Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I still maintain that the government teat is largely responsible. It's easier to re-negotiate creditor terms when you have a check-stub from the unemployment office. It's easier to rationalize staying home to care for the kids then work and pay for a sitter. It's easier to hold out hope for a better opportunity while knowing that Democrats will continue to give you extended unemployment benefits.
In other words: There is no reason to settle for less. NONE. Decades of Democratic efforts to permanently demolish work ethic in this country are paying off.
Shameful.
You do know the history of the 1890's, early 1900's?
You do know the history of the 1890's, early 1900's?
Why do we want to return to that?
What would make you think that the current recession could be staved off by the same policies used by the government in reponse to the 1893 depression?
FDR's 'New Deal' for the other. Specific to that would be the 1932-37 period when the NRA (real one) and other programs cut the unemployment rate in half.
After 1937 we have the same type of situation we see at present- a cutback in gov't spending and little private sector spending, which persisted until the big government spending program that at last killed the 30's Depression:
This seems to lend credence to the idea that people are not inclined to work as long as the government teat is alive and well.
I'm pretty sure us conservatives have been saying this since Lyndon B Johnson permanently corrupted the work ethic of this nation.
Maybe employers should also follow the laws of supply and demand and offer more cash. If they, ya know, paid more money people would probably take the work?? Call me crazy!
Also do you even know anyone that's unemployed. Your point of view seems to come from a very sheltered perspective.
Pretty sure most people would like to live above the level of pay you get from unemployment.
Maybe employers should also follow the laws of supply and demand and offer more cash. If they, ya know, paid more money people would probably take the work?? Call me crazy!
Also do you even know anyone that's unemployed. Your point of view seems to come from a very sheltered perspective.
Pretty sure most people would like to live above the level of pay you get from unemployment.
And where are employers supposed to get the money to pay higher salaries when mandatory health care costs are increasing dramatically every year?
FDR's 'New Deal' for the other. Specific to that would be the 1932-37 period when the NRA (real one) and other programs cut the unemployment rate in half.
After 1937 we have the same type of situation we see at present- a cutback in gov't spending and little private sector spending, which persisted until the big government spending program that at last killed the 30's Depression:
WWII.
The mixed economy of 1946-73 for the third.
And this is no 'Recession', this is a Depression.
I'm not sure how the Square Deal relates other than new regulation on otherwise unregulated industries. I'm not of the opinion that either of the tenets of this creation were economic boosters? Feel free to disagree if you think i'm overlooking something.
I've always been a proponent of the Works Project Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. When the Stimulus was first being talked about, I was supremely hoping that a modern CCC would be created. Unfortunately, it was nothing but a union payoff.
WWII undoubtedly pulled us out of our stooper. But, again, how does that relate to the current economic situation?
Where are you connecting the dots of past government intervention with that of current government intervention? I'm not seeing the similarities.
Maybe employers should also follow the laws of supply and demand and offer more cash. If they, ya know, paid more money people would probably take the work?? Call me crazy!
Also do you even know anyone that's unemployed. Your point of view seems to come from a very sheltered perspective.
Pretty sure most people would like to live above the level of pay you get from unemployment.
I'll concede that perhaps my view is somewhat "sheltered." But, lets be honest. There are jobs. Many of them menial. Many of them not. And as the article suggests, they're not being filled. There has to be a reason for this. I'm of the opinion that it's because its way too easy to accept unemployment than settle for something less than their experience (or ego) allows.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
