U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-16-2010, 01:52 PM
 
9,369 posts, read 11,296,452 times
Reputation: 5999

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
UE for life then?

It might be interesting to look and see if there is a direct correlation between the unprecedented length of UE benefits today and the job losses since 2007.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...historical.jpg

What makes today's extended job losses so much different than previous recessions?
*RIGHT here : All the stores that have CLOSED and all the people that have lost their jobs. ( Note this is 2008 statistics , MORE have closed than I have listed : ( this is just a small list )
The question remains WHERE DID THE JOBS GO ? :
*Ann Taylor **closing 117 stores nationwide A company spokeswoman said the
company hasn’t revealed which stores will be shuttered. It will let the
stores that will close this fiscal year know over r the next month*
* *
*Eddie Bauer **to close more stores. Eddie Bauer has already closed 27
shops in the first quarter and plans to close up to two more outlet stores
by the end of the year.*
* *
*Cache **closing stores. Women’s retailer Cache announced that it is
closing 20 to 23 stores this year.*
* *
*Lane Bryant, Fashion Bug, Catherines **closing 150 stores nationwide. The
owner of retailers Lane Bryant , Fashion Bug , Catherines Plus Sizes will
close about 150 underperforming stores this year. The company hasn’t
provided a list of specific store closures and can’t say when it will
offer that info, spokeswoman Brooke Perry said today.*
* *
*Talbots, **J. Jill closing stores. About a month ago, Talbots
announced that it will be shuttering all 78 of its kids and men’s stores.
Now the company says it will close another 22 underperforming stores.. The
22 stores will be a mix of Talbots women’s and J. Jill , another chain it
owns. The closures will occur this fiscal year, according to a company press
release.*
* *
*Gap Inc. **closing 85 stores. In addition to its namesake chain, Gap also
owns Old Navy and Banana Republic . The company said the closures – all
planned for fiscal 2008 – will be weighted toward the Gap brand.*
* *
*Foot Locker **to close 140 stores. In the company press release and during
its conference call with analysts today, it did no t specify where the
future store closures – all plan ned in fiscal 2008 – will be. The company
could not be immediately reached for comment*
* *
*Wickes **is going out of business. Wickes Furniture is going out of
business and closing all of its stores, Wickes, a 37-year-old retailer that
targets middle-income customers, filed for bankruptcy protection last
month.*
* *
*Zales, **Piercing Pagoda closing stores. The owner of Zales and Piercing
Pagoda previously said it plans to close 82 stores by July 31. Today, it
announced that it is closing another 23 underperforming stores. The company
said it’s not providing a list of specific store closures. Of the 105
locations planned for closure, 50 are kiosks and 55 are stores.*
* *
*Disney Store’s **owner has the right to close 98 stores. The Walt Disney
Company announced it acquired about 220 Disney Stores from subsidiaries of
The Children’s Place Retail Stores. The exact number of stores acquired
will depend on negotiations with landlords. Those subsidiaries of Children’s
Place filed for bankruptcy protection in late March. Walt Disney in the news
release said it has also obtained the right to close about 98 Disney Stores
in the U.S. The press release didn’t list those stores.*
* *
*Home Depot **store closings. Nearly 7+ months after its chief executive
said there were no plans to cut the number of its core retail stores, The
Home Depot Inc.anounced Thursday that it is shuttering 15 of them amid a
slumping U.S.economy and housing market. The move will affect 1,300
employees. It is the first time the world’s largest home improvement store
chain has ever closed a flagship store for performance reasons. Its shares
rose almost 5 percent.The Atlanta-based company said the underperforming
U.S.stores being closed represent less than 1 percent of its existing
stores. They will be shuttered within the next two months.*
* *
*CompUSA **(CLOSED) clarifies details on store closings. Any
extended warranties purchased for products through CompUSA will be honored
by a third-party provider, Assurant Solutions. Gift cards, rain checks, and
rebates purchased prior to December 12 can be redeemed at any time during
the final sale. For those who have a gadget currently in for service with
CompUSA, the repair will be completed and the gadget will be returned to
owners.*

*Macy’s **- 9 stores*
* *
*Movie Gallery **- 160 stores as part of reorganization plan to exit
bankruptcy. The video rental company plans to close 400 of 3,500 Movie
Gallery and Hollywood Video stores in addition to the 520 locations the
video rental chain closed last fall.*
* *
*Pep Boys **- 33 stores*
* *
*Sprint Nextel **- 125 retail locations New Sprint NextelCEO Dan Hesse
appears to have inherited a company bleeding subscribers by the thousands,
and will now officially be dropping the ax on 4,000 e mployees and 125
retail locations. Amid the loss of 639,000 postpaid customers in the fourth
quarter, Sprint will be cutting a total of 6.7% of its work force
(following the 5,000 layoffs last year)and 8% of company-owned
brick-and-mortar stores, while remaining mute on other rumors that it will
consolidate its headquarters in Kansas . Sprint Nextel shares are down
$2.89, or nearly 25%, at the time of this writing.*
* *
*J. C. Penney, Lowe’s and Office Depot **are scaling back*
* *
*Ethan Allen Interiors: **The company announced plans to close 12 of 300+
stores in an effort to cut costs.*
* *
*Wilsons** the Leather Experts **- 158 stores*
* *
*Pacific Sunwear **will close its 154 Demo stores after a review
of strategic alternatives for the urban-apparel brand. Seventy-four
underperforming Demo stores closed last May.*
* *
*Sharper Image: **The company recently filed for bankruptcy protection
and announced that 90 of its 184 stores are closing. The retailer will still
operate 94 stores to pay off debts, but 90 of these stores have performed
poorly and also may close.*
* *
*Bombay Company: **The company unveiled plans to close all 384 U.S.-based
Bombay Company stores. The company’s online storefront has discontinued
operations.*
* *
*KB Toys **posted a list of 356 stores that it is closing around the United
States as part of its bankruptcy reorganization. To see the list of
store closings,
go to the KB Toys Information web site, and click on Press Information*
* *
*Dillard’s to Close More Stores*
*Dillard’s Inc. said it will continue to focus on closing underperforming
stores, reducing expenses and improving its merchandise in 2008. At
the company’s annual shareholder meeting, CEO William Dillard II said the
company will close another six underperforming stores this year.*
* *
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-16-2010, 02:18 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,714,731 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
It started when you implied that it couldn't get much higher. I pointed out to when it was higher.
and it was a meaningless point because 20 years ago doesnt equate to today.. What was the results then? Did we extend unemployment for YEARS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Its putting the $$ into the hands of the unemployed which is needed to boost demand and the economy. Yes it has a cost, but that $$ is not techniclaly coming out of the economy.
Bull crap.. Where do you think its coming from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
People are needed to serve whether or not we are at war. The actual numbers don't go up that much. Aside from the fact it doesn't have the same impact as putting $$ in the hands of the unemployed.
So you pretend that the 100,000 troops at war would still be needed without the war? Seriously, thats your argument? Thats like saying we should continue the war to continue to reduce the unemployment. Do you realize that these people normally have real JOBS, that they need to get time off in order to go to war?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
The $$$ to pay for unemployment is not coming out of anyone's hands. People don't have less $$$ in their hands because its being used to pay for someone else's unemployment.
Yes they do.. where on gods earth do you think the $100B comes from if not from someone elses hand? Explain the cycle to me to magically come up with $100B from no where because I want to study this new math so I can get $100B all for myself without taking it from others.. Why stop there.. I want you to tell me how to get $1T without taking it from others.. Lets put Gates and Buffet to shame!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
That boom started before the cutting was put in place. A balance budget occurred due to revenues that went through the roof.
Revenues have continued to go up consistantly.. They were no where close to "through the roof". In fact it was SPENDING that created a surplus, or more accurately, a curbing of the expansion of spending
Under Clinton, federal spending increased 50%, under Bush, it went up 100%.. SPENDING is the problem because it first takes money out of the economy in order for it to be spent...
Revenues have remained consistant to the federal government for the most part regardless of the tax rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
I said over and over again. If you start with Dec 01 and count to Dec 07. That is basically the job changes from Dec 31st 2001 to Dec 31st 2007. You could do the same by starting with Jan 02 and ending with Jan 08, which would mean the changes from Jan 31st 2002 to Jan 31st 2008. Both of those are six full years, 72 months. If you use that, you have a little over 7 million jobs. What you are doing is counting Jan 31st 2002 to Dec 31st 2007, 5 years and 11 months (71 months). You are doing this so you can include seasonal job gains, but not include seasonal job losses.
The tax cut credits didnt kick in until people started doing their tax returns.. Why would you count from Dec 01 when the tax cuts to encourage job growth didnt take place until 2003? Stop twisting the numbers to suit your own agenda because the BLS says you are wrong.. that 10,200,000 jobs were created!! You disagree, go argue with the BLS..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
They are already doing more than fine. The portions under the $250,000 mark won't see an increase, so a small business sitting just above the $250,000 mark would see little or no increase. You would need to get close to the $1 million of taxable income for even the increase to account for one salary.
So if they will see little or no increase then why the objection? I dont give a rats patute if it takes close to $1M to equate to 1 salary, if tax cuts are good, then they are good for all.. otherwise you are just playing political Democratic bs games..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Its on the non-seasonal chart you linked to. 4th chart down the one entitled

00000000 TOTAL NONFARM ALL EMPLOYEES (in thousands), NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED

Over-the-month change as revised (BM2009)

Now look what happens every single January. That is what you aren't including, since you are using the end of Jan as your starting baseline and the end of Dec as your end point. You are not including all the Jan losses that occur due to the end seasonal employment, but are including the seasonal job gains. The reason you never hear about this is when the BLS releases its figures every month, they do so on a seasonal adjusted basis.
Fine, what January would you like to add to the equation to result in your phantom 2.7M job losses? You havent answered despite being asked numerous times.. Why not? Because IT DOESNT EXIST.. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing without any point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Well they would still be getting the cut on the bottom $250,000 of their income, its only the portion of the income above that which would see an increase. They would still actually wind up with a larger $ over $ cut compared to what it was pre 2001 than a small business with $150,000 in taxable income. Also again it was to point out that the vast majority of small business's and the vast majority of employees that work for small business's would have never been impacted by this.
So what? Again if tax cuts are good for the economy, then its good. You dont get to pick and choose if they are good for person A, but bad for person B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
I never said unemployment at 9.5% is good, nor should we try to keep it at that rate. Which is why I favor unemployment benefits. By putting more $$$ into the hands of the unemployment you boost demand and as such boost jobs. When the unemployment rate is lower its not going to have the same impact, and boost, but when its higher it generally does. This is why we have always had unemployment extensions in times of high unemployment, regardless of what party was in charge of the White House or Congress. Anytime unemployment was above 7.5% we have always had extensions, and even in cases when it was below that amount (such as 2002-2003)
You do not boost demand for jobs by putting money into the unemployed. Even the Obama economic advisor stated this in a book he published in 1999. We dont have unemployment extensions to boost employment, we have unemployment extensions to reduce the harships on society.. Thats not the same.. It wasnt until Democrats need to find reasons to justify their failed policies that we've started hearing the bs that its to boost employment..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 02:19 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,714,731 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by WannaliveinGreenville View Post
*RIGHT here : All the stores that have CLOSED and all the people that have lost their jobs. ( Note this is 2008 statistics , MORE have closed than I have listed : ( this is just a small list )
The question remains WHERE DID THE JOBS GO ? :
I stopped here because previous recessions had similar businesses closing down. Sun TV, Circuit City for example.. This isnt any different than previous ones other than the fact that we are now creating more problems by failed policies where previous ones actually did something about it..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 02:21 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,714,731 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
Oh, and by the way, PhD economists who know way more about all of this than you or me echo the same thing Obama says. I can find a lot more of these...
End of unemployment benefits would hurt economy - USATODAY.com
Obamas own economic advisors said in 1999 that this approach wouldnt work.. Now all of a sudden we are to believe it does because its "Obama".. Please.. what universe do you live on where taking money from A to give to B = more money?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 02:24 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,714,731 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
And those who deliver the bare-bones essentials - where are they on the economic food chain? Higher. More money gets spent on food and essentials. More people in the supply chain will be able to afford more than the basics. Demand will pick up. The middle class will feel a bit more secure, spend a bit more cash.

People with money tucked away will tuck away extra money as well. People with nothing will spend what they get. That's the bigger boost.
No its not because you FIRST have to take it away from person A to give to person B.. If person A doesnt have it, they cant be spending it.. You are simply moving who is doing the spending..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 02:28 PM
 
2,689 posts, read 3,012,873 times
Reputation: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
So says that economic genius, barack obama. The media never challenges him on this ridiculous claim.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama: Unemployment Benefits "Biggest Boost" To The Economy



If that were actually TRUE, then we should be rooting for MORE people to lose their jobs and start collecting UE benefits, right, right?

See, what obama and the Left fail to realize is that people collecting UE are living pay check to pay check, buying the essentials like food, paying their bills, just getting by. They don't have the money for those extras or luxury items.

These are NOT the circumstances or the segment of the population that will boost the economy, get it rolling again. The people who will give a real jolt to the economy are the ones who are working, but due to uncertainty, anxiety and fear, are holding back on spending above and beyond the essentials. Like decorations for the house, new clothes for the kids they might not actually need, vacations over the Christmas break, spending more on entertainment, movies, dinners. The kind of people who have the money for those extras but have decided to NOT cut loose........kind of like me.

How many of these things are actually made in the US??????

The man and his circle of advisers are truly clueless, but what can you expect when the vast majority of them haven't ever run a business or had private sector work experience.
So in a consumer based economy you AREN'T in favor of having more consumers out there, you're in favor of decreasing the number of consumers by cutting unemployment......

Sounds like a good way to decrease demand and get more people fired.

Or maybe you think all those who are unemployed will go and work the millions of jobs that are out there and ready for the taking.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 38,541,581 times
Reputation: 7106
Quote:
*RIGHT here : All the stores that have CLOSED and all the people that have lost their jobs.
Don't have to tell me, I see it everyday on the Randall Rd corridor. More expty shops everyday.

The point of the chart showing the current job losses to previous recessions. What is different today than yesterday? ONE thing that is different is the 2+ years of UE benefits, which I believe is adding to the jobless picture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 02:30 PM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,660,308 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
You do not boost demand for jobs by putting money into the unemployed. Even the Obama economic advisor stated this in a book he published in 1999. We dont have unemployment extensions to boost employment, we have unemployment extensions to reduce the harships on society.. Thats not the same.. It wasnt until Democrats need to find reasons to justify their failed policies that we've started hearing the bs that its to boost employment..
There is a bit of truth to this. But if you donít put money into the unemployed then the drag they put on the economy is far worse. Make work for them to do and pay them for doing that work. That is what is needed.


The money spent on unemployment benifits is an economic stimulouse but it doesn't work as such because it isn't replacing the person's lost income it is onely replacing a small part of it. Replace all of it and then some and the economy will grow but you can't do that as why would you work?

In Irelad durring the potato famine they didn't give people enough to stay alive when they did make work projects for the poor this was so that they would have to go out and get a job. Well a lot died from starvation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 38,541,581 times
Reputation: 7106
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1 View Post
So in a consumer based economy you AREN'T in favor of having more consumers out there, you're in favor of decreasing the number of consumers by cutting unemployment......

Sounds like a good way to decrease demand and get more people fired.

Or maybe you think all those who are unemployed will go and work the millions of jobs that are out there and ready for the taking.....
How has the 2+ years of UE benefits helped alleviate the job market? It hasn't...at all.

Again, the people collecting UE benefits ARE NOT out there on a spending binge and they won't be in the future. They are just barely hanging on, spending for the necessities and that is all. Why do you continue to ignore that point?

The UE CAN'T afford above and beyond the essentials and without that kind of spending from people who can afford it, the job picture is bleak indeed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2010, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 38,541,581 times
Reputation: 7106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
And those who deliver the bare-bones essentials - where are they on the economic food chain? Higher. More money gets spent on food and essentials. More people in the supply chain will be able to afford more than the basics. Demand will pick up. The middle class will feel a bit more secure, spend a bit more cash.

People with money tucked away will tuck away extra money as well. People with nothing will spend what they get. That's the bigger boost.
Rubbish. Truly unbelievable the case you're trying to make. What you're saying is those on UE will boost the economy MORE than people with jobs, with disposable income to spend on luxury, nonessential items. The working poor, the UE, with their spending on basic necessities of life just to survive will impact the economy MORE than people who have money to burn. Just incredible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top