Chronic unemployment worse than Great Depression

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 4:04 AM GMT
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/05/eveningnews/main20069136.shtml

    Chronic unemployment worse than Great Depression

    The unemployed have, on average, remained unemployed longer than in the 1930s; Employers wary of job gaps in resumes

    There is an unfortunate adage for the unemployed: The longer folks are out of a job, the longer it takes them to find a new one.

    CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy reports that the chronically unemployed face the hardest road back to recovery, and that while the jobs picture may be improving statistically on a national level, it is not for them.

    Tinong Nwachan, for example, has far too much time on his hands. When CBS News met the former truck driver he had been out of work for two years.

    "I don't really tell too many people this but I'm not ashamed or nothing, I'm homeless," Nwachan said.

    Summer job bummer: Teen unemployment 24 percent
    Nearly 14 million Americans are looking for work
    His day job is looking for work at a jobs center in Hollywood. He has plenty of company, including Fabian Lambrecht, who wonders when the economy's improvement will affect them.

    "They're saying there are more jobs. I'm just wondering where those jobs are," Lambrecht said.

    About 6.2 million Americans, 45.1 percent of all unemployed workers in this country, have been jobless for more than six months - a higher percentage than during the Great Depression.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 4:07 AM GMT
    How's all those tax breaks for the rich working for the job market? 10+ years of them and WHERE ARE THE JOBS those tax breaks were supposed to bring us ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 4:08 AM GMT
    realifedad said How's all those tax breaks for the rich working for the job market? 10+ years of them and WHERE ARE THE JOBS those tax breaks were supposed to bring us ?


    You think that the problem is that there are too many tax breaks? That adding taxes and regulations to the rich and businesses will encourage them to hire more?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 4:25 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    realifedad said How's all those tax breaks for the rich working for the job market? 10+ years of them and WHERE ARE THE JOBS those tax breaks were supposed to bring us ?


    You think that the problem is that there are too many tax breaks? That adding taxes and regulations to the rich and businesses will encourage them to hire more?


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I think that the lack of regulation which favors the wealthy and the policies that are skewed toward the wealthy not paying anywhere near a fair share of taxes (such as with GE) is exactly what got us in this mess we are in.

    I'll ask again, WHERE ARE THE JOBS that all these tax breaks for the wealthy were supposed to bring about? This current lopsided spread of wealth is very similar to the Great Depression era, regulations helped our country avoid these problems for many decades and the problem reappeared once regulations were done away with. (and yes !! Clinton was instrumental in deregulating) Since Reagans Administration there has been an effort to redistribute wealth upwards and look where its gotten us. The masses have little to spend even for necessities let alone discretionary spending and most of the money is in the hands of the few who need nothing, hense our economy is stalled.

    Even so the conservs' are trying desperately to take away all the safety nets that they can and mark my word, if they succeed it will only deepen the problem. It sure won't improve the unemployment problem, because employment depends on orders for goods and services, if the masses have no money to spend then there will be fewer and fewer orders for goods and services. Its a downward spiral !!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 4:27 AM GMT
    The only thing that will make businesses hire more is increased demand for their goods and services. High unemployment coupled with rising healthcare costs and wage stagnation for middle and working class people means there is no increased demand.

    The constant cries of "regulation" and "taxes", or the increasingly hilarious "uncertainty", are just red herrings to justify the soaking of the vast majority of Americans by the rich elites and the political sycophants.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 4:34 AM GMT
    So what? You'll punish businesses and rich people until they hire people? Seriously?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 4:45 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidSo what? You'll punish businesses and rich people until they hire people? Seriously?


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    How do you read "punish" into what I mentioned above?

    WHERE ARE THE JOBS those tax breaks for the wealthy were supposed to give us? 10 + years of them and WHERE ARE THE JOBS ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 5:02 AM GMT
    realifedad said
    riddler78 saidSo what? You'll punish businesses and rich people until they hire people? Seriously?


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    How do you read "punish" into what I mentioned above?

    WHERE ARE THE JOBS those tax breaks for the wealthy were supposed to give us? 10 + years of them and WHERE ARE THE JOBS ?


    10+ of them got us some very good economic times over those years. What do you propose? You would reinstate those taxes then? You feel that would add to the jobs?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 5:21 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    realifedad said
    riddler78 saidSo what? You'll punish businesses and rich people until they hire people? Seriously?


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    How do you read "punish" into what I mentioned above?

    WHERE ARE THE JOBS those tax breaks for the wealthy were supposed to give us? 10 + years of them and WHERE ARE THE JOBS ?


    10+ of them got us some very good economic times over those years. What do you propose? You would reinstate those taxes then? You feel that would add to the jobs?


    What "good economic times"? Bush has the worst job creation record of modern times. There was little growth and most of it vanished in the financial crisis. Who, except the ultra-rich, prospered under the Bush tax cuts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 3:13 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    realifedad said
    riddler78 saidSo what? You'll punish businesses and rich people until they hire people? Seriously?


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    How do you read "punish" into what I mentioned above?

    WHERE ARE THE JOBS those tax breaks for the wealthy were supposed to give us? 10 + years of them and WHERE ARE THE JOBS ?


    10+ of them got us some very good economic times over those years. What do you propose? You would reinstate those taxes then? You feel that would add to the jobs?


    What "good economic times"? Bush has the worst job creation record of modern times. There was little growth and most of it vanished in the financial crisis. Who, except the ultra-rich, prospered under the Bush tax cuts?


    Still blaming Bush? Sorry, how long as the Obama Administration been in power? What about the Democrats? How many jobs did they say that they would create with the stimulus they pushed?

    Oh. I see. We're back to square one. Why do you suppose adding regulations and taxes to the "rich" and businesses will encourage them to hire?
  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Jun 08, 2011 3:21 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidThe only thing that will make businesses hire more is increased demand for their goods and services. High unemployment coupled with rising healthcare costs and wage stagnation for middle and working class people means there is no increased demand.

    The constant cries of "regulation" and "taxes", or the increasingly hilarious "uncertainty", are just red herrings to justify the soaking of the vast majority of Americans by the rich elites and the political sycophants.


    reaganomics.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 3:34 PM GMT


    Why would someone think that removing regulations and lowering corporate taxes will encourage them to hire IN YOUR COUNTRY OR STATE?

    A well know phone co here enjoys lowered corporate taxes and has opened call centers in the Philippines and in other countries. They're corporations designed to make profits, not an employment service.

    Now if a government was to lower a corporation's taxes based on how many employees that corporation hired locally, THAT could work well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 3:53 PM GMT
    Chronic unemployment worse than Great Depression

    Except... chronic unemployment wasn't tracked as accurately as it is today. In fact, lacking unemployment benefits at that time, a concept Democrats introduced, and modern polling methods, there's no way to say. This is all BS.

    What is known of the Great Depression is this: After 8 years of the Republican Harding/Coolidge Administrations (VP Coolidge having succeeded after Harding died, then winning his own term), with little regulation of the financial markets, we got the Roaring '20s and an out-of-control stock market. Which crashed a few months after Republican Herbert Hoover took office.

    Hoover refused to intervene or take any meaningful action, contending a hands-off approach was best, that industry and the financial markets would fix themselves. Just like Republicans today preach, and try to legislate. Instead the country went into even deeper depression, with unemployment over 20%. We have never gotten anywhere near that during Obama's Administration, which suggests that people ARE finding work, though not enough of it.

    The 1930's homeless moved into shantytowns, called "Hoovervilles" and got their food on long soup kitchen lines. The photographs & newsreels still exist. I don't see that situation today.

    Franklin Roosevelt came into office with the goal of putting people to work, which he did. And reforming the banking system, and Wall Street, creating the safety net of Social Security and other programs. All things Republicans opposed then, still oppose now, and wish to sweep away.

    By the end of the 1930s the US GDP was at the same level as when the stock market crashed, but unemployment, though lower than during Hoover, still remained too high, and didn't really come down until the beginning of WWII. Here are some charts:

    Here's the GDP chart. Note the GDP matched pre-Depression numbers in the late 1930s, years before the build-up to WWII. (The years of the Great Depression are highlighted in pink)

    310px-US_GDP_10-60.jpg

    Here's the unemployment rate. Note it starts to peak shortly before Roosevelt takes over from Hoover, and continues to initially rise, just like happened between Bush & Obama. And that it also rises after Eisenhower takes over from Truman in 1953, despite the "prosperity" of the 1950s.

    310px-US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif
  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Jun 08, 2011 4:22 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco saidwe got the Roaring '20s


    Ah, you were so lucky to have been around in those days... must have been fun! To use a term you like...Checkmate for Art_Deco



    Now back to the topic.

    The question still out there awaiting an answer from one of the liberal hens is:

    Why do you suppose adding regulations and taxes to the "rich" and businesses will encourage them to hire


    You know good and well why that question isn't being answered and that's because there isn't a good way to answer it the way it is asked. The initial tax breaks were used to promote job growth and it didn't happen. Would repealing those breaks create more jobs? no. Would "redistributing" those breaks create more jobs? Yes. If you give "the rich", as you guys put it, and big business extra money why would they waste it on creating more jobs. Unless they have the demand behind the need for creating those jobs it makes no business sense for them to spend it on jobs. The middle class average American would spend the breaks that he gets on goods and services and facilitate the need for job creation. If you are selling more widgets you will need to hire more people to produce more widgets. If I give you money, and hope you hire more widget producers, it makes no sense to hire widget makers unless you have an increased demand for them.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 4:24 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco saidwe got the Roaring '20s

    Ah, you were so lucky to have been around in those days... must have been fun!

    Now back to the topic.

    The question still out there awaiting an answer from one of the liberal hens is:

    Why do you suppose adding regulations and taxes to the "rich" and businesses will encourage them to hire

    I'm sorry you find it necessary to use mockery of my age because you don't know your history, only right-wing demagoguery & propaganda (and whatever else you're being fed). What a trash-bucket that makes you! But OK...

    Regulation and fair taxes will allow ordinary US consumers to stimulate the economy through purchases. And to not see their savings and other equity evaporate when unregulated financial schemes collapse, that only benefit a few mega-rich.

    That this is happening is evidenced by the growing gap between the rich and the poor, both expanding and their gap widening, while the middle class shrinks. I thought the American goal was fewer poor, and more who are at least middle class and comfortable, not struggling to get by. Apparently you subscribe to a different model, that favors the rich only.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 08, 2011 4:49 PM GMT
    Bigolbear said
    Christian73 saidThe only thing that will make businesses hire more is increased demand for their goods and services. High unemployment coupled with rising healthcare costs and wage stagnation for middle and working class people means there is no increased demand.

    The constant cries of "regulation" and "taxes", or the increasingly hilarious "uncertainty", are just red herrings to justify the soaking of the vast majority of Americans by the rich elites and the political sycophants.


    reaganomics.jpg


    Uhhhh......... YUP. icon_cool.gif

    Thirty years of believing that sh*t where you give to the rich and the corporations and allow them to skirt any and all regulations
    ....... And it will all come back to you in trickle down form

    You know what trickles down too? Piss
    And that's exactly what they did on your heads
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 6:30 PM GMT
    Bigolbear said
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco saidwe got the Roaring '20s


    Ah, you were so lucky to have been around in those days... must have been fun! To use a term you like...Checkmate for Art_Deco



    Now back to the topic.

    The question still out there awaiting an answer from one of the liberal hens is:

    Why do you suppose adding regulations and taxes to the "rich" and businesses will encourage them to hire


    You know good and well why that question isn't being answered and that's because there isn't a good way to answer it the way it is asked. The initial tax breaks were used to promote job growth and it didn't happen. Would repealing those breaks create more jobs? no. Would "redistributing" those breaks create more jobs? Yes. If you give "the rich", as you guys put it, and big business extra money why would they waste it on creating more jobs. Unless they have the demand behind the need for creating those jobs it makes no business sense for them to spend it on jobs. The middle class average American would spend the breaks that he gets on goods and services and facilitate the need for job creation. If you are selling more widgets you will need to hire more people to produce more widgets. If I give you money, and hope you hire more widget producers, it makes no sense to hire widget makers unless you have an increased demand for them.




    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You stated this very well and I could not agree more !!

    SB nothing above says one thing about depending on Government stimulus to keep the economy going, but it does help to give it a jump start. Government can inact policies and tax structures that benefit the lower income families enabling them to keep more of their money to spend for necessities, therefore along with time, orders start increasing which will then start adding jobs. This takes a while and in that time Government spending on infrastructure will help the employment situation too, as well as get money circulating in the economy. That money is far better spent at home on infrustructure than on two god damn worthless money pit wars.

    Keeping regulations that don't allow the very wealthy to rob the public without paying fair taxes on their wealth, pays the bills for necessary safety net programs to keep the masses out of abject poverty. Added to the regulations, policies such as doing away with subsidies to big oil and big business such as subsidizing moving overseas and so many write offs and shelters for income that allowed the likes of GE to pay no taxes at all. All of this helps get the economy going, slowly but surely.

    There is currently an article in Huffington Post regarding the wealthy group of business owners calling for more fair taxation, saying that the wealthy should be paying more. the article title starts with "why millionairs who want to pay more taxes -------" These people can speak well with reasoning like ours.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 08, 2011 7:47 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco saidwe got the Roaring '20s


    Ah, you were so lucky to have been around in those days... must have been fun!



    The subject of unemployment is a serious one and while we have differing views on this topic, it deserves serious discussion.

    Cut with the rude age remarks with Bob or any kind of nasty remark
    and discuss....

    icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 7:48 PM GMT
    Sorry, as much as I'm sure you'd like what you're saying to be true, the reality is that jobs follow profitability not the other way around.

    Of course the oddity is that the rich (or at least high income earners - not necessarily the same people) already pay a substantially disproportional amount of taxes. The second oddity is that even if income taxes are raised, it does not necessarily follow that the rich will pay more given that those like Warren Buffet make most of their money through dividends and capital gains. Finally, if there were rich people who felt so guilty so as to believe that they needed to pay additional taxes they are always free to do so as the US federal filings allow for you to contribute more to the treasury above and beyond what they already pay in taxes.

    Of course they don't. Hardly anyone does. What these people want isn't that they pay more taxes but that their peers do.
  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Jun 08, 2011 8:03 PM GMT
    [cite]southbeach1500 said[/cite]The question:

    Why do you suppose adding regulations and taxes to the "rich" and businesses will encourage them to hire?

    The attempted answer, point by point:

    Bigolbear said
    You know good and well why that question isn't being answered and that's because there isn't a good way to answer it the way it is asked.


    Translation: Liberals aren't capable of answering it. Southebeach1500 needs things put to him ONLY in a way he can agree with.

    But... he tries to put the usual liberal spin logical point on it....





    Bigolbear saidThe initial tax breaks were used to promote job growth and it didn't happen.


    If you are referring to the when the Bush tax cuts went into effect, then you are incorrect. Jobs were added to the private sector during the Bush years, right up until the financial crash which, coincidentally, happened soon after the Democrats took control of Congress.

    capjobgrowth.JPG




    Bigolbear saidWould repealing those breaks create more jobs? no.


    You've got it! Good! Stop while you're ahead! you're saying something I like!



    Bigolbear saidWould "redistributing" those breaks create more jobs? Yes.


    Oh dear... should have stopped while you were ahead of the game. towing my partisan line.





    Bigolbear saidIf you give "the rich", as you guys put it, and big business extra money why would they waste it on creating more jobs.


    And here is the problem with the liberals. If you "give" extra money? It's not the government's money in the first place! What you are really saying is, "If the government allows people and business to keep more of their money..." It takes money to run a government we all need to chip in our fair share. We are "the government" we elect representatives, it is still OUR money when it is in the hands and responsibilities of those we elect. Giving businesses a break on their responsibilities to create jobs is great, if they do that, but like I said they will not do that if they have extra money unless there is an increase in demand






    Bigolbear said
    Unless they have the demand behind the need for creating those jobs it makes no business sense for them to spend it on jobs. The middle class average American would spend the breaks that he gets on goods and services and facilitate the need for job creation.


    What you propose has been tried time and time again and fails every time. Government spending to "stimulate" consumer spending is great, so long as the government spigot keeps flowing. Once the spigot is turned off, you go back to where you started (see "Cash for Clunkers" among others). Really!?! Cash for Clunkers is to be equated with the Bush tax cuts?






    Bigolbear said
    it makes no sense to hire widget makers unless you have an increased demand for them.


    Then why has the # of Federal employees risen so dramatically in the past two years? What exactly is the "demand" that those people have been hired to meet?

    In 2002 the total number of Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population was 9.1. In 2010 the total number of Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population was 8.4 and that total does include temporary census workers. SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget: Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service). The highest over the past 50 years was Nixon at 14.4.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 8:18 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan said
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco saidwe got the Roaring '20s

    Ah, you were so lucky to have been around in those days... must have been fun!

    The subject of unemployment is a serious one and while we have differing views on this topic, it deserves serious discussion.

    Cut with the rude age remarks with Bob or any kind of nasty remark and discuss....

    icon_mad.gif

    Actually I would think that my age & experience, not to mention that I taught US History and Political Science, would be an advantage in a discussion such as this, not a drawback.

    But I suppose when you get your "facts" from FOX News, and the right-wing talking points e-mailed to you, it doesn't make any difference, does it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 8:20 PM GMT
    Bigolbear said[cite]
    Bigolbear said
    it makes no sense to hire widget makers unless you have an increased demand for them.


    Then why has the # of Federal employees risen so dramatically in the past two years? What exactly is the "demand" that those people have been hired to meet?

    In 2002 the total number of Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population was 9.1. In 2010 the total number of Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population was 8.4 and that total does include temporary census workers. SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget: Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service). The highest over the past 50 years was Nixon at 14.4.



    How "redistribution' translates into hiring more federal employees is bizarre. It's terribly self serving - particularly as most of this redistribution that federal union employees talk about ends up so fortuitously in their pockets (or pensions).

    Further to argue that employees per capita is relevant requires the suspension of disbelief that technology plays no role in making federal services more efficient and secondly, that salaries and benefits for federal employees have not increased faster than both population growth and inflation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 8:22 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    HndsmKansan said
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco saidwe got the Roaring '20s

    Ah, you were so lucky to have been around in those days... must have been fun!

    The subject of unemployment is a serious one and while we have differing views on this topic, it deserves serious discussion.

    Cut with the rude age remarks with Bob or any kind of nasty remark
    and discuss....

    icon_mad.gif

    Actually I would think that my age & experience, not to mention that I taught US History and Political Science, would be an advantage in a discussion such as this, not a drawback.

    But I suppose when you get your "facts" from FOX News, and the right-wing talking points e-mailed to you, it doesn't make any difference, does it?


    Your age and experience do not necessarily confer any sense of wisdom as you have repeatedly shown in other postings. Meta discussions are boring.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 8:23 PM GMT
    i guess this makes me feel better about how damn hard it's been to get work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2011 9:37 PM GMT
    It gets worse:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576363984173620692.html

    The picture is even gloomier if we look in more detail. Estimates of monthly GDP indicate that the only growth in the first quarter of 2011 was from February to March. After a temporary rise in March, the economy began sliding again in April, with declines in real wages, in durable-goods orders and manufacturing production, in existing home sales, and in real per-capita disposable incomes. It is not surprising that the index of leading indicators fell in April, only the second decline since it began to rise in the spring of 2009.

    The data for May are beginning to arrive and are even worse than April's. They are marked by a collapse in payroll-employment gains; a higher unemployment rate; manufacturers' reports of slower orders and production; weak chain-store sales; and a sharp drop in consumer confidence.

    How has the Obama administration contributed to this failure to achieve a robust and sustainable recovery?

    The administration's most obvious failure was its misguided fiscal policies: the cash-for-clunkers subsidy for car buyers, the tax credit for first-time home buyers, and the $830 billion "stimulus" package. Cash-for-clunkers gave a temporary boost to motor-vehicle production but had no lasting impact on the economy. The home-buyer credit stimulated the demand for homes only temporarily.

    As for the "stimulus" package, both its size and structure were inadequate to offset the enormous decline in aggregate demand. The fall in household wealth by the end of 2008 reduced the annual level of consumer spending by more than $500 billion. The drop in home building subtracted another $200 billion from GDP. The total GDP shortfall was therefore more than $700 billion. The Obama stimulus package that started at less than $300 billion in 2009 and reached a maximum of $400 billion in 2010 wouldn't have been big enough to fill the $700 billion annual GDP gap even if every dollar of the stimulus raised GDP by a dollar.