Of course I do, I pay for it already whether I support it or not.
I don't however rely on the state refusing to work.
Of course I do, I pay for it already whether I support it or not.
I don't however rely on the state refusing to work.
Randy boy, there is a serious lack of jobs in this country right now. Even Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, etc... are not looking for more employees.Originally Posted by RandBlade
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
So if people stopped being picky about what job they took the net unemployment rate would fall to 7 mn people, or 5%. Even without the knock-on effects of having 5mn more employed that would imply I'm right, would it not
Thats because you can't define it on your terms.Minimum wage is a not a living wage. Even if someone managed to land a single part time job at minimum wage (your unemployment is still 10%), it doesn't cover the mortage and living necessities of even the most dilapidated housing in Florida. How long you expect someone to be able to keep even a part time job after they have their house taken out from under them?
Geegee just said there are 5 million jobs out there, lets get go pounding them.
Again, better some income than no income.
The number of new entrants to the workforce are of course ignored by someone trying to salvage their rediculous argument.So if people stopped being picky about what job they took the net unemployment rate would fall to 7 mn people, or 5%. Even without the knock-on effects of having 5mn more employed that would imply I'm right, would it not
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
There's also a serious shift in attrition. People aren't retiring at 65 any more, they know their retirement is tanked, will probably have to work until they drop dead. There weren't any new jobs "created" until recently Rand, and even that was pathetic. The unemployment rate for people age 25 and under is ~ 25%, even college grads can't find a job BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY.
Longer than if they were too lazy to get a job in the first place.Thats because you can't define it on your terms.
I'm not in Florida but just searched for property in Tampa, Florida and was able to find 2 bedroom apartments and condo rentals starting at $450/month - sound fair?
Minimum wage is $7.25/month
So 2 incomes for 40hours a week at just the minimum wage is $2513/month.
Of course there are other expenses to pay for, not just rent, but 2 full time incomes on just the minimum wage equates to having more than $2k minus tax per month after rent.
Of course people may be part-time. 2 incomes, part-time at say just 16 hours/week each is $1005/month.
....that's why a couple would walk away from a mortgage of $1,000/month to rent a condo for $450/month.
Some people in the hardest hit areas can end up defaulting on their loan, and turn around to rent the same property for half the amount, now owned by the bank.
This is related to unemployment, but it's not ALL about unemployment. It's about inflated prices that deflated, and people saying to hell with their credit history or FICO score, and making strategic defaults. It's a mess.
If the couple can do it, and the bank are willing to loan it out for $450/month, let them. Let the bank foreclose and loan it out.
There is no reason for the state to pay off their loan.
There was a bubble, let it burst. Let the banks get burnt and learn their lessons.
I like how you try to tie full time with minimum wage pay, as if that actually exists. Nobody hires full time entry level help, not even your walmart and home depot examples. You also won't find a rental property that will rent a 2 bedroom place to two random people (why would we be talking about couples again?) bringing in only $1005 a month. The rule is, and always has been, that rent can only be 30% of your income. You're pushing 50%
The banks aren't doing this of their own accord. The gummint threw them some stimulus money to "rework" some loans and avoid foreclosure.
I know! It's horrible when academic elitists with their heads up their asses screw over the little guy by opposing such vital do-nothing pork projects.
Same reason it pumped up the bubble in the first place, I suspect - a sociopathic desire to be re-elected, no matter the cost.
Because foreclosures result when there aren't enough people who can afford a house... so with no one to take care of it for years, it deteriorates. And property values being what they are, that sets up a self-reinforcing death spiral, particularly if the neighboring lots are also going through the same thing. This ain't Europe where you've got more people than space - it's the other way around on this continent.
The problem is that there aren't enough buyers to auction the house to (in terms of potential residents), unless the bank's willing to take 5 cents on the dollar or so. And really, who wants to live in an abandoned neighborhood or a neighborhood full of poor folks who can only afford to spend 15 grand on a house? It's like the ghetto, now conveniently located in suburbia.
So... yeah, that's why that won't work. If there was anyone [more viable than the current deadbeat residents] to auction the house to, they'd have done it by now.Basically that means the government is still propping up banks that don't want to write down their losses. If there would be any sense in the system then AT LEAST they should oblige banks to demolish houses they foreclose on. At least that way a foreclosed neighbour doesn't necessarily drag down the value of your house. Nor does it force the banks to declare more of their mortgages to be under water. It could even result in a situation where people buy up the empty plots to enlarge their gardens. That wouldn't hurt a lot of those neighbourhoods with their too big houses on too small plots.
I've been fascinated with that Detroit demolition plan. It seems like sound thinking, too bad it took them so long to realise.
Congratulations America
Oh really? Plenty of people do and if you're only doing just 2 shifts a week, then you can get a second job doing 3.
Using your 30% example 2 people on the minimum wage could afford it if they both just worked 23 hours per week on minimum wage. Tell me why that isn't possible please.You also won't find a rental property that will rent a 2 bedroom place to two random people (why would we be talking about couples again?
Sounds like minimum wage easily surpasses "living wage" levels, unless you think people should be able to "live" off working 1 day a week.
No idea what you mean by shifts, but part time here tops out at 19 hours, so you're not going to get a regular 23 hours. After that you start to become eligible for benefits. Which is why companies do not hire full time at minimum wage. They hire part time, because its cheaper, and thanks to record pushing unemployment, they can get away with it. Now 1 job isn't enough, so you expect these people to pick up 2 jobs. Still lose their house, and get an apartment with a shot to hell credit rating. How does that 2nd job fit into your 5 million open jobs for 12 million people, or are you figuring how your 10% unemployment works againist people seeking a 2nd job? The few companies that are hiring would rather hire someone without a job already because that gives the employer more room to dictate which hours to work.
I'll still waiting for you to start putting all your stipulations into one clear thought and see how it doesn't work.
So are you telling me that there are no people out there with 2 jobs? I don't believe it.
The 5 million jobs for 12 million people was a remark and not a major point - because my major point was dismissing the nonsense of a 20% figure, the point was that massaging the figures you could also make it 5%. I'm happy to use the standard figure, which is 9.5%
My main point made time and again is that the state should not be paying people's mortgages just because they're unemployed. If the banks don't want to foreclose its pointless, if they do then that is what should happen. Either way its just bailing out irresponsible people and irresponsible banks, while keeping housing artificially high. I would not care if house prices across the board were to drop by 90%
I'm telling you that the people who are currently looking are having a hard enough time finding 1 part time high schooler level job. Much less two. On top of you telling them to move into an unknown area of unknown hiring prospects.
Source?
The only anecdotal evidence which spinned to this discussion was of someone emailing their CV and "waiting" - which is not how you look for a job like that. So you have any source that people actually trying to look for a job like that are struggling to.
The weekly job hunting classes I teach?
Brandy's job, and how they are dealing with the new hours and hiring guidelines? (20% of the workforce at TJX is being knocked down to parttime, and new hires have to be open to work all hours [leagl way of saying no 2nd job]).
Or the insane 100% increase between your beloved U3 and the more clear U5/U6 unemployment stats, where you're trying to tell me that 1 out of every 10 people is a chosen bum. The problem is that while U5/U6 includes people who have been out of work for an extended period (which you appear to despise), they do include workers who do not make enough to survive, which is very much important to this discussion; because even when you tried to challenge it with controlled rent and set hours, you failed.
The fact 1 company says open to work all hours does not mean all do. Most businesses aren't even open 24/7
I never said 1 out of 10 people is a chosen bum. Those who rely on state benefits and have no desire to get off their arse and get a job are.
I never failed. Minimum wage is more than plenty for a living wage, if you work a serious number of hours. If you're so-called "job" is to do 2 hours a week you'd never be able to survive. No shit sherlock. In which case get supplementary hours elsewhere. If you're genuinely working a serious number of hours then the minimum wage is plenty for "living".
The US is a big place Rand, with a lot of different labor markets. It's not all that easy to transfer labor across 3000 miles, so why don't you drop the 100% efficiency pretense. The unemployment rate in California is higher than the national "average," and there are a number of places within California which are near or past 20% unemployment. U3, not U5 or U6. I'm in one of them, apparently so is Being.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I was showing how the trend was spreadingThe fact 1 company says open to work all hours does not mean all do. Most businesses aren't even open 24/7
1 in 10 is the difference between the U3 and the U6, the bums in your eyes.I never said 1 out of 10 people is a chosen bum. Those who rely on state benefits and have no desire to get off their arse and get a job are.
You created ideal work and living arrangements, of earning $1005 a month and only paying $450 in rent. While you still have troubling understanding how "on paper" isn't real life, your ideal arrangement FAILed, because no one would rent a $450 apartment to someone making a grand a month. Your "pulled this out of my ass" scenario failed because you have no idea how real life works for those earning less than you, or how life and the economy is different in other countries, or from county to county.I never failed. Minimum wage is more than plenty for a living wage, if you work a serious number of hours.
You want to create these magic number of work hours on minimum wage, and businesses simply don't do that. They hire bone crews now, and they push them to 19 hours a week averaged over the month. You can't randomly decide, "hey I should work 23 hours this week," and we already covered how your bandaid of "get a second job" is bullshit.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 05-17-2010 at 08:03 PM.
Sounds like a pretty grim story to me. I didn't know it was quite that bad in the US.
Congratulations America
Seriously?That would be horrible.
I am very much against government bailout of individuals' mortgages.
I'd also like to see the lending banks fail, but there are some problems there. First, in almost all cases the original lender who assessed the risk then sold the mortgage to somebody else, so it's the "somebody else" who bought the mortgage without being able to assess its risk who takes the hit. Second, many who accumulated huge numbers of such mortgages are in the "too big to fail" category, and thus we can't allow them to fail because it might disrupt the entire system. I'd love to see them pay for it, but we can't.
Too bad we deregulated banking so we have "too big to fail" entities. That's a no-no.
Yeah for those who aren't defaulting yet it would be. Hence my insistence on demanding that banks actually demolish buildings they have foreclosed on.Seriously?
Congratulations America
We talked about that option what, a couple of years ago now Hazir? They should've listened to us.
No, it's status-quo, at best. It's potentially extending the bubble and might be throwing good money after bad too, so it's definitely got a sharp downside, and is ultimately probably not smart from a macro-economic risk/reward standpoint. At best it's a highly marginal play, but more likely it's a losing play, and potentially disastrously so.
Maybe. Then again, homeless folks pay very little in taxes, so there is some incentive to keep more [currently] tax-paying citizens from joining the homeless ranks.
And frankly, as far as "wastes of tax dollars" go, this is a pretty weak example, given the tens of trillions of dollars in public debt in this country, and things like OG's library just buying a fucking Wii and video games. <sigh> Oh, right, and the multi-trillion dollar health care liability the federal government's just agreed to create. In that context, a few billion to keep people from losing their homes neither concerns me, nor even really registers.
Right, that's the problem. ~30 million unemployed people in this country, and the actual problem is that they're lazy bums who won't get a job. Reality calling Randblade...
And what the hell deranged spirit are you channeling to come to that conclusion... the same one feeding you the rest of your economic data, perhaps?
Well, no offense, but maybe you should stick to talking about topics you know anything about. "Uptight" has nothing to do with it (and how the hell *could* it, for that matter?), it's simply reality in the techie world... and made even more the case by this lousy economy.
Seriously? So, like my dad, who has almost 3 decades of experience in his career field, should start looking for entry level work in other areas where he has no abilities or certifications, and has to compete with every jobless college-grad (U3 rate: >25%) for a job which might (maybe) almost cover his expenses, but cost him his UI and the opportunity cost of not being able to entertain other (meaningful, in-field) employment offers?
Brilliant, truly.
And lose UI benefits, and the ability to find other work for a paycheck which [post-tax] probably won't be any greater than your UI benefits in the first place? Jesus, where did you study finance?
Not to mention, as OG pointed out, that actually, no - even McDonald's and WalMart aren't really hiring at the moment - meaning they'll insta-screen out a vastly over-qualified candidate who's only going to be there a few months to make ends meet. You're a manager, you know this, right? Don't hire people who won't be around long enough to recoup training and related costs.
Not to be rude or anything, but I have no sympathy for someone who doesn't even have the basic common sense to figure out when something's a complete wasted effort. "If you don't have enough money, you should out digging in the forest for buried pirate treasure instead of wasting time on sleep!!!"
And nice attempt to dodge the fact that the government definition of "looking for work" rarely matches the actual definition... but whatever. That's really the least of your problems here.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
It's a lot worse than that, last I read. Thing I was read was saying that even at pre-"Great Recession" job creation levels, it would take almost ten years to get back to the employment levels we had. (In an article about why/how we aren't actually experiencing a recovery, despite what the White House says.... or at least we better hope we're not.)
Right, and after deductions and taxation, they'll take home about $1400 a month. Oh yeah, I remember my minimum wage job. Have my first pay stub around here somewhere, in fact. A couple minimum wage jobs *might* constitute a living wage if the government didn't keep 30-40% of that check from you, which means that this only theoretically helps couples... but in reality, doesn't actually help anyone.
Dude, that's even *worse* for property values. Better an empty, "For Sale" house than a demolished house/empty lot.
Not to mention that you're just destroying wealth (and economic value) that way. It's a horrible, horrible, horrible idea.
OK, you've clearly never been this side of the pond, if you're suggesting that as a viable option and not for absurdity and humor value. I can see how it might work in Europe, where a lot of your houses have 50 square feet of "garden" (we call them "yards" over here, FWIW), but no one wants an extra 10,000 sq feet of yard to mow. Frankly, I don't even want the couple thousand square feet of yard I have now, but I'm stuck with it until I come up with 5 figures to blow on "landscaping" my lot into a rock garden/pool deal to get rid of all the fucking grass. God, I hate fucking grass. God damn rich Scottish asshole who created this shitty American trend.
Right, but it only really works when the *whole* neighborhood is abandoned. It's just stupid to try when it's 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 homes.
FYI, here's a driveby video of one of the Detroit neighborhoods where the demolition project works - it's not really applicable outside of a scenario where the whole freaking neighborhood's gone/imploded/whatever. An unusual response to an unusual situation.
Good idea. 20% unemployment, so let's make some banks fail and add to that number!
What the hell?
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Why?Seriously?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
