Needed: 400,000 jobs per month, times 60 months
BobbyG
about how to return to prosperity, it’s about how to stave off mayhem,
misery, hunger, violence."
For some of us, it's just too late. There aren't going to be "jobs" to
return to, ever. But I feel for the young unemployed people,
numbering something like 25% of their age group.
Amazing how quiet things have remained on the domestic front, I should
say.
bg
--------------------------------
http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2010/01/january-27-2010-nowhere-to-go-and-going.html
Ilargi: I'm not going to try and find what the CBO this time last year
projected the 2009 US budget deficit to be, but I'm willing to bet a
lot of bread crumbs that it was a lot less than the $1.4 trillion it
turned out to be (three times the 2008 deficit). Today's CBO
projection of a $1.35 trillion 2010 deficit inevitably needs to be
seen in that pale shade of light.
If you can find any government projection number these days that turns
out to be more positive after time, congrats: you're a rare species.
With present policies in place, the known total deficit one year from
now may well be sharply higher than $1.35 trillion. Even if interest
rates don't rise. Which they will.
Obama will announce a "discretionary budget freeze" in the State of
the Union, but that's really just for showcase purposes, and not the
smartest ones either, by the looks of it. For one thing, 83% of the
budget will not be affected at all by the freeze. For another, the 3-
year freeze is expected to save $10-15 billion per year initially, and
a total of $250 billion over 10 years. If the budget deficit averages
$1 trillion for that next decade, the freeze will shave 2.5% off of
the overall deficit. And to achieve that, the president will have to
fight bitter battles with representatives who rely on that part of the
budget to look good in their districts.
I’d say you’d need to save at least 10 times the $250 billion to have
any effect (not that that would suffice), but while this can be put up
for debate, I would suggest when the President gets to that part of
his speech tomorrow night you might as well go get some cold ones. And
then take a deep breath and let reality sink in.
Not only has Obama already committed himself to runaway deficits, he
now urgently needs to come with a job creation plan that produces real
results. And that will cost. A lot. Of money. That’s not there.
To get from today's U3 number of 15.3 million unemployed, a 10% rate,
to a 5% rate and 7.65 million jobless by 2015, the US needs to add
1.53 million jobs each year, on top of the 150,000 per month or 1.8
million per year needed just to play even. That means needing 277,500
jobs every month for 60 months. And that's just if you use U3. Take
the far more realistic U6 number, and you're looking at a demand of
around 400,000 jobs every single month.
Really, do you believe it? Well, whether you do or not, you’ll hear a
lot about job creation in the President's speech, and in the weeks and
months that follow. Me, I’m wondering what all those people would do
in their new jobs. How many burgers does one nation need flipped? And
what would they be paid? Enough to pay for health care? To buy a home?
Speaking of homes. Mortgage rates are at a record low, the government
buys and guarantees just about any and all loans in the market, gives
$8000 premiums to buyers, and settles for a 3.5% downpayment. And in
that environment, the November-December monthly drop in the number of
existing homes sold was 16.7%, the biggest in over 40 years, in fact
since records began. Now you ask yourself: how much more attractive
can you make buying a home? And, alternatively, if and when the
government withdraws and interest rates go up, what will happen to
housing market prices? And if those go down, as they are bound to do,
what happens with the taxpayer trillions put into Fannie and Freddie
et al?
30% of Americans are hovering around the poverty line, and their
numbers are growing rapidly. But poor as they may be, they still stand
to lose a lot more money through their federal mortgage "possessions"
when that housing market inevitably starts tanking for real. Oh, and
Washington needs to bail out state and local governments. So when the
poor have become the destitute, the government will start raising
taxes. It will have no choice. And how do you think that will
influence the pool of prospective home buyers?
I happens to me quite often these days that when I read through the
numbers, I see these images of Katrina in my mind's eye, but this time
the destruction's nationwide, and there's nowhere to go, even as the
country's going nowhere.
And everybody keeps having the wrong conversations. It’s no longer
about how to return to prosperity, it’s about how to stave off mayhem,
misery, hunger, violence. But that’s not what the president will talk
about. And why, then, would his people? It's much more attractive to
deny it all a while longer. And be as unprepared as you can be.
BobbyG
near the poverty line. I've been estimating it around 20%, about 60
million people, in the "OtherAmerica." I figure we'll get to 90
million by 2015, and 120 million by the end of decade.
When the number of people in the US "thrown under the bus" (or out of
the lifeboats) actually exceeds the number not yet under the bus or
still in the lifeboats, you will start to see some serious motion
towards serious social change.
(Of course, other factors such as leadership, social movements, etc.
could hasten that day's arrival.)
bg
Chris Malek
This whole thing is getting quite interesting. But it is not
unprecedented. What has happened before when the gap between the have
and have nots reached the breaking point? Sometimes a strong dictator
takes over and puts the blame on a particular scapegoat. Sometimes
the elite go to the guillotine. What is going to happen here? Will
it simply be a slow death of the empire?
I have invited Alan Perry to speak at the Food Fair about the
economy. He will talk about what it takes to rectify this problem.
It will mean a fair trade economy, but the elite will not like it
because it will require them to give up some of their precious wealth
and power.
I like Ilargi. He puts up a decent blog.
Chris Malek
D Wright Esq & Ann H Wright
that the USA is still importing immigrants at a very high rate. There are
1.4 million legal immigrants and maybe, but no one knows, another equal
amount of illegal entrants per year----and our birth rate is increasing. The
immigrants numbers also need to be put into the figures. In truth, I don't
think they are ever considered---in more ways than just this one. It is a
very big deal that has far reaching consequences----and could contribute to
the unrest you mention. In fact, the social disruptions that I believe will
occur first will be in areas with large amounts of recent arrivals. The
conflicts may be between persons of similar ethnicity---rather like the
Irish arriving in huge numbers in Boston and New York (The gangs and killing
was profound)
I think the discussion should be centered more about personal adaptation
both for Global climate change and for employment. I suspect there are no
solutions for many of these really big issues issues. I am beginning to see
many people around me who are unemployed and probably have no serious safety
nets around them. There are foreclosures all over the place. Where are these
folks going to go.
The dropping of the standard of living is going to hit some citizens much
harder than others. It seems like it will be bits and pieces, one person
here and there and not a rather broad event. Some will just be left out. As
their numbers grow, then the unrest starts. I did see where they just
increased unemployment benefits another bunch of weeks. Does that mean they
are printing more money?
I also think that as the standard of living drops, we will begin to see
single worker families again as it was in the 50s and earlier. As there are
fewer jobs available, each family will only be entitled to one job, thus a
lower standard of living. Except, of course, for the wealthy, but then they
may become targets. I don't think right now I would want to be flaunting my
wealth---if I had it. The folks in the starter castles might want to start
getting the moats and containment wire ready.
Chris: What do you mean by a fair trade economy?
Keep the home fires burning, D Wright
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Sustain Central Wisconsin" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> sustain-cent...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> sustain-central-wi...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/sustain-central-wisconsin?hl=en.
>
>
>
BobbyG
I looked again at that 30% number and it's referring to the number of
people below 200% of the poverty line. I think the more important
number is the number at or below the official poverty line, plus
number of people without enough health insurance, discouraged workers
on part-time status and so forth, and I still think around 20% -- one
in five of us -- is about right for the population of #OtherAmerica.
I'm at 25% of my 2001 earnings rate. Now, people who are living at
200% of the poverty line look like pretty well off people to me, and
what's their complaint, anyway? Let 'em try 25% of normal for a few
years and then we'll talk about tough times. LOL.
As for immigrants, in my working life I've never found that
immigration had any negative effect on me. I worked with lots of
Mexicans, helped with solidarity campaigns for farmworkers who were
organizing unions (that actually helps the "native-born" population
hold a higher living standard) and even worked under leadership of
Mexicans & Puerto Ricans.
The main troubles I've had in my life have come from white men. Rich,
white men, usually employers, or politicians. Otherwise, I give the
immigrants a clean bill of health as far as not messing up my way of
life, period. Now that I'm over 55 and fully eligible for the program
known as Age Discrimination, again I place the finger of blame
squarely on Rich, White Men, not Mexicans nor any other immigrants.
They don't make the non-hiriing decisions.
I'm pretty sure I could live in a fair trade economy. I'll predict
that is going to be a much lower dollar income "standard of living"
than most of us are going to be used to for some time to come.
"Chaos is the new normalcy,"
Bobby G.
D Wright Esq & Ann H Wright
Immigrants themselves are not the problem. Its the numbers. 2-3 million a
year as compared to 250,000 average/yr in the first 200 years of the nation.
We simply can't absorb them. In a finite world, an increase in population
just means less for every one. This can be well seen in Haiti (3.8 children/
woman and 80% of food coming from aid) . They, and intimately us, are/will
drop into extreme overshoot.
As the labor statistics go, they are probably not being counted. I also keep
hearing the real unemployment as being in the 20% range. My guess is that if
immigrants were counted, the figure would be noticeable higher! They are
probably the first to be laid off. If they can not tap into some form of
social services their numbers will not be counted. There are probably close
to 30 million non citizens living in the country, close to 10 percent. Are
they being counted, or for that matter, being helped?
Again, it is the numbers that are painful. It simply is more than we can
deal with. Just ask school systems that have to educate huge amounts of non
English students. It would be one thing if they made up 5% of the student
body. But even in Madison I saw an article, and still have it, that says the
percentage is closer to 30% in Madison. Anyway, one of the main issues that
steady state economists, transisionists, climate change advocates and many
others are saying is that to solve global, or national problems, population
growth has to be stabilized. 82 million/yr more globally can't be handled.
D Wright
----- Original Message -----
From: "BobbyG" <land...@charter.net>
To: "Sustain Central Wisconsin" <sustain-cent...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: Needed: 400,000 jobs per month, times 60 months