Discussion: The Economy, Fiscal Cliff, National Debt, And Other Financial Issues IV

[dnno1]

What are you talking about? Of course I'm talking about those people that WERE teachers, church workers and non-profit workers that have lost their jobs.

Come on dnno1 really that is your argument? IF you have given up on work, you are STILL TAKING UNEMPLOYMENT in many cases...which is why many ARE NOT LOOKING.

Hence why people are saying both need to be counted, because they are both relevant to the discussion.

Good grief.

I am not the one that is kidding here. One of the conditions for taking unemployment is that your continue to look for work each week (i.e. actively seeking work). If you are not then you can't collect unemployment benefits, which is why the BLS uses the U-3 statistic (the official unemployment rate. Not even I can help you if you don't want a job. That is why the U-6 statistic (although good to know) is pretty much useless. Furthermore you stated that we should add those who do not file for unemployment into the unemployment numbers. That would mean you would include people who are employed since they too do not file for unemployment.

Another point I want to address is that unemployment benefits are available to former employees who lose their job through no fault of their own. That would include school teachers who are no longer under contract and former employees of non profit organizations. Yes, even church workers may qualify for unemployment benefits if it is determined that they made enough wages during the year and it is determined that your employer is at fault for your employment.

 

[Destructus86]

That is one thing that we seem to be missing....our education system is missing it to as we shut down funding for CATE classes such as mechanics, welding, etc...we are leaving behind in our "No Child Left Behind" curriculum that group of kids that would be trained to help sustain, and build new infrastructure in our country. We think all kids should go to college, which just isn't a realistic view.

And we wonder why our economy isn't improving....sigh

 

[Fenrir]

More evidence that trickle-down economics is utter garbage, yet it is shocking how many U.S media outlets continue to peddle this nonsense.

 

[Kelly]

I would venture to say, our governments overwhelming spending over the past 20 years has far more to do with it....especially in the last 10 years.

 

[wiegeabo]

When you have an anti-competitive marketplace that makes it too difficult and/or too costly to create jobs, then of course someone is going to hold on to their money. Investing it is a losing proposition.

 

[dnno1]

When you have an anti-competitive marketplace that makes it too difficult and/or too costly to create jobs, then of course someone is going to hold on to their money. Investing it is a losing proposition.

I think it's the other way around. Too much competition in the marketplace make it too costly to create jobs. Right now we are competing in a global marketplace and that is what is causing companies to go elsewhere is the low cost producer. Our economy is creating jobs right now at a slow rate. It's not like we aren't creating jobs.

 

[Fenrir]

I would venture to say, our governments overwhelming spending over the past 20 years has far more to do with it....especially in the last 10 years.

When you have an anti-competitive marketplace that makes it too difficult and/or too costly to create jobs, then of course someone is going to hold on to their money. Investing it is a losing proposition.

Did either of you even read the article? It clearly states that U.S GDP nearly tripled since 1973 yet almost none of those gains have "trickled down" to the middle class, let alone the poor.

Kelly - let's look at some basic empirical evidence then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

Aside from the anomaly that was the WW2 period, for the period between 1970-2010, U.S government spending as a percentage of GDP stayed relatively stable and consistent, averaging somewhere in the 30% range and spiking only in the aftermath of the 2007 crisis as stimulus plans, bailouts and government purchase programs came into effect. As a matter of fact, government spending has actually declined since peaking in 2010 due to austerity measures. Besides, you can't explain away 30 years of income stagnation simply by pointing to 10 years of increase in government spending. That does not make any sense.

Secondly, there is no evidence to support the claim that increase in government spending has an adverse effect on median household incomes. Otherwise, countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Canada and the other 13 countries that rank higher than the U.S in terms of median household income in spite of most of them having government expenditure that constitutes a much larger proportion of their GDP that it does in the U.S.

And wiegeabo - what you said is a gross oversimplification when considering the 40-year time period we are looking at here:

True to economic theory, private sector investment is the most volatile component of GDP, but you can also see that it is a mean-reverting process and has, for the most part, stayed within the 15-20% bounds. This shows that the behavior of private investment, as a variable, has not changed significantly in the past four decades. So if GDP has tripled since then, and government spending as well as private investment do not exhibit any erratic patterns when looking at the same time period as a whole, then it is obvious the problem of stagnating/declining wages has little to do with the factors you and Kelly have pointed out.

Again, I am utterly speechless at how well U.S media outlets have sold this whole "trickle-down" crap to the masses. Reagonomics has always been a complete joke, and its proponents have never been bigger laughing stocks. The sad irony of this is that they are the ones who have been laughing their way to the bank after having convinced so many people of their pseudo-science.

 

[Fenrir]

I think it's the other way around. Too much competition in the marketplace make it too costly to create jobs. Right now we are competing in a global marketplace and that is what is causing companies to go elsewhere is the low cost producer. Our economy is creating jobs right now at a slow rate. It's not like we aren't creating jobs.

Yup. That's why the whole talk about the Federal Reserve tapering down its quantitative easing program battered emerging economies' stock markets so badly in the last couple of weeks. The Fed increasing the money supply by pumping excess liquidity into the market, and most of that money simply ended up everywhere else except the U.S economy. And now that the prospect of almost-free money appears to be nearing its expiration date (thereby heralding higher base interest rates) and the U.S economy showing signs of recovery, all that money has now started flowing back to the U.S.

Using QE with no restriction on capital flows is like using a high pressure tap to fill a container with a big hole in it.

 

[wiegeabo]

We're a very anti-competitive marketplace these days. That's what gives few companies the ability to grow so large and squash new competitors, and have so much sway over policy.

In a competitive environment, barriers to entry (like startup costs) are low. Which makes it easier to create new businesses and jobs. The reason all those jobs are being created in other countries is because of lower barriers. If it's easier to keep your company afloat by producing across borders, then that's where you're going to do it.

 

[SV Fan]

Again, I am utterly speechless at how well U.S media outlets have sold this whole "trickle-down" crap to the masses. Reagonomics has always been a complete joke, and its proponents have never been bigger laughing stocks. The sad irony of this is that they are the ones who have been laughing their way to the bank after having convinced so many people of their pseudo-science.

For the sake of argument I only see one network preach the wonders of Reagonomics.

 

[Fenrir]

We're a very anti-competitive marketplace these days. That's what gives few companies the ability to grow so large and squash new competitors, and have so much sway over policy.

In a competitive environment, barriers to entry (like startup costs) are low. Which makes it easier to create new businesses and jobs. The reason all those jobs are being created in other countries is because of lower barriers. If it's easier to keep your company afloat by producing across borders, then that's where you're going to do it.

A perfectly competitive market is only a transient state rather than a sustainable equilibrium. When you have too many firms, profits are close to zero as prices are near or equal to the marginal cost of production. However, even though there are very little barriers to entry, entry and exit from the market still isn't free due to the cost of capital. Under such conditions, inefficient firms will be eliminated and the near-zero profit margins will discourage new entrants leaving fewer competitors as a result.

What you said about jobs going overseas has little relevance to the topic at hand about stagnant and declining median incomes because we are looking at GDP (not GNP) and overseas investment by domestic firms/households is not factored into its calculation.

Again, you are looking at things from the wrong and overly simplistic perspective. What you consider the cause of the problem is only a natural consequence of your proposed solution.

 

[Fenrir]

For the sake of argument I only see one network preach the wonders of Reagonomics.

And yet so many people have been misled to believe that unemployment is due to the government excessively taxing "job-creators".

 

[SV Fan]

And yet so many people have been misled to believe that unemployment is due to the government excessively taxing "job-creators".

Once again I think one network promotes that idea(ie the one that believes Reagan is godlike)

 

[enterthemadness]

Once again I think one network promotes that idea(ie the one that believes Reagan is godlike)

....not sure if MSNBC or Fox News...


MSNBC it is.

 

[dnno1]

That is one thing that we seem to be missing....our education system is missing it to as we shut down funding for CATE classes such as mechanics, welding, etc...we are leaving behind in our "No Child Left Behind" curriculum that group of kids that would be trained to help sustain, and build new infrastructure in our country. We think all kids should go to college, which just isn't a realistic view.

In California, a lot of that is offered at the community college level and not in high school. It has been offered at that level (grades 9-12) for decades in many schools.

 

[Cosmic]

I watched an interview recently with Mike Rowe from Dirty Jobs...his personal belief was that there's a huge market of open jobs up for grab that people are ignoring that actually pay pretty well. Blue collar work. A lot of the companies he's known have had lots of job openings that they can't fill because in our society we beat it into the heads of our children that they need to get a "GOOD" job...ie, not blue collar. So future generations snub those jobs.

And you know what? I've seen that happen myself so I totally believe it. We seem to think that driving a tractor is beneath us....that we NEED to have an office job in order to be successful. :/

That is one thing that we seem to be missing....our education system is missing it to as we shut down funding for CATE classes such as mechanics, welding, etc...we are leaving behind in our "No Child Left Behind" curriculum that group of kids that would be trained to help sustain, and build new infrastructure in our country. We think all kids should go to college, which just isn't a realistic view.

I agree.

 

[TheCarpetMan]

Hi guys, I put a new documentary on YouTube this week titled You're Being Cheated: Social Security "Pact" Members. It's a 46 minute thrashing of the system, and documentation of all the problems of trying to maintain it going forward. (and a lot of humor)

 

[Kelly]

In California, a lot of that is offered at the community college level and not in high school. It has been offered at that level (grades 9-12) for decades in many schools.

Students should not have to go to Community College when they can get the certifications they need to get these jobs RIGHT OUT of high school. School's around the country have been doing this in conjunction with Community Colleges, but those programs are being cut.

Yes it has been offered for decades, but many districts around the country are now cutting those programs, because the Federal monies are more specifically being given to SPED programs, LEP programs and GT programs at the expense of Fine Arts programs and CATE programs. That's a problem....

 

[wiegeabo]

Ahahahaha! Stick it to 'em!

Congresswoman Uses Steak, Vodka, And Caviar To Hammer Republicans On Food Stamp Cuts

Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier decided to make an unconventional pitch on the House of Representatives floor Thursday to defend food stamps. Speier used a cooked steak, a bottle of vodka, and a can of caviar to point out members of Congress who had large numbers of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients in their districts but opposed the program. The congresswoman pointed out many of the same members of Congress took trips around the world with large stipends for food and lodging.

Our tax dollars, everyone.

 

[wiegeabo]

On the flip side, here's an example of a government program for the poor that not only improved its service, but updated it, become more streamlined, more efficient, and saved $2 billion over 3 years while doing it.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/31/fcc-revamps-lifeline-phone-service-cuts-the-fat-from-carriers/
(older article, I know, but still)

Makes one wonder how much can be saved if all Federal programs and departments did the same thing.

 

[Kelly]

On the flip side, here's an example of a government program for the poor that not only improved its service, but updated it, become more streamlined, more efficient, and saved $2 billion over 3 years while doing it.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/31/fcc-revamps-lifeline-phone-service-cuts-the-fat-from-carriers/
(older article, I know, but still)

Makes one wonder how much can be saved if all Federal programs and departments did the same thing.

I wish the government could learn how to be more effective and efficient in how it spends its money, especially in the areas of entitlement...but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[childeroland]

When the shutdown happens this time, what gets cut back?

 

[Kelly]

This is a different shut down than others have been...I don't think many people understand that, and this is coming from a Fiscal Conservative, I do not see this as a smart thing for Republicans to do...

We have had shut downs, throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's....some up to 22 days, some only hours.

This one is different...because there have been no resolutions to fund specific things such as military, social security checks etc. There have been NO RESOLUTIONS to this point. Soooooo, when the government shuts down, it will not just be non-essential things, essential things as well will be missed as far as payments...WHY? Because the other times, especially those in the 90's under Clinton....we had resolutions passed ALREADY to fund essential things, that has not happened this time. So this will be, for lack of a better term, a "raw shutdown"...Also, Obama is no Clinton, he sees his signature legislation in jeopardy and he will fight every day, every hour till his last day in office to keep it, and he will not care what he takes down in order to do that....he is fighting for his legacy and that seems to be more important to him than any other President I have seen in recent history. : (

 

[dnno1]

Students should not have to go to Community College when they can get the certifications they need to get these jobs RIGHT OUT of high school. School's around the country have been doing this in conjunction with Community Colleges, but those programs are being cut.

Yes it has been offered for decades, but many districts around the country are now cutting those programs, because the Federal monies are more specifically being given to SPED programs, LEP programs and GT programs at the expense of Fine Arts programs and CATE programs. That's a problem....

To do it properly at that level would be costly to high schools since they would need funding for equipment to train students, and what if said students do not want to go that route? Frim year to year you could be wasting funds on students who take the training with no intention of getting a job in that field. At least with having the programs at the adult school and community college level, you can get students who willfully want to learn those trades taking the classes.

 

[Kelly]

To do it properly at that level would be costly to high schools since they would need funding for equipment to train students, and what if said students do not want to go that route? Frim year to year you could be wasting funds on students who take the training with no intention of getting a job in that field. At least with having the programs at the adult school and community college level, you can get students who willfully want to learn those trades taking the classes.

I don't think you are reading my posts. The HIGH SCHOOLS do not provide the equipment, the community colleges do. The Community Colleges are the ones that receive the Federal Funding, with the High School receiving some as well for the transportation, ect, expenses. THAT is what is being cut, and funneled into other programs like MECA where Community Colleges provide college classes for Juniors and Seniors. Students that are going to college are flocking to this, but it is not for those students that will be working on our countries infrastructure, classes like Diesel mechanics, plumbing, construction trade and other blue collar areas where we are really hurting in this country. All the MECA program is doing is making it where students that are going to a 4 year University go in as Juniors rather than Freshmen. The Federal funding is being switched from those CATE programs with the Community Colleges to these MECA programs instead. I see that as a problem. NOT ALL STUDENTS need to go to college, and saying, well then they can go to trade school when they graduate from college. These CATE programs enhance the education of those students that are just not classroom type of kiddos....and they are being "left behind" and that for the future of our country is a problem.

I'm not sure you know what CATE programs do.....they provide WITH the help of the Community Colleges in that area an opportunity for kids that DO NOT want to go to a 4 year University the opportunity to learn skills that they can use right out of High School with plumbers, mechanics, construction, etc.....and these programs have them ALREADY WORKING in those fields, and help them find jobs during their Senior year. So, I'm not really sure what you are talking about in your post....