Market Currents
"The Fed is missing on both of its goals," says San Francisco Fed chief Williams (not an FOMC...
-
Monday, January 14, 12:05 PM ET"The Fed is missing on both of its goals," says San Francisco Fed chief Williams (not an FOMC voter this year), noting not just the high unemployment rate, but inflation of 1.5% - lower than the targeted 2%. Translation: The beatings will continue; by Williams' calculations, well into the 2nd half of 2013.
Other date
Latest Macro Articles
This news story has 64 comments:
Why can't these morons wake up and realize that just maybe their policy IS the problem not the solution?
Why work for 8.50 per hour when the Fed makes that an unlivable wage? Collect food stamps instead
Way to call it Macro
(Hopefully your sarcasm detector is on today, Macro)
http://nbcnews.to/W41gxq
http://bit.ly/13waB7C
not long enough
Of course, in the 99 weeks, a woman can push out 2 kids, and the increased welfare payments will compensate for the loss of UEI. More free food and EBT payouts, too. Not to mention WIC...
Can we just stick 'em in the Matrix to add a few watts, or are we not there yet?
Is that getting closer?
But that's a GOOD thing! We need to build a bigger 'safety net', and we can all gather together and sing Kumbaya and eat our food stamp food, and then retire to the smoking room to enjoy a smoke and a drink thanks to the EBT easy money machine.
Can always increase it to 2 trillion-dollar coins / week, right?
This Democrat thing is kinda nice - I like it! Thanks for making me see the light.
Seriously, I think there's still token jobs in the U.S. to subsidize (via the U.S. government in many cases) the 3rd world countries. Look at pharma prices here versus the rest of the world... School books... Healthcare (the fastest growing employment sector!)
We are redistributing our wealth on a global basis. It's wonderful! Can I early vote yet for the Biden/Clinton ticket?
Now, you get to answer mine. Do you think raising the minimum wage and increasing the prevalence of unions in the U.S. workforce will increase employment in the U.S.?
No, I do not think my solution will increase employment in the USA, however, it will increase wages and GDP, enhance the tax base, and afford the USA to provide social safety nets for those unfortunately without work.
Now, quid pro quo, Clarice.
Do you think your solution will decrease employment, or will employment stay static where it is? You said it would not increase employment, so it has to be one of those other two options.
I think my solution will increase unemployment, but by a smaller percentage than the increase in average wage, hence the overall income and taxation base will increase as will GDP. So we will be able to tax part of the excess amount to fund those out of employment.
Your solution will snowball until nobody has a job. Or do you believe that there is a point when it will staunch the loss of jobs and reverse trend? What would be the catalyst for that? An even higher minimum wage and more food stamps?
There is a point where the situation will reverse. I can't tell you where that is we should experiment and find out. No harm in that as it will all be positive in the beginning. When the trend reverses, back off.
But sure, let's experiment with increasing unemployment because, afterall, it will be a positive.
So you think all we need to lower unemployment is to starve people? Why not mandate a wage of 0, plus provide whips for free to the employers?
So you think we could expand government to infinity and employ everyone? Our GDP would be off the charts.
We could get up every morning and stand in a line and push papers to one another. Utopia!
I think everything in life is about balance. Like I said, why expand forever? Expand till the incremental benefit is zero. Then stop.
Can I ask you a serious question? Where do you get this antisocial attitude from? Starving people to motivate them is sick. I am surprised that so many conservatives subscribe to this line of thinking. Did no one ever do nice things to them? Were they not loved when they were kids? It just amazes me.
All to motivate them, of course.
Now can you please answer my question? Where does this anti-social behavior come from?
In order to receive "welfare", "EBT", "section-8", "WIC", "forever UEI", you MUST do two things:
1. Pass a drug test.
2. Work 40 hours per week doing some form of community service (picking up trash, growing a community garden, etc.)
Compensation for those 40 hours would be receiving your "benefits". No "paycheck", just the "benefits".
Would that be acceptable? If yes, great. If no, why not?
How about counter proposal? I am willing to have pre-conditions to social benefits. The drug test is a bit stupid, so I can't agree to that. But I am OK if the condition is that these people will have to actively look for jobs so that they can be out of UI. If they are working 40 hours a week, there is no time left to look for jobs. If they do not have the skills to find a job, then they have to go to college, taxpayer paid of course. You cool with that?
Help me understand, please.
Oh yeah - I don't consider myself anti-social at all (to answer an earlier question). And the fact that I do not want to support other people when they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves does not make me so.
In my own line of work, I could get hired (tonight, probably) at any company that does HVAC work around here, although that would be more than $10/hour. But many of those same companies would hire someone with no experience who is hard working and reliable, and they would make more than $10 / hour (but they would definitely earn it).
If I would want any of those jobs, however, I would have to actually go in and apply for them. Without never-ending UEI and lucrative welfare "benefits", that motivates people to do exactly that.
There's the jobs I spoke of, good sir. Easy enough for anyone to get and avoid UEI and "welfare" altogether.
Oh yeah, to add to an earlier comment, you can indeed find a job (better job or different job) even while working 40 hours / week in another job. I've done it. I've found "upgrade" jobs with better benefits and I was working 60-70 hours / week in the job I had at the time.
All besides the point, however. At $10/hr. full-time (or two jobs at that, or three) you can "make a living" w/o government assistance.
Once again - they should ditch the government "benefits", take the low-paying job, and work for a living. They would still not starve to death, and I would not be forced to kick in to support them.
Win-win.
Never make up data in debates. Makes you look foolish.
You don't even want people to do community service to receive these "benefits".
Unlike you, I would actually like to see people better themselves. Government checks don't do that. Hard work can.
http://seekingalpha.co...