OMG Valerie Jarrett: Unemployment Stimulates the Economy

[The Rabbi]

Like I said, you don't know anything about me, so the only thing you're doing is telling me is your status, not mine. And deflecting.

I will AGAIN try to ask you a question that requires a real human being to answer. But I will be more specific.

IF millions of people lose their jobs due to no fault of their own, and there is only 1 job opening for every 5 seeking employment, what would YOU do? Would you extend unemployment benefits under those circumstances? Yes or no?

I already amswered the question, numbnuts. Do you need someone to spell it out for you?

Yea Marie Antoinette, let them eat cake. Irony abounds here. You Monicas for the rich accuse liberals of envy. The truth is you low life subservient scum are envious of anyone getting something unless you are getting it too. You pieces of shit are envious of people getting unemployment. It really doesn't get any lower on the human scale than turds like you Rabbi.

It all goes back to when you were little and counted how many Christmas presents your cousins got, then threw a tantrum when one of them got one more than you.

Didn't like my answer? Or couldn't understand it?
Unemployment insuance keeps people unemployed longer. You want people to be unemployed and dependent on the gov't. I want people to work and be independent.
That is very simply the difference.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals: party of the first ever credit downgrade, lies, unemployment not seen since the FDR Depression and annual trillion deficits

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought trillion deficits would stimulate the economy?

What the fucking fuck?

Are you guys wrong in the trillions column...again?

 

[Bfgrn]

I already amswered the question, numbnuts. Do you need someone to spell it out for you?

Yea Marie Antoinette, let them eat cake. Irony abounds here. You Monicas for the rich accuse liberals of envy. The truth is you low life subservient scum are envious of anyone getting something unless you are getting it too. You pieces of shit are envious of people getting unemployment. It really doesn't get any lower on the human scale than turds like you Rabbi.

It all goes back to when you were little and counted how many Christmas presents your cousins got, then threw a tantrum when one of them got one more than you.

Didn't like my answer? Or couldn't understand it?
Unemployment insuance keeps people unemployed longer. You want people to be unemployed and dependent on the gov't. I want people to work and be independent.
That is very simply the difference.

No, I don't want people dependent on government, BUT, what part of there is 1 job for every 5 people unemployed don't you understand? The simple difference is you are a fucking moron who can't count.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yea Marie Antoinette, let them eat cake. Irony abounds here. You Monicas for the rich accuse liberals of envy. The truth is you low life subservient scum are envious of anyone getting something unless you are getting it too. You pieces of shit are envious of people getting unemployment. It really doesn't get any lower on the human scale than turds like you Rabbi.

It all goes back to when you were little and counted how many Christmas presents your cousins got, then threw a tantrum when one of them got one more than you.

Didn't like my answer? Or couldn't understand it?
Unemployment insuance keeps people unemployed longer. You want people to be unemployed and dependent on the gov't. I want people to work and be independent.
That is very simply the difference.

No, I don't want people dependent on government, BUT, what part of there is 1 job for every 5 people unemployed don't you understand? The simple difference is you are a fucking moron who can't count.

So maybe the focus should be on inspiring those with venture capital to start making jobs again so the other four will have one? Rather than continuing to find ways to pay people not to work?

 

[The T]

Didn't like my answer? Or couldn't understand it?
Unemployment insuance keeps people unemployed longer. You want people to be unemployed and dependent on the gov't. I want people to work and be independent.
That is very simply the difference.

No, I don't want people dependent on government, BUT, what part of there is 1 job for every 5 people unemployed don't you understand? The simple difference is you are a fucking moron who can't count.

So maybe the focus should be on inspiring those with venture capital to start making jobs again so the other four will have one? Rather than continuing to find ways to pay people not to work?

Part of Obama's and Statist plans...get as many onboard to government assistence...makes them more pliable to control. Rob them of thier dignity at all costs.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yea Marie Antoinette, let them eat cake. Irony abounds here. You Monicas for the rich accuse liberals of envy. The truth is you low life subservient scum are envious of anyone getting something unless you are getting it too. You pieces of shit are envious of people getting unemployment. It really doesn't get any lower on the human scale than turds like you Rabbi.

It all goes back to when you were little and counted how many Christmas presents your cousins got, then threw a tantrum when one of them got one more than you.

Didn't like my answer? Or couldn't understand it?
Unemployment insuance keeps people unemployed longer. You want people to be unemployed and dependent on the gov't. I want people to work and be independent.
That is very simply the difference.

No, I don't want people dependent on government, BUT, what part of there is 1 job for every 5 people unemployed don't you understand? The simple difference is you are a fucking moron who can't count.

Of course you want people dependent. The easiest way is to convince them they can't get a job because there is only 1 for every 5 people. That is nonsense. There are potentially an unlimited number of jobs as people become available at the right price.
That's your problem You don't understand the economy is dynamic and changes in response to conditions. Well, that and you're fucking stupid.

 

[Bfgrn]

Didn't like my answer? Or couldn't understand it?
Unemployment insuance keeps people unemployed longer. You want people to be unemployed and dependent on the gov't. I want people to work and be independent.
That is very simply the difference.

No, I don't want people dependent on government, BUT, what part of there is 1 job for every 5 people unemployed don't you understand? The simple difference is you are a fucking moron who can't count.

Of course you want people dependent. The easiest way is to convince them they can't get a job because there is only 1 for every 5 people. That is nonsense. There are potentially an unlimited number of jobs as people become available at the right price.
That's your problem You don't understand the economy is dynamic and changes in response to conditions. Well, that and you're fucking stupid.

For four out of five unemployed workers: no jobs | Economic Policy Institute

November 9, 2010

This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a sobering September report from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), showing that job openings decreased by 163,000 in September, while downward revisions to earlier data reveal that there were 109,000 fewer job openings in August than previously reported.

The total number of job openings in September was 2.9 million, while the total number of unemployed workers was 14.8 million (the latter data are from the Current Population Survey). This means that the ratio of unemployed workers to job openings was 5.0-to-1 in September, an increase from the revised August ratio of 4.8-to-1. The job-seekers ratio is displaying a similar trend to other labor market data – substantial improvements from late 2009 to the spring of 2010, and then stalling out what are still crisis levels. September’s value, at 5-to-1, is over three times as high as the first half of 2007, when the ratio averaged 1.5-to-1.

It is important to note that the job-seekers ratio does not measure the number of applicants for each job. There may be throngs of applicants for every job posting, since job seekers apply for multiple jobs. Instead, the 5-to-1 ratio means that for every five unemployed workers, there is only one job available — or for every four out of five unemployed workers, there simply are no jobs. Furthermore, when calculating the ratio of job seekers to job openings, if we were to include not just the 14.8 million unemployed workers, but also the 9.5 million “involuntarily part-time” workers (part-time workers who want and are available for a full-time job, and are therefore likely job searching), the ratio would be 8.3-to-1.

With so many unemployed workers per available job, it is no surprise that workers who have been laid off continue to get stuck in unemployment for very long periods.

 

[Bfgrn]

Didn't like my answer? Or couldn't understand it?
Unemployment insuance keeps people unemployed longer. You want people to be unemployed and dependent on the gov't. I want people to work and be independent.
That is very simply the difference.

No, I don't want people dependent on government, BUT, what part of there is 1 job for every 5 people unemployed don't you understand? The simple difference is you are a fucking moron who can't count.

So maybe the focus should be on inspiring those with venture capital to start making jobs again so the other four will have one? Rather than continuing to find ways to pay people not to work?

"inspiring those with venture capital to start making jobs"? Are you calling for government intervention? Are you asking government to pick winners and losers??

inspiring???...are you calling for magic fairy dust?

 

[Barb]

It's pretty interesting that everyone seems to just leave out the word "insurance" from this discussion.

Unemployment doesn't stimulate the economy.

Unemployment Insurance does.

Simple fact.

Jobless benefits. They are not referring to Unemployment Insurance at all.

Last summer, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney lectured Wall Street Journal reporter Laura Meckler for not knowing it "as part of the entrance exam" that jobless benefits are "one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren't running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get."

Carney contended that "every place that that money is spent has added business, and that creates growth and income for businesses that leads them to decisions about jobs, more hiring."

Jobless benefits.

Cloward-Piven anyone??

Funny, I thought you were older.
from The Mad Tea Party and the Cloward-Piven Conspiracy Theory | Common Dreams

What is this plot? According to David Horowitz, who apparently coined the expression, Cloward-Piven is "the strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis." Named after sociologists and antipoverty and voting rights activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who first elucidated it in a May 2, 1966, article for The Nation called "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," the Cloward-Piven strategy, in Horowitz's words, "seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse." Like a fun-house-mirror version of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine theory, the Cloward-Piven strategy dictates that the left will exploit that crisis to push through unpopular, socialist policies in a totalitarian manner.

Now, if you're at all familiar with Marx and Engels, the theory was that capitalism would push the system to this extent through inequity and dominance of government largess, pretty much that it would catch its tail and self-cannibalize, and then that it would die off and nature (or the odds) would dictate a socialist system in response.

Well capital did the first two, but there's nothing natural about a corporately owned government. Instead, what happened here was that capital caught its tail ate it, and immediately demanded constructive surgery. It then immediately criticized the libruls for providing it, even though it was agreed to under and with the full support of a conservative president, as well as the federal blow-job that the NOT librul government had been giving them since Santa Clara.

 

[zonly1]

I thought trillion deficits would stimulate the economy?

What the fucking fuck?

Are you guys wrong in the trillions column...again?

the numb nuts frrom the left don't understand econ fundamentals especially when a fraction of the story is told it's suceeeding when in fact the tele with the big boobies distracts sales..moreover, and i'll leave it thar

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I don't want people dependent on government, BUT, what part of there is 1 job for every 5 people unemployed don't you understand? The simple difference is you are a fucking moron who can't count.

Of course you want people dependent. The easiest way is to convince them they can't get a job because there is only 1 for every 5 people. That is nonsense. There are potentially an unlimited number of jobs as people become available at the right price.
That's your problem You don't understand the economy is dynamic and changes in response to conditions. Well, that and you're fucking stupid.

For four out of five unemployed workers: no jobs | Economic Policy Institute

November 9, 2010

This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a sobering September report from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), showing that job openings decreased by 163,000 in September, while downward revisions to earlier data reveal that there were 109,000 fewer job openings in August than previously reported.

The total number of job openings in September was 2.9 million, while the total number of unemployed workers was 14.8 million (the latter data are from the Current Population Survey). This means that the ratio of unemployed workers to job openings was 5.0-to-1 in September, an increase from the revised August ratio of 4.8-to-1. The job-seekers ratio is displaying a similar trend to other labor market data – substantial improvements from late 2009 to the spring of 2010, and then stalling out what are still crisis levels. September’s value, at 5-to-1, is over three times as high as the first half of 2007, when the ratio averaged 1.5-to-1.

It is important to note that the job-seekers ratio does not measure the number of applicants for each job. There may be throngs of applicants for every job posting, since job seekers apply for multiple jobs. Instead, the 5-to-1 ratio means that for every five unemployed workers, there is only one job available — or for every four out of five unemployed workers, there simply are no jobs. Furthermore, when calculating the ratio of job seekers to job openings, if we were to include not just the 14.8 million unemployed workers, but also the 9.5 million “involuntarily part-time” workers (part-time workers who want and are available for a full-time job, and are therefore likely job searching), the ratio would be 8.3-to-1.

With so many unemployed workers per available job, it is no surprise that workers who have been laid off continue to get stuck in unemployment for very long periods.

Nov 2010? That was well over a year ago. Since the UE rate has gone down, that would suggest that what you are presententing is merely a snapshot in time, not anything even short term.
And their methodology is supect, counting only very specific jobs that are open. Since that is likely territory of large to medium companies, and most job growth occurs in small companies, the numbers are a hash right away.
I currently don't have any job openings. But if a gunsmith with machine shop ability appeared on my doorstep I might suddenly create one. I would image most small companies work similarly.

 

[pinqy]

Nov 2010? That was well over a year ago. Since the UE rate has gone down, that would suggest that what you are presententing is merely a snapshot in time, not anything even short term.

The most recent data is from Dec 2011, at 4 unemployed for every job opening.

And their methodology is supect, counting only very specific jobs that are open. Since that is likely territory of large to medium companies, and most job growth occurs in small companies, the numbers are a hash right away.

Small companies are covered as well. Remember this is a direct survey of businesses, not a count of want ads or posted openings.

I currently don't have any job openings. But if a gunsmith with machine shop ability appeared on my doorstep I might suddenly create one. I would image most small companies work similarly.

But does that happen often enough to be relevant? Mostly, there's no way of measuring that, so you can hardly complain that a survey should measure something that can't be measured. The survey measures job openings, hires, and quits/layoffs/retirements/deaths.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nov 2010? That was well over a year ago. Since the UE rate has gone down, that would suggest that what you are presententing is merely a snapshot in time, not anything even short term.

The most recent data is from Dec 2011, at 4 unemployed for every job opening.

And their methodology is supect, counting only very specific jobs that are open. Since that is likely territory of large to medium companies, and most job growth occurs in small companies, the numbers are a hash right away.

Small companies are covered as well. Remember this is a direct survey of businesses, not a count of want ads or posted openings.

I currently don't have any job openings. But if a gunsmith with machine shop ability appeared on my doorstep I might suddenly create one. I would image most small companies work similarly.

But does that happen often enough to be relevant? Mostly, there's no way of measuring that, so you can hardly complain that a survey should measure something that can't be measured. The survey measures job openings, hires, and quits/layoffs/retirements/deaths.

All of that is vitiated by the fact that UE has gone down. If things were static, as suggested there would never be an improvement in UE.

 

[pinqy]

Nov 2010? That was well over a year ago. Since the UE rate has gone down, that would suggest that what you are presententing is merely a snapshot in time, not anything even short term.

The most recent data is from Dec 2011, at 4 unemployed for every job opening.


Small companies are covered as well. Remember this is a direct survey of businesses, not a count of want ads or posted openings.

I currently don't have any job openings. But if a gunsmith with machine shop ability appeared on my doorstep I might suddenly create one. I would image most small companies work similarly.

But does that happen often enough to be relevant? Mostly, there's no way of measuring that, so you can hardly complain that a survey should measure something that can't be measured. The survey measures job openings, hires, and quits/layoffs/retirements/deaths.

All of that is vitiated by the fact that UE has gone down. If things were static, as suggested there would never be an improvement in UE.

Where are you getting the idea that anything is static? The last report was for December 2011 and I'll attach the latest graph (from JOLTS Highlights

Keep in mind, JOLTS does NOT directly correlate with the UE numbers. It will correlate with the Non-Farm Payroll Employment (jobs). It doesn't include agriculture or private employment or the self employed.

What it does do is show the flows for the "Jobs created" and "jobs lost" numbers and gives a rough picture of where UE is coming from.

Unemployment per opening is simply the number of total unemployed divided by the number of reported open jobs.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK. So to say "there are 5 unemployed people for every one job opening and therefore we need to extend unemployment for 2 years" is stupid. The ratio changes, daily. Increasing the length of UE benefits only increases the amount of time people are on it. It doesn't help anyone, except Democratic politicians get elected.

 

[Foxfyre]

One thing that I think would bring unemployment down dramatically is that everybody who has qualified gets that first six months per normally--SUTA and FUTA taxes are collected from employers to pay for that--to give them time to find another job as the unemployment act was intended.

After the first six months, IF the government insists on extending benefits, it should be for labor provided--putting in eight hours doing community service or whatever--with time allowed off only for job interviews. If people are required to work for the rather meager unemployment benefits, those less-than-attractive jobs they've been passing up will likely start looking a lot more attractive.

 

[pinqy]

OK. So to say "there are 5 unemployed people for every one job opening and therefore we need to extend unemployment for 2 years" is stupid.

No, what's stupid is to look at 5 unemployed people for every one job opening and say "nobody needs assistance, they can just get a job." If there are 5 people actively looking for work for every one position open, it seems clear that you're going to have a high level of Unemployment for a while.

The ratio changes, daily.

But it can't be measured daily, and it really doesn't change that much. Nobody's using unemployment to job openings as a sole factor for anything.

Increasing the length of UE benefits only increases the amount of time people are on it.

Sometimes. But it's hardly universal and it is generally considered a necessary price to help out those who actually need it. Average benefits are about 36% of prior salary. Not many people are willing or able to coast on that kind of a pay cut. And keeping in mind that of those 5 Unemployed, 3 are receiving benefits and 2 are not.

Tell you what...Mexico does not have Unemployment Insurance (except Mexico City), and therefore there is lower Unemployment in Mexico than the US as people take whatever work they can whenever they can. Their Underemployment is much greater than the US. I assume you don't think Mexico is an inspiring model to follow.

Absolutely too generous UI benefits can cause major problems, but we're not seeing that in the US.

 

[amrchaos]

I have no words except heaven help us.: What a freaking economic policy!!!

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett has adopted a stance on unemployment that is sure to infuriate many, arguing that it stimulates the economy because people who receive unemployment checks are going out and spending them, reports The Weekly Standard.


Here's another gem

“People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that’s healthy as well,”



Valerie Jarrett: 'People Who Receive that Unemployment Check Go Out and Spend It and Help Stimulate the Economy' | The Weekly Standard

The only possible thing that Unemployment can do is keep demand for finished agriculture goods about stable.

But in general, high unemployment is a key indicator of a bad economy. It does not depreciate the economy, not stimulate since funds for unemployment must come from the economy. This is a negative stimulate at best.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK. So to say "there are 5 unemployed people for every one job opening and therefore we need to extend unemployment for 2 years" is stupid.

No, what's stupid is to look at 5 unemployed people for every one job opening and say "nobody needs assistance, they can just get a job." If there are 5 people actively looking for work for every one position open, it seems clear that you're going to have a high level of Unemployment for a while.

The ratio changes, daily.

But it can't be measured daily, and it really doesn't change that much. Nobody's using unemployment to job openings as a sole factor for anything.

Increasing the length of UE benefits only increases the amount of time people are on it.

Sometimes. But it's hardly universal and it is generally considered a necessary price to help out those who actually need it. Average benefits are about 36% of prior salary. Not many people are willing or able to coast on that kind of a pay cut. And keeping in mind that of those 5 Unemployed, 3 are receiving benefits and 2 are not.

Tell you what...Mexico does not have Unemployment Insurance (except Mexico City), and therefore there is lower Unemployment in Mexico than the US as people take whatever work they can whenever they can. Their Underemployment is much greater than the US. I assume you don't think Mexico is an inspiring model to follow.

Absolutely too generous UI benefits can cause major problems, but we're not seeing that in the US.

You dont think that 2 years of unemployment is generous? What would you consider generous then, lifetime?
Remind me what is wrong with people working. Oh yeah, they won't vote Democrat.