Originally posted by dryhumpWhat 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.
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.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo it's a better idea to get more people on a government payroll when we are trillions of dollars in debt?
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.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo, 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?
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpNo, 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.
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?
BTW in case you missed it, I also made proposals which would encourage immediate hiring in the private sector also.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderActually - dryhump's idea sounds a lot like the public works idea that you like.
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.
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.
Originally posted by MelanerpesNo, 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.
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderFor 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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt’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.
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.
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".
Originally posted by no1marauder"A real crackdown on those hiring illegals instead of American workers."
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.
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.
Originally posted by uzlessThe first is a lie.
[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 second is nonsense. Yes you can turn away from ANY aspect of a Man made system if the results you are obtaining are undesirable.
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.)