Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-05-2010, 05:36 PM
Cannon Shell's Avatar
Cannon Shell Cannon Shell is offline
Sha Tin
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
I'm glad you have your finger on the pulse of hiring data in the grocery business (and utilities) - care to share that?

You don't think a 15% reduction in overall business would hurt the economy in a deep recession? You say "none of those entities produce goods or services that wouldn't continue to be produced regardless"? Seriously? If a town has 10% unemployment (California, Michigan) removing 10% of a grocery store's business isn't going to cause a layoff or few? Cause the grocery to order 10% less food from his suppliers? You honestly think that will not contract the economy in a recession (heck, it would in normal times!)

Can you post one respected economist that says that taking millions off unemployment will not negatively affect the economy? That if the dollars in those unemployment checks are removed during this deep recession the economy will not suffer? I'll wait.
Do you seriously think if business is off 10% that people immediately lose their jobs?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-05-2010, 05:50 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell View Post
Do you seriously think if business is off 10% that people immediately lose their jobs?
The economists say so. I already posted the below.

I'm still waiting for you to post an economists differing opinion that unemployment dollars do not directly help the economy with a cash infusion during recession, and prevent layoffs, etc. Please do.

Quote:
This is the sobering conclusion of a report released by the President's Council of Economic Advisers on Thursday. The study forecast that the exhaustion of unemployment benefits for so many will curb spending power enough to significantly impede an already weak economic recovery.

Without an agreement to extend the program, the economy will lose about 600,000 jobs, as the spending enabled by continued unemployment checks ceases.

National economic output--which expanded at an annual pace of 2.5 percent during the summer months--would fall off by 0.6 percent.

That disturbing prospect does not even account for the roughly four million people who would exceed even the extended limits in the emergency program. Were that many jobless people left to fend themselves without unemployment checks, that would pose significant risks for the broader economy, say economists. They cite the fact that consumer spending accounts for roughly 70 percent of all economic activity.

"If you're looking for economic recovery supported by consumers, it's discouraging," said Henry J. Aaron, an economist at the Brookings Institution, a research institution in Washington. "It's drag on the economy."

Many economists argue that paying unemployment benefits is among the most effective ways the government can spur the economy: Jobless people tend to spend nearly all of their unemployment checks, distributing those dollars throughout the economy.

"There's very few things we can spend money on that probably have such an immediate impact on household consumption as unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed," said Gary Burtless, a former Labor Department economist and now a fellow at Broookings.

More than 6.3 million workers were out of a job for at least 27 weeks in November, comprising nearly 42 percent of all unemployed Americans, according to Labor Department data released Friday.

The Federal Reserve forecasts that the unemployment rate will still be as high as 9 percent this time next year, and about 8 percent at the end of 2012, according to minutes from the central bank's Federal Open Market Committee meeting last month.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-05-2010, 06:06 PM
Cannon Shell's Avatar
Cannon Shell Cannon Shell is offline
Sha Tin
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
The economists say so. I already posted the below.

I'm still waiting for you to post an economists differing opinion that unemployment dollars do not directly help the economy with a cash infusion during recession, and prevent layoffs, etc. Please do.
It is a politically appointed group. Of course they are going to support their bosses position.

Didn't they also say unemployment would stay under 8% if the stimulus was passed?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-05-2010, 06:22 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell View Post
It is a politically appointed group. Of course they are going to support their bosses position.
Except the opinions came out before the bosses position. Ben Bernacke was just interviewed on 60 Minutes, he doesn't agree with you, either.

So please - feel free to post any other economists opinion, supporting that stopping paying unemployment benefits will not slow the economy, increase layoffs, etc.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.