1 hmmmmmmmmmmm

2 You know what would really stimulate the economy?  Nuking every major American city!

3 McArdle- is she supposed to be a conservative?  I can't keep the squishes straight.

4 Are you telling me how to hold my mop?

5 Also recommended for your reading pleasure by Bastiat:

The Law

http://tinyurl.com/639p8q

6

"You know what would really stimulate the economy?  Nuking every major American city!"

As long as the Republicans were able to clear out first.

7


Monty,

The more reasoned version of MM's position is that to cut off unemployment benefits with 25% effective unemployment would be to court societal collapse.  That may be what you and I want, or maybe not what we want.  That's irrelevant.  The point is, that millions of people will simply be left feeling stranded, helpless and desperate. 

That is the formula for riot and ruin.

8

So our violence is really stimulating capitalism?

Thanks for that bucket of cold water dude.

9 Megan can whine and whimper all she wants, but what's she going to do when government runs out of 'other people's money'?

10 Megan McArdle is labeled as a "moderate" under the Wiki article on her which means she is a liberal.

She was also labeled as a follower of Ayn Rand and an objectivist. It is hard to justify that claim and be pro-unemployment insurance.

11

9 Megan can whine and whimper all she wants, but what's she going to do when government runs out of 'other people's money'?

That's the beauty of it!  We can just go print more money!

12 Thank you! I've been reading her for years and still trying to figure out how she's libertarian. (I don't think she identifies as conservative, though.)

13

You could cut unemployment slowly. 5% per month.

Seriously, they have to cut taxes. CUT THE FUCKING TAXES, IT WILL BOUNCE THE ECONOMY BACK, IDIOTS.

When the Bush cuts expire, shit's gonna hit the fan. Talk about double dip.

Did you see Biden "smartass" the small business owner" who said taxes were harsh? These assholes love to take money. Makes them feel like fucking Henry II.

14 The point is, that millions of people will simply be left feeling stranded, helpless and desperate. I don't see that extending unemployment benefits for another indeterminate period will do much good in terms of employment prospects; in fact, it will make the situation notably worse for the reasons I already mentioned. We are going to have to take the pain at some point for our past bad behavior. Everyone on the government dole has a reason why their benefit is necessary and good -- but if we cut nothing, how do we get out of the hole? It's easy to be a capitalist when times are good. The irony is that it only matters when times are bad.

15 then again, there are people like one mr. kdbear who last night spent several hours desperately pleading for help on this site. unable to find a job, his unemployment benefits have ended (i think) and he is penniless, paralyzed with anxiety and depressed enough to reach out for attention, pity and mention suicide. what about him?

16

A similar debate is playing out in Great Britain now, because Dianne Abbot, a candidate for the leadership of the Labour Party, is decrying as heartless and cruel the new government's proposal to give unemployed tenants of public housing a financial incentive to move to another part of Britain if moving means getting a job.  Abbott feels (that is the correct word) that it's too risky for someone on the public dole to move house to a different area and take a job that might not last for a lifetime.

See what she's done there?  Jobs must be brought to the unemployed where they are or they should not feel compelled to seek work.  And a job isn't worth having if it's not a job for life: all jobs must, by her lights, include lifetime tenure (or at least, all jobs suitable to offer to unemployed public housing tenants).

The reality in which the bulk of us live, the one in which we realize that our jobs can evaporate at any time, doesn't touch her -- she's a Member of Parliament, and that's pretty close to an unbreakable sinecure.

17 In theory Meagan is a libertarian; in practice, she's a liberal who sometimes allows her brain to work.

18 She was also labeled as a follower of Ayn Rand and an objectivist. I've heard people say that -- God knows where they're getting it from. She's about as much a Randian as I am a Greek Orthodox Bishop.

19 The government's role in the economy is to avert "the tragedy of the commons", create and enforce rules that make commerce predictable and secure, and not a whole lot more.

20 what about him? A hand-out is what you get from the government. A hand up is what you get from friends. The government does not love you or anyone else, gomm. It is a beast that only eats, and the bigger it gets, the hungrier it gets.

21

That is the formula for riot and ruin.

So, you're saying that it's self correcting.

22

2yrs of unemployment is enough.

I can't honestly believe that if you worked your job search for 40hrs a week for 2 years that you couldn't find a job.

Maybe it would be a shitty job, but a job nonetheless. Possibly one in which you could advance and earn more over time.

It sucks, but a lot of families are going to have to downsize.

And I feel bad for them, but they shouldn't be on my back. Lose the cable and the 2nd car. Move in with relatives or friends. Shop second hand.

I know it sucks. But being free from things sucking is not a human right.

 

 

 

23 I remember once, when I was a strapping young lad, I broke a window while playing baseball.  My dad made me deliver an extra ten papers a day for one week to help pay for the new window.

That story makes me think we need to reduce our footprint in Afghanistan and focus on more terrorism-special ops goals.  This will allow our troops to come home and work on fixing more windows.

24 Dude, if you think she sucks, then say she sucks. I think she sucks, like the rest of Teh Atl bloggers.

25 Think of it this way: suppose that a super-efficient economy could produce twice as much with half as many workers. Unemployment would skyrocket, but our GDP would stay pretty much the same. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

The problem I have with this example is that it goes against what history tells us will happen when efficiencies are increased. Over the past 100 yrs efficiency of each man hour of production did increase and it did not lead to higher unemployment and GDP but decreased or held steady unemployment and GDP rose.

26  For a smart gal Megan has always been a bit of a dope.

27 had the same argument today Liesman of CNBC wants to keep spending. www.pointsandfigures.com

28 She's about as much a Randian as I am a Greek Orthodox Bishop.

When you are a Democrat anyone to the right of Stalin is a conservative or libertarian.

29 Let us rid ourselves of this liberal in sorta-kinda-fiscal-conservative clothing. Why Insty links her is a mystery, unless Insty wants to prove his higher thought processes do not extend beyond the legal realm, and the desire to plug amazon.com sales. McArdle proved her fecklessness and dishonesty a long time ago. She is nothing more than a dorky pituitary case longing to mingle with the trendy DC/Manhattan scene, as the "acceptable" alternative to plain slavishness toward Obastard. Oh, did I call her a pituitary case? Did I indulge in petty ad hominem insults? Assuming she is human? If someone wants to argue that a working citizen ought to be robbed to pay for another citizen's unemployment, I reserve the right to call that the argument of a thief and a fool. I could call McArdle much worse, and she would deserve it. Especially for her duplicitous pose as an "Obama skeptic." She's in the tank for the Presidential asshat, from dorky scalp to twisted toenail.

30 McArdle- is she supposed to be a conservative? I can't keep the squishes straight.

Fake libertarian. She says "moderate libertarian" in this one. That's new, I think.

If words meant stuff, Milton Friedman could be called a moderate libertarian; he was squishy. In real life, it means "Democrat who shows some acquaintance with economics (when convenient)."

31 That is the formula for riot and ruin.

Posted by: s'moron at June 28, 2010 04:44 PM (ds8Yk)

But no one proposes cutting off unemployment benefits -- that is, eliminating all unemployment benefits for all of the unemployed.  The proposal (and, since Congress has failed to act on a further extension, the reality) is that unemployed people can't expect to collect benefits past 99 weeks.

The question is, if someone has been on unemployment benefits for 99 weeks, will keeping them on for another 52 or 26 or 13 weeks improve their odds of finding work?  Or have they crossed over to the permanently unemployable?  Are they now welfare recipients and not unemployment insurance beneficiaries any longer?

32 I remember once, when I was a strapping young lad, I broke a window while playing baseball.  My dad made me deliver an extra ten papers a day for one week to help pay for the new window.

That story makes me think we need to reduce our footprint in Afghanistan and focus on more terrorism-special ops goals.  This will allow our troops to come home and work on fixing more windows.

Posted by: Joe Biden

 

I can hear him actually saying this. I know that I can. In fact, I might have. I need a drink.

33

I don't see that extending unemployment benefits for another indeterminate period will do much good in terms of employment prospects; in fact, it will make the situation notably worse for the reasons I already mentioned.


We don't disagree.  Nor do I think the pain of revolt or some other form of civil strife is avoidable.

I'm just saying that everyone will tend to put off the horrible decisions in life for as long as possible.  And we haven't run out of our credit just yet.  So the natural inclination of man is to defer that pain.

34 One thing is she has made a career out of writing about economics and her degree is in English. She did get an MBA but she still has no education in economics so she is totally unqualified to write about economics.

35 Dude, if you think she sucks, then say she sucks. I don't think she sucks; that's the problem. If she were merely incompetent and stupid, I wouldn't bother getting upset at stuff she writes. The problem is that she does have insight and intelligence, but too often uses it in a profoundly stupid way (if that makes any sense). Her ideology trumps her common sense, in other words. And even for a girl, she's such a girl. She doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings or step on anyone's toes. Consensus and agreement is the order of the day.

36 She's the Althouse of Atlantic columnists.  What are we going to do about the President we elected (what do you mean "we").

37 The point is, that millions of people will simply be left feeling stranded, helpless and desperate. Which is how the people with jobs feel when they are forced to subsidize their neighbors' idleness.

38 "Think of it this way: suppose that a super-efficient economy could produce twice as much with half as many workers. Unemployment would skyrocket, but our GDP would stay pretty much the same. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"

That would be a very very good thing. Because if that is true, then half the workforce was an impediment, and are better suited elsewhere.

39 ... and i want you to know i recited, paraphrased really, john belushi's lines from "animal house" and even smashed a beer can against my forehead (though i don't think kdbear saw that) and it didn't seem to pick him up. at least i haven't seen any news reports of a guy careening down some california street in a refurbished lincoln deathmobile today. but, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

40 10 The point is, that millions of people will simply be left feeling stranded, helpless and desperate. The usual Prog drool. I just want to know 1. Who determines what constitutes feeling stranded, helpless and desperate. 2. Didn't feeling stranded, helpless and desperate used to be considered motivational? worked for me in 1978.

41 One thing is she has made a career out of writing about economics and her degree is in English. That explains all one need know about Megan McBeanpole.

42

"Think of it this way: suppose that a super-efficient economy could produce twice as much with half as many workers. Unemployment would skyrocket, but our GDP would stay pretty much the same. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"

False premise (though The Man in the White Suit was a good movie).

The super-efficient economy would now have far more labor available to produce more, newer, better and different goods and services.  The only question is whether the government would act to encourage and enable capitalists and entrepreneurs to open new businesses to enable that other half of the workforce to also produce twice as much, meaning GDP would double (or is it quadruple? your wording is vague), or would government tax the hell out of the existing businesses for making "windfall profits" from their newfound efficiencies and try to keep the erstwhile other half of the workforce quietly idle?

43

2yrs of unemployment is enough.

I can't honestly believe that if you worked your job search for 40hrs a week for 2 years that you couldn't find a job.

Same here, but I have a buddy in that situation.  Got laid off with a decent serverance package over 2 years ago, and didn't begin aggressively looking for another job right away.  In the meantime, the job market collapsed.

For jobs in his field, almost no one is hiring, and those few that are have hundreds of applicants for each position.  That he's been long term unemployed doesn't help his prospects.  He's applied to numerous shitty jobs (including one literally shovelling shit), but employers don't want to hire someone who's overqualified as they know he'll only be there till he can find a better job.  Employers can afford to be picky in who they'll hire.

 

44
I love fiscal austerity as much as the next . . . well, as much as the next moderate libertarian whose primary issues aren't high taxes, or an obsessive hatred of even the smallest of fiscal deficits.
Yeah, that's what we have, the smallest of fiscal deficits.

45

I think this stimulus and recovery plan would work- if only Republicans would allow us to spend the money necessary to make it work.

I can haz Nobel Prisez?

46 George Orwell + 1

47


Also, think about this:

There is nothing fundamentally different from our economy now and that in 2007.  The only thing that has changed is the availability of large blocks of credit to finance business ventures.  Banks are hoarding all the money they got from TARP and from the Treasury auctions/fed loans to hedge against deflation.  The resulting credit crunch has ground our economy to a near halt.  This shows how artificial the "good times" really were. 

Cutting taxes won't do much to stimulate large financial institutions to lend.  Plus they have the cover of the collapse to maintain larger reserves of capital.

We're fucked no matter what anyone does, at least until the REAL economy (that is, the production and exchange of actual goods and services) catches up to teh money supply.

48 Hey you.... the Mc Ardles and the Krugmans of the world. 

You useful idiots (hey.... it's Lenin's term, not mine) ....like ya'all have a hard time distinguishing between a governments economic budget and a nations economic activity, but statists tend to view them as one and the same, no shocker here.

"Until the supply side improves..."

Lady.... you would know supply side if it jumped up and took your job.  It'll improve once our Precedent stops pursuing policies that actually deteriorate it.

 Each dollar the government borrows is a dollar not available to businesses in the capital market. Each new dollar the government prints (or creates electronically out of thin air) devalues the dollars already in the system. Each dollar the government collects in "revenue" is a dollar not percolating thru the economy.

You want to stimulate real economic growth??? Stop hogging up all the capital (reduce spending and deficits), and let the folks keep more of the money they earned in the first place. Trust me... the folks will put that extra money to good use..... hell, dont trust ME ... trust the FOLKS.

But... of course THAT plan really messes us the constituency building/societal engineering thingy doesnt it.

49 That would be a very very good thing. Because if that is true, then half the workforce was an impediment, and are better suited elsewhere. "Protect the jobs" is the oldest economic con in the book, and it has led to a lot of misery and mischief over the years. A robust economy is a job-creation machine -- as new technologies come on line, they tend to outgrow and outpace the older ones (think about how the technology revolution in the 1980's-1990's totally eclipsed the heavy-industry economy of the 1960's and 1970's). But onerous government intervention (and featherbedding by large corporations) has stultified the usual process of "creative destruction" in the same way it did back in the 1970's. Cutting-edge fields like biotech, nanotech, alt-fuel energy, and medical science are getting strangled by federal regulatory red-tape. The only growth industry is on Wall Street, where hedge funds trade paper with each other all day long and contribute nothing of real value back to the economy.

50 What makes Lady Beanpole so exasperating is she almost gets things right, very often. Yet she seldom fails to discard all her reason to give in to proggy unreason and emotion. Who is more infuriating... a genuine idiot, or a smart person who deliberately plays dumb?

51

The problem is that she does have insight and intelligence, but too often uses it in a profoundly stupid way (if that makes any sense). Her ideology trumps her common sense, in other words.

Why is it that 'too often' occurs a couple of days straight over four weeks or so?

sexist@!

52
uh.... post 50.

Yeah that was me.

Sock off....... now......

53 I have to say that your anti-argument does not hold water either.  It should be obvious that what UI once was, is no longer during these economically trying times.  FUTA and SUTA come from the employers, but it also true that additional money  comes from the general tax funds (one big pot).  Tax payers are in need of some of that money back, temporarily, as in until things start picking up (actually picking up).  The money is there, if there are funds for other programs, there are funds for UI.  There was money for a raise for Congress, there was money for the BS bailouts, money for foreign aid and on and on.  Take care of your own first because this hand, this tax paying hand,  is what feeds you and keeps you in office.  The hand you are so willing to bite will smack the shit out of you come election day.
Furthermore, the Republicans aren't being "mean" per se, they are being obstructionists, however. 

54 monty: why shouldn't mr. bear take unemployment benefits and student aid (my suggestion). providing he's paid taxes in his working life, he's both person "A" (who receives the funds and person "C" the taxpayer who's paid into them.

55 That explains all one need know about Megan McBeanpole. Be nice, now. My degree was in Anguish and I bloviate about economics all the time. (I fuck it up more often than not, probably, but....) Even economists who take a PhD in the field don't know what the hell they're talking about half the time. That's why I love it: it's wild-ass guessing masquerading as a science.

56 ... that's not a handout in my book.

57

Hollowpoint,

Doesn't your buddy know anyone in a position to hire him?

I could be hired tomorrow from at least 3 different people. Only one would come anywhere near to replacing my salary (one would be barely above minimum wage), but I'd be working.

I have a hard time seeing someone pounding the pavement for 40hrs a week, 5 days a week (or more ... why not?) and not finding work.

I can't imagine it.

58 There is nothing fundamentally different from our economy now and that in 2007. 

Posted by: s'moron at June 28, 2010 05:04 PM (ds8Yk)

There's one thing: no business knows what rules it's going to have to follow in the next month, much less the next year or two.  It's pretty hard to implement plans for the future when you have no idea whether any given action you take will be rewarded or penalized by the government.  And you can be pretty sure that the government in 2010 will be scrutinizing every action you take much more closely than in 2007.

Case in point, via CNNMoney:

The offshore drilling ban imposed after the BP disaster is only supposed to hit operations in deep water -- 500 feet or more.

But drillers in shallow water say they haven't been issued permits since the April 20 explosion. The delay has already forced hundreds of layoffs, and many more could be on the way.

"I'm almost out of business over here," said Paul Butler, president of Spartan Offshore, a small drilling company in Metairie, La.

Butler said that only one of his four drill rigs are operating; all four were drilling before the spill. Spartan has six contracts that would put his entire fleet back to work, but he can't get going until the permits come through, he added.

The week before last, Butler said he had to lay off 72 employees. Come Tuesday he'll have to let another 140 go.

"That's 140 families, is how I look at it," Butler said.

59

The usual Prog drool. I just want to know

Right.  Because broke unemployed people exist only in progressive's imagination.

You know I'm no prog, fuckstick.

Cut off the money for people who have kids to feed and you will see violence.

THat doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do, economically.  But realistically, we are in that scary of a situation. 

The resulting death and destruction will lower the labor pool if nothing else, and get us back to a financial balance.  Like teh European wars of 1500-1800.  or the black death. Once enough people died, wars stopped.  Economies could then rebuild.  It also accounts for the rise of Europe post WWII.

Resource-wise, we are not overpopulated.  Economically though, we are.  Automation and efficiency has made a significant proportion of our population superfluous.

60 "Protect the jobs" is the oldest economic con in the book, and it has led to a lot of misery and mischief over the years.... But onerous government intervention (and featherbedding by large corporations) has stultified the usual process of "creative destruction" in the same way it did back in the 1970's. Oh man, did you ever get that right. I've even recently heard the ancient Luddite complaint restated. There are still people who think technical advances that eliminate jobs are a bad thing. Yeah, I guess the cotton gin and the steam engine were economy-destroying inventions. And these Luddites live on their computers. Irony, thy name is "libtard."

61 That's why I love it: it's wild-ass guessing masquerading as a science.

Posted by: Monty at June 28, 2010 05:09 PM (4Pleu)

It's psychology masquerading as mathematics.

62 Yeah, I guess the cotton gin and the steam engine were economy-destroying inventions.

Posted by: George Orwell at June 28, 2010 05:10 PM (AZGON)

The metal plowshare was the Devil's work, I tell you!!

63 Be nice, now. My degree was in Anguish and I bloviate about economics all the time. Big diff... you actually make sense. Plus, you bring teh funny. Megan, not so much.

64
Resource-wise, we are not overpopulated.  Economically though, we are.  Automation and efficiency has made a significant proportion of our population superfluous.

Well... I certainly come to a differing conclusion... and Im a Nobel Prize winner.  Perhaps... we could meet.... and we could..... ummmmmmm..... massage our numbers together.....

65 gomm: I don't know what mr. bear's situation is, but it really doesn't matter. Everyone on earth has a reason why their problems are unique; why they deserve special treatment; why they must have some benefit or other. Some are telling the truth; most are full of shit. I speak to the general, not the specific. If you feel badly for mr. bear, send him some cash. If I knew him personally, that's what I would do. In fact, I paid a certain friend's rent two months in a row while he was out of a job. When he got a job again, he paid me back, with interest. A friend gives you a hand up, not a hand-out. (And if you have no money to do this kind of thing, why do think it is ethical to suborn other people into doing what you yourself cannot?)

66 I see that the 'Bamster says that we have very difficult choices ahead regarding the deficits.  Show of hands. 
Who here thinks that those very difficult choices will include spending cuts?

67 I sincerely believe that the greatest scourge of mankind is agriculture.  For only when we discovered her, did wars begin.

68 Resource-wise, we are not overpopulated.  Economically though, we are.  Automation and efficiency has made a significant proportion of our population superfluous.

Posted by: s'moron at June 28, 2010 05:10 PM (ds8Yk)

False premise.  You're assuming that the current basket of goods and services consumed by the typical consumer has never changed and will never change.  The history of the world (and I mean, since the invention of recorded history) shows that greater labor efficiency leads to greater opportunities to increase and diversify production so that we now enjoy a vastly richer array of goods and services than we did when we all had to poke our fingers in the dirt to make holes for planting seeds.

69

Megan and her ilk believe in "Bigfoot": a mythical creature that exists only in their heads.

Mythical? I swear I've seen one lurking around the White House for the last 18 months. Wears a lot of ugly clothes and has a garden

70

Yeah, I guess the cotton gin and the steam engine were economy-destroying inventions.


They did free up labor to take more "efficient" positions.  Particularly the cotton gin in all but destroying the economic efficiency of slavery.

Problem is, with our economy, there's nowhere to transfer that worker, and no one nowadays can work a plot of land to grow their own existence.  YOu can either steal or starve at that point.

We are seeing economic dislocation at nation-levels.

71 This paragraph may have been rhetorical, but what the hell.
Is it the government's job to make sure that you have a job? No. Is full employment one of the main goals of a national government? Should it be? No. Or is the government's job more to "prepare the ground" for the economy as a whole, through regulation, taxation, and policy? The govts job is interfere as little as possible by protecting us from enemies and providing for smooth transactions in a free market. Think of it this way: suppose that a super-efficient economy could produce twice as much with half as many workers. Unemployment would skyrocket, but our GDP would stay pretty much the same. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  Rhetorically, should we ban cars and go back to horse and buggy?

72 Well, if we're going to be discussing kbdabear without him being here, you should take some time to read the entire ONT discussion last night.  I think it's pretty clear from the whole discussion that kbdabear's problems are deeper than merely financial so I don't think he is the greatest poster child for a discussion over unemployment insurance.

Besides, it's downright rude to be talking about him when he's not here, and it's patently offensive to be using the situation of a fellow moron to justify the statist leviathan status quo.

73 Monty, you make an assumption here which in liberal thought is invalid. You assume that money in the hands of the Citizen, results in purchases, which drive the economy and therefore is good. The liberal sees government just as capable at spending money, in fact more so than the Citizen. They also see our transactions, whether buying a medium sized home, fuel for our non-hybrid car, or consumer electronics, as an excessive glutinous waste of the precious resources of Gaia. They assume the unemployed are buying white rice and sharing a two bedroom apartment with 6 people, which is to them the acceptable "sustainable" state of man. Given that they think our very possession and spending of wealth, regardless of how we obtained it, is bad, government public redistribution is good, then the concept of an "opportunity cost" becomes irrelevant. To them it is win-win, no cost whatsoever. So they look bemusingly on, wondering, "Why don't we do this, it is stupid obvious?"

74 That's why I love it: it's wild-ass guessing masquerading as a science.

Posted by: Monty at June 28, 2010 05:09 PM (4Pleu)

We prefer the term "soft science."

75


False premise.  You're assuming that the current basket of goods and services consumed by the typical consumer has never changed and will never change. 



No, I'm not. 

I'm assuming that there are no new industries in which to direct economic energy at this point in history. 

Tell me, where can the unemployed cube-drone go?

76 suborn-usage-fail.  Anguish degree revocation in progress.

77 I sincerely believe that the greatest scourge of mankind is agriculture.  For only when we discovered her, did wars begin.

Posted by: Bertrand Russel at June 28, 2010 05:15 PM (e8YaH)

Not at all.  There were wars before agriculture.  But only after agriculture meant that control of specific patches of fertile ground was a survival imperative and that the fertility of the ground could support the "leisure" activities of making weapons and conducting military drills did warfare become really exciting.

78 From where I sit, the problem really isn't the unemployment insurance, that is just the symptom.  The problem is the current anti-business, anti-risk climate.  We need to lower taxes yes but we also need to drastically reduce regulations.  The Federal Register is over 80,000 pages.  That's 80 thousand fucking pages.  That is over 57 Atlas Shrugged books.  Regulations are a hidden tax, when companies must pay professionals to keep them out of jail for running afoul of Obscure Regulation #29,743 rather than use that money to hire people.

79 Particularly the cotton gin in all but destroying the economic efficiency of slavery.

Actually cotton production was on the wane and the cotton gin actually increased the market for cotton as well as increased slavery as more acres began to be planted. Really, you can look it up.

80 Besides, it's downright rude to be talking about him when he's not here, and it's patently offensive to be using the situation of a fellow moron to justify the statist leviathan status quo. You are, of course, entirely correct here. I should not be speaking, even hypothetically, of one of our fellow Morons when he's not here to give insight. My sincere apologies to kdabear, if he's reading this. (And good luck to you!)

81

82 Are they now welfare recipients and not unemployment insurance beneficiaries any longer?

Yes. That's the way the system is supposed to work; unemployment bridges the gap between jobs, and welfare catches those who fall off.

To Monty's question, I believe full unemployment is a recipe for out-of-control inflation. It's been a while since I took economics, but I seem to recall that there is a point at which unemployment and inflation balance each other, and that unemployment actually acts as a check on inflation.

Government should be a ground-preparer, no questions asked. There is no way that government, which lives on one-size-fits-all solutions, is capable of anticipating or correctly funding/encouraging the next big thing(s). Keep the peace, mind the currency's stability, and take the absolute minimum needed to keep things running, and let a thousand businesses blossom.

83

Just did, Guy, thanks.   You're right, I had remembered it backwards.  The mechanization of the farm is a better example.

84

Don't be a smartass, stuiec

85 If we would just stop cutting down trees and building dams and start riding bicycles, everyone would have a job and people would be happy, rich, and getting laid every day.

86 Tell me, where can the unemployed cube-drone go?

These words will undoubtedly come back to haunt me, but I'm going to say them anyway. If you want to be employed you can't always choose all the circumstances of your employment.

87 I'm assuming that there are no new industries in which to direct economic energy at this point in history. Nonsense. People were saying the same crap back in 1978, right on the cusp of the personal-computer revolution. Yet now tens of millions of people are employed in an industry that didn't even exist thirty-some years ago. If the government can stay the fuck out of the way, I guarantee you that entrepreneurs are working on stuff right now that will drive our economy forward for the next thirty to fifty years.

88 My understanding on Mr. Bear was that he was an EE. I offered to put him up with some people here who, at the time, were likely to be hiring MEs and EEs.

He did not want to leave CA.

89 Ooh!  I know!  Let's raise the minimum wage!!  Happy times for all! God bless Biden's hair plugs!

90 I wish I could find employers willing to to hire folks beneath their resume.  Every fricking one won't for fear of the new person leaving once things turn around.  It fucking sucks.  Even offering to sign a two year contract won't help.

91 I'm assuming that there are no new industries in which to direct economic energy at this point in history. 

Tell me, where can the unemployed cube-drone go?

Posted by: s'moron at June 28, 2010 05:17 PM (ds8Yk)

You mean, the cube-drones whose jobs didn't exist in the 1930s?

When you say "no new industries," did you not notice the advent of information technology and the concomitant industries of media and entertainment that followed it?  Newspapers are dying -- news is exploding.  Television, which itself transformed radio and motion picture entertainment, is evolving.

Is your definition of desperation the realization that a worker is no longer guaranteed to find a new job identical to the last one he had?  Are cube-drones fixed by genetics and destiny never to find gainful employment outside a cubicle?  Or is the cube-drone in a given industry forever prohibited from using his droning ability in a cubicle belonging to a different industry?

92 He did not want to leave CA.

At this point, holding that frame of mind merits treatment at a psychiatric hospital.

93 It's been a while since I took economics, but I seem to recall that there is a point at which unemployment and inflation balance each other, and that unemployment actually acts as a check on inflation.

That theory certainly would have been disproven during the Bush years when after the tax cuts the unemployment went down to below 5% with little or no inflation.

If I am not mistaken 5% is now considered zero real unemployment.

94

Particularly the cotton gin in all but destroying the economic efficiency of slavery.

Not to step on your point but, the case was pretty much the complete opposite. The cotton gin is what make chattel slavery cost-effective in the south.  It was a dying institution before that.

95 If you are unemployed for over six months and are able bodied, you need a Plan B: move in with family, relocate, start collecting bottles. Something!

It's hard to make generalizations about "the unemployed," but I think the 99-week check is largely what is stopping them from moving on.

96

Don't be a smartass, stuiec

Posted by: Bertrand Russel at June 28, 2010 05:21 PM (e8YaH)

If I'm paying for the frozen custard, I'll be as smart an ass as I want.

My Dad used to say, "you're such a smart-ass, I bet you could tell the flavor of an ice cream cone just by sitting on it."

97 I won't touch the bigfoot analogy.But it is tempting.

98 These words will undoubtedly come back to haunt me, but I'm going to say them anyway. If you want to be employed you can't always choose all the circumstances of your employment.

I don't see how they would come back to haunt you. That's common sense.

During the worst of the 2000 - 2001 recession, I left my doctoral program (long story) and moved to Dallas. I think at one point I was working three jobs -- temporary administrative assistant during the day, waiting tables and DJ'ing when I wasn't temping. I did it for well over a year and a half before I finally landed a "real" corporate job that was in any way related to my degree. There was no choice; I wasn't eligible for unemployment.

You have to. There's simply no other way. Unemployment should be considered pay for you to be a full-time job seeker. Once it comes close to running out, you either have found a job or you take what's available. It may be an ego bruise, but really, without consequences, people won't have choices.

99 Resource-wise, we are not overpopulated.  Economically though, we are.  Automation and efficiency has made a significant proportion of our population superfluous.

Posted by: s'moron

Exactly, and this will only intensify.  The machines are getting better and cheaper every day.  Long term, technological advance is good, but we have no way to adapt to this change in an orderly fashion.  The industrial revolution made the elimination of agricultural labor both possible and absorbable - those unemployed farm hands could go to the city for work in factories.  No new  industries are showing any sign of soaking up the available labor pool as industry is shipped overseas, shut down, or automated.  Further, the new jobs that do exist are generally for the highly skilled.  The people on the low end of the intelligence scale are going to be increasingly left out in the cold.  We are going to see a level of wealth stratification that has not been seen since the feudal era. 

Meanwhile, our culture and our politics encourage breeding, especially among the poor and the welfare rats at the bottom.  We allow millions upon millions of bottom-level laborers to swarm in like locusts through our souther border.  Everything we do seems to focus on getting more of what we already have too much of.  And those folks, seeing that the system is set up to minimize their chances of living a comfortable modern lifestyle (let along getting ahead), they're going to see little reason to maintain that system.   And those of us higher up the ladder have our own worries.  Companies are eager to import Indian professionals who will work for a fraction of what a US citizen can (currrently) demand.  If you work for a large corporation, rest assured that there are HR people working on figuring out how to fill your spot with a guy named Sanjay.

If we took steps to disincentivize breeding, especially among the less clever, then sealed the borders, things would improve.  Sadly, neither of those things will happen. 

 

100 It's been a while since I took economics, but I seem to recall that there is a point at which unemployment and inflation balance each other, and that unemployment actually acts as a check on inflation.

That theory certainly would have been disproven during the Bush years when after the tax cuts the unemployment went down to below 5% with little or no inflation.

If I am not mistaken 5% is now considered zero real unemployment.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2010 05:26 PM (6taRI)

The theory was also dis-proven in the Carter years when we had such high unemployment coupled with such high inflation that they had to invent a new word:  Stagflation.

101 He did not want to leave CA.

At this point, holding that frame of mind merits treatment at a psychiatric hospital.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 28, 2010 05:25 PM (0q2P7)

Or, as I pointed out above, it merits nomination to run the Labour Party of Britain.

102 He did not want to leave CA.
I was born in CA, I love CA, and post military service, in mid 2008 when I thought the housing bubble was starting to wind down I bought a house here. The budget crisis hadn't hit yet, and I didn't want to cede the territory to the Libbies just yet. But now, if I could financially support it, I would leave.

103 Back when you were a kid, you must have had the opportunity to play a game that was new to you. And the person who introduced you to this game would  go, "here's the rules"....and you'd play along for a while, and then the person would say, "oops, here's another rule that I didn't previously mention."

(The classic example of this involves en passant pawn captures or castling in chess.)

Sometimes you'd make it through this process, but a substantial number of times, you'd either say, "let's play some other game" or just go off and watch TV.

From the very beginning, this administration's motto has been "Hope and Change" -- and its behavior has continued to flout precedent. Bankruptcy law was tossed aside for GM and Chrysler, parliamentary procedures ended up in the dustbin to enact Obamacare, the MMS spent more of its time dreaming of green energy than doing its job, taking over Fannie and Freddie but not consolidating them.....and for every unprecedented thing they do, they talk about ten more -- Cap'n'Tax, tax law changes, "green economy" horsepuckey....

The problem with this economy is that nobody can make long-term economic decisions in such an environment. How can you invest $100,000 in a machine and hire a guy to run it if you can't begin to calculate payback? Right now, that $100K could be financed at zero interest or 20%, it could be deductible or not (over some random number of years)....and then you get to the guy who runs it....what's minimum wage over the next five years? Mandatory healthcare kicks in when? Payroll taxes are what, again? Any economic decision that takes longer than a "Happy Ending" in an Oregon hotel is subject to "Hope and Change" to the point where it could be unrecognizable.

In my case, I renew my CPA license this year, and need to get my continuing education taken care of.....do I study the rules for Obamacare, or will it get repealed by the GOP or overturned by SCOTUS? Do I study business law, whatever the hell that means when the Feds change it ex post facto into multi-billion dollar slush funds? How about bankruptcy -- unless the entity is politically plugged-in and is TBTF? How about straight FASB GAAP, like those mark-to-market rules that got shifted into mark-to-unicorn-farts?

The economy won't be able to rebuild until the rules are stable and understood -- I'm thinking 2013.

104 most of us have paid taxes all of our lives. they pay for roads, schools, police & fire depts., the military, etc. worthwhile benefits. but some good portion of those taxes we won't get back or we don't avail ourselves of the services (eg, schools if you're without children). i know that i won't see most of the $$$ i've paid to uncle sam. in the general sense and macroeconomically, the entitlement programs and unfunded mandates are dubious endeavors. but in the particular case of someone who's paid into the system, you can make the case it's his money. i know someone who paid top dollar for health insurance (self-payer) who was never ill in his life. then he was hit by a medical catastrophe which was fully cove®ed to the tune of $300 thousand +. i think it was more than he paid in. but nevertheless it was earned. i'm kinda rambling. every day i tell myself "nope, today no aoshq commenting" and....

105

Is your definition of desperation the realization that a worker is no longer guaranteed to find a new job identical to the last one he had?  Are cube-drones fixed by genetics and destiny never to find gainful employment outside a cubicle?  Or is the cube-drone in a given industry forever prohibited from using his droning ability in a cubicle belonging to a different industry?


Listen guys, I'm not advocating for extending UE benefits here.  I'm saying we need to be realistic about what we are saying if we say "no, we shouldn't."

Fact is, as many have mentioned, one cannot get hired in that menial job everyone fantasizes about when thinking about the unemployed.  And "the cusp of the IT revolution" may well be now, but it is invisible from where I sit, and any economic revolution is hampered from entering the marketplace by the regulations we have and stymied by the fact that it's probably going to happen in one of the BRIC countries.

As ace said in a different context, talking about "if government got out of the way"  is like saying "if I had some ham, I could have ham and cheese.  If I had some cheese."

I'm asking, where are the workers to go NOW?  Kids gotta eat, rent's gotta be paid.

106 One of the most right-wing propaganda vehicles ever devised was SimCity. The game consists of making some zoning and taxation decisions, but all the actual economic activity is done by others in response to your setting of the basic rules of development. You, the central planner, do not build buildings in a commercial district; you merely build a road and zone an area commercial. Private citizens come in and actually make the commercial zone successful. And of course your big-spending government intitiatives have to be funded by taxes, which depresses economic activity.

107 Unemployment insurance and welfare is not supposed to be a lifestyle choice.
Amazes me that folks who wouldn't be caught dead panhandling or going door to door asking for money can feel fine with letting the government rob their neighbors to pay the cable bill and the xbox Live membership..

I know two guys I used to hand out with that have been unemployed for 14 months now. Saw them last month and one of them showed me his new fucking iphone.
Haven't hung out since. Got no time for parasites.

108

The theory was also dis-proven in the Carter years when we had such high unemployment coupled with such high inflation that they had to invent a new word:  Stagflation.

Posted by: WalrusRex at June 28, 2010 05:29 PM (xxgag)

They say that ceteris paribus -- all other things being equal -- lower unemployment increases demand, increasing price inflation, and it increases wage inflation as well.  But as the Carter years and the Bush years showed, ceteris are rarely paribus.  As I recall (I might be mistaken), stagflation was broken with tight monetary policy that reset inflation, followed by monetary loosening that rebuilt employment.

109 Problem is, with our economy, there's nowhere to transfer that worker One could make that argument at any time or place, in any economy. A guy in a type house in Los Angeles loses his job because computers eliminated the need for his business, back during the boom nineties. Yet other people found new positions subsuming that work inside other industries. What did the guy at the type house do? What did the buggy-whip maker do? The issue is the creation of new industries and new businesses. The problem is not that "there aren't jobs out there" but that this onerous tax-and-spend-and-regulate government prevents new expansion in the first place. Workers don't get "transfered." This isn't a game of placing so many pegs in so many holes. But someone in the White House wants to restrict the size, shape. color and composition of the game board and rewrite the rules on the fly. Let new industries flourish without the millstone of gubmint micromanagement and predation, and you'll see new jobs in new fields arise. It has ever been so. At any rate the answer is not to stop innovation. Otherwise, one need only take Milton Friedman's advice to a Red Chinese official during a visit decades ago. Friedman was watching a horde of men dig trenches with shovels. The Red Chinese official proudly declared the manual labor so required provided much work to reduce unemployment. Friedman replied that passing out spoons instead of shovels would surely eliminate unemployment altogether.

110

I am not as worried about extending unemployment benefits (though I agree with the arguement angainst it) as I am just paying for it if we are going to do it. These are terrible times and some people just can't find a job no matter how hard they look.

Having said that i am sure there are several spouses that are sitting at home watching the kids by choice because they can get paid doing it and the overall difference isn't that great.

The problem with our government is they always do programs like unemployment half assed. Our farmers are dying for help to bring in their crops and yet our unemployment is over 9% in WA. The government should tell the able bodied that we aren't giving you a check this week, instead we are giving you transportation and housing so you can work bringing these crops in and you keep the pay you get. They don't do that though.

111

OMFG  detailed complaint against Gore released...it's 73 freakin' pages long

Then, abruptly, the former vice president changed tone. It was "as though he had very suddenly switched personalities," she recalled, "and began in a pleading tone, pleading for release of his second chakra there."
  Does pleading for the release of your second chakra really work with chicks??

112

toby928: caesarist

I corrected myself after Guy pointed that out. I had remembered it exactly backwards.

 The mechanization of the farm is a better example, and as Reactionary pointed out, there are no new industries to absorb the newly-unemployed.

THat is a certain recipe for social violence.

113 I was born in CA, I love CA, and post military service, in mid 2008 when I thought the housing bubble was starting to wind down I bought a house here. The budget crisis hadn't hit yet, and I didn't want to cede the territory to the Libbies just yet. But now, if I could financially support it, I would leave.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 28, 2010 05:30 PM (0q2P7)

I was born in CA, my parents were born in CA, and I have no desire to leave CA.  But two of my nieces left because there wasn't any opportunity for them here, and if I or my kids need to leave CA to avoid starvation, we won't hesitate.  Survival trumps sentiment.

114 I'm assuming that there are no new industries in which to direct economic energy at this point in history. --- Nonsense. People were saying the same crap back in 1978, right on the cusp of the personal-computer revolution. Yet now tens of millions of people are employed in an industry that didn't even exist thirty-some years ago. Abso-fucking-lutely correct.

115 One of the most right-wing propaganda vehicles ever devised was SimCity. The game consists of making some zoning and taxation decisions, but all the actual economic activity is done by others in response to your setting of the basic rules of development.

You, the central planner, do not build buildings in a commercial district; you merely build a road and zone an area commercial. Private citizens come in and actually make the commercial zone successful.

And of course your big-spending government intitiatives have to be funded by taxes, which depresses economic activity.

So much wisdom reduced into a simple little simulation algorithm.

116 Goddamn Al...I didn't even want your first chakra

117

Think of it this way: suppose that a super-efficient economy could produce twice as much with half as many workers. Unemployment would skyrocket, but our GDP would stay pretty much the same. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

That's a bad thing. Do you think they would stand around and wait to starve to death? Unless your plan ends with the words "death camp" or "forced deportation", where will they go?

Why not produce twice as much, employ everybody, and export the rest? With a "super efficient" economy your cost of production is also greatly reduced, making a previously unmarketable export now in greater demand through pricing advantages.

118 Does pleading for the release of your second chakra really work with chicks??

Posted by: Bubble Ba'athist at June 28, 2010 05:35 PM (AnTyA)

I always thought Gore had his second chakra where his first chakra should be.

119
That theory certainly would have been disproven during the Bush years when after the tax cuts the unemployment went down to below 5% with little or no inflation.

If I am not mistaken 5% is now considered zero real unemployment.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2010 05:26 PM (6taRI)

I think it's somewhere in the 2.5 - 2.7% range, so the unemployment we saw during the Bush era wasn't low enough. But you are right; unemployment can theoretically never be zero, so there's always going to be a percent of it.

120 OMFG detailed complaint against Gore released...it's 73 freakin' pages long I just hope I didn't make it in there.

121 in any case, about last night and mr. bear (who garnered a great deal of sympathy), it is somewhat ironical that he was reaching out here, on this site, and i sorta predicted that were it someone else he would be snickered at. lo and behold, one day later...

122 The theory was also dis-proven in the Carter years when we had such high unemployment coupled with such high inflation that they had to invent a new word:  Stagflation.

The Phillips Curve

and it not dis-proven.  Carters policies shifted the curve....

123 After 99 weeks unemployment insurance takes on a whole new meaning.

124 127

Uh  . . ..  me again.

I need a sock minder app.....

125 Any economic decision that takes longer than a "Happy Ending" in an Oregon hotel is subject to "Hope and Change" to the point where it could be unrecognizable.

This.

As for Is it the government's job to make sure that you have a job? Is full employment one of the main goals of a national government?

I'm pretty sure that was one of Hitler's stump speeches around 1932. 

126

if I or my kids need to leave CA to avoid starvation, we won't hesitate.  Survival trumps sentiment.

I've got a relative who's not really getting this. Live somewhere else and the family could scrape together enough to pay half or more of your rent for a while. Choose to live somewhere the rest of us can't afford, on the other hand...

127

I know the rest of the country is in bad shape but my 15 year old and my 18 year old are working 64 hours per week and drawing about $900 per week or $3600 per month over the summer. The older one was working 80 hours per week but thought that was too much. They will have 10,000 to get them through the school year and considering they don't have to pay any room, board, tuition, medical,  insurance, utilities....hey wait a minute those parasites owe me money.

For any morons out of work, I highly recommend life guard/ swimming teacher cert and referee cert. They aren't great jobs but they are always looking for mature people to keep an eye on the kid lifeguards. The cert is not painful if you can swim a few laps.

128 And of course your big-spending government intitiatives have to be funded by taxes, which depresses economic activity.

But I didn't have to pay for govt graft and corruption in SimCity.  So my govt initiatives were always for infrastructure and protection.

129 actually, bear didn't once complain about UE benefits or otherwise ask for a handout. and i was the only one who suggested he go back to school (accounting, i think) on the govt. dime.

130 I haven't done a "job" for Al in quite some time... and I couldn't be happier.

131 Agree, kdbabear has NEVER asked for handouts.

132

suppose that a super-efficient economy could produce twice as much with half as many workers. Unemployment would skyrocket, but our GDP would stay pretty much the same. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Interesting scenario. My cop-out answer: It depends.

What are those unemployed people doing? Are they staying out of the way of everyone's prosperity? Or are they threatening to undo it all if they don't get their way? Because I'd be happy to support an unemployed person out of personal charity if I'm that prosperous and he doesn't impede that prosperity. And sure, that would be a good thing. Otherwise, well, I'm not so happy about it.

133 s'moron- The other side of the equation also holds true. If you keep taking from one group of people, people who are producing, and keep giving it to another group, those who are not producing, you will also see the collapse of the system. You don't have to look far, it's happening in places like Greece, Italy, Spain and spreading throughout the EU. I was in Leipzig, Germany a couple weeks ago. Leipzig was a city behind the wall 20 short years ago and to this day it survives only through confiscatory taxes on western Germany to keep the place alive. The government gave huge fiscal incentives to companies like Porsche and Mercedes to build plants there, incentives which were so great they built plants there rather than in more attractive (from a worker perspective) locations and everyone knows they will only stay as long as the handouts continue and many Germans who continue to fund this stuff are only marginally less happy about it than they are about funding the unsustainable lifestyles of their southern cousins. You can't social engineer economies. Centuries of history have taught us this. Every time the state steps in the free market dies a little more. The state can and arguably should step in to prevent catastrophic meltdowns but staying too long while appearing to be compassionate in the short term actually prevents the economy from recovering in the long run.

134 so the shame is on me. oh, the shame. in real world terms, if the govt. offered UE or school aid, should he turn it down? i say what the hell, take it.

135 Every time the state steps in the free market dies a little more. I like the sound of this. You people deserve it.

136 The problem I have with this example is that it goes against what history tells us will happen when efficiencies are increased. Over the past 100 yrs efficiency of each man hour of production did increase and it did not lead to higher unemployment and GDP but decreased or held steady unemployment and GDP rose.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at June 28, 2010 04:55 PM (tf9Ne)

In a hypothetical situation where productivity quadrupled overnight, it would result in extreme short-term economic disruption.  As industries adjusted to the new productivity, some would need far fewer workers, and there would be an enormous amount of structural unemployment before things gradually sorted themselves out.  Of course, in reality great changes in productivity don't happen overnight, and you're right that gradual changes are vastly different.  If productivity growth in the United States increased to 6% per year, then productivity would quadruple after only 24 years.  There would still be some increase in structural unemployment, but this would be at least partially balanced out by lower unemployment from the general prosperity, and nearly everyone would be much better off in the end.

137 That's a bad thing. Do you think they would stand around and wait to starve to death? Unless your plan ends with the words "death camp" or "forced deportation", where will they go?

Your missing the point. This has happened many many times over, just in the time the US has been around. What they do is find alternate products and services to offer. As our economy becomes more efficient, we all get to have more. There was a time when most families could only afford 1 car, now they can afford 2. At one time having any television was a luxury, now many families have them gracing any room one might want to spend more than 5 minutes in. At one time a home computer was worth a months salary, now my Iphone has several orders of magnitude more power, fits in my shirt pocket, and costs less than half in non-adjusted dollars as my dad's first IBM PC. At one time having bookshelf stereo was cool, now having 7.2 surround with speakers the size of children's blocks is cool. Every day we made our production of goods and services more efficient resulted in a lower real cost for all of those things, which, though leading to temporary unemployment, in the long term led to more goods, and more services, available at a lower cost to all. Simple simple simple. It is this effect which has shielded the US to what should have been substantial declines in our standard of living over the years as our trade deficit grew to enormous sizes.

Those who would look at unemployment caused by an increase in economic efficiency as a calamity, do not understand economics.

138
You think you people would say "thank you" is what you'd think.

139

I think a key problem with how we handle welfare and unemployment in the US is the fact that people are not forced to work for their benefits.   Welfare should be workfare, set up in such a way that private business was not in competition with it.  I think that even unemployment should hold a work element - even if only for 1 day per week.  Preferably doing something unpleasant, like breaking big rocks into little rocks, scrubbing pidgeon shit off of statues, or things like that, picking weeds out of sidewalk cracks, or sweeping the street with a broom.  The idea is to provide that incentive to self-improvement that a sucky job can be counted on to induce.

The long extension of unemployment benefits is good for a person who is earnestly working hard to find a new job in times like this.  But it is bad when people sit around and live on it for months on end.  That hurts employers - skilled people will refuse to work for you if they think they can hold out for something better.  If the unemployed have to think about breaking rocks or scrubbing shit every Friday, on 2nd shift no less, they suddenly re-evaluate their options. 

140

JackStraw, I couldn't agree more.  But the chance of a well-paid and well-fed tax slave revolting are much less than the likelihood of the guy with 3 hungry kids robbing the bank.

I think that's what the dems are really afraid of in the Tea Parties, the chance that unemployed conservatives will form cohesive small units and start attacking various points of federal infrastructure, or engage in general riot (because that's what THEY would do).

It's only a matter of time before the system collapses of its own dead weight. 

141 THat is a certain recipe for social violence.

Posted by: s'moron at June 28, 2010 05:35 PM (ds8Yk)

 Let me tell you the story of my great-uncle Sol.

Sol was a chicken farmer in Petaluma, California, in the 1930s.  Now, due to a strange accident of history, a large proportion of Petaluma's chicken farmers were Eastern European Jewish immigrants.  Half of them were small businessman types for whom chicken farming was a business opportunity like any other, and the other half were Communists for whom chicken farming was a chance to be men of the working class, ordinary farmers -- a status denied Jews back in Europe.  (The Commies also liked that they could get their wives to do all the work while they debated world revolution with each other.)  Sol was a Commie.

And like all Commies of the time, he was always on the side of the little guy.  Petaluma's other industry at the time was apple growing, and the apples were picked by transient workers -- like the Joads of The Grapes of Wrath, people whose own farms and businesses and jobs had dried up and blown away.  So in the fall of 1937 (I think that was the year), in the depths of the Great Depression, the Commies tried to organize the transient apple pickers and got them to strike for a raise of 10 cents a bushel -- from 25 up to 35.  As Sol recalled, the idea was that they'd get the growers to settle for a nickel raise.

The growers wanted none of it.  You see, at 25 cents a bushel, they could make money selling their apples.  But at 35 or ever 30 cents, they'd lose money for every bushel they brought to market.

So late one night, some vigilantes showed up at Uncle Sol's place and threatened to burn it down.  Against Aunt Millie's advice, Sol finally gave himself up to the vigilantes.

They took Sol and three other Commies to a warehouse in Santa Rosa.  There they told them that the strike was over and that they needed to kneel down and kiss the American flag.  The other three, out of a sensible survival instinct, obeyed -- but not Sol!  "I love the flag," he said, "but nobody forces me to kiss it!"

So they stripped him naked, smeared his body from head to foot with hot tar, and rolled him in chicken feathers.  Then they paraded him down the main street through Santa Rosa and left him at the south end of town.

Eventually Sol's friends found him and Millie got the tar off him (which took days).  And the apples rotted on the tree that year, and the apple pickers got nothing but the solidarity of the Commies (which doesn't fill empty bellies).

So yes, there may be social unrest and violence -- but it won't be the desperate unemployed.  It'll be the people who see what they have being stolen from them and given to the undeserving who finally stand up and say, "Enough!"  Why do you think the Left is so terrified of the TEA Parties?

142
Somebody turned disasters on in this version of Sims. 

143

Those who would look at unemployment caused by an increase in economic efficiency as a calamity, do not understand economics.


It's not the general theory that's the problem. 

It's the 2-10 year transition period during which people are unemployed with mouths to feed.

Should we cut off UE benefits? 

Yes. 

Will that have negative, even dire effects? 

Yes.

that's the call we are being forced to make, and human nature will take almost any steps to avoid it.

144

Posted by: DKCZ at June 28, 2010 05:50 PM (hGufC)

Don't discount structural OVERemployment in the short run.  That is what drove dot-coms to hire English majors as web developers.  (And prior to that, what drove men from all walks of life to become prospectors and miners in California and the Yukon and Montana.)

145 The problem is the current anti-business, anti-risk climate.  We need to lower taxes yes but we also need to drastically reduce regulations.
Posted by: chemjeff

This, for the win.

To Monty's question, I believe full unemployment is a recipe for out-of-control inflation.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty

'Full employment' generally means a level of employment where the unemployed are between 4 % - 6%. It implies a non-inflationary environment.

146 Your missing the point.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 28, 2010 05:51 PM (0q2P7)

You missed my second paragraph. The rest of your postulations were not given as options. Especially when you take into account "Monty's" statement: Unemployment would skyrocket, but our GDP would stay pretty much the same. That to me implies that none of the newly unemployed will be working.

147

Posted by: stuiec at June 28, 2010 05:53 PM

It's not clear...but I assume the vigilantes were he non-commie chicken farmers?

148 the vigilantes were JOOOOS

149

"Why do you think the Left is so terrified of the TEA Parties?"

Your denim jeans and trucker hats?

150  If the unemployed have to think about breaking rocks or scrubbing shit every Friday, on 2nd shift no less, they suddenly re-evaluate their options. 

Posted by: Reactionary at June 28, 2010 05:52 PM (4nbyM)

That's sort of what I was saying above. In the Great Depression people packed their families up and went accross the nation looking for work. They would take anything that would pay them.

Now we have a Federal Government that tells us that we need the 12,000,000 illegals we have here because our own people won't take these jobs at the same time they are telling us we have to extend unemployment benefits to 2 years.

151

I've got a relative who's not really getting this. Live somewhere else and the family could scrape together enough to pay half or more of your rent for a while. Choose to live somewhere the rest of us can't afford, on the other hand...

Posted by: Mama AJ at June 28, 2010 05:46 PM (XdlcF)

It could be a factor in my family's decisionmaking that we're descended from about 2,000 years' worth of running from place to place to find somewhere in which the locals won't kill us right away.

152

Hollowpoint,

Doesn't your buddy know anyone in a position to hire him?

I could be hired tomorrow from at least 3 different people. Only one would come anywhere near to replacing my salary (one would be barely above minimum wage), but I'd be working.

It's hard for me to imagine too, and no doubt he's made some mistakes- though 2 years ago who knew we'd be facing 10% unemployment?

I know he's reached out to people he knows, but the jobs just aren't there.  I can't really judge without having been there; I can't say that I know anyone I could rely on to give me a job, either.  I can't really expect someone to create a new opening out of goodwill or charity if they don't need the extra employee.

In college (all 11 years of attending on and off again), I never really had too much trouble finding a job for the summer or when I needed to take a year off to earn money, despite the fact that it should've been obvious with a little checking inot my application that I wouldn't be there long.  I could always count on finding some kind of crap job (often through temp agencies) somewhere- but that's when 6.5% unemployment was considered a crisis.

One of my sisters was in a similar boat- unemployed long term, even temp agencies weren't hiring.  She recently found something, but she's younger (30) and didn't have a job history that would immediately tag her as "overqualified".

153

It's not clear...but I assume the vigilantes were he non-commie chicken farmers?

Posted by: Tipper at June 28, 2010 05:59 PM (AnTyA)

No, the vigilantes were the local businessmen and apple growers -- members of the Chamber of Commerce, the American Legion and even the Silver Shirts (one of the American groups that flirted with Fascism during the Depression).  At one point, the vigilantes used tear gas on Sol and Millie's house, and Sol tossed one of the canisters back outside.  A day or so later, Millie noticed that the local pharmacist had terribly red eyes and marks from the tear gas.  But no one was ever arrested for the attack on Sol and Millie's place or for tarring and feathering Sol (maybe because more than one member of local law enforcement was in the mob, which is how the vigilantes got tear gas canisters).

154

_{"VAT TAX,}

_{VAT TAX,}

_{CAPITAL GAINS!}

_{DEATH TAX,}

_{DEATH TAX,}

_{The Rich are to BLAME!}

Gooooo Wun! 

I've got a Fevah...

 and the ONLY cure is MORE TAXES!"

 

 

155

LOL, stuiec. This person is not showing the pragmatism that the rest of us have, which is confusing the heck out of us.

I graduated from college in 1991, looked back at California and saw that I'd be without a job, needing a car, and having to live at home. Decided to stay in Philly where I could walk to any job I could find and live in a small cheap place. Finally got my own car in 1998!

156 the vigilantes were JOOOOS

Posted by: blogRot at June 28, 2010 06:00 PM (WmZrs)

No, a lot of the Commies were (though the Irish and other Commies coming up from San Francisco were also there, agitating heavily for the strike).  The vigilantes weren't Jews, but apparently their motivation was anti-Communism, not anti-Semitism.

A trivia fact: the New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael was the daughter of a Petaluma Commie chicken farmer.  Besides her film criticism, she's also known for her (probably apocryphal) comment on the 1972 Presidential election from when she was a leading light of Upper West Side New York culture: "How could Nixon have won?  I don't know anyone who voted for him, and I don't know anyone who knows anyone who voted for him!"

157 That to me implies that none of the newly unemployed will be working.

Well initially that does happen, but it does self correct. In the interest of not starving humans give up there old familiar professions, (like say a stoker or cobbler) for a new or different profession, a change that almost always requires a big push.

158 It's really bad when the european socialist are telling us that we need to stop spending, cut deficits, and not allow burkas in public.

159 I noticed this comment at the site, regarding effect of a high state minimum wage on the state employment rate:   Cat Cube:   As high as necessary to fill the jobs. If they can't stay in business, that's their problem.

That's the flip side of the conservative position on minimum wage. Just like the market might say to an individual that a little burger-flipping job isn't worth $5.25 an hour, it can also say to an employer that it's worth more than $12/hr.   Unbelievable. This proud ignoramus can't distinguish between market forces and government forces. College grad, I have no doubt.

160 Well played Monty. And I'm just going to repeat this: The Law http://tinyurl.com/639p8q Because the more people who read Bastiat, the less economic failtastic Paul Krugman thinking will exist...

161 i only point out the anecdote of kdbear not to claim hypocrisy of some sort (though it might apply as he's one of the big time regulars here) but because in a particular case it's often a bit different than in the general theorizing. i know i wouldn't begrudge him the UE or any other benefits he could avail himself of. to paraphrase some dictator: one death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic. would you deny him the govt. aid? or you? or..... YOU? [portentous music rises]

162 "heart bleeds for the un employed" [snicker, snicker]

163 News from February that has significant importance here...

http://tinyurl.com/yavtspt

Companies in at least 35 states will have to fork over more in unemployment insurance taxes this year, according to the National Association of State Workforce Agencies.

The median increase will be 27.5%. And employers in places such as Hawaii and Florida could see levies skyrocket more than ten-fold.

...

Higher taxes, however, dampen employers' ability to hire new workers, crimping any nascent economic recovery. Companies pay taxes on each employee on the payroll.

"There's no doubt it discourages hiring," said Douglas Holmes, president of UWC-Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers' Compensation, an employers' trade group. "In fact, it leads to increased unemployment."

...

Florida, meanwhile, has increased its minimum payroll tax to $100.30 per employee this year, up from $8.40. About half of the state's employers pay the minimum.

Hey prospective employers, why not hire more pemplyoees now while all your employess including new ones are considerably more costly?  We probmise we'll keep raising this tax on the unemployed so who knows where this tax will be next year; maybe it'll rocket another 200% from where it's at now... why aren't you hiring already?

1) Unemployed out of work longer
2) More UI benefits
3) More taxes on companies to pay for UI benefits
4) Less hiring due to higher cost of employees.
5) GOTO 1

HOORAY, we're in an infinite loop.

Should we do anyhting different to get out of this loop, or do we like the byproducts of more unemployed AND higher taxes?  Or am I being mean suggesting more unemployed and higher taxes combined could be a bad thing?

164

to paraphrase some dictator: one death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic.

kill them all, a god.

165 sheesh, last night everybody's heart bled. copiously.

166 61 The usual Prog drool. I just want to know Right. Because broke unemployed people exist only in progressive's imagination. You know I'm no prog, fuckstick then cowboy up motherfucker. It's pursuit of happiness, remember?

167 that should have been: one unemployed is a tragedy, a million unemployed is a statistic.

168 9 Megan can whine and whimper all she wants, but what's she going to do when government runs out of 'other people's money'?

Posted by: GarandFan at June 28, 2010 04:47 PM (6mwMs)

She's gonna ask YOU for a cigarette.

169 3 McArdle- is she supposed to be a conservative?  I can't keep the squishes straight.

Posted by: Truman North at June 28, 2010 04:42 PM (e8YaH)

No, she identifies as a libertarian rather than liberal or conservative, but McArdle is yet another liberal who calls herself a libertarian.  She does have enough intelligence to understand why this or that liberal policy is a bad idea, but she's one of those people who will support stupid policies to avoid being perceived as heartless.

170 she is totally unqualified to write about economics.

QED.

171 Or if you prefer:

she is totally unqualified to write about economics.

QED.

Ta da!

172

Commiefornia's deficit to the UI fund is several $Billions...that on TOP OF the $19Billion structural general fund shortfall (about $100 billion in spending and $81 Billion in revenue...sans UI expenses). We're sooooo screwed.

We're liable to have tattoos on our asses soon saying "xxxx's Bitch".

173

It's pursuit of happiness, remember?

There's "insure domestic Tranquility" too, y'know.

174 What the hell are you guys yapping about 99 weeks of unemployment?  That is only 10% of the folks that just got notified that they are "out of unemployment benefits" until congress decides to act.  The only folks that got 99 weeks were those that were laid off in Nov 2008 - Feb 2008.

I was laid off in Nov 2008 (actually my IT contract ended then, bad timing or what? which is, for unemployment purposes considered laid off).  I collected for the first time in my life cause I was panicked by the O administration.  I got another IT contract in Feb 2009 and it lasted until the project was halted in June 2008.  And yes I again reapplied for unemployment (O's still pres). I haven't had a nibble or a bite in 12 fucking months and I am looking at  positions everywhere including retail. 

Retail won't bite cause they can hire a teenager or hispanic who has low skills and can't drop the job once they find something better.  IT, I have dumbed down my resume to the point that it would be laughable.  I'm a late 40 something and I have a resume that looks like one for a early 30s candidate.  The employers know the dumbing down is going on.  They ignore the over 40s completely.  I have even smarted up some resumes applying for shit that I don't fully know or that I have limited exposure to.  Zip.

I get pissed off driving through McDs seeing the hispanics working the drive through.  I would gladly work at McDs if they would hire me.  I've applied.  They don't call back. 

I have only had 50 weeks of unemployment and I have zero prospects in the hopper right now.  I get 30-60 jobs emailed off hiring sites daily and I am usually a good fit for 2 or 3.  I apply for those and I apply up and down the skill sets.  No bites.  One phone call in three months.

My husband is retired and we can get by on just his retirement, but the rumors are starting that the 401K is gonna be seized , and then the shit will really hit the fan.  I have spent exactly $1.29 for a song for my daughter on itunes and we haven't eaten out this month, we canceled cable, and we have internet cause my daughter is taking additional online high school classes this summer to catch up from being out with mono.  We have no credit cards, don't want em, never had em.  All cell, no home phone.  Both cars are paid off and over 5 years old. No movies, no netflix.  No new clothes, no new undies, my fucking underwire in my bra broke and I won't buy a new bra, I just took the underwire out of the other side.  Saggy tits it must be for now. 

So yeah, I'm watching the unemployment payment tennis ball in Washington.  And wondering why this animal (me) is not as equal as those that got their (so far) 99 weeks....

175 Any other morons in the construction industry on piecework ?

176 ^ ... or any other industry , for that matter .

177 Wow... some folks in here don't have a clue.  Who says KD hasn't already tapped out his friends/relatives?  Who says they aren't in the same boat that he is? 

This government is determined to get everyone on the private track onto the public one... what makes y'all think your job isn't next?  What if your industry is taken over next? 

Obama said last night that "the field should be level for countries in this economic recovery"... meaning we haven't felt enough paid yet.  We still have food, housing, transportation.  Once we reach parity with Kenya, he will be happy to discuss moving in a prosperous direction.  Till then we are going to be dumbed down economically so that we aren't at an unfair advantage to Kenya or Turkey or Paukistann...

Might as well take advantage of the getting while the getting's good...

I've begun to wonder who the rubes are... those paying for those on the government dole or those who are not applying for all the government shit before the well goes dry.

178

Posted by: unemployed and broke at June 28, 2010 07:10 PM (hGYL3)

What is your geographic location?  My employer tends to have openings in the Norfolk, Virginia, area but a few other places as well.

179

U&B, 181: Ready for more bad news? Managers don't like to hire people older than they are. Some 42-year-old employees have trouble taking work direction from a 26-year-old manager, so the "kid" stops hiring people older than he is. It's a stupid cycle that you had nothing to do with, but people are people.

The good news is that you can overcome this. First, always be pleasant. (Given, but worth a reminder.) Then, highlight your qualities that employers are looking for -- takes work direction, works well in a procedures-driven environment, pays attention to detail. I'm guessing that as an IT contractor, these all apply to you.

Try applying at grocery stores and Walgreen's-type stores. Even where I am (small town in the Northeast, where economic conditions are supposedly the worst) supermarkets always seem to be hiring.

I hope something here helps. Best of luck to you.

180

I'm beginning to see it all as one big scam to keep most of the people sheep -- broke, dependent, easily frightened sheep.

I just hope me and mine don't get swept down into it from gravitational pull.  I'm afraid we are.

181 ...and didn't have a job history that would immediately tag her as "overqualified".

I never quite understood employer mindsets on this subject. Wouldn't it be more advantageous to bring in someone who probably already knows the ropes, regardless of how far above that level they are, who can be reasonably productive rather quickly, instead of hiring someone that needs training and time to develop their skills?

182

Capital creation and capital destruction.

When the Real Estate bubble burst, there was an incredible destruction of capital, whether it was the credit default swaps, counter party insurance, whatever.  The "money" or capital wasn't just Federal Money, but all the other "capital" in the country; like the value of your house, the value of various credit instruments, etc.

So the Federal Government runs deficits like crazy, Obama thinks he is "buying votes" but in reality the fiscal policy is trying to fill in the black hole that was created in 2008. Which is, in my opinion, why we don't have inflation right now, because in fact, the money supply has been SHRINKING despite the deficit spending. Other forms of capital are being destroyed.

They're burning money!

The lack of capital in the hands of many, and the fear of further destruction has us all worried. And of course, the Obama Administration has also been eager to destroying capital by mis-spending BILLIONS on non-productive projects.

Unemployement will not decrease until the government gets out of the capital destruction business.  Creating capital and value increases the demand for goods and services, which should"create" job opportunities.

Promoting more expensive "green energy" is surely not the way to go. "Green jobs" do not create more wealth just by their existence and fashionable nomenclature.

We need to stop destroying capital, reverse the growth of government at all levels and make money work, instead of being destroyed.

Megan McCardle cannot be a "disciple" of Ayn Rand in any way, because she has forgotten one of Rand's cardinal rules about the growth of the state. As the state grows, the private free market whithers. How does one "whither" the state?

It has never happened.

183 the point is this: extending unemployment benefits has nothing to do with fiscal policy. it has nothing to do with the dangers of deficits, big gummit, or its by and large temporary noxious effects on individual initiative. most, if not many, of the people, like da bear, who need the funds have paid into it and want work (although in the case of mr. bear, i don't know and don't want to know [that was mean]). obama will use the unemployed as a means to an end. but i have every, or enough, sympathy for them to not quibble with it or argue with those who would advocate that. it's a pittance in the big fiscal picture, after all. and i'm sure mr. ayn rand himself, alan greenspan [i'm standing right now] wouldn't argue otherwise. fiscal & financial policies are another issue altogether. and that is the big fight. per cnnmoney site: obama to deficit hawks: the big fix is coming so stand up and take it: ie: big taxes!

184 big taxes in a recession! can you believe it? the guy really wants to bankrupt us!

185 I never quite understood employer mindsets on this subject. Wouldn't it be more advantageous to bring in someone who probably already knows the ropes, regardless of how far above that level they are, who can be reasonably productive rather quickly, instead of hiring someone that needs training and time to develop their skills?

No, not really.  Bringing on new people is expensive for employers.  The hiring process itself is a pain in the ass.  Even someone familiar with the industry will need to be trained for the vagaries associated with the particular job.  There's a risk you may bring on a complete loser who'll want to sue when you fire him.  Depending on the industry, there may be a extra paperwork for any new hire (security clearances, certifications, EEOC-type legal cya "classes").

What you want when you hire someone is a conscientious person who'll come up to speed relatively quickly an stay for awhile.  The worry with an overqualified person is he'll keep looking for another job, find one after six weeks, and force you to start all over again from the top.

186

CJ,

Capital is not being destroyed, it was artificial to begin with.  It's called "credit," and was flowing around from teh fed through the main financial houses to businesses large and small.  That credit is gone, being hoarded by the banks in part to shore up reserves to prevent bank runs, and in part because they view the ongoing deflation as increasing the value of those holdings.  They are hedging around the collapse by tanking the economy themselves. 

That's where the capital has gone, into teh bottomless pit of the banks who refuse to make any loans.

187 :::::: !!!!!! lotsa colons and exclamation points. that's what i love about being on aoshq.

188 Extending unemployment benefits indefinitely will simply prolong the very pain it is meant to alleviate.

Preach it brother!

As someone who finally (after about a year and a half of blatant, urging on the part of my one-time supervisor from my one-time 30 hrs. (avg.) per week regular gig) got on the dole, I can't even begin to describe how pointless, frustrating and fucking time-and-soul-consuming, it is to scratch and grovel for that measly $200 per week.

I make it worse on myself because I will not refuse the 1099 odd jobs that come my way, which used to supplement my meager (but regular) income from said company until they finally decided to do an experiment in early January of this year and find out what happens if they turn an average 30 hrs. per week into 40 hrs. per month for an entire class of employees, for the first quarter of the year!

Surprise!

I finally went on unemployment in March of this year. 

I felt that this was something of a failure on my part. 

I can't tell you how many times I was specifically urged to go on the dole when this company was feeling the pinch in previous years but I was stubborn and weird and just found other jobs that I could work into my schedule for them.

Another graveling experience?

Those fuckers had the temerity to challenge my stupid, useless, but kind of necessary to pay the rent, stupid-ass Unemployment Claim!

It's all cool though.

I have a fucking case-worker who eventually ruled on my side.

I think that she kind of understands, now, how I can earn $700 in one week and also be totally fucked for another three months.

I have a fucking case-worker?!?

Oh! Fuck Me!

So, so, soooo, Fuck ME!

(Stupid bastards finally hired on a replacement for me but she's posting on trade message boards about how she can't figure out how to do her assigned jobs [hired on at 10-15 hours per month] without breaking the 40hr per week barrier.)

Routing, baby!

Sometimes it's stupid inefficient, but some (extra-territorial) regular stops on your tour, are paid, off the fucking clock!

If you are clever, you can, strategically order those visits in such a way as to get 50 hours worth of work and drive time come in under 40hrs. on the clock and still know that you are getting paid for every minute of your precious time.

OMG!

I'm such a tool!

Who am I to have an opinion?

I have a fucking case-worker, who is on my side, after being a hard-ass, that needed documentation!

I feel like such a worm.

Should never have gone down the UI route.

189 credit is not "gone". it's the essence of capital and capital creation. it'll come back. in fact it's humming along as we speak. or comment. or commiserate. or whatever the hell this is.

190

"I do feel badly for the millions of people who are suffering for the idiocy of the liberal bien pensant class and the politicians they helped put in office, but the best remedy is to get rid of them and put a more pro-market administration in their place."

Which ones do we get rid of? The millions of suffering people, the liberal bien pensant class, or the politicians?  All three? Some combination thereof?

Stand back, everyone.  The Second Amendment is about to get unleashed up in this bitch!

191 That credit is gone, being hoarded by the banks in part to shore up reserves to prevent bank runs, and in part because they view the ongoing deflation as increasing the value of those holdings.  They are hedging around the collapse by tanking the economy themselves. 

Not exactly.  Banks would love to make loans, but healthy businesses aren't making expansion plans until the see some signs of a real recovery.  The set of people who want to borrow money and the set of people who can pay back what they borrow don't have a lot of intersection.

Banks don't actually spend money when they make a loan.  The money they give you is created out of thin air and backed by your promise to repay - kind of like creating positive and negative money at the same time.  Have you ever written a check and had it bounce because the bank had lent your money out?  Have you ever heard of it happening to anybody?

192 This is an area where there is a lot of silliness on the right ... follow the "logic" and you conclude that a sure-fire way to get unemployment to zero is to eliminate unemployment insurance.

Unemployment insurance does keep out of work. I know a couple who were both in the finance industry, and both lost their jobs in 2008. That particular industry had become bloated, so these jobs aren't coming back any time soon. As neither of them is really qualified to do anything else that brings home the same kind of salary, they were out of work until virtually the day UI ran out. And then they both immediately found jobs. In fact they had plenty of leads the entire time, but nothing that made as much as the jobs that wouldn't be coming back.

It doesn't make sense on paper to take a lower paying job while you're on UI. Not only do you make less as a percentage of your benefit check, if you get laid off again the amount of UI you get is less.

193

/evilbastard

Bring on the social unrest and riots. It's time to cull the herd anyways.

/evilbastard

Now class, repeat after me:

"Extend and pretend. Extend and pretend!"

There, thats better.

Pay no attention to that cliff just up ahead. It is just your imagination. Trust me.

194 It really kills me to see someone get my job and not know how to do it.

I know that I quit and I know that I quit in a bridge burning tantrum.

(You just can't say that in the comments on a training video.  It makes us look bad.  Like we encourage rank insubordination.)

We so totally do not encourage insubordination of any type, evarr!!11!!,  that I'm kind of shocked and disgusted that we ever depended on a shiftless, impious bastard such as yourself to be let loose and be the face of our company during the day-time.

What the hell were we thinking?

Our bread and butter is faceless grunt-work, performed in the dead of night, by ex-convicts that can't get any other job and periodically, not only need firing for theft, but have to be tracked with company-wide BOLO's.

Wasn't that silly, sending Deety out to negotiate displays on behalf of paying MFG clients?

Oops!

Sometimes I let the harried and distracted Managers off a bit, on a display or two.

Sometimes I had my instructions to build a display, if it wasn't there, where it should be.

Can't help you mate!

There's gotta be a tower of fucking Bounty Paper Towels somewhere in this particular fucking store, this particular fucking week, according to the AD!

Don't be a bitch about this, if you manage a bigger store.

Build the god-dammed displays!

Just like the Memos tell you to.

195 I would like to personally thank Ace and Monty.
Ace for allowing Monty the keys, and Monty for seeing a tremendous need and filling it with expert repartee, wit, and knowledge.  Just a step up for Ace, imo.

Monty, eh. Might get the moniker "poodle" if he ain't a kerfull.

196 Monty...Love Bastiat...No. It is not the gov't's place to make sure you have a job. No.

I have a 17 yo who has absolutely zero sense of direction, while his 18 yo sister got herself admitted to the U of Michigan. He is going to have a hard life unless the maturity thing suddenly kicks in or will be one of those people who blames the world for his ills and on the dole.

At this point, I am frustrated, but every day, I tell him that reality is going to bite him and I won't be able to help him. When he turns 18, if he holds no job, I will kick him out until he gets one, and if I don't get to sleep in, neither will he.

PS...Paul Krugman is an idiot.

197 I agree, Megan, nee McArdle, does not merit regular readership.  Which in her outfit is blinding praise.

198 The Bloggess Formerly Known As Jane Galt is a libertarian in the tradition of David Weigel: if the Kochtopus writes her check, that makes her a libertarian.

199 Monty,

I know you've set yourself the unenviable task of making these briefings a daily thing (translation, we all drip with envy--and the other stuff we usually drip), but I hope you can keep them coming all the way until Obama hits the iKill^® switch.

Even though, like Mighty Joe Biden, I might have possibly had more Econ education than you (I think I attended most of the classes, finished Econ 101, AND got the "C," baby!), I must humbly bow to your Econ-fu.

I am cancelling my free subscription to Google Finance and my premium executive edition of Yahoo Finance, and am now gonna concentrate on your daily briefings. You make more sense than Obama's "vast majoriteh" of economists and Paul Krugman when he's sober, all put together (like one monstrous, smelly, amoeboid  gob of Keynesian spinal jelly).

In fact, I'm gonna go start a blog and link to your stuff here because I'm learnin' the HTMLs to put stuff on the Internets.

But first I have this tumbler full of "breakfast" to finish.

200 Unemployment wouldn't skyrocket in the long term. You'd have GROWTH.

You have to look at what it means to move your production possibilities curve so far outward that you can produce a ton more with a lot less. It's great for EVERYONE!

Silly leftists and your short-term, half-digested mumbo-jumbo...

201 <a href="http://www.ephotobay.com/share/obama-gloves-coming-off.html"><img src="http://www.ephotobay.com/image/obama-gloves-coming-off.jpg" border="0" alt="obama-gloves-coming-off.jpg" /></a>

202 test