Businesses struggling to find workers

[Revoltingest]

It's not the quantity of regulations that matters most, it's the quality.

I agree completely, but the issue has been the amount of regulation. Much has been made of the fictional idea that Dubya reduced regulation, & much is now being made that we need more regulation. Unfortunately, "more" is the operative word, rather than "quality". Just look at the Health Care bill's new requirement that 1099 reporting be vastly expanded. It's a costly increase in the cost of doing business, particularly for smaller businesses, but the benefits to gov't look minimal.

 

[Alceste]

If it's such common knowledge that lending institutions create money out of thin air, then let's see a source, eg, Federal website, Wikipedia. ......or is such knowledge only available on youtube cartoons? If you're not an American, a lender, a borrower or a government official, then how is it that your expertise on monetary policy is superior than those of us who live & work here in the business?

It's not that I know everything, & I'm regularly wrong about things. But I see no basis for your belief that banks can electronically print the money they lend.

If you check the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), you'll find that the volume of regulation increased every single year during each of those presidential terms (except for one during Clinton's).

Wow, pretending I didn't give you several links already when the post is there for all to see? Ballsy move. Nice straw man too, about "electronically printing" currency. Been taking lessons from YECists I see.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow, pretending I didn't give you several links already when the post is there for all to see? Ballsy move. Nice straw man too, about "electronically printing" currency. Been taking lessons from YECists I see.

1) Perhaps I missed them, but the only links I saw were cartoons on youtube. I admit not bothering to watch those.
2) You could re-post these vaunted links now. Why not?
3) You've not even addressed my Wikipedia link about how the Fed creates money.
4) When I said "electronically printing" money, this is not a straw man argument. This is an accurate description of how
you say lenders create money, ie, not by printing it, but rather by bookkeeping (which is all electronic). A "straw man" is
an invented argument which is easier to argue about than the real one. Yours is already easy enuf. You're confusing the
Federal Reserve Bank System with non-member private banks, which cannot create money.

Here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking
...you'll see that fractional reserve banking is about lending out deposited money, not created money.

 

[Alceste]

1) Perhaps I missed them, but the only links I saw were cartoons on youtube. I admit not bothering to watch those.
2) You could re-post these vaunted links now. Why not?
3) You've not even addressed my Wikipedia link about how the Fed creates money.
4) When I said "electronically printing" money, this is not a straw man argument. This is an accurate description of how
you say lenders create money, ie, not by printing it, but rather by bookkeeping (which is all electronic). A "straw man" is
an invented argument which is easier to argue about than the real one. Yours is already easy enuf. You're confusing the
Federal Reserve Bank System with non-member private banks, which cannot create money.
Here...
Fractional-reserve banking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...you'll see that fractional reserve banking is about lending out deposited money, not created money.

Perhaps you are confused because you are not in the right thread. Maybe rather than drag the whole sad show into this one you could make your points over there?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-its-not-government-so-who-7.html#post2125105

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps you are confused because you are not in the right thread. Maybe rather than drag the whole sad show into this one you could make your points over there?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-its-not-government-so-who-7.html#post2125105

Naw, I think we've beaten this horse to death. I need to spend some
time fixing up my limericks. (They haven't scanned well enuf lately.)

 

[dust1n]

If you need to feed your family, you sure as heck will. Not everyone can have a great job - some people HAVE to do the jobs other people don't want to do or else they'd never get done

This is relevant? Are you serious?

 

[Reverend Rick]

This is relevant? Are you serious?

Soe folks win the lottery and still go back to work dust1n.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

It seems to me we should almost have some sort of job (or school/training) requirement to receive unemployment. :areyoucra

Now hear me out: There never seems to be a lack of minimum wage jobs. The problem is that minimum wage is not a livable wage for the majority of people (particularly with families), and it is also likely a huge paycut from whatever adults established in a career had been making before they lost their job. So, it makes more sense to stay on unemployment, receiving more money than they would if they took the minimum wage job.

Why not simply make some sort of job a requirement to receive unemployment, with unemployment paying the difference between what you used to make and what you are now making at McDonald's? This would get people off their *****, help them keep their sense of self-respect, and save money for the government. (And likely grow small businesses in the process by expanding the minimum-wage workforce, and perhaps even limiting the available jobs for illegal immigrants.)

Another route could be the stipulation that you must be enrolled in some sort of training or schooling in order to make yourself more marketable in a changing workforce, with unemployment paying part or all of the enrollment fees.

I've heard this argument lately of "if we would just stop giving out unemployment benefits, people would be more likely to find a job, and the unemployment would decrease." The argument simply makes no sense. We have people out of work right now that would give ANYTHING just to get a job. These benefits in no way hurt the numbers of jobs available; if anything, they invest in those that are in dire economic situations, which gives them back some purchasing power and ability to stay in their homes. That injection of liquidity can actually help the number of jobs, even in the short run.

 

[Engyo]

Some folks are trapped, too. I know a guy who had to turn down a job offer because it would have taken him 1 1/2 hours each way commute time (as well as commuting costs). He cannot sell his house (been on the market for 2 1/2 years), can't rent it (current rents in his neighborhood would only run to 60% of his mortgage) and isn't quite ready to just walk away from it. The job was only going to pay $32k, when he was making over $50k when he bought the house and car. So, he couldn't afford to take the job, unless he is also ready to dump his house back on the bank, take the hit on his credit and move back into an apartment.

 

[Kathryn]

I've heard this argument lately of "if we would just stop giving out unemployment benefits, people would be more likely to find a job, and the unemployment would decrease." The argument simply makes no sense. We have people out of work right now that would give ANYTHING just to get a job. These benefits in no way hurt the numbers of jobs available; if anything, they invest in those that are in dire economic situations, which gives them back some purchasing power and ability to stay in their homes. That injection of liquidity can actually help the number of jobs, even in the short run.

Yes, well, I also personally know people who are pretty much OK with getting 60% of their previous salary for months on end while they sit at home and don't work. However, their numbers are included, of course, in our unemployment numbers.

If people have no equity in their home, they actually come out ahead for the short haul by not making payments and allowing the foreclosure system to work. It can take 18 months to actually move someone out of a home once they stop making payments. And you can imagine how "well" they are taking care of that home when they have absolutely nothing invested in it and know it's going back to the bank.

Sure it hurts their credit, but if they're not making their house payment, they're probably not making other payments as well, so it's really not that much more destructive.

I'm not saying that this is the case in MOST cases, but this happens more than most decent people are aware of. I work in a bank. I see this sort of thing happening regularly.

It's depressing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, well, I also personally know people who are pretty much OK with getting 60% of their previous salary for months on end while they sit at home and don't work. However, their numbers are included, of course, in our unemployment numbers.

If people have no equity in their home, they actually come out ahead for the short haul by not making payments and allowing the foreclosure system to work. It can take 18 months to actually move someone out of a home once they stop making payments. And you can imagine how "well" they are taking care of that home when they have absolutely nothing invested in it and know it's going back to the bank.

Sure it hurts their credit, but if they're not making their house payment, they're probably not making other payments as well, so it's really not that much more destructive.

I'm not saying that this is the case in MOST cases, but this happens more than most decent people are aware of. I work in a bank. I see this sort of thing happening regularly.

It's depressing.

A friend just went from a $2200/mo job to $1100/mo on unemployment. Her bank also said that she can live in her house free (as long as she keeps up
insurance) while they foreclose on her brother (who owns it). After the bank takes title, they'll give her a loan based upon a reduced value. Not bad, eh?

 

[Engyo]

A friend just went from a $2200/mo job to $1100/mo on unemployment. Her bank also said that she can live in her house free (as long as she keeps up insurance) while they foreclose on her brother (who owns it). After the bank takes title, they'll give her a loan based upon a reduced value. Not bad, eh?

Not bad at all, as long as she can secure another job within the duration of her unemployment benefits. Does she live in Revoltistan too?

 

[Revoltingest]

Not bad at all, as long as she can secure another job within the duration of her unemployment benefits. Does she live in Revoltistan too?

Our borders are fluid. She could very well live here. Hmmm....I should invite her to become a citizen!
(Her unemployment bennies were the result of a settlement over an improper firing, btw.)

 

[Alceste]

Our borders are fluid. She could very well live here. Hmmm....I should invite her to become a citizen!
(Her unemployment bennies were the result of a settlement over an improper firing, btw.)

I didn't think libertarians recognized such bleeding heart liberal concepts like "improper firing". Doesn't it encroach on the freedom of the job creating class to dictate who they can hire and fire, and why?

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't think libertarians recognized such bleeding heart liberal concepts like "improper firing". Doesn't it encroach on the freedom of the job creating class to dictate who they can hire and fire, and why?

Employment involves a contract, which her employer violated in this case. Libertarians are all about honoring
voluntary agreements. Besides, I never said she's a Libertarian....although she leans small "l" libertarian.

Note: One needn't actually be a libertarian to become a citizen of Revoltistan. One must merely live by those values,
within which one may form associations which embody other systems, eg, communal living with everything jointly owned.
Even Darkness has expressed some interest in joining our ranks.

 

[Darkness]

Note: One needn't actually be a libertarian to become a citizen of Revoltistan. One must merely live by those values,
within which one may form associations which embody other systems, eg, communal living with everything jointly owned.
Even Darkness has expressed some interest in joining our ranks.

That's because its leader is just so damn lovable. :yes:

 

[Engyo]

That's because its leader is just so damn lovable. :yes:

Damn! Where's my waders?

 

[Darkness]

Damn! Where's my waders?

To be fair, you've never invited me to live in your country.

 

[Kathryn]

A friend just went from a $2200/mo job to $1100/mo on unemployment. Her bank also said that she can live in her house free (as long as she keeps up
insurance) while they foreclose on her brother (who owns it). After the bank takes title, they'll give her a loan based upon a reduced value. Not bad, eh?

The bank that I work at has a large department, whose sole purpose is to restructure loans of all types to accommodate the needs of customers in financial difficulty. As I've stated before, the bank does not want the collateral - they want the loans repaid. If this means restructuring the terms to make repayment easier, or (worst case scenario) allow the loan to move into default - at least when the parties work together, the damage to all is minimalized.

This, in my opinion, is a civilized and reasonable way to handle a difficult situation.

 

[Revoltingest]

The bank that I work at has a large department, whose sole purpose is to restructure loans of all types to accommodate the needs of customers in financial difficulty. As I've stated before, the bank does not want the collateral - they want the loans repaid. If this means restructuring the terms to make repayment easier, or (worst case scenario) allow the loan to move into default - at least when the parties work together, the damage to all is minimalized.

This, in my opinion, is a civilized and reasonable way to handle a difficult situation.

Alas, I wish lenders for commercial properties were allowed the same flexibility by government. Any principal reduction is considered ordinary income,
so both the state & the Fed would take over 40% of it as income tax. Since our predicament is caused of lack of money, there would be no money to
pay the taxes, so restructuring is dang near impossible. Moreover, if the banks take the property, I'd urge them to continue pursuing payment, otherwise
they'd have to 1099 us for the written off debt. Tis as though Obama & Congress actually want a commercial real estate collapse.