Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 08 Jul '11 19:15
    During most of my life, in the US an unemployment rate of 4 - 5% has been considered full employment, and it is certainly too early to say there has been a sea change. But it makes me wonder who benefits and suffers, and what are the overall social benefits and costs, if a historical rate of 4 - 5% were to shift to the point that we had to get used to a 9% or even higher rate? Are there entities who might see it as so beneficial to their interests, that they are actively working to keep the rate at that higher level?
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    08 Jul '11 19:26
    Originally posted by JS357
    During most of my life, in the US an unemployment rate of 4 - 5% has been considered full employment, and it is certainly too early to say there has been a sea change. But it makes me wonder who benefits and suffers, and what are the overall social benefits and costs, if a historical rate of 4 - 5% were to shift to the point that we had to get used to a 9% or ...[text shortened]... ficial to their interests, that they are actively working to keep the rate at that higher level?
    Organized crime
    Alcohol and tobacco
    Guns
    Wealthy people
    Entertainment
    Revolutionaries

    Those are some groups that might profit from this.
  3. Donation mwmiller
    RHP Member No.16
    08 Jul '11 19:27
    Employers would benefit from a higher than normal unemployment rate.

    If they are hiring then they have a larger group of unemployed people to choose from, and they could offer a lower wage than would normally be acceptable.
  4. 08 Jul '11 20:04
    It will be as long as Obama is President.

    The stimulus was a huge waste of money and did more harm than good. Bad economic policy results in a bad economy. Yes, I include GW as a President with bad economic policy.

    Reagan and Clinton had much better economic policies. Obama took GW's over bad policies and just made them worse.

    Hopefully we can get a conservative in the White House and Congress so we can instill good economic policies and get ourselves out of this mess.
  5. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    08 Jul '11 20:33
    Originally posted by Eladar
    It will be as long as Obama is President.

    The stimulus was a huge waste of money and did more harm than good. Bad economic policy results in a bad economy. Yes, I include GW as a President with bad economic policy.

    Reagan and Clinton had much better economic policies. Obama took GW's over bad policies and just made them worse.

    Hopefully we can get ...[text shortened]... House and Congress so we can instill good economic policies and get ourselves out of this mess.
    There are lots of different types of conservatives and the ones that end up in the White House aren't the fiscal conservatives. It's social conservatives, nationalist/hawkish conservatives, and Big Business minions.
  6. 08 Jul '11 21:10
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Reagan and Clinton had much better economic policies. Obama took GW's over bad policies and just made them worse.
    ELADAR ENDORSES CLINTON!

    Now there's a turn-up for the books.
  7. 08 Jul '11 21:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Reagan and Clinton had much better economic policies. Obama took GW's over bad policies and just made them worse.
    Sorry, double post...
  8. 09 Jul '11 02:28
    Originally posted by JS357
    During most of my life, in the US an unemployment rate of 4 - 5% has been considered full employment, and it is certainly too early to say there has been a sea change. But it makes me wonder who benefits and suffers, and what are the overall social benefits and costs, if a historical rate of 4 - 5% were to shift to the point that we had to get used to a 9% or ...[text shortened]... ficial to their interests, that they are actively working to keep the rate at that higher level?
    I would consider us lucky if it does not get any worse.
  9. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    09 Jul '11 03:39
    Originally posted by mwmiller
    Employers would benefit from a higher than normal unemployment rate.

    If they are hiring then they have a larger group of unemployed people to choose from, and they could offer a lower wage than would normally be acceptable.
    A common myth, but high unemployemnt also means they need less employees because less people can afford their goods and services.
  10. 09 Jul '11 15:34
    In the future, and after computers start to run everything, the unemployment rate will be around 90% and we will all cheer.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    09 Jul '11 17:04
    Originally posted by badmoon
    In the future, and after computers start to run everything, the unemployment rate will be around 90% and we will all cheer.
    How will we pay the rent?
  12. 09 Jul '11 17:14
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    ELADAR ENDORSES CLINTON!

    Now there's a turn-up for the books.
    I've often said that I'd much rather have Clinton in the White House than GW. GW defined a compassionate conservative as someone who wants to both increase spending and decrease taxes. Obama then redefined spending.

    We need the exact opposite of GW. We need someone who will be willing to both increase taxes and cut spending. The first thing we need to do is go back to Clinton's spending and taxation rates, adjusted for inflation of course.
  13. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    09 Jul '11 18:12
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I've often said that I'd much rather have Clinton in the White House than GW. GW defined a compassionate conservative as someone who wants to both increase spending and decrease taxes. Obama then redefined spending.

    We need the exact opposite of GW. We need someone who will be willing to both increase taxes and cut spending. The first thing we need to do is go back to Clinton's spending and taxation rates, adjusted for inflation of course.
    12 years from now you'll get getting all misty-eyed over Obama.
  14. 09 Jul '11 23:48
    Originally posted by badmoon
    In the future, and after computers start to run everything, the unemployment rate will be around 90% and we will all cheer.
    Of the few left, 10% being prison guards and 90% being prisoners?
  15. 10 Jul '11 00:23
    Originally posted by JS357
    During most of my life, in the US an unemployment rate of 4 - 5% has been considered full employment, and it is certainly too early to say there has been a sea change. But it makes me wonder who benefits and suffers, and what are the overall social benefits and costs, if a historical rate of 4 - 5% were to shift to the point that we had to get used to a 9% or ...[text shortened]... ficial to their interests, that they are actively working to keep the rate at that higher level?
    Unless we export our non-college educated men to other countries, I say yes. Maytag has not generated a manufacturing job within our borders since 1991. Blame the Clinton-Republican coalition of the 90s which gave a murderous Chinese regime MFN status and sold the store in "free trade" agreements which forced us to compete with slave labor.