Trump's unapologetic style utterly confounds modern media institutions. What's going on here?

[Surreal]

@TheFaerie

Surreal, yes, but “not in the labor force” doesn’t mean unemployed (as in people who want/need jobs but don’t have one). It simply means the number of people who don’t have jobs whether they want/need them or not.

Yes, of course. The person who cited the statistic specifically said “There are almost 95 million people OUT of the labor force” not that there are 95 million who are unemployed.

[Voyager]

@Surreal

That came straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (94,446,000 not in the labor force as of Nov. 2015):

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

You might try reading your cites. Note that there is no row for the retired. Note also that only 5.6 million of these people want a job.
By the middle of next year I’m not going to be in the labor force, not going to want a job, and if any Republican candidate tells me I’m a slacker he is going to get a punch right in the kisser.

[Voyager]

@Quimby

I am pretty sure that number includes Children and Retirees. There aren’t 94 million people who want jobs and can’t get them.

It does not appear to include children under 16. There is a special category for those 16-19, most of whom are not in the labor force, as you’d expect.

[sleestak]

@Quimby

When his Party had control of Congress we got Credit card reform, Health Care Reform and Wall Street Reform (all watered down by conservatives). When they lost it we got Seventy Billion votes to shut down the Government and repeal Health Care Reform.

The changes made during the 80s Reagan era were all aimed at amassing wealth near the top because that is the type of Society conservatives think is most stable. Neither Clinton in the 90s nor Obama in the 2000s did enough to undo that.

Actually, the biggest piece of the increase in wealth at the top stems from Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m). That code limits the amount of deductible compensation that a company can pay to the CEO and top 4 officers. This code has an exception, which is performance based and includes stock options. So stock options are deductible while regular income isn’t. That particular piece passed in, wait for it, 1993, while Clinton was President and the Dems held congress. In fact, Clinton pushed for this particular law.

Link.

What this particular code was meant to do was to limit executive compensation. What it actually ended up doing was promoting the use of stock options as compensation for executives.

The result of the law is clear, CEOs made out very well and Clinton is the one who signed it.

Linky

Now, I assume you are going to dial back the hyper partisan snipping and get mad at Clinton, right?

Slee

[Surreal]

@Voyager

You might try reading your cites. Note that there is no row for the retired. Note also that only 5.6 million of these people want a job.

YOU might try actually reading my post.

[Quimby]

@sleestak

Now, I assume you are going to dial back the hyper partisan snipping and get mad at Clinton, right?

FWIW It was Reagan who made it legal to pay people in Stock in the first place but you are not wrong that Clinton messed up. I’m not the hack you think I am. That was a bad call by Clinton, as was the Welfare “reform” he signed and DOMA and lots of other things. Just like I don’t absolutely love everything Obama does either.

[Stringbean]

Why is paying an executive in stock worse than cash?

Doesn’t tying the executive’s pay through stock value incentivize acting in the long-term interest of the company?

[Trinopus]

Doesn’t paying an executive a realistic rate, instead of overpaying him a thousandfold, also benefit the company?

[Quimby]

@Stringbean

Why is paying an executive in stock worse than cash?

Doesn’t tying the executive’s pay through stock value incentivize acting in the long-term interest of the company?

The exact opposite. Paying in stock makes a CEO only care about day to day movement so they can cash out. It allows them to care nothing about the company and only its stock price.