Vanishing Jobs, Rising Unemployment

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

<font size="5"><center>
Job losses hit 5-year high,
reignite fears of new recession</font size></center>



806-5web-ECONOMY-major.major_story_img.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

Bags of food for the needy are stacked at So Others May
Eat in Washington D.C.


McClatchy Newspapers
By Kevin G. Hall
Friday, September 5, 2008

WASHINGTON — Recession fears are back with a bang and the economy is front and center in the political arena again after a Labor Department report Friday showed that the nation's unemployment rate leapt to 6.1 percent in August, employers shed jobs for the eighth consecutive month and revised numbers for earlier months showed even greater payroll hits.

Employers shed 84,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said, and the unemployment rate moved up by a larger than expected four-tenths of a percentage point. There were job losses across most of the broad spectrum of U.S. employment, especially in the manufacturing, retail and construction sectors.

The strong 3.3 percent economic growth in the second quarter of this year, led by solid U.S. exports, had eased recession concerns. But Friday's jobs numbers pointed to a serious slowdown and erased any confidence about the economy for just about anyone outside the optimistic Bush administration.

"This thing is just lingering. It's almost like a storm that comes ashore and just kind of sits there," said Ken Goldstein, an economist with the Conference Board, a New York-based group that publishes indices of consumer sentiment. "We've seen declines every month, all year long, right through August. But the declines have started to intensify, and that will continue through the end of the year, very likely into the first months of 2009."

Some are certain that recession lurks.

"This is a very weak jobs report that screams recession," wrote John Ryding and Conrad DeQuadros, partners in the New York forecasting firm RDQ Economics.

Peter Kretzmer, a Bank of America economist, added in a note to investors that the "rapid rise in the unemployment rate points to a U.S. recession, as such an increase has never occurred outside of one."

Recession fears have reignited on evidence that job losses are picking up steam. The Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday revised the June and July unemployment numbers upward, virtually doubling the original estimate for June job losses from 51,000 to 100,000. Most of the job losses this year — 1.75 million — have come since April.

"Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 2.2 million and the unemployment rate has risen by 1.4 percentage points, with most of the increase occurring over the past four months," the BLS report said.

In August, 9.4 million Americans were unemployed.

The number of long-term unemployed — those jobless for 27 weeks or more — rose by 163,000 to 1.8 million, an increase of 589,000 over the past 12 months. The newly unemployed, jobless for fewer than five weeks, rose by 400,000 in August.

It all points to a deeper slowdown, just as the presidential election heats up.

"We expect growth to slow in the current quarter to just over 1 percent and then turn negative in the fourth quarter," said Nigel Gault, the chief U.S. economist for forecaster Global Insight in Lexington, Mass.

The jobs report became fodder for the presidential campaigns Friday. Democrat Barack Obama linked Republican rival John McCain to President Bush's economic policies, and McCain promised to fight for a better economy.

Only the Bush administration expressed optimism.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, in an interview with McClatchy, pointed to the strong second-quarter growth to suggest that the economy is stronger than it appears.

"The fact that we grew 3.3 percent in the second quarter is very different to the scenario that the really bleak forecasters would have you believe," he said.

Pointing to the impact of rising energy costs on auto manufacturers, Gutierrez said that was why "we really do need to get on with the future and start drilling for oil."

The Department of Energy has said that new U.S. oil production is unlikely to have much impact on global oil prices, and most new drilling operations would take years before they resulted in significant oil production.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/51836.html
 
Re: Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Re: Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

This is good information, the flash point will come soon, where you will see corporations that made it thru the first round of "in the red" elimination, go belly up within the coming months. The fall of the United States, in it's present state is imminent. It will take a deliberate effort to restore the United States, to its greatness, based on the basics, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights...:hmm:
 
Re: Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

Shouldn't this be under the "US Economy" thread? I know Greed and Actinass have stopped posting in that thread since the great Bush/McSame economy has taken full effect!
 
Re: Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

<font size="4"><center>
ECONOMIC REPORT
Payrolls sink 159,000, worst job loss in 5 years
Hidden unemployment rises to 11%, highest in 14 years</font size>

</center>



<IFRAME SRC="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/payrolls-fall-159000-september-worst/story.aspx?guid=%7B413F55F5-BFCA-4E68-9F94-9B695466A681%7D&dist=msr_17" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/payrolls-fall-159000-september-worst/story.aspx?guid=%7B413F55F5-BFCA-4E68-9F94-9B695466A681%7D&dist=msr_17">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Re: Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

whateverman.jpg


Get a new job, move on, life continues.......
 
Re: Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

You must not have a family, home. Spoken like a true Gen X slacker that lives at home with mommy and daddy.

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Generalization: You sound like a bitter old man, who back in the day complained that the white man keep you down, while hanging out on the corner smoking weed. Generalization:
;)

My final 2cents, stop the loser train of thought. You only have control over yourself. To waste time and energy thinking about how bad it is, is fruitless. 8yr ago their were saying the same thing, 8 years from now they'll be saying the same damn thing.

Do you, pay off you credit card, live within your means, fuck the jones. Whatever................:yes:
 
Re: Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

whateverman.jpg


Get a new job, move on, life continues.......
Generally I agree with you, but I'll go further than you might be willing to go and say also get rid of the minimum wage to increase employment.

Eliminating a whole class of jobs just because it pays low skill wages for low skill work definitely makes the unemployment numbers higher.
 
Re: Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Generalization: You sound like a bitter old man, who back in the day complained that the white man keep you down, while hanging out on the corner smoking weed. Generalization:
;)

My final 2cents, stop the loser train of thought. You only have control over yourself. To waste time and energy thinking about how bad it is, is fruitless. 8yr ago their were saying the same thing, 8 years from now they'll be saying the same damn thing.

Do you, pay off you credit card, live within your means, fuck the jones. Whatever................:yes:

:hmm:Idiot.
 
Re: Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

What a minute.............
I thought the fundamentals of our economy were strong?
(my lame attempt to be sarcastic)
:yes:
 
Re: Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Generalization: You sound like a bitter old man, who back in the day complained that the white man keep you down, while hanging out on the corner smoking weed. Generalization:
;)

My final 2cents, stop the loser train of thought. You only have control over yourself. To waste time and energy thinking about how bad it is, is fruitless. 8yr ago their were saying the same thing, 8 years from now they'll be saying the same damn thing.

Do you, pay off you credit card, live within your means, fuck the jones. Whatever................:yes:

Not in debt. Live with in my means. Very rarely use a credit card, only to rent a car, hotel etc. Answer question, do you live with parents and do you have a family?
 
Re: Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

Not in debt. Live with in my means. Very rarely use a credit card, only to rent a car, hotel etc. Answer question, do you live with parents and do you have a family?

Two kids, great job, high FICO scores plus investment properties.

Your way off..........
 
Re: Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

Two kids, great job, high FICO scores plus investment properties.

Your way off..........


Good! So the market bust means nothing to you. You have platinum mine in South America.
 
Re: Job losses hit 5-year high, reignite fears of new recession

<font size="5"><Center>U.S. Economy:
Jobless Rate Climbs to 14-Year High </font size></center>


Bloomberg
By Bob Willis and Rich Miller
November 8, 2008

(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. unemployment rate rose to the highest level since 1994 as companies slashed payrolls, setting the stage for the steepest economic decline in decades and a tough start for Barack Obama’s presidency.

The jobless rate rose to 6.5 percent in October from 6.1 percent the previous month, the Labor Department reported today in Washington. Employers fired 240,000 workers after a loss of 284,000 in September. Revisions to the previous month added 125,000 more to the jobless lines than previously reported.

The surge in unemployment, coupled with other signs the economy nosedived last month, puts pressure on Obama to quickly name his economic team and spell out his planned remedies. It may also spur congressional Democrats to enact in coming weeks a second fiscal stimulus package.

“The economy has entered the very deep portion of the recession and should remain there over the coming six to nine months,” said John Herrmann, president of Herrmann Forecasting LLC in Summit, New Jersey. “These numbers imply a stimulus package of closer to $500 billion, ranging over the remainder of this year and through 2009.”

President-elect Obama, in his first press conference since the Nov. 4 election, said today any stimulus package would combat unemployment.

“It is not going to be easy for us to dig ourselves out of the hole that we are in,” Obama said in Chicago. “We are going to have to focus on jobs because the hemorrhaging of jobs has an impact on consumer confidence and the ability of people to purchase goods and services.”


25-Year High

The total number of unemployed Americans jumped to 10.08 million last month, the highest level in a quarter-century, today’s report showed.

Economists had anticipated a 200,000 drop in payrolls after a previously estimated 159,000 decline in September, according to the median of 78 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey. The median forecast for the unemployment rate was 6.3 percent.

“We’re heading for a deep recession,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. “Banish the word mild from your vocabulary. It’s big, it’s bad and it’s broad-based.”

Stocks today recouped some of their losses from the past two days, when benchmark indexes plunged the most since 1987. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index closed up 2.9 percent at 930.99 in New York. Ten-year Treasury note yields rose to 3.79 percent from 3.69 percent late yesterday.


NBER’s Hall

“The evidence is more than compelling” that a recession is under way, Robert Hall, who heads the National Bureau of Economic Research’s panel that dates economic cycles, said in an interview following the jobs report. “It’s conclusive, in my personal opinion.” Hall is an economics professor at Stanford University.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysts downgraded their projections for the economy after today’s report, foreseeing the biggest contraction since 1982 in the fourth quarter. Goldman also projects that the unemployment rate will soar to 8.5 percent by the end of next year.

Job losses for August and September were revised up by 179,000. The economy has lost 1.18 million jobs so far this year.

The rise in jobless rolls was just the latest statistic suggesting that the economy gave way in October. U.S. auto sales plunged 32 percent, manufacturing contracted at its fastest pace in 26 years and consumer confidence fell by the most on record during the month.

The gathering gloom may prompt Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and his central bank colleagues to reduce interest rates further at their next meeting on December 16. The Fed cut its benchmark rate a half percentage point last week to 1 percent, matching a half-century low.


Another Fed Move

“We will see another easing of 25 or 50 basis points in December,” said John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, North Carolina, adding, “We may go for a very long time before the Fed is in a position to be raising rates again.”

Central banks throughout Europe slashed rates this week as the economic slump that began in the U.S. spread overseas, crimping consumer and corporate confidence. The International Monetary Fund this week projected the first simultaneous economic contractions in the U.S., Europe and Japan in the postwar era.

U.S. factory payrolls fell 90,000, the biggest monthly loss since July 2003, after decreasing 56,000 in September. A strike by 27,000 machinists at Boeing Co., which was resolved earlier this month, contributed to the drop, the Labor Department said.

Economists had forecast a drop of 65,000 manufacturing jobs. The decrease included a loss of 9,100 jobs in auto manufacturing and parts industries.


Construction Losses

Today’s report also reflected the housing slump and credit crunch. Payrolls at builders dropped 49,000 after decreasing 35,000. Financial firms reduced payrolls by 24,000, after a 16,000 decline the prior month.

Service industries, which include banks, insurance companies, restaurants and retailers, subtracted 108,000 workers after dropping 201,000 in the previous month. Retail payrolls decreased by 38,100, led by a loss of 20,300 jobs at auto dealerships, after a decline of 44,800.

Government payrolls increased by 23,000 after a loss of 41,000.

American Express Co., the largest U.S. credit-card company by purchases, said Oct. 30 it would eliminate 10 percent of its workforce, or about 7,000 people, to cut costs amid rising defaults as consumers fail to repay their debts.


American Express

The job cuts “will help us to manage through one of the most challenging economic environments we’ve seen in many decades,” Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Chenault said in a statement.

Workers’ average hourly wages rose 4 cents from the prior month, or 0.2 percent, to $18.21, the jobs report also showed. Hourly earnings were 3.5 percent higher than in October 2007.

The loss of jobs, plunging home prices, and a record tightening of bank lending may cause consumers and businesses to keep retrenching.

Gross domestic product shrank at a 0.3 percent annual pace in the third quartet and consumer spending fell at a 3.1 percent pace, the most since 1980.

To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Willis in Washington at bwillis@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a5R951BQWpxI&refer=home
 
<font size="5"><center>
Double whammy: Job losses at 34-year
high; foreclosures hit highest level ever</font size><font size="4">


533,000 nonfarm jobs lost in November; the unemployment
rate ticked up to 6.7 percent, up from 6.5 percent - the
highest rate in 15 years; and 1.25 million U.S. jobs
have been lost since September 2008</font size></center>



112-20081205-US-jobless.small.prod_affiliate.91.jpg




McClatchy Newspapers
By Kevin G. Hall
December 5, 2008


WASHINGTON — November dealt a one-two punch to the U.S. economy, as employers shed more jobs than any month since December 1974 and mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures leapt to their highest quarterly totals since records have been kept, new reports showed Friday.

Days after the National Bureau of Economic Research reported that the U.S. economy has been in recession since last December, the Labor Department said that employers slashed nonfarm payrolls by 533,000 jobs in November. The agency said that the unemployment rate ticked up to 6.7 percent, up from 6.5 percent a month earlier and the highest rate in 15 years.

The second blow came from the housing sector, as the Mortgage Bankers Association released its quarterly survey on

late mortgage payments and foreclosures. The group said that 6.99 percent of mortgages are 30 days or more behind on payment, and that 2.97 percent of all mortgages are in foreclosure proceedings.

That means nearly one in every 10 outstanding mortgages is now either behind schedule on payments or actually in foreclosure. The report marked the worst quarterly showing in the 39 years that the group has kept records.

More troubling, prime mortgages given to borrowers with the strongest credit now represent a rising percentage of those mortgages that are delinquent or entering foreclosure proceedings.

The MBA's chief economist, Jay Brinkmann, in a conference call with reporters, said that fixed-rate prime mortgages make up 21 percent of the foreclosures, a big percentage considering that they make up 65 percent of all outstanding mortgages. Adjustable-rate prime mortgages account for 24 percent of foreclosures, he said, and 14 percent of all outstanding loans.

This highlights a new wrinkle in the complicated recession that's unfolding. The national housing slump was provoked by runaway lending to subprime borrowers, those with the weakest credit histories. Delinquencies and foreclosures among these borrowers appear to have flattened out, but accelerating job losses are adding a new wave of distressed mortgages held by stronger borrowers.

"I think what we're going to see is a growing delinquency problem among prime mortgages that's driven by some of these job loss factors," Brinkmann said.

The states suffering the greatest job losses through the end of October — California and Florida — are also the ones at the center of the housing bust.

"Clearly the job losses in California and Florida are adding to the problems that already existed in the housing market fundamentals in those states," Brinkmann said. Many new job losses there involve college-educated professionals and workers with lots of technical training, groups associated with home ownership.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average traded down as much as 300 points following Friday's dismal news. However, the blue chips reversed course at the close of trading to finish up 259.18 points, or 3.09 percent, to 8,635.42. The S&P 500 finished up 30.85 points, or 3.65 percent, to 876.07. The Nasdaq rallied 63.75 points, or 4.41 percent, to close at 1509.31.

In a rare bit of good news for consumers, oil prices fell another $2.86 on the New York Mercantile Exchange to settle at $40.81 a barrel, more than 70 percent below July's record highs. Investment giant Merrill Lynch said Friday that oil prices could fall temporarily to as low as $25 a barrel, which could lower gasoline prices to around $1 a gallon.

Still, job security is front and center in the American mind. The worse-than-expected 533,000 jobs lost in November was the biggest monthly jobless number since December 1974 — when employers shed 602,000 posts — and left no doubt that the U.S. recession is worsening.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised upward its previous jobless reports, putting October losses at 320,000 instead of the 240,000 earlier reported, and September job losses were actually 403,000, not 284,000 as initially counted. September saw the near meltdown of global financial markets. Since then more than 1.25 million U.S. jobs have been lost.

Friday's job report showed employers in virtually all sectors are now trimming payrolls. The retail sector lost the biggest number of jobs at 91,000. Manufacturers shed 85,000 jobs, followed by construction, which lost 82,000 jobs, and the leisure and hospitality, which trimmed 76,000 positions.

On Thursday, telecom giant AT&T said it would cut 12,000 jobs, or 4 percent of its work force.

"The only bright spots remaining are health care and education," said John Silvia, the chief economist for Wachovia in Charlotte, N.C., in a note to investors. "Over the last year, the breadth of industries adding jobs has dropped sharply suggesting broad weakness in consumer spending and dismal consumer confidence."

Taken with weak holiday sales numbers, slowing exports and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, it's clear that the U.S. economy is in deeper trouble. That gives new urgency to efforts in Congress to forge a large economic stimulus package as soon as possible.

President-elect Barack Obama issued a statement Friday, noting that "it's likely to get worse before it gets better" and that government must move urgently with stimulus efforts.

President George W. Bush voiced concern about the economic suffering in a statement made on the South Lawn of the White House. He reviewed his administration's efforts to battle the downturn and said: "It's going to take time for all the actions we have taken to have their full impact. But I am confident that the steps we're taking will help fix the problems in our economy and return it to strength. My administration is committed to ensuring that our economy succeeds. And I know the incoming administration shares the same commitment."

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, in an interview, called the numbers "very disappointing" and said the Bush administration will spend its remaining weeks focused on thawing the frozen credit markets, which are squeezing lending to consumers, thus lowering consumption and creating job losses.

""This is a very clear demonstration of how the financial economy links to the real economy — how Wall Street is linked to Main Street," he said.

Friday's grim numbers may also help sway opponents of an auto industry bailout being considered by Congress, since allowing a U.S. carmaker to enter bankruptcy and send shocks across its supply chain would worsen the already dismal outlook.

At the start of a Friday hearing on the bailout, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., warned that "it would be a disaster" if fellow lawmakers fail to rescue Detroit's Big Three.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/57166.html
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Normally govt doesn't create jobs but this is one time when it can. All govt has to do is use the bailout money to shore-up Social Secuirty and Medicare. They could then lower the retirement age to say 58, people leaving the workforce would replace the jobs lost this year. Obama could then streamline his jobs proposal and gear it towards getting young people off the streets and into the workforce.

In order to do that Washington would have to be stripped of the privileged, those people who have been there for years basically running the country into the ground.
 
visit cafr1.com or watch Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Exposed on google

The government is owned by the banks, and the government has been using our tax money to invest in the wall street so that now they own ALL of the top 30-50 NYSE companies. And, in their ignorant greed, persuade these companies, using majority control, to ship our jobs overseas to increase their profit returns.


This is NOT a joke people!
 
It's amazing, with all this so-called progress, the unemployment rate of "blacks" is double "whites" this decade.

Normally govt doesn't create jobs but this is one time when it can. All govt has to do is use the bailout money to shore-up Social Secuirty and Medicare. They could then lower the retirement age to say 58, people leaving the workforce would replace the jobs lost this year. Obama could then streamline his jobs proposal and gear it towards getting young people off the streets and into the workforce.

In order to do that Washington would have to be stripped of the privileged, those people who have been there for years basically running the country into the ground.

Uh, this is not quite how things work. :cool:
 
[a] lower the retirement age to say 58,

people leaving the workforce

[c] would replace the jobs lost this year.


:lol: C'mon nittie:
[a] Put more people out of work;

Put those people on lower paying retirement benefits; and

[c] hire people to fill the jobs of the people you just put out of work.


You do realize that you haven't created a single job with this nonsense, right ???

QueEx
 
It's amazing, with all this so-called progress, the unemployment rate of "blacks" is double "whites" this decade.



Uh, this is not quite how things work. :cool:


It will never work like this as long as the current crowd runs things. Policy will always be geared towards the rich and powerful.
 
:lol: C'mon nittie:
[a] Put more people out of work;

Put those people on lower paying retirement benefits; and

[c] hire people to fill the jobs of the people you just put out of work.


You do realize that you haven't created a single job with this nonsense, right ???

QueEx


lol...smh...the idea is to redirect money earmarked for rich to the working class. Eligible people could retire early and comfortably which would free up jobs for unemployed workers.
 
Get rid of welfare, minimum wage laws, and unemployment insurance then you'll get an increase in employment.
 
`

I'm sure I'm missing something but are you saying:

nittie said:
lower[ing] the retirement age to say 58, [so that] people leaving the workforce would replace the jobs lost this year.
is an attempt to:

lol...smh...the idea is to redirect money earmarked for rich to the working class. Eligible people could retire early and comfortably which would free up jobs for unemployed workers.
That is, the people who retire at 58 are rich people and the money they were being paid can then be redirected to the working class ??? <s>Are</s> <u>Is</u> you serious ???

What kind of damn "Trickle Sideways" logic/economic theory is that ???

QueEx
 
Get rid of welfare,
I'm not sure I know what "welfare" is anymore. Seriously, what do you mean by that term and how would eliminating it increase employment ???


Get rid of minimum wage laws, and unemployment insurance then you'll get an increase in employment.
I've heard people say that getting rid of minimum wage will increase employment, but I am seriously interested in knowing the details of how that works. Doesn't eliminating the minimum wage simply give rise, if anything, to more jobs paying <u>below</u> the present minimum wage ???

How does eliminating unemployment insurance actually help ??? I'm sure the premiums vary from state to state, but down south the premiums aren't that high and employment-at-will laws apply.

QueEx
 
I'm not sure I know what "welfare" is anymore. Seriously, what do you mean by that term and how would eliminating it increase employment ???



I've heard people say that getting rid of minimum wage will increase employment, but I am seriously interested in knowing the details of how that works. Doesn't eliminating the minimum wage simply give rise, if anything, to more jobs paying <u>below</u> the present minimum wage ???

How does eliminating unemployment insurance actually help ??? I'm sure the premiums vary from state to state, but down south the premiums aren't that high and employment-at-will laws apply.

QueEx

Welfare = Something for nothing.

With that definition of welfare out there Ill say I'm against that.

Take away people's welfare and they are left with what I see as three choices. If there are more than three, then feel free to add on. The three choices I see is work, starve, or rely on private charity to subsidize their lives. I have a personal belief that people will choose to work, which leads to why the minimum wage laws needs to be abolished so more low-wage jobs can exist for all the low-skill workers. There is a positive correlation between wages and skills. Since there are people who don't have enough skills to justify being paid the current minimum wage, the current minimum wage level will have to come down and preferably scrapped. Next, unemployment insurance enables a percentage of people to put off accepting available job offers that will clearly be good enough to sustain a certain standard of living, and instead wait until they find what they consider good enough, whatever the term "good enough" may mean. Don't believe me? Then ask Larry Summers, one of President-Elect Obama's new economic appointments:

Unemployment insurance also extends the time a person stays off the job. Clark and I estimated that the existence of unemployment insurance almost doubles the number of unemployment spells lasting more than three months. If unemployment insurance were eliminated, the unemployment rate would drop by more than half a percentage point, which means that the number of unemployed people would fall by about 750,000. This is all the more significant in light of the fact that less than half of the unemployed receive insurance benefits, largely because many have not worked enough to qualify.

Another cause of long-term unemployment is unionization. High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy. Also, those who lose high-wage union jobs are often reluctant to accept alternative low-wage employment. Between 1970 and 1985, for example, a state with a 20 percent unionization rate, approximately the average for the fifty states and the District of Columbia, experienced an unemployment rate that was 1.2 percentage points higher than that of a hypothetical state that had no unions.


http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Unemployment.html

So as I said in my previous post, take away welfare and those people will choose work over starvation and employment will increase. Get rid of the minimum wage laws so that the lowest skilled among us will be able to find work and employment will increase. Get rid of unemployment insurance so people will once again have to choose work over starvation and employment will increase.

None of this is necessarily controversial logical conclusions, but it is controversial whether or not the conclusions are labeled right or wrong.

You may agree with me that taking away a person's welfare will lead to a primarily work or starve decision, but you may view that as a bad thing while I definitely view it as a good thing. You may agree with me that for a former welfare recipient to work the minimum wage laws would have to be scrapped, but you may view that as a bad thing while I definitely view it as a good thing. You may agree with me that some persons wait longer to get a new job when unemployment benefits exist, but you may view that as a good thing while I definitely view it as a bad thing.
 
Welfare = Something for nothing.

With that definition of welfare out there Ill say I'm against that.
Let me say that I think your definition is totally unhelpful. Nevertheless, I will "assume" for lack of details that you're referring to government programs (if not, I stand corrected -- but enlighten me).


Greed said:
Take away people's welfare and they are left with what I see as three choices. The three choices I see is work, starve, or rely on private charity to subsidize their lives. I have a personal belief that people will choose to work, which leads to why the minimum wage laws needs to be abolished so more low-wage jobs can exist for all the low-skill workers.

If there are more than three, then feel free to add on.
First, you are mixing welfare with employment which are polar opposites. I would think under your definition above that welfare wouldn't include "the employed" since with employment there is a quid pro quo which sometimes might favor the employee and sometimes, the employer.

I believe there is a 4th choice. When governments fail to attend to the minimalist needs of its citizens, history and the present are replete with examples of what WILL happen. Some call it crime others call it revolution - whichever, the results are the same: violence. We see it in over half the world, i.e., Nigeria, much of South America, much of Asia, Mexico; the list is long.

I agree with you that given the opportunity, most people will choose to work. On the other hand, if no matter how long or hard they work the wage is simply insufficient to maintain the basics (pay utilities, rent/mortgage, put food on the table with some extras now and then; provide for their transportation needs; and have just a lil something to make then feel like life is worth every now and then), I think, given human nature, the choice may be different. I think when people begin to feel that they're being fucked, they decide to do some fucking of their own, if you know what I mean.

Therefore, I believe that it is important that government seek to provide/foster employment; and I believe that government has an interest in seeing that wages are at or near a certain level, otherwise government will have to do through assistance (you call it welfare) what cannot be earned by many through the private sector. Lets face it, people are not born with equal skills and ability. Some are just smarter, more cunning, etc., than others. There will always exist and inequality in the pursuit of happiness. And, I don't believe that the have-nots will allow the haves to exist peacfully if they are simply left to at the mercy of Greed.


Greed said:
There is a positive correlation between wages and skills. Since there are people who don't have enough skills to justify being paid the current minimum wage, the current minimum wage level will have to come down and preferably scrapped.
Question: Are there enough jobs for those people who you say don't have enough skills to justify being paid the current minimum wage ??? In other words, are there enough jobs for the unskilled, at any wage ???

I could possibly see a different minimum for say teenagers, but many of the people making minimum aren't teens. Many of them maybe should have stayed in school and wore a condom -- but many of those people are trying to take care of families and provide for themselves and A-dollar-two-ninety-eight an hour won't cut it.

If there is no minimum, how low will the bottom wages get pushed ??? And, are we prepared to deal with the consequences ???

I'll respond to the remainder of your post, later.

QueEx
 
Back
Top