I must be serious for a minute. It happens. I'd rather concentrate on things more important to me like perfecting hazelnut toffee and dying 501s bright colors but occasionally I'm compelled to think something unhappy through.
If GOP were not such elephants stuck in their anachronistic ways they would get out ahead provoking instead of hiding. I just now saw under headlines at Hot Air, House GOP scales back agenda hoping to avert election-year trouble.
Instead of causing it.
That is their elephant stuck in mud problem.
How conservative.
The FED does not belong to Obama Administration, the POUS selects his FED chairman two years into his own term, at this point I am not splitting hairs between what the FED does and what Obama administration policies call for, they could be antagonistic but in this term they are not, so what government does then, as a whole, printed money, by TARP, by so-called quantitative easing I, II, III, they talk like that, that is printing money, holding interest rates incredibly low for incredibly long has the effect down on Earth to dilute each individual dollar. The less dollars one has to work with, the greater the impact of that dilution.
I see this defense a lot of this economy: The stock market is at an all-time high.
Well yes, Facebook commenter, it had better be. Odd defense coming from a successful businessman like yourself. It is a good thing you own stock, and a lot of it, and diversified too for that to be an advantage for you. Where else is that new quantitative easing money to go? Where do you imagine it eventually ends up? And cost of commodities and services rises according. Most everything is more expensive automatically because of puffy new money.
It is a Monopoly®™ board script. It even looks so, pretty colors, changing colors all the time, changing portraits. Plays the banker, "Here ya go!" Big pile of money suddenly distorting industries, picking winners, picking losers, folding up the board, taking your play pieces, dice, penalty cards, risk cards, go to jail cards, board, cash and shutting down. Because you flat don't want to talk to your -- what? -- your uncooperative half. The half you'd rather not even recognize.
GOPs opponents are already preparing to provoke. The GOP recoils and hopes things work out well for them by contrast, instead of provoking.
Why aren't GOP leaders out there saying, "Hell yes, extend unemployment benefits. We must. This administration fucked up the economy so badly, created so much unemployment it would be cruel to do otherwise. We must make them wards of the State until the American people are freed up to correct this economy."
As to minimum wage, why not? Why the hell not? It's all funny money anyway. Funny fucking money. It's trash, and you are reminded of that every time you touch it. Nobody wants to even touch that crap. It's all numbers at this point. All that extra puffy quantitative easing funny-money MUST go SOMEWHERE so why not to ...
... me? Give it to me. I'll put some -- where? -- in the stock market. Driving up the cost of companies by driving up demand. The whole thing is fiat currency anyway. That is the ridiculous cartoon state this economy and its currency is in and the farce is now so broadly understood save for Facebook commenters. Hand it over.
That is what we would be hearing from GOP, that by policies pursued by this Party in power and this specific administration are
1) the cause of so much unemployment, so much of it unreported, so that even government's own unemployment figures are not trusted.
2) the cause of that unemployment being extended for so long is ideologic and can evaporate immediately.
3) the cause of devaluation of money that is available to them. Their wages if they have wages
4) at this point in the development of the banana republic the money is the same thing as such you would print off yourself at home. Script for a monopoly game, where the board and the pieces and the bank and the jail and the opportunity cards and chance cards, the railroads, public works, hotels and houses, roads, land, air, the whole board, and room the game is played in, the amusing colorful money, are all manipulated by the same entity, so yes, of course, hand it over.
Try winning an election once in a while.
48 comments:
Get out ahead on messaging is the correct tactic. Here is how I would suggest they address unemployment extension.
"Due to the Endless Obama Recession, we support an extension of unemployment benefits. It is not fair to penalize America's families for the poor decisions made by the Obama adminsitration which have caused this Endless Obama Recession. In exchange for our support, the Dems will have to agree to terminate all federal support of state unemployment benefits effective January 1, 2016. After that date, Congress will only have the ability to provide block grants to states during economic downturns. In additionm, the federal unemployment agency will be eliminated and employers will no longer need to file the FUTA payroll reports which are nothing but a damn nuisance and bring no real value to the table".
Instead of raising the minimum wage, the elites COULD scale back immigration (and go after the illegals already here, more on that momentarily) and let market forces work their magic over time. Hey, it's already worked once in the nation's history!
But they don't really want wages going up. Dems like them going down because poor people tend to vote Democratic. And Republicans like wages going down because they still think its either side with labor or business, and they will not side with labor on any issue, regardless. And business (having forgotten Henry Ford, but then that old extinct dinosaur actually MADE stuff,can you imagine?) loves to see wages crushed. That's why Zuckerburg wants more programmers imported from the Third World, to keep Facebook's labor expenses low so he can stay in the 11 figure club.
***
Want to get rid of the illegals? Don't go after them, go after the employers. No jobs for the illegals and they'll all either go home or move to California, which amounts to the same thing these days.
And Icepick makes a great point. Several of my friends have struggled in the last few years and their job prospects have definitely been negatively affected by a surplus of illegal labor.
There are so few jobs now that people want a minimum wage that they can live off of. That has to hurt younger people the most. It gives employers or those who want to employ people for a short time an incentive to hire illegals and evade the minimum wage.
AJ, as of last summer we were five million full time jobs below where we were in 2007. The size of the working age population has grown by something like 12 or 13 million in the meantime. Times are tight.
But you know, it is all entirely the fault of the people who are out of work....
Icepick - I know that and that is why I think Repubs must blame Obama for this crappy job market and they should support unemployment extension.
Chip, that essay is brilliant. Brilliant!
It is far more cogent than any ideas coming out of the Republicans, in DC or anywhere else. Again, brilliant.
The whole Obama economy is a charade, a house of cards. When the pump of phony money gets turned off - we'd better have bullets and beans stored up, because stocks, bonds and cash will be worthless.
The whole Obama economy is a charade, a house of cards. When the pump of phony money gets turned off - we'd better have bullets and beans stored up, because stocks, bonds and cash will be worthless.
The problem is that the Bush II economy was also a charade, propped up by enormous bubbles in real estate and on Wall Street. The reason the Republicans don't seem to have any ideas is because they DON'T have any ideas.
The vast majority of minimum-wage workers either aren't eligible to vote (immigrants, ex-cons, kids) or are young adults who favor Republicans.
Even if the Republican Party was willing to kick the economy in the 'nads for political gain (and heck, they probably are), this isn't a winning issue for them.
If they raise the minimum wage there will be less jobs, period. If they keep extending the unemployment benefits there will be less job, period.
Who gets the jobs that remain will not change at all. The best value is what gets hired and stays hired.
Net result = less jobs, higher deficits, more suckage, period. Chinese workers love this stupidity. Imagine if your competitors unilaterally raised their costs.
The victims of bad policy keep demanding more of it like crack heads.
I'm no fan of illegal immigration, but a job filled by an illegal is infinitely better than one sent to China, which will never return, or pay taxes or increase GDP.
If you want the jobs to stay here, you have to lower costs, and stupid burdens. I'd prefer cuts to taxes, and regulations, and extend special tax relief to employers hiring and training.
It's already pretty hard to hire illegals, but still pretty easy to hide one's illegal status from employers. The employer generally can't tell the difference and can be sued for trying to guess. The problem is with the laws. If an illegal can legally practice law, then how the hell do you justify stopping him from washing dishes. The people in power just aren't serious about it.
The fault is much more with the left. The Republicans supporting illegals for financial reason are miniscule in number and power. The problem as always is voters, and trying to convince them you are not a meanie compared to Santa's elfs in the Democratic party. It's kind of pathetic.
Well said Bagoh.
I read a great comment about raising the minimum wage: the Republicans should not champion the $10/hr minimum wage, they should champion the $20/hr minimum wage and see what the Dems do about that.
I don't see much difference between Obama and most of the GOP.
Few small staters left to speak of.
Asking the GOP to actually do what they pretend to be is asking the impossible. They are Democrats in drag, promiscuous statist whores pretending to celibacy.
I expect nothing from them.
Our National immigration policy has been a 55 mph speed limit posted, while the cops are sitting around eating donuts watching everyone zip past at 85 mph.
If they keep extending the unemployment benefits there will be less job, period.
That is utter tripe. In a healthy economy that would be true. This economy is far from healthy.
The best value is what gets hired and stays hired.
And this is sheer delusion. All the idiots that predicted 5% GDP growth from 2008 to 2012 at my old company kept their jobs, as did the managers who couldn't keep their budgets in line except by firing people. (This before the economy tanked.)
Back in 2008 when I was still getting interviews, I had a nice interview with a company and it went really well. I was perfectly suited to the role and felt pretty good about my chances. Then the company shut the whole division down, which put, I believe, about 2000 people out of work locally. Am I supposed to believe that ALL the people fired in the entire division were the worst people in the entire company?
Also, tell me which it is: Does the economy suck because all the unemployed people are a bunch of freeloading scum bags who should be shot because they're crowding up the place, or is it that Obama is the worst President ever? Try making up your fucking mind, and please don't ask for me to vote for the next set of scum bags you Republicans decide to put up for election.
Pogo is Dead
Hardcore.
I'm no fan of illegal immigration, but a job filled by an illegal is infinitely better than one sent to China, which will never return, or pay taxes or increase GDP.
That's not true, actually. The empirical evidence is that offshoring results in net domestic job creation.
This is not surprising when you remember that every dollar spent is part of the American economy, regardless of what you spend it on. If you pay $20 for something in Uganda (or exchange $20 for its Ugandan equivalent), in the long run that $20 is going to be used to buy things from Americans. If you "send" an "American" job to China, you still pay for it with dollars. Those dollars come back to buy things from, or make investments in, the United States.
That is utter tripe. In a healthy economy that would be true. This economy is far from healthy.
It is true in any economy. Money spent on unemployed people is necessarily not available to employ people. You can have 2 people on half-pay unemployment or you can have 1 employed person for the same money. You can't have both. There's no free lunch.
You can have 2 people on half-pay unemployment or you can have 1 employed person for the same money. You can't have both. There's no free lunch.
Please explain to me how the money the Fed is creating for the UEC benefits the federal government is spending will magically end up creating a job if the UEC is cut off.
Please explain to me how the money the Fed is creating for the UEC benefits the federal government is spending will magically end up creating a job if the UEC is cut off.
The money the Fed is printing devalues the money already in circulation. Basically they're taxing everybody on Earth who has at least one dollar in their wallet, their mattress, or their bank account, and then using that money to pay people to not work.
There is nothing "magical" about getting more jobs if you stop doing that. :)
Suppose people could either eat wheat, or corn. The government decides to impose a tax and use that to buy wheat for people. Corn consumption drops. Magic? Er, no: economics. What makes you think employment works by a different set of rules than the rest of economics?
Chip, you ass.
Rev, there is a canning company in New Richmond. During the summer, in the morning at the grocery store that has the Western Union gig, the Hispanic speaking people are sending money out of this area. How much is leaving the country? I don't know, but I'll bet it's a substantial amount.
Another way of looking at it:
During the first five years of the recession, the US government spent around half a trillion dollars on unemployment benefits.
Now, suppose the US government opted to take that money and hire 2.5 million people for $40k a year, and give nothing at all to the remaining unemployed.
Does the unemployment rate go up or down? And if it goes down if the government hires people instead of handing out free money for not working, how is that NOT the same as "unemployment benefits increase unemployment"?
You could argue that it is better to have two people on unemployment than it is to have one guy with zero income and another with a job. But you can't rationally argue that you aren't making that choice. You are choosing to have more unemployed people in lieu of having a smaller number of less-happy unemployed people.
AllenS- they have done studies on that and my memory says it is maybe $5 to $10 Billion or so a month to countries south of our border.
How much is leaving the country? I don't know, but I'll bet it's a substantial amount.
If you sent $100 to Mexico, what's a Mexican going to do with it? Mexico's currency is the peso.
What they do is buy pesos from somebody, i.e. exchange dollars for pesos. Ultimately those dollars HAVE to come back, because ultimately you can't do anything with a dollar but buy something from Americans.
If Mexicans bought durable goods or raw materials and shipped them all to Mexico, you could perhaps argue that wealth was leaving the American economy. But dollars? Nope.
Rev, if what you said is true then we could simply raise minimum wage to $100 per hour for all non-service work, send all the jobs to China, and have a booming home economy with even more jobs all making $100/ hr.
Also note that this is a "problem" that solves itself. If American-made goods and services are demanded less, the value of the dollar vs other currencies drops. Foreign labor becomes more expensive, and thus less attractive.
This is one reason why the Chinese government buying US debt to prop up our currency value. If they didn't, the relative cost of hiring Chinese workers (in dollar terms) would skyrocket, and tons of Chinese would lose their jobs as American companies looked elsewhere.
Bag, if all the jobs were in China and nothing was produced by Americans, the Chinese wouldn't accept dollars as payment and US companies would have no means of employing them.
Think through to the logical implication of what you're saying. If American workers would be better off if no American company offshored labor, wouldn't they be even better off if no company was allowed to hire out of state? Or outside of the city limits.
Would Texas be better off if no company there could use labor or goods from the other 49 states? Obviously not.
What's magical about countries? Why do you think money "leaves" the United States forever when it is used to hire a Chinese worker when you don't think it "leaves" Texas forever when it is used to buy a bottle of Jack Daniels from Tennessee?
" in the long run that $20 is going to be used to buy things from Americans. If you "send" an "American" job to China, you still pay for it with dollars. Those dollars come back to buy things from, or make investments in, the United States."
Only if Americans make something to buy. The lost jobs are not only used to produce goods for American markets, but to sell to our customers as well. It's eventually handing over market share of the world to your competitors.
And the foreign investment is not going to continue unless American workers are close to the market or are a low cost to value labor source. We are losing ground with both simultaneously with higher labor costs and lower employment.
"Would Texas be better off if no company there could use labor or goods from the other 49 states?"
A better analogy would be, "Are Texas workers better off if no company there could export its jobs out of state?"
I'm not saying trade or even off-shoring is all bad, but that being out of balance can be just that, out of balance and teetering to where it can't be recovered, to where your flexibility and options diminish. You don't retrain a national workforce in short order. We are competing for the world, and if as a people we are not well trained, and experienced, we will lose that competition to others. Keeping people employed, even at lower wages maintains capability and has great value as an asset. Not to mention the really important part which is that people need to be active and valuable to be happy.
Rev, when you send money through Western Union to Mexico, that amount, no matter what it is, is then converted to their currency, which would be the peso. Same thing if you sent it to France, or Poland, or any other country. It would be exchanged at a rate that would reflect the amount in the local currency.
"Why do you think money "leaves" the United States forever when it is used to hire a Chinese worker..."
Not the money - the skill, the capacity, the work.
Even if we could have China do all the work and had some magical patent forcing them to pay us anyway, we would be worse off sitting here collecting it.
"If you "send" an "American" job to China, you still pay for it with dollars. Those dollars come back to buy things from, or make investments in, the United States"
Huh? There are Trillions of dollars overseas that never come back to the USA. The US Dollar is global currency. Look up some economic facts.
In any case, Dollars "Coming back as investments" means buy real estate or stocks, in which case the benefits of owning US companies, or getting rent, or simply the pleasure of having a Nice house by beach goes to Foreigners not Americans.
Revenant's Theory of Circularity.
It has a certain charm.
Once the Inuit economy finally starts to grow then there will be no stopping the rush of jobs requiring skills in reindeer herding and kayak construction.
We need to build more henges.
Keep those jobs here. No one builds with stone anymore. Shame.
(silly goofy giddy depressed mood) (polojize)
Rabel said...
Revenant's Theory of Circularity.
Money circulates
There will be no stopping the rush of jobs requiring skills in reindeer herding and kayak construction. The benefits of owning US companies, or getting rent, or simply the pleasure of having a Nice house by beach goes to Foreigners not Americans I agree with this.
Regards,
Luxury Hair extensions
Only if Americans make something to buy.
We produce more now than we ever did in the "good old days". It is only our *relative* share of the world economy that has shrunk.
Like I already pointed out, the less we produce, the less attractive our money is to foreigners. The less attractive our money is to foreigners, the more of it they'll demand for goods, services, or labor.
A better analogy would be, "Are Texas workers better off if no company there could export its jobs out of state?"
If you want an example of the wonders of living in a closed economy, ask the North Koreans or Cubans. No country has ever improved its economy by restricting trade. Hundreds have ruined their economies that way, though.
Most people are economic retards. They look at their limited little world and say "if nobody could compete with me, I could charge more". So they support restrictive labor laws. What these retards fail to realize is that this little get-rich-quick scheme of theirs only works if ONLY their chosen profession's labor pool is restricted. It doesn't do you any good to get a pay bump if everyone you might want to pay and everything you might want to buy costs more.
If your personal field of work has a restricted labor supply, you can get richer. If EVERYBODY's field of work has a restricted labor supply, you get poorer. The boost in your salary fails to offset the fact that everything you might want to buy or do is less efficient, more expensive, and of lower quality.
Rev, when you send money through Western Union to Mexico, that amount, no matter what it is, is then converted to their currency, which would be the peso.
Allen, "converted" is just a metaphor. You seem to think that the dollars vanish and pesos magically appear in their place.
What actually happens in real life is that one person or entity (usually a bank or other financial institution) has pesos they are willing to SELL in exchange for dollars. They then use those dollars to buy stuff from America.
If there was nothing in America worth buying, the guy with the pesos would tell you to take a flying leap. Dollars are worth their share of our economy; no more, no less.
In any case, Dollars "Coming back as investments" means buy real estate or stocks, in which case the benefits of owning US companies, or getting rent
That's just saying "they can use their dollars to earn EVEN MORE DOLLARS", and so what? Ultimately those dollars still go into our economy. Those US companies employ Americans, produce goods Americans want, pay taxes to local, state, and federal governments, and so on.
or simply the pleasure of having a Nice house by beach goes to Foreigners not Americans.
In order to experience the pleasure of having a nice house by the beach in America, you have to live in a nice house by the beach in America. That's called "immigration". :)
Rev's right.
Post a Comment