Sorry, it's been a while. Work, work, work. But I have been arguing with a friend of mine (both of us are members of Labor for Single-Payer, but he's more active in it), and here's my latest spew:
First let me say I do think the ACA is "woefully inadequate." Single payer is what we need, or nationalized health care, but some business
interests (and not others, interestingly enough) and their lapdog
politicians have blocked anything close to that (along with much that is
not even close). And since we failed to get either of those things, it
would have been nice for elected representatives (especially Democrats)
to at least include what was called "the public option" at the time. I
don't think any of those things would have necessarily solved the
problem this poor guy [see below] is bringing up, but I'll get back to that. I still have to say the ACA helped millions of people get coverage, and that is nothing to sneeze at.
Showing posts with label unemployment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unemployment. Show all posts
Monday, December 22, 2014
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Demand demand
We demand more demand!
And an economic policy that goes with it.
P.S. It's the opposite of 'supplyside' baloney, and it's based on the crazy idea that when workers make money, we spend it; when our wealthy overlords make money, they hoard it or play the stock market with it. Duh!
And an economic policy that goes with it.
P.S. It's the opposite of 'supplyside' baloney, and it's based on the crazy idea that when workers make money, we spend it; when our wealthy overlords make money, they hoard it or play the stock market with it. Duh!
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Obamascare
Is the Obama Administration's health care reform package the end of American freedom and the beginning of broccoli-chewing fascism, or a monumental breakthrough in the centuries-long struggle of ordinary citizens yearning for full participation in society and government finally returning to 'promoting the general welfare'? Well, it may be neither, but it is a rare instance of the average Joe and Joanna stranded at the garage or busstop debating a US Supreme Court decision and how it impacts the most regular working-class folks. Is that good? I'm biased towards 'yes,' you know, because it ought to be good when the hogs look up from the slop, right? 'Course, most of these debates, it seems, are happening 'totally unencumbered' by anything resembling facts. And there are ways to check facts these days.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Every indicator
More bad news: foreclosures, unemployment, you name it.
It's starting to stack up on us. Earlier layers include the big news - recession since 2008 - and the barely made the news - real income spiral-down over the last few decades.
Back to that recession thing, and Rasmus, he points out: this recession is impressively worse by every economic indicator than every preceding recession this century - but not at depression -- yet.
Until now, recession meant GDP declined 2-4 percent for a couple quarters. This time it's 5-15%. Depressions have been much worse, but we could get there.
Until now, recession meant 10 percent unemployment or less. This time we hit 17%, including a million job losses per month from Nov. 08 to May 09. It's complicated by the fact that the government keeps changing how it calculates unemployment, but controlling for that, it seems clear that we are looking at much worse unemployment now than previous recessions. Depressions have been over 20%. And as public employers continue slashing deep, we could move that way.
Industrial production, exports, and stock markets, all worse than previous recessions. But not hitting levels we had in depressions -- yet. If you want a jolt, read this book.
It's starting to stack up on us. Earlier layers include the big news - recession since 2008 - and the barely made the news - real income spiral-down over the last few decades.
Back to that recession thing, and Rasmus, he points out: this recession is impressively worse by every economic indicator than every preceding recession this century - but not at depression -- yet.
Until now, recession meant GDP declined 2-4 percent for a couple quarters. This time it's 5-15%. Depressions have been much worse, but we could get there.
Until now, recession meant 10 percent unemployment or less. This time we hit 17%, including a million job losses per month from Nov. 08 to May 09. It's complicated by the fact that the government keeps changing how it calculates unemployment, but controlling for that, it seems clear that we are looking at much worse unemployment now than previous recessions. Depressions have been over 20%. And as public employers continue slashing deep, we could move that way.
Industrial production, exports, and stock markets, all worse than previous recessions. But not hitting levels we had in depressions -- yet. If you want a jolt, read this book.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Green pork?
In the news Pres. Obama is spending zillions of subsidies to manufacturers - nothing new, except for the more "progressive" focus: he targets "green businesses" for aid. (Perhaps not surprisingly, as the young, better educated, middle-income supporters of these things were a major Obama constituency in the election -- chicken and egg, you know.) So far, so good.
The stated hope is to create about as many jobs, maybe, as half of those cut in December 2009 alone.
But if we scratch the surface, what color is under all that green? Thus far, white workers are being hit pretty damn hard by the economic crisis, but workers of color are being hit a helluva lot harder. Preference will still be given to "shovel ready" jobs, i.e. they will favor folks who already have jobs -- who are of course in need of work, too -- but what about the poorest workers, some of whom have been out of work for years and have no networks currently operational for connecting with this futuristic aid package?
I'm all for green jobs, clean energy, sustainable growth ... but for whom?
The stated hope is to create about as many jobs, maybe, as half of those cut in December 2009 alone.
But if we scratch the surface, what color is under all that green? Thus far, white workers are being hit pretty damn hard by the economic crisis, but workers of color are being hit a helluva lot harder. Preference will still be given to "shovel ready" jobs, i.e. they will favor folks who already have jobs -- who are of course in need of work, too -- but what about the poorest workers, some of whom have been out of work for years and have no networks currently operational for connecting with this futuristic aid package?
I'm all for green jobs, clean energy, sustainable growth ... but for whom?
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Jobs bill not enough
Is the jobs bill the Dems are so proud of (well, not the Blue Dogs) truly a good, albeit insufficient, start? Es posible. Certainly it makes more sense than the POP (Party of Palin) ever-twisting nonsense: so it's too hard for struggling small business owners/managers to figure out some "fancy" tax credit, eh?
Friday, January 1, 2010
Happy New Year
Good bye, 2009, don't let the door knob hit you in the ass on your way out.
Over 20 million of us Amerischmucks got unemployment in '09, which of course doesn't count millions more who didn't qualify for various reasons, were forced to work only part-time, or dropped off the U-3 rolls when their clocks ran out.
We didn't get out of Iraq, dug in deeper in 'AfPak', didn't let those poor slobs go home from Gitmo - held for years without charge ("land of the free," ya know!), didn't get national health care, single-payer insurance, OR a good solid public option. AND we didn't get a right to unionize. But, hey, at least there was a "jobs summit," right?
I don't know. Looks like in 2010 we might have to raise a little hell.
Over 20 million of us Amerischmucks got unemployment in '09, which of course doesn't count millions more who didn't qualify for various reasons, were forced to work only part-time, or dropped off the U-3 rolls when their clocks ran out.
We didn't get out of Iraq, dug in deeper in 'AfPak', didn't let those poor slobs go home from Gitmo - held for years without charge ("land of the free," ya know!), didn't get national health care, single-payer insurance, OR a good solid public option. AND we didn't get a right to unionize. But, hey, at least there was a "jobs summit," right?
I don't know. Looks like in 2010 we might have to raise a little hell.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Break 'em up while we still can!
So I'm in Northeast Mississippi just for a day or two and I happen to check out the Daily Journal, and I see that unemployment in the land of my birth has dropped (the same song we're hearing all around the country) - probably because more people have just given up. Even the official rate (we know how accurate that is) in Alcorn County is now 11.3 percent, and it's worse in nearby Tippah and Benton Counties. This is recovery?
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Texas secedes again
Fifth time's a charm?
In 1822 a bunch of white Americans from the Southeast, proto-Texans, left the US and crossed the Mississippi River and essentially re-introduced the institution of slavery into northern Mexico. In 1829 Mexico outlawed slavery, but gave the white slavers in the state of Coahuila y Tejas special dispensation until 1830. (The abolition movement was growing around the world, and slavery was abolished in the French Revolution - although Napoleon brought it back briefly - was outlawed in the British Empire in 1833, and so on.) Against this worldwide trend, early Texans seceded from Mexico in the so-called "Texas Revolution" (more accurately a Reaction) in 1835-6. Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and Sam Houston are still revered in the US as heroes of that war for slavery.
The American ex-pats of the Texan Republic soon joined the US - no shocker there - but a generation later left the US again in 1861. It was over slavery again (which wasn't strictly under threat in the US at the time, but slave states felt challenged by the election of Abe Lincoln, a moderate in that he opposed expansion of slavery - the slavers' bluff had been called, essentially).
After the war, black and Latino Texans faced regular atrocities from the Ku Klux Klan and the revered Texas Rangers (not much like the Lone Ranger), as well as Jim Crow laws and so on. In 1954 when Brown v. Board of Education banned racial segregation in public schools, the governor called out the Rangers to impede black students. Racist resistance continued through the 1970s - a kind of running secession from the trend toward civil rights and equality that was sweeping the world. "White flight" from cities in Texas - as elsewhere - represents one facet of this subtler, but no less racist neo-secession.
There's a connection here to anti-immigration movements, like the Minute Men (a kind of continuum between US Border Patrol and American Nazis - but that's for another time.
Now yesterday, with the recession growing and the threat of federal "expansion" of officially-defined unemployed (most people who aren't working don't count, rather conveniently) Texas governor Rick Perry turned down $555 million to bailout the state's sinking unemployment fund - which the state's own Workforce Commission chair says could be in the red in seven months.
"During these tough times," he says, "Texas employers are working harder than ever..." blah, blah, blah (my emphasis). What about Texas workers, being canned by the hundreds of thousands every week?
Perry's not alone, of course, which is what suggests there's a new wave of genuine neo-secessionism in the birthing here.
In 1822 a bunch of white Americans from the Southeast, proto-Texans, left the US and crossed the Mississippi River and essentially re-introduced the institution of slavery into northern Mexico. In 1829 Mexico outlawed slavery, but gave the white slavers in the state of Coahuila y Tejas special dispensation until 1830. (The abolition movement was growing around the world, and slavery was abolished in the French Revolution - although Napoleon brought it back briefly - was outlawed in the British Empire in 1833, and so on.) Against this worldwide trend, early Texans seceded from Mexico in the so-called "Texas Revolution" (more accurately a Reaction) in 1835-6. Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and Sam Houston are still revered in the US as heroes of that war for slavery.
The American ex-pats of the Texan Republic soon joined the US - no shocker there - but a generation later left the US again in 1861. It was over slavery again (which wasn't strictly under threat in the US at the time, but slave states felt challenged by the election of Abe Lincoln, a moderate in that he opposed expansion of slavery - the slavers' bluff had been called, essentially).
After the war, black and Latino Texans faced regular atrocities from the Ku Klux Klan and the revered Texas Rangers (not much like the Lone Ranger), as well as Jim Crow laws and so on. In 1954 when Brown v. Board of Education banned racial segregation in public schools, the governor called out the Rangers to impede black students. Racist resistance continued through the 1970s - a kind of running secession from the trend toward civil rights and equality that was sweeping the world. "White flight" from cities in Texas - as elsewhere - represents one facet of this subtler, but no less racist neo-secession.
There's a connection here to anti-immigration movements, like the Minute Men (a kind of continuum between US Border Patrol and American Nazis - but that's for another time.
Now yesterday, with the recession growing and the threat of federal "expansion" of officially-defined unemployed (most people who aren't working don't count, rather conveniently) Texas governor Rick Perry turned down $555 million to bailout the state's sinking unemployment fund - which the state's own Workforce Commission chair says could be in the red in seven months.
"During these tough times," he says, "Texas employers are working harder than ever..." blah, blah, blah (my emphasis). What about Texas workers, being canned by the hundreds of thousands every week?
Perry's not alone, of course, which is what suggests there's a new wave of genuine neo-secessionism in the birthing here.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Hold your butts!
OK, if you haven't seen this yet, brace yourself; it's worse than expected (and we expected pretty bad):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/financial_meltdown
“[…] employers slashed 533,000 jobs in November, the most in 34 years […]"
By the way, that's around twice what the experts were predicting. And the most dire warnings had us around 300,000 job losses per month by the end of the year - optimistic, it seems!
“As companies throttled back hiring, the unemployment rate bolted from 6.5 percent in October to 6.7 percent last month, a 15-year high."
Remember, that's official unemployment, which doesn't count millions of people by design.
“These numbers are shocking," said economist Joel Naroff [… And ...] The unemployment rate would have moved even higher if not for the exodus of 422,000 people from the work force. […]”
That means they gave up, so the feds just stop counting them. That happens every month, but usually not this many. With "underemployment" estimated around 11%, the real deal is a whole lot spookier than these spooky numbers!
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Depression, by any other name ...
“Private employers cut 250,000 jobs in November, the most in seven years, a report by a private employment service said on Wednesday, (Reuters 12-3-08).”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)