|
I've just been listening to a podcast and thought that some of the political commentary on unemployment could be worth discussing.
9:53
So Russell, America's in the grips of a deep recession right now, way deeper than we're experiencing here. Did you see any evidence of that? How did it impact you while you were there?
There's clearly a lot of really worried people. In the States, if you get chucked out of your job, you get 53 weeks of the unemployment benefit and that's that. Then you're cut off, and already hundreds of thousands of Americans have been cut off the unemployment benefit. And you also lose your health care. So you know, you lose your job, you lose your health care, you lose your income.
It's pretty tough actually, and there's a lot of worried people because so many people have been losing their jobs. I mean, basically all of the jobs that were created over the boom have been lost now. And nine and a half percent unemployment almost certainly dramatically underestimates the level of unemployment, and a lot of people are living on food aid, on food stamps. So, you know, it's pretty tough.
On top of that, obviously in the United States there's already a lot of homeless people. And you see that really starkley in Washington and San Francisco. And when you look at Obama's struggles to both try to get the economy and create some jobs but also in health care, he's got a huge task. I mean, he's trying to fight on climate change to make some progress on that, but he's also trying to struggle to make some progress on health care so that Americans can have a decent health care system, which they clearly don't have at the moment. So it's pretty tough over there right now.
11:36
How are people feeling about Obama right now? Has the optimism faded somewhat?
I think the optimism has faded a bit. Obama and his administration never predicted that unemployment would get this high. And the fact that it has, even after the stimulus, has I think dented some of his popularity and credibility. But it's still early days and I think people are still pretty hopeful.
The stimulus package, I mean, much of it has still to roll out the door. They've legislated for it, but they haven't managed to spend a lot of it yet. It takes time to spend the money. And you know, they're in this catastrophe which was created by the Republican government because of its lax regulation of the financial sector. Obama has got to pick up the pieces, and it's going to take time to do that. So I think it's going to be pretty hard for him and he's going to need all the support he can get.
12:32
 
|
Still reading this, but you should post an opinion on the article yourself. How do you expect a discussion without presenting a forethought of your own?
EDIT: Okay, finished reading. If I remember correctly, Obama promised that unemployment would not rise above a certain % (was it 8, don't really remember) and unfortunately, the results of his stimulus package didn't let him fulfill his promise. Certainly, I think it'll take more time to see the long-term effects of Obama's plans, but lately, our president is talking bigger and produce less than desired results.
Hopefully, we won't see ourselves in as bad a situation in a few years.
|
I thought it'd probably be better for me not to post my own opinion and let those who are better informed to start the discussion instead, and then just sit back and read the debates.
How much per week do you get for the unemployment benefit? I know that the one year benefit is to give an incentive for people to actively seek work, otherwise some people can just end up deciding that they'll depend on welfare until they feel like finding a job again. However, is there some sort of discretionary exceptions to the 53 week limit?
I've been volunteering for homeless shelters and soup kitchens on and off since 2006, to be honest I don't think it should be the community's role to provide for these people but it's not like the government has 'street' outreach officers. From my own observations the biggest factor against their ability to climb out of their situation is drug dependency.
|
Well, an OP post usually contains an opinion, just to start off the topic with a direction in these debate type threads. Just check google quickly for some information and write a couple sentences or a paragraph's worth at least to show where you want to go.
What you've said right there is pretty good in itself; I'm interested myself in how much the compensations are for unemployment. By the way, can you describe a bit of your experiences in working around the welfare institutions? I remember hearing on a news radio how needy kids in certain New York regions were picky about the food they were provided, like how they'd throw out the apples and milk from their providers even though they were allegedly "starving"...
|
Government has compounded the problem. Here, ask yourself: If you are a small business and taxes are increasing, energy is going to take a massive price increase if Cap and Trade passes (So you can't hire people when it is in limbo), you're going to get fined if your employees don't have healthcare (Read the bill please), why on earth would you hire anyone?! You would in fact, start to lay off more and more people to reduce overhead so your business doesn't go belly up.
Everything Obama is doing is opposite what should be done. You want historical reference? When Reagan came into office he had it worst than Obama does now. He had soaring inflation, the same unemployment as today, and huge tax burdens. He did the opposite of Obama and we came roaring out of that. In 6 years he created 22 million jobs and lowered the unemployment from 9.x% to 5.x%, and all but eliminated inflation.
I don't know how old you are, but there was this thing called the Misery Index under Carter and Obama is putting into place and worst all of what Carter did and what FDR did in the New Deal which prolonged the depression for 11 years. By 2012....we'll be in a full blown depression. You simply cannot strangle the people who create jobs and expect a thriving economy. Simply doesn't happen.
Just so you know, in the vast majority of states after the Bush Tax cuts expire and Obama's healthcare takeover passes (If it does, hopefully it doesn't) the top marginal tax rates will be above 58%. That is so absurd.....it's astounding. In effect when you work you are only making 42 cents on the dollar. If that isn't as close to slavery to the government (master) as you can get (philosophically and realistically speaking), I don't know what is.
|
On July 17 2009 23:21 Aegraen wrote:
Government has compounded the problem. Here, ask yourself: If you are a small business and taxes are increasing, energy is going to take a massive price increase if Cap and Trade passes (So you can't hire people when it is in limbo), you're going to get fined if your employees don't have healthcare (Read the bill please), why on earth would you hire anyone?! You would in fact, start to lay off more and more people to reduce overhead so your business doesn't go belly up.
Everything Obama is doing is opposite what should be done. You want historical reference? When Reagan came into office he had it worst than Obama does now. He had soaring inflation, the same unemployment as today, and huge tax burdens. He did the opposite of Obama and we came roaring out of that. In 6 years he created 22 million jobs and lowered the unemployment from 9.x% to 5.x%, and all but eliminated inflation.
I don't know how old you are, but there was this thing called the Misery Index under Carter and Obama is putting into place and worst all of what Carter did and what FDR did in the New Deal which prolonged the depression for 11 years. By 2012....we'll be in a full blown depression. You simply cannot strangle the people who create jobs and expect a thriving economy. Simply doesn't happen.
Just so you know, in the vast majority of states after the Bush Tax cuts expire and Obama's healthcare takeover passes (If it does, hopefully it doesn't) the top marginal tax rates will be above 58%. That is so absurd.....it's astounding. In effect when you work you are only making 42 cents on the dollar. If that isn't as close to slavery to the government (master) as you can get (philosophically and realistically speaking), I don't know what is.
only 42% gesh... i don't get paid enough to have that kind of a cut...
|
On July 17 2009 23:12 ilovezil wrote:
Well, an OP post usually contains an opinion, just to start off the topic with a direction in these debate type threads. Just check google quickly for some information and write a couple sentences or a paragraph's worth at least to show where you want to go.
What you've said right there is pretty good in itself; I'm interested myself in how much the compensations are for unemployment. By the way, can you describe a bit of your experiences in working around the welfare institutions? I remember hearing on a news radio how needy kids in certain New York regions were picky about the food they were provided, like how they'd throw out the apples and milk from their providers even though they were allegedly "starving"...
Here is a recent current affairs clip regarding the homeless in the city I live in. I only moved here a few months ago so I can only give you a brief rundown of what it's like here as I've been busy with a new job and volunteering for an animal rights charity instead so have only in the last week just got back into helping the homeless, but the homeless people here are slightly different to the ones I knew from the city I was in previously. I don't know why, maybe it's because the city I'm in now is a lot more metropolitan but here the homeless people are a lot more big-headed and antisocial. Of course there are also the humble and kind ones who are really smiley, but the other night when I went with one of the local Church's food van I was surprised at how rude some of them were when they came to get the sandwiches we were handing out, grabbing at them without even looking at us and not saying thank you. I know their situation is extremely hard but this was in stark contrast to when I was in a smaller city, where the homeless were incredibly welcoming every time me and my friends showed up and very grateful when we handed out the food, engaging happily in asking us how our day was going etc.
And then being a Christian organisation (although I am not a Christian myself) my co-volunteers tried to talk to them but they seemed really up themselves because they would brag about doing drugs and being in prison, it just wasn't that easy to really have a conversation without feeling like they thought they were better than you and knew more about the world than you. Because let's be honest - the only reason we were there to talk to them (alongside feeding them so they don't suffer too much) was to make an effort to encourage them to find Jesus and make a difference in their lives for themselves 'cos we didn't have to be there (and some do end up going to Church and doing little bits at a time to get back on their feet, like starting from doing mini-duties at the Church like cleaning and then moving on to bigger responsibilities), but I just really got the impression that they felt like it was their right that we were there to give them hand outs and they weren't interested in anything else. Like I tried to talk to a group of them, just trying to find something that we could talk about just to get the conversation started, so I asked them if they liked to skateboard and they just acted like I wasn't cool enough to talk to them and just made jokes about me and laughed at me and gave each other 'street' high fives while I just politely smiled along.
I know I sound really negative but to be honest it was quite a bitter experience for me, especially coming from the previous organisation I was volunteering with when the homeless were either (a) super friendly or (b) depressed and down on themselves (but not in a "go away" kind of way, more like "I'm so sad, can you hang out for a bit and keep me company"). Very rarely were they 'jock-smug' or rude. Of course I wasn't there for my own benefit, but obviously if the people you are helping can show some friendliness and humility it makes a big difference. I mean I wouldn't want them to pretend to be nice and it sucks living on the streets so I can understand why they'd have that sort of attitude, but then the homeless people in my previous city were also in the same situation yet were able to not act like complete dicks. I wonder if it's because of their experiences with the people who walk past them, like if it's because there are generally more snobby professionals in the big city as opposed to the more down to earth shop owners in the smaller city.
Well, that's just my rant from my most recent encounter. I'll go back again next week and I guess over time as I blend in more I can make more of a difference, but my immediate impression just by looking at my co-volunteers was that they weren't really making that much inroads, because the conversations they were having, at least the ones I observed, it was much the same - they'd try to talk about Jesus or something like that and the homeless people would just ignore all that and talk over them to brag about the drugs they were doing or the fights they got in. They didn't seem at all affected by it but I think if they came to my old city and volunteered with the organisation I was with previously they'd be surprised (if they hadn't been there before) at how different the homeless people treated the volunteers there. Because really, that was one big reason why I kept doing it for as long as I did and as frequently as I did it over the last two years, whereas I am kind of considering just not going back to this one because it seems like the Church group I went with was there for substinence as opposed to making a difference, and if that's the kind of attitude the homeless are going to have here in the big city then they will probably be thinking - it's free food time, as opposed to, I have to actually start getting better for myself and I am grateful for this help.
I'd hate for the volunteers I was with that night to read what I have written here, so these are just my private thoughts and I have targeted largely just the negative aspects, of course not all of them are like that and the ones that I have described must also have a whole lot of good in them elsewhere at other times, but I just thought it'd be worth addressing this specific point - I won't go on to the good parts save to say if I had to rate that night I would say it was 90% positive and 10% negative, so you can see I was just focusing on the 10% in this post (although like for example if I was to rate my experiences in the other city I was in I would say it was 99% positive and 1% negative - just to give an indication of scale and an idea of how different it really was in comparison).
|
Upon reflection, if I take into account the amount of time I actually spent there (about four hours) I would probably say it was 80/20, just because I really could have been at home resting instead considering it was late at night and some of the conversations really just went nowhere and were an absolute waste of time. I didn't really come away with a feeling of: "that was worth going out for" because really only one of us needed to be there to hand out the sandwiches and then go. Of course I couldn't speak for the other volunteers and perhaps they may have felt like they made more of a difference with the conversations that they had but from my perspective I don't think the homeless really thought much of our company, I mean it may have been different for them to talk to us that night instead of their usual nights but they were just hanging out in their groups and I felt like I was interfering with their conversations.
|
Oh yeah, and to answer your question - we gave out egg filled sandwiches, during the day a group of women come into the Church to make hundreds of them and from my understanding sometimes there are peanut butter sandwiches instead. So some of the homeless asked if they could have peanut butter ones but we just had to say sorry there's only egg filled ones that night, but they were still happy to eat them of course. And we also served coffee and tomato soup.
They weren't 'picky' like you say, but I was disappointed at how some of them just grabbed at the sandwiches, like for example I'd be able to reach into the lunchbox and hand one out and they'd just lurch in themselves while I was doing that instead of waiting for me to hand it out to them, and then just throw the napkins on the floor which we later had to pick up when a rubbish bin was right there.
Again I emphasise I'm only focusing on the rude 10%, the majority of them did wait for us to hand them out and ask politely if there were peanut butter ones instead and said thank you after we gave them out. It did seem a bit like a food line though, because in my other city they'd hang about after getting the food to chat, whereas here they kind of just took the food and went back to their groups to go back to talking amongst themselves and doing what they were doing before we came.
It's heartbreaking though that they have to sleep on the streets, I actually bumped into one today after work she recognised me and was all friendly and said hello and asked me what I was up to, and I told her I was on my way home, and asked her what she was up to, and she said she was just going into town. So I said cool take care see you next week and then instantly regretted it as I walked away because I realised she wouldn't have a home to go back to. After volunteering there for a bit longer though I might start inviting a few of them over for dinner if I feel like I've gotten to know them better and can trust that they'll behave better.
|
OK I shouldn't say behave 'better', rather that I can come to trust their behaviour myself better as I've had the experience of inviting one over previously two years ago who only really came to ask for money insistently and it was a bit uncomfortable trying to get him to leave.
|
On July 17 2009 23:21 Aegraen wrote:
Government has compounded the problem. Here, ask yourself: If you are a small business and taxes are increasing, energy is going to take a massive price increase if Cap and Trade passes (So you can't hire people when it is in limbo), you're going to get fined if your employees don't have healthcare (Read the bill please), why on earth would you hire anyone?! You would in fact, start to lay off more and more people to reduce overhead so your business doesn't go belly up.
Is there a trial period for employment in the US? For example, here in my country the legislature tried to pass a 90 day trial period bill last year where an employer would have the right to fire an employee for whatever reason (if they felt that the employee would not have been suitable for the long term, and that it just wouldn't work out, for example) without employee rights repercussions, but it failed to pass. I think this kind of legislation would reduce unemployment as employers are willing to give taking more employees on a chance without fear of being sued for unjustified dismissal, but the argument against it (which I thought was ridiculous) was that employers would exploit workers by only hiring them short term and then terminating their employment - but that's still better than not hiring them at all in the first place, isn't it? And it certainly would be helpful in an economy that's going through a recession because small business owners don't want to risk potential court costs so have to be extra careful about who they hire.
Is there some sort of similar legislation over there?
|
Wow, that's quite some experience you have. I didn't really expect much more, or rather, I didn't know what to expect hearing you story, but that's pretty insane how people react to welfare. Of course, that alone can't dictate the benefits of having welfare in the United States, but it damn sure makes one reconsider the whole purpose of it all.
I guess living freely and in a rich country like America would produce that taken-for-granted attitude. In my ideal views, it would be better if these people would have a more purposeful long-term attitude while receiving care, at least that's sort of how I thought before I read your posts. I'd like to say more, but my limited and sheltered views would probably make me sound rash and naiive.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing your experiences, and write more from now on! (in your OP I mean, your reply posts were very thorough ;o)
|
FYI: the government cannot truly "create" jobs in the sense that a new job is added wealth. They merely take money from some people and redistribute it to others via a "created" job. This is completely different than a business expanding, increasing production and revenue, wherein new wealth is being created and the new jobs are the result.
The government, not being a for-profit entity, not producing anything, cannot create wealth. Hence the so-called jobs "created" by the New Deal, stimulus packages, etc. etc. are merely wealth redistribution in disguise. This is why, long term, they do nothing to improve the economy. In the short term all the money being crammed down the market's throat by the government can cause a temporary boom (see: housing boom of the 90's/early 2000's) but as there is no genuine wealth being created, inflation will rise and ultimately the economy ends off worse for the wear.
This is why the economy will "rebound" during Obama's term, he will be falsely hailed as a savior, and then a short period of time afterwards--and the gap between recessions has been narrowing since WWII--we will have a recession that will make this one look like Eden. This has been occurring regularly since FDR.
|
On July 18 2009 00:59 Ingenol wrote:
FYI: the government cannot truly "create" jobs in the sense that a new job is added wealth. They merely take money from some people and redistribute it to others via a "created" job. This is completely different than a business expanding, increasing production and revenue, wherein new wealth is being created and the new jobs are the result.
The government, not being a for-profit entity, not producing anything, cannot create wealth. Hence the so-called jobs "created" by the New Deal, stimulus packages, etc. etc. are merely wealth redistribution in disguise. This is why, long term, they do nothing to improve the economy. In the short term all the money being crammed down the market's throat by the government can cause a temporary boom (see: housing boom of the 90's/early 2000's) but as there is no genuine wealth being created, inflation will rise and ultimately the economy ends off worse for the wear.
This is why the economy will "rebound" during Obama's term, he will be falsely hailed as a savior, and then a short period of time afterwards--and the gap between recessions has been narrowing since WWII--we will have a recession that will make this one look like Eden. This has been occurring regularly since FDR.
Good post, well said. The government can makes up and enforce some of of the "rules of the game" and can redistribute some of the wealth created by others. The government is not very good at directly creating wealth/jobs though. Don't believe the rhetoric about "job creation".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
