Unemployment Compensation

[shadowmaster]

A young person I know is collecting over $600/ month for not working. It will last for 2 years and she has no intention of landing a job in the meantime. She never worked more than 1/2 time and seldom made that in a week.

Is this supposed to be an incentive to work?
Any opinions as why this is done?

SM

[One Bad Pig]

It's an incentive for said young person to vote for whomever keeps her unemployment benefits coming.

[Cow Poke]

For the first time in my life, I am collecting unemployment. I receive the maximum allowed amount in my state - $415 / week. The rules (or conditions) seem to oppose making any extra money, and the system does NOT seem set up to encourage finding a job.

I know it varies from State to State, but it seems that unemployment compensation has become a "hook" to keep people dependent upon the state.

I used to be VERY opposed to unemployment, and have never collected it in my life. I have been "between jobs" before, but I have never been "out of work". I have always found something to do.

Now that I'm nearly 60 years of age, it's harder and harder to find something decent, particularly in this economy.

But, at the risk of being a cynic, it appears that the whole welfare / unemployment compensation thing is designed to keep people on the plantation, so to speak.

[RBerman]

Read Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317661159&sr=8-1-spell) Your wage is the difference between how much you get paid to work, and how much you get paid not to work. With wages so low, the incentive to work is very low. This causes wealth production to decrease, resulting in a scarcity of production which raises the cost of goods and services.

[shadowmaster]

So even though our leaders know that extending the unemployment compensation will discourage people from getting jobs, they still do it?

What does that say about them?

SM

[RBerman]

So even though our leaders know that extending the unemployment compensation will discourage people from getting jobs, they still do it? What does that say about them?

And what does it say about us, that we keep re-electing them?

[shadowmaster]

I don't.

I say 'throw the bums out."

All of them

[Littlejoe]

Unemployment was meant to be a temporary help until you could find a replacement job for the one you lost. I have been on unemployment twice in the last ten years, both times for approx. 4-5 months. I worked hard at getting a new job though! I spent 5-6 hours a day looking for work, applying for jobs and networking. I wouldn't have made it without it. But I never treated it as a reason to sit on my backside and do nothing. There are certainly ways to milk it for all its worth though...

[rogue06]

So even though our leaders know that extending the unemployment compensation will discourage people from getting jobs, they still do it?

What does that say about them?

SM
But, but, but Nancy Pelosi assures us that unemployment checks “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative" and "is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy”



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAhmYKlsWW4

[OneFollowingHim]

And what does it say about us, that we keep re-electing them?

You might like this website (http://goooh.com/).

[shadowmaster]

But, but, but Nancy Pelosi assures us that unemployment checks “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative" and "is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy”



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAhmYKlsWW4

because she wants the votes

[shunyadragon]

So even though our leaders know that extending the unemployment compensation will discourage people from getting jobs, they still do it?

What does that say about them?

SM

You are assuming that at present unemployment compensation discourages people from getting jobs. In our present economy there are not jobs available to be discouraged from.

In my case, I returned from China (9 years) in 2006 for a job. When I arrived the job was not there. I got a six month job as an OSHA supervisor (from my previous work experience as a geologist). It was a contract job not employment. Since then I have not been able to get a job. I was never eligible for unemployment benefits, I have worked since that time on my own doing whatever people are willing to pay me to do, such as carpentry, auto mechanics, plumbing and electrical work.

I have many friends unemployed from many different fields, and there is just no employment opportunity for them. The unemployment some not all receive is insufficient to pay their way except to eventual bankruptcy.

[shadowmaster]

You are assuming that at present unemployment compensation discourages people from getting jobs. In our present economy there are not jobs available to be discouraged from.

In my case, I returned from China (9 years) in 2006 for a job. When I arrived the job was not there. I got a six month job as an OSHA supervisor (from my previous work experience as a geologist). It was a contract job not employment. Since then I have not been able to get a job. I was never eligible for unemployment benefits, I have worked since that time on my own doing whatever people are willing to pay me to do, such as carpentry, auto mechanics, plumbing and electrical work.

I have many friends unemployed from many different fields, and there is just no employment opportunity for them. The unemployment some not all receive is insufficient to pay their way except to eventual bankruptcy.

You did not read the op or you would realize that for many young people this is not so.
There are many jobs for them but the incentive is for them not to take them until the unemployment $$ run out.
It's not rocket science, Shuny.

OTOH, I know that higher priced people are having a hard time, my relatives included.
The compensation helps but is not adequate.
It puts some food on the table but does not cure our current economic woes.

sm

[RBerman]

You are assuming that at present unemployment compensation discourages people from getting jobs. In our present economy there are not jobs available to be discouraged from.

1) "People are discouraged from seeking work by low wages" is a distinct issue from "No jobs were available."

2) The availability of jobs depends on the cost of acquiring the work. When people are paid not to work, the wage necessary to induce them work may equal or exceed the value of the wealth produced by the work. In such cases, the business owner has no incentive to expand production, and the supply of jobs decreases.

[shadowmaster]

1) "People are discouraged from seeking work by low wages" is a distinct issue from "No jobs were available."

2) The availability of jobs depends on the cost of acquiring the work. When people are paid not to work, the wage necessary to induce them work may equal or exceed the value of the wealth produced by the work. In such cases, the business owner has no incentive to expand production, and the supply of jobs decreases.

Good points. The person I spoke of in the OP is a community college student on a federal grant. The $600 per month may as well be considered another grant because she cannot afford to work (say) 20 hours/week and lose that $600+ (it is actually over $640.)

I wonder how many other students are doing the same thing.


SM

[Chrs]

Good points. The person I spoke of in the OP is a community college student on a federal grant. The $600 per month may as well be considered another grant because she cannot afford to work (say) 20 hours/week and lose that $600+ (it is actually over $640.)


Er... that's entirely different to claiming unemployment and not wanting to work. While your OP is technically true to say that:

A young person I know is collecting over $600/ month for not working. It will last for 2 years and she has no intention of landing a job in the meantime.

That's not actually what she's doing, is it? She's studying. That's not a bad thing nor is she doing nothing. Your OP is misleading at best.

[shadowmaster]

Er... that's entirely different to claiming unemployment and not wanting to work. While your OP is technically true to say that:


That's not actually what she's doing, is it? She's studying. That's not a bad thing nor is she doing nothing. Your OP is misleading at best.

Sorry to be misleading. She has been collecting unemployment for some time now -- much longer than she has been going to community college.
She just recently started college and that is indeed a good thing.
However, she has no intention of working until the Unemployment runs out -college or not
Think it out Chris. She is near a minimum-wage person.
if she were to get $8.00 an hour for a 40 hour week, that would be $320 but she loses the $161 w each week. Hence she would getting only $4.00 per hour additional.
She will not do that.

It is not what she is doing that matters as much as negative incentive of the system.

SM

[Chrs]

Sorry to be misleading. She has been collecting unemployment for some time now -- much longer than she has been going to community college.


Right, but you'll acknowledge the fact there's a huge difference between "Claiming unemployment, doing nothing and no intention on getting a job." and "Claiming unemployment and going to college?" :rasberry: - I get that what a particular person is doing isn't the issue, but whatever.

...I'd say an additional $160/week for working 40 hours is actually pretty good. The increase in quality of life between incredibly low incomes and low incomes is pretty big because things like food, rent and so on have a fairly high minimum cost (You can eat on, say, £20 a week (~$31) which is a much larger portion of the amount of money you have than if you're eating on £30 a week ($45) and you're earning a lot more.) Whether or not people are actively making that decision (and not as many people are as it is made out) - I certainly wouldn't say it was the rational decision to make. That said, I have no idea how your unemployment benefit works (here, for instance, you have to turn up to the jobcenter and jump through various hoops to show you're actively searching for a job after a certain period of time).

[RBerman]

...I'd say an additional $160/week for working 40 hours is actually pretty good. The increase in quality of life between incredibly low incomes and low incomes is pretty big because things like food, rent and so on have a fairly high minimum cost (You can eat on, say, £20 a week (~$31) which is a much larger portion of the amount of money you have than if you're eating on £30 a week ($45) and you're earning a lot more.) Whether or not people are actively making that decision (and not as many people are as it is made out) - I certainly wouldn't say it was the rational decision to make. That said, I have no idea how your unemployment benefit works (here, for instance, you have to turn up to the jobcenter and jump through various hoops to show you're actively searching for a job after a certain period of time).

That depends on the marginal utility of those 40 hours. How much gas does it cost to get to and from the job? How much wear and tear on her automobile? Is she going to have to pay for child care during her work hours? And so on.

[Chrs]

How much gas does it cost to get to and from the job? How much wear and tear on her automobile?

Oh right. America. Forgot about that :tongue: I'll agree that circumstances are a consideration.


Is she going to have to pay for child care during her work hours?

You can get support for child care during work hours here. Not sure if you can here.

[shadowmaster]

Right, but you'll acknowledge the fact there's a huge difference between "Claiming unemployment, doing nothing and no intention on getting a job." and "Claiming unemployment and going to college?" :rasberry:

yes, and the first is what she was doing and intends to do. college may or may not last


- I get that what a particular person is doing isn't the issue, but whatever.

...I'd say an additional $160/week for working 40 hours is actually pretty good. The increase in quality of life between incredibly low incomes and low incomes is pretty big because things like food, rent and so on have a fairly high minimum cost (You can eat on, say, £20 a week (~$31) which is a much larger portion of the amount of money you have than if you're eating on £30 a week ($45) and you're earning a lot more.) Whether or not people are actively making that decision (and not as many people are as it is made out) - I certainly wouldn't say it was the rational decision to make. That said, I have no idea how your unemployment benefit works (here, for instance, you have to turn up to the jobcenter and jump through various hoops to show you're actively searching for a job after a certain period of time).

You misjudge the laziness of the average American (free loading) young person.

[joel]

If you subsidize something (like unemployment), you should expect to get more of it.

Unemployment subsidies are an attempt to treat a symptom in a manner that worsens the underlying cause.

[shadowmaster]

If you subsidize something (like unemployment), you should expect to get more of it.

Unemployment subsidies are an attempt to treat a symptom in a manner that worsens the underlying cause.

But what then is the motivation of our leaders?


They want it to fail?



sm

[RBerman]

But what then is the motivation of our leaders?They want it to fail?

They want to be re-elected. It's the same impulse that causes the CEO of a large corporation to do things that boost the price of the company's stock now (when he can exercise his buy and sell options to reap a huge profit) even though it will cause the company major problems ten or twenty years down the line. That horizon is too far away to impact the CEO unless he has a vested interest in the long-term survival of a company. That's the difference with someone like, say, Steve Jobs who founds a company and is motivated by its perpetual success, because the company is an extension of himself, and its future success becomes his legacy, a sort of immortality.

Pensions in general are an example of this problem. How could it ever be good to pay former workers? That's just less money to distribute among current workers and shareholders. But pensions were an easy way the companies could obtain grumble-free labor from employees in exchange for unrealistic future promises. Then when it comes time to pay, the company begins to falter in the marketplace. When Southwest Airlines was started, its vision was to compete with Greyhound on price. Which it did, for a while, because it wasn't paying its pilots any pensions. But twenty years later, when the original pilots retired, prices began to rise. Now Southwest's prices are nowhere near those of Greyhound. (Houston to Atlanta: $151 on Greyhound, $302 on Southwest)

The problem with democratic government is that the will of the government mirrors the will of the people. And the will of the American people is "buy now, pay later." Other cultures have different philosophies and see different results.

[shadowmaster]

The long way of saying "greed".

[joel]

I think there is also the issue that lots of people just don't think through things very carefully.
They think of unemployment subsidies or other wealth redistribution or other government policies by considering only their immediate effect and not considering its other aspects and effects. In this case one focuses solely on the idea that it is an immediate help to those in desparate need, and then one stops there and doesn't consider its other effects. Doesn't consider whether this is treating a symptom in a way that worsens the underlying cause, such that the people you are trying to help will likely end up even worse off than otherwise.

This wrongheaded thinking has been a problem for a long time. Economist Frederic Bastiat pointed it out in his excellent 1850 essay "That Which Is Seen And That Which is Not Seen". http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

"In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause - it is seen. The others unfold in succession - they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference - the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, - at the risk of a small present evil."

He illustrates this with several examples. The first is his famous "broken window fallacy"--the idea that a broken window (or natural disaster) has a stimulating, rather than depressing, effect on the economy. This fallacy is still perpetuated today. It fails to consider what is not seen: what the man would have used his wealth for if he hadn't had to spend it on replacing the window.

Another example he addresses is the mistaken idea that disbanding of troops (or reduction of government in general) will depress the economy. Here again this fails to consider what is not seen: what taxpayers would have done with their wealth if the government hadn't seized it and used it to hire troops. The argument that unemployment subsidies stimulate the economy is the same fallacy.

In 1948 Henry Hazlitt built upon Bastiat's essay in his book Economics In One Lesson. full text: http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/

Not only do people fail to look at all the consequences of the unemployment subsidy, they also don't consider the question of why there is a problem of unemployment in the first place. Surely it would be more effective to discover and address the cause rather than the symptom.
But then one would have to consider how various government policies are the cause and that there cannot be involuntary unemployment in an unhampered market.

[Cow Poke]

Not only do people fail to look at all the consequences of the unemployment subsidy, they also don't consider the question of why there is a problem of unemployment in the first place. Surely it would be more effective to discover and address the cause rather than the symptom.
But then one would have to consider how various government policies are the cause and that there cannot be involuntary unemployment in an unhampered market.

That

[shunyadragon]

I don't.

I say 'throw the bums out."

All of them

All the administrations in recent history, both Democratic and Republican have considered unemployment compensation in a similar manner. Do you really think electing a new herd of pigs, that make a lot of noise about unrealistic change will change the world.

[shunyadragon]

You did not read the op or you would realize that for many young people this is not so.
There are many jobs for them but the incentive is for them not to take them until the unemployment $$ run out.
It's not rocket science, Shuny.

OTOH, I know that higher priced people are having a hard time, my relatives included.
The compensation helps but is not adequate.
It puts some food on the table but does not cure our current economic woes.

sm

I read the OP, and your generalizations really do not work, as well as your qualified example. Sure people abuse systems, as well as big banks and large corporations take advantage of the government assistance and programs and outragous tax breaks in far larger dollar amounts than our unemployment programs, without providing the needed loans and employment to help the economy recover.

You have to provide more than examples, which are questionable, and provide statistics of age groups and where the unemployment occurs in the USA. I think if you will see that the statistics of the unemployment benefits do not fit the way you describe. They dominantly reflect the lack of jobs.

The unemployment funds would not run out if those responsible for the collapse and loose of jobs took responsibility for the problem.

[shadowmaster]

I read the OP, and your generalizations really do not work, as well as your qualified example. Sure people abuse systems, as well as big banks and large corporations take advantage of the government assistance and programs and outragous tax breaks in far larger dollar amounts than our unemployment programs, without providing the needed loans and employment to help the economy recover.

You have to provide more than examples, which are questionable, and provide statistics of age groups and where the unemployment occurs in the USA. I think if you will see that the statistics of the unemployment benefits do not fit the way you describe. They dominantly reflect the lack of jobs. :no:
They exactly reflect what I see. Young people are turning down available jobs. I see that and the data reflects it.Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (8.8 percent), adult women (8.1 percent), teenagers (24.6 percent), whites (8.0 percent), blacks (16.0 percent), and Hispanics (11.3 percent) showed little or no change in September. The jobless rate for Asians was 7.8 percent, not seasonally adjusted.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm



SM

[Pilgrim]

I've never heard of an unemployment office that doesn't require a person to be actively engaged in a job search or that doesn't have a time limit on aid. Having said that, I'm pretty sure there are jobs out there. When most people say, "there are no jobs out there for me" what they are really saying is "There are no jobs out there I'm willing to under take..." People of a certain education, intelligence, or class just don't want to do work they feel is beneath them.

[joel]

what they are really saying is "There are no jobs out there I'm willing to under take..."
Yep, that's voluntary unemployment. People talking about and attempting to measure unemployment usually fail to make the distinction between voluntary and involuntary unemployment.

In an unhampered market, voluntary unemployment can exist, but involuntary unemployment cannot. The involuntary kind is caused by (government) force, e.g. minimum wage laws.

[shunyadragon]

I've never heard of an unemployment office that doesn't require a person to be actively engaged in a job search or that doesn't have a time limit on aid. Having said that, I'm pretty sure there are jobs out there. When most people say, "there are no jobs out there for me" what they are really saying is "There are no jobs out there I'm willing to under take..." People of a certain education, intelligence, or class just don't want to do work they feel is beneath them.

I question you 'most people say . . .' claims. I am pretty sure by the evidence there are not many jobs out there. Many traditional sources of employment, for example the US Post Office simply are not hiring, they are down sizing like many businesses. The Post Office dropped 110000 over the past four years, and is planning to drop another 120000 jobs.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/08/12/postal-service-considers-cutting-120-000-jobs/

[RBerman]

I question you 'most people say . . .' claims. I am pretty sure by the evidence there are not many jobs out there. Many traditional sources of employment, for example the US Post Office simply are not hiring, they are down sizing like many businesses. The Post Office dropped 110000 over the past four years, and is planning to drop another 120000 jobs.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/08/12/postal-service-considers-cutting-120-000-jobs/

Good. Demand for postal service should go down as the internet increases as a way of transmitting non-physical correspondence. ncreased efficiency means decreased waste means better wealth production, benefitting society as a whole. Besides which, employment by governmnet is suboptimal compared with private enterprise. Money consumed by taxation is unavailable for capitalist expansion.

[Cow Poke]

Good. Demand for postal service should go down as the internet increases as a way of transmitting non-physical correspondence. ncreased efficiency means decreased waste means better wealth production, benefitting society as a whole. Besides which, employment by governmnet is suboptimal compared with private enterprise.

The Postal Service has been placing lots of ads on TV trumpeting the benefit of getting something "printed" and "actual physical paper" instead of something that can disappear with a click of a mouse. :smile:

I'm thinking they don't realize you can actually PRINT an email or receipt or contract from the internetz.

[Carrikature]

The Postal Service has been placing lots of ads on TV trumpeting the benefit of getting something "printed" and "actual physical paper" instead of something that can disappear with a click of a mouse. :smile:

I'm thinking they don't realize you can actually PRINT an email or receipt or contract from the internetz.


Shhhh! :noid:

[Carrikature]

I've never heard of an unemployment office that doesn't require a person to be actively engaged in a job search or that doesn't have a time limit on aid. Having said that, I'm pretty sure there are jobs out there. When most people say, "there are no jobs out there for me" what they are really saying is "There are no jobs out there I'm willing to under take..." People of a certain education, intelligence, or class just don't want to do work they feel is beneath them.

I have a friend who once spent the summer not working simply because he couldn't bring himself to apply to fast food chains.

[shunyadragon]

Good. Demand for postal service should go down as the internet increases as a way of transmitting non-physical correspondence. ncreased efficiency means decreased waste means better wealth production, benefitting society as a whole. Besides which, employment by governmnet is suboptimal compared with private enterprise. Money consumed by taxation is unavailable for capitalist expansion.

First, the US Post Office is not a government Agency.

Second, this was an example of lost employment in recent years, nothing to do with the worthyness of the US Post Office.

This site gives the figures give the bottom line of the vast scope of the lost jobs since 2008. The figures show millions of jobs lost, and there is no indication that these jobs are coming back. These figures indicate that the entry level jobs for young workers is just not there.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/economicindicators/a/Job-Stats.htm

[RBerman]

First, the US Post Office is not a government Agency. Second, this was an example of lost employment in recent years, nothing to do with the worthyness of the US Post Office. This site gives the figures give the bottom line of the vast scope of the lost jobs since 2008. The figures show millions of jobs lost, and there is no indication that these jobs are coming back. These figures indicate that the entry level jobs for young workers is just not there. http://useconomy.about.com/od/economicindicators/a/Job-Stats.htm

My point was that "The Post Office is cutting jobs" is good news, not bad news, given modern trends in correspondence. The real issue is that modern transportation tech forces American workers to compete with Third World workers for entry-level production jobs. This reduces the cost of the production of goods, which is good. But it also makes it more difficult for people starting out at the bottom end in America.

[Manwë Súlimo]

I blame Shadowloser for our current economy, as I do for everything else.

[Cow Poke]

My point was that "The Post Office is cutting jobs" is good news, not bad news, given modern trends in correspondence. The real issue is that modern transportation tech forces American workers to compete with Third World workers for entry-level production jobs. This reduces the cost of the production of goods, which is good. But it also makes it more difficult for people starting out at the bottom end in America.

I think one of the main reason they have not cut jobs before is the same for any union controlled organization. It is almost impossible to implement a reduction in force regardless of need.

[CodewordConduit]

I have a friend who once spent the summer not working simply because he couldn't bring himself to apply to fast food chains.

http://consumerist.com/2011/05/mcdonalds-hires-62000-at-job-event-turns-down-938000.html

Caught this earlier this year. Nearly one million applicants for McDonalds in this case.

[shunyadragon]

I think one of the main reason they have not cut jobs before is the same for any union controlled organization. It is almost impossible to implement a reduction in force regardless of need.

They are and have been cutting jobs.

[shunyadragon]

My point was that "The Post Office is cutting jobs" is good news, not bad news, given modern trends in correspondence. The real issue is that modern transportation tech forces American workers to compete with
Third World workers for entry-level production jobs. This reduces the cost of the production of goods, which is good. But it also makes it more difficult for people starting out at the bottom end in America.

As an example of the over all loss of jobs in the millions since 2008 it is valid. Please note where those millions of lost jobs are going. There was over 900000 applicants for 62000 jobs at McDonald's. My point is the jobs are just not there for anyone particularly young employment opportunities in today's market. This thread is peppered with meaningless anecdotal references like, 'my friend said . . .', 'I know a person that . . .,' 'There was a person who said. . . ', or the real charmer, 'I know there are jobs out there.' The actual cold hard statistics tell a different story. There are just not that many jobs available, and finger pointing will not help. We have been in a deteriorating job market for more then 50 years, and judgment day has arrived. The rich are getting richer by leaps and bounds and the rest are getting poorer.

[Cow Poke]

They are and have been cutting jobs.

Yes, the horsies are long gone, so they are beginning to close the gate.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, the horsies are long gone, so they are beginning to close the gate.

Not the point, they are cutting and have cut jobs.

[Cow Poke]

Not the point, they are cutting and have cut jobs.

linky?

[joel]

The actual cold hard statistics tell a different story. There are just not that many jobs available, and finger pointing will not help. We have been in a deteriorating job market for more then 50 years, and judgment day has arrived.

You have a point (though I wouldn't say 50).
See the chart here:
http://mises.org/daily/5112
"The blue line, at a February 2011 level of 108.3 million private-sector jobs, is lower than it was way back in June 1999 at 108.6 million jobs. In the more than 11 intervening years, through immigration and natural growth the (civilian noninstitutional) US population has increased by 31 million people. And yet we have fewer private-sector jobs in the country now than in mid-1999. Simple inspection of the chart above shows that there hasn't been a comparable period of stagnant job creation since the late 1930s."


The rich are getting richer by leaps and bounds and the rest are getting poorer.Yep, because of our government-dominated economy.

Here's another interesting article:
http://mises.org/daily/5752/The-Fascist-Threat
"What the data have revealed is devastating. Since 1999, median household income has fallen 7.1 percent. Since 1989, median family income is largely flat. And since 1973 and the end of the gold standard, it has hardly risen at all."
The article goes on to say that since the early 70's, people have staved off disaster by largely shifting from single-income households to multiple-income households.
"But this huge shift was merely an escape hatch. It bought 20 years of slight increases before the income trend flattened again. Over the last decade we are back to falling. Today median family income is only slightly above where it was when Nixon wrecked the dollar, put on price and wage controls, created the EPA, and the whole apparatus of the parasitic welfare-warfare state came to be entrenched and made universal.

"Yes, this is fascism, and we are paying the price. The dream is being destroyed.

"[...] It is the quality of the money. It is the very existence of 10,000 regulatory agencies. It is the whole assumption that you have to pay the state for the privilege to work. It is the presumption that the government must manage every aspect of the capitalist economic order. In short, it is the total state that is the problem, and the suffering and decline will continue so long as the total state exists."

[shunyadragon]

linky?

Link already given, 100000+ jobs down the shut since 2007, more to go. Anecdotal, my brother in law retired rather put in the position of retirement or reassignment to Siberia . . .