Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54

Thread: Obama's Stimulus Package Will Increase Unemployment

  1. #1
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Shek's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 05
    Location
    Krblachistan
    Posts
    11,473

    Obama's Stimulus Package Will Increase Unemployment

    I don't know how likely this is, but I think it's a great reminder that spending money isn't necessarily a recipe for success.

    Obama's Stimulus Package Will Increase Unemployment
    Tuesday, February 03, 2009
    By John R. Lott, Jr.

    Print President Obama and the Democrats’ “stimulus” package will increase the unemployment rate. The changes they propose will also make us poorer, with fewer, less productive jobs.

    The most obvious explanation is the $36 billion in increased unemployment insurance benefits. Larger benefits at least for this year will encourage some people, who may be unhappy with their jobs, to be unemployed while they look for something better. Others will be a little more reluctant to take a new job when they are offered it. Unlike the rest of the “stimulus” package that is over two years, since the increased benefits are only planned for this year, the higher payments will increase unemployment this year and then start declining soon after the extension ends.

    Yet, the “stimulus” package will do something else that will increase unemployment at least as much. Most of the new jobs will be for people who are currently employed. By moving money from places where it is currently being spent to places where the government wants it spent, you move the jobs also. But it takes time for people to move between jobs. That is called unemployment.

    The jobs that the government “creates” may be in different industries and they may be in different places. You increase subsidies even more for alternative energy, and of course those companies will expand, but the subsidies also mean that less will be spent on less politically correct energy sources.

    You might create jobs in California, but you will reduce the number of jobs in coal mines in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, or oil fields in Oklahoma and Texas. Where will those people who lose their jobs go? They aren’t going to instantly pack up their cars and move to California. They may not even have the right sets of skills for the new government-created jobs. Wherever it is these displace workers end up, it will take some time, and during that time those workers will be unemployed.

    Most likely the jobs in the alternative energy industry will hire many employees away from industries that have nothing to do with coal or oil. The movement of those workers, as well as the impacts that the changes have on related industries, will temporarily cause some increase in unemployment. Even if you know that you want to get a job in the alternative energy industry, which job do you accept? It takes time to find the job that fits your interests. You may quit your current job to have the time to search full time for the new one.

    All those changes means more unemployment.

    Even just the threats of the stimulus plan being passed cause companies to change investments today, and that creates more unemployment now. The stimulus plan is creating unemployment even before it goes into effect.

    Of course, people see the jobs being created and they don’t see the jobs that disappear. They will probably thank the government for providing them jobs, even though the government is draining the businesses that they currently work for of the money that keeps them going.

    Obama is also implementing a lot of new regulations, from the environment to unions. The stimulus bill has a buy American clause, which forces materials purchased using funds from the stimulus bill to be made in America -- possibly threatening a trade war. Again, some industries will be hurt and others helped by the new rules, but changes created by these regulations are no different than changes created by the government that redirect spending.

    Add to it Obama’s unjustifiable repeated comments about the “unprecedented” economic “crisis” and the panic he engenders, which cause even more changes in people’s behavior. And you guessed it – still more unemployment.

    These changes are extremely reminiscent of what happened during the Great Depression. Not only do you have government-created jobs, you had the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs to protect American agriculture. We had strengthened unions that got some workers higher wages at the expense of other workers’ jobs. Many economists have argued that all these different changes created and prolonged the unemployment disaster we faced during the 1930s.

    The result? By 1939, the average number of hours worked by the average working-age person was still 21 percent below what it had been in 1929. The U.S. recovery during the Depression lagged behind other countries. Could it be that our government simply tried too hard to try to fix things and in the process created a lot of chaos?

    There is still another problem with all these jobs created by government subsidies. What happens when the subsidies end? If those industries that were propped up by the subsidies aren’t what consumers want without the subsidies, those industries will shrink and we get to go through the unemployment cycle all over again. Of course, by that time those industries will have their new constituencies to lobby to extend the temporary stimulus.

    All this moving jobs around makes us poorer. People are subsidized into temporarily producing want isn’t really valued. But what do you expect from a program where dozens of political types are making decisions on where to spend almost a trillion dollars after only a few weeks of thought?

    One thing is clear. The government will spend money in different ways than people otherwise would have spent it. And that means change, and change means temporary unemployment. Unfortunately, just as the government regulations that caused the financial crisis to begin with had people turning to government for more regulation, the turmoil and unemployment created by the government stimulus will cause even more to turn to the government for help.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  2. #2
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,348
    Government doesn't create anything. No one in government makes anything of value, unless you count paper shuffling as value.

    A true stimulus would be full of tax cuts, corporate welfare, and removal of stupid regulations from the environment to work rules to finance.

    By the way, isn't John Lott the same guy who wrote "More Guns, Less Crime" or was it "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society" ?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  3. #3
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    12,855
    The most obvious explanation is the $36 billion in increased unemployment insurance benefits. Larger benefits at least for this year will encourage some people, who may be unhappy with their jobs, to be unemployed while they look for something better. Others will be a little more reluctant to take a new job when they are offered it. Unlike the rest of the “stimulus” package that is over two years, since the increased benefits are only planned for this year, the higher payments will increase unemployment this year and then start declining soon after the extension ends.
    Pah! Maybe in some states where unemployment actually pays something. But there are states like Florida where you'd be better off working a minimum-wage job than collecting unemployment.

    Oh and newsflash to the author: Some of us want to WORK!

  4. #4
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,348
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Some of us want to WORK!
    Good. Millions on welfare depend on you.

    Here in CA the unemployment handout tops off at $450 or $500 a week. It's enough for a guy like me to live on for a good long time. That's why I didn't take it until my savings ran out. I figure I needed some motivation to get a job. If the unemployment were any higher, I would be tempted to take a longer vacation.

    CA's unemployment rate is at near 10%. The government is thinking about increasing unemployment handouts, increase taxes, and increase regulations. Morons in Sacramento haven't figured out why the unemployment rate is so high.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #5
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    12,855
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Here in CA the unemployment handout tops off at $450 or $500 a week.
    Dear lord....

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

    In Florida, apparently near the bottom of the barrel for unemployment benefits, it's $275 a week. Yes, that's probably less than a fast-food job.

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    CA's unemployment rate is at near 10%. The government is thinking about increasing unemployment handouts, increase taxes, and increase regulations. Morons in Sacramento haven't figured out why the unemployment rate is so high.
    Or why California hemorrhages cash so badly that they can't manage to stick to a budget?

  6. #6
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,348
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Dear lord....

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

    In Florida, apparently near the bottom of the barrel for unemployment benefits, it's $275 a week. Yes, that's probably less than a fast-food job.
    Santa Monica has a "living wage" ordinance that says the minimum wage in the city is $10.25/hr.

    San Francisco has something like that too.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Or why California hemorrhages cash so badly that they can't manage to stick to a budget?
    Democrats' favorite way to balance a budget is to extract more money from the people. There's a law in the books that says the legislature needs 2/3 majority to pass any tax increase. However, there's no such a limitations on "fees." So guess what, we won't have any increases in taxes but our fees are going up.

    I can go on all day. But that will raise my blood pressure to dangerous levels.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  7. #7
    New Member
    Join Date
    27 Mar 08
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Democrats' favorite way to balance a budget is to extract more money from the people. There's a law in the books that says the legislature needs 2/3 majority to pass any tax increase. However, there's no such a limitations on "fees." So guess what, we won't have any increases in taxes but our fees
    But isnt Schwatzaneger the gov since 6 years and isnt he the one who prepares the budget?

  8. #8
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    12,855
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Santa Monica has a "living wage" ordinance that says the minimum wage in the city is $10.25/hr.
    Ok, so, describe Santa Monica for me, vis-a-vis that ordinance. What effect has it had on the city? Has it destroyed businesses or grown the city or a little bit of both?

    A side note: Used to work with a great guy from California, one of the few non-leftists in the state I think....he said that SA is referred to as The People's Republic of Santa Monica and the LA Times is called Pravda On The Pacific )

  9. #9
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,348
    Quote Originally Posted by ravi_ku View Post
    But isnt Schwatzaneger the gov since 6 years and isnt he the one who prepares the budget?
    No. The legislature, like our congress, prepares the budget. The governor, like the president, either sign it or not sign it. He can't personally add stuff or take stuff out. Some states give their governor a "line item veto" power so he can just cross out a single item that he thinks is a waste to save money.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  10. #10
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,348
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Ok, so, describe Santa Monica for me, vis-a-vis that ordinance. What effect has it had on the city? Has it destroyed businesses or grown the city or a little bit of both?
    Everything in Santa Monica is hella expensive. The effect is hard to determine, since people can just move a few blocks and enjoy a lower cost of living. The only reason businesses can get away with charging so much money in Santa Monica is because it's a tourist attraction.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    A side note: Used to work with a great guy from California, one of the few non-leftists in the state I think....he said that SA is referred to as The People's Republic of Santa Monica and the LA Times is called Pravda On The Pacific )
    He's pretty much right. Santa Monica is extremely liberal and so is LA Times. Although there seems to be a smolder of conservative light in LA Times lately. It actually used the word "illegal" immigrant rather than "undocumented" immigrant recently.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  11. #11
    New Member
    Join Date
    27 Mar 08
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    No. The legislature, like our congress, prepares the budget. The governor, like the president, either sign it or not sign it. He can't personally add stuff or take stuff out. Some states give their governor a "line item veto" power so he can just cross out a single item that he thinks is a waste to save money.
    http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/

    This link seems to suggest that it is the gov who proposes the budget (governer's proposed and revised, i.e. gov as the author) which the legislature can vote up or down, with some possible changes.

  12. #12
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,348
    Quote Originally Posted by ravi_ku View Post
    http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/

    This link seems to suggest that it is the gov who proposes the budget (governer's proposed and revised, i.e. gov as the author) which the legislature can vote up or down, with some possible changes.
    That's not how I understand it.

    Governor can propose it, but the language is made up by the legislature. Of course every member will add something or take something out during the course. Then the budget will have to be reconciled between the 2 houses before going to the governor for signature.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  13. #13
    New Member
    Join Date
    27 Mar 08
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    That's not how I understand it.

    Governor can propose it, but the language is made up by the legislature. Of course every member will add something or take something out during the course. Then the budget will have to be reconciled between the 2 houses before going to the governor for signature.
    Is it something like this?
    i) the finance secretary (or whatever he is called), an appointment of the gov prepares the base budget, i.e. 90% of the budget. After all he is the guy who actually has to carry out the budget. This guy needs to involved somehow in a serious way, but he works under the gov not the legislature
    ii) the budget gets approval from gov with possible changes, i.e. 95%
    iii) the gov proposes it before the legislature.
    iv) they debate the budget making some changes, always making sure that the gov vetos will not be invoked- so some changes. i.e. 100%
    v) legislature okays the bill and send it to the gov
    vi) gov who has the power of veto, (i.e. send it back to step iv) approves the budget

    or is there a different method followed?

  14. #14
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,348
    I think you got it pretty much right.

    In California, our finance minister is called a "controller"...I think. There's also a "treasurer." I have no idea why we need 2 guys to do the job of one. And here's another reason why CA has a budget problem. We have overlapping bureaucracies that do nothing and draw huge salaries.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  15. #15
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Shek's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 05
    Location
    Krblachistan
    Posts
    11,473
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    By the way, isn't John Lott the same guy who wrote "More Guns, Less Crime" or was it "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society" ?
    Yes, and he's controversial. Got busted pumping some of his own studies with sockpuppets.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Obama's stimulus plan: your thoughts
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 422
    Last Post: 14 Apr 09,, 21:04
  2. Defense Spending Would Be Great Stimulus
    By Shek in forum International Economy
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 15 Feb 09,, 00:20
  3. hard landing vs stimulus
    By kualaws in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08 Feb 09,, 15:30
  4. RBI pegs GDP growth at 7.5-8%
    By santosh tiwari in forum International Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28 Jul 06,, 03:54

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •