DescentBB

Trump's new great campaign "idea" to solve the immigration crisis is to deport every illegal alien in the country. What he hasn't told everyone is what the final cost will be for the U.S. economy. Some people have actually gone through the trouble of calculating those costs. It looks like Mr. Trump can't possibly come through with his promise without bankrupting the U.S. and destroying our economy. Even if he himself paid out of his pocket to deport all of them, plus it's estimated it would take about 20 years to complete, our economy would still sink from the loss of those workers.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/deport-un ... 58883.html

similarly idiotic is the suggestion that an inpenetrable wall between Mexico and the US could even be built at all, let alone be functional.

oh, and it gets better:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ ... ar-BBlQgVJ

On the other side of the equation, perhaps we could then put the 90+ million who gave up looking for work...back to work. Perhaps the money we'd save from giving to the illegals we could then use to build the wall. Just a thought,

woodchip wrote:...we could then put the 90+ million who gave up looking for work...back to work.

There's that ridiculous number again, even after we corrected you last time. 90+ million is roughly 1/3 the US population. Do you ever think about these things? Do you really think 1/3 of the population if just sitting at home doing nothing? I wish. It would really take a bite out of my rush hour commute.

No kidding. America just doesn't have a 35.4% unemployment rate.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:...we could then put the 90+ million who gave up looking for work...back to work.

There's that ridiculous number again, even after we corrected you last time. 90+ million is roughly 1/3 the US population. Do you ever think about these things? Do you really think 1/3 of the population if just sitting at home doing nothing? I wish. It would really take a bite out of my rush hour commute.

Corrected me?

According to the October jobs report, more than 92 million Americans — 37% of the civilian population aged 16 and over — are neither employed nor unemployed, but fall in the category of “not in the labor force.” That means they aren’t working now but haven’t looked for work recently enough to be counted as unemployed.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -are-they/

The U.S. now has 90.6 million "non-institutionalized" men and women over the age of 16 not working—an all-time high.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 3080376798

The civilian labor force participation rate was unchanged at 62.6 percent in July,

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

So tell me again vision,how you corrected me. And do you ever think through your replies.

it's called retirement, Woody.

oh, and as noted, the number Woody floats(just like the rest of the right-wing loony-sphere) is proven to be a deceptive exaggeration:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ooking-wo/

as I noted, there is a phenomenon called RETIREMENT. I suppose Woody wants a lot of 70 year old plus people out there working. What a paradise he would give us!

In addition to retirement, there are also stay-at-home parents (like me) who are neither "working" (... F U, says the man with 3 full laundry baskets within reach) nor "looking for work". The fact that I don't need to work is a good thing, not a bad thing. It means I can devote my efforts to raising my kid and making my house a great place to live and arguing with people on the internet

So no, there aren't 90 million people who want to work but "gave up". There are some millions, but nowhere close to 90 million.

Textbook propaganda*, it’s just too bad there aren’t more people with the clear vision to identify it from both sides.

*Tell a lie, using the truth.

Man, I wish I was one of those 90 million who could just stay home and not look for work. Strangely, I don't even know a single unemployed person right now, which is equal parts interesting and rare. All my friends have jobs, except those who are retired, and most of their kids are employed (if they aren't in school), and so are their spouses (if they aren't at home raising kids).

Oh wait, one friend isn't working too much. Just doing odd jobs while trying to get his career started in a new city. I would think that if 90 million people were not looking for work I would know more people with free time.

the debunking article put the real number at around 13-15 million, if I recall. The subtracted the 49 million retired or disabled, another 18 million between the ages of 16 and 26 in some sort of educational situation and the stay at home parents.

Takes a messed up person to want disabled people working full-time.

callmeslick wrote:oh, and as noted, the number Woody floats(just like the rest of the right-wing loony-sphere) is proven to be a deceptive exaggeration:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ooking-wo/

as I noted, there is a phenomenon called RETIREMENT. I suppose Woody wants a lot of 70 year old plus people out there working. What a paradise he would give us!

So you think retirement starts at 70? What planet do you live on? I notice your link doesn't break down the numbers of retirement age people looking for work against those who don't need to work. 16 and 17 year old don't count? Don't know about the rest of you but there are plenty of kids that age that would like to work. Lumping the retiree's and 16 year olds en mass and subtracting their numbers must be a new way of looking at statistics

woodchip wrote:So you think retirement starts at 70?

it starts when the individual or family can afford it. For me it was 57, but we sure as hell shouldn't demand that people keep working past 65 years old.



edit--here we go on another round of moving the goalposts to try and defend a long-debunked lie about 90 million people not working who could be.

woodchip wrote:Lumping the retiree's and 16 year olds en mass and subtracting their numbers must be a new way of looking at statistics

In this case it doesn't really matter how you want to slice and dice it. The number is bogus and doesn't match the reality on the ground. Period.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Lumping the retiree's and 16 year olds en mass and subtracting their numbers must be a new way of looking at statistics

In this case it doesn't really matter how you want to slice and dice it. The number is bogus and doesn't match the reality on the ground. Period.

Exactly. The 90 million number is incredibly misleading.

The number of people who aren't working but would like to work (including those who have "given up") is much smaller. The highest credible estimate I've found is 21 million. The remaining ~70 million include people who are actually retired, people who are full-time students who don't want or need jobs of any sort, and stay-at-home parents -- none of whom would be expected to participate in the workforce unless something very very bad happened.

21 million people who want to work but aren't working is still much too high, but it's not 90+ million.