Posted on 07/21/2010 8:12:06 AM PDT by Qbert
WASHINGTON (AP) -- For jobless Americans struggling to pay their bills and keep their homes, the restoration of unemployment benefits could keep their crisis from getting worse.
The same might be said of the broader economy.
The Senate is expected to vote Wednesday to keep providing unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks to more than 5 million long-term unemployed. The injection of an estimated $33 billion into a $14.6 trillion economy over the next five months won't be enough to energize the recovery. But economists say it could at least help sustain it.
The vote comes as evidence mounts that growth is slowing. Consumers, facing lower home values and high unemployment, are saving more and spending cautiously. The housing market is slumping again after a tax credit expired in April. And the impact of last year's $787 billion stimulus package has begun to fade.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
"Energize the recovery"..."Jumbo shrimp"..."Civil" War...
It may not “boost” it, but without it, it would be complete disaster for the economy.
The only thing that will boost the economy is when companies step up and start hiring. I’ve said it before......if every company in the country were to hire 1,2 or 3 more employees, at a reduced salary, the country would come back. I realize that at times it can be tough decision but tough decisions are needed now. We did it during WWII and look what happened. Step up.
Why should they? Why would they? I know if I were a CEO, I sure wouldn't, given the uncertainties in the economy, and especially with rising taxes all around.
What would you pay them with?
Boost “recovery”?? What freaking recovery are they talking about? This is nothing but pure leftist agitprop.
I don't understand how someone could come up with this headline and not feel like a complete idiot.
the restoration of unemployment benefits could keep their crisis from getting worse....
No!...It only delays it for as long as the dumb asses in Washington keep handing out the money!....CREATE JOBS BY LOWERING TAXES...REDUCE REGULATION!
UI benefits shouldn’t be thought of as ‘boosting’ anything. They are to keep total chaos away nationally and to bide time individually until things recover. It’s going to take a long time and lots of extensions this time until things get better.
Having millions of men fighting overseas will tend to take care of that unemployment problem.
A type of Rumsfeld matrix would ask the question - Are GOP views on unemployment increasing or decreasing the number of Democrat voters?
It’s called creative financing. Pay a little less and if necessary cut the salaries of existing employees by $2-$3 per hour to help pay for the new employee (or what ever is necessary). It’s not easy but it can be done if we really want to bring our country back. I believe we’ll all have to give a little but, it’s worth it.
I think that if everyone looked at it this way, we are finished. If we don’t get creative, many CEO’s won’t have to worry about it much longer. They will be on the street with the rest of the unemployed.
If this needs a sarcasm tag, I apologize. Otherwise, consider,
An employer has stuff to make and sell. This generates income. Soon, the business person has demand for the product, and the demand hopefully continues to increase.
There comes a time of balance when the business man can keep up with the demand, but if the demand increases any more, he will not be able to satisfy the demand.
When the demand is such that it would in itself support another employee, with profit for the employer after all expenses then the employer is justified in hiring another employee.
That is what causes the hiring of employees.
Cutting some employee's wages sufficiently in order to afford hiring another employee is a wonderful charitable gesture, but has absolutely no basis or foundation in reality. it simply feels good to consider, especially when it is someone else's business, or some other employee's wages being reduced.
productivity gets paid. If employees themselves feel they should contribute some of their earnings towards another employees wages, for hiring purposes, that is their right. However, then may just as well simply give the unemployed person a financial hand. It is their right, but it is not the responsibility of, nor is it a sound decision, nor does it make any sense, to ask employers to cut the employee salaries to justify and afford to hire additional employees.
What would the newly hired do, walk around sweeping the premises?
The creation of jobs, (and therefore the improvement of the economy)is based on consumer confidence in the future, and therefore going out and ---->consuming<actually purchasing goods and services. When the demand increases beyond the capacity to deliver, THEN additional jobs are created.
BTW, I would call it theft, or demotion, or redistribution, but not creative financing.
I didn’t take your statement as “sarcasm”, but thanks for the consideration. I am in business for myself but we have no employees. We are about as small as you can get. My focus is basically that people can’t spend and buy if they don’t have jobs. The key is give them jobs and they will spend. As I said, it wouldn’t be easy but putting people back to work will automatically create a need for more products.
I was not trying to say that employers should cut salaries without the employees buying into the idea.....although I didn’t mention that, sorry. I do believe that the market needs to get innovative, big time. If not this idea, some other idea.....totally seperate from the government. If industry can come together they can change things in a way that government can’t.
You mention that you have no emplpoyees. Would it be a burden on you to hire a few employees anyway, you know, so that that they would be employed?
Would that help solve the problem, or add to it?
It is the work of the entire bunch in DC that has caused this mess. The way it gets cleaned up, is for them to make the US more business freindly, make profit a good thing, rather than punish it, make investment a good thing, rather than punish those who are succesful at it, make innovation and enterpreneurs a good thing, instead of punishing those who are good at it. In short, get the EF out of the way, we will take care of if from there, thank you.
We have been in business for about 10 years. For us, yes it would be a huge burden. My thinking was for companies with 50+ employees.
I retired out of the electronics industry after 30 years. I was in management, with a very large firm, and ran a lean ship. I know I could have hired an additional employee if that type of program was put in place. I already had 30+ employees in my department. And yes, I could have found something for the person to do, very easily.
I agree with you concerning DC but I’m thinking out of the box right now and I believe we all have to do that to turn this country around. I guess that was a part of my profession. I always looked at better ways of doing things. We were an electro/mechanical design department. Just part of our nature.
A tightly run, profitable business has every employee working at maximum productivity. When demand exceeds the capacity of that number of employees, the employer has the opportunity to then hire additional employees, if they wish to expand and make the bottom line higher still. If they do not, then they still remain at full output.
If you can find work for another employee, and your present staff is not at 100%, you need to perhaps replace some of your employees, and hire one that hopefully will get the job done.
I ask once again, where does the money come from to hire additional employees when increased demand for product is non existant?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.