Every $ spent on Unemployment benefits generates $1.42-1.90 in new economic demand!!!

Quote from S2007S:

I don't know the exact numbers of those on unemployment who were making more than unemployment is paying them now but it seems those people collecting unemployment are probably making more than they would if they went out to get a job paying $400 or $700 a week.


Think about it. A person was making 75k now unemployed collecting say $450 a week.

That person after taxes probably came home with $900-$1000 a week is now collecting the most they can from unemployment which will make approx $450.

Now this person is struggling to find a job paying a minimum of at least 55k to keep up with his lifestyle, but cant and has to opt into accepting jobs paying anywhere between 25k and 45k, now why would this person who is making $450 a week want to go out and get a job getting 45k, after taxes and all other things that come with it there coming home with $600-$650 a week. That person knows they can do nothing and still receive $450 a week.

Not only that but most people looking for jobs now are of course "OVERQUALIFIED" who would ever think in our system we would ever here that word, overqualified to work as an assistant manager in a clothing store like the gap or cheesecake factory.

Seems the millions of jobs the economy lost over the last 2 years were jobs with that "special title", the jobs with titles that made those making $75k $100k and even $300k feel good about themselves, that they meant something to this economy and the company they worked for, well fast forward to today and you can see titles and the company you work for dont mean as much as they used just 10 or 20 years ago. Its a different playing field today. Those millions of jobs with those special titles are never coming back ever again!!!!
More...

Alot of glorified type positions have been lost, that's for certain.

I view the "overqualified" tag with a different angle. How exactly do you motivate a person to work for perhaps 1/3rd of what they used to make in a position where they might be the most educated and eldest of the group? How would their co-workers relate to them as well?

The type of person that would normally fill that position is aspiring upwards the corporate chain...so why would you ever want to fill that position with someone falling down the ladder? It could potentially kill employee morale and is too big a risk, especially when you have thousands of college graduates flooding the job market every year.
 
Quote from EMRGLOBAL:

Heck, why not just have Uncle Sam send us a check every day for a grand? Nobody would have to work and we'd all be rich! Yay!

_______________________________________________________

Nope, most will be brought down to the poverty level. Keep it up Uncle Sam. Your on the road to take 90% of the Americans in the middle class down in to the depths of hell....POVERTY.

Hey Middle Class who voted for the Progressives....I hope is a short road for you!
More...



There are already 45 million people in Poverty in the united states, I hope it doesn't get any worse than this.
 
Quote from MKTrader:

I vote schizo. Kind of like his permabear/permabull switches on stocks.
More...


Im a permabear as I have said many times, when I say markets are going higher and are giving out risk free returns Im saying this all sarcastically.
 
In all your research where did you see a study that demonstrated the existence of a money multiplier? It's a convenient notion so long as you don' think too much, but I have never seen any study that can demonstrate that there is such a thing.

If you think about it, you must realize that the money used to pay UE has to be raised from production, the employed. It either comes from tax on current production or it comes from debt, which (unless the plan is to default) must come from future production, future tax on the employed. The funds come from the surplus of production, the profit, that is available for reinvestment or new investment. The reality of tax on producers to pay non-producers is a reduction of capital to invest, a reduction of investment in asset creation or asset maintenance.

Wealth is not a product of spending. There is no economic perpetual motion machine, no fly-wheel that operates by spending to create economic demand energy...its a flat eath delusion. There is a difference between spending and investment, aka wealth creation, aka growth. 'Spending' is the use of production surplus to consume. Spending does not produce future income that can pay back the debt used to subsidize it. Investing is the maintenance and creation of assets that can pay back the surplus of production or the debt used to fund it. When aggregate asset value expands in real terms you are getting wealthier and when it contracts you are getting poorer. The idea that taxing investment to divert present or future capital to spending by the unemployed can make the economy grow and create wealth is a popular delusion, and it is obviously stupid on its face. You can't jump start an economy by borrowing money to pay unemployed people so they can continue to buy beer and cheetos and maybe a financed flat screen made in China...that can only destroy present and future domestic production.
 
Quote from Ed Breen:

In all your research where did you see a study that demonstrated the existence of a money multiplier? It's a convenient notion so long as you don' think too much, but I have never seen any study that can demonstrate that there is such a thing.

If you think about it, you must realize that the money used to pay UE has to be raised from production, the employed. It either comes from tax on current production or it comes from debt, which (unless the plan is to default) must come from future production, future tax on the employed. The funds come from the surplus of production, the profit, that is available for reinvestment or new investment. The reality of tax on producers to pay non-producers is a reduction of capital to invest, a reduction of investment in asset creation or asset maintenance.

Wealth is not a product of spending. There is no economic perpetual motion machine, no fly-wheel that operates by spending to create economic demand energy...its a flat eath delusion. There is a difference between spending and investment, aka wealth creation, aka growth. 'Spending' is the use of production surplus to consume. Spending does not produce future income that can pay back the debt used to subsidize it. Investing is the maintenance and creation of assets that can pay back the surplus of production or the debt used to fund it. When aggregate asset value expands in real terms you are getting wealthier and when it contracts you are getting poorer. The idea that taxing investment to divert present or future capital to spending by the unemployed can make the economy grow and create wealth is a popular delusion, and it is obviously stupid on its face. You can't jump start an economy by borrowing money to pay unemployed people so they can continue to buy beer and cheetos and maybe a financed flat screen made in China...that can only destroy present and future domestic production.
More...

bravo - you said what I should have said when I stated CBO made this b.s. up out of thin air.

Especially when we know that the unemployed could find a job doing something... and that job might pay more than the UE benefit.
 
Quote from Ed Breen:

It either comes from tax on current production or it comes from debt, which (unless the plan is to default) must come from future production, future tax on the employed.
More...

Don't mean to be picky with only one aspect of your post, which I agree with completely. But for conversation. There is a third source. People's savings.. inflation. Assuming no raise of taxes on future workers, it is simply taken from those who have saved.
 
Illum, 'Savings' is investment. It is the investment of past production surplus...usually we think of it as investment in financial assets, but it could be invested real estate or other types of assets. "Inflation" is a form of sovereign default...it is the default of the Government on its promise to return like value for the non interest bearing debt we use as currency for exchange, money, our dollars. The effect of the insideous default of inflation is to reduce the value of savings in financial assets, to take from the investor, the 'creditor', and benefit the debtor, by making it possible to repay debt with devalued 'dollar' notes. The reaction to 'inflation default,' once it becomes the expectation, is to move capital from financial assets into durable tangible assets and to use increasing leverage in the process. The capital flow and the expanding credit formation, increasing leverage, increases the price of assets first and general prices thereafter. "Inflation" really is the accelerating flow of capital from financial assets into tangible assets. In contrast "deflation" is the flow of capital from tangible assets into short term financial assets, aka, money and money substitutes.

A particular problem with inflation that cannot be mitigated by COLAs is that the process acts as an automatic tax increase in a progressive tax system, so tax is never a neutral consideration. Even if wages try to keep up with COLA adjustments the tax increase and the time lag between adjustments lead to reduced real earnings. It also results in increased interest rates, variable interest rates and shorter term financing, as creditors try to adapt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top