Homelessness grows as more live check-to-check

USA Today ^ | 8/12/03 | Stephanie Armour

[Gothmog]

Homelessness in major cities is escalating as more laid-off workers already living paycheck-to-paycheck wind up on the streets or in shelters.

As Americans file for bankruptcy in record numbers and credit card debt explodes, more workers are a paycheck away from losing their homes. Now the frail economy is pushing them over the edge. With 9 million unemployed workers in July, the face of homelessness is changing to include more families shaken by joblessness.

[Conservative til I die]

Wait a sec, how can you have a bill for open trade as well as for fair trade. It's one or the other. As to eliminating or lowering taxes on corporations, I'm all for it.

What I was going to originally say was if the president could do anything to improve the economy and unemployment rates, don't you think he would have by now???? And if he could, it would be as easy as snapping his fingers, by definition.

But really, all a President can do is remove many disincentives for corporations to hire and invest, and do the same for individuals. And the only way he can do that really is to lower the federal interest rate (which he can;t do anyway), cut personal income tax, and cut certain corporate taxes. All three have happened. On a state and local level, which the POTUS has no jurisdiction over, mayors and governors can create a better climate for businesses. That's what my city is doing, and it's hittting a real Rennaisance, in spite of the bad economy (It's also why houses that were selling for $250,000 -a decent house in my neck of the woods in NY- are up to around $375,000 in the space of a couple of years.

[samuel_adams_us]

President doesn't have to dictate who hires whom but he can level the playing field much like our founding fathers advised and in the meantime continue to cut out unecessary government.

[samuel_adams_us]

So you are saying the president can't suggest to congress to come up with a way to level the playing field? Tariffs to create more fair trade, where people in different economies are competing on a level playing field? Geez, were the founding fathers completely wrong when they suggested this was possible?

[dfwgator]

or going to take some classes or new training????

Taking classes or training is not the answer. The answer is learn something on your own, then you train others on it. Taking classes just costs money, and with the Internet, there are plenty of free resources to learn new skills on your own. Then turn around and you charge others to learn from you. You take a class, then you're just competing with the others that are taking the very same class.

[Gothmog]

An old girlfriend of mine's parents fled China. She was born in Autralia and when she was five they immigrated to the US. Her parents are very successful and she's well-educated, hard-working, etc.

She went on an internship to work for a company in China for 6 months. When she got back she was happy to have had the experience but in no way wanted to return.

One time we were talking about something (some slackers at work or whatever) and she said, 'They're not as bad as the damned lazy Chinese!' I looked at her and said, 'Uhm, honey, you're kind of Chinese.' She just fired right back -- 'I was there, I had to work with 'those people,' their lazy, ignorant, etc, etc... they do nothing all day but sit in their offices reading the paper, etc., etc.'

I thought it was pretty funny.

[new cruelty]

Just imagine what 375 donors must have looked like.

[ought-six]

"BTW, this country isn't a business, it's a democratic republic."

No, it's actually a constitutional, representative republic.

[Mad Dawgg]

"And I can assure everyone here that unless something dramatic changes, I will never hire a single employee. I have no problem paying someone a dollar for a dollar's worth of work. But when it costs me $1.50 to pay someone $1, it's pretty clear to me that there is something deeply flawed in this country's "business model."

Amen Brother, Amen!

We have 3 businesses and have exactly one employee besides the three family members who own the corporation. We have contractors we deal with but we don't hire employees anymore. The paper work and extra cost is just not worth the meager increase in income.

The family members all have low salaries (We hate to pay FICA taxes) we take dividends instead and take any profits and invest them in real estate or equities with dividends or bonds.

You can't hire someone to work anymore. Instead you've got to offer cradle to grave healthcare and retirement and personal days, blah blah blah etc.etc.etc. The liberals have made it so business is not the primary concern of a business and thus the Big Crops are fleeing the coup!

[samuel_adams_us]

Isn't that the same thing?

[BMiles2112]

Here's complete MS Office training, free of charge.
Press F1

[DugwayDuke]

It's a real shame when conservatives adopt the rhetoric and arguments of the left. This "stroke of genious" by Henry Ford is one of the favorite arguements of the "living wage" crowd. Yet, conservatives of a populist stripe often pick up on it to advance their agenda not noticing that they are arguing on liberal grounds.

But, then, look at this thread. The article in question is undeniably written from a pro-democrat perspective and reads like a DNC press release (or, notice the "one paycheck away" rhetoric, Hillary Clinton's health care task force) and we have a number of conservatives using it to bash a republican.

BTW, Ford's real "storke of genius" was doing away with the production of automobiles as a craftsman's trade and employing the principles of the automated production line and interchangeable parts. This allowed him to produce automobiles at a price cheap enough for the masses to buy. (ending craftsman type production actually resulted in a lower wage) As you point out, increasing wages solely so your employees can buy your product is a dead end street.

[Old Professer]

Ah yes, the year 19902; I remember that, after Mars caught fire and Jupiter ran out of space to house GBLTs that had fled the red-planet, they returned here to the last open spot on Earth to set-up housekeeping right outside the mega-opolis of Crawford, Mexico.

[dfwgator]

It almost makes it worth it for the government to handle healthcare if it takes that burden off of businesses. It just may come down to that in order to compete with the rest of the world, as much as I hate to say it.

[HamiltonJay]

So let me get this straight, someone who moves back into their parents home is HOMELESS? Odd....

And as to being a paycheck away from foreclosure, what state are these people from? Last thing banks want in a downturn is more dead assets on their books, foreclosure is a 6+ month process easy in this part of the country, and that assumes the bank starts it after 1 missed payment.

There is no doubt that a down economy causes more homelessness and bankruptcies... but I think this article is a bit over the top in some of its assertions

[Gothmog]

We had a trade deficit when the economy was booming and unemployment was low during the 1980s. Same thing during the mid-1990s. Why would you have the government base it's economic policy on 'solving' the trade deficit?

[new cruelty]

Isn't that the same thing?

In as much as 100 is the same thing as 4000, sure.

[samuel_adams_us]

So show me the differences, I would love to see them.

[Reagan is King]

Yeah right, the economy soared as soon as Clinton was elected. The next month all the homeless stories disappeared from the news. Is it too hard for you to understand that the liberal media tries to influence the voting public? There's plenty of things I disagree with Bush about (immigration, spending, etc) but he doesn't deserve to have all the blame for the economy dumped at his doorstep.

[SouthParkRepublican]

"It's his job to listen, right, don't we pay him? Is he the king or the president? Should he not be concerned with teh well being of the citizens of this country?"

Come on! Dont you know that having any issue with W automatically makes you a liberal regardless of how correct you are?[/sarcasam]

[Chemist_Geek]

Taking classes or training is not the answer. The answer is learn something on your own, then you train others on it. Taking classes just costs money, and with the Internet, there are plenty of free resources to learn new skills on your own.

The problem is credentialing... Autodidacts can't prove to prospective employers or clients that they have the skills, until after they're hired. What right-thinking person would take the risk of hiring someone whose ability to do the job is doubtful?