Worst President since WWII?

[caulfield12]

Paul Volcker intentionally spiked the interest rates to stamp out inflation.

 

I meant to say HIGH INFLATION under Carter. My mistake.

 

 

Yes, high interest rates are not always bad, in and of themselves...of course, it's bad if you are buying a car or house or have an ARM, but in general, if there's a sound fiscal policy paired with monetary policy, it can lead to lowered inflation without bringing on STAGFLATION, which is the worst of both worlds, and essentially what the Japanese have been going through for 20 years now after their housing bubble burst.

 

Of course, those fiscal/tax policies, in the form of supply side/Stockman economics have been debunked over and over again by the likes of Krugman and even Gregory Mankiw.

Edited July 3, 2014 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

I meant to say HIGH INFLATION under Carter. My mistake.

 

 

Yes, high interest rates are not always bad, in and of themselves...of course, it's bad if you are buying a car or house or have an ARM, but in general, if there's a sound fiscal policy paired with monetary policy, it can lead to lowered inflation without bringing on STAGFLATION, which is the worst of both worlds, and essentially what the Japanese have been going through for 20 years now after their housing bubble burst.

 

Of course, those fiscal/tax policies, in the form of supply side/Stockman economics have been debunked over and over again by the likes of Krugman and even Gregory Mankiw.

You're crossing up your terms if you think stagflation is what the Japanese have had for the last 20 years. Stagflation is high interest rates combined with high unemployment rates, whereas Japan has had low/zero interest rates for the majority of that time. That setup would be more accurately termed a deflationary spiral or something like that.

 

Thank you for the correction on your interest rate/inflation statement however.

[caulfield12]

You're crossing up your terms if you think stagflation is what the Japanese have had for the last 20 years. Stagflation is high interest rates combined with high unemployment rates, whereas Japan has had low/zero interest rates for the majority of that time. That setup would be more accurately termed a deflationary spiral or something like that.

 

Thank you for the correction on your interest rate/inflation statement however.

 

 

I'm sure if you pulled up the interest rates/inflation numbers for Japan from 1983-1993, they'd be elevated.

 

Yes, maybe the terminology is wrong since Japan, with their guaranteed lifetime employment in many sectors, doesn't ever see the high unemployment numbers witnessed in the US or Europe.

 

Whatever the opposite of stagflation is....where you have zero or stagnant growth and the economy essentially running along in neutral without any forward progress...which would describe the US situation as well except for the fact that unemployment/underemployment has spiked higher here than in Japan.

 

The collapse of the housing bubble there had an even more profound impact than our own US crisis...one they have yet to recover from. In recent years, they've taken to quantitative easing, just like the US and some European countries in order to inject more capital into the system to kick-start it somehow. Prices have also risen over the last twenty years there (especially for food and gasoline), but the ability of people to pay for them...their wages...are not increasing enough to keep up with the rate of price increases.

Edited July 3, 2014 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

I'm sure if you pulled up the interest rates/inflation numbers for Japan from 1983-1993, they'd be elevated.

 

Yes, maybe the terminology is wrong since Japan, with their guaranteed lifetime employment in many sectors, doesn't ever see the high unemployment numbers witnessed in the US or Europe.

 

Whatever the opposite of stagflation is....where you have zero or stagnant growth and the economy essentially running along in neutral without any forward progress...which would describe the US situation as well except for the fact that unemployment/underemployment has spiked higher here than in Japan.

 

The collapse of the housing bubble there had an even more profound impact than our own US crisis...one they have yet to recover from. In recent years, they've taken to quantitative easing, just like the US and some European countries in order to inject more capital into the system to kick-start it somehow.

You're somewhat getting it now. Interest rates for Japan were elevated in the late 80s and they burst a bubble. That left them with over-capacity in their economy, driving their currency to actually deflate and leaving them with 2 decades of inflation rates below goals. Yes, that is very similar to what happened in the U.S. although the U.S. fought it somewhat harder in 2009 than Japan did.

[Y2HH]

I know a few people. They won’t come right out and say it in so many words, but they sure don’t have any motivation to stop receiving that check from the government and actually go out and look for a job to support themselves. They are perfectly content letting other people support them.

 

I know of someone even worse than this. He makes about 98,000$ a year, and has a kid with the girl he lives with. They're not married because she's on welfare. So, on top of his 98k a year, they receive full welfare benefits for her and the child, which basically equates to free food for them (among other free services).

 

If he was to marry her, she'd lose those benefits.

 

And there are a LOT of people that do this...by the way.

[caulfield12]

You're somewhat getting it now. Interest rates for Japan were elevated in the late 80s and they burst a bubble. That left them with over-capacity in their economy, driving their currency to actually deflate and leaving them with 2 decades of inflation rates below goals. Yes, that is very similar to what happened in the U.S. although the U.S. fought it somewhat harder in 2009 than Japan did.

 

 

High praise from B, lol.

[greg775]

I know a few people. They won’t come right out and say it in so many words, but they sure don’t have any motivation to stop receiving that check from the government and actually go out and look for a job to support themselves. They are perfectly content letting other people support them.

I also know people who were thrilled to be on unemployment. I think if you are older, there is legitimate concern about anybody hiring you, but I know 30 somethings who have enjoyed a full year of unemployment and one guy I know who is 35 really doesn't want to work instead leech off the government checks.

 

I knew people making 50-60K who lost there jobs at had zero motivation. In fact, the vast majority that lost their job in the recession, could have easily found other jobs, but opted out of it to sit around. Those were people with degrees who were qualified. They were "looking" if you mean, waiting around for a check hoping for a dream job to show up. Turned down other jobs which were comparable to what they had because it wasn't what they really really wanted and the cost/benefit of taking a job in their current spot vs. the government incentive wasn't that bad.

 

I'd roughly say there were 20+ people I knew that did this at one point in time or another (some being good friends vs. just acquaintances / people within my work network).

Yep.

 

It sounds like those were at least temporary situations. A couple of the people I know have literally made it a lifestyle. One hasn’t had a job in the 10 plus years I’ve known him and another has never worked a day in her entire life.

How have they pulled that off? I thought unemployment ran out in a year?

The original post about people not looking for handouts. Don't believe it. I won't say people are inherently lazy, but people are creatures of habit and people get used to sitting around, doing nothing and collecting government money in a hurry.

 

There is definite age discrimination going on though, now. It's harder for people over 50 to find a job because companies don't want to pay benefits and pay high salaries. Once the 50 something crowd is willing to work for peanuts so to speak like the 20 something crowd, they'll probably start getting employed again.

Edited July 3, 2014 by greg775

[EvilMonkey]

Both of them were okay with what they were doing because "they deserved it since they've paid into the system for a while". The rationale that it was okay because of that and because she was now a student disgusted a few of us and unfortunately has driven a small wedge between us. We're still friends, but things aren't as close as they used to be. The feeling that it was "owed to them" I do think is more prevalent in society than it has been in the past

The problem with that thinking is that THEY didn't pay s*** into the system. Their employers did, every year, whether they laid anyone off or not. That's not 'compensation' that they just don't see, it is a tax, called 'insurance' on businesses.

[Jenksismyhero]

My cousin decided after one kid she wanted to have another one. So she did what typical parents do. She quit her job and became a stay at home mom receiving government aid. And on top of that, my uncle is a long time national guard/army guy so she also gets some kind of military family aid as well. All so she could have another kid and not work a job.

 

'merica.

[Balta1701]

My cousin decided after one kid she wanted to have another one. So she did what typical parents do. She quit her job and became a stay at home mom receiving government aid. And on top of that, my uncle is a long time national guard/army guy so she also gets some kind of military family aid as well. All so she could have another kid and not work a job.

 

'merica.

Yeah, those piece of s*** military families. We're way too generous to them.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, those piece of s*** military families. We're way too generous to them.

 

My 32 year old cousin doesn't deserve s*** for what my uncle did. HE deserves it.

[StrangeSox]

"children should be a privilege only the wealthy can enjoy!" is one of my favorite jenks arguments.

[gatnom]

Perhaps we should get rid of all welfare because of those who abuse it.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

"children should be a privilege only the wealthy can enjoy!" is one of my favorite jenks arguments.

 

If by "wealthy" you mean someone fiscally responsible enough to raise a child, yep! You're ridiculous if you think otherwise.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

"children should be a privilege only the wealthy can enjoy!" is one of my favorite jenks arguments.

 

Well that's quite absurd. The wealthy shouldn't be the only ones privileged to have children. Everyone should be privileged to have as many as they can afford, whether that be ten or more or in some cases zero.

[Jenksismyhero]

Perhaps we should get rid of all welfare because of those who abuse it.

 

No one is really saying this. But there should be an understanding that there is a decent number of people who abuse the system and that instead of saying "whelp, they deserve it!" we should be figuring out ways to stop the abuse. Welfare was meant to be a short-term crutch, not a lifetime entitlement. Not a "well, i'd prefer to do this, not that so gimme gimme gimme."

Edited July 3, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Chisoxfn]

If by "wealthy" you mean someone fiscally responsible enough to raise a child, yep! You're ridiculous if you think otherwise.

Common sense doesn't seem to apply.

[gatnom]

No one is really saying this. But there should be an understanding that there is a decent number of people who abuse the system and that instead of saying "whelp, they deserve it!" we should be figuring out ways to stop the abuse. Welfare was meant to be a short-term crutch, not a lifetime entitlement. Not a "well, i'd prefer to do this, not that so gimme gimme gimme."

 

I agree. It just amuses me how nobody ever says this. It's always something along the lines of complaining about "Liberal handouts" or "I know so-and-so is a freeloader and therefore welfare is bad."

 

 

[Chisoxfn]

No one is really saying this. But there should be an understanding that there is a decent number of people who abuse the system and that instead of saying "whelp, they deserve it!" we should be figuring out ways to stop the abuse. Welfare was meant to be a short-term crutch, not a lifetime entitlement. Not a "well, i'd prefer to do this, not that so gimme gimme gimme."

I think the problem is we have created a system which doesn't empower people to get away from it and stand on their own and the key should be finding ways to do that. Part of that is a cultural struggle that we seem to be losing. 50 years ago I think it would be a lot less likely people would look to the government to lend a hand. If they couldn't get anything, okay, help, but as soon as I can find a way to fend on my way, I'll do it on my own. I think we've just created a culture that is more needy as a whole and therefor people have come to expect certain things.

 

I know it gets used a lot but I always find it hilarious that people who are legitimately poor have better phones and far more premium cable channels than I do.

[Chisoxfn]

I agree. It just amuses me how nobody ever says this. It's always something along the lines of complaining about "Liberal handouts" or "I know so-and-so is a freeloader and therefore welfare is bad."

It absolutely isn't bad. When s*** hits the fan, there should be a form of support to help get you back on your feet.

[StrangeSox]

nvm, who cares.

Edited July 3, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Chisoxfn]

By your own definition, it seems that you think someone should be upper middle class or above if they want to have a kid. For some reason it doesn't cross your mind to ask why it's so hard for everyone else to afford to raise a child these days.

I don't believe you have to be upper middle class to have kids. You do not have to pay for your kids to go to college, etc. If you can afford it, great, otherwise, help empower them to make the right choices on schools / careers and get the right loans and take the next steps. You might not be able to travel the world and blah blah blah but you can have kids as a middle class person, no problem.

 

The key costs of kids are food, clothing, and educational supplies (plus a bed, some toys (which don't have to be fancy...give them some sports equipment and they are good). Education is free, other things are free, and if you don't make significant money, you have one party stay at home and watch, so daycare has no cost (other then the cost of lost income) and the other party works. You might not have some 3000 square foot house or whatever, but it can be done.

 

A typical middle class person 50 years ago lived in pretty small homes while sharing plenty of rooms with sibblings, etc. Cost of providing meals is at all time lows when adjusted for inflation / time value of money. Even cost of homes are pretty cheap, relatively speaking, with exception of certain areas, but if you can't afford those areas, move to other places. There are lots of cities (not dumps in the middle of nowhere) that have extremely affordable real estate and rent places.

[Y2HH]

I don't believe you have to be upper middle class to have kids. You do not have to pay for your kids to go to college, etc. If you can afford it, great, otherwise, help empower them to make the right choices on schools / careers and get the right loans and take the next steps. You might not be able to travel the world and blah blah blah but you can have kids as a middle class person, no problem.

 

The key costs of kids are food, clothing, and educational supplies (plus a bed, some toys (which don't have to be fancy...give them some sports equipment and they are good). Education is free, other things are free, and if you don't make significant money, you have one party stay at home and watch, so daycare has no cost (other then the cost of lost income) and the other party works. You might not have some 3000 square foot house or whatever, but it can be done.

 

A typical middle class person 50 years ago lived in pretty small homes while sharing plenty of rooms with sibblings, etc. Cost of providing meals is at all time lows when adjusted for inflation / time value of money. Even cost of homes are pretty cheap, relatively speaking, with exception of certain areas, but if you can't afford those areas, move to other places. There are lots of cities (not dumps in the middle of nowhere) that have extremely affordable real estate and rent places.

 

This is exactly it...middle class families in prior generations had a LOT less crap they spent money on in comparison to today.

 

There were no computers, most had no cable tv and if they had a tv they only had 1 of them, 1 car, no cell phone, no tablets, lived in smaller homes, etc...today your average "middle class" family lives well beyond that...2 sometimes 3 cars, multiple cell phones, tablets, computers, 3 tv's, cable television, etc...

[southsider2k5]

"children should be a privilege only the wealthy can enjoy!" is one of my favorite jenks arguments.

 

As opposed to "raising children on someone else's dime"?

[Chisoxfn]

This is exactly it...middle class families in prior generations had a LOT less crap they spent money on in comparison to today.

 

There were no computers, most had no cable tv and if they had a tv they only had 1 of them, 1 car, no cell phone, no tablets, lived in smaller homes, etc...today your average "middle class" family lives well beyond that...2 sometimes 3 cars, multiple cell phones, tablets, computers, 3 tv's, cable television, etc...

Technically, they spent their money on other gadgets. Back when vacuums and microwaves cost a lot of money (I'm guessing..but probably true). That 1 tv was probably close to the cost of the 4 tv's in the average house today (when adjusting for inflation, etc).