Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

This is a perfect example of how this country got in the mess it is in. People like this, who do not have the sense to pour water out of a boot, are making decisions on how to tax you and distribute that money to others.
What a moron. If the people of California elect this nimrod again, they deserve to fall off into the ocean.
quote:
Originally posted by Liongrl:
cannot find a job


Should that quote say "cannot find a job I'd take" ? In my experience, most anyone who'd work can find a job. It may not be a job they're trained for, want, or pay more than drawing a check, but it's a job. My theory...a persons job search will widen proportionally as his income decreases. I find it hard too believe there are absolutely no jobs out there.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Pelosi, like so many Democrat elites, is completely removed from reality. Unemployment checks alleviate suffering and, perhaps, save a few jobs for any goods and services the checks buy. However, the only added job are state jobs for data entry and sending out the checks.

Time to send the old bat back to California!


The American Colonist would have already taken care of her on a "stake".
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Pelosi, like so many Democrat elites, is completely removed from reality. Unemployment checks alleviate suffering and, perhaps, save a few jobs for any goods and services the checks buy. However, the only added job are state jobs for data entry and sending out the checks.

Time to send the old bat back to California!


I doubt much of that check goes to goods and services other than the basic necessities of life. I don't see how that can create jobs, unless you own a loan company.
Unemployment checks is one of the fastest ways to get money circulating in this or any economy. Most is spent almost immediately on necessities as you mentioned. Almost none is saved, as is the case of reducing taxes on the rich.
Money in circulation will create more jobs than money being horded. Just a fact whether or not you like Pelosi, she is correct on this point.
My own opinion on stimulus is that we have missed , and are missing , an opportunity for a jobs program (not unlike WPA, or CCC) that could be used to build high speed rail all over the country like our competitor countries have. Again, that would put money into circulation, and create more jobs than just the government ones.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Unemployment checks is one of the fastest ways to get money circulating in this or any economy. Most is spent almost immediately on necessities as you mentioned. Almost none is saved, as is the case of reducing taxes on the rich.
Money in circulation will create more jobs than money being horded. Just a fact whether or not you like Pelosi, she is correct on this point.
My own opinion on stimulus is that we have missed , and are missing , an opportunity for a jobs program (not unlike WPA, or CCC) that could be used to build high speed rail all over the country like our competitor countries have. Again, that would put money into circulation, and create more jobs than just the government ones.


Your argument is not logical. Loss of jobs results in more loss of jobs as goods and services can't be purchased. Injecting funds, unemployment checks, which is much less than funds from jobs will purchase fewer goods and services. That can not, by definition, result in more jobs. Saving some jobs that provide the lesser amount of goods and services perhaps, but not more jobs. For example, if $100,000 is spent in a system from jobs, which is withdrawn when the jobs are lost; injecting $33,000 in place of the $100,000 can't produce more jobs.

I'm not arguing against unemployment pay, only faulty logic.

As to high speed trains, no! That's just another project that will require tax payer support, forever. In France, the high speed trains are not self supporting and require government funds. If not for the tourists, they ridership would be even worse.
quote:
Originally posted by Springcreek Blues:
its hard to take a job that pays 7.50 an hour when you can draw more in unemployment.


May I suggest a return to the 4th grade for a remedial arithmetic class.
Unemployment in Al is somewhere around $220 / week (the second lowest in the nation).
Working at $7.50/hr for 40 hrs is $300/ week.
$300 > $220. Just a mathematical fact.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Unemployment checks is one of the fastest ways to get money circulating in this or any economy. Most is spent almost immediately on necessities as you mentioned. Almost none is saved, as is the case of reducing taxes on the rich.
Money in circulation will create more jobs than money being horded. Just a fact whether or not you like Pelosi, she is correct on this point.
My own opinion on stimulus is that we have missed , and are missing , an opportunity for a jobs program (not unlike WPA, or CCC) that could be used to build high speed rail all over the country like our competitor countries have. Again, that would put money into circulation, and create more jobs than just the government ones.


Your argument is not logical. Loss of jobs results in more loss of jobs as goods and services can't be purchased. Injecting funds, unemployment checks, which is much less than funds from jobs will purchase fewer goods and services. That can not, by definition, result in more jobs. Saving some jobs that provide the lesser amount of goods and services perhaps, but not more jobs. For example, if $100,000 is spent in a system from jobs, which is withdrawn when the jobs are lost; injecting $33,000 in place of the $100,000 can't produce more jobs.

I'm not arguing against unemployment pay, only faulty logic.

As to high speed trains, no! That's just another project that will require tax payer support, forever. In France, the high speed trains are not self supporting and require government funds. If not for the tourists, they ridership would be even worse.

Consider the alternative:
> Families living on food stamps
> Mortgages going in default
> Money out of circulation causing loss of jobs in the retail business like cloths and school supplies for kids, food industry, and on and on.

I believe our economy is for the most part consumer driven. If you and I stop buying 'stuff, then after a while, the economy slows down and will eventually come to pretty much a hault. In fact, to a large degree, that is just about what has happened. Those with jobs and income have stopped spending (good for them personally, bad for the economy in general) due to financial fear, some of which is a general good feeling people get when the stock market is booming- whether or not they participate in it .
Lack of spending creates lack of need for manufacturing and all the economic ladder that causes .
While I think it is a sad thing that people should have to rely on UI, I believe we as a nation are better served by keeping some money in circulation than to do nothing. Doing nothing back in the 20's had a bad affect.

BTW, I can tell you from experience of a friend, there may be lots of jobs advertised in our paper , almost all require you to submit your application via computer, and they go into a black hole where you never hear from them again.
My friend has seen that, and I also hear the same on the news when people looking for jobs are interviewed.
Just the fact that jobs are advertised, does not mean a person can get one easily, if at all.
In 2011, when the "Bush tax cuts for the rich" expire, people will be amazed when they discover that the "rich" includes everybody who pays taxes.

If someone limits their job search to ads in the newspaper, it's not surprising too hear "I can't find a job". Maybe they should try being proactive instead of reactive.

Grass is always growing...perhaps the business end of a lawnmower? Wink
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Unemployment checks is one of the fastest ways to get money circulating in this or any economy. Most is spent almost immediately on necessities as you mentioned. Almost none is saved, as is the case of reducing taxes on the rich.
Money in circulation will create more jobs than money being horded. Just a fact whether or not you like Pelosi, she is correct on this point.
My own opinion on stimulus is that we have missed , and are missing , an opportunity for a jobs program (not unlike WPA, or CCC) that could be used to build high speed rail all over the country like our competitor countries have. Again, that would put money into circulation, and create more jobs than just the government ones.


Your argument is not logical. Loss of jobs results in more loss of jobs as goods and services can't be purchased. Injecting funds, unemployment checks, which is much less than funds from jobs will purchase fewer goods and services. That can not, by definition, result in more jobs. Saving some jobs that provide the lesser amount of goods and services perhaps, but not more jobs. For example, if $100,000 is spent in a system from jobs, which is withdrawn when the jobs are lost; injecting $33,000 in place of the $100,000 can't produce more jobs.

I'm not arguing against unemployment pay, only faulty logic.

As to high speed trains, no! That's just another project that will require tax payer support, forever. In France, the high speed trains are not self supporting and require government funds. If not for the tourists, they ridership would be even worse.

Consider the alternative:
> Families living on food stamps
> Mortgages going in default
> Money out of circulation causing loss of jobs in the retail business like cloths and school supplies for kids, food industry, and on and on.

I believe our economy is for the most part consumer driven. If you and I stop buying 'stuff, then after a while, the economy slows down and will eventually come to pretty much a hault. In fact, to a large degree, that is just about what has happened. Those with jobs and income have stopped spending (good for them personally, bad for the economy in general) due to financial fear, some of which is a general good feeling people get when the stock market is booming- whether or not they participate in it .
Lack of spending creates lack of need for manufacturing and all the economic ladder that causes .
While I think it is a sad thing that people should have to rely on UI, I believe we as a nation are better served by keeping some money in circulation than to do nothing. Doing nothing back in the 20's had a bad affect.

BTW, I can tell you from experience of a friend, there may be lots of jobs advertised in our paper , almost all require you to submit your application via computer, and they go into a black hole where you never hear from them again.
My friend has seen that, and I also hear the same on the news when people looking for jobs are interviewed.
Just the fact that jobs are advertised, does not mean a person can get one easily, if at all.


Typical diversionary tactics. It didn't work on me under much more stressful situations and it doesn't work now. I stated unemployment checks don't make jobs. And, stated specifically, I was NOT arguing against paying unemployment. You did not address my conclusion, but darted off in another direction as if I were against paying unemployment.

As to faux help wanted ads, where did that come from in addressing my argument? I do know manufacturers are having a hard time finding trained craftsmen to man their factories. Even finding those educated enough to train. That's a failing of our education system and the unions.

Again, I'm not against paying unemployment for a time. However, non-ending yes. And once more, paying unemployment does not make jobs!
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Unemployment checks is one of the fastest ways to get money circulating in this or any economy. Most is spent almost immediately on necessities as you mentioned. Almost none is saved, as is the case of reducing taxes on the rich.
Money in circulation will create more jobs than money being horded. Just a fact whether or not you like Pelosi, she is correct on this point.
My own opinion on stimulus is that we have missed , and are missing , an opportunity for a jobs program (not unlike WPA, or CCC) that could be used to build high speed rail all over the country like our competitor countries have. Again, that would put money into circulation, and create more jobs than just the government ones.


Your argument is not logical. Loss of jobs results in more loss of jobs as goods and services can't be purchased. Injecting funds, unemployment checks, which is much less than funds from jobs will purchase fewer goods and services. That can not, by definition, result in more jobs. Saving some jobs that provide the lesser amount of goods and services perhaps, but not more jobs. For example, if $100,000 is spent in a system from jobs, which is withdrawn when the jobs are lost; injecting $33,000 in place of the $100,000 can't produce more jobs.

I'm not arguing against unemployment pay, only faulty logic.

As to high speed trains, no! That's just another project that will require tax payer support, forever. In France, the high speed trains are not self supporting and require government funds. If not for the tourists, they ridership would be even worse.

Consider the alternative:
> Families living on food stamps
> Mortgages going in default
> Money out of circulation causing loss of jobs in the retail business like cloths and school supplies for kids, food industry, and on and on.

I believe our economy is for the most part consumer driven. If you and I stop buying 'stuff, then after a while, the economy slows down and will eventually come to pretty much a hault. In fact, to a large degree, that is just about what has happened. Those with jobs and income have stopped spending (good for them personally, bad for the economy in general) due to financial fear, some of which is a general good feeling people get when the stock market is booming- whether or not they participate in it .
Lack of spending creates lack of need for manufacturing and all the economic ladder that causes .
While I think it is a sad thing that people should have to rely on UI, I believe we as a nation are better served by keeping some money in circulation than to do nothing. Doing nothing back in the 20's had a bad affect.

BTW, I can tell you from experience of a friend, there may be lots of jobs advertised in our paper , almost all require you to submit your application via computer, and they go into a black hole where you never hear from them again.
My friend has seen that, and I also hear the same on the news when people looking for jobs are interviewed.
Just the fact that jobs are advertised, does not mean a person can get one easily, if at all.


Typical diversionary tactics. It didn't work on me under much more stressful situations and it doesn't work now. I stated unemployment checks don't make jobs. And, stated specifically, I was NOT arguing against paying unemployment. You did not address my conclusion, but darted off in another direction as if I were against paying unemployment.

As to faux help wanted ads, where did that come from in addressing my argument? I do know manufacturers are having a hard time finding trained craftsmen to man their factories. Even finding those educated enough to train. That's a failing of our education system and the unions.

Again, I'm not against paying unemployment for a time. However, non-ending yes. And once more, paying unemployment does not make jobs!

My apologies for digressing, some of which was addressing not you but others who made smart-azz commets about people rather draw UI than work.
I thought I did, however, give why I thought that UI checks may actually generate consumer demand and therefore jobs.
Some of my problem is I tend to see a bigger picture than the bumper-sticker mentality. The economy is way more complex than just "get a job" === Sorry, digressing again +++
quote:
I believe our economy is for the most part consumer driven. If you and I stop buying 'stuff, then after a while, the economy slows down and will eventually come to pretty much a hault. In fact, to a large degree, that is just about what has happened. Those with jobs and income have stopped spending (good for them personally, bad for the economy in general) due to financial fear, some of which is a general good feeling people get when the stock market is booming- whether or not they participate in it .
Lack of spending creates lack of need for manufacturing and all the economic ladder that causes .


This is the fallacy of aggregate demand. You're solution to an ailing economy is to give people money to buy stuff, and the stuff they buy will spur economic growth. That doesn't work. Handing out a pittance to the unemployed only allows them to continue to purchase what is known as first order goods. The production of higher order capital goods slows greatly during a recession and cannot, and will not, increase just because the government hands out checks. To put this in simple terms, UI checks will fuel the continued purchase of basic necessities, but will never stimulate building new plants, upgrading machinery, etc... Pelosi is dead wrong on this.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by Springcreek Blues:
its hard to take a job that pays 7.50 an hour when you can draw more in unemployment.


May I suggest a return to the 4th grade for a remedial arithmetic class.
Unemployment in Al is somewhere around $220 / week (the second lowest in the nation).
Working at $7.50/hr for 40 hrs is $300/ week.
$300 > $220. Just a mathematical fact.


You've got to look at it from a laid off workers eyes. He can set at home and watch TV and get $220 or go to work for 40 hours and get $300. He's getting paid a net $2 an hour for working. Most will stay home.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×