If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wonk Wire)   Economists have two competing explanations for high unemployment, but the solution for both is the same   (wonkwire.com) divider line 109
    More: Obvious, fiscal stimulus  
•       •       •

2995 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Aug 2012 at 6:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



109 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-22 06:34:02 PM  
tax cuts for job creators, of course.
 
2012-08-22 06:35:15 PM  
let me guess, Obama should legalize another 1.2 mililon illegal immigrants?
 
2012-08-22 06:36:11 PM  
Vote Republican?
 
2012-08-22 06:36:43 PM  
i.imgur.com

?
 
2012-08-22 06:37:28 PM  
And here is another one. Since the 70s labor has been getting less and less in the form of wages, infrastructure development, etc... and the so called middle class has been degraded to a state where it is finely balanced between the poor and the middle class and when a shock occurs everything goes to hell.
 
2012-08-22 06:37:46 PM  
Yep more people have less money (and the wealth going to a smaller number of people) means less demand and less jobs.
 
2012-08-22 06:38:14 PM  

relcec: let me guess, Obama should legalize another 1.2 mililon illegal immigrants?


I love how you think people can't compete for jobs when they aren't physically on the same side of a map line as you.
 
2012-08-22 06:38:31 PM  

theknuckler_33: tax cuts for job creators, of course.


even better lets just hand them money, so it overflows faster!
 
2012-08-22 06:38:32 PM  
How did this ever get green lit?

However what it says is correct. Businesses hire employees because they have demand for their products and services. Not because they have lots of money and get tax cuts and stuff.

Easy to understand unless you are a Republican.
 
2012-08-22 06:39:22 PM  
let's go back to the 1960's tax codes and trade policies.
 
2012-08-22 06:40:15 PM  

Virulency: theknuckler_33: tax cuts for job creators, of course.

even better lets just hand them money, so it overflows faster!


maybe if we created a liquid currency that would help.
 
2012-08-22 06:40:51 PM  

Mithiwithi: relcec: let me guess, Obama should legalize another 1.2 mililon illegal immigrants?

I love how you think people can't compete for jobs when they aren't physically on the same side of a map line as you.


Well, all those immigrants come here to steal Relcecs' jobs while collecting welfare and unemployment and eating tacos instead of real American food like pizza.
 
2012-08-22 06:45:56 PM  

Hobodeluxe: let's go back to the 1960's tax codes and trade policies.


fark that - we should go back to 1950s tax codes and trade policies (and union membership/power, for that matter).

/Of course, if Eisenhower's domestic policies were proposed today, he would be considered a radical socialist
 
2012-08-22 06:48:10 PM  
I'm inclined to agree, sort of, with the second idea...

current unemployment is due to a skills mismatch - people don't just have the skills to do the jobs we need them to do.

No, there's just a gross misunderstanding in almost every industry about what types of people can do what types of jobs. There's a lot of perfectly qualified people out there who could easily adapt their skill sets to a variety of jobs, but you won't give them the time of day because they're not precisely and exactly what you want.

And too many HR departments don't have a clue other than to use keywords and such. I know a CAD operator that got hired simply because the resume happened to have the word 'material handling' in it, which got it past the filter.
 
2012-08-22 06:48:36 PM  

AntiNerd: How did this ever get green lit?

However what it says is correct. Businesses hire employees because they have demand for their products and services. Not because they have lots of money and get tax cuts and stuff.

Easy to understand unless you are a Republican.


...and people don't have money because they can't get a job. And they can't get a job because there's no demand, because people don't have money because they can't get a job because there's no demand...

...and the vicious circle continues...
 
2012-08-22 06:48:42 PM  
If only there were someone suggesting policies that would spur demand.
 
2012-08-22 06:50:40 PM  
There are still two different solutions:

1) Use tax dollars to launch a stimulus so the government effectively gives back dollars to the economy thereby igniting an upward demand spiral (See the Obama Stimulus plan).
2) Reduce taxes and or give tax rebates on the largest buying sector (the poor and middle class) thereby making more money avaialble and igniting an upward demand spiral (See the parts of the Bush Tax cuts that actually had an effect)

What *IS* clear is that taxing or not taking 1-2% of the population will have little economic impact one way or the other.
 
2012-08-22 06:52:27 PM  

AntiNerd: How did this ever get green lit?

However what it says is correct. Businesses hire employees because they have demand for their products and services. Not because they have lots of money and get tax cuts and stuff.

Easy to understand unless you are a Republican.


You're misunderestimating the same folks who claim business taxes on profit affect operating income and hiring decisions.
 
2012-08-22 06:52:31 PM  
Lunaville:Well, all those immigrants come here to steal Relcecs' jobs while collecting welfare and unemployment and eating tacos instead of real American food like pizza.

Also terror babies and supporting gay marriages.

/any other points?
 
2012-08-22 06:52:43 PM  
FTFA: "the best response to the jobs crisis is one that spurs aggregate demand, through looser monetary policy, fiscal stimulus or another means, rather than one that tries to build up skills for workers. The latter policy may be desirable for other reasons, but it's really neither here nor there on the jobs crisis."

So relax, Americans, you don't have to learn any new skills. All you have to do is borrow and spend more money. Then the buggy-whip makers will hire you again.

What a complete idiot!
 
2012-08-22 06:53:27 PM  

randomjsa: No, there's just a gross misunderstanding in almost every industry about what types of people can do what types of jobs. There's a lot of perfectly qualified people out there who could easily adapt their skill sets to a variety of jobs, but you won't give them the time of day because they're not precisely and exactly what you want.


I think that is true, but the actual effect is only temporary. When faced with a real need to fill a position, companies will eventually hire "the closest match" they can find. They may keep looking for a few weeks or even months, hoping to find the perfect candidate, but when one is not found, they will make due with what they CAN find. (Unless there are specific regulatory requirements for qualifications).
 
2012-08-22 06:53:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: There are still two different solutions:

1) Use tax dollars to launch a stimulus so the government effectively gives back dollars to the economy thereby igniting an upward demand spiral (See the Obama Stimulus plan).
2) Reduce taxes and or give tax rebates on the largest buying sector (the poor and middle class) thereby making more money avaialble and igniting an upward demand spiral (See the parts of the Bush Tax cuts that actually had an effect)

What *IS* clear is that taxing or not taking 1-2% of the population will have little economic impact one way or the other.


'Cuz we've tried both, and neither worked...

...oh, wait, except for when we had the high tax rate on the upper 1% the 1950's and '60s, the most prosperous time in American history...
 
2012-08-22 06:53:42 PM  

LasersHurt: If only there were someone suggesting policies that would spur demand.


well you have to prime the pump. and a jobs program with huge infrastructure building would do that. and it would give us things we need desperately. but the GOP don't want that. that's too "New Deal" for them. they'd rather you just give the money to the rich and trust they will spend it here on things that would create jobs. and if not. well it's probably because of too many regulations and too much taxation.
 
2012-08-22 06:53:43 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: FTFA: "the best response to the jobs crisis is one that spurs aggregate demand, through looser monetary policy, fiscal stimulus or another means, rather than one that tries to build up skills for workers. The latter policy may be desirable for other reasons, but it's really neither here nor there on the jobs crisis."

So relax, Americans, you don't have to learn any new skills. All you have to do is borrow and spend more money. Then the buggy-whip makers will hire you again.

What a complete idiot!


Do you think it's at all possible that you're misunderstanding the economist, and instead you are the idiot?
 
2012-08-22 06:54:40 PM  

Hobodeluxe: LasersHurt: If only there were someone suggesting policies that would spur demand.

well you have to prime the pump. and a jobs program with huge infrastructure building would do that. and it would give us things we need desperately. but the GOP don't want that. that's too "New Deal" for them. they'd rather you just give the money to the rich and trust they will spend it here on things that would create jobs. and if not. well it's probably because of too many regulations and too much taxation.


I hate that none of what you said is incorrect. I hate ideology - if you look objectively at this crap, it's easy decision. Not silver bullets, mind you, but there are so many easy things we could do to help.
 
2012-08-22 06:54:42 PM  

IlGreven: ...oh, wait, except for when we had the high tax rate on the upper 1% the 1950's and '60s, the most prosperous time in American history...


Are you arguing that taxing the rich at a higher tax rate CAUSED economic prosperity?
 
2012-08-22 06:55:47 PM  
Inviting all the unemployed to a great feast, and then locking the doors and setting the place on fire?
 
2012-08-22 06:56:12 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Are you arguing that taxing the rich at a higher tax rate CAUSED economic prosperity?


It certainly didn't prevent it.
 
2012-08-22 06:56:38 PM  

IlGreven: BojanglesPaladin: There are still two different solutions:

1) Use tax dollars to launch a stimulus so the government effectively gives back dollars to the economy thereby igniting an upward demand spiral (See the Obama Stimulus plan).
2) Reduce taxes and or give tax rebates on the largest buying sector (the poor and middle class) thereby making more money avaialble and igniting an upward demand spiral (See the parts of the Bush Tax cuts that actually had an effect)

What *IS* clear is that taxing or not taking 1-2% of the population will have little economic impact one way or the other.

'Cuz we've tried both, and neither worked...

...oh, wait, except for when we had the high tax rate on the upper 1% the 1950's and '60s, the most prosperous time in American history...


yeah when that 1-2 % make 80% of the money then it does matter a lot.
 
2012-08-22 06:58:28 PM  

LasersHurt: If only there were someone suggesting policies that would spur demand.


Actually pushing on the private sector to end 30 years of stagnant wages would fix things nicely too.
 
2012-08-22 06:58:46 PM  

Mithiwithi: relcec: let me guess, Obama should legalize another 1.2 mililon illegal immigrants?

I love how you think people can't compete for jobs when they aren't physically on the same side of a map line as you.


tell me how the f*ck Jose can compete with an american for a roofing or tile job when he is in Guadalajara. I'm prepared to wait until the end of time for an answer.

that's why these companies bring people here.
because you simply can't outsource some shiat.
it is the only way left to lower wage costs.

and I love how you people think that bringing people to increase your political base and to take scarce jobs and devalue wages won't be noticed.
 
2012-08-22 06:58:51 PM  

LasersHurt: If only there were someone suggesting policies that would spur demand.


Remember that Biden said the administration's plan was going to give us 500,000 jobs per month back in 2010.

People forgot about all the jobs the Summer of Recovery gave us and those 500,000 jobs/month.
 
2012-08-22 06:58:59 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: IlGreven: ...oh, wait, except for when we had the high tax rate on the upper 1% the 1950's and '60s, the most prosperous time in American history...

Are you arguing that taxing the rich at a higher tax rate CAUSED economic prosperity?


no, an expanding population (demand) met with the ability to produce said needs (infrastructure and raw materials,land etc.) caused the economic prosperity.
 
2012-08-22 06:59:33 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: It certainly didn't prevent it.


That's not an answer. Do you think that taxing the rich MORE will somehow lead to an increase in demand?

As I said, if you accept the premise that demand is the primary engine of economic prosperity, the tax rate of 1-2% of the buying public is largely immaterial.
 
2012-08-22 06:59:37 PM  
Roll them up in a carpet and throw them in the river?

...you meant the economists, right?
 
2012-08-22 07:00:22 PM  

LasersHurt: BarkingUnicorn: FTFA: "the best response to the jobs crisis is one that spurs aggregate demand, through looser monetary policy, fiscal stimulus or another means, rather than one that tries to build up skills for workers. The latter policy may be desirable for other reasons, but it's really neither here nor there on the jobs crisis."

So relax, Americans, you don't have to learn any new skills. All you have to do is borrow and spend more money. Then the buggy-whip makers will hire you again.

What a complete idiot!

Do you think it's at all possible that you're misunderstanding the economist, and instead you are the idiot?


Taegan Goddard, who wrote what I quoted above, is not an economist. He's a political hack. And a complete idiot.
 
2012-08-22 07:00:43 PM  
There's a third option: kill squads. Hire a bunch of people and order them to tag folks they find. Every fifth person, instead of tagging them you shoot them. You have to pay the kill squads, and 1/5 of people are no longer in "total population", which is likely to create job openings. Win/win.

/I never said it was a good idea, just an idea.
 
2012-08-22 07:01:57 PM  

relcec: it is the only way left to lower wage costs.


Perhaps we should be getting on people for doing that.

BojanglesPaladin: o you think that taxing the rich MORE will somehow lead to an increase in demand?


Well from what evidence exists, it did cause money to move around more, and the more money moves around the better for everyone
 
2012-08-22 07:02:04 PM  
Tax cuts, of course.
 
2012-08-22 07:02:47 PM  
FTA: All of which suggests that the best response to the jobs crisis is one that spurs aggregate demand, through looser monetary policy, fiscal stimulus or another means, rather than one that tries to build up skills for workers. 

"You know what John, if this teams REALLY wants to win the game, they REALLY need to start getting some points on the board... "
 
2012-08-22 07:02:48 PM  

Hobodeluxe: IlGreven: BojanglesPaladin: There are still two different solutions:

1) Use tax dollars to launch a stimulus so the government effectively gives back dollars to the economy thereby igniting an upward demand spiral (See the Obama Stimulus plan).
2) Reduce taxes and or give tax rebates on the largest buying sector (the poor and middle class) thereby making more money avaialble and igniting an upward demand spiral (See the parts of the Bush Tax cuts that actually had an effect)

What *IS* clear is that taxing or not taking 1-2% of the population will have little economic impact one way or the other.

'Cuz we've tried both, and neither worked...

...oh, wait, except for when we had the high tax rate on the upper 1% the 1950's and '60s, the most prosperous time in American history...

yeah when that 1-2 % make 80% of the money then it does matter a lot.


okay then. we have a long time to wait then.
Since right now the top 1% make 17% of the income. The top 5% make 32%.

So we have a long way to go before the top 1-2% make 80% of the income.

Come back and post when that happens.
 
2012-08-22 07:03:06 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: That's not an answer. Do you think that taxing the rich MORE will somehow lead to an increase in demand?


I was just chiming in. But, I do think taxing the rich more can lead to an increase in demand if that money is spent on infrastructure, R&D, education, and energy.

We need less people making money from money, and more people making money from making things.
 
2012-08-22 07:03:46 PM  
Dude 10lbs, I have you on ignore. I can see that you keep replying to me, and that's nice, but you're a troll and troll alone, and have literally never added to anything. You are ignored, and I can't see your replies. Stop wasting your time.
 
2012-08-22 07:04:38 PM  

WhyteRaven74: LasersHurt: If only there were someone suggesting policies that would spur demand.

Actually pushing on the private sector to end 30 years of stagnant wages would fix things nicely too.


Honestly, we probably wouldn't be in a situation at all like today if wages hadn't stagnated like that. I'd love to see that adjusted, but I suspect it's not happening soon.
 
2012-08-22 07:05:00 PM  

WhyteRaven74: relcec: it is the only way left to lower wage costs.

Perhaps we should be getting on people for doing that.

BojanglesPaladin: o you think that taxing the rich MORE will somehow lead to an increase in demand?

Well from what evidence exists, it did cause money to move around more, and the more money moves around the better for everyone


Where did the money move to? Why was it spent more where it went to than where it came from?
What evidence are you referring to?
 
2012-08-22 07:05:51 PM  

Gonad the Ballbarian: "You know what John, if this teams REALLY wants to win the game, they REALLY need to start getting some points on the board... "


Thank you John Madden!

tenpoundsofcheese: Since right now the top 1% make 17% of the income. The top 5% make 32%


Actually the disparity between the graph on the right is a far bigger problem

fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net
 
2012-08-22 07:06:41 PM  

Isitoveryet: Virulency: theknuckler_33: tax cuts for job creators, of course.

even better lets just hand them money, so it overflows faster!

maybe if we created a liquid currency that would help.


0.tqn.com
 
2012-08-22 07:07:47 PM  

LasersHurt: Dude 10lbs, I have you on ignore. I can see that you keep replying to me, and that's nice


Well, it looks like your ignore button is not working if you can see my replies.
You may want to check that out.

Sorry that you are too afraid to read different viewpoints.
 
2012-08-22 07:07:50 PM  

WhyteRaven74: relcec: it is the only way left to lower wage costs.

Perhaps we should be getting on people for doing that.



I'm glad we agree on something. we ought to roll the business owners/managers up in a carpet and throw them in a river.
 
2012-08-22 07:08:44 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Gonad the Ballbarian: "You know what John, if this teams REALLY wants to win the game, they REALLY need to start getting some points on the board... "

Thank you John Madden!

tenpoundsofcheese: Since right now the top 1% make 17% of the income. The top 5% make 32%

Actually the disparity between the graph on the right is a far bigger problem

[fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net image 720x540]


show it in dollars, not percentages
It tells a very different story when you do.
 
Displayed 50 of 109 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report