Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Either she's shoveling horse manure even she doesn't believe or the woman has lost her marbles:

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/pelosi-unemployment-checks-best-way-create-jobs/

Fox News wrote:
Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. Talking to reporters, the House speaker was defending a jobless benefits extension against those who say it gives recipients little incentive to work. By her reasoning, those checks are helping give somebody a job.

"It injects demand into the economy," Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."

Pelosi said the aid has the "double benefit" of helping those who lost their jobs and acting as a "job creator" on the side. "It's impossible to think of a situation where we would have a country that would say we're not going to have unemployment benefits," Pelosi said. Democrats have been trying for more than a month to pass a bill extending jobless benefits to more than 1 million people. Currently, jobless benefits last nearly two years -- up to 26 weeks paid by state treasuries with federal help for up to an additional 73 weeks.

Of course, those workers could be sending a lot more money into the economy if they had jobs since unemployment benefits generally do not cover the entire cost of lost wages.

The counterintuitive statement drew jeers from Republicans, who claim Democrats can't figure out any way to tackle the economic slump that doesn't involve spending massive amounts of taxpayer money. "No plan to create jobs -- just more stimulus spending," House Republican Leader John Boehner said at a dueling press conference.

Despite the wave of unemployment aid and stimulus spending dating back to the end of the Bush administration, the jobless rate is still hovering close to 10 percent. New figures out Thursday showed new jobless benefits claims rising for the second time in three weeks. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., on Thursday called the newest extension plan "fiscal insanity" because it is not paid for and will only create future problems. "I support, and Republicans have supported, extending unemployment benefits, but we must not do so at a cost to the deficit, to the economy and to future generations. Our inability to get our fiscal house in order isn't just damaging future generations; it is wreaking havoc on jobs today," he said in a statement.

Pelosi criticized Republicans Thursday, saying she's still optimistic the bill will pass though it failed again in the Senate Wednesday night.

Functionally there is little difference between paying out benefits to unemployed and paying out tax rebates to employed.

The main difference is that the employed are more likely to save rather than spend the cash.

She's what we like to call "guilt free of economic training."

IM not sure wich is worse this or the senator who said benefits create unemployment.

Unemployment benefits are always about balancing the fact that they dissuade people from actively seeking employment against the fact that they enable people to seek employment by providing for food, rent, transportation, etc.

Pelosi is sort of right in that unemployment benefits place money in the hands of consumers, and therefore 'create' demand; though its certainly better to say that they only work to mitigate any decrease in demand. Given the latter, the idea that unemployment creates jobs is nonsense. It may prevent some jobs from being lost by keeping demand from falling as far as it otherwise might, but that's it.

The counterpoint is obviously that unemployment benefits only serve to extend the time people spend between jobs; thereby artificially decreasing the rate at which job creation can occur by preventing demand from remaining at its optimal level.

dogma wrote:Unemployment benefits are always about balancing the fact that they dissuade people from actively seeking employment against the fact that they enable people to seek employment by providing for food, rent, transportation, etc.

Pelosi is sort of right in that unemployment benefits place money in the hands of consumers, and therefore 'create' demand; though its certainly better to say that they only work to mitigate any decrease in demand. Given the latter, the idea that unemployment creates jobs is nonsense. It may prevent some jobs from being lost by keeping demand from falling as far as it otherwise might, but that's it.

The counterpoint is obviously that unemployment benefits only serve to extend the time people spend between jobs; thereby artificially decreasing the rate at which job creation can occur by preventing demand from remaining at its optimal level.

Not really, stimulus spending will increase demand in any situation where you're not at full capacity, and that's only at the peak of the cycle.

Ultimately Pelosi's comment makes perfect sense. It will allow people who've lost their jobs due to the poor economy to keep eating, and the money they spend will develop economic activity, which will maintain jobs. It isn't rocket science, and it's a sign how intentionally stupid the GOP noise machine has become that they're trying to pretend otherwise.

There is an extremely stupid comment in that article, from "No plan to create jobs -- just more stimulus spending" from Minority House Leader Boehner. It's the equivalent of saying 'there's no plan to score points, just a plan to score touchdowns'. FOX accepted that drivel at face value though... not sure why.

sebster wrote:FOX accepted that drivel at face value though... not sure why.

...Nah, too easy.

I don't see how it is at all "counter-intuitive" as fox news claims. If you don't have cold cash to spend on transportation, childcare, and the other things we take for granted, you're going to have a very difficult time finding employment.

Furthermore, it is hard to argue with the premise that if consumers have money, regardless of where it comes from, there is going to be more people spending money.

This isn't the case of handing money out to people who wont work. Potential earners aren't getting jobs, and they are trying.

It is counter-intuitive to the right-wing world-view.

Yeah well so am I. The town I live in has a pizza place, a truck stop, and a bar. If you don't work at one of those places you are driving a half hour just to try to find a job, often at places that simply aren't hiring anyways because anyone lucky enough to get in the door is sure as heck not going to quit. I have never recieved an unemployment check in my life but there's some times where it shure would have been easier to go job hunting every day if I had a place to wash up and change my clothes instead of job hunting in the clothes I slept in.

It does stimulate economies in towns like this, perhaps not in big cities, but around here, there just aren't any jobs. Plants closed, the auto industry caved, people who thought they had job security and had made a home for their families suddenly find themselves laid off and unable to make their car payments or mortgages.

There's about 800 people living in this town and there's about 20 jobs. If nobody has an income, but they are still expected to pay sales tax and property tax, why is that tax money not supposed to go towards relief. We pay in when we have it but we don't get back when we need it? That's kind of bs.

Contrary to fox news republican biased propeganda, most people who are unemployed would love to have a job. There a few bad apples I've met that just work long enough, then quit and live off of unemployment for 6 months, but they are a minority... as are welfare queens who rape the system. But I have known many homeless people who would gladly shovel horse manure for 5 bucks.

Unemployment at 10% is hardly an accurate number either, the actual number is far greater. There's people who have work 1 hour a week who are technically 'employed' as long as they claim it on their taxes (which they don't) there are the homeless who don't have any way to get a job let alone get to work, and don't show up in the numbers, there's the legitimately injured people incapable of working but who don't want to sue their bosses because they hope to get their job back when they heal. A LOT of people don't get added to that statistic, but I can tell you, around here its probably more like 80% of the population doesn't have a job because there's no job to be had. That's not laziness or lack of skills necessarily as republican hardliners make it out to be, thats just a lack of demand. Most of downtown is boarded up and out of business (Detroit is nearby and ALL of downtown is boarded up and out of business for the most part)

Some are retired and live off of a pension or SSI, some get unemployment, and a scant few work at the bar or the truck stop. What will these people do without an income? forclose the whole town and go marching on the trail of tears with whatever they can carry to the next town over that's just as fethed as this one?

While some do milk the system like loser slackers, I think most people who don't have jobs would love to have the means to get one. I believe that is what her point was, otherwise they spiral downwards until they are living in the bushes and have lost all of their posessions they once had, just because the auto plant closed, etc.

Creating demand for products does not create jobs, its just not that easy. A McDonalds that turns out 200 burgers with a 10 person crew will still turn out 300 burgers with the same crew. Demand for products that are already at glut levels in the market will not create jobs until the excess is mostly gone. Look at the housing market.... Way more houses are on the market so demand for new construction is down. An extension of unemployment is not going to fix that.
Certain industries are working at capacity, namely those relating to food. They are not losing jobs but there is also no room for jobs to open.

helgrenze wrote:Creating demand for products does not create jobs, its just not that easy. A McDonalds that turns out 200 burgers with a 10 person crew will still turn out 300 burgers with the same crew. Demand for products that are already at glut levels in the market will not create jobs until the excess is mostly gone. Look at the housing market.... Way more houses are on the market so demand for new construction is down. An extension of unemployment is not going to fix that.
Certain industries are working at capacity, namely those relating to food. They are not losing jobs but there is also no room for jobs to open.

I don't think people on unemployment are getting homes. I think the argument is that they're going to have to purchase basic needs, which in and of itself requires workers to create those basic needs, furthermore, you're going to have to give people the ability to survive until they find a job.

The thing I hate about politicians (especially Pelosi) is that they are locked in an eternal battle for brownie points with the public.

I am quite sure she is only fixated on a report that indicates that unemployment benefits are a good thing. She grabs that and runs with it.

But of course you don't want a leading member of the political community going out to a podium and spouting bad things. Those kind of granstanding bad messages tend to send things sliding off into anarchy and chaos (relative to normal American stability).

Grignard wrote:I don't think people on unemployment are getting homes. I think the argument is that they're going to have to purchase basic needs, which in and of itself requires workers to create those basic needs, furthermore, you're going to have to give people the ability to survive until they find a job.

Which is fine, and I fully support.
BUT! The idea that a sector that is already employed to capacity is magically going to have new jobs available is fantasy. Look at what sectors have lost the most jobs in the ...last 10 years. Manufaturing and Construction. Creating demand for "basic needs" is not going to reopen closed auto plants or create construction jobs.
With this nations infrastructure suffering at least one major catastrophic failure a year, you would think that the Government would be throwing money into projects that address the infrastructure instead of shoring up privately owned banks. How about mobalizing the unemployed workforce in and around Detroit to fix roads, bridges, and ports in Michagan?
Or is that just not "economically vaible?"

No that's because nobody sane would voluntarity move to Detroit any more. Besides, Detroit didn't get hit by Katrina and win the superbowl either, they deserve no help. Next time get a better football team or piss off god, instead of car companies...

If unemployment is cut in areas where plants are closing due to economic powers beyond the control of the locals, and that is their version of a disaster... it seems to me that we should just cut off Katrina victims, 9/11 victims, and so on from their disaster relief. I knew a Katrina victim. Worst manager I had ever seen at my stupid restaurant job. The restaurant got a hand out from the government for agreeing to take her on. All she had ever done was make fries at burger king but she got relocated, housed, and handed a cush job she couldn't do on a platter. How is unemployment not also a 'disaster' to the communities it effects, is what I don't understand.

Guitardian wrote:No that's because nobody sane would voluntarity move to Detroit any more. Besides, Detroit didn't get hit by Katrina and win the superbowl either, they deserve no help. Next time get a better football team or piss off god, instead of car companies...

If unemployment is cut in areas where plants are closing due to economic powers beyond the control of the locals, and that is their version of a disaster... it seems to me that we should just cut off Katrina victims, 9/11 victims, and so on from their disaster relief. I knew a Katrina victim. Worst manager I had ever seen at my stupid restaurant job. The restaurant got a hand out from the government for agreeing to take her on. All she had ever done was make fries at burger king but she got relocated, housed, and handed a cush job she couldn't do on a platter. How is unemployment not also a 'disaster' to the communities it effects, is what I don't understand.

From the rest of your post I'm going to take the first paragraph as sarcasm.

I agree that unemployment can be as much as disaster as anything. The two modes of employment, outside of a few small businesses, in the town where my ex fiance lived there were basically two modes of employment, retirement or methamphetamine synthesis. This is the result of the only large employers pretty much just taking off and leaving.

I don't think someone should be "unfireable" no matter what their circumstances. In other words, I think you have a point, but your tone leaves much to be desired. You can't understand losing your home or being displaced until you are in that situation. I know it probably isn't what you meant, but you came off as an incredibly self-centered idiot there.

Tone has as much to do with what you say as what you're actually saying.

helgrenze wrote:Creating demand for products does not create jobs, its just not that easy.

No, it really is that easy. Any increase in an input will increase aggregate demand, and increasing aggregate demand will increase jobs. Unless you can establish that all welfare cheques are spent at restaurants that are operating with surplus labour, which would probably win you a Nobel prize.

You're right that not every dollar spent will lead to new jobs, some portion of spending will go towards companies with surplus capacity. More still will be saved (or in the case of welfare it's more likely to replace debt financed consumption). As such, it's true that not every dollar of spending will be equal, certain kinds of stimulus will work better than others. Typically infrastructure spending is the most effective, tax cuts the least effective, but this is situational and contentious.

But all of that is a mile away from the claim made by the Boehner in the above article, that stimulus spending does not create jobs at all. That's simply a ridiculous thing to hear from someone at that level of government. Probably about as ridiculous as the FOX line in the article that welfare payments won't stimulate jobs.

It depends on what is being stimulated. How many jobs were created by this latest bank bailout?
This isn't a situation where throwing Big money at big problems makes better.. that is Reaganomics/trickle-down theory. The current situation needs a different approach.
Like having the National DoT create a list for each state for infrastructure repair. With the resourses of the FAA, FTA, FRA, MARAD, NHTSA and OIG, they should already have a list of what needs fixing or replacing. Then its just a matter of funding and .. HIRING people.
Wow, look at that I just created theoretical jobs for who knows how many.

sebster wrote:
Not really, stimulus spending will increase demand in any situation where you're not at full capacity, and that's only at the peak of the cycle.

Unemployment, at least in the US, has the additional effect of extending the average period that people remain unemployed. There have been quite a few studies which have supported, though not proven, this effect. Now, these studies were conducted during the 90's when we had very near what I would consider peak employment, as 5% has been the nominal rate of unemployment for the majority of recent US history.

The current circumstances are not necessarily comparable. The aforementioned studies essentially concluded that unemployment benefits permitted the unemployed to exercise choice in their job search, and therefore often encourage holding out for better positions. Given the current job market, I doubt that there are many people remaining unemployed by choice. Individuals who have a proven desire to work do not live on less than they are accustomed to for long; especially when given the opportunity to improve their relative standing. As such, the extension of unemployment benefits while at 10% unemployment makes perfect sense.

sebster wrote:
Ultimately Pelosi's comment makes perfect sense. It will allow people who've lost their jobs due to the poor economy to keep eating, and the money they spend will develop economic activity, which will maintain jobs.

We're on the same page then, I was only trying to acknowledge the fact that people living on temporary, subsistence wages aren't likely to spend at the same rate, or on the same things, as people who are employed.

helgrenze wrote:
Like having the National DoT create a list for each state for infrastructure repair. With the resourses of the FAA, FTA, FRA, MARAD, NHTSA and OIG, they should already have a list of what needs fixing or replacing. Then its just a matter of funding and .. HIRING people.
Wow, look at that I just created theoretical jobs for who knows how many.

Highway infrastructure investment $26,725,000,000
Highway infrastructure investment in Puerto Rico $105,000,000
Highway infrastructure funds distributed by states $60,000,000
Highway infrastructure funds for the Indian Reservation Roads program $550,000,000
Highway infrastructure funds for surface transportation technology training $20,000,000
Highway infrastructure to fund oversight and management of projects $40,000,000

Source, and that's just the infrastructural funding related to highways.

You can argue that it wasn't big enough, you can't argue that it wasn't done.

True but I know that a large portion of the money being spent in North Carolina is being used to expand an access road in the "Global Transpark" while other roads and highways are not being fixed let alone improved.
The money has little oversight after it is dispersed to the states, so little pet projects like a freight based airport which is not really well located for highway or rail access get the attention. Meanwhile, bridges that should be replaced are left to corrode and collapse. Also, the project that are being worked are only done by state crews that, due to various overtime rules and generous deadlines, have no interest in hiring additional personel.

helgrenze wrote:True but I know that a large portion of the money being spent in North Carolina is being used to expand an access road in the "Global Transpark" while other roads and highways are not being fixed let alone improved.
The money has little oversight after it is dispersed to the states, so little pet projects like a freight based airport which is not really well located for highway or rail access get the attention. Meanwhile, bridges that should be replaced are left to corrode and collapse. Also, the project that are being worked are only done by state crews that, due to various overtime rules and generous deadlines, have no interest in hiring additional personel.

Sounds like you need a new state if the money isn't getting distributed to counties correctly. Write a letter to your governor.

I already moved, and the Governer in NC is just another politian on that bandwagon. That road project was her idea.

OTOH, a lack of food money is a pretty darn good incentive to get a job...

OTOOH Lack of jobs to be had is a pretty good incentive to get food stamps. I don't need them but I know many folks who rely on them, not out of laziness but out of need. Take that away and you will have a lot of hungry people looting and pilliaging and rioting. Nothing causes a good ol' fashioned riot like hunger combined with desperation. "Take away our benefits and we will loot your fridge for your caviar or maybe eat your soft, well-fed fat ass too" is the general idea from the have-nots to the have's when hunger becomes a problem.

A lack of actual jobs or a lack of entitled jobs...

What are entitled jobs?

All i can say is the unemployment rate where i live is still high, now it has dropped a little bit but last summer we had one of the highest unemployment rates in the state between 30 to 40 percent, i live in Ill. enough said gotta love our governors, I have alot of family that work for the UAW they could even help. One company here closed doors, turned around sold it and reopened. but heres the bad part they stole everybodys pensions, the compensted them with 500$, pennies compared to the money they invested in there pensions several of my family members had 30 yrs. plus invested in that company. I dont know what say about that but its sure as hell wrong. you be in your 50s and have some dam corporation steal your pension and see how you feel.

Either she's shoveling horse manure even she doesn't believe or the woman has lost her marbles:

Both?

Now back to the subject, i know alot of people who are trying to find work, but like Guitardian, most people have to drive over 30 miles one to work and for 10$$ an hour. its not enough with gas being almost 3$$ a gallon plus your standerd livin costs.Im lucky though i got laid off but i went to work for the state as a self employed private nurse. But i take care of terminally ill people as a nursing aid. but i i ready had the schooling for that. alot of them people especially didnt have no other jobs skills so they want to work but cant find work. theyrely on them cheks to feed and shelter their families,heck its so bad that grown men are in copetion with the hs kids to work at fast food places and they are usually discrimnated agaist because of thier age. give them the money its not like all of them are lazy. the money goes rite back into the local econmy. so their is no real loss. It just stinks to see somebody who worked for a long time and nenver had a government hand out taking them. who has pride and wants to work but cant because theirs no job for them. Its time for a change.

col. krazy kenny wrote: Its time for a change.

Isn't this what Obama promised?

Ok just because some-one has to be the "bad guy" and say it.....
The main area that is in real dire straights for job in this country is manufacturing. With Union wages draining the working capitol of the industry plants are closing and jobs are lost over seas. This is primarily due to the Unions failure to adapt to the changing demands of a global market. They do not function competitivly with foreign manufacturers. The UAW actually refused to take an across the board paycut in order to save plants that built Pontiacs. Which wound up costing jobs which have not been recovered yet.
American Unions have stagnanted and have shown little growth over the last 20 years, mainly due to loss of jobs in the sectors where they hold sway.
Not saying Unions are all bad, but they need to change and adapt to the global economy to be competitive with other manufacturers around the world.