Herds and herds of elephants under the living room rug - now there's some vivid imagery.  :-o

 

Civvik, weren't you in the urban planning field or something related before?

Yes, my undergrad was in planning but I haven't been in that field for a few years now. That's one of the main reasons I stopped being a mod. Then again with the pace of change in Cincinnati my knowledge probably has a few useful years left.

Jeffery,

Once again thank you for the valuable chart.

 

You're welcome.

 

that chart....I don't know how much clearer it can be,  this recent history. 

Planned layoffs at US firms highest in more than two years, report shows

 

"The number of planned layoffs at U.S. companies leapt to their highest level in more than two years amid large cutbacks in the military and Bank of America, a private report shows.

 

Employers announced plans to shed 115,730 workers from their payrolls in September, according to the latest numbers from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

 

September’s job cut amount was 126 percent higher than the level announced for August and they were 212 percent higher than one year ago in September 2010, the report said. The September surge brought the number of job cuts announced in the third quarter to 233,258 -- the highest quarterly toll since the third quarter of 2009."

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/05/8164733-planned-layoffs-at-us-firms-highest-in-more-than-two-years-report-shows

 

Once again, at this rate we are continuing to add to the unemployed levels in the US. These types of numbers are not enough to employ the incoming workforce each month, let alone start reducing the already unemployed numbers.

 

ADP Estimates U.S. Companies Added 91,000 Jobs in September

 

"Companies in the U.S. added 91,000 jobs in September, according to data from ADP Employer Services. The increase followed a revised 89,000 gain the prior month, Roseland, New Jersey-based ADP said today."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-05/u-s-companies-added-more-than-estimated-91-000-jobs-last-month-adp-says.html

 

These forced investor losses are nothing more than a default, period. They also cause more issues in the near future as more and more investors refuse to buy other country's bonds (Italy, Spain) because they realized the EU will simply force the investors on these bonds to take larger losses in the future as well.

 

'Recapitalizing' the banks is nothing less than putting the citizens on the hook for billions while filling the holes in the banks. This can kicking has got be hurting a lot of feet by now.

 

Merkel Signals More Greek Investor Losses

 

"Chancellor Angela Merkel, the biggest contributor to European bailout funds, said investors may have to take deeper losses as part of a Greek rescue as she signaled Germany’s readiness to join efforts to recapitalize banks."

 

"Merkel held talks in Brussels today with European Commission President Jose Barroso as financial shares rose amid speculation euro-area policy makers were working on plans to boost bank capital to contain the region’s debt crisis."

 

"Signals that European politicians may step up efforts to aid banks and push investors to accept bigger losses as part of a Greek bailout reflect international pressure to end the debt crisis and domestic opposition to expanding rescues. Moody’s Investors Service late yesterday followed its three-level downgrade of Italy by warning that euro-area nations rated below the top Aaa level may see their rankings cut."

 

"Merkel said that she supports recapitalizing European banks “if there is a joint assessment that the banks aren’t adequately capitalized” and finance officials develop “uniform criteria.” Germany is ready to discuss possible bank aid at this month’s EU summit, she said."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-05/merkel-signals-more-greek-investor-losses-readiness-to-boost-bank-capital.html

I ran across this guy in an article about attendees at those "Occupy Wall Street" protests.  Apparently this Nobel-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz (won in 2001), was at one of the demos. 

 

He has an interesting article out on why the "recession" is persisting, and draws an analogy with the early 20th century economy, but also certain aspects of globalization and monetary flows as contributing causes.

 

To Cure the Economy

 

...Globalization has been one, but only one, of the factors contributing to the second key problem – growing inequality. Shifting income from those who would spend it to those who won’t lowers aggregate demand. By the same token, soaring energy prices shifted purchasing power from the United States and Europe to oil exporters, who, recognizing the volatility of energy prices, rightly saved much of this income.

 

The final problem contributing to weakness in global aggregate demand was emerging markets’ massive buildup of foreign-exchange reserves – partly motivated by the mismanagement of the 1997-98 East Asia crisis by the International Monetary Fund and the US Treasury. Countries recognized that without reserves, they risked losing their economic sovereignty. Many said, “Never again.” But, while the buildup of reserves – currently around $7.6 trillion in emerging and developing economies – protected them, money going into reserves was money not spent...

 

Why did he win that Nobel?  From wikipedia:

 

Stiglitz's most famous research was on screening, a technique used by one economic agent to extract otherwise private information from another. It was for this contribution to the theory of information asymmetry that he shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics[3] in 2001 "for laying the foundations for the theory of markets with asymmetric information" with George A. Akerlof and A. Michael Spence.

 

 

 

I ran across this guy in an article about attendees at those "Occupy Wall Street" protests.  Apparently this Nobel-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz (won in 2001), was at one of the demos. 

 

He has an interesting article out on why the "recession" is persisting, and draws an analogy with the early 20th century economy, but also certain aspects of globalization and monetary flows as contributing causes.

 

To Cure the Economy

 

...Globalization has been one, but only one, of the factors contributing to the second key problem growing inequality. Shifting income from those who would spend it to those who wont lowers aggregate demand. By the same token, soaring energy prices shifted purchasing power from the United States and Europe to oil exporters, who, recognizing the volatility of energy prices, rightly saved much of this income.

 

The final problem contributing to weakness in global aggregate demand was emerging markets massive buildup of foreign-exchange reserves partly motivated by the mismanagement of the 1997-98 East Asia crisis by the International Monetary Fund and the US Treasury. Countries recognized that without reserves, they risked losing their economic sovereignty. Many said, Never again. But, while the buildup of reserves currently around $7.6 trillion in emerging and developing economies protected them, money going into reserves was money not spent...

 

Why did he win that Nobel?  From wikipedia:

 

Stiglitz's most famous research was on screening, a technique used by one economic agent to extract otherwise private information from another. It was for this contribution to the theory of information asymmetry that he shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics[3] in 2001 "for laying the foundations for the theory of markets with asymmetric information" with George A. Akerlof and A. Michael Spence.

 

 

 

 

Are we finally seeing Main Street show some real displeasure with Wall Street and the big banks? These protest are starting to gain some momentum and are growing in other places.

Pretend and extend and hope something magical will finally happen down the road.

 

Foreclosure backlog deepens

 

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- As the foreclosure backlog continues to build up, delinquent borrowers are spending even more time in their homes without making mortgage payments."

 

"The number of defaults in the pipeline has been huge and we had more problem loans than ever before," said Herb Belcher, who supervises analytics for Lender Processing Services (LPS), which provides mortgage industry information and analytics to big banks.

 

With so many bad loans, servicers have had to prioritize which ones they can deal with and which ones to push aside."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/05/real_estate/foreclosure_backlog/

Are we finally seeing Main Street show some real displeasure with Wall Street and the big banks? These protest are starting to gain some momentum and are growing in other places.

 

No and no.  My post was more about that economists take on why we are stuck where we are, not about that Occupy Wall Street nonsense

 

From the Dayton Daily News, an AP article to precede some Fed stats release on jobs numbers today:

 

A job is becoming a dim memory for many unemployed

 

WASHINGTON — For more Americans, being out of work has become a semi-permanent condition.

 

Nearly one-third of the unemployed — nearly 4.5 million people — have had no job for a year or more. That's a record high. Many are older workers who have found it especially hard to find jobs.

 

And economists say their prospects won't brighten much even after the economy starts to strengthen and hiring picks up. Even if they can find a job, it will likely pay far less than their old ones did.

 

 

For me this remains the real story behind this recession.  The collapse in employment and the decline in standard of living due to low wages as people get (slowly)(crosses fingers) re-employed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The good news - the economy added more jobs than in August.

 

The bad news - Over 60% of the hiring in September was temporary help jobs or verizon workers going back to work after the strike. So the economy only create about 38,000 'real' new jobs. Since the economy needs to add about 125,000 new jobs each month just to handle new incoming workforce, we are actually increasing the amount of people unemployed in the US, not decressing the overall number. So the millions of unemployed and underemployed in the US just add to their ranks again this month, and the month before and so on.

 

Economy added 103,000 jobs in September

 

"The United States added 103,000 jobs in September, a burst of hiring that followed a sluggish summer for the economy. The figure at least temporarily calms fears of a new recession that have hung over Wall Street and the nation for weeks.

 

But everyday Americans can't take much solace from that. Unemployment has been stuck at around 9 percent for more than two years. The economy has to add roughly 125,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth, more to bring down unemployment.

 

The temporary help industry added almost 20,000 jobs, and the length of the average workweek increased slightly. Wages also rose a bit.

 

Nearly half of the job gains last month came from the rehiring of 45,000 Verizon employees who had been on strike."

 

More Americans are working part time but would prefer full-time work. When these people are added to those without jobs who have given up looking, the so-called "underemployment" rate rose to 16.5 percent from 16.2 percent."

http://www.ibj.com/economy-added-103000-jobs-in-september/PARAMS/article/30023

I hear there are fields of crops rotting because doing such a job is 'below' many of these unemployed people.  I say tell them to take the job or not get your check.  I have no problem with UC making up the difference in regular wages in the short-run, but I don't want people getting compensation checks simply because they don't want to be "underemployed"

There are a lot of reasons why crops are rotting, but not having labor to handle them is not the issue.  Having one of the worst weather years in recent memory plays into it, as does the insistence on letting tons and tons of perfectly good produce rot in the fields, for example, tomatoes, because they have just the tiniest shade of blush on them instead of being picked when hard and completely green, so they can ripen in lab conditions. There is a lot wrong with the big agriculture system and it's not all labor related.

It certainly is one of the issues....

 

http://www.gpb.org/news/2011/06/08/survey-finds-widespread-farm-labor-shortages

 

http://video.tbo.com/v/39875686/farmers-losing-crops-due-to-lack-of-labor.htm

 

http://www.vidaenelvalle.com/2011/09/27/v-print/1021255/worker-shortage-threatens-ag.html

Like many Americans, I assume, I would happily plant and harvest my own crops, but there's no way in hell I'm wearing out my body in a field for Monsanto.

And if the alternative was not putting food on the table for your family and clothes on your children's backs?

We told everyone to go back to school two three years ago.  They're coming out of their community college programs with actual skills and you want them to go pick corn now?  Surely you can understand the reluctance.

His observations are of course sound, he's a prize-winning economist, but it's also somewhat true that a lot of these governments are hopelessly in debt and to tack another 10% of GDP on that debt burden is going into uncharted waters that have heretofore led to ruin.

 

In William Bernstein's "The Birth of Plenty" he posits that one of the foundations of prosperity is having the appropriate institutions for the age. We may simply not have the appropriate institutions (the dichotomy of profit-mandated private institutions vs democratic governments, with big quasi-governmental alliances like EU and IMF floating among them) to deal with the realities of a global economy.

 

Think about it. Even 100 years ago, Greece's massive default might have simply meant that another country took its assets by force! Now here we are reeling from our own unintended consequences and none of our institutions seem to be up to the task of dealing with them because they are too interconnected and moving too fast.

We told everyone to go back to school two three years ago.  They're coming out of their community college programs with actual skills and you want them to go pick corn now?  Surely you can understand the reluctance.

 

Reluctance, yes.  Refusal, no.  You gotta do what you gotta do.  Life isn't all peaches and ice cream, despite what we may have been told.

You guys are engaging in a bit of a false debate. Our economy hasn't needed a significant number of manual labor farmers for decades. Even if we replaced every migrant with an unemployed citizen, that would be about 200,000 jobs.

 

We need twenty million jobs.

 

 

 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/12/02/how-many-jobs-do-we-need-for-the-recession-to-go-away/

Got to start somewhere

 

But I never said that Americans getting back to manual labor is the silver bullet.  All I was saying is that I don't want to hear non-stop pissing and moaning from people who claim there are no jobs, when in many cases the reality is that there just aren't jobs they feel are up to their level of experience, education, training, etc. 

OK let me put it this way: it's irrelevant. Completely replacing the entire farm labor market wouldn't give even 20 days worth of job growth required to bring down the unemployment rate. The mean wage in this labor classification is also 9 dollars an hour, which is not livable. These jobs also aren't proximate to most of the population. It is a very small, distant, low paying source of employment that would have an invisible impact on the economy. But, especially, the 9 dollar an hour thing. You of all people should know that's no way to build an economy.

 

Which brings me back to: I think you are just debating for the sake of debate, and you're smarter than that!

That's a poor mentality to have. A job is a job no matter what the wage. Livable or not, it's available and if you're unemployed,  then you take it if you can. No one is stopping you from trying to find something better

The farm labor market is a glaring example, but I think the problem is more widespread even if more minute in other sectors. 

That's a poor mentality to have. A job is a job no matter what the wage. Livable or not, it's available and if you're unemployed,  then you take it if you can. No one is stopping you from trying to find something better

 

^ This.

 

The same applies to low wage retail jobs (which probably pay in the $9 range as well, and with better working conditions than manual farm labor).  Of course you keep looking for something better and with more upward potential, but that doesn't mean you should be doing absolutely nothing in the here and now.  It's no different from the fact that one might want to move out and get an apartment or house of one's own, but moving back in with mom and dad may be the right thing to do if you're unemployed or underemployed.  The fact that circumstances are far from ideal doesn't mean you give up on making the most of them.

Funny, you think its not worth it to take these poor paying jobs because it will have little effect on unemployment, but you think its ok to tax the rich when it will have little effect on total tax collection.

 

Hts, you gave the right idea. Do whatever it takes to get some income.  Then keep looking for somethin better.

3 examples.

 

Friend 1 graduates from a decent college on 04, gets into zero law schools. He works a couple dead end temp jobs for 2 years, takes the GRE, takes it again, goes to OSU for a master in English, moves back to Cleveland, substitutes for a year in several schools, gets a one year lectureship at CCC. And now he is a full time assistant professor on tenure track making $60g if he works summers

 

Friend 2 graduates from Eastern Mich in 04, spends a year at kalamazoo law, transfers to case his final 2 yrs, works at bed bath for a year, then the city of detroit law dpt, then a crappy bankruptcy firm, and now he is hitting 70g at a good employment law firm in Lansing.

 

And then there is me.  Case grad in 07, document review and part time clerkships till 09, start editing company out of desperation, then get offer in tiny immigration firm in 2011. And next week I am scheduling several interviews/networling at bigger firms, still running editing company too.

 

 

You just can't ever ever ever give up. It does all add up, even the 'lesser' jobs.

 

 

I'm doing doc review now and it pays better than any permanent position I've interviewed for.  At this point I'm just saving up to go solo.

3 examples.

 

Friend 1 graduates from a decent college on 04, gets into zero law schools. He works a couple dead end temp jobs for 2 years, takes the GRE, takes it again, goes to OSU for a master in English, moves back to Cleveland, substitutes for a year in several schools, gets a one year lectureship at CCC. And now he is a full time assistant professor on tenure track making $60g if he works summers

 

Friend 2 graduates from Eastern Mich in 04, spends a year at kalamazoo law, transfers to case his final 2 yrs, works at bed bath for a year, then the city of detroit law dpt, then a crappy bankruptcy firm, and now he is hitting 70g at a good employment law firm in Lansing.

 

And then there is me.  Case grad in 07, document review and part time clerkships till 09, start editing company out of desperation, then get offer in tiny immigration firm in 2011. And next week I am scheduling several interviews/networling at bigger firms, still running editing company too.

 

 

You just can't ever ever ever give up. It does all add up, even the 'lesser' jobs.

 

 

 

That's an adorable story. It has nothing to do with a laid off worker in Ohio upending her family to central California to pick winter strawberries for $8.90 an hour, lest they rot in the fields. She's just going to get a job at Wal-Mart.

 

You all are just riling each other up like old farts in a neighborhood bar.  Jeesh.

^Not really.  You just keep on going back to the safe haven argument of the farm labor market.  Like I said, it is just one example.  But if tomorrow I lost my job in the professional career I went to school for and was trained to work in, would it be "below me" to go work in retail or as a server at a restaraunt, or a bartender, or cutting/trimming trees (which I did as a second job to make ends meet when first getting started in my field)?  Hell no.  None of those jobs are beneath me.  But there are many, many Americans who unfortunately think their education and training ENTITLES them to a job in a specific field and at a certain level of pay.... even the ones with ZERO actual experience.  That's all I am saying.  One last time, the farm labor market is but one example so it is more than a false argument to start bringing in tear jerking, grapes of wrath stories of uprooting your family and moving to California to find work.... even if that is exactly what Americans had to do at one time. 

That's a poor mentality to have. A job is a job no matter what the wage. Livable or not, it's available and if you're unemployed,  then you take it if you can. No one is stopping you from trying to find something better

 

Unless you'd rather sit at home and do nothing for unemployment benefits.  Which actually pays more than alot of entry level jobs like retail or food service, especially if you have to commute, pay for gas/parking, etc.

 

Long term though, you need to fill that resume up if you want to find work again. I would say that, from an employer's perspective, the stigma of being unemployed is greater than that of working in a fast food restaurant. At least in McDonalds or a farm or wherever you're working, paying taxes, being productive, interacting with people, being responsible, and demonstrating that you're a person of maturity and character instead of a being a "I'm too good for this line of work. I don't get out of bed for less than $40,000 a year'' kind of person. Who would want to hire someone like that?

^ I couldn't agree more.  you should post that in the "Occupy Wall Street" thread....

That's a poor mentality to have. A job is a job no matter what the wage. Livable or not, it's available and if you're unemployed,  then you take it if you can. No one is stopping you from trying to find something better

 

Unless you'd rather sit at home and do nothing for unemployment benefits.  Which actually pays more than alot of entry level jobs like retail or food service, especially if you have to commute, pay for gas/parking, etc.

 

 

And this is what is perverting the market.  End of last year we laid off a secretary.  Gave her a nice severance package and did not expect to need to call her back.  Things changed. Three months later we needed her back.  She did't want to come back-she was getting $400.00 per week on unemployment, used her serverance to go to Ireland for six weeks.  We couldn't hire anybody decent, they were all lounging on unempoloyment except those that had been let go almost two years ago (the real looers) and benefits were going to run out.  That's right, here in WA you can stay on unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks.  If your's is a second income, it is a cake walk. 

 

Anyway, the only way I got her to come back was to convince her that if she spent the whole 99 weeks without working no one would re-hire her.  So she just started back after spending 9 months on the dole. 

 

 

Funny thing about unemployment benefits is that they were originally designed to help the greedy capitalist (i.e. Boeing) who could hire a bunch of people to fill some orders, then lay them off once the orders were filled and hire them back later when the orders came back without having to train new workers.  This was all OK as long as Boeing paid for it with L & I insurance which they did-for 28 weeks.  Then the generous tax payer (you and me) stepped in and paid for it for weeks 29-99! Who got the benefit? Boeing got the benefit by turning a self funded insurance program into a taxpayer funded one.  And the Left thinks that this is great!

 

Minga Marone!

 

TEdolph

Beyond the anectdotes, this is what the numbers say:

 

Recession Officially Over, Incomes Keep Falling

 

In a grim sign of the enduring nature of the economic slump, household income declined more in the two years after the recession ended than it did during the recession itself, new research has found.

 

Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended, and June 2011, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 6.7 percent, to $49,909, according to a study by two former Census Bureau officials. During the recession — from December 2007 to June 2009 — household income fell 3.2 percent.

 

The finding helps explain why Americans’ attitudes toward the economy, the country’s direction and its political leaders have continued to sour ...

 

^Not really.  You just keep on going back to the safe haven argument of the farm labor market.  Like I said, it is just one example.  But if tomorrow I lost my job in the professional career I went to school for and was trained to work in, would it be "below me" to go work in retail or as a server at a restaraunt, or a bartender, or cutting/trimming trees (which I did as a second job to make ends meet when first getting started in my field)?  Hell no.  None of those jobs are beneath me.  But there are many, many Americans who unfortunately think their education and training ENTITLES them to a job in a specific field and at a certain level of pay.... even the ones with ZERO actual experience.  That's all I am saying.  One last time, the farm labor market is but one example so it is more than a false argument to start bringing in tear jerking, grapes of wrath stories of uprooting your family and moving to California to find work.... even if that is exactly what Americans had to do at one time. 

 

"Like"

 

That's a poor mentality to have. A job is a job no matter what the wage. Livable or not, it's available and if you're unemployed,  then you take it if you can. No one is stopping you from trying to find something better

 

Unless you'd rather sit at home and do nothing for unemployment benefits.  Which actually pays more than alot of entry level jobs like retail or food service, especially if you have to commute, pay for gas/parking, etc.

 

 

I've seen too many people, in various situations, take this route.  They always seem to miss the value of what hard work has in the long term, even if it means less money in the short term.

 

I always like telling my brother's story who dropped out of law school, couldn't find a job, took a position through a temp agency at $7/hour for a bank, and a few years later was in charge of the entire department he started in.  Ended up getting a graduate degree after all (MBA) from the same school he dropped out of law school, commuting between Cleveland and Chicago to get it done.  I think it was his personal mission to "beat" the school...but he did it, starting from a $7/hour job at Ameri Temps.

Beyond the anectdotes, this is what the numbers say:

 

Recession Officially Over, Incomes Keep Falling

 

In a grim sign of the enduring nature of the economic slump, household income declined more in the two years after the recession ended than it did during the recession itself, new research has found.

 

Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended, and June 2011, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 6.7 percent, to $49,909, according to a study by two former Census Bureau officials. During the recession from December 2007 to June 2009 household income fell 3.2 percent.

 

The finding helps explain why Americans attitudes toward the economy, the countrys direction and its political leaders have continued to sour ...

 

 

It's not surprising that household income fell more after the economic slowdown than during it. Salaries are typically reviewed once a year so it can take many months for a company to get around to a salary freeze.  Companies take time to react - to decide the slow-down is not temporary and to plan layoffs, to decide revenue drops are here to stay and corporate re-alignments must take place, etc.  It's like property tax revenue - that held up well during the recession, but once re-appraisals started coming in, local governments were finally cut-off.  Incomes and property tax revenue are lagging indicators due to larger reaction times than, say, sales tax revenue.

 

But I think this is the biggest propblem facing Americans today.  While unemployment is bad, and the time to find a new job just horrible, it's the drop in household income, particularly one of this magnatude and duration, that will keep this country stuck in a quagmire for a decade or more.

 

A great many of the pillars of our economic system are built of the model of ever-growing numbers of workers with an ever-growing income.  Social Security, home ownership, government expenditures, retirement savings, education debts, any borrowing for big-ticket items (cars, etc), etc, etc.  For the past 200 years the system has worked because those 2 inputs - ever-growing population and ever-growing incomes, has persisted most of the time.

 

I don't think this country can come to grasp with the ramifications of a prolonged, shrinking household income.  So many pillars of society will develope deep cracks, and some will not be able to be saved.

 

That's a poor mentality to have. A job is a job no matter what the wage. Livable or not, it's available and if you're unemployed,  then you take it if you can. No one is stopping you from trying to find something better

 

Unless you'd rather sit at home and do nothing for unemployment benefits.  Which actually pays more than alot of entry level jobs like retail or food service, especially if you have to commute, pay for gas/parking, etc.

 

 

But that is not the way unemployment comp is *supposed* to work.  Like I have said countless times, these systems need to be beefed up in terms of enforcement.  But..... oh no.... that might require bigger government.  Heaven forbid.  Unemployment compensation is supposed to be available for those who are unemployed THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.  It is not for people who were fired for cause or who REFUSE TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT IN LIEU OF RECIEVING A GOVERNMENT CHECK.  I could live with a short-term program where benefits are given while searching for 'comparable' employment in the same vicinity.  I can also live with a 'shortfall' payment after that first period expires where, if your new job does not pay you as much as you could collect on UC without a job, then UC makes up the difference.  But what I can't believe we do is pay people the entire amount of UC even though they could be EARNING a good chunk of that working jobs they may not want to work.

 

We need people checking what the unemployed are doing each week to obtain gainful employment.  They need to do something (if they want their check), even if that is holding one of those closeout signs on the corner.  We need investigators rooting out all those under the table workers who are collecting UC while still technically employed.  For those who defraud or take advantage of the system, we need to have little sympathy.

 

All of this is on principle, of course.  After all, what we give to the unemployed is miniscule compared to the governmental programs (Medicare, Social Security, Defense) nobody, from either side of the aisle, wants to really talk about outside of common talking points and ideas everyone knows will never take hold so it is safe to just throw them out there.

I agree with everything you say, except the bigger government part.  There are many government employees who are no better than those on UC.  Nobody is watching the watchers because they have the government backing.

 

The real need is for Common Sense, and like you said, the ability to force someone to pick up a few bags of trash before they get their check.

Well, you know I don't agree with you that governmental workers are the parasites who suck the blood from the working man.  But I can see where there would be an insurmountable divide on that issue.  But what are the alternatives?

 

a) Completely wipe out unemployment comp. programs..... I don't think we want to see the domino effects of that.

b) Do nothing

c) Have those private sector workers and the capes made of gold come in and do the regulating perhaps with an incenvtive program which gives them a piece of every dollar of fraud they root out..... however, I'm not so sure that would not lead to fraud and abuse in that field itself.

 

I think I like my plan better than any of those.  A beefed up regulatory agency whose sole goal is to bust the unemployment comp recipient who isn't really unemployed (or at least not unemployed through no fault of their own), the single mother welfare recipient who isn't really single, the disability recipient who plays golf after tilling up his front flower bed, the doctor who charges medicare for services he never performs, the businessman who knocks the bill for goods/services down to a 'no-tax' transaction if you pay in cash, the employer who fills any openings in his shift with illegal immigrant workers...... I could go on and on, but until we acknowledge that government is not the source of all of our problems, and that the American people themselves can be some real drags on an otherwise well-intended system, we will be stuck in the rut of increasing debt.

That's a poor mentality to have. A job is a job no matter what the wage. Livable or not, it's available and if you're unemployed,  then you take it if you can. No one is stopping you from trying to find something better

 

Unless you'd rather sit at home and do nothing for unemployment benefits.  Which actually pays more than alot of entry level jobs like retail or food service, especially if you have to commute, pay for gas/parking, etc.

 

 

But that is not the way unemployment comp is *supposed* to work.  Like I have said countless times, these systems need to be beefed up in terms of enforcement.  But..... oh no.... that might require bigger government.  Heaven forbid.  Unemployment compensation is supposed to be available for those who are unemployed THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.  It is not for people who were fired for cause or who REFUSE TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT IN LIEU OF RECIEVING A GOVERNMENT CHECK.  I could live with a short-term program where benefits are given while searching for 'comparable' employment in the same vicinity.  I can also live with a 'shortfall' payment after that first period expires where, if your new job does not pay you as much as you could collect on UC without a job, then UC makes up the difference.  But what I can't believe we do is pay people the entire amount of UC even though they could be EARNING a good chunk of that working jobs they may not want to work.

 

We need people checking what the unemployed are doing each week to obtain gainful employment.  They need to do something (if they want their check), even if that is holding one of those closeout signs on the corner.  We need investigators rooting out all those under the table workers who are collecting UC while still technically employed.  For those who defraud or take advantage of the system, we need to have little sympathy.

 

That isn't the purpose of unemployment comenation at all.  The purpose is to induce laid off employees to hang around rather than move somewhere else and get a new job until thier employer can bring then back.  The primary benefit is to the employer, not the employee who can always move somewhere else to where the jobs are (something we seem to have forgotten how to do).  The cost of paying unemployent insurance premiums was always far less than the cost of hiring and retraining a new employee.  Especially in skilled jobs like aerospace and automotive industries.  That is why it is a "benefit" that was always paid for by the employer, not the employee and certaintly not the taxpayer. 

 

It was never intended to be a "welfare" program funded by the taxpayers.

 

TEdolph

Is that what your AM radio dial tells you?

 

I can't speak for that granola/grunge area of the country you choose to reside, but the Ohio Supreme Court has made it quite clear that my interpretation as to intent and application in Ohio is correct.

"Common Sense" = political jargon for "agrees with me".

We need people checking what the unemployed are doing each week to obtain gainful employment.  They need to do something (if they want their check), even if that is holding one of those closeout signs on the corner.  We need investigators rooting out all those under the table workers who are collecting UC while still technically employed.  For those who defraud or take advantage of the system, we need to have little sympathy.

 

Wow, I can't believe you of all people said that.  You know how quickly any sort of enforcement of this would blow up in terms of racial discrimination & ACLU lawsuits?  What's next, knocking on the doors of those in the housing projects to see what they are doing to get back on their feet?  Checking up on those who receive food stamps to make sure they are spending them wisely?  Holy crap, where would you stop in terms of enforcement?  And do you really think it's tea party people who are preventing this enforcement on argument of "no more big govt?"  How about the fact that these social programs are being carried out exactly as intended: mini-stimulus for a large percentage of the population.    Cutting this back through enforcement or otherwise would have alot of negative unintended consequences, and I doubt very little people would "get off the couch & find work".

 

Big picture, you open up a new department with 100 people on staff in Cuyahoga county to "enforce" this and other social welfare programs - how much money do you think you would actually "save" by weeding out the lazy folks and revoking their checks? 

 

Wow.  Just wow.  Can't believe you posted that.

You can't believe it because you lazily stereotype me and don't attempt to understand my POV, simply dismissing it as liberal vomit, on any given topic.

 

Funny how quickly you turned this into something racial when nobody had brought that into the equation.  Common mistake to believe that there are more black people receiving government assistance than white people.  I could use some stereotypes, but I won't.

 

This is always the fallback position of those who simply want to piss and moan and not look for any real and, more importantly, PRACTICAL solutions.  The good ole slippery slope argument.  Hey, if they make us buy healthcare..... what will stop them from making us buy legos?  This represents a total lack of understanding of constitutional analysis.  Each and every law requires, at the very least, a rational basis or it is not a valid exercise of governmental authority.

 

So, tell me, what is wrong with making the unemployed bring in copies of the applications they filled out during the last two weeks before they receive their checks?  But, no, you want to turn it into a man spying in someone's bedroom window or assigning a live in nanny for anyone receiving welfare.  Typical garbage from those who enjoy b!tching about problems more than they care about solving problems.

 

You certainly can save money through enforcement.  Ever seen how much fraud there is in medicare?  Try about as the GDP of a small industrial country.  But I suppose rooting that out would be "getting between me and my doctor"  :|

 

And you can spew the talking points all you want about what you think the intent of the social safety net programs were at the time they were passed, but easy for you to say because you (nor I) thankfully never lived in a time when there was no social security, no medicare, no welfare, nothing to help you out when life throws you a curve.  A time when the elderly did not get the care they needed and literally died because of it (often in extreme discomfort I might add), when sanitary conditions were deplorable for the poor, when children starved from lack of food, when you couldn't "grow up to be anything you want to be" because the deck was so high stacked against you, when you truly could go from very comfortable to the poor house in the blink of an eye.  But if you truly believe that, then back it up with sources.  Don't just spit it out.  Can you show me the legislative history which supports your assumptions about legislative intent?  That's a rhetorical question btw.

^what he said.

you're both delusional.  We can't even enforce bus passes around here and you want to try enforcing unemployment compensation...

 

Answer my first question: you set up a staff here in Cuy Co of 100 people to do this enforcement theoretically.  Tell me how this would pay for itself in real dollars without negatively impacting service.  Same argument as enforcing bus passes.  It doesn't add up.  RTA can't put a ticket checker on every stop and if they did, it would slow down service.

>"Common Sense" = political jargon for "agrees with me".

 

 

Common Sense is a trick. 

 

There can't be full employment or there's no labor pool.  Unemployment compensation is therefore necessary to capitalism.  No, we do not need everyone picking onions in their downtime.  Using engineers and lawyers as itinerant vegetable pickers is absurdly wasteful.  If that's our system, our system is worthless.

 

The primary benefit is to the employer, not the employee who can always move somewhere else to where the jobs are (something we seem to have forgotten how to do).

 

Even in the real estate market of years past, few people could just up and move to wherever an immediate opening might appear.  That's like running around chasing herds of buffalo, a lifestyle involving houses you can roll up and carry.  People who live in modern houses have to sell them.  Even people living in apartments have to get out of the lease somehow, unless they're month to month, which most leases aren't.

 

Unemployment compensation is a cost effective way to deal with the commitments inherent in our property system.  When more people own their homes, it needs to go even longer, so it becomes less cost effective.  But that's not unemployment's fault.  The inefficiency, the bottleneck, is in the property arrangements.  But mass migration buffalo hunts aren't efficient either.  It makes no sense to have your population scrambling around the continent to stay afloat.  We're better off stimulating employment where unemployed people already are.

In other news, Greek debt to be "written down" by 50% to 60%

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/10/10/world/europe/news-us-eurozone.html?_r=1&ref=europe

maybe

There can't be full employment or there's no labor pool.  Unemployment compensation is therefore necessary to capitalism.  No, we do not need everyone picking onions in their downtime.  Using engineers and lawyers as itinerant vegetable pickers is absurdly wasteful.  If that's our system, our system is worthless.

 

Why not use rocket scientists or neurosurgeons as your example.  I mean, if you are going to go the extreme, go to the extreme.  But how about we go to the other extreme and talk about the perfectly healthy untrained, unskilled, high school dropout who collects his government check and aggressively panhandles on the your street corner?  Too much to make him pick some produce or hold a sign if he wants his check?