Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:More good news. Now we are talking not 50,000 but 100,000 jobs. I believe the newer jobs are lower paid compared to the former. Bonn, you got those Obama salary numbers for all those jobs he created?
I'd like to see how much people are being helped by these jobs. I ask because many people are losing jobs but getting 2 PT jobs or lower paying jobs to get by. So just creating jobs, doesn't say anything about them, but does aid the unemployment numbers.

Apple’s Top Assembler Foxconn Confirms Plans for U.S. Investment

snippet

The disclosure came hours after an announcement by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and SoftBank Group Corp.’s Masayoshi Son to invest $50 billion in the U.S. and create 50,000 jobs. The money will come from SoftBank’s $100 billion technology fund, which was announced in October, a person familiar with the matter said. A document that Son held up after the meeting in Trump Tower also included the words “Foxconn,” “$7 billion” and “50,000 new jobs” in addition to SoftBank’s numbers.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-07/apple-s-top-assembler-foxconn-confirms-plans-for-u-s-investment

Here's the detailed jobs report.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
The # of involuntary part time workers is a lot lower than a year ago and virtually every number is way better than the last time we had a Republican running the country.

Thanks.
I looked through that, where does it say how much the average salary and average hours are for these jobs? I want to see if these are more low paying jobs and I don't see that.
I think you said Obama created 178,000 new jobs? And I just can't fathom how those could be good paying jobs. If they are, great job Obama and I'm happy, but I'd like that data.

I don't think those specific details have been released yet. (I haven't seen the salaries for those Trump jobs either but you still seem to be celebrating them.) Any job is better than being unemployed though. So this is good news even if it's not a complete picture.

Thanks Holfresh for that information btw. And I don't wish anything bad against Obama and creating jobs and such. I'm just personally not real happy with his presidency. But I won't go off on that.

Bonn, Obama didn't create those jobs? Why phrase it like that?
Did you read the information on those jobs from Softcom or just post a reply about "Obama's 178,000 jobs", which were created by the economy?

The softcom jobs are via starting companies up, so the pay scale is all those people in a company. Not just people at the bottom.
And not to make this Trump vs Obama or vs Clinton, etc. but it is pretty nice to see jobs coming back to America due to Trump directly.

It looks like Carrier is talking about adding 10,000 more jobs. Just on alt media and not MSM that I see, but quite a few mentions of it. http://thegoldwater.com/news/681-Carrier-Tells-Trump-10-000-More-Jobs-For-American-Workers
US Steel talking about bringing back up to 10,000 jobs due to Trump.http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/07/us-steel-wants-to-accelerate-investments-bring-back-jobs-ceo-says.html

United States Steel would like to accelerate its investments and hire back laid-off employees now that Donald Trump will be occupying the Oval Office, CEO Mario Longhi told CNBC on Wednesday.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:More good news. Now we are talking not 50,000 but 100,000 jobs. I believe the newer jobs are lower paid compared to the former. Bonn, you got those Obama salary numbers for all those jobs he created?
I'd like to see how much people are being helped by these jobs. I ask because many people are losing jobs but getting 2 PT jobs or lower paying jobs to get by. So just creating jobs, doesn't say anything about them, but does aid the unemployment numbers.

Apple’s Top Assembler Foxconn Confirms Plans for U.S. Investment

snippet

The disclosure came hours after an announcement by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and SoftBank Group Corp.’s Masayoshi Son to invest $50 billion in the U.S. and create 50,000 jobs. The money will come from SoftBank’s $100 billion technology fund, which was announced in October, a person familiar with the matter said. A document that Son held up after the meeting in Trump Tower also included the words “Foxconn,” “$7 billion” and “50,000 new jobs” in addition to SoftBank’s numbers.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-07/apple-s-top-assembler-foxconn-confirms-plans-for-u-s-investment

Here's the detailed jobs report.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
The # of involuntary part time workers is a lot lower than a year ago and virtually every number is way better than the last time we had a Republican running the country.

Thanks.
I looked through that, where does it say how much the average salary and average hours are for these jobs? I want to see if these are more low paying jobs and I don't see that.
I think you said Obama created 178,000 new jobs? And I just can't fathom how those could be good paying jobs. If they are, great job Obama and I'm happy, but I'd like that data.

I don't think those specific details have been released yet. (I haven't seen the salaries for those Trump jobs either but you still seem to be celebrating them.) Any job is better than being unemployed though. So this is good news even if it's not a complete picture.

Thanks Holfresh for that information btw. And I don't wish anything bad against Obama and creating jobs and such. I'm just personally not real happy with his presidency. But I won't go off on that.

Bonn, Obama didn't create those jobs? Why phrase it like that?
Did you read the information on those jobs from Softcom or just post a reply about "Obama's 178,000 jobs", which were created by the economy?

The softcom jobs are via starting companies up, so the pay scale is all those people in a company. Not just people at the bottom.
And not to make this Trump vs Obama or vs Clinton, etc. but it is pretty nice to see jobs coming back to America due to Trump directly.

It looks like Carrier is talking about adding 10,000 more jobs. Just on alt media and not MSM that I see, but quite a few mentions of it. http://thegoldwater.com/news/681-Carrier-Tells-Trump-10-000-More-Jobs-For-American-Workers
US Steel talking about bringing back up to 10,000 jobs due to Trump.http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/07/us-steel-wants-to-accelerate-investments-bring-back-jobs-ceo-says.html

United States Steel would like to accelerate its investments and hire back laid-off employees now that Donald Trump will be occupying the Oval Office, CEO Mario Longhi told CNBC on Wednesday.

Space jobs don't tickle your fancy??..Virtually non-existent outside of NASA and military contractors...Look at what's happening...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies
Can you count the jobs???

holfresh wrote:Amazon is planning on rolling out supermarkets with no cashiers...Now a multi-billion dollar company with millions in revenues quarterly can't cover a cashier's salary??..Come on, I think this is a bridge too far...I will boycott Amazon supermarkets if this happens and hope the word gets out and creates a movement across all industries...Might be time to start supporting family run businesses again...

i don't see how you can really control that. this is progress technologically - something that should be encouraged to forward the world. and amazon can do whatever they want with their money (capitalism).

i don't think these amazon supermarkets can replace existing supermarkets in areas that would most be effected - i think these type of supermarkets would be in the bigger metropolitan cities and not "rural" america.

how many supermarkets or stores like target have self-checkout now? those are job eliminators too.

with that said, there is something that needs to be done to help more uneducated people get jobs.

the biggest sector the government can start training and employing people is green energy and things that deal with global warming but republicans don't want to believe in it. and then there are people that don't want to be trained to do something else.

i think it's an unsolvable problem. imho, technological advancement will be the end of capitalism.

djsunyc wrote:

holfresh wrote:Amazon is planning on rolling out supermarkets with no cashiers...Now a multi-billion dollar company with millions in revenues quarterly can't cover a cashier's salary??..Come on, I think this is a bridge too far...I will boycott Amazon supermarkets if this happens and hope the word gets out and creates a movement across all industries...Might be time to start supporting family run businesses again...

i don't see how you can really control that. this is progress technologically - something that should be encouraged to forward the world. and amazon can do whatever they want with their money (capitalism).

i don't think these amazon supermarkets can replace existing supermarkets in areas that would most be effected - i think these type of supermarkets would be in the bigger metropolitan cities and not "rural" america.

how many supermarkets or stores like target have self-checkout now? those are job eliminators too.

with that said, there is something that needs to be done to help more uneducated people get jobs.

the biggest sector the government can start training and employing people is green energy and things that deal with global warming but republicans don't want to believe in it. and then there are people that don't want to be trained to do something else.

i think it's an unsolvable problem. imho, technological advancement will be the end of capitalism.

Yeah I know..But I don't see it as being more efficient..Inthink lines with a human cashiers moves faster although I love the self checkout myself..They are just doing it to lower cost but is it more efficient, I would like to challenge that..

If stay at home moms can't get a part time gig at the supermarket then what..This will be a major problem the next ten years..

But this is why I couldn't support Bernie or Trump this election..They ignored the bigger problem and told the people NAFTA took their jobs...

holfresh wrote:

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Popular vote Hillary up 2.621 million and counting...

Will that change the 306 to 232 Electoral count?

No but it's making a case for why the electoral college system should be scrapped...

But obviously the Electoral college is trying to create some equality. Aren't we a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy?
Look at this picture. Trump absolutely dominated on a State by State basis. The idea is not to have the population of e.g. CA, NY decide the outcome for all the States.
Perhaps some adjustment in the EC can be argued but scrapping it?

We are a democracy in the sense that we have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and freedom practice our religion...The electoral college is about maintaining inequality in Washington...The map you posted is about land mass not about people or voters...As more people get educated, they will migrate to states that have jobs suited for their education...Our legislators doesn't want voters who are educated voting nor their votes to count, they want people they can manipulate...This system was set up 250 years ago and we act like the constitution was a divine document...We don't trust our legislators of today for more than 4 years but we trust legislators of 250 years ago to see 100s of years into the future...

Let's look at the Senate where Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia combined have a total population of 4 million people with 8 Senators..They have more voting power than California, New York and Texas combined which have 6 Senators and 86 million people...How is that democratic???..90% of the population want gun legislation changed and we can't get it done..It's a rigged system...It can't be ignore anymore...

I will be ignored again because you do not like arguments which kills you cool theories.
The voting system designed to facilitate the Federal nature of Unites States.
Every state is independent entity which agreed to be a part of the Union on specific terms including the voting system as it is.
People on every state want to have major say on how they want to be.
If you want to redefine this order you have to break the Union and ask States to reconsider on new terms.
Do you really want this to happened and do you think that States are different politically enough to became independent countries?

You won't be ignored,,You never responded when I asked what does the term "federal nature" of the United States mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States

The United States government is based on the principles of federalism and republicanism, in which power is shared between the federal government and state governments. The interpretation and execution of these principles, including what powers the federal government should have and how those powers can be exercised, have been debated ever since the adoption of the Constitution. Some make the case for expansive federal powers while others argue for a more limited role for the central government in relation to individuals, the states or other recognized entities.

USA Republic is unique political structure which in my view is the most successful to time in history of human civilization.
Before tearing it apart because of the preferences and opinions of various groups of population who can be unsatisfied with certain tendencies and realities they need to think twice on what they want to use in place of it.
We all need to concentrate on things which brings us together not tearing us apart.
I understand all-American desire to be a winner. And many feel that they are the losing side after this elections.
But the real strength of a human being to be great in defeat. It is easy to be cool when always winning.
Nobody does. And when someone lose you can see what this person made of.

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Popular vote Hillary up 2.621 million and counting...

Will that change the 306 to 232 Electoral count?

No but it's making a case for why the electoral college system should be scrapped...

But obviously the Electoral college is trying to create some equality. Aren't we a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy?
Look at this picture. Trump absolutely dominated on a State by State basis. The idea is not to have the population of e.g. CA, NY decide the outcome for all the States.
Perhaps some adjustment in the EC can be argued but scrapping it?

We are a democracy in the sense that we have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and freedom practice our religion...The electoral college is about maintaining inequality in Washington...The map you posted is about land mass not about people or voters...As more people get educated, they will migrate to states that have jobs suited for their education...Our legislators doesn't want voters who are educated voting nor their votes to count, they want people they can manipulate...This system was set up 250 years ago and we act like the constitution was a divine document...We don't trust our legislators of today for more than 4 years but we trust legislators of 250 years ago to see 100s of years into the future...

Let's look at the Senate where Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia combined have a total population of 4 million people with 8 Senators..They have more voting power than California, New York and Texas combined which have 6 Senators and 86 million people...How is that democratic???..90% of the population want gun legislation changed and we can't get it done..It's a rigged system...It can't be ignore anymore...

I will be ignored again because you do not like arguments which kills you cool theories.
The voting system designed to facilitate the Federal nature of Unites States.
Every state is independent entity which agreed to be a part of the Union on specific terms including the voting system as it is.
People on every state want to have major say on how they want to be.
If you want to redefine this order you have to break the Union and ask States to reconsider on new terms.
Do you really want this to happened and do you think that States are different politically enough to became independent countries?

You won't be ignored,,You never responded when I asked what does the term "federal nature" of the United States mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States

The United States government is based on the principles of federalism and republicanism, in which power is shared between the federal government and state governments. The interpretation and execution of these principles, including what powers the federal government should have and how those powers can be exercised, have been debated ever since the adoption of the Constitution. Some make the case for expansive federal powers while others argue for a more limited role for the central government in relation to individuals, the states or other recognized entities.

Also on federalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

USA Republic is unique political structure which in my view is the most successful to time in history of human civilization.
Before tearing it apart because of the preferences and opinions of various groups of population who can be unsatisfied with certain tendencies and realities they need to think twice on what they want to use in place of it.
We all need to concentrate on things which brings us together not tearing us apart.
I understand all-American desire to be a winner. And many feel that they are the losing side after this elections.
But the real strength of a human being to be great in defeat. It is easy to be cool when always winning.
Nobody does. And when someone lose you can see what this person made of.

Ok..You were referring to State powers versus federal powers..Well in that case, I submit to you that the fact that States have so much power over their own governance where the Federal government can't intervene is even MORE REASON why the system should be more equatable..There is absolutely no reason why a person living in Wyoming's vote should be worth more than a person in New York..Absolutely no reason...I have stated this before, as more people get college degrees, they gravitate to states that have the jobs which suits their particular skills...Those jobs are more often in blue States than not..Our fore fathers could not have foreseen this..They aren't magicians, they were humans, I think...The current system is not fair to all Americans...It's not about winning and losing, it's about every vote should have equal weight and every vote should count..We live in a system where every vote does not count or certain parts of the country make laws that infringes on the entire country...This can't be the essence of a good democracy...Saying it's the best system that currently exist doesn't mean it's fair..It means it's pretty sad...

Look at what we are talking about here..We are arguing that all votes in "supposedly the greatest democracy on earth" should count...And you are saying no all votes shouldn't count..

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Popular vote Hillary up 2.621 million and counting...

Will that change the 306 to 232 Electoral count?

No but it's making a case for why the electoral college system should be scrapped...

But obviously the Electoral college is trying to create some equality. Aren't we a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy?
Look at this picture. Trump absolutely dominated on a State by State basis. The idea is not to have the population of e.g. CA, NY decide the outcome for all the States.
Perhaps some adjustment in the EC can be argued but scrapping it?

We are a democracy in the sense that we have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and freedom practice our religion...The electoral college is about maintaining inequality in Washington...The map you posted is about land mass not about people or voters...As more people get educated, they will migrate to states that have jobs suited for their education...Our legislators doesn't want voters who are educated voting nor their votes to count, they want people they can manipulate...This system was set up 250 years ago and we act like the constitution was a divine document...We don't trust our legislators of today for more than 4 years but we trust legislators of 250 years ago to see 100s of years into the future...

Let's look at the Senate where Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia combined have a total population of 4 million people with 8 Senators..They have more voting power than California, New York and Texas combined which have 6 Senators and 86 million people...How is that democratic???..90% of the population want gun legislation changed and we can't get it done..It's a rigged system...It can't be ignore anymore...

I will be ignored again because you do not like arguments which kills you cool theories.
The voting system designed to facilitate the Federal nature of Unites States.
Every state is independent entity which agreed to be a part of the Union on specific terms including the voting system as it is.
People on every state want to have major say on how they want to be.
If you want to redefine this order you have to break the Union and ask States to reconsider on new terms.
Do you really want this to happened and do you think that States are different politically enough to became independent countries?

You won't be ignored,,You never responded when I asked what does the term "federal nature" of the United States mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States

The United States government is based on the principles of federalism and republicanism, in which power is shared between the federal government and state governments. The interpretation and execution of these principles, including what powers the federal government should have and how those powers can be exercised, have been debated ever since the adoption of the Constitution. Some make the case for expansive federal powers while others argue for a more limited role for the central government in relation to individuals, the states or other recognized entities.

Also on federalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

USA Republic is unique political structure which in my view is the most successful to time in history of human civilization.
Before tearing it apart because of the preferences and opinions of various groups of population who can be unsatisfied with certain tendencies and realities they need to think twice on what they want to use in place of it.
We all need to concentrate on things which brings us together not tearing us apart.
I understand all-American desire to be a winner. And many feel that they are the losing side after this elections.
But the real strength of a human being to be great in defeat. It is easy to be cool when always winning.
Nobody does. And when someone lose you can see what this person made of.

People aren't upset at the loss. They're upset at the fact with Trump and the Republicans in charge the policies they will push will be detrimental to a VAST number of people. Just remember that more voters voted AGAINST Trump than for him. Those people have a different set of views from the Trump.

I said that Trump is a repeat of Bush. Bush gave his buddy Michael Brown the job running FEMA and he was totally unprepared for natural disasters like Katrina. Trump just selected a man for the EPA that hates the EPA! Most of Trump's picks are being put in charge of departments that they wish to weaken! You're Pollyanna, let's all sing together just doesn't recognize the disaster of this election.

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Popular vote Hillary up 2.621 million and counting...

Will that change the 306 to 232 Electoral count?

No but it's making a case for why the electoral college system should be scrapped...

But obviously the Electoral college is trying to create some equality. Aren't we a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy?
Look at this picture. Trump absolutely dominated on a State by State basis. The idea is not to have the population of e.g. CA, NY decide the outcome for all the States.
Perhaps some adjustment in the EC can be argued but scrapping it?

We are a democracy in the sense that we have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and freedom practice our religion...The electoral college is about maintaining inequality in Washington...The map you posted is about land mass not about people or voters...As more people get educated, they will migrate to states that have jobs suited for their education...Our legislators doesn't want voters who are educated voting nor their votes to count, they want people they can manipulate...This system was set up 250 years ago and we act like the constitution was a divine document...We don't trust our legislators of today for more than 4 years but we trust legislators of 250 years ago to see 100s of years into the future...

Let's look at the Senate where Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia combined have a total population of 4 million people with 8 Senators..They have more voting power than California, New York and Texas combined which have 6 Senators and 86 million people...How is that democratic???..90% of the population want gun legislation changed and we can't get it done..It's a rigged system...It can't be ignore anymore...

I will be ignored again because you do not like arguments which kills you cool theories.
The voting system designed to facilitate the Federal nature of Unites States.
Every state is independent entity which agreed to be a part of the Union on specific terms including the voting system as it is.
People on every state want to have major say on how they want to be.
If you want to redefine this order you have to break the Union and ask States to reconsider on new terms.
Do you really want this to happened and do you think that States are different politically enough to became independent countries?

You won't be ignored,,You never responded when I asked what does the term "federal nature" of the United States mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States

The United States government is based on the principles of federalism and republicanism, in which power is shared between the federal government and state governments. The interpretation and execution of these principles, including what powers the federal government should have and how those powers can be exercised, have been debated ever since the adoption of the Constitution. Some make the case for expansive federal powers while others argue for a more limited role for the central government in relation to individuals, the states or other recognized entities.

Also on federalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

USA Republic is unique political structure which in my view is the most successful to time in history of human civilization.
Before tearing it apart because of the preferences and opinions of various groups of population who can be unsatisfied with certain tendencies and realities they need to think twice on what they want to use in place of it.
We all need to concentrate on things which brings us together not tearing us apart.
I understand all-American desire to be a winner. And many feel that they are the losing side after this elections.
But the real strength of a human being to be great in defeat. It is easy to be cool when always winning.
Nobody does. And when someone lose you can see what this person made of.

People aren't upset at the loss. They're upset at the fact with Trump and the Republicans in charge the policies they will push will be detrimental to a VAST number of people. Just remember that more voters voted AGAINST Trump than for him. Those people have a different set of views from the Trump.

I said that Trump is a repeat of Bush. Bush gave his buddy Michael Brown the job running FEMA and he was totally unprepared for natural disasters like Katrina. Trump just selected a man for the EPA that hates the EPA! Most of Trump's picks are being put in charge of departments that they wish to weaken! You're Pollyanna, let's all sing together just doesn't recognize the disaster of this election.

This is to be seen.
And after be seen everyone is entitled to act accordingly.
If you are right Trump will screw it up and Dems will win everything in 2 and 4 years.
Happy endings and celebrations.
If active majority will act as one against Trump politics he will fail for sure.
But this is also to be see.
History always will have an answer to every question.
And in this particular case I am really fascinated to witness the history unfolding.
As poet said:
"Rejoice The One Who Witnessed The Word In It's Defining Moments"