That's the offical Bureau of Labor Statistics graph of the average length of a job search in America. As of this month, it stands at 35.2 weeks. It's been at least 16 weeks since America never actually recovered from the post 9/11 recession in 2002. It now takes almost 9 months to find a job. Any job. The notion that this is just another vanilla recession and that America is recovering is complete hogwash.
The notion that we don't need unemployment benefits, or that unemployment benefits themselves are causing people to unemployed longer is also complete idiocy. But it sure is nice for the Republicans to try to turn Americans who still have jobs against those who are suffering without one for nine months.
That's how they roll in 2010.
Posts
7 comments:
Uhm, think the image is broken, Zandar.
Linked it once before, I'll link it again.
Yes the economy is bad but you can't sit there and be totally blind and ignorant. There are people who are putting off getting a job because they have the benefits. Don't take that as a blanket statement and stretch it to "Wafflez says everyone is bucking the system!" No not the case. Hell even the GOP is for extending it, just so long as it's deficit neutral.
Dear Zandar:
So how long do you think you'll be searching for a job when you finally get fired?
You would think all these horror stories about how hard it is for lazy people like you to find work these days, you'd be a lot more careful about being seen stuffing your face at your desk and surfing the net when you should be EATING IN THE BREAK ROOM and DOING YOUR FUCKING JOB.
I think it'll be a lot longer than 35.2 weeks...
@Waffles:
Okay, look. Laffer is an utter clown. He starts this editorial with a balls out lie.
"The current debate over extending and increasing federal unemployment benefits encapsulates the disagreement between the Democrats in power in Washington and their Republican opponents."
Empshais mine. No one is discussing increasing the unemployment benefit. Democrats only want to extend it. But let's go on and discuss the various points he wants to make.
A) Of course some people take funemployment. B) Of course people on unemployment will pass by an available, bad job to continue to look for a job closer to what they used to have. C) Of course higher average unemployment benefits paid out correlates to higher unemployment rates. These are the three main points Laffer hangs his following grade school lecture on, besides D) stating that "The flaw in their logic is that when it comes to higher unemployment benefits or any other stimulus spending, the resources given to the unemployed have to be taken from someone else." Therefore, he concludes, after government waste in the redistribution process, the result is a net drag on the economy.
Let's just take a moment to unpack this, shall we?
A) It does suck that some people don't try to get straight back to work. Let's assume that, with magic, we could compel them to immediately return to searching for a job. There are now more people searching for the exact same number of jobs. What has improved? As the economy improves, extensions will lapse, and anyone who took funemployment will lose it and be stuck. Too bad, so sad.
B) This is by design. We decided that it was a good thing that a former engineer would be able to devote all of his energy to continuing to search for an equivalent job, rather than having to take whatever was immediately at hand, and be hamstrung in pay, benefits, and the ability to search for more gainful employment.
C) This assertion is incredibly disingenuous. Why, we ARE paying out more total real benefits paid per recipient! And unemployment IS higher now! The reason isn't because, as Laffer asserts, we've raised rates, so people are less likely to go out and find work. The reason is that the benefit paid to a person is a percentage of their former pay, and it takes longer than ever to find work. With more, formerly higher earning people out of work, multiplied by the length of their unemployment, which Laffer has the balls to say right on his chart, the numbers will of course spike. He is trying to aruge that the effect is the cause.
D) This is precisely why we don't want it to be revenue neutral! We want to put this on the national credit card, so we can pay it back when our fiscal position has improved. This is the definition of stimulus spending. But, if defecit hawks demand that we stop defecit spending, I'd be perfectly happy to eliminate the $40 billion in annual oil subsidies we pay the oil industry, and use it to extend the unemployment benefit. Then, it wouldn't be stimulative. At least wouldn't be morally reprehensible.
Don't push Laffer at us again, Waffles. This is probably why Zandar ignored it the first time, and honestly, I don't have the energy to blow holes in his ridiculous assumptions and assertions. More to the point, I expect better from you.
@Lowkey, no no you proved my point. And the point I've made over the last few weeks to Z.
He is of the belief that no one is abusing this system, vs. I believe there are plenty that are. Hell we could probably afford it if on top of the millions of unemployed you didn't have millions of illegals, but that's a different discussion for another post. Figure 15 million+ unemployed, you don't have to be in or near Vegas to know the odds. That is not to say that all are, but you have to understand with showing compassion comes those who want to take advantage of said compassion.
And if you haven't noticed I'm not the biggest fan of blanket generalized statements or accusations, so when I see them, I find fallacies. Yes stereotypes exist for a reason, if it weren't true it wouldn't be a stereotype. But that doesn't mean that every asian is good at math, every black man loves fried chicken/watermelon and that all gamers are overweight (Vin Diesel anyone?)
So when I see "millions are upset cause a black man is in the white house" or the "Tea Party is racist" or "The notion that unemployment benefits themselves are causing people to unemployed longer" much akin to Stars censorship on the internet irk, I must throw in my 2 cents.
That is the extent of my point.
Right, so because some people are abusing the system, Republicans are totally right in blocking the bill and collectively punishing millions.
Great plan.
I didn't say it was a great plan, and also didn't they say "Hey cut some spending or take some of that stimulus money since Nancy says these checks will stimulate the economy and use it, just don't add to the deficit."
But no we must demonize and label as a wingnut, even if that makes us become what was are trying to destory!
Post a Comment