Unemployment to stay high until 2017

So apparently the Obama administration has said that nationwide unemployment will not return to 6% until 2017. Wow. (remember when even 6% was considered kinda high, yea I guess we're well into the new normal). But the shocking part is not the 6% which isn't that bad really, but the 2017!!! Wow more than 5 years to go in a recession we're already 2-3 years into (yea the economists say it's not a recession, why it's a jobless recovery!). Making what, near a decade of recession maybe? Great depression like in length then if not in intensity. Who knows how many years unemployment it will stay as high as it is now.

This can not help but have an effect on the psychology of the nation. How exactly I can't say. It's not necessarily positive. It might just lead to the ghettoization of the unemployed where everyone else goes on with their life as if nothing has changed, whereas many who manage to fall into unemployment join the permanent underclass. It could make people even more competitive and stresed out because afterall the dog eat dog world has now become wolf eat wolf in the level of carnage. I don't actually think a brutal economy is particularly helpful to the better attributes of people, I think even non-material values tend to flourish better in abundance. I don't have a fix for it of course. Yea yea if only leader x was in charge instead everything would be wonderful. I don't believe it. Any leader who was radical enough to have a plausible plan for this type of crisis would never get elected.

I think any of this talk about future years is just a way of telling us something really simple. "This is the new reality and get used to it because it is staying." How far would this comment make it in the media? So they come up with all kinds of future "assumptions" and give the media something more benign to report.

Our president has little effect on the actual workings of any plan. Right now the Dems and Reps cannot get their act together because it seems they all are only interested in their party and the coming election and "what looks good" than any sacrifice and restructuring of programs, etc.

The post WWII economy is finally over - actually it was over years ago, but we delayed the end through debt and bubbles. Now I think we are (not so) boldly going where we've never gone before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

So apparently the Obama administration has said that nationwide unemployment will not return to 6% until 2017. Wow. (remember when even 6% was considered kinda high, yea I guess we're well into the new normal). But the shocking part is not the 6% which isn't that bad really, but the 2017!!! Wow more than 5 years to go in a recession we're already 2-3 years into (yea the economists say it's not a recession, why it's a jobless recovery!). Making what, near a decade of recession maybe? Great depression like in length then if not in intensity. Who knows how many years unemployment it will stay as high as it is now.

This can not help but have an effect on the psychology of the nation. How exactly I can't say. It's not necessarily positive. It might just lead to the ghettoization of the unemployed where everyone else goes on with their life as if nothing has changed, whereas many who manage to fall into unemployment join the permanent underclass. It could make people even more competitive and stresed out because afterall the dog eat dog world has now become wolf eat wolf in the level of carnage. I don't actually think a brutal economy is particularly helpful to the better attributes of people, I think even non-material values tend to flourish better in abundance. I don't have a fix for it of course. Yea yea if only leader x was in charge instead everything would be wonderful. I don't believe it. Any leader who was radical enough to have a plausible plan for this type of crisis would never get elected.

---

I have been unemployed since November, and this is my second time to be without a job. I was out of work for almost a year in 2009. Whether we like it or not (and no one likes it) its how it is. To paint a rosy picture isnt going to help. As they say, it is what it is. I think people will have to help each other and our way of living is radically changing. How it will end up (in our lifetime) I have no idea. I fear for my children and grandchildren. I have heard all kinds of critical comments from people, some implying I havent looked hard enough, some saying "oh take a waitress or McDonalds job" (they are not hiring either) and I find that those with jobs seldom understand the struggle. I dont see it improving because there are no jobs and I dont think any are going to materialize overnight no matter who gets elected. So i am brainstorming different ways to live. And still looking......

I think it has been interesting to see how folks assume the government can end high unemployment. There are obviously things that can be done to help, but it's not like we live in a socialist or communist country where the government owns or heavily controls businesses. I think in a free economy there are certain things that just have to work themselves out in the private sector...on top of help from the government.

In my humble opinion, we've basically lost much our middle class through automation and outsourcing overseas. Somehow we have to figure out how to retool and train our work force for the jobs of the future and try to bring overseas production back home. The QE1s, 2s, and maybe 3s plus all of the fed actions only shotgunned the issue rather than focusing on the lower and middle class unemployed.

I think about how the pressure put on the auto industry through the bailouts has turned them around, but it took putting them in a retooling half nelson. How much of the stimulus money went to reduce the escalating costs of higher education or other education. The stats show that people with a college education are typically more employable. If I recall correctly, college grads have a 5% unemployment rate and those without a high school degree are 14% unemployed.

Sure, the post WWII boom has had something to do with a gradual decline. But there was also somethings special about the ambition and work ethics of the WWII generation that has declined. Not to say that there aren't many skilled and ambitious unemployed that try very hard, but on a whole. I worked in a manufacturing plant until a couple of years ago. In my last few years of work it was getting harder and harder to find reliable people to do hard and dirty work, sometimes on off-shifts. There were opportunities for advancement and good career jobs, but many people would work for a few months, enough to get a little spending money and pay a few bills, and leave.

Sorry if that is a slight non-specific rant.

I personally think that the economic situation that we now find ourselves is in line with our current expectations these days. Things will not continue like they are but I don't think that is a desirable anyway.

It probably won't happen but there is a possibility that we will learn to live within our means to the extent that any downturn in our economy will not dramatically affect our lives. That means having an emergency fund, savings, and a lifestyle that is far below your means. Simplicity is the biggest high on the planet. Once you accept the basic principles of no debt, good food, good friends, and good weed then the rest is a piece of cake.

Enjoy every minute because time goes very fast.:)

Peace

Yeah Zigman, at one time I thought about buying a nice street vendor cart and selling some sort of special food or beverage. Meet some interesting people and low key. It's a free country with a lot of choices and opportunities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigzagman

I personally think that the economic situation that we now find ourselves is in line with our current expectations these days. Things will not continue like they are but I don't think that is a desirable anyway.

It probably won't happen but there is a possibility that we will learn to live within our means to the extent that any downturn in our economy will not dramatically affect our lives. That means having an emergency fund, savings, and a lifestyle that is far below your means. Simplicity is the biggest high on the planet. Once you accept the basic principles of no debt, good food, good friends, and good weed then the rest is a piece of cake.

Enjoy every minute because time goes very fast.:)


Peace

---

But how do you get an emergency fund and savings? With a job.

I feel so bad for those who are willing to work and cannot find a job. Any job. I cannot imagine how disheartening it must be to just want to work and support your family.

We did not downsize after our kids left because I want them to know if things get bad they can always come home and bring their spouses/children. It won't be easy for anyone, but it is an option. We are the last resort, but their will be a roof over your head, food on the table and heat in the winter. unfortunately many who are in a bad position don't have a supportive family or a plan b or c to revert to.

Poetry_writer, i agree so much with you. So much of what we hear about financial security, such as having an emergency fund, contributing to a 401K etc. all depends on having a good income to go along with it. And social security and medicare are on the chopping block. Prepare to work until you are pushing up daisies.

Apatheticnomore, who has come up to serious challenge Obama? Bachmann? she scares me to death with her anti-social security, abortion, Christian approach. Perry maybe?Palin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetry_writer

But how do you get an emergency fund and savings? With a job.

---

+ 1

Quote:

---

Things will not continue like they are but I don't think that is a desirable anyway.

---

agreed but ....

Quote:

---

It probably won't happen but there is a possibility that we will learn to live within our means to the extent that any downturn in our economy will not dramatically affect our lives. That means having an emergency fund, savings, and a lifestyle that is far below your means.

---

Ok, so suppose you have an emergency fund and savings. There is no doubt that it is much more comforting to have these things than not, before and after unemployment. However, these don't last forever (and if you have enough to last you the rest of your life, what are you doing working anyway? :)). In the long run for most people jobs are needed. Furthermore it is worse than this, how do employers look at the long term unemployed? There are plenty of rumors that employers just don't want to hire them period.

Say everyone's income was reduced by 30%, then some people are on the edge and would not be able to handle it, but many would adjust, lower their expectations, conserve more, spend less, and realistically probably reduce their savings as well. But unemployment is not like that, it can reduce an unemployed persons income entirely. Suppose everyone has their turn at the wheel of unemployment, their time to be unemployed in the grand scheme of things. A time to sow, a time to reap, and a time to work, a time to be unemployed, turn, turn, turn ..... Well ok that is how it often works, but it is still very hard psychologically, but it might work out ok. My concern is the long term unemployed and if they will get their turn to be on top again (even just a relative top, having *a* job).

We had an emergency fund and it saved us during my DH's 1.5 yr of unemployment '08-'10. And praise the Lord we sold our house with slight profit in fall of 08. The call to our realtor was the first one after hearing of my DH's job loss. So we were fortunate. We put our furniture in storage and hit the road (I had been laid off in 07 and turned it into an 'extended maternity leave' -- my biological clock was running out for Kid 2.)
And part of that 1.5 yrs was with various family taking us in - for our pride we all played it off as extended holiday visits and a house sitting job :)
And super praise the Lord that our in-law's have a rental home that became available to us for a while.

But another jobless stretch is always in the back of our minds and we do not have an emergency fund for another 'double dip' quite yet.
We're not buying a home because we don't want to get stuck and we're not in an area of the country that we see ourselves long term.

Thankfully unemployment benefits kept us afloat (and I found a job in the Public Sector, directly Stimulus related) until my DH finally found a job comparable to his previous one. It's in an area of the country that we never thought we would live, far from family-which is hard with 2 small kids, but we are grateful. We totally felt like his shelf life was on the verge of expiration.

It just burns me up because either I'm just listening to too much lefty news or the Repub. controlled House really is just a bunch of obstructionist pigs.
It just seems like the TeaParty strangled GOP is willing to watch our country go over the cliff, just so Obama will fail. And I am no super backer of Obama, I thought his lack of fist-a-cuff political experience was a real negative - I was going to go McCain until he brought Palin on board.
I'm particularly hot under the collar tonight because I heard that Republicans don't want to extend the Payroll Tax Cut (please correct me if this is not right) -- So let me get this straight... You guys are for tax cuts, just not ones that help regular people?

I just have to believe that there are some big brain economists out there that can map a way out of this that both sides can swallow. I mean we can't just sit around and wait from election to election and not get any real work done. And so, sorry Tea Party -- but ever since the Moral Majority took over your movement, the whole country does not march your drum!

I would love a new party to form called Compassionate Calculator Owners -- take out all the social agenda b.s. until we have the luxury of arguing over those things, crunch some #s, delete inefficiencies, cut spending that isn't giving ROI, tax some people or corp.s that can take it, make trade policy and tax code conducive to real job growth (Not MickeyD Jobs), keep people safe, air clean and encourage new tech sectors, keep the impoverished from bread riots in the streets

I've only worked for a gov. organization once and it was a total joke -- people wouldn't get fired no matter how much they stunk and the mentality was just foreign to me. The whistle blew - it's time to go home, I don't care that this time sensitive project is teetering on collapse, it's not in my job description, see sub-section A. You will have to take this before the pro-active whatever committee. Huh?

At the same time private entities are charged to make money for their share holders, not look out for the collective good of a nation.

It's not black or white, either/or -- it's a fine balance of the two.

If they flat out kill the American Dream -- that anything here is possible through hard work and/or education -- then we are all screwed because that is the opium that keeps this country going.

It's important to listen very carefully to what those make promises are really saying in terms of jobs these days. There is talk of not extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed in hopes of pushing them into jobs that are at the level of minimum wage. I think that will have mixed results. It will show job growth but I think will also result in long term lower wages for workers.

I also see the continued push for de-regulation in hopes of stimulating growth. In areas such as oil/gas this will result in continued degradation of our environment - clean air and water. In Texas the only growth we see lately is the movement of companies (mostly from California) to Texas because of the lower tax burden. Keep in mind that this is not job growth but rather job re-location for the most part and in some cases actual net reduction of jobs. For the private sector consumption is the key to job growth and without improved employment numbers people tend to conserve and save if possible.

I think time not political promises will be the only thing that brings us out of our present situation and there is the possibility that it will get worse before it gets better (hope not). I also hope that we do not become so desperate that we give away many of the gains made in terms of environment, health and safety during this process.

This seems to be one of those times in history that is ripe for flim-flam salesman, religious extremism, and corporate control. I hope we are careful about what we willing to give up during this process. Try and keep in mind what got us into this present situation because if we don't change somethings will probably get the same results.

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigzagman

Try and keep in mind what got us into this present situation because if we don't change somethings will probably get the same results.

Peace

---

I think it's called 'Bread and Circuses'

Quote:

---

"The
America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to
democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout
all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult
may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for
self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens…
which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What
is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always
vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does
happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the
majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’

‘Bread and Circuses’ is the
cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy
often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to
every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the
end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves
bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body
politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or
in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter
Rome." ~ Robert Heinlein

---

I wasn't familiar with Bread and Circuses, so I looked it up on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

So only people with jobs or landowners should vote?
I must totally not be understanding where you were going with Heinlein's quote.
I'm not wanting to attack you, I just want to better understand where you are coming from.

If you are simply saying that we need more effective policies to deal with freeloaders and greedy opportunists in our society (both welfare freeloaders and corp. subsidy freeloaders) -- then I couldn't agree more.

But blaming poor people for bringing down the country is nuts. They have no real power.
The folks that have the power are those that have the resources to hire armies of lobbyists and tax attorneys.

We have got to start getting along and find middle ground and get some legislation through that is going to encourage job growth in the private sector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtnlaurel

But blaming poor people for bringing down the country is nuts. They have no real power.
The folks that have the power are those that have the resources to hire armies of lobbyists and tax attorneys.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtnlaurel

I wasn't familiar with Bread and Circuses, so I looked it up on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

So only people with jobs or landowners should vote?

---

I think there is much to be said for only allowing net contributor's to vote.

Quote:

---

If you are simply saying that we need more effective policies to deal with freeloaders and greedy opportunists in our society (both welfare freeloaders and corp. subsidy freeloaders) -- then I couldn't agree more.

---

When those who vote their individual self-interest out-number those who vote the collective self-interest, we shouldn't be surprised at the results.

Quote:

---

But blaming poor people for bringing down the country is nuts. They have no real power.

---

That's a mis-interpretation of the concept. Many well-to-do people place their temporary self-interest above the collective interest. It's not a state of finances as much as a state of mind.

Quote:

---

We have got to start getting along and find middle ground and get some legislation through that is going to encourage job growth in the private sector.

---

The best way to do that is to take the uncertainty out of the market. That means stop looking at legislation as a means to an end.

"I think there is much to be said for only allowing net contributor's to vote."

Who the hell gets to decide who the "contributors" are? I suspect we'd have very different definitions.

And you don't think that the RICH vote their own self interest, Alan??? You don't??? HAH.

I've gotten that "bread and circuses" email from SO many rightwing friends, most of whom are also born again Christians. I always smile at their adoration of ole Robert Heinlein, and wonder if they also think so highly of this quote from him......

""The most preposterous notion that Homo sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history."
— Robert A. Heinlein

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

And you don't think that the RICH vote their own self interest, Alan??? You don't??? HAH.

I've gotten that "bread and circuses" email from SO many rightwing friends, most of whom are also born again Christians. I always smile at their adoration of ole Robert Heinlein, and wonder if they also think so highly of this quote from him......

""The most preposterous notion that Homo sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history."
— Robert A. Heinlein

---

If we step outside the bounds of identity politics, we may see that rich/poor have little to do with the equation. It's more about give/take. I'm not sure why these conversations always devolve to this type of emotional attack on "right wing", "conservative", "whatever I'm not".

By the way, could you send me a copy of one of those emails. I've never gotten one.

The emails I got, Alan..... (o.k. I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole, as there were only three of them, all within the last few days), quote Heinlein and link to this piece:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...-american.html

I'm sure you agree with this thinking.....I definitely do not.

If I were to disenfranchise any group of voters, (which I would not do), personally, I'd dump the selfish, grasping, no matter how much they have it isn't enough people who will keep on piling up shekels in excess of what any human being could spend in ten lifetimes, while denying health care, education and a decent life to their fellow citizens. Those folks wouldn't be missed at all in my perfect world. YMMV and I'm sure it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

The best way to do that is to take the uncertainty out of the market. That means stop looking at legislation as a means to an end.

---

Legislation is definitely part of the equation, otherwise companies would save money and send all the lobbyists on K Street home.

Well, I enjoyed the Heinlein quote. I think I'm going to have to post it on refrigerator and think about it. Thanks Alan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

The emails I got, Alan..... (o.k. I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole, as there were only three of them, all within the last few days), quote Heinlein and link to this piece:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...-american.html

I'm sure you agree with this thinking.....I definitely do not.

If I were to disenfranchise any group of voters, (which I would not do), personally, I'd dump the selfish, grasping, no matter how much they have it isn't enough people who will keep on piling up shekels in excess of what any human being could spend in ten lifetimes, while denying health care, education and a decent life to their fellow citizens. Those folks wouldn't be missed at all in my perfect world. YMMV and I'm sure it does.

---

I'm not sure how well-to-do people are denying their fellow citizens health care, education and a decent life. Wealth is not zero-sum. To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, wealth is not like a pizza, where if I have too many slices, you have to eat the box.

But, as long as we're being hyperbolic, might as well do it up good. :~)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

"I think there is much to be said for only allowing net contributor's to vote."

Who the hell gets to decide who the "contributors" are? I suspect we'd have very different definitions.

---

A flat tax fixes that, everyone contributes. Everyone has skin in the tax me game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

If we step outside the bounds of identity politics.....

---

The irony is delicious. Perhaps you yourself are a victim of your own demography, without realizing it?

White - check
High School full of pickup trucks and guns - check
Christian - check

Likely votes Republican.

"A flat tax fixes that, everyone contributes. Everyone has skin in the tax me game."

I'd be happy with some kind of value-added tax, especially if it were designed in some way to discourage off-shoring jobs. If paying taxes makes me a "contributor," I'm a veritable contributing fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangano's Gold

The irony is delicious. Perhaps you yourself are a victim of your own demography, without realizing it?

White - check
High School full of pickup trucks and guns - check
Christian - check

Likely votes Republican.

---

Yes, I am a white male and I identify with Christianity but consider myself a secular humanist, not because I have anything against religion, I'm just not capable of the level of faith required to believe in things I can't see. When I was in high school in the late 60s, early 70's, it wasn't at all unusual to see gun racks and shotguns in pickup trucks but I'm not sure what that says about me, perhaps you could explain. I also vote my values and beliefs, which have nothing to do with race or religion, which automatically excludes much of the Democrat party and it's favored issues.

That said, it seems to me that the true irony is that the mere mention of identity politics brings out such a perfect example attempting to suggest a parallel not in evidence. Or maybe I'm missing something?

As long as we're throwing Heinlein quotes around...

"Political tags, such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth, are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

I lean conservative because I believe that to be more closely aligned with the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

As long as we're throwing Heinlein quotes around...

"Political tags, such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth, are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

I lean conservative because I believe that to be more closely aligned with the latter.

---

Religion is probably the greatest controlling mechanism on the planet. I think that was it's original intent.

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

As long as we're throwing Heinlein quotes around...

"Political tags, such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth, are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

I lean conservative because I believe that to be more closely aligned with the latter.

---

But that contradicts the content of the quote - conservative was specifically one of the "political tags" mentioned, along with liberal and the others. I've seen a lot conservative rhetoric that involves controlling people.

Quote:

---

I'd be happy with some kind of value-added tax, especially if it were designed in some way to discourage off-shoring jobs. If paying taxes makes me a "contributor," I'm a veritable contributing fool.

---

+ 1

If that's what "contribution" means parades should be held in my honor :~) Never an itemization to be seen on my tax returns, income considered high so is highly taxed. I even manage to screw up very very obscure parts of the tax code so that there is income I am paying over 50% income taxes on. Read it and weep. Now where is my parade?

It is a pretty narrow definition of "contributor" in reality though. By this logic stay at home moms and stuff are never "contributors", maybe they think stay at home moms should wear a badge of shame, a scarlet "M" maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

But that contradicts the content of the quote - conservative was specifically one of the "political tags" mentioned, along with liberal and the others. I've seen a lot conservative rhetoric that involves controlling people.

---

Ergo my use of the "more closely aligned" wording. Heinlein did not state that any of the groups listed fell into the controlling or non-controlling group, only that people tend to divide up that way. I personally feel that the conservatives of this day and age desire control less overall than liberals so I lean right. That in no way implies that various political factions do not want to be in positions of control. I think they all do, its just a matter of degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

Ergo my use of the "more closely aligned" wording. Heinlein did not state that any of the groups listed fell into the controlling or non-controlling group, only that people tend to divide up that way. I personally feel that the conservatives of this day and age desire control less overall than liberals so I lean right. That in no way implies that various political factions do not want to be in positions of control. I think they all do, its just a matter of degree.

---

Funny - that's why I lean left :-) I think it depends a lot on people's priorities and situations - they tend to want more government control in areas they have less control over and prefer something closer to anarchy (not chaos, I mean less government control) in areas they have more of their own control over.

Yeah, I think it has to do more with who and what you want controlled or not. Personally, I lean left, because I'd rather have government controlling things like corporations polluting the environment, and less interest in peoples' sexual lives.

To me, practically the main reason I abandoned the Republican party was the end of the moderates, the rise of religious fundamentalism in it, and the focus on controlling of women's bodies and rights over their own reproduction, bigotry about gays, attempts to legislate sexual behaviors, etc.

Which seemed FAR more intrusive and controlling to me, than regulations forbidding corporations to spew pollution into our air and water.

So.......something or someone is going to be controlled if either side has its way.....so it really comes down to whether or not you agree with the controlling behavior. JMHO