Username: Password:


Author Topic: Unemployment: a new take  (Read 4763 times)

Offline Valjean

  • TWO
  • Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 7017
  • Liked: 2457
  • Country: us
  • Writing names on my hollowtips
  • Awards Best admin Best Admin 2014 Most Like John Marston
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Unemployment: a new take
« on: February 14, 2013, 10:40:48 AM »
Well as you guys know unemployment hasn't gotten any better lately.  We've had a couple little increments of the unemployment rate inch downward only matched by an equal number of people dropping off the unemployment rolls because they've been out of work so long.... or in other words its not actually gone down at all.

So here's where my thoughts wandered to: George Bush. 

Everyone blames this guy for our present economy because Barack Obama said so.  And Bush took no government action at all against unemployment.  By doing that the unemployment rate never went above 6%.  It didn't skyrocket until Obama got elected and launched a huge campaign of government interference in the free market.

That got me to thinking so I did some research.  The unemployment rate was just as high when Reagan came into office as it is after 4 years of Obama's policies.  Reagan, like Bush, did nothing.  Unemployment went down and the economy recovered much faster than it has under Obama's huge amount of save-the-economy & bail-out type programs.

So I looked further back... to the Great Depression.  So after the stock market crash in 1929 unemployment never got into the double digits for the year afterwards.  Unemployment didn't get high until after the federal government intervened, then it stayed in the double digits for most of the next decade.

I'm sensing a moral to the story... but its not the moral Barack Obama keeps saying it is...

Offline Ucah8er

  • Won't let the sun go down on me
  • Red River Resistance
  • *
  • Posts: 9835
  • Liked: 2555
  • Country: be
  • Awards Awarded to the user voted to have made the Best musical contribution Best Signature 2014 Meme King 2014
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2013, 11:06:28 AM »
There's not really much Obama could have done to stop the employment from dropping at that time. Bush could have at least begun working on creating jobs similar to how they solved the Great Depression you mentioned.
You can't really blame anyone for the drop in employment. The crisis had already begun. You can only try to get it fixed faster.
You are now just using the drop in employment to attack Obama just like Obama (ab)used Bush' lack of action in the economic field as a campaign bandwagon.
And by the way, government interference is something I don't support. At all. But if done right it does work. Belgium for example managed to get some growth in it's economy since the crisis began after significant guidance from the department of economy etc.

Offline Valjean

  • TWO
  • Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 7017
  • Liked: 2457
  • Country: us
  • Writing names on my hollowtips
  • Awards Best admin Best Admin 2014 Most Like John Marston
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2013, 11:54:47 AM »
I'll play devil's advocate with you: why should we expect government to fix employment in the first place?  In the US unemployment averaged 6% since the Civil War up to the start of government intervention in 1930.  There was a long period of time with no government intervention in the arena of employment when the free market produced the same or better average employment.

But, as a side bar from what we're already talking about, I do believe  President Obama has done a huge amount of harm to the US economy in terms of employment.  He's introduced a huge amount of additional government regulation, and a huge uncertainty about the cost to employers of Obamacare.  That's caused companies to not hire.  AMerican companies are sitting on huge amounts of cash instead of spending it to hire because they have no idea how to value the future cost of doing business.  Apple alone presently has more cash than the US government.... its sad businesses don't feel safe reinvesting that money in their business because the political climate has become so anti-business.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2013, 12:00:28 PM by Valjean »

Offline godzilliac

  • Voodoo Baron
  • Posts: 3132
  • Liked: 100
  • Country: ht
    • View Profile
    • Renderosity.com
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2013, 05:33:55 AM »
On a side note, Bush wasn't that inactive during his 8-year reign as he raised the federal minimum wage by almost $2 per hour. The fact that this hardly had a negative effect on employment is remarkable as many skeptics hold a firm belief that government interference with minimum wages jeopardizes job opportunities.

Offline Valjean

  • TWO
  • Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 7017
  • Liked: 2457
  • Country: us
  • Writing names on my hollowtips
  • Awards Best admin Best Admin 2014 Most Like John Marston
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2013, 08:42:08 AM »
I believe it does to G.  In fact I just submitted a column to syndication yesterday that addressed Obama's call to increase minimum wage and responded to Robert Reich on a very similar topic, but it won't run for a week or so.  Here are Reich's... very incorrect.... suggestions.

Bottom line though is that minimum wage is bad, yes you're right.  A $7.25 minimum wage just eliminates the possibility of a job $6.75.  Of course the actual math behind it isn't that clear cut, there's alot of stats behind it.  Maybe a job at $6.75 2 out of the 3 of them which were going to exist can exist at $7.25.  But maybe only 55% of jobs that would have existed at $6.50 and so on down it goes. (Made those numbers up just to illustrate, its early, not going to check for the real numbers (seedy))

But minimum wage aside Bush took no government action to stimulate hiring or the economy.  Nothing compared to Obama.  For quick example, Obama has put in place over twice as many $1Billion+ government regulations as Bush & Clinton combined (in 16 years).  And that doesn't include all the minor regulations he's added.  You muddy the business climate that much with government interference & regulation it stifles business.  That doesn't even start on the bad economic impact of bail-outs and everything else most people already know about and consider.

Offline floofgoofer

  • TWO
  • *
  • Posts: 3206
  • Liked: 1890
  • Country: us
  • When I think about you... I pull RT
  • Awards Best username
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2013, 12:50:23 PM »
I think the point is addressing a living wage for average people.  Sure if there were 4.25/hr jobs (i think that is what it was when I was 16) people would do them, but that doesn't mean they can live off of that, and would require some of those entitlements.  Food stamps, housing assistance, WIC programs, that kind of thing.

My last restaurant job some of the cooks (who were salaried) made less than minimum wage when adjusting for the # of hours worked.  One Mexican dishwasher there would come in at 10pm and work till 6am, cleaning the big stuff, burners, ovens, prep tables, walk-ins, etc...  I always felt bad for him having this shitty ass job, then one random morning I went to McDonalds for breakfast (about 8am) and guess who I saw from the the window?  yep, he would leave the restaurant at 6 and go straight to his fast food job for the day.  I was one of the only waiters who tipped the dishwashers (some of the bussers did), but no one tipped him because he did not work service, so I started leaving him 10 bucks after each weekend. not much, but tax free for him was like 2hrs work.

There is a good book i read ... 15 yrs ago? yikes... called "Nickle and Dimed", the author went to different parts of the country and tried living off of minimum wage work.  It was pretty difficult to say the least and also enlightening on the plight of some workers.  If Wal-Mart only pays you enough to shop at Wal-Mart, that is a pretty good reason to do it.

Offline Valjean

  • TWO
  • Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 7017
  • Liked: 2457
  • Country: us
  • Writing names on my hollowtips
  • Awards Best admin Best Admin 2014 Most Like John Marston
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2013, 01:10:30 PM »
Floof, you mean the point of Reichs article?  Also i used to bag popcorn for $4.25  (seedy).  My lowest paying job though was running the bb gun range at Cub Scout day camp.  $125 for a 48 hour week...
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 01:16:01 PM by Valjean »

Offline floofgoofer

  • TWO
  • *
  • Posts: 3206
  • Liked: 1890
  • Country: us
  • When I think about you... I pull RT
  • Awards Best username
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2013, 04:03:02 PM »
No, just the general point of having a minimum wage, and that it occasionally has to be raised.  There are reasons for it, not every employer would pay a living wage out of the goodness of their heart.

I do remember when I got a full time job at 5/hr though... sweeeeeet!  200 bucks a week?!  party every day ;)

Offline Ferguson99

  • Posts: 4469
  • Liked: 795
  • Country: england
  • Awards Most Likely to Get Bucked From Horse
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2013, 06:32:35 PM »
Minimum wage..... Your lucky these days when you first start work.
Back in 1994 when I started work, I was on £1.80 an hour never even got me £100.

Offline rdeyd1 573

  • Happiness is a warm gun
  • Red River Resistance
  • *
  • Posts: 1979
  • Liked: 760
  • Country: us
  • TRUMP 2016
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2013, 06:56:41 PM »
Sence when was min-wage ment you could raise a family of four? or more then one?
When I was in the PI they had some one for every job the shoeshine guy, the head guy that handed you a towel, the laundry girl the old retired prostatute that would give you a massage that would melt you in your chair and never ask for a dime  but you always paid for these srevices. Who dosn't always says hi to the retarded guy that gets the grocey carts? But who is going to pay $9.00 an hr for something like that? And if you work him more then 30hr a week you have to get the Obamacair deal.

"The worst form of ineqality is to try to make unequal things equal"
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence;it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  -George Washington

There are two kinds of fascist: fascist and anti-fascist

Offline the GUN runnerr

  • Posts: 1507
  • Liked: 539
  • Country: 00
  • Big Black Women and The stevo guy
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2013, 07:27:50 PM »
Living above your means, thats what i gathered^.  The family of four that owes on the 2 fancy cars and the mansion.  They go bankrupt and we have to bail them out some way.  Thats right, you live like a king half your life and lose it all.  Then we reward you for not fucking thinking 10 fucking miles down the road.  When GM went broke it was obvious to me, as i Deal with the company on a daily basis.  The quality of the end product (the automobille) was declining so fast from2000-06 or so.  I could go into great deatail and educate you on that but who cares.  Any way, these dumb fucks had to go broke in order to realize a solution as to why this happened.  For starters "too many cheifs and not enough indians".  They said, wow! we dont have to keep 50 ceo's at 5million a year.  2 of em at half the price can get the job done....WOW!  Then, the issue you guys are discussing comes in to play.  Now they can hire more bodies where it counts and employ real people like you and me.  In the feild or the line.....whatever.  Obviously all problems start at the top, NO SHIT.  If only people werent so fucking money hungry, like these over paid ceos, joe fucking shmoe could get hired.  Stats and number crunching and policies dont mean shit.  And I know im speaking about a union, but this same thing applies to all bussines.


Offline floofgoofer

  • TWO
  • *
  • Posts: 3206
  • Liked: 1890
  • Country: us
  • When I think about you... I pull RT
  • Awards Best username
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2013, 09:25:41 PM »
You will all be replaced by robots soon enough, even the 'old retired prostitute'.  Don't let me down Japan   (seedy)

Seriously though, family of four is still a family, I'd rather protect them than the predatory money lenders.   If more leniency is shown to (and financial and legal parachutes given to) HSBC or Goldman Sachs we are as stupid as stupid can be.

Offline DangerGirl33

  • Mademoiselle Dangereuse
  • Red River Resistance
  • *
  • Posts: 3855
  • Liked: 875
  • Country: us
  • Let's get decadent
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2013, 09:29:37 PM »
Lots of places we could make changes.  Hell, if Congress would keep giving the raises they give themselves to the minimum wage workers instead, maybe we'd be better off?  But no...the meme from those "esteemed" (and I use that term loosely) Congressfolk is that they deserve dignity and respect and therefore a raise, no matter how bad of a job they are doing for us.

They have forgotten that they work for us...their position is a job, not a reward.  I think the place to start is with their salaries.
This sure beats milking cows!

Offline rdeyd1 573

  • Happiness is a warm gun
  • Red River Resistance
  • *
  • Posts: 1979
  • Liked: 760
  • Country: us
  • TRUMP 2016
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2013, 05:43:46 AM »
If you cannot survive on what you are bringing home then you need to reevaluate your situation, You may be living beyond your means, or maybe you need to increase your skills thats how you do it, And I belive we do not pay our reps enough, cause for that kind of money we are not getting the cream of the crop we are getting already rich people who think they have the right, or we get the do gooder who wants to tell everyone how to live causr they know better, the real talent will not work for that kind of money.

A great leader does not seek the position.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence;it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  -George Washington

There are two kinds of fascist: fascist and anti-fascist

Offline booshthelurker

  • Muckraker
  • D WILD BUNCH
  • *
  • Posts: 2965
  • Liked: 483
  • Country: us
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2013, 06:04:08 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7teOxMCA4zg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7teOxMCA4zg</a>

Dirty Wild Sig by DocRikowski
I rep the D the way I do
I can't be you I won't be you
I got soul in me that's older than you
I got my mans with me we colder than you

Offline Valjean

  • TWO
  • Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 7017
  • Liked: 2457
  • Country: us
  • Writing names on my hollowtips
  • Awards Best admin Best Admin 2014 Most Like John Marston
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2013, 09:15:27 PM »
Ironic a bit isn't it.  Obama calling for a higher minimum wage i mean.  Minimum wage was invented in the 30s as a segregation tool to prevent blacks from taking a job a white person could have had by being willing to do the work for less.  It was instituted in South Africa for the same reason at the start of apartheid. 

Offline booshthelurker

  • Muckraker
  • D WILD BUNCH
  • *
  • Posts: 2965
  • Liked: 483
  • Country: us
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2013, 01:42:04 AM »
Minimum wage was invented in the 30s as a segregation tool to prevent blacks from taking a job a white person could have had by being willing to do the work for less. 

That's a bold faced lie. Period.

Dirty Wild Sig by DocRikowski
I rep the D the way I do
I can't be you I won't be you
I got soul in me that's older than you
I got my mans with me we colder than you

Offline floofgoofer

  • TWO
  • *
  • Posts: 3206
  • Liked: 1890
  • Country: us
  • When I think about you... I pull RT
  • Awards Best username
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2013, 05:25:43 AM »
 :)
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 07:02:53 AM by floofgoofer »

Offline Valjean

  • TWO
  • Administrator
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 7017
  • Liked: 2457
  • Country: us
  • Writing names on my hollowtips
  • Awards Best admin Best Admin 2014 Most Like John Marston
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2013, 09:46:20 AM »
Minimum wage was invented in the 30s as a segregation tool to prevent blacks from taking a job a white person could have had by being willing to do the work for less. 

That's a bold faced lie. Period.

No its not.  Its an accepted fact.  I'm sure even wikipedia, which everyone so treasurers will tell you so. 

Most people forget history.  Know which party voted 90% in favor of the civil rights act in the 60s?  Hint it was the Republican Party.  Know who opposed it?  Yup, the democratic party.  In fact, Eisenhower had tried earlier to get that legislation through bit couldn't overcome either votes or filibusters from the democratic party. 

No, my friend, liberal policy does not have a proud history of favoring blacks.  Minimum wage is another fine example.  In South Africa it was instituted after black miners replaced (possibly striking, but i forget the precise details) white mine workers as a way for the mining unions to maintain racial hiring and not be under cut on price. 

In America federal minimum wage laws started being discussed after black workers replaced white workers in a job to rebuild a burned down church in one if the southern states.  In fact, the guy who sponsored the final bill which was adopted in the late 30s was a southern senator who was also a KKK member. 

But don't believe me. Believe the most influential economist in the last 100 years, you can YouTube his name and minimum wage if you need to hear it straight from his mouth:

"minimum wage is the most anti Negro law on the books." ~Milton Friedman, Novel Prize in Economics.

I support a free market and it ought not to be interfered with in a way that damages the least fortunate by eliminating low paying jobs.  :) (for floof)

Offline CyborgNinjaCowboy

  • I'm your huckleberry.
  • Posts: 716
  • Liked: 187
  • Country: us
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Unemployment: a new take
« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2013, 01:55:27 PM »
No its not.  Its an accepted fact.  I'm sure even wikipedia, which everyone so treasurers will tell you so.

Quote
In America federal minimum wage laws started being discussed after black workers replaced white workers in a job to rebuild a burned down church in one if the southern states.  In fact, the guy who sponsored the final bill which was adopted in the late 30s was a southern senator who was also a KKK member. 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1912408,00.html

http://www.minimum-wage.org/history.asp

Bold faced lies indeed. Minimum wage was invented in Australia and New Zealand. You also forgot the part where Hugo Black was no longer part of the KKK at the time of drafting the bill and was active in the civil rights movement as a Supreme Court Justice.

Quote
In South Africa it was instituted after black miners replaced (possibly striking, but i forget the precise details) white mine workers as a way for the mining unions to maintain racial hiring and not be under cut on price.

This however, is true.

Quote
Most people forget history.  Know which party voted 90% in favor of the civil rights act in the 60s?  Hint it was the Republican Party.  Know who opposed it?  Yup, the democratic party.  In fact, Eisenhower had tried earlier to get that legislation through bit couldn't overcome either votes or filibusters from the democratic party.

This is what they call historical revisionism and half truths.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/05/conservative-fantasy-history-of-civil-rights.html

This leads me to my next point....the Republicans of the 1960s were much more liberal, which again leads me to my next point....are you really going to sit there and pretend that the Republican and Democratic parties of fifty years ago are the same Republican and Democratic parties of today?

Now I won't go into whatever economic consequences may or may not happen as a result of minimum wage, I'm just here to defend history. I'll also add that the kind of partisanism displayed in the OP is what's bringing the country down.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 03:29:12 PM by CyborgNinjaCowboy »
Apples taste good and you can throw them if your being attacked
PSN:Bassman32590