.1 with Professor Sutch in Wheeler Auditorium like I did.
Probably never went to Cal either.

Richard Sutch
RIP 2019, Kensington, Ca



Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization - 2025 M04 Results

---

If you want to restrict this conversation to the U3, which was introduced as the official unemployment number during Clinton's term, you should acknowledge it counts part-time workers as fully employed and excludes anyone who hasn't actively been looking for jobs in the last 4 weeks. Again, this calculation also largely favored Biden in the reopening of the economy post-pandemic. Many folks, such as the Biden administration, touted the U6 number. They also generally lie about the unemployment numbers.

---

is "tout" the right word here? Having studied Unemployment Theory "extensively (for me at least)" at Cal I appreciate the refresher in these calculations …and it's kinda important when people are throwing out numbers, twisting the narrative and/or developing yet more conspiracy theories.

---

Yes.

---

so you say Biden favored u3 and yet they touted u6?

---

No.

There are still some IRA lads about that will protect Bono.

oski003 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

It's sad just how pathetically poor the reading comprehension is of the typical Trump "Kool-Aid" drinkers.

Notice that these people that question the Unemployment number have conveniently left out the fact that they are talking about the measure of unemployment called U-6 and not U-3.

Notice that Oski didn't even bother to make the distinction.
It's because he's just plain ignorant of basic economic data.

This pretty much tells you that the typical Trumpanzee has no comprehension of the tweets or memes that they read from right-wing media hacks like Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch.

U-3 is the official unemployment rate.
U-3 is the total number of unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force.

U-6 is the total number of unemployed, plus all people marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part-time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian work force plus all people marginally attached to the labor force.

This is similar to when Bearscat was yapping about the massive revision in the jobs number, without having a clue that the Bureau of Labor makes an annual revision.



It's too bad that people like Oski have such a poor understanding of basic economic statistics.
He probably never had Econ.1 with Professor Sutch in Wheeler Auditorium like I did.
Probably never went to Cal either.

Richard Sutch
RIP 2019, Kensington, Ca



Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization - 2025 M04 Results

---

If you want to restrict this conversation to the U3, which was introduced as the official unemployment number during Clinton's term, you should acknowledge it counts part-time workers as fully employed and excludes anyone who hasn't actively been looking for jobs in the last 4 weeks. Again, this calculation also largely favored Biden in the reopening of the economy post-pandemic. Many folks, such as the Biden administration, touted the U6 number. They also generally lie about the unemployment numbers.

---

is "tout" the right word here? Having studied Unemployment Theory "extensively (for me at least)" at Cal I appreciate the refresher in these calculations …and it's kinda important when people are throwing out numbers, twisting the narrative and/or developing yet more conspiracy theories.

---

Yes.

---

so you say Biden favored u3 and yet they touted u6?

---

No.

---

read your post. It's literally what you said so it made no sense. But ok maybe you didn't mean it

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

It's sad just how pathetically poor the reading comprehension is of the typical Trump "Kool-Aid" drinkers.

Notice that these people that question the Unemployment number have conveniently left out the fact that they are talking about the measure of unemployment called U-6 and not U-3.

Notice that Oski didn't even bother to make the distinction.
It's because he's just plain ignorant of basic economic data.

This pretty much tells you that the typical Trumpanzee has no comprehension of the tweets or memes that they read from right-wing media hacks like Tom Fitton at Judicial Watch.

U-3 is the official unemployment rate.
U-3 is the total number of unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force.

U-6 is the total number of unemployed, plus all people marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part-time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian work force plus all people marginally attached to the labor force.

This is similar to when Bearscat was yapping about the massive revision in the jobs number, without having a clue that the Bureau of Labor makes an annual revision.



It's too bad that people like Oski have such a poor understanding of basic economic statistics.
He probably never had Econ.1 with Professor Sutch in Wheeler Auditorium like I did.
Probably never went to Cal either.

Richard Sutch
RIP 2019, Kensington, Ca



Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization - 2025 M04 Results

---

If you want to restrict this conversation to the U3, which was introduced as the official unemployment number during Clinton's term, you should acknowledge it counts part-time workers as fully employed and excludes anyone who hasn't actively been looking for jobs in the last 4 weeks. Again, this calculation also largely favored Biden in the reopening of the economy post-pandemic. Many folks, such as the Biden administration, touted the U6 number. They also generally lie about the unemployment numbers.

---

is "tout" the right word here? Having studied Unemployment Theory "extensively (for me at least)" at Cal I appreciate the refresher in these calculations …and it's kinda important when people are throwing out numbers, twisting the narrative and/or developing yet more conspiracy theories.

---

Yes.

---

so you say Biden favored u3 and yet they touted u6?

---

No.

---

read your post. It's literally what you said so it made no sense. But ok maybe you didn't mean it

---

I said they touted U6. Not sure where you came up with the other part.

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I

---

---

---

---

---

No.

---

read your post. It's literally what you said so it made no sense. But ok maybe you didn't mean it

---

Honestly DLS, I didn't even bother to check back and read his reply.
I knew ahead of time that it would be more worthless conflation and spin.

Our mascot is a moron.

DiabloWags said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I

---

---

---

---

---

No.

---

read your post. It's literally what you said so it made no sense. But ok maybe you didn't mean it

---

Honestly DLS, I didn't even bother to check back and read his reply.
I knew ahead of time that it would be more worthless conflation and spin.

Our mascot is a moron.

---

You guys should get a two for one discount on a reading comprehension class. Obviously, it won't help if Wags throws schoolgirl insults without reading at all, which is unfortunately common.

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I

---

---

---

---

---

No.

---

read your post. It's literally what you said so it made no sense. But ok maybe you didn't mean it

---

Honestly DLS, I didn't even bother to check back and read his reply.
I knew ahead of time that it would be more worthless conflation and spin.

Our mascot is a moron.

---

You guys should get a two for one discount on a reading comprehension class. Obviously, it won't help if Wags throws schoolgirl insults without reading at all, which is unfortunately common.

---

you literally said the U3 calced as such and used by Clinton favored Biden as well . That's the u3 bit. I see the tout.

cal83dls79 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Honestly DLS, I didn't even bother to check back and read his reply.
I knew ahead of time that it would be more worthless conflation and spin.

Our mascot is a moron.

---

You guys should get a two for one discount on a reading comprehension class. Obviously, it won't help if Wags throws schoolgirl insults without reading at all, which is unfortunately common.

---

you literally said the U3 calced as such and used by Clinton favored Biden as well . That's the u3 bit. I see the tout.

---

Like I said before, our Mascot is a loser.

SBGold said:

---

Democrats Hate Democracy said:

---

Quote:

---

It's too bad that people like Oski have such a poor understanding of basic economic statistics.
He probably never had Econ.1 with Professor Sutch in Wheeler Auditorium like I did.
Probably never went to Cal either.

---

I had Econ 1 with Sutch in Wheeler Auditorium and again for American Economic History. Enjoyed him enough that I ended up majoring in Economics. And he never ever got into the weeds about how the government calculates the unemployment rate.

You are just a blowhard who is largely ignorant on the topics that you claim to have an expertise in and the forum would be a far better place if you would just STFU.

---

Disagree. Diablo over 003's moronisms any day.

MAGAts are trash at economics and want to censor that too.

VOTE BLUE

Go Bears Forever

---

Whatever happened to Democrats Hate Democracy and Best Biden Ever? They should post more.

bear2034 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Democrats Hate Democracy said:

---

Quote:

---

It's too bad that people like Oski have such a poor understanding of basic economic statistics.
He probably never had Econ.1 with Professor Sutch in Wheeler Auditorium like I did.
Probably never went to Cal either.

---

I had Econ 1 with Sutch in Wheeler Auditorium and again for American Economic History. Enjoyed him enough that I ended up majoring in Economics. And he never ever got into the weeds about how the government calculates the unemployment rate.

You are just a blowhard who is largely ignorant on the topics that you claim to have an expertise in and the forum would be a far better place if you would just STFU.

---

Disagree. Diablo over 003's moronisms any day.

MAGAts are trash at economics and want to censor that too.

VOTE BLUE

Go Bears Forever

---

Whatever happened to Democrats Hate Democracy and Best Biden Ever? They should post more.

---

I dunno and don't much care.

MAGAts are killing America

VOTE BLUE

Go Bears Forever

SBGold said:

---

Democrats Hate Democracy said:

---

Quote:

---

It's too bad that people like Oski have such a poor understanding of basic economic statistics.
He probably never had Econ.1 with Professor Sutch in Wheeler Auditorium like I did.
Probably never went to Cal either.

---

I had Econ 1 with Sutch in Wheeler Auditorium and again for American Economic History. Enjoyed him enough that I ended up majoring in Economics. And he never ever got into the weeds about how the government calculates the unemployment rate.

You are just a blowhard who is largely ignorant on the topics that you claim to have an expertise in and the forum would be a far better place if you would just STFU.

---

Disagree. Diablo over 003's moronisms any day.

MAGAts are trash at economics and want to censor that too.

VOTE BLUE

Go Bears Forever

---

Looks like our dear friend who also had Professor Sutch for Econ. 1 got banned after only a few days.
I wonder who he will "reappear" as next?

I would have liked to have shared with him that the reason Professor Sutch most likely didn't discuss other more comprehensive rates of Unemployment like U-6 when our fellow alum took Econ. 1 is because U-6 and other measured of unemployment didn't start being calculated by the Bureau of Labor until 1994.

In 1998, Professor Sutch left CAL to become Director of a new Center for Economic and Social Policy at UC Riverside, where he remained until his retirement in 2009.

GO BEARS!

Richard Sutch Obituary.pdf

Ron Filipkowski
@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social

Trump reduced the tariffs on China in exchange for nothing.

He paused the tariffs on Canada & Mexico in exchange for nothing.

He postponed tariffs on EU in exchange for nothing.

He threatened Russia with sanctions if they didn't sign ceasefire & did nothing.

Art of the Deal.

*Trump and friends will make boku from the stock market manipulation, however.

Beggar thy neighbor?

Not sure you understand global history of tariffs and economics.

DiabloWags said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

America is sorely in need of more semi-skilled and higher paying jobs than what today's service economy offers. I've seen numerous students today that feel capitalism is evil and socialism is the answer and I think a part of that is because they simply don't have the skills to succeed in an economy that's dependent on highly skilled service industries.

---

America is sorely in need of more skilled manufacturing labor.
We don't have it.

Nearly 2.1 million manufacturing jobs are projected to go unfilled by 2030.

So even if you "reshore" manufacturing back to the United States, where is the skilled labor going to come from?

Persistent Labor Shortages are Endangering US Manufacturing Output

---

Well, we WOULD or COULD have it - if we didn't price ourselves out of those jobs!


The skill comes from doing. Not just college educations but trainee programs in the manufacturing plants. And since America's wage demands are MUCH higher than abroad, the jobs, and the skills and knowledge goes with them.


Welcome to the Global Economy.

I know you know this. But other numbnuts don't. They think they can just wave a flag and DEMAND the factories return. That's because they are led by an idiot moron who could care less about whatever happens, so long as he's in the spotlight and grifting off all the needless activity he creates.

Didn't they just move a bunch of manufacturing to Brazil? Does this mean Brazil has greater capabilities in machine engineering than us too?

They could sponsor the development of advanced machine tooling learning institutes in the US.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Didn't they just move a bunch of manufacturing to Brazil? Does this mean Brazil has greater capabilities in machine engineering than us too?

---

China also has advanced tooling engineers because, if our engineers make a breakthrough and we want to manufacture in China, we have to give them the tech.

Cal88 said:

---

They could sponsor the development of advanced machine tooling learning institutes in the US.

---

why hasn't Cook thought of this before?!! It's brilliant! Pass this along to him pronto!

Cal88 said:

---

They could sponsor the development of advanced machine tooling learning institutes in the US.

---

But Apple won't do that because the underlying labor for the bulk processing jobs is too high.

This whole introduction of advanced machine tooling … that's on the design end. But there's a raw materials piece, there's a low skilled labor piece , there's… I dunno. I just refuse to accept that the US can't compete on the knowledge portion. I believe we can. It's the COST of it all. Hell, building the factory is very high here. Even before anything else.

I repeat my bias: it's a global market where everyone must compete with everyone else. Raw materials, unskilled labor, skilled labor, capital…. All transportable. And so if it penciled out here, they would do it here. But they don't so I can only assume it's because it doesn't pencil out.

If Diablo wants to tell me that the US can't compete on a technology standpoint, well, then don't anybody ever accuse me of being anti-American, 'goodbye to the dollar' thread included.