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'm a liberal, so I'm not always fond of the Big Bad Banks, but even I recognize the economy can't function without the financial sector writing commercial paper, underwriting insurance policies, providing brokerage for agricultural futures, underwriting corporate bonds and so on. They serve a vital role but need to be regulated -- the excesses that led to the 2008 crash is proof of that.
It needs to be regulated properly.
Problem is, bureaucrats don't understand complex industries and they regulate the wrong thing or do it wrong.
I think for certain drugs, you do need to lock people up and make them go to rehab. Rhode Island gives meth addicts a choice of jail or jail-like rehab, but with all the support systems (AA meetings, church stuff in jail, drugs to help with the addiction). As a condition of parole, they make them continue going to support groups, getting their drugs to help with the addiction, etc.
No disagreements from me. But it won't happen. It's one reason why America is falling apart.
AA and NA has a success rate of 5%-10% and can hardly be mandated because they are "anonymous" they can't report attendance to parole or any other agency. The participant is supposed to get a slip of paper signed by their group leader - most of them forge the signature. Other forms of rehab are exorbitantly expensive and don't seem to do much to reduce recidivism.
Maybe we should do a better job with our kids, make sure that schools are doing their job; teaching kids self esteem, encouraging healthy lifestyles and teaching trades to kids who don't want to go on to college. People who are happy and have options don't usually end up addicted to drugs.
PS most people on parole who have a history of drug or alcohol use are mandated to support groups but it hasn't reduced recidivism. I wonder if that time might have been better spent putting those parolees in apprenticeships.
You think two wall street moguls who earn millions scamming each other...
No such job description exists.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable taking this over to the Politics forum. This is the Economics forum, and people are expected to know a thing or two about, you know, Economics. Your posts lack all evidence of any economic way of thinking.
Most states already ended benefits months ago. It made no significant difference. A lot of people have switched career fields or retired earlier than they were planning to retire.
You're actually pointing to two separate things. The latter point you make - retirees & career switchers - is correct.
The implied point - not explicitly stated - points to a very interesting phenomenon. When the government was handing out free money, many people "banked the payments." They saved them. When their payments stopped, rather than return to work, they decided to live on their savings.
They made a choice - they decided not to use their savings as a springboard to future intergenerational wealth or to a more affluent future retirement.
They said to themselves, "F*** it. I like doing nothing at all. I'm going to continue to do nothing at all until the money runs out."
Mark Zandi, an economist with Moody's Analytics, has done a deep dive into the financials of such people and forecasts they will run out of their savings and return to the workforce in the January timeframe.
Sounds like a great incentive to add more value to society than a minimum wage job, and as a result, make more money.
The abundance of these jobs though shows that a great, great many people haven't figured that out. Saying "let's just let the market work this out" is just another way of saying many of them will continue to be very poor despite often working full time. Being poor may not be the worst thing in the world and I do understand it creates an incentive of sorts. Where I draw the line is the fact that most of these jobs do not offer health insurance. In short, its possible to work yourself weary, be poor, and have no health insurance in this country. If this country were not such a wealthy country maybe there would be an excuse for this. I don't see one in such a wealthy country.
The abundance of these jobs though shows that a great, great many people haven't figured that out. Saying "let's just let the market work this out" is just another way of saying many of them will continue to be very poor despite often working full time. Being poor may not be the worst thing in the world and I do understand it creates an incentive of sorts. Where I draw the line is the fact that most of these jobs do not offer health insurance. In short, its possible to work yourself weary, be poor, and have no health insurance in this country. If this country were not such a wealthy country maybe there would be an excuse for this. I don't see one in such a wealthy country.
I imagine it would be easy for you to buy a health insurance policy and pay the premiums for anyone that you felt was deserving of such largesse.
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.
