1. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    03 Dec '10 17:38
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    The parallels with '89 are there but this time Leroy's military's in better shape.

    The rejuvenated workforce could always hang evildoers from the scaffolding of their new building projects.
    What is this in reference to? Who is Leroy?
  2. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    03 Dec '10 17:46
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Skill training is very important in getting people back to work. The unskilled workers are the ones hit hardest by high unemployment. Put them to work 20 hrs a week learning to do a job that's in demand. It could be sort of an unpayed internship, if you don't like the term community service. They would still be drawing unemployment, though, so it would be better for them and good for the company who gets to train and preview a potential employee.
    What a remarkably stupid idea in the middle of a near depression. People need jobs not "training" for jobs that don't exist and won't exist unless the purchasing power of workers/consumers is increased.
  3. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    03 Dec '10 17:47
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    What is this in reference to? Who is Leroy?
    The subject of Part I of the Rights of Man.
  4. Joined
    14 Dec '07
    Moves
    3763
    03 Dec '10 17:55
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What a remarkably stupid idea in the middle of a near depression. People need jobs not "training" for jobs that don't exist and won't exist unless the purchasing power of workers/consumers is increased.
    So it's a better idea to get more people on a government payroll when we are trillions of dollars in debt?
  5. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    03 Dec '10 18:00
    Originally posted by dryhump
    So it's a better idea to get more people on a government payroll when we are trillions of dollars in debt?
    Yes it is. We'll never get the deficit under control unless the economy is righted and we won't right the economy unless and until we put people to work.
  6. Joined
    14 Dec '07
    Moves
    3763
    03 Dec '10 18:06
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Yes it is. We'll never get the deficit under control unless the economy is righted and we won't right the economy unless and until we put people to work.
    So, just to be clear, you are saying that we should start massive public works, funded by the government, and the revenue generated from the taxes paid by people whose salary the government is paying will decrease the deficit?
  7. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    03 Dec '10 18:101 edit
    Originally posted by dryhump
    So, just to be clear, you are saying that we should start massive public works, funded by the government, and the revenue generated from the taxes paid by people whose salary the government is paying will decrease the deficit?
    No, the revenue generated by the multiplicative effects of that hiring on the economy as a whole (more jobs, more growth) will in time cut the deficit.

    BTW in case you missed it, I also made proposals which would encourage immediate hiring in the private sector also.
  8. Joined
    08 Oct '08
    Moves
    5542
    03 Dec '10 19:222 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What a remarkably stupid idea in the middle of a near depression. People need jobs not "training" for jobs that don't exist and won't exist unless the purchasing power of workers/consumers is increased.
    Actually - dryhump's idea sounds a lot like the public works idea that you like.

    Why not have a program where those who are chronically unemployed can be offered some sort of "public works" job in which they could develop (or maintain) skills that are most in demand? This program would remain in place regardless of the business cycle.
  9. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    03 Dec '10 22:58
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Actually - dryhump's idea sounds a lot like the public works idea that you like.

    Why not have a program where those who are chronically unemployed can be offered some sort of "public works" job in which they could develop (or maintain) skills that are most in demand? This program would remain in place regardless of the business cycle.
    No, it doesn't. He's suggesting "workfare" i.e. that the unemployed only get their benefits (which are usually only about half their last employment's wages) rather than a fair wage. I don't support people getting a sub-minimum wage for work.
  10. Joined
    08 Oct '08
    Moves
    5542
    03 Dec '10 23:251 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    No, it doesn't. He's suggesting "workfare" i.e. that the unemployed only get their benefits (which are usually only about half their last employment's wages) rather than a fair wage. I don't support people getting a sub-minimum wage for work.
    For the typical unemployed person, they're presumably working "full-time" looking for available jobs, applying to them, and getting interviews etc -- so it wouldn't make much sense to have them spending time doing something that would only make it harder for them to find a job. So if this is what dryhumps wants, I agree - it's a bad idea.

    I'm thinking more about what we should do for those who even after many months, still can't find a job (or at least one that pays more than a minimum wage). Perhaps some sort of workfare program could be set up for these people - who recognize that their current skills have probably become "obsolete" - where it would aim to help these people develop skills that are in demand and to eventually find a suitable job in the private sector.
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    07 Feb '07
    Moves
    62961
    03 Dec '10 23:39
    The jobs available are UNLIMITED and INFINITE, that was made clear in another post here. By some genius. Who went to junyoor college. For fifteen years.

    God don't you people read?
  12. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    04 Dec '10 02:51
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Only 39,000 jobs added in the whole country in November. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40489052/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/?Gt1=43001

    Enough already. It's reached the point where wasting time talking about how much or whether to cut the rich's taxes and what measures are needed to cut the deficit is a luxury we can't afford. The Obama ...[text shortened]... , so be it; let it be on their heads.

    BUT DO SOMETHING, MR. PRESIDENT.
    It’s probably already been referenced somewhere on here, but the 2010 CBO report predicts that that most stimulative bang for the buck is actually “increasing aid to the unemployed”. [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10803/01-14-Employment.pdf; page 26] The refusal to extend unemployment benefits is likely to have a depressive effect on the economy, including, I would think, business investment.

    The items that come closest to your suggestions were: (1) spending on infrastructure (0.50 – 1.50 per dollar cumulative effect on 2010-2015 GDP); (2) reducing payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll (0.40 – 1.30 cumulative effect; as opposed to 0.30 – 0.90 for a willy-nilly payroll tax deduction); and (3) expensing of business investment costs (0.20 – 1.00). Estimates of employment effects are also given. [NOTE: I know that you also support extending the UE benefits.]

    It’s interesting to me the view of economic incentives that would seem to back proposals to make the unemployed work to earn their benefits—instead of, for example, providing infrastructure jobs that would pay more than their unemployment benefits. Some people seem to forget that the unemployed were employed—and, as you note, earning more than their unemployment benefits. The CBO report points out, for example, that 4.1 million people were hired for jobs in the 3rd quarter 2009, but 4.3 million lost their jobs—while, at the same time, “the number of people quitting their jobs declined dramatically”. The notion that significant numbers of the unemployed are slackers that refuse to work is unfounded.

    ______________________________________


    BTW, The President is doing something: he's still searching for that mythical Isle of the Blest called "common ground".
  13. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    04 Dec '10 04:26
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Only 39,000 jobs added in the whole country in November. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40489052/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/?Gt1=43001

    Enough already. It's reached the point where wasting time talking about how much or whether to cut the rich's taxes and what measures are needed to cut the deficit is a luxury we can't afford. The Obama ...[text shortened]... , so be it; let it be on their heads.

    BUT DO SOMETHING, MR. PRESIDENT.
    "A real crackdown on those hiring illegals instead of American workers."

    What good will that do...illegals do jobs americans don't want to do. Stoping the hiring of illegal workers will just mean alot of work doesn't get done. Who's going to pick your avocados?

    "Policies severely punishing US firms which take American jobs overseas.
    The US specifically set up free trade agreements to allow this to happen so why stop it now?? One of the basic tenents of capitalism is the requirement to have business locate where their labour costs are lowest. You can't turn away from your system just because one aspect is displeasing....The free movement of labour is a must for any capitalist society. In short, if you want a job, MOVE.
  14. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    04 Dec '10 05:15
    Originally posted by uzless
    [b]"A real crackdown on those hiring illegals instead of American workers."

    What good will that do...illegals do jobs americans don't want to do. Stoping the hiring of illegal workers will just mean alot of work doesn't get done. Who's going to pick your avocados?

    "Policies severely punishing US firms which take American jobs overseas.
    The ...[text shortened]... ment of labour is a must for any capitalist society. In short, if you want a job, MOVE.[/b]
    The first is a lie.

    The second is nonsense. Yes you can turn away from ANY aspect of a Man made system if the results you are obtaining are undesirable.
  15. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    04 Dec '10 06:26
    Here is a briefing paper from the Economic Policy Institute that supplies some further “bang for the buck”* stimulus estimates; the Appendix has an interesting discussion of multipliers:

    http://epi.3cdn.net/84d0d734a09e084e97_ytm6b9pnb.pdf


    * Dollars of increased GDP from $1.00 of tax cuts or fiscal expenditure (e.g., increased infrastructure spending: 1.57.)
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree