Extending Unemployment Benefits

[Jarhead]

There was zero job creation at the beginning of a recession?

You needed to read a "study" to know this?

And you believe you are qualified to debate economics and business development with an economics major who own a business development and management firm?

I think your first step is to understand your limitations.

You are out of your league here.

There was zero job growth during the Bush admin, not just the recession. The China article tracks jobs lost or displaced during... the Bush Administration 2001-2008. I think your first step is to attend a reading comprehension class.

Here is YOUR post I replied to:

How many jobs were created by the increased efficiency created by moving jobs to more-efficient China?

Here is the article containing the study.

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers - washingtonpost.com

Uh...just curious....

Are you aware that from 2000-2010 we were in a decade that experienced 2 recessions whereas most just experience one? Seeing as they come every 6-7 years based on market stauration, there will always be a decade out of 5 or so that have 2 recessions.
Likewise, are you aware that in 2000, there was the dot com bubble burst that resulted in the loss of millions of jobs.
Furthermore, in 2008 we experienced the credit meltdown that resulted in the loss of over a million jobs.

Do you now see how a publication with an agenda is able to report the news and leave out pertiannt information that has you believing one thing when in fact it is not what you should believing?

 

[antagon]

this is a simple answer to understand, even for someone as obnoxious as yourself:

rather than doling money out to hardly any other source, replacing gaps in earnings caused by unemployment will buoy demand that would otherwise vanish.

despite what you've implied, there isn't a surplus of jobs with few people making themselves available to work them. instead, there is a surplus of people available and seeking employment and a dramatic shortage of jobs. up until quite recently the job market was still aggressively shrinking, rather than the expansion which would result in hiring more workers.

the issue is that if folks who cant pay rent due to unemployment don't pay rent or buy the basics at the grocery like they used to, the economy will continue to slide and the grocery and might lay more people off. the housing market, perhaps the hardest hit in the recession, will have more forces dragging homes into default and spreading this defacto lack of demand deeper into the home finance and construction industry by way of deflation.

are you still ignorant?

There are other entitlement progrmas that are out there to ensure the demand for the essentials suchas groceries does not dry up...such as foodsatmps.
Those that receive unemployment benefits do not add to the "demand" for goods and services. They do not spend money on extras that are not covered by other programs...so increwasing unemployment benefits does nothing for the economy.

this is simply inaccurate. if demand is quantified in dollars as it is, unemployment creates lulls in demand for goods and services from a specific population - the freshly jobless. by supporting that population on what is supposed to be a temporary basis, a portion of that demand is restored to the economy, and those goods and services are restored.

as opposed to welfare, social security and prison - arms of social assistance which notoriously consumed many unemployed in the early to mid eighties - unemployment keeps people in the job market, is temporary, and does not have persistent negative repercussions to the recipient. foodstamps don't pay rent or buy shitpaper.

the temporary nature of unemployment is being stretched in proportion to the grave yet temporary weakness in the job market which at some point is likely to improve. this is a problem, however, i think that keeping people in the job market is the best solution.

To the contrary, it does two things to the job market.

First, it increases the burden on the two last employers of record. Many are not aware of this as the media refuses to explain it, but the last two employers of record pay a generous amount into each unemployment check an individual receives. Originally, employers forecasted the unemployment burden for each employee laid off as a 6 month burden. Now that the empoloyers are seeing these extensions, they do not know how or what to forecast for next year; and are unable to determine next years operating costs...so they are unable to expand and hire.

does anyone know if this burden has been extended to match the gov't extensions? i laid off a guy in november, but my UI premium stopped right at 6 months.

Secondly, it prevents people from taking jobs at a lower salary. Here in NY, unemployment is maxed out at $405 a week....anyone who was making 30K or more, gets $405 a week....so someone making 30K will turn dowwn a 20K job as they get more with unemployment....and as a result, I see many "help wanted" signs in stores but few takers....afterall, why work for 10 an hour when you can get $405 doing nothing...and make cash working for your brother in law putting up sheetrock?

You need to open your mind to see the issue, I agree....but it is not rhetoric...it is human nature to do what is most cost effective for your wallet...and it is foolish to rely on the people in general to "do the right thing".....especially when those people know there are plenty that are gaming the system.

there are concerns like this with unemployment - any assistance from anyone, in fact, however, the government's main concern is for the pursuit of the economic benefit which unemployment plays in the wider economy. you've come out to say that benefit is non-existent, but i contend that that is illogical and contradicts the findings of economists on the subject. for certain there is a role which unemployment plays in dragging down demand, and that unemployment insurance bridges that role when millions lose their jobs. no contest there.

in the end it is up to the individual to do what he or she has got to do. that is what the economy is relying on. on aggregate, the side-job-sheetrockers will be among those who help bolster the economy through this slow and precarious recovery. leaving it just to those folks to struggle without the support that we've set up for mass unemployment, would leave millions if not billions out of the economy every week.

 

[Jarhead]

And it is indeed wise to start business during downturns... many types of businesses thrive even in the bad times.. many are better in the bad times... that is what your research would find, if you would do such a thing when thinking of opening a business

I am starting a business in two years, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the plight of my fellow American workers. I just can't believe anyone would think taking away unemployment is anywhere close to a good idea. It would be disastrous.

Really?

Did you hear disaster stories from other recessions where they did NOT extend unemployment insurance?

 

[Jarhead]

this is a simple answer to understand, even for someone as obnoxious as yourself:

rather than doling money out to hardly any other source, replacing gaps in earnings caused by unemployment will buoy demand that would otherwise vanish.

despite what you've implied, there isn't a surplus of jobs with few people making themselves available to work them. instead, there is a surplus of people available and seeking employment and a dramatic shortage of jobs. up until quite recently the job market was still aggressively shrinking, rather than the expansion which would result in hiring more workers.

the issue is that if folks who cant pay rent due to unemployment don't pay rent or buy the basics at the grocery like they used to, the economy will continue to slide and the grocery and might lay more people off. the housing market, perhaps the hardest hit in the recession, will have more forces dragging homes into default and spreading this defacto lack of demand deeper into the home finance and construction industry by way of deflation.

are you still ignorant?

There are other entitlement progrmas that are out there to ensure the demand for the essentials suchas groceries does not dry up...such as foodsatmps.
Those that receive unemployment benefits do not add to the "demand" for goods and services. They do not spend money on extras that are not covered by other programs...so increwasing unemployment benefits does nothing for the economy.

this is simply inaccurate. if demand is quantified in dollars as it is, unemployment creates lulls in demand for goods and services from a specific population - the freshly jobless. by supporting that population on what is supposed to be a temporary basis, a portion of that demand is restored to the economy, and those goods and services are restored.

as opposed to welfare, social security and prison - arms of social assistance which notoriously consumed many unemployed in the early to mid eighties - unemployment keeps people in the job market, is temporary, and does not have persistent negative repercussions to the recipient. foodstamps don't pay rent or buy shitpaper.

the temporary nature of unemployment is being stretched in proportion to the grave yet temporary weakness in the job market which at some point is likely to improve. this is a problem, however, i think that keeping people in the job market is the best solution.

To the contrary, it does two things to the job market.

First, it increases the burden on the two last employers of record. Many are not aware of this as the media refuses to explain it, but the last two employers of record pay a generous amount into each unemployment check an individual receives. Originally, employers forecasted the unemployment burden for each employee laid off as a 6 month burden. Now that the empoloyers are seeing these extensions, they do not know how or what to forecast for next year; and are unable to determine next years operating costs...so they are unable to expand and hire.

does anyone know if this burden has been extended to match the gov't extensions? i laid off a guy in november, but my UI premium stopped right at 6 months.

Secondly, it prevents people from taking jobs at a lower salary. Here in NY, unemployment is maxed out at $405 a week....anyone who was making 30K or more, gets $405 a week....so someone making 30K will turn dowwn a 20K job as they get more with unemployment....and as a result, I see many "help wanted" signs in stores but few takers....afterall, why work for 10 an hour when you can get $405 doing nothing...and make cash working for your brother in law putting up sheetrock?

You need to open your mind to see the issue, I agree....but it is not rhetoric...it is human nature to do what is most cost effective for your wallet...and it is foolish to rely on the people in general to "do the right thing".....especially when those people know there are plenty that are gaming the system.

there are concerns like this with unemployment - any assistance from anyone, in fact, however, the government's main concern is for the pursuit of the economic benefit which unemployment plays in the wider economy. you've come out to say that benefit is non-existent, but i contend that that is illogical and contradicts the findings of economists on the subject. for certain there is a role which unemployment plays in dragging down demand, and that unemployment insurance bridges that role when millions lose their jobs. no contest there.

in the end it is up to the individual to do what he or she has got to do. that is what the economy is relying on. on aggregate, the side-job-sheetrockers will be among those who help bolster the economy through this slow and precarious recovery. leaving it just to those folks to struggle without the support that we've set up for mass unemployment, would leave millions if not billions out of the economy every week.

Your theory is sound and viable.

But the assumption that people will do what they are supposed to do is what concerns me.

I see too many people gaming the game right now. And it seems the more they get, the less they tend to do the right thing.

I know many employers paying part timers off the books and writing it off as PC...and I assure you, those that are off the bvooks are collecting unemployment.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Uh...just curious....

Are you aware that from 2000-2010 we were in a decade that experienced 2 recessions whereas most just experience one? Seeing as they come every 6-7 years based on market stauration, there will always be a decade out of 5 or so that have 2 recessions.
Likewise, are you aware that in 2000, there was the dot com bubble burst that resulted in the loss of millions of jobs.
Furthermore, in 2008 we experienced the credit meltdown that resulted in the loss of over a million jobs.

Do you now see how a publication with an agenda is able to report the news and leave out pertiannt information that has you believing one thing when in fact it is not what you should believing?

You ARE aware that the housing debacle/credit crisis began in earnest in 2006 as the first ARM's were starting to reset, right? You ARE aware how much the Iraq war has cost this country... and for no gain whatsoever - we could have done a lot with that money that went down the toilet - and much of that was borrowed money. And you ARE aware that Bush enacted tax cuts that almost exclusively went to the already wealthy. This was supposed to encourage expansion and job creation. It did not - They sat on that money and hid it offshore. You ARE aware that, in addition to China, jobs have disappeared to India, southeast Asia and to Mexico, right? I would not be surprised to hear that 10 million jobs and potential jobs have been lost from this country. You ARE aware that while wages are shrinking, the cost of living continues to go through the roof. This was a bi-partisan report. I for one, have been searching high and low for a number of exactly how many jobs we have lost. Interestingly, there is not one single source that has kept track. I do think that this is on purpose. The private sector does not want us to know that number.

The dot com bust was much akin to the housing bust. An artificially inflated business boom that couldn't hold water when looked at in the light of day, and it was just as dirty. Remember Worldcom? FAR fewer people lost their jobs during the dot com bust. There were not massive layoffs, as most of these companies were internet start-ups. They either disintigrated or were aquired by other companies.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yep... you have the right to care and do lots of things to support them.. .it still does not make it the responsibility of you or government to take care of the responsibilities of others.... if you wish to freely donate to help a cause, including the cause of the unemployed, knock yourself out... and you'll receive nothing but praise from me... but when you force it upon others, nope, I will condemn support of any such action

Even if it's at the cost of the production and economy of the whole country??? Are you that blind? A prosperous, stable populace makes for a prosperous stable economy. If anything, it's trickle up, NOT trickle down - when people have extra money, they SPEND it, causing a ripple all the way to the top. We can now see that trickle down was a farce and a half... Every time it's been tried, it has failed, from Reagan to Bush part deux.

Tell me how this "trickle up" theory works.

 

[Jarhead]

Uh...just curious....

Are you aware that from 2000-2010 we were in a decade that experienced 2 recessions whereas most just experience one? Seeing as they come every 6-7 years based on market stauration, there will always be a decade out of 5 or so that have 2 recessions.
Likewise, are you aware that in 2000, there was the dot com bubble burst that resulted in the loss of millions of jobs.
Furthermore, in 2008 we experienced the credit meltdown that resulted in the loss of over a million jobs.

Do you now see how a publication with an agenda is able to report the news and leave out pertiannt information that has you believing one thing when in fact it is not what you should believing?

You ARE aware that the housing debacle/credit crisis began in earnest in 2006 as the first ARM's were starting to reset, right? You ARE aware how much the Iraq war has cost this country... and for no gain whatsoever - we could have done a lot with that money that went down the toilet - and much of that was borrowed money. And you ARE aware that Bush enacted tax cuts that almost exclusively went to the already wealthy. This was supposed to encourage expansion and job creation. It did not - They sat on that money and hid it offshore. You ARE aware that, in addition to China, jobs have disappeared to India, southeast Asia and to Mexico, right? I would not be surprised to hear that 10 million jobs and potential jobs have been lost from this country. You ARE aware that while wages are shrinking that the cost of living continues to go through the roof. This was a bi-partisan report. I ror one, have been searching high and low for a number of exactly how many jobs we have lost. Interestingly, there is not one single source that has kept track. I don't think that is on purpose. The private sector does not want us to know that number.

The housing debacle was created by consumer greed coupled with corporate Amereica capitalizing on consumer greed. It had nothing to do with Bush whatsoever. I DO blame congress for ignoring the warnings but that is another debate.

The Iraq war was a bipartisan decision based on intel form many different countries. It was a bad move made by bad intel. Saddam Hussein suckered us in with his arrogance, and we fell for it and paid the price.

As I said earlier, much of the outsourcing was actually a job creator. If there was no outsourcing either prices would have gone up or businesses would have contracted. That is economic fact, not assumption. As you said, the cost of living has beein increasing and the cost of operating increases as well..and actually at a higher rate. You see, you calim the jobs disappeared to china and india. To the contrary, they were saved becuase they were outsourced.

Wages decreasing as the cost of living increases is a talking point but is in direct contradiction of every economic theory and model out there. Truth is, your cost of living increasing as your salary decreases means you are insisting on living the same lifestyle with a lower salary...but I know very few companies..actually NONE of my clients, that have instituted a salry decrease program. Again, it is a talking point, not factual.\

And as for the jobs lost number....do you have any idea of what you are talking about? First of all, the private sector can not keep that number secret becuase unemployment gets involved.

Your beef is with Bush. Jeeze...your beef is not even logical. There are very valid resons to want to extend unemployment benefits and very valid reasons to want to "share the wealth"...I dont agree with them, but they are valid.

However, your reasons are just plain old talking point silly and non factual.

 

[antagon]

you are still a bleeting ignoramus, i see.

paying bills and maintaining essentials does put money into hands. a tenant of mine was unemployed for a spell, a long spell, and unemployment carried him over. because i have a multi-family property my rents are hedged against eachother, however, in single family homes, rents and mortgages getting paid, if just barely, does constitute real value to the economy. if they werent paid, the economy and the job market would slip even further.

that's just asshat logic. it doesn't rise to your brilliance in associating unemployment payments as survival akin to working, then deriding their value as stimulus when there is a dramatic shortage of jobs.

Why do you leave out the fact that the money that went to you actually came from you to begin with?

On the outside, you are correct. However, on the inside, you are condoning the idea of "imaginary prosperity" at the cost of "real prosperity".

All it is really doing is slowing the recovery.....and when we recover, we will be in such debt that interest rates will skyrocket and it will creaste another issue for our economy.

So yes, extending unemployment does allow for circulation of money, but by no means does it lead into prosperity.

i guess i consider it a given that publicly financed initiatives are mainly from public funds or debt of some kind, and that we all know how unemployment works.

i don't think that unemployment insurance is a fountain of prosperity or anything. for the avoidance of doubt cast by those who think that hard times should be hard times borne out with great suffering, i remind that for a lot of people, that is exactly what they are going through. lessons should be learned now, and i bet many are. unemployment is desperately worse pay than one would receive in the workplace in the jobs which they have designed their lives around. lives need time to be remodeled, because for many folks, jumping back into the same work they had in the boom will be unrealistic. unemployment may help with that needed time.

your point about doing what is right is taken, and i agree that that is hardly what is likely to go down in desperate times. i put my trust in doing what you've got to do, and this is not quite the same as what is right all of the time. ultimately, it is going to be those who can do what they need to to get on their feet who are going to be the best off. some decisions in my life, like not getting an improvement loan to juice up my property, but doing so slowly with cash, or running my business on a lil bit of cash instead of a lot of credit seemed even irresponsible when others were doing well by their tenants and their employees on the back of those types of decisions. doing what i'd got to do, however, has positioned me better than some of the folks who went the fast route... definately positioned my employees and lower income tenants better now.

i've got to admit though, some builders bought lambos from contracts funded on credit during the boom, and my old ass vette cant keep up. some, but not all, of those guys are still hanging in there, even if they had to cut back a bunch.

 

[Jarhead]

Uh...just curious....

Are you aware that from 2000-2010 we were in a decade that experienced 2 recessions whereas most just experience one? Seeing as they come every 6-7 years based on market stauration, there will always be a decade out of 5 or so that have 2 recessions.
Likewise, are you aware that in 2000, there was the dot com bubble burst that resulted in the loss of millions of jobs.
Furthermore, in 2008 we experienced the credit meltdown that resulted in the loss of over a million jobs.

Do you now see how a publication with an agenda is able to report the news and leave out pertiannt information that has you believing one thing when in fact it is not what you should believing?

You ARE aware that the housing debacle/credit crisis began in earnest in 2006 as the first ARM's were starting to reset, right? You ARE aware how much the Iraq war has cost this country... and for no gain whatsoever - we could have done a lot with that money that went down the toilet - and much of that was borrowed money. And you ARE aware that Bush enacted tax cuts that almost exclusively went to the already wealthy. This was supposed to encourage expansion and job creation. It did not - They sat on that money and hid it offshore. You ARE aware that, in addition to China, jobs have disappeared to India, southeast Asia and to Mexico, right? I would not be surprised to hear that 10 million jobs and potential jobs have been lost from this country. You ARE aware that while wages are shrinking, the cost of living continues to go through the roof. This was a bi-partisan report. I for one, have been searching high and low for a number of exactly how many jobs we have lost. Interestingly, there is not one single source that has kept track. I do think that this is on purpose. The private sector does not want us to know that number.

The dot com bust was much akin to the housing bust. An artificially inflated business boom that couldn't hold water when looked at in the light of day, and it was just as dirty. Remember Worldcom? FAR fewer people lost their jobs during the dot com bust. There were not massive layoffs, as most of these companies were internet start-ups. They either disintigrated or were aquired by other companies.

You missed the point of the dot com bust.
There were millions of people who, due to their own greed, became millionaiares in theory and spent like millionaires in reality. Then their portfolios crashed and they had debt up to their eyeballs. This stunted their ability to expand their own businesses and create jobs......and actually resulted in many people being layed off as the credit of those business owners dropped dramatically making it tough for llps and s-coprs to get corproate bridge loans.

Likewise, the demand for goods and services skyrocketed as people were spoening like there was no tomorrow. Then they lost their "paper" wealth and the demand dropped like a rock...leaving an inventory of goods that had no place to go.....and that also contreibnuted to manufacturing losses and a dramatic decrease in porices to a point of negative profit.

It was not a simple as a few college kids who had a good idea lost their jobs.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Tell me how this "trickle up" theory works.

After all my necessary bills & taxes are paid - $8, I have $2 to spend, but very little can I afford for $2, so I hang onto that money and do not spend it because I am in a precarious position and I'm worried about losing my job - even then, it is slim savings.

So now say, I earn $100. After all of my expenses, I now have $92 to spend. I save half for a rainy day which still leaves me with $46 to spend. With this, I can go out to eat, watch a movie, buy that pair of shoes I've been eyeing and buy a bottle of wine. So, I go to the stores that sell these things and I see many people there with the same amount of money to spend. Let's go to the wine store...

The wine store is overwhelmed by all the people who can now afford wine, so they have to hire more people to help, which makes the store run more efficiently and lines shorter, and so even more people come in. Soon, they are so swamped, they decide to open a store on the other side of town and open a cafe... even more people with their $46 come out to enjoy the wine store.

So not only am I able to buy more, putting more money in circulation, but I am also able to set aside half my pay in savings. That is trickle up

Which woud you choose, a populace of 5% with $5000 and 95% with $10 or a populace of $5000 and 95% with $100. You see, the money at the top doesn't change, and if it does, it goes up.

Would you rather have 95% with $2 or $46 at the end of the month in disposable income? What do you think is better for the economy?

 

[antagon]

Tell me how this "trickle up" theory works.

capitalism is a trickle up process in the first place. for that reason, the expectation that cash will trickle down was silly and never panned out when it was applied.

it is simple: dillute wealth concentrates upwards through consumption of produce from those who own the means to make it.

capitalism. read a book.

 

[Jarhead]

Tell me how this "trickle up" theory works.

After all my necessary bills & taxes are paid - $8, I have $2 to spend, but very little can I afford for $2, so I hang onto that money and do not spend it because I am in a precarious position and I'm worried about losing my job - even then, it is slim savings.

So now say, I earn $100. After all of my expenses, I now have $92 to spend. I save half for a rainy day which still leaves me with $46 to spend. With this, I can go out to eat, watch a movie, buy that pair of shoes I've been eyeing and buy a bottle of wine. So, I go to the stores that sell these things and I see many people ther with the same amount of money to spend. Let's go to the wine store...

The wine store is overwhelmed by all the people who can now afford wine, so they have to hire more people to help, which makes the store run more efficiently and lines shorter, and so even more people come in. Soon, they are so swamped, they decide to open a store on the other side of town and open a cafe... even more people with their $46 come out to enjoy the wine store.

So not only am I able to buy more, putting more money in circulation, but I am also able to set aside half my pay in savings. That is trickle up

Which woud you choose, a populace of 5% with $5000 and 95% with $10 or a populace of $5000 and 95% with $100. You see, the money at the top doesn't change, and if it does, it goes up.

Would you rather have 95% with $2 or $46 at the end of the month in disposable income? What do you think is better for the economy?

Wait...

Buy a pair of shoes you are eyeing?

You are a woman?

 

[Jarhead]

Tell me how this "trickle up" theory works.

After all my necessary bills & taxes are paid - $8, I have $2 to spend, but very little can I afford for $2, so I hang onto that money and do not spend it because I am in a precarious position and I'm worried about losing my job - even then, it is slim savings.

So now say, I earn $100. After all of my expenses, I now have $92 to spend. I save half for a rainy day which still leaves me with $46 to spend. With this, I can go out to eat, watch a movie, buy that pair of shoes I've been eyeing and buy a bottle of wine. So, I go to the stores that sell these things and I see many people ther with the same amount of money to spend. Let's go to the wine store...

The wine store is overwhelmed by all the people who can now afford wine, so they have to hire more people to help, which makes the store run more efficiently and lines shorter, and so even more people come in. Soon, they are so swamped, they decide to open a store on the other side of town and open a cafe... even more people with their $46 come out to enjoy the wine store.

So not only am I able to buy more, putting more money in circulation, but I am also able to set aside half my pay in savings. That is trickle up

Which woud you choose, a populace of 5% with $5000 and 95% with $10 or a populace of $5000 and 95% with $100. You see, the money at the top doesn't change, and if it does, it goes up.

Would you rather have 95% with $2 or $46 at the end of the month in disposable income? What do you think is better for the economy?

Are you aware of the result of a populace with of 95% with $100 comapred to a populace of 95% with $10?

Higher prices making it the equivalent of a populace of 95% with $10.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Wages decreasing as the cost of living increases is a talking point but is in direct contradiction of every economic theory and model out there. Truth is, your cost of living increasing as your salary decreases means you are insisting on living the same lifestyle with a lower salary...but I know very few companies..actually NONE of my clients, that have instituted a salry decrease program. Again, it is a talking point, not factual.

Wrong. I can cut you off there just on rent alone. I have received a total of a 7.7% increase from my original job offering amount in 3 years. We got barely anything last year and 2008 due to the economy, but my rent has gone up 12.5% in 3 years. I guess the person who figures out the maximum rent increase for rent-stabilized apartments didn't get the memo, huh.

My power bill has gone up 40% in 3 years. 30 day metrocards have gone up 16% and now they're proposing another 20% increase to $109. Food costs continue to go up. My cable bill went from $40 to $72 a month for no reason - a 44% increase. You were saying?

My salary has gone up, but the cost of living has gone up a lot more.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

capitalism is a trickle up process in the first place. for that reason, the expectation that cash will trickle down was silly and never panned out when it was applied.

it is simple: dillute wealth concentrates upwards through consumption of produce from those who own the means to make it.

capitalism. read a book.

What you're forgetting is that it doesn't work when people at the bottom have nothing to put into circulation in the first place... like right now.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Are you aware of the result of a populace with of 95% with $100 comapred to a populace of 95% with $10?

Higher prices making it the equivalent of a populace of 95% with $10

Wrong. This is going to be some interesting math...

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Wait...

Buy a pair of shoes you are eyeing?

You are a woman?

Yes... and funny thing, I don't have a shoe fetish...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Tell me how this "trickle up" theory works.

After all my necessary bills & taxes are paid - $8, I have $2 to spend, but very little can I afford for $2, so I hang onto that money and do not spend it because I am in a precarious position and I'm worried about losing my job - even then, it is slim savings.

So now say, I earn $100. After all of my expenses, I now have $92 to spend. I save half for a rainy day which still leaves me with $46 to spend. With this, I can go out to eat, watch a movie, buy that pair of shoes I've been eyeing and buy a bottle of wine. So, I go to the stores that sell these things and I see many people there with the same amount of money to spend. Let's go to the wine store...

The wine store is overwhelmed by all the people who can now afford wine, so they have to hire more people to help, which makes the store run more efficiently and lines shorter, and so even more people come in. Soon, they are so swamped, they decide to open a store on the other side of town and open a cafe... even more people with their $46 come out to enjoy the wine store.

So not only am I able to buy more, putting more money in circulation, but I am also able to set aside half my pay in savings. That is trickle up

Which woud you choose, a populace of 5% with $5000 and 95% with $10 or a populace of $5000 and 95% with $100. You see, the money at the top doesn't change, and if it does, it goes up.

Would you rather have 95% with $2 or $46 at the end of the month in disposable income? What do you think is better for the economy?

I'd go with trickle down anyday.

 

[Jarhead]

[Are you aware of the result of a populace with of 95% with $100 comapred to a populace of 95% with $10?

Higher prices making it the equivalent of a populace of 95% with $10./QUOTE]

Wrong.

Really?

What happens when people have money?
They spend.
What happens when people spend more?
Demand increase.
What happens when demand increases but supply stays the same?
Prices go up.

Now, of course, you will say "why wont supply go up"?

Becuase the cost of manufacturing is also going up....so it is not cost effewctive to immediatelky increase supply....and when things level out, supply meets demand, prices stabelize...and your 100 is now worth 10 just as youy 10 was worth before the adjustment.

Like I said, you may be bright, but you are not well versed in economics.

And I am lost. You are a woman? And you make 50K in NYC?

IMPOSSIBLE!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Tell me how this "trickle up" theory works.

capitalism is a trickle up process in the first place. for that reason, the expectation that cash will trickle down was silly and never panned out when it was applied.

it is simple: dillute wealth concentrates upwards through consumption of produce from those who own the means to make it.

capitalism. read a book.

Bullshit. I have read a book or two and you have no idea what your talking about.