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.
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.
Yet no reason to cut them off. Arguably, its reason to begin government work projects, plenty of work to be done out there. More than enough people to do it. Put people to work. Pay them enough so they aren't limping along. If thats what needs to be done lets just do it. Who cares if its government or private sector? The private sector has been impotent the past 2 years, no point in waiting on them to get something done. Time for government.
You're arguing for giving people who already have excess money more money in hopes of them spending it. Thats your argument. What are they going to spend it on that will stimulate the American economy? Everything we have here is made in China.
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..
Businesses who filed Bankruptcy in 2009 : Business filings totaled 58,322, Non-business filings totaled 1,538,033, up 14.4 percent from the 1,344,095 non-business bankruptcy filings in September 2009. This is the highest number of non-business filings for a fiscal year since FY 2005 , immediately prior to the implementation of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act in October 2006.
Businesses that have failed since the year 2000 : NOTE the number of failures in 2008-2009 FAR exceed previous years....
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 is taking money from A and giving it to person B increasing the demand for consumerism in america? You are simply changing who is doing the spending, but the spending still takes place. And some might argue that the who change is very very damaging because you are normally taking money out of investors who would be investing in businesses so they can expand, and now having them "invest" in government treasuries. It yields a lower rate, and ZERO jobs because it ties up capital for decades. And when this needs paid back, it comes at the expense of future jobs. We need long term JOB solutions, not bandaids..
You could say there isnt a job so the only choice is to expand unemployment so people wont have financial hardships, ok.. that might be an argument, but thats not the one being sold here..
Businesses who filed Bankruptcy in 2009 : Business filings totaled 58,322, Non-business filings totaled 1,538,033, up 14.4 percent from the 1,344,095 non-business bankruptcy filings in September 2009. This is the highest number of non-business filings for a fiscal year since FY 2005 , immediately prior to the implementation of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act in October 2006.
Businesses that have failed since the year 2000 : NOTE the number of failures in 2008-2009 FAR exceed previous years....
FAIL.. Bankruptices dont mean a failed business.. Look at GM for example...
And the question was to compare it to OTHER recessions, which ALL resulted in bankruptcies..
In 2001 1.458M americans filed bankruptcies, in 2009 there were 1.412M americans filing bankruptcies.. Spare me the melodrama about how this is the worse in history..
The fact that its the highest since 2005 isnt really the "worse in history" is it? 2005 was years of economic prosperity and still we had a high bankruptcy rate..
FAIL.. Bankruptices dont mean a failed business.. Look at GM for example...
And the question was to compare it to OTHER recessions, which ALL resulted in bankruptcies..
In 2001 1.458M americans filed bankruptcies, in 2009 there were 1.412M americans filing bankruptcies.. Spare me the melodrama about how this is the worse in history..
The fact that its the highest since 2005 isnt really the "worse in history" is it? 2005 was years of economic prosperity and still we had a high bankruptcy rate..
The top FAIL showed you 58,000 plus business filings for BK which is a seperate portion of my post , below it were the businessfailings. You said not much changed since the last recession but in fact business FAILINGS increased as you see. The business filings above it were to give you an idea of how many businesses filed BK .
How is taking money from A and giving it to person B increasing the demand for consumerism in america?
Depends on the money-spending habits of A vs B.
Suppose A has enough income to save and is in a spot where a lot of his/her spending is discretionary. Feeling uneasy about the economic times, A saves against a risky future, which of course decreases demand.
Suppose B has very little income and most of his/her spending is anything but discretionary. He/she will be highly motivated to spend a large proportion of what comes his/her way. An extra dollar in B's pocket doesn't stay there for very long. That increases demand.
These aren't hypotheticals, every set of data gathered makes it clear that this is exactly what happens. If a government wants to actively fight a lackluster economy, putting money in the hands of low-income groups simply trigger more consumption than putting the same amount towards high-income groups.
ETA: As odinloki1 points out, major public works is another (and probably better) way of injecting money into the economy. But it appears that the US has lost its way in that regard. The closest is some of the utterly unneeded defense sector programs, but those tend to pay off middle- and upper-middle-class project managers, engineers etc., not low-income grunts working paycheck to paycheck.
Suppose B has very little income and most of his/her spending is anything but discretionary. He/she will be highly motivated to spend a large proportion of what comes his/her way. An extra dollar in B's pocket doesn't stay there for very long. That increases demand.
The last two years has proven just how wrong this theory is. Those on UE don't increase demand for goods and services, they are just scraping by and purchasing just enough to keep going. There is no extraneous spending on their part.
The proof is in the pudding - the last two years has not seen the kind of demand, which would result in massive job growth. It just hasn't happened.
those with jobs, with extra money to burn are the key - they are just not spending.
Actually say most of the PHD economists that work for this administration (and prior.) Now should we listen to highly educated individuals with PHDs, or should we listen to...you?
What makes more sense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
The last two years has proven just how wrong this theory is. Those on UE don't increase demand for goods and services, they are just scraping by and purchasing just enough to keep going. There is no extraneous spending on their part.
The proof is in the pudding - the last two years has not seen the kind of demand, which would result in massive job growth. It just hasn't happened.
those with jobs, with extra money to burn are the key - they are just not spending.
Economists also have shown that without UE the GDP would be down. They go on to say (which is pretty obvious) that this also keeps foreclosures at bay, which would also put downward pressure on nearly everything.
They were continued for a reason, and while you may not be able to understand the benefits provided, it's still good they did. Not to mention it's the morally correct thing to do.
Actually say most of the PHD economists that work for this administration (and prior.) Now should we listen to highly educated individuals with PHDs, or should we listen to...you?
The have been utter and completely WRONG. The Failed Stimulus failed miserably, the UE rate is almost 2 points higher than they said it would be, the "uniquely qualified team" of obama's is down to one now, since all the others have abandoned the sinking economic ship. The proof of their wrong-headed ideas and policies is the last two years of an economy in severe distress....because of those economic policies, which have made a downturn even worse.
What makes more sense?
How much sense does it make listening to failures, over and over again?
Economists also have shown that without UE the GDP would be down. They go on to say (which is pretty obvious) that this also keeps foreclosures at bay, which would also put downward pressure on nearly everything.
They were continued for a reason, and while you may not be able to understand the benefits provided, it's still good they did. Not to mention it's the morally correct thing to do.
I'm quite sure you'll understand if I don't take YOUR interpretation of what someone else said as the "truth". I'd have to see the quotes, the links, the statements as corroboration of YOUR claims.
Oh yes, paying people not to work makes so much sense.
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.
