ADVERTISEMENT

WaPo: Record Number of Americans Quit their Jobs in August

why do you think they are quitting? in health care they are definitely not quitting to find a better income on govt assistance, why do you attribute any of this to biden? serious discussion only please. also your graph shows quits have been trending up since 2012., any explanation for that. do you think some 2 income households have been forced to leave jobs because rising child care cost have made it cost prohibitive to work
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
why do you attribute any of this to biden?

Because, as someone that posted 1,000 posts whining and bitching about prior Administration, you get to enjoy what you sought.

any explanation for that

Employee leverage, options

o you think some 2 income households have been forced to leave jobs because rising child care cost have made it cost prohibitive to work

No, do you think child care costs are a new thing? Did you realize that when the labor force participation ballooned as women joined the workforce, there was a dramatic shift in supply and demand that will likely not recover until we stop reproducing (which is scarily happening far quicker than we need)?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: IU_Hickory and DANC
Again, the data do not tell us how many left the workforce and how many moved to other jobs. The number of open jobs actually declined.

We also, importantly, don't know how many of those who left for other jobs moved to jobs in the same sector. A bunch of people quitting service jobs to move to better-paying service jobs represent much less of a disruption than people quitting service jobs to become landscapers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
Are you stupid or just a liar? Serious question.
Competition for employees is a real factor in this economy. Unless the data accounts separately for those moving to other jobs vs. those leaving the labor force for gov't assistance it's pretty useless. My school corp. lost almost 20 support service personnel to neighboring systems that pay better and offer more hours. As a result, we are in the process of revising our pay and hours offerings for non-certified staff to prevent further "quitting". We also lost teachers in August to surrounding schools, and they lost teachers to us. Are those folks being counted as "quitters" ? We've lost bus drivers and the service that provides our substitute teachers has lost numerous employees. Many of these people are part-time, semi-retired, or retired folks who feared environments that are high risk for contracting Covid. A fair number of them were not in dire need of income, and decided the risk wasn't worth the small paycheck.

There are thousands of reasons people quit jobs. Unless this is somehow linked to data showing a similar increase in the number of people taking advantage of public assistance, how is this relevant at all to a "Biden economy".

Context matters. You all know the old saying; "Figures don't lie, but liars figure".
 
Competition for employees is a real factor in this economy. Unless the data accounts separately for those moving to other jobs vs. those leaving the labor force for gov't assistance it's pretty useless. My school corp. lost almost 20 support service personnel to neighboring systems that pay better and offer more hours. As a result, we are in the process of revising our pay and hours offerings for non-certified staff to prevent further "quitting". We also lost teachers in August to surrounding schools, and they lost teachers to us. Are those folks being counted as "quitters" ? We've lost bus drivers and the service that provides our substitute teachers has lost numerous employees. Many of these people are part-time, semi-retired, or retired folks who feared environments that are high risk for contracting Covid. A fair number of them were not in dire need of income, and decided the risk wasn't worth the small paycheck.

There are thousands of reasons people quit jobs. Unless this is somehow linked to data showing a similar increase in the number of people taking advantage of public assistance, how is this relevant at all to a "Biden economy".

Context matters. You all know the old saying; "Figures don't lie, but liars figure".
Of course, you gave Trump every consideration like this, didn't you?
 
Because, as someone that posted 1,000 posts whining and bitching about prior Administration, you get to enjoy what you sought.



Employee leverage, options



No, do you think child care costs are a new thing? Did you realize that when the labor force participation ballooned as women joined the workforce, there was a dramatic shift in supply and demand that will likely not recover until we stop reproducing (which is scarily happening far quicker than we need)?
I have never said a thing about trump I didn't think was true
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
Of course, you gave Trump every consideration like this, didn't you?
I know enough about the economy to know that any President, including Trump, has minimal influence on the economy - good or bad. People on either side of the political system who lay blame or credit economic success at the feet of a President are either willfully ignorant, blindly partisan, or small-minded. There are many, many reasons and areas where Donald Trump failed as a President. I blame Trump for two things in regard to economic policy. One was that his failure to forcefully and honestly acknowlege the extent of the pandemic caused the economy to remain shut down much longer than was necessary. Like with everything else, he put his ego ahead of the good of the country. Two, was that his bluster and impulsive actions created a trade war with China that is currently significantly affecting our ability to fix supply chain issues. Had he tried a little diplomacy instead of making threats, we might not have so many incomplete products sitting in warehouses, outlots, and in shipping containers all over the country. So no, I didn't look for reasons to assign economic blame to Trump. In fact, I have openly credited him for taking a stronger stance on our trade imbalance with China and the need to boost US production. IMO he was dead right on those issues, although his approach was usually ineffective or counterproductive.

The 2017 tax cuts were an epic disaster but I don't blame Trump for that. That lies squarely at the feet of McConnell and pals. Trump wasn't going to buck a policy that profited him millions of dollars. There are lots of reasons to hate Trump. Anything that happened economically from 2017-2020 are well down the list. By the same token, what happens in the economy from 2021-24 , good or bad, will be determined by forces far more broad and complex than anything Joe Biden does individually.
 
Competition for employees is a real factor in this economy. Unless the data accounts separately for those moving to other jobs vs. those leaving the labor force for gov't assistance it's pretty useless. My school corp. lost almost 20 support service personnel to neighboring systems that pay better and offer more hours. As a result, we are in the process of revising our pay and hours offerings for non-certified staff to prevent further "quitting". We also lost teachers in August to surrounding schools, and they lost teachers to us. Are those folks being counted as "quitters" ? We've lost bus drivers and the service that provides our substitute teachers has lost numerous employees. Many of these people are part-time, semi-retired, or retired folks who feared environments that are high risk for contracting Covid. A fair number of them were not in dire need of income, and decided the risk wasn't worth the small paycheck.

There are thousands of reasons people quit jobs. Unless this is somehow linked to data showing a similar increase in the number of people taking advantage of public assistance, how is this relevant at all to a "Biden economy".

Context matters. You all know the old saying; "Figures don't lie, but liars figure".
Some people can't help but make everything partisan.
 
I know enough about the economy to know that any President, including Trump, has minimal influence on the economy - good or bad. People on either side of the political system who lay blame or credit economic success at the feet of a President are either willfully ignorant, blindly partisan, or small-minded. There are many, many reasons and areas where Donald Trump failed as a President. I blame Trump for two things in regard to economic policy. One was that his failure to forcefully and honestly acknowlege the extent of the pandemic caused the economy to remain shut down much longer than was necessary. Like with everything else, he put his ego ahead of the good of the country. Two, was that his bluster and impulsive actions created a trade war with China that is currently significantly affecting our ability to fix supply chain issues. Had he tried a little diplomacy instead of making threats, we might not have so many incomplete products sitting in warehouses, outlots, and in shipping containers all over the country. So no, I didn't look for reasons to assign economic blame to Trump. In fact, I have openly credited him for taking a stronger stance on our trade imbalance with China and the need to boost US production. IMO he was dead right on those issues, although his approach was usually ineffective or counterproductive.

The 2017 tax cuts were an epic disaster but I don't blame Trump for that. That lies squarely at the feet of McConnell and pals. Trump wasn't going to buck a policy that profited him millions of dollars. There are lots of reasons to hate Trump. Anything that happened economically from 2017-2020 are well down the list. By the same token, what happens in the economy from 2021-24 , good or bad, will be determined by forces far more broad and complex than anything Joe Biden does individually.
"One was that his failure to forcefully and honestly acknowlege the extent of the pandemic caused the economy to remain shut down much longer than was necessary."

What a load of horseshit. Trump wanted the economy opened up much earlier than it was. And he was criticized by hypocrites who now claim he caused it to be shut down longer than necessary.

"The 2017 tax cuts were an epic disaster" Big claim. Nothing to back it up. The tax cuts stimulated businesses enough that the country enjoyed it's lowest level of unemployment ever - including minority unemployment.

You have lots of complaints, but no examples to back up your claims. You've done nothing but mouth Democrat talking points.

Please tell me you're not an Economics teacher.
 
"One was that his failure to forcefully and honestly acknowlege the extent of the pandemic caused the economy to remain shut down much longer than was necessary."

What a load of horseshit. Trump wanted the economy opened up much earlier than it was. And he was criticized by hypocrites who now claim he caused it to be shut down longer than necessary.

"The 2017 tax cuts were an epic disaster" Big claim. Nothing to back it up. The tax cuts stimulated businesses enough that the country enjoyed it's lowest level of unemployment ever - including minority unemployment.

You have lots of complaints, but no examples to back up your claims. You've done nothing but mouth Democrat talking points.

Please tell me you're not an Economics teacher.
The tax cuts did nothing to stimulate the economy. Their biggest impact was in creating a record deficit (just like supply-side policies have done every time they've been applied since 1986). They provided no significant benefit to anyone in this country who wasn't already rich. They didn't incentivize job creation, they generated stock buybacks and the hoarding of capital at the corporate level. While you and your ilk are wailing about an infrastructure bill causing catastrophic reckless spending, you conveniently ignore that the (mostly manufactured) debt ceiling crisis we are currently in lies squarely at the feet of that 2017 tax bill. Even the most conservative economists and economic publications will acknowledge that privately - and many have publicly. Furthermore, the way unemployment is calculated in the US today may make it the single most misleading and useless economic statistic published by the BLS. I do teach economics, and I hope this provided some of the detail you demanded - even though I know your partisan blinders won't allow you to give it credence. You see what your party tells you to see, and hear what it tells you to hear. Economic reality for you is whatever Fox news tells you it is.
 
The tax cuts did nothing to stimulate the economy. Their biggest impact was in creating a record deficit (just like supply-side policies have done every time they've been applied since 1986). They provided no significant benefit to anyone in this country who wasn't already rich. They didn't incentivize job creation, they generated stock buybacks and the hoarding of capital at the corporate level. While you and your ilk are wailing about an infrastructure bill causing catastrophic reckless spending, you conveniently ignore that the (mostly manufactured) debt ceiling crisis we are currently in lies squarely at the feet of that 2017 tax bill. Even the most conservative economists and economic publications will acknowledge that privately - and many have publicly. Furthermore, the way unemployment is calculated in the US today may make it the single most misleading and useless economic statistic published by the BLS. I do teach economics, and I hope this provided some of the detail you demanded - even though I know your partisan blinders won't allow you to give it credence. You see what your party tells you to see, and hear what it tells you to hear. Economic reality for you is whatever Fox news tells you it is.
No, you've provided nothing except the same Democrat talking points. You've provided no facts. Your claim the tax cuts did nothing to stimulate the economy and only increased the deficit - both provably false.

Income tax revenue increased after the tax cuts. How does that increase the deficit? It doesn't. But you tell it to the rubes who lap up every Dim talking point and they don't realize there is a spending component to the deficit. Guess who authorizes spending - it's not the President.

You don't even address the record unemployment, particularly among minorities. So, obviously improving the lot of minorities is not a priority with you.

And you go back to your Democrat playbook of blaming supply side economics for the country's ills, while it was that very economic principle that has given us the wealthiest country on the face of the early. You forget the malaise of Jimmy Carter and how Supply Side Economics took us out of it. Well, guess what - you're going to experience it again when the economy slows and inflation continues its increase under Biden. But why would you care that the poor won't be able to afford basic things like food and gas?

It's sad you're no doubt spreading your false beliefs to students. But thank God you're not teaching English - it appears you've yet to master paragraphs.
 
The reasons people are leaving jobs likely to be political right now. People are quitting over vaccine mandates.
You assume, because you assume politics. As I have already pointed out twice now, the number of open jobs actually declined, and we don't know how many people who quit left for other jobs. Put together, that means most of them are probably still working, just for different employers. Probably. Again, we don't know. But we also don't know that any vaccine mandates from their former employers have anything to do with it. You are just assuming.
 
The reasons people are leaving jobs likely to be political right now. People are quitting over vaccine mandates.
Some are leaving due to vaccine mandates. Others are moving to better jobs that suit their life - I’d be more interested in this type of data.

I took a slight paycut recently for a FT remote job with a four day work week. Left a top 5 college (consistently 1-2) for a better work/life balance. Times are a changing.
 
No, you've provided nothing except the same Democrat talking points. You've provided no facts. Your claim the tax cuts did nothing to stimulate the economy and only increased the deficit - both provably false.

Income tax revenue increased after the tax cuts. How does that increase the deficit? It doesn't. But you tell it to the rubes who lap up every Dim talking point and they don't realize there is a spending component to the deficit. Guess who authorizes spending - it's not the President.

You don't even address the record unemployment, particularly among minorities. So, obviously improving the lot of minorities is not a priority with you.

And you go back to your Democrat playbook of blaming supply side economics for the country's ills, while it was that very economic principle that has given us the wealthiest country on the face of the early. You forget the malaise of Jimmy Carter and how Supply Side Economics took us out of it. Well, guess what - you're going to experience it again when the economy slows and inflation continues its increase under Biden. But why would you care that the poor won't be able to afford basic things like food and gas?

It's sad you're no doubt spreading your false beliefs to students. But thank God you're not teaching English - it appears you've yet to master paragraphs.
How would have the economy shifted without the tax cuts?
 
No, you've provided nothing except the same Democrat talking points. You've provided no facts. Your claim the tax cuts did nothing to stimulate the economy and only increased the deficit - both provably false.

Income tax revenue increased after the tax cuts. How does that increase the deficit? It doesn't. But you tell it to the rubes who lap up every Dim talking point and they don't realize there is a spending component to the deficit. Guess who authorizes spending - it's not the President.

You don't even address the record unemployment, particularly among minorities. So, obviously improving the lot of minorities is not a priority with you.

And you go back to your Democrat playbook of blaming supply side economics for the country's ills, while it was that very economic principle that has given us the wealthiest country on the face of the early. You forget the malaise of Jimmy Carter and how Supply Side Economics took us out of it. Well, guess what - you're going to experience it again when the economy slows and inflation continues its increase under Biden. But why would you care that the poor won't be able to afford basic things like food and gas?

It's sad you're no doubt spreading your false beliefs to students. But thank God you're not teaching English - it appears you've yet to master paragraphs.
Tax revenues increased in part because middle-class folks like me actually saw an increase in our tax liability from the loss of deductions and credits. And the deficit hit a record because your boys who controlled both the House and the Senate still spent like drunken sailors. Had they not slashed taxes rates for the wealthy, or had the fortitude to close a few loopholes, the revenue increase from such an active economy would have indeed generated enough additional revenue to offset much of that deficit.

And note that I used 1986 as a reference. Reagan's first two tax cuts were effective. His third one triggered a massive deficit that forced his successor to agree to a tax hike that cost him a second term. He went to the well once to often, against the advice of his own economic advisors. Every large tax cut since 1986 has resulted in massive increases in the federal debt.
 
You assume, because you assume politics. As I have already pointed out twice now, the number of open jobs actually declined, and we don't know how many people who quit left for other jobs. Put together, that means most of them are probably still working, just for different employers. Probably. Again, we don't know. But we also don't know that any vaccine mandates from their former employers have anything to do with it. You are just assuming.
Many years ago I was in an MBA marketing class. The Prof had us construct causal models of various events in our lives…some business relates and some in other avenues of life. You could use symbols at each level of a pyramid diagram to describe the route to the apex of the pyramid….which was the observable phenomem. The rest of the underlying blocks supporting the pyramid were “causal” . I think our present situation is a three dimensional problem ( maybe more if you believe in advanced aliens hiding the true universe form us) and not a two dimensional problem. I am wondering how many factors posited in this discussion can stand alone as the root and only cause of the present inflation and supply chain problems. Not many and another factor is demographics…the employable OGs are moving on. Covid convinced me I was right in believing stuffing yourself into an aluminum tube flying at 500 mph with 200 other equally reckless humans for 8 hours is not smart.
 
The tax cuts did nothing to stimulate the economy. Their biggest impact was in creating a record deficit (just like supply-side policies have done every time they've been applied since 1986). They provided no significant benefit to anyone in this country who wasn't already rich. They didn't incentivize job creation, they generated stock buybacks and the hoarding of capital at the corporate level. While you and your ilk are wailing about an infrastructure bill causing catastrophic reckless spending, you conveniently ignore that the (mostly manufactured) debt ceiling crisis we are currently in lies squarely at the feet of that 2017 tax bill. Even the most conservative economists and economic publications will acknowledge that privately - and many have publicly. Furthermore, the way unemployment is calculated in the US today may make it the single most misleading and useless economic statistic published by the BLS. I do teach economics, and I hope this provided some of the detail you demanded - even though I know your partisan blinders won't allow you to give it credence. You see what your party tells you to see, and hear what it tells you to hear. Economic reality for you is whatever Fox news tells you it is.
So the tax cut is the reason for the need for a raise in the debt ceiling and not the $6 Trillion in additional spending that occurred in response to COVID-19? Interesting.


Yeah, the cuts did add some extra to the debt but you are kidding yourself if you think THAT is the reason we need to raise the debt ceiling. Tax cuts or not, $6 trillion in additional spending is what got us here. To deny that is to deny reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and mcmurtry66
The cost of shipping is a killer. A container that was $2,000 a year or so ago is now $13,000. The supply/shipping issues I'm told are a perfect storm. Covid hit so companies ordered less not expecting to sell. Then Biden started going on a free money binge and consumers raced out and bought everything.

Replenishing became difficult because of labor shortages and Covid overseas. Some manufacturing countries are under 25 percent vaccinated and factories were having outbreaks and shutdowns. So labor shortages overseas. Then they finally make the shit, ship it at an extremely inflated cost over here where there's not enough port workers and truckers to distribute. Cluster****.
 
Last edited:
The tax cuts did nothing to stimulate the economy. Their biggest impact was in creating a record deficit (just like supply-side policies have done every time they've been applied since 1986). They provided no significant benefit to anyone in this country who wasn't already rich. They didn't incentivize job creation, they generated stock buybacks and the hoarding of capital at the corporate level. While you and your ilk are wailing about an infrastructure bill causing catastrophic reckless spending, you conveniently ignore that the (mostly manufactured) debt ceiling crisis we are currently in lies squarely at the feet of that 2017 tax bill. Even the most conservative economists and economic publications will acknowledge that privately - and many have publicly. Furthermore, the way unemployment is calculated in the US today may make it the single most misleading and useless economic statistic published by the BLS. I do teach economics, and I hope this provided some of the detail you demanded - even though I know your partisan blinders won't allow you to give it credence. You see what your party tells you to see, and hear what it tells you to hear. Economic reality for you is whatever Fox news tells you it is.

teaches Econ, doesn’t know how to use paragraphs
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and stollcpa
As I have already pointed out twice now, the number of open jobs actually declined, and we don't know how many people who quit left for other jobs. Put together, that means most of them are probably still working,
You don't know that. Correlation is not causation. For example, automobile dealerships have no product to sell. That affects job openings. Shortages in other sectors mean fewer openings as well. Shortages have ripple affects. Meanwhile, CDOT can’t hire enough people to drive snowplows this winter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I blame Trump for two things in regard to economic policy. One was that his failure to forcefully and honestly acknowlege the extent of the pandemic caused the economy to remain shut down much longer than was necessary. Like with everything else, he put his ego ahead of the good of the country. Two, was that his bluster and impulsive actions created a trade war with China that is currently significantly affecting our ability to fix supply chain issues.
1. Trump was talking about opening the economy back up starting around Easter of 2020. Biden and his cohort Democrats on the other hand preached throughout the 2020 campaign year about the “Dark Winter,” covid body counts and beating the virus before opening the economy. Trump (and some GOP governors) was absolutely correct about shutdowns. Biden yapped about wearing a mask when walking your dog. Millions of anxiety-ridden people are still scared, that affects the economy, and I blame Biden.

2. Hundreds of thousands of containers full of goods from China are waiting to be unloaded and distributed at all of our largest ports. Do you really expect anyone to believe those Chinese good waiting at our ports is the result of the trade war?
 
You don't know that. Correlation is not causation. For example, automobile dealerships have no product to sell. That affects job openings. Shortages in other sectors mean fewer openings as well. Shortages have ripple affects. Meanwhile, CDOT can’t hire enough people to drive snowplows this winter.
Your post makes zero sense as a response to mine. Are you just reflexively disagreeing with me?
 
I have never said a thing about trump I didn't think was true

They think because what we said about the past administration didn't appear on their rightwing propaganda then it must mean we made it up. Trump has sold them on the belief that everything not coming out of his pie hole is fake news.
 
CNN you quotes you as suggesting it is no big deal:
"Covid has affected their mindset. There’s more churn. That’s okay and that will normalize over time,” Dimon said.​

The record number of people quitting is evidence of the considerable leverage workers have in today’s economy. Many businesses are desperate to hire, giving workers bargaining power to get raises or find jobs with higher pay.​
"Wages are going up. That’s a good thing,” Dimon said.​
 
CNN you quotes you as suggesting it is no big deal:
"Covid has affected their mindset. There’s more churn. That’s okay and that will normalize over time,” Dimon said.​

The record number of people quitting is evidence of the considerable leverage workers have in today’s economy. Many businesses are desperate to hire, giving workers bargaining power to get raises or find jobs with higher pay.​
"Wages are going up. That’s a good thing,” Dimon said.​
Wages are going up but inflation is going up quicker. So overall a net loss in buying power.
 
Wages are going up but inflation is going up quicker. So overall a net loss in buying power.
Exactly. And this is what i'm beginning to believe would occur if UBI was ever implemented. w/ the biden stimulus and child credits as actual checks etc. we're basically seeing the result of UBI. that said supply issues complicate this calculous. will be interesting to see how things look in a year
 
Again, the data do not tell us how many left the workforce and how many moved to other jobs. The number of open jobs actually declined.

We also, importantly, don't know how many of those who left for other jobs moved to jobs in the same sector. A bunch of people quitting service jobs to move to better-paying service jobs represent much less of a disruption than people quitting service jobs to become landscapers.

Well the "net" hiring side isn't helping...


  • Nonfarm payrolls increased by 194,000 in September, compared with the Dow Jones estimate for 500,000.
That's a massive miss
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
1. Trump was talking about opening the economy back up starting around Easter of 2020. Biden and his cohort Democrats on the other hand preached throughout the 2020 campaign year about the “Dark Winter,” covid body counts and beating the virus before opening the economy. Trump (and some GOP governors) was absolutely correct about shutdowns. Biden yapped about wearing a mask when walking your dog. Millions of anxiety-ridden people are still scared, that affects the economy, and I blame Biden.

2. Hundreds of thousands of containers full of goods from China are waiting to be unloaded and distributed at all of our largest ports. Do you really expect anyone to believe those Chinese good waiting at our ports is the result of the trade war?
Are those the goods we need? Those are computer chips, which you referenced earlier in the mention of autos. Yet our trade war with China certainly impacted our ability to get chips. And, for the record, Biden hasn't rescinded it.


 
  • Like
Reactions: billyhillui
Tax revenues increased in part because middle-class folks like me actually saw an increase in our tax liability from the loss of deductions and credits. And the deficit hit a record because your boys who controlled both the House and the Senate still spent like drunken sailors. Had they not slashed taxes rates for the wealthy, or had the fortitude to close a few loopholes, the revenue increase from such an active economy would have indeed generated enough additional revenue to offset much of that deficit.

And note that I used 1986 as a reference. Reagan's first two tax cuts were effective. His third one triggered a massive deficit that forced his successor to agree to a tax hike that cost him a second term. He went to the well once to often, against the advice of his own economic advisors. Every large tax cut since 1986 has resulted in massive increases in the federal debt.
Now you're backtracking. Your original post said the deficit increased because of the 2017 tax rate decrease. I proved you wrong, since tax revenue actually increases. So now you're on your "Blame Republicans" mantra for the spending put in place years ago by Democrats.

And you're also wrong about the 1986 tax rate cuts - they also increased tax revenue.


As a teacher, you should learn to google facts before you continue to spread partisan lies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT