Comments on: The urgency of bringing down unemployment A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: hsvkitty Wed, 19 Jan 2011 03:16:06 +0000 1/01/17/why-jobs-havent-come-back/some-j obs-arent-needed

Felix, there are some interesting contributions here, but this one rather struck me as odd. This economics professor has no answers, seems to gloat that businesses are doing well yet not hiring because they have an upper hand to ensure a tight ship with less pay, but seems to be saying if you take the janitor jobs, you will be promoted as the company grows and the economy flourishes.

And to top it off, ends it with this remark which uses the royal “we” … “but we do need to learn to live with the growing pains.” Ouch, yes you do professor…
At least the comments make a good read on this one.

@lhathaway, the remark you made… The Republicans make it sound like they are wringing their hands, saying ‘I wish I could hire right now, but I’m so worried about my taxes.’ was so true. And people are waiting with baited breath to see the tax cuts for the rich put to work for the economy and hiring people…

By: lambertstrether Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:03:10 +0000 OT, but not: The Greatest Printing Disaster In The History Of The World: or_ages

And T: The policy solution for both DISemployment and aggregate demand is not difficult, though getting it “on the table” is. We need a Jobs Guarantee:

http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot. com/2009/08/job-guarantee.html

By: lhathaway Mon, 06 Dec 2010 14:45:01 +0000 Once again, the only reason businesses hire in America, or anywhere else, is because of increased demand. The Republicans make it sound like they are wringing their hands, saying ‘I wish I could hire right now, but I’m so worried about my taxes.’ Right now, they are able to get more work out of current employees who are scared ****less they are going to lose their jobs and be added to the millions of unemployed. The goal of all established businesses is to do more with less.

Just think about this. If the internet had not been invented and we did not have online banking, the lines of unemployed would be far worse than anything seen during the Great Depression.

Government can, and has, and should create private sector economic growth by encouraging NEW business, not MORE business for already established companies. NEW business has no choice but to hire workers. Established business only wants to cut wherever possible.

However, Republicans are fighting to the death to keep the current economic stranglehold in place. They don’t want the world to change

By: DeerHunter Mon, 06 Dec 2010 14:40:32 +0000 The question comes down to – Is the goverment responseable to feed your family – or are you. I wonder how many people actually get jobs right before their benifits run out…

By: hsvkitty Sun, 05 Dec 2010 21:02:52 +0000 @Danny Black:

HSV kitty is a female. To discuss some of your ‘points’.

The costs of the war in Afghanistan are much Higher being the fuel costs (having to ship in and helicopter fuel to remote areas) and the cost per individual deployment is astronomical compared to other wars and even Iraq. DoD numbers are far below actual costs incurred.

Michael O’Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, says one useful way to break down these huge numbers is to look at how much it costs to send just one soldier to war.

“We are at a point where it’s unbelievably costing us close to a million dollars, in additional costs — above and beyond salaries and the equipment that’s already in the inventory — per soldier or Marine per year,” he says.

Although you keep quoting DOD figures Danny, it does not include actual costs, as it is borrowed money and what was BUDGETED for expenditure is far less then what the pentagon actually spends in total.

The pentagon refuses to use actual cost figures to release as boots on the ground figures are what they feel is adequate for release, even though obvious costs such as returning equipment to USA to be repaired are not included. Future medical costs are certainly never included.

Regardless, bailing out a perverse and bloated financial system and continuing 2 fake ‘wars’ that create huge deficits (and needless deaths) were mistakes, but continuing to do so under the guise of protecting the USA’s economy and its people is dubious and borders on evil. Al Queda and the Taliban are still as able to flourish and function (as proven by the communiques released) and will regardless of how much more money is burned.

The US economy is still faltering, the unemployment rate is high ( only the lush who wall-streeters like yourself believe the recession is over as they are back to business as usual) and the deficit is staggering and you are suggesting that the stimulus package was already tried and was unsuccessful so why bother trying other tactics? (Actually after rereading your convoluted paragraph, what were you trying to say?) Look at how much of that was for infrastructure and jobs. It was mostly earmarked prior and the bulk of jobs were census employees.

By: Danny_Black Sun, 05 Dec 2010 08:54:28 +0000 Factually incorrect? So 450bn = 800bn?

Social security fund is fully funded?

“The Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, however, is now projected to become **exhausted** in 2018″
“Social Security expenditures are expected to **exceed** tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983″
“After 2014 deficits are expected to **grow rapidly** as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers. The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are **exhausted*** in 2037″

Note that there is quite a far bit of volatility in those assumptions – for instance:

“the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is now expected to remain solvent until 2029, 12 years longer than was projected last year” – ie it doubled in less than year.

“China ***may*** spend ***as much as*** $1.5 trillion on seven strategic industries over the next five years, Reuters reported, citing an unidentified source with direct knowledge of the matter. “. Wouldn’t rush out and spend that money just yet…..

Of course could use the Chinese solution to unemployment, I am sure as an american you don’t like all those pesky freedoms anyway.

By: Dollared Sun, 05 Dec 2010 07:31:11 +0000 Danny_Black, You are simply wrong. The facts do not support you. Period. If you actually understand how the budget works, the big boys are, in order 1)military and HD spending ($782B), up more than 100% since 2001, 2) Medicare/Medicaid (~$670B but it’s unclear from Wikipedia how much that is offset by the dedicated Medicare tax), and 3)temporary tax cuts (taking your numbers, $277B).

Social Security costs ~$600B per year, but it is fully funded by a dedicated fund that is not part of the federal budget. That is simple accounting. (amazing how many people, MBAs in particular, that could not hold their jobs if they did not understand accounting identities, who at the same time cannot seem to understand that we have a dedicated Social Security tax, a Social Security Trust Fund, and detailed information on at least the next 75 years of projected income and spending for that separate program).

So allowing tax cuts to expire that 1) by law are temporary, 2) were sold to us as provisional as a way to dispose of a surplus and could always be rescinded if that surplus disappeared, 3) and were never funded under paygo rules and therefore cannot be justified now, is the quickest, most rational way to cut our deficit and make funds available to fund investment in our nation’s future. To argue otherwise is to raise personal interest above national interest. ited_States_federal_budget#Major_expendi ture_categories

Next is to cut defense and homeland security back at least 30% and preferably 50%. Ending wars would be the quickest way to do this, but I’m certainly open to cutting pay to military and intelligence contractors by 50%.

Third is to tighten the reins on medical spending, particularly by eliminating the overhead of private insurance, aggressively negotiating drug costs to the world average, and cutting compensation to providers.

This is not rocket science. Speaking of which, did you see the announcement that China is spending $1.5 Trillion to target funding of new developing 21st century industries?  /china-has-1-5-trillion-spending-plan-r euters-says-update1-.html

What’s your plan for the future, Danny? What do you think should be done for the 18% of Americans who are not fully employed?

I keep asking…but you appear to be more interested in arguing that George Bush was – what was that word – “brilliant.”

Good luck with that one.

By: Danny_Black Sun, 05 Dec 2010 05:27:40 +0000 ecyob, ah yes. For one minute lets look at a hypothetical: bubble bursts in 1999 not 2000. Bin Ladin moves up his date for his big attack to September 2000 and BSC runs into financial difficulty in March 2009.

Would you be claiming that GWB was a brilliant president, fixing the Clinton legacy and having his own shining one destroyed by Obama?

By: Danny_Black Sun, 05 Dec 2010 05:11:37 +0000 Of course, you like the idea. It is straight out of the hsvkitty school of economics – factually incorrect and when asked to back it up he/she posts links that show he/she is wrong, just like you, thus requiring him/her to simply make up some random figure, just like you would.

It is simple… If only Obama had thought of taking say 787bn and using it to stimulate the economy… oh wait a minute:

Guess that 13bn was more important than we thought.

You are of course aware that even if it was 800bn that the deficit is much larger than that? No? I am shocked.

By: hsvkitty Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:41:42 +0000 @ dollard

I think doubling the cost DOD might be releasing to the public is getting a little closer to the actual costs.

Your ideas for reducing the defecit and getting people back to work for a robust USA was an excellent idea. It really is that simple and will jumpstart the economy,but partisan politics hate simplicity.

“It’s pretty simple. Tax cuts expire. Out of Iraq and Afghanistan. For now, plough most of the $800B per year that would save into infrastructure, education and manufacturing subsidies. “