That doesn't even count people like me who have their hours reduced by 40%.

/Seagram's instead of Makers Mark

And our Congress has a "You're a Peon" attitude toward it's serfdom.

ohdoublereally: That doesn't even count people like me who have their hours reduced by 40%.

/Seagram's instead of Makers Mark


Or people who were looking for full-time work and had to accept a part-time position. Not to mention workers discouraged for more than a year that magically disappeared from the stats under Clinton. Those numbers put the unemployment rate somewhere north of 20%.

All I'm going to say is this:

A) 10.2% sucks.
B) 10%, when you get right down to it, is an arbitrary number. The difference between 9.7% and 10.2% is 0.5%. It's the old 'on sale for $19.95' gambit working in reverse.
C) What's your plan for having it lower by now?

It's way higher, and it's going to get worse.

But hey, Ford posted $1 billion in profits last quarter, so we're all good.

We need to be more progressive like the Europeans, dumbmitter. They don't work as much as we do, and that's a good thing. It means more free time to spend with friends and family, and hang out at the coffee house. Stop being so obsessed with money, and let the government take care of your needs. We can get the money from the rich and the businesses.

But Obama told us if we all went into deeper debt to pay for his stimulus boondoggle it would keep unemployment below 8%! What gives?

Gosling: All I'm going to say is this:

A) 10.2% sucks.
B) 10%, when you get right down to it, is an arbitrary number. The difference between 9.7% and 10.2% is 0.5%. It's the old 'on sale for $19.95' gambit working in reverse.
C) What's your plan for having it lower by now?


Among other things, we are desperately in need of a bigger stimulus. As a rule of thumb, you need a 2% increase in GDP to reduce unemployment by 1%. Five percent unemployment is a reasonable goal, so what we need is a GDP increase of about 10% ($1.5 trillion). The Democrats who are saying we need merely to give the stimulus more time, since it is spread out over two years, are ignoring the fact that the rate of spending (about $25 billion/month) is NOT going to increase but will rather remain relatively constant. So whatever boost to monthly output and consumption we're likely to see from stimulus dollars, we are in fact seeing right now. Real recovery would involve stimulus in the $2+ trillion range, but it seems everyone in Washington is to frightened to talk about that reality.

Our fake unemployment number is approaching their real unemployment number. Let's hope no one notices.

Sybarite: Among other things, we are desperately in need of a bigger stimulus. As a rule of thumb, you need a 2% increase in GDP to reduce unemployment by 1%. Five percent unemployment is a reasonable goal, so what we need is a GDP increase of about 10% ($1.5 trillion). The Democrats who are saying we need merely to give the stimulus more time, since it is spread out over two years, are ignoring the fact that the rate of spending (about $25 billion/month) is NOT going to increase but will rather remain relatively constant. So whatever boost to monthly output and consumption we're likely to see from stimulus dollars, we are in fact seeing right now. Real recovery would involve stimulus in the $2+ trillion range, but it seems everyone in Washington is to frightened to talk about that reality.

Congress could have added $2.50 to the hourly wage of every working American for a year (an extra $5000 for full time workers) with the $787 billion stimulus they passed in February. It would have been a far more effective stimulus than the current package.

/$2 trillion would allow a $2/hr raise for every American for three years, again a more effective stimulus than whatever Porkenstein monster Congress might come up with.

Snarfangel: Congress could have added $2.50 to the hourly wage of every working American for a year (an extra $5000 for full time workers) with the $787 billion stimulus they passed in February. It would have been a far more effective stimulus than the current package

but that extra income would have been neutralized by higher costs for goods and services from businesses that have to make that money up somehow. that money has to come from somewhere. so how does that help the working poor?

BravadoGT: But Obama told us if we all went into deeper debt to pay for his stimulus boondoggle it would keep unemployment below 8%! What gives?

Goddammit. I wanted to be the first to invoke "I blame Obama."

/I don't.

Pay close attention to this part:

"Counting those who have settled for part-time jobs or stopped looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994."

that is a LOT of people who had to downgrade just to survive. lower paychecks, lower income means lower amount of payroll taxes kicking into the system. Consider that factoid while pondering how we're going to pay for the health care legislation that's coming up for a vote soon.

Weaver95: that is a LOT of people who had to downgrade just to survive. lower paychecks, lower income means lower amount of payroll taxes kicking into the system. Consider that factoid while pondering how we're going to pay for the health care legislation that's coming up for a vote soon.

Those who had to accept part time work likely have no health insurance. Who is paying for their emergency room visits now? If Obamacare works, those who are working part time will be able to obtain insurance, and those who are working full time will hopefully have their health insurance costs reduced and therefore have more spending money which will stimulate the economy further.

On another note: Employment is one of the most lagging effects of a bad economy, and one of the last to recover. Stimulus spending didn't cause job loss, but hopefully it will create more jobs in the future. We're still suffering from Bush tax cuts made during a time when spending for the war in the Middle East was at its highest. That was an anti-stimulus that's going to take a long time to recover from.

"Highest on records dating from 1994"

Records dating from 1994? Keep up the good work Federal Department of Statisticians With The Attention Span of a Gnat!

In before B...bu...Bush.

HAHAHA!

The 'stimulus' is all in her panties!

muck4doo: We need to be more progressive like the Europeans, dumbmitter. They don't work as much as we do, and that's a good thing. It means more free time to spend with friends and family, and hang out at the coffee house. Stop being so obsessed with money, and let the government take care of your needs. We can get the money from the rich and the businesses.

10/10. Start's fairly reasonable, then deftly reverts into classic wharrgarbl. Well done.

albo: Snarfangel: Congress could have added $2.50 to the hourly wage of every working American for a year (an extra $5000 for full time workers) with the $787 billion stimulus they passed in February. It would have been a far more effective stimulus than the current package

but that extra income would have been neutralized by higher costs for goods and services from businesses that have to make that money up somehow. that money has to come from somewhere. so how does that help the working poor?

Lower the minimum wage by the same amount the government is paying, and you will pull at least some marginal workers back into employment (they still get the equivalent of the minimum wage or above, but employers pay less for the duration of the stimulus). This increases productivity, since you will be adding currently unemployed workers to the labor force. The extra pay will also encourage those currently employed to increase hours of work where possible, also increasing productivity.

So instead of more dollars chasing fewer goods and services, you have more dollars chasing more goods and services. It might still raise prices, but it would distort the market a lot less than having every state and municipality in the country bidding up asphalt, heavy machinery, concrete, building materials, and union labor at the same time.

/just comparing this method of stimulus to the bill Congress passed, rather than comparing it to no stimulus. That would be a different argument. :)

BravadoGT: But Obama told us if we all went into deeper debt to pay for his stimulus boondoggle it would keep unemployment below 8%! What gives?

Obama lied.

higher higher
burning fire
making music
like a choir

Weaver95: that is a LOT of people who had to downgrade just to survive. lower paychecks, lower income means lower amount of payroll taxes kicking into the system. Consider that factoid while pondering how we're going to pay for the health care legislation that's coming up for a vote soon.

I understand the "we all sink or swim together" mentality. Looking at the $50 trillion in Medicare liabilities we *already* have and have no way to pay is chilling. But then you realize that that's not indicative of the government program, but the cost predictions for the entire health sector. It's all gonna swamp, public and private. I'm not sure what the best way to prepare for that is.

muck4doo: We need to be more progressive like the Europeans, dumbmitter. They don't work as much as we do, and that's a good thing. It means more free time to spend with friends and family, and hang out at the coffee house. Stop being so obsessed with money, and let the government take care of your needs. We can get the money from the rich and the businesses.

Why work when the Government is just going to tax it away to pay for the wiping of someone else's bum, right? Let's start by making French the official language of the U.S.

Imagine how high it would be if we had done nothing.

15%? 20?

Remember when 5.2% was a recession and 10.2 wasn't a recovery?

Lt. Cheese Weasel: In before B...bu...Bush.

Cruiser Twelve beat you to it

Note: European unemployment is 10% during the good years.

That being said.

mynameismark: Imagine how high it would be if we had done nothing.

15%? 20?

Your numbers smell like they're from your ass. Can you substantiate that?

Pocket Ninja: It's way higher, and it's going to get worse.

But hey, Ford posted $1 billion in profits last quarter, so we're all good.

What's your point? I don't think Ford took any bailout money. They run a company well and are making money.

/Heavens!

GaryPDX: higher higher
burning fire
making music
like a choir

Blix! Blix! BLIIIIIIXXXXXX!!!!!

Weaver95: Consider that factoid while pondering how we're going to pay for the health care legislation that's coming up for a vote soon.

Consider the factoid that 1st world countries that have socialized medicine pay less than we do for health care.

ptelg: Note: European unemployment is 10% during the good years.

That being said.

mynameismark: Imagine how high it would be if we had done nothing.

15%? 20?

Your numbers smell like they're from your ass. Can you substantiate that?

Typically if a person had citations for the question they're asking then they wouldn't need to ask.

jgbrowning: Weaver95: Consider that factoid while pondering how we're going to pay for the health care legislation that's coming up for a vote soon.

Consider the factoid that 1st world countries that have socialized medicine pay less than we do for health care.

Consider for a moment that the rest of the 1st world aren't fatasses plagued with all the ailments that come with that.

Looking for a job?
1. Are you willing to relocate
2. Are you flexible as to position and salary
3. Do you have marketable skills?

Get some skills, go where the jobs are and be willing to work your way up; and you won't be unemployed for long.

But...but...but...stimulus!

jgbrowning: Weaver95: Consider that factoid while pondering how we're going to pay for the health care legislation that's coming up for a vote soon.

Consider the factoid that 1st world countries that have socialized medicine pay less than we do for health care.

It is possible to think "We need universal healthcare" and still think "I'm not sure if we can afford it now." One thing I never hear in the UH argument is "How many more jobless claims will we have when Aetna, Blue Cross, United Healthcare, etc. reduce their payroll?"

ptelg: mynameismark: Imagine how high it would be if we had done nothing.

15%? 20?

Your numbers smell like they're from your ass. Can you substantiate that?


No, I can't. Because the are f*cking questions, you moron.

The best thing about today's news, is that Fannie Mae asked for another $15bn, but it didn't even make the front page of Marketwatch! Apparently, these days $15bn is chicken feed.

/$15bn, soon it's what a cup of coffee will cost.
//Wont be a big deal then.

ptelg: jgbrowning: Weaver95: Consider that factoid while pondering how we're going to pay for the health care legislation that's coming up for a vote soon.

Consider the factoid that 1st world countries that have socialized medicine pay less than we do for health care.

Consider for a moment that the rest of the 1st world aren't fatasses plagued with all the ailments that come with that.

Consider for a moment that I responded to you, but then changed my mind because I realized that if you actually believed in what you wrote, responding to you would be a waste of time.

mynameismark: ptelg: mynameismark: Imagine how high it would be if we had done nothing.

15%? 20?

Your numbers smell like they're from your ass. Can you substantiate that?


No, I can't. Because the are f*cking questions, you moron.

There is an argument (agreed 100% by far-right, and dismissed 100% by far-left) that says if we didn't keep extending unemployment, then people would have been more desperate to find jobs and the number would have actually dropped.

Sybarite: Not to mention workers discouraged for more than a year that magically disappeared from the stats under Clinton.

Combine a lie about the way unemployment rate is calculated with a gratuitous slam on Clinton. Nice.

Anyway, isn't it about time to join the rest of your kind and switch from blaming all ills on Clinton to blaming all ills on Obama?

mynameismark: ptelg: mynameismark: Imagine how high it would be if we had done nothing.

15%? 20?

Your numbers smell like they're from your ass. Can you substantiate that?


No, I can't. Because the are f*cking questions, you moron.

Also, you must have just "Assed him a few questions"

Thanks to the stimulus, we've kept unemployment under 11 percent!

BravadoGT: But Obama told us if we all went into deeper debt to pay for his stimulus boondoggle it would keep unemployment below 8%! What gives?

Thanks to technology, the requirement for everyone to work to meet basic needs ended nearly 100 years ago. Ever since then, we've been inventing new wants so we can make more things to keep people employed (I'm not complaining, I dig all the stuff I can buy) which works only as long as the labor that makes the new things is human. That is no longer the case.

It's time to accept what was observed by Einstein (among others) decades ago: Full employment in the traditional sense cannot coexist with advanced technology because you will never be able to compete with a machine that was built to do your job.

Far better to pay people to be creative, which machines can't be. Yet.

/Yes 90% of people will just mooch off it
//90% of everything is crap anyway so it's no loss.
///Your alternative is legions of unemployed people looking for someone to blame for the destruction of their lifestyle

neilio42: jgbrowning: Weaver95: Consider that factoid while pondering how we're going to pay for the health care legislation that's coming up for a vote soon.

Consider the factoid that 1st world countries that have socialized medicine pay less than we do for health care.

It is possible to think "We need universal healthcare" and still think "I'm not sure if we can afford it now." One thing I never hear in the UH argument is "How many more jobless claims will we have when Aetna, Blue Cross, United Healthcare, etc. reduce their payroll?"

One thing I never hear from those against UH is how much money businesses would save by not being required to pay for employee health insurance. How much do you think, on average, health insurance places a burden upon business?

Did you know that the cumulative increase in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums rose at four times the rate of inflation and wage increases during last decade? That employer health insurance costs overtook profits in 2008?

And to answer your question, running a UHC system requires administrative people as well so there would not be a total loss of jobs. The amount of jobs that would be lost would be those jobs that are, effectively, not actually needed to provide health insurance.

I thought that Obama saved like 10 billion jobs recently?

mynameismark: Imagine how high it would be if we had done nothing.

15%? 20?

Probably more like 10.2%.

jgbrowning: Did you know that the cumulative increase in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums rose at four times the rate of inflation and wage increases during last decade? That employer health insurance costs overtook profits in 2008?

And at what rate did auto insurance premiums rise? Removing health-care from the job would be a far better idea. I can still shop around and minimally involve the government and I don't have to be employed to keep it.

Or we could all chip in involuntarily so 96% are covered. 96% is everyone right?

jgbrowning: neilio42: jgbrowning: Weaver95: Consider that factoid while pondering how we're going to pay for the health care legislation that's coming up for a vote soon.

Consider the factoid that 1st world countries that have socialized medicine pay less than we do for health care.

It is possible to think "We need universal healthcare" and still think "I'm not sure if we can afford it now." One thing I never hear in the UH argument is "How many more jobless claims will we have when Aetna, Blue Cross, United Healthcare, etc. reduce their payroll?"

One thing I never hear from those against UH is how much money businesses would save by not being required to pay for employee health insurance. How much do you think, on average, health insurance places a burden upon business?

Did you know that the cumulative increase in employer-sponsored health insurance premiums rose at four times the rate of inflation and wage increases during last decade? That employer health insurance costs overtook profits in 2008?

And to answer your question, running a UHC system requires administrative people as well so there would not be a total loss of jobs. The amount of jobs that would be lost would be those jobs that are, effectively, not actually needed to provide health insurance.

I agree with you to an extent. But there would be a transistion phase. I'm not sure how the contracts with the insurance works. Could a company quit on their insurance immediately? But the insurance companies would drop employment sooner in anticipation. I believe it could possibly temporarily add to unemployment.