This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Goldman Explains Why The Job Loss Trend Is A Deterioration Not A Distortion, Asks If Maximum Welfare Now Is 198 Weeks

Tyler Durden's picture


Goldman's Andrew Tilton has nothing good for the factless pumpers of the recoveryless recovery: "The timing of the rise in new claims fits with the surge in extended benefit recipients (although as already noted the auto distortion probably had its largest downward impact on claims in that same week).   This raises the question of whether some of the people who lost benefits due to funding problems reapplied via new claims, when in fact they simply should have gone back on the benefit rolls without the need to file a new claim.  It is difficult to know for sure whether this has happened.  Our Labor Department contact thought this also would be minor.   In our view, the fact that claims have continued to rise in the first two weeks of August, even though total benefit recipients were already back at spring levels by late July, casts further doubt on this re-filing hypothesis as a major factor, as most eligible recipients should have re-filed by now.  Certainly, any further increases in new claims – or simply a persistence of these high levels – would suggest that the labor market has in fact deteriorated further.  In short, we need to see a fairly quick reversal of the recent increase in initial claims to sign onto the view that distortions were principally responsible for this apparent deterioration in US labor market conditions." In other words, those who are trying to misattribute the surge in initial claims, and cast the economy in a rosier light, can only do so by blaming government error and inefficiency in reassigning existing claimants to initial status. This is a scary possibility, as it means that those on the verge of exhuasting their 99 weeks of maximum benefits may have found an unexpected loophole to make the length of the "welfare state" support up to 198 weeks (or double the existing max). While it goes without saying that the economy is double dipping, the fact that those who would at least have been forced to look for a job at the end of 99 weeks of welfare subsistence may have doubled their benefits' duration should raise major red flags. However, that this occurred as a function of governmental incompetence is no reason for surprise whatsoever.

More from Andrew Tilton:

Rising Jobless Claims—More Likely Deterioration than Distortion

  • Initial claims for jobless insurance rose to an even 500,000 in the week of August 14, the highest level since last November.   Data for extended benefits show that the total number of people receiving jobless benefits climbed back above 10 million in late July, though that figure remains below the peak of 10.7 million reached in the first quarter.
  • Two special factors could be contributing to the recent increase in initial claims, but in both cases the effects are apt to be minor at best.  First, temporary Census employment continues to decline, and it is possible that some of these people are filing for benefits.  Second, the recent renewal of funding for extended benefits may have encouraged the jobless to file (or re-file) new claims.  Distortions from a third factor—the absence of normal auto plant shutdowns—should already have run their course.
  • Neither of the potential mitigating factors would explain the persistence of claims at current elevated levels through August, so the upcoming claims data will be particularly important to watch.  Absent a quick reversal of the latest increase, our conclusion is that claims signal that US labor market conditions have deteriorated modestly in recent weeks.

Jobless claims have been a major disappointment in recent weeks, with the number of seasonally adjusted new claims rising from a 2010 low of 427,000 in the week of July 10 to a nine-month high of 500,000 in the week of August 14.  At the same time, the total number of people receiving jobless benefits rose back above 10 million, not far from its all-time high of 10.7 million set earlier in the year.  One concise summary of the disappointment is that US-MAP readings for initial claims have not been positive since at least July 1.

Many market participants question the reliability of the recent increase in initial claims, citing several potential distortions over the past couple of months.  First, a wave of temporary Census hiring in the springtime came to an end in early May, with most of those workers now back on the job market.  Second, Congress allowed funding for extended benefit programs to lapse in early June, with the result that the number of people on such programs plummeted in June and July; the benefit rolls have surged again with the recent renewal of such funding, and some returning recipients may have re-filed initial claims.  Third, many vehicle production plants kept humming through the summer instead of taking downtime for annual retooling, with the result that seasonally adjusted employment in this sector looked better for a brief period in early July. (This probably explains the brief dip to 427,000 claims mentioned above.)

Of these three factors, only the first two are candidates to explain the recent increase in claims, as any seasonal distortions from the different vehicle production schedule should have washed through a few weeks ago.  Taking each in turn:

1. Census hiring.  The federal government hired hundreds of thousands of temporary workers to help with the decennial Census.  The number of such workers on the payroll peaked at 585,000 in early May; by the first week of August (the latest period for which data are available), this figure had dwindled to 73,000.  In other words, over the past three months more than half a million people who worked on the Census either a) found other work, b) dropped out of the labor force, or c) are now officially unemployed.  To the extent these former Census employees wanted another job but could not find one—i.e., fell in group c—they might have filed for jobless benefits.

In theory, then, it’s possible that the wind-down of Census employment could have contributed to the recent increase in jobless claims.  In fact, claims did increase in August of the last two Census years (though in 1990 the increase probably had more to do with the fact that a recession began the previous month).  However, there are two problems with this theory.  First, most states require potential beneficiaries to meet minimum requirements for periods of prior employment and pay levels in order to be eligible for jobless claims; in most instances a Census job alone would not qualify a person for benefits.  While many Census workers undoubtedly have had prior spells of employment, others might not have done so recently enough to be eligible.  Second, the bulk of this year’s Census jobs ended by late June (by which time total temporary Census employment had already fallen to less than 200,000), yet jobless claims that month remained roughly in line with May levels.  So it would be strange for the relatively smaller decline in Census employment in recent weeks to prompt a surge in new claims.  Discussions with a spokesman for the Department of Labor suggest that while an impact from Census workers cannot be ruled out, it is apt to be trivial for these reasons.

2. Renewal of funding for extended benefits.  Congress allowed funding for extended jobless benefits to lapse in early June, with more than 1½ million people falling off the rolls by early July (see the exhibit below).  Over the past few weeks, claims have jumped again after funding was renewed through November.  The trough in the number of benefit recipients occurred in the week of July 10 – the same week as the trough in the number of initial claims.  Since then, the number of total benefit recipients has climbed back to roughly its level in May, just over 10 million as of the end of July; over this same period, the number of new claimants rose from 427,000 to 482,000.  (As a reminder, the jobless claims report released each Thursday covers initial claims data for the prior week, continuing claims data for the week preceding that one, and extended benefits with a yet another week’s lag.)

Exhibit: Total Jobless Claimants Rise Back Above 10 Million As Emergency Benefits are Renewed

The timing of the rise in new claims fits with the surge in extended benefit recipients (although as already noted the auto distortion probably had its largest downward impact on claims in that same week).   This raises the question of whether some of the people who lost benefits due to funding problems reapplied via new claims, when in fact they simply should have gone back on the benefit rolls without the need to file a new claim.  It is difficult to know for sure whether this has happened.  Our Labor Department contact thought this also would be minor.   In our view, the fact that claims have continued to rise in the first two weeks of August, even though total benefit recipients were already back at spring levels by late July, casts further doubt on this re-filing hypothesis as a major factor, as most eligible recipients should have re-filed by now.  Certainly, any further increases in new claims – or simply a persistence of these high levels – would suggest that the labor market has in fact deteriorated further.  In short, we need to see a fairly quick reversal of the recent increase in initial claims to sign onto the view that distortions were principally responsible for this apparent deterioration in US labor market conditions.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 08/20/2010 - 09:36 | 532561 saulysw
saulysw's picture

A business plan idea : Employ the long term unemployed for a month at low wages to reset the clock, and allow them to start claiming the 99 weeks again. Take a % of their new returns for this "service". Is there a reason this would not work?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:33 | 532767 Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

1) It's almost certainly illegal and probably violates a wide range of both state and federal laws.

2) In my state you must be continuously employed for a longer period (I think 6 months, but it might be only 3) before you are eligible, or again eligible, for unemployment.

3) The amount of unemployment pay is based on your wages at the most recent job, so this would decrease their unemployment pay for the next bout.

Having said all that, I'll bet it's already being done many places.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:43 | 532808 tmosley
tmosley's picture

It is my understanding that the company that lays off a worker must pay for some portion of their unemployment.  As such, there is an incentive not to lay off workers unless absolutely necessary.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:59 | 532828 Johnny Bravo
Johnny Bravo's picture

The company doesn't pay directly, they pay through FUTA and SUTA.  Companies that file claims have these rates increase for them.

They don't pay directly, but they do have to pay increased insurance rates if people use unemployment.  It's kind of like workman's comp in a way.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 09:38 | 532567 anony
anony's picture

The only thing wrong with Goddamn Sux' question of Max U/employment is their refusal to recognize PERMANENT U/employment growing each day, month and year until New Work is invented or we finally recognize that Kurt Vonnegut was right 35 years ago.

Meanwhile subsistence payments will be printed for decades if not millennia to come.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 09:39 | 532568 JohnKing
JohnKing's picture

Take Goldman off of welfare. Why are they still a bank holding company?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:01 | 532595 Widowmaker
Widowmaker's picture


Andrew Tilton is just another incompetent welfare queen trying to distract from his own fraud-attachment to the taxpayer mammary gland in the sky..

Goldman is going on what 90 something weeks of welfare?

Hey Andrew Tilton, do us a favor - shut the f**k up and quit.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:32 | 532758 Chemba
Chemba's picture

LOL.  You are intellectually incapable of even reading, never mind understanding, Andrew Tilton's analysis.  Your bandwidth does not extend beyond populist nonsense, which is why you will never work at Goldman Sachs, or any other firm that requires an IQ larger than shoe size.

Oh, let me guess, you would "never work at Goldman Sachs, evil squid, blah blah blah,...".  Yeah, right, I'm sure you'd hang up if they called.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 15:49 | 533110 Widowmaker
Widowmaker's picture

Ha ha, good ones! I didn't know Tilton's boyfriend was on ZH.

Personal attacks aside, you didn't refute my point.

Only in America are "second-chances" literally for sale through appropriate political "agents."


Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:56 | 533265 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Gee, commenting on completely fraudulent data --- as anyone with a couple of neurons to rub together and regularly exames the BLS data realizes -- makes a shitload of sense, huh, Chemba dood?

They always use specific "qualifiers" when publishing the unemployment data: (1) available work force (meaning ever greater amounts of people are being excluded, i.e., the impoverished, the homeless - including the working homeless, those who have falled off the UI ranks, etc., and (2) those all-powerful and manipulative "adjustments" -- get the picture, dood?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:52 | 533252 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

+1000 to the Widowmaker.

And in the same thoughtful pattern:

Larry Summers says, "Women can't do science and the recession is over."

Economics question from the above data:

Who has more chins?  Thomas "three chins" Friedman, or Larry "the Hut" Summers?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:07 | 532657 Lord Blankcheck
Lord Blankcheck's picture

 GS is a Finacial Holding Co. Since sept. '09.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:12 | 532680 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I guess I'll try.

Question: Why is GS still a Financial Holding Company?

Answer: Because it's still the fastest and most effective way for GS to suck "Mother Samantha's" milk from the government teat.

Got milk?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:16 | 532866 Eternal Student
Eternal Student's picture

+1.  And don't just stop at Goldman.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 09:40 | 532569 gosh
gosh's picture

I personally know someone who lost their benefits a couple months ago due to the extended benefits not being extended, when they later were she accidently reapplied for the second time.  It took a couple months or so but eventually the govt found out.  This thesis that people are applying anew when they shouldnt isnt a theory, its fact.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 09:45 | 532583 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Then shouldn't we be seeing a rapid spike instead of a slow melt-up in claims?

There were a lot of people who fell off the dole when Congress didn't extend the benefits for a 6th time. And then it was nearly two months before they finally did. So if these people went many many weeks without checks, it stands to reason they would have been first in line when the 6th extension went through, thus creating a huge spike if they were mis-filed as new and not extended. 

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 09:39 | 532570 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

In other words, those who are trying to misattribute the surge in initial claims, and cast the economy in a rosier light, can only do so by blaming government error and inefficiency in reassigning existing claimants to initial status.

You know things are bad when all the kings horses and all the kings men are desperately trying to find a way to put an unemployed Humpty Dumpty back together again.


Fri, 08/20/2010 - 09:42 | 532575 Republi-Ken
Republi-Ken's picture

I have a great idea:

Let's De-Regulate the Financial Industry, Wall Street, And The Banks, and then there will be no more unemployment...


Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:08 | 533158 viahj
viahj's picture

while you're in the cafeteria fighting over the last piece of stale cake, the real war is being waged against us all outside in the real world.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 09:42 | 532578 John McCloy
John McCloy's picture

I would think very few if any of the new claims are census. I am fairly certain a large number if the unemployed were angry when they found out that they were no longer eligible for benefits if they took a seasonal part time holiday job.
So this should mean census hires if they had additional weeks in benefits remaining would no longer be eligible unless and exception was made.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 09:46 | 532586 Chemba
Chemba's picture

More facts, analysis, insight and ugly bearish truths from the excellent economics team at Goldman Sachs.

Another blow to the Goldman Sachs narrative.

I give ZH credit for utilizing Goldman's good research (they have crap research as well, like other firms) despite the fact that it makes the constant blathering of the Goldman Sachs narrative seem such populist crap.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:32 | 532764 Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

Where do you get your facts from? We have long claimed that Goldman is precisely the (Fed-backed) monopoly (and the spin off of prop trading which we first demanded long before most of America had heard of it is a small first step in confirming this) it is, due to its impeccable information arbitrage opportunities courtesy of being second to none in seeing the entire big picture OTC flow traffic before anyone else. Not to piggy back on it, via research and otherwise, would be stupid. Or we could keep the information, trade on it and not disseminate it, putting up one or two posts a day as we with slideshows. Yes, in the process we would lose all readers (which would also mean no place left for you to praise Goldman). The fact that Goldman may use this and any other information it has access to for less than sterling goals is a very warranted "narrative", feel free to ref: recent civil and criminal activity against the firm, and the abovementioned prop trading spin off.

Your logic is so flawed it is painful - not use Goldman, or someone else's research, just because there are issues with ethical conduct means not to present primary data so that others may form their secondary opinion? Are you serious?

You realize if you want to make a favorable impression with your constant brown-nosing of the firm you have picked the wrong blog - ZH continues to be blocked at 200 West.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:06 | 532840 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

You realize if you want to make a favorable impression with your constant brown-nosing of the firm you have picked the wrong blog - ZH continues to be blocked at 200 West.


ZH may continue to be blocked at 200 West but apparently brown noses are always welcome. Walk-ins are encouraged by waving security checks of purses and over-the-shoulder European man bags.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:36 | 532921 Screwball
Screwball's picture

Man bags CD?  Tell me you don't carry a man bag. :-)

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:20 | 533038 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Wouldn't be caught dead with one. Not that there's anything wrong with them.

Sadly, I am beginning to show some man boobs. Does that count? :>)

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:27 | 533055 chinaguy
chinaguy's picture

"not use Goldman, or someone else's research, just because there are issues with ethical conduct......."

My thoughts exactly. Wake up & smell the coffee.

Your family has your back, If you are lucky....everyone else would smoke you for a 50 BPs.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:04 | 533100 Chemba
Chemba's picture

ZH claims that Goldman disseminates lies, half-truths and/or misleading opinions in order to benefit its proprietary book, to the detriment of its clients.  According to the narrative, Goldman expresses a firm view publicly, for its clients, that is contrary to its "real" firm view, and that the lies benefit Goldman.  OK, I see.

So then why would ZH post Goldman Sachs research as having any useful insights since it just "lies" and "manipulations"?  You would never be able to untangle the "triple-double-inverse reverse psychology" embedded, so what is the point?

Is ZH pulling back from the narrative?  Is the narrative now limited to "unethical behavior" by certain trading desks?  Is it now the case that Goldman's various analysts actually share their real analysis, insights and conclusions w/o any concern for the firm's proprietary positions?  That it is just a few rogue traders or product structurings?

As to making a favorable impression with the firm, that was already accomplished long ago.

I am only pointing out the ridiculousness of elements of the narrative.

Otherwise, keep up the great work!

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:09 | 533161 Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

If you are unable to untangle the "triple-double-inverse reverse psychology" of the Goldman reports, don't read them. Otherwise do, for their obvious informational value. What you do with that information is up to you, especially as you keep in mind the track record of Goldman's sellside advice.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:28 | 533204 Chemba
Chemba's picture

I don't need to untangle any "triple-double-inverse reverse psychology" because it does not exist.

I accept Goldman Sachs research for what it is: one analyst's, or one desk's, or one group's (e.g. Econ) opinion, based on its analysis.  It is based on nothing other than that, and has nothing to do with what is happening on the other side of the wall(s).

Those opinions, like everyone else's, are sometimes right, often wrong.

The track record of Goldman's sell side research is like that of every other firm; spotty at best, usually chronically late.  There are structural reasons why sell side analysts are often wrong on their calls, including fact that the public nature of their calls and persona make them slow to change their views based on facts.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:34 | 533352 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Yup, there's a Chinese wall built around every cubicle over at GS. And BoA and so on and so on.

They must be good because the exact same one over in China has lasted for hundreds of years.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 15:31 | 533510 caconhma
caconhma's picture


Did you ever hold a meaningful employment at any mid- or large-size companies?

Nothing is ever leaving corporate walls without being reviewed and approved by at least your boss and a legal department. Anybody below a VP level "follows" the party line. Legally, any corporate employee is a "company representative".  Certainly, there is a "room to play" but it is within the company boundary.

In developing an intelligent judgement, you never ignore any info regardless of its source(s). Only analyzing the info, one takes into considerations the source(s) credibility and potential agenda. Finally, even a broken clock twice a day shows a perfectly correct time.

As for Goldman, their business success tells you that they have a quite good idea of what is going around.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 09:51 | 532602 VWbug
VWbug's picture

but goldman is an evil squid and everyone who works for them is part of the matrix, and have chosen to be evil, so this whole analysis must be another disinformation game that is part of a much bigger plan to bankrupt the entire world and then rule over it like fuedal lords.

i would ignore it.

/sarcasm off

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:00 | 532629 MichaelG
MichaelG's picture

I did think they were an archetypal example of the faults of our current economic system - not evil, just good at taking advantage of the invisible hand-on-the-scales - but in the face of your withering sarcasm I now realise they are simply doing God's work.

How's Johnny Bravo doing?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:09 | 532664 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture


How's Johnny Bravo doing?

As best as I can tell, old JB's suffering from multiple (online) personality disorder.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:22 | 532720 VWbug
VWbug's picture

i know it somehow helps you all to think only 1 person in the entire world thinks you are all depressed, socially dysfunctional, scared, envious incompetents, so i hate to burst your bubble, but i did see johnny b say something about inflation equalling growth or some such nonsense which i completely disagree with.

i am a good austrian you see.

Anyway, continue to call me a shill, a troll, another poster (as if that means anything, lol), but whatever you do, don't open your mind to the possibility you are just wrong.

hopium bitchez!

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:07 | 532842 Johnny Bravo
Johnny Bravo's picture

I know, right?

These people are all under the fantasy that they're so right that only one person in the entire world is capable of disagreeing with them.
It's kind of pathetic.

They think that because their opinions are the majority on a blog where everybody agrees with each other without much thought that the world works that way too.

There are plenty of people that find the claims of gold bugs ridiculous.  In fact, they're a fringe element as far as investing is concerned.

And now that gold got its 61.8 fib instead of its 50 fib, they think that "JB was oh so wrong."

It's funny.  They try to taunt you when you're off by like 1% or something, yet continue to pay 1300 bucks for an asset that is worth nearly 8% less.  (Oh, is it 7% less than you paid for it now?  Wow.  You're in the money!  You've only lost a year's worth of returns the minute you buy gold.  What a sound financial decision... )

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:09 | 532850 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

JB, stop talking to yourself and fetch me a beer.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:17 | 532870 Johnny Bravo
Johnny Bravo's picture

Lick me where I pee?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:58 | 533128 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Now now JB, you know that's lemonade. But around the corner fudge is made. So pull your thumb out and help yourself just like you normally do on ZH. :>)

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 23:10 | 534308 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

Johnny Bravo...On the town.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 23:11 | 534312 ColonelCooper
Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:07 | 532844 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I wasn't talking to you VWbug. But since you seem to have self identified yourself with JB, I guess that's OK.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:17 | 532874 Johnny Bravo
Johnny Bravo's picture

That's because anybody who is "against" gold is automatically accused of being me, regardless of whether that's actually even a realistic idea.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 15:05 | 533398 VWbug
VWbug's picture

many people have called me johnny b, usually only when they run out of arguments.

i wish i was johnny b, it'd be nice to be young again, with a long, bright future ahead.

some advice johnny b: don't hang around here too much, these guys bring you down.

It's seriously depressing to read how everyone is against them, how the world doesn't make sense, how they can't wait to shoot and lynch people.

other than that, it's entertaining to see how their minds work.

Being the contrarian i am, they almost have me turned into a bull from a bear in 3 short weeks.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 15:10 | 533443 VWbug
VWbug's picture

I wasn't talking to you VWbug. But since you seem to have self identified yourself with JB, I guess that's OK.

gee einstein, but the guy above you did make the insinuation, again, have a few comprehension problems do ya?

So tell me, does having the mind of a child come handy in your line of work?

please, please don't tell me you are some kind of psychologist, i couldn't get past more than 1 paragraph of the drivel you wrote, so i really don't know.

maybe a child psycholigist?

anyway, i guess zh is a good place for you to troll for clients.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 17:32 | 533815 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

Why do you bother coming and posting then?

I visit different blogs for different perspectives from time to time. When I disagree with the central meme of the blog I usually don't post a comment. Do you really think you are going to convince ppl with your pithy comments?

JB- I'm so sick of your 8% premium comments. Absolute blather. I can buy large gold bars for 1% premiums, shipping included. The price quoted for spot is before processing, shipping, etc. No different then buying any other finished good at a retail price. And when you sell the coins back, you get most of the premium back. A 1-2% bid-asked spread is wide, but not absurd. I'll listen to another "gold is going down" argument, especially in a liquidation cascade, but the 8% reason is dumb. 

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:33 | 532896 Johnny Bravo
Johnny Bravo's picture

Also, a price goes up 3%, that is inflation.
Due to the price going up 3%, the company's revenue for that period grew 3%.

Inflation = growth.

How is that hard to understand for people?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:54 | 532973 Meridian
Meridian's picture

When you are a paid shill do you get a lower rate for assuming an existing identity? Do only senior shills get to create new persona's?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:06 | 533012 Johnny Bravo
Johnny Bravo's picture

Does it matter?  I'm making 8 million dollars a year to post on the internet, bitchez!

It's the shit.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:18 | 533034 Meridian
Meridian's picture

Zimbabwe dollars don't count.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:58 | 533130 RaymondKHessel
RaymondKHessel's picture


Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:58 | 533415 VWbug
VWbug's picture

When you are a paid shill do you get a lower rate for assuming an existing identity? Do only senior shills get to create new persona's

when you are incapable of debating do you always call people shills? can't you think of anything else?

no wonder you guys can't get jobs, zero creativity.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 17:44 | 533835 Meridian
Meridian's picture

It's Johny Bravo the most imfamous of ZH shills, douche. My main job is kicking little pussies like you around - it's fun and easy.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 23:13 | 534317 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

Johnny Bravo, on the town:

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:38 | 533357 merehuman
merehuman's picture

VWBug , you also make light of the oil spill. Government thug? Shill?

I dont know, you could just be that uninformed , or that stupid. Like i said , i dont know which category you fit in, but truth and you, dont align well.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 15:28 | 533502 VWbug
VWbug's picture

VWBug , you also make light of the oil spill. Government thug? Shill?


that's a lie.

I make light of the loonies who make ridiculous claims such as the GOM is now dead, there is an underground lake of oil, there is a methane bubble that will explode and cause a tsunami wiping out the southern usa etc etc ad nauseum.

I get that you can't tell the difference, but maybe some of the blog's readers can.

ever hear of a story about the boy who cried wolf?

read it sometime and then maybe you will understand why you are a bigger problem than bp in this mess (although i doubt it)

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:17 | 532699 VWbug
VWbug's picture

wow, you really must have been drunk if you don't remember your post regarding goldman just the other day. Here, I'll remind you:

'No raindrop believes it caused the flood.'* GS effectively is a collective,

So, you're guilty not just of having a collectivist mindset, but selective memory too. you should win a prize!

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:43 | 532807 MichaelG
MichaelG's picture

Oh, I was utterly smashed, no doubt about it. And I was using 'collective' in a sense that could be appropriately applied to any corporation - I'm not saying they are the Borg. The idea was to contrast with your post describing 'blacks' as a 'collective', which doesn't work in any sense.

So I'm not quite seeing the inconsistency - but who cares, if I get a prize?!

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 15:42 | 533535 VWbug
VWbug's picture

let's see if i can clarify your fuzzy thinking:

one who thinks in terms GROUPS  (examples: republicans, catholics, jews, blacks, goldman employees) : COLLECTIVIST

one who thinks in terms of INDIVIDUALS (examples, ronald reagan, the pope, mort zuckerman, jesse jackson, lloyd blankfein): INDIVIDUALIST

Get it?

So, no, I don't think 'GOLDMAN' is evil, I think some employees might be.

I don't think all 'blacks' are drug dealers,I think some might be.

 But I'd need to know which person you are referring to and all the facts of the case before I decided whether they should me murdered or not, unlike some people here.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 18:19 | 533910 MichaelG
MichaelG's picture

I see what you're saying, but I think it's possible, if not necessary, to think on both levels at the same time.  e.g:

-Federal Government employees: likely mainly decent folk, just trying to make a buck, same as anyone - in fact, often not trying to maximise things buckwise, or they'd be off working for e.g. Goldman.  Good on 'em.

but at the same time:

-Federal Government: driving us to Hell in a turbocharged handcart.

I think we need some help from Cognitive Dissonance here, to help us tease out the various levels (there are vastly more than the two we've mentioned. Either that or just some good ol' cognitive dissonance itself!), but I suspect I'll be more amenable to any CD explanations than your good self.

All my thoughts are fuzzy - goes with the territory!  (That of being a type of ape, with complicating factors.)

Anyway, nice sparring with you! - I'm sorry I implied you weren't uniquely posting earlier: there was no need for that, and I've been feeling bad about it ever since.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:10 | 532665 juno9604
juno9604's picture

Interesting perjorative -- "welfare benefits".  Unemployment Benefits are 'insurance' which employees and employers contribute to and can draw from under stringent conditions....must have lost job through no fault of one's own.  The notion that the unemployment benefits are somehow not deserved betrays a certain contempt for those that draw on this form of insurance.  The history of contempt for the conquered is littered with ugly consequences.    

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:17 | 532698 Jesse
Jesse's picture

Goldman Sachs should have been liquidated, and this analyst should have been placed into the job market so he could analyze it first hand.


Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:21 | 532715 spartan117
spartan117's picture

Get rid of the minimum wage and you will have 100% employment.  Simple as that.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:25 | 532732 Chemba
Chemba's picture

excellent point.  but, of course, it would only work if you paired it with the elimination of permanent welfare and unemployment benefits (particularly "extended")

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:41 | 532792 granolageek
granolageek's picture

Utter garbage. Anyone who loses their job is unemployed. With or without a minimum wage, it will take at least a couple of weeks to locate a job, do a couple interviews, get the offer and wait to start on Monday.

During that time the person will be unemployed. Unemployment could in theory go under 1%, but 0 is flat out impossible.


Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:58 | 532824 spartan117
spartan117's picture

Jeezus.  I think you understood what I meant by 100% employment.  Minimum wage is basically an artificial floor on the price of labor.  Get rid of that, and just about anyone who wants a job, would be able to get one - assuming they are employable.  Unemployment would no longer be an issue, and the marketplace for goods and services woudl reflect true supply/demand fundamentals.

Of course, you don't seem to care about a free marketplace where the price of labor is determined by market forces - instead you appear to want to argue semantics about my original point. 

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:12 | 532856 Johnny Bravo
Johnny Bravo's picture

That sounds awesome.  Then we could start paying our workers 50 cents an hour, and the CEOs could make 80 bajillion trillion dollars a year!

We could compete with China in no time!  What a place to aspire to be...

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:21 | 532882 spartan117
spartan117's picture

Then we would all aspire to be CEOs.  And be responsible for our own livelihoods.  What's wrong with that?  Would you prefer to work as little as possible, but be paid a "living wage" and be comfortable?  That sounds like socialism to me.  Perhaps you would be interested in moving to Europe?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:22 | 532890 Johnny Bravo
Johnny Bravo's picture

CEOs aren't responsible for their own livelihoods.  They take exorbitant sums of money as bonuses for ruining the economy in general.

Maybe you'd be interested in a system where all workers made 3 cents an hour, like in Mexico, and only your boss can afford to eat everyday.... 

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:36 | 532920 spartan117
spartan117's picture

A CEO gets to where he/she is based on years of experience and higher education.  A worker that gets paid $1.00 a day gets paid $1.00 a day because of the lack of the aforementioned. 

Are you advocating that publicly traded companies, with shareholder represented board members, begin paying $1.00-a-day laborers millions of dollars in salary because they are just as qualified to run a billion dollar company as the Stanford MBA grad with 30 years of business management/development experience?

I'm not sure where you want to take this, but you are clearly wrong.  Are CEOs overpaid in today's marketplace?  Maybe.  But companies are obviously paying CEOs the going market rate because of competition for the best.  Would you prefer the government step in and place a ceiling on what private institutions pay in compensation?  I prefer prices paid be again determined by market forces. 

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:45 | 532951 Johnny Bravo
Johnny Bravo's picture

What a strawman.  Who said I advocate paying the average worker 30 million dollars or whatever?

I'm saying that CEOs who have to lay off people just to profit should not be making hundreds of millions of dollars.
"I killed 10000 middle class jobs!  Where's that new yacht?"

Also, you act like every CEO earned their way.  While this is true for many, it isn't true for those that inherited their positions in life.
I guess that being born into a billion dollars like Paris Hilton means that those are America's best and brightest, in your estimation.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:51 | 532963 spartan117
spartan117's picture

Whoever said life was fair?

And why should I pay a woker more than he deserves?  Because I'm a nice guy?  I might kill 10000 middle class jobs, but I saved my company $500 million in the process.  Yeah, I moved those jobs overseas, but that's finding the best use of my shareholder's resources.  Get it?  Not the middle class' resources, but my SHAREHOLDER'S resources.  You say you want resources too?  You have two choices: 1. Vote in a socialist government and STEAL it from me. 2. Actually working your ass off, saving that capital, and deploying it so that it works for you to generate more capital.  Wow, what a fucking concept.  Capitalism actually works if you let it.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:17 | 533021 Johnny Bravo
Johnny Bravo's picture

You only had to destroy the country that gave the shareholders money in the first place in order to make a profit for a quarter.  Wow.  What a noble job.

There's nothing capitalist about corporate America.  They get so many tax breaks for offshoring a job that there's no capitalism there.  If they fail?  Here's 100 billion dollars from Uncle Sam.  Invest it in the stock market, and milk other people's money... 

Pay this illegal immigrant 2 dollars an hour.  When he needs medical care, the government will pay!  When he needs food or housing, the government will pay!
How are government subsidies for corporate labor capitalist?

Also, how many CEOs work hard to earn or deploy capital?  Doesn't seem like that many to me.
They just walk in, Fiorina style, gut the company, run it into the gutter, take their 100 million, and peace out!

You may think that it's good for the company to do this... in the short term.
What happens when you kill the goose that laid your golden egg?
Another 100 million dollar bonus?

A prime example of this is health insurers.  Many of them are going to wind up ruining their markets for the interests of short term profits.
Yet, when people stick up for themselves and say "enough is enough, stop raising my premiums 25% every year" you call it communist?

What do you call somebody who profits from the destruction of society?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:19 | 533037 spartan117
spartan117's picture

There is always risks inherent in getting a bad CEO.  Just like with anything else in life.  How do you hedge against that?  You can't. 

You bring up offshoring again.  What precipitated that?  You think companies offshore because they like it?  No, they do it because the cost of labor here in the US has gone to exorbitant levels.  This country has placed so many restrictions on businesses, that it is impossible to compete on a global level.  If you ever owned or ran a company, or worked in HR, you would understand the cost of hiring ONE employee.  Your $50,000.00 salary is probably closer to $100,000 due to employment taxes, unemployment taxes, health insurance, government taxes, etc.  Everyone in this country thinks they deserve a living wage.  Why?  Why do you deserve to get paid more than a guy in India that can do the same job at similar quality levels? 

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:01 | 533141 Johnny Bravo
Johnny Bravo's picture

Actually, I have ran a company, and the cost to pay me 60k was somewhere around 70-75k, considering I didn't get benefits, etc.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:42 | 533089 granolageek
granolageek's picture

Except that you pocketed $250 million of that, gave your VPs another $200 million and spent $10 million buying special loopholes from congresscritters, leaving only $40 million for those shareholders.


>>We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.<<


I'm pretty sure your version doesn't square with that. It's neutral on common defense and more perfect union and hoses every other clause. James Madison...Ayne Rand. Thomas Jefferson...Ayn Rand. Ben Franklin...Ayn Rand. I wonder who I should go with. Adam Smith had some coments about crony capitalism too.


Part B. I live in New Hampshire. Our common law, which is older than the United States is based on the concepts of "fair play and substantial justice". I don't find those concepts in your comments. Our constitution also explicitly recognizes the right of revolution.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:02 | 533133 spartan117
spartan117's picture

Then it's up to the shareholders and the board to prevent CEOs from being "overpaid", not the government. 

Your statement regarding revolution is specious and out of context.  Revolt against what?  Private institutions setting pay scales based on supply/demand?

Your sole argument is premised around the loss of jobs to offshoring and tax credits that firms receive.  Then get rid of the tax credits!  See where these oversized companies decide to domicile their firms after that. 

I think you should stick to arguing the semantics of 100% versus 99.8%. 

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:14 | 533310 granolageek
granolageek's picture

Dude, it ain't 99.8. Unemployment ( which is insurance not welfare) pays 50% up to a max of $30-60k depending on the state. No one can get a penny unless they had a job which they lost through no fault of their own.

Let's put it in your world. Some lieing backstabing double dealing slimeball graduates Harvard Law and gets hired as an associate by a State St. firm as an associate for $150k. After 2 years she's only billing 1 milion instead of 2, so they let her go (having paid <b>insurance premiums</b> for two years. It takes her two months to get a job filing cookie cutter suites against credit card defaulters for $100k/year. Are you saying that she is not entitled to collect her $654.00 (ask me how I know) per week for those two months because she could have been flipping burgers for those two months?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:07 | 533156 spartan117
spartan117's picture

And one more thing.  You and Bravo would love to see a government mandated program to limit CEO pay and to prevent the offshoring of "middle class" jobs. 

Yet it's your very government that provides for the tax credits to these same companies.

Are you two really that blind?  Leave private sector firms to private governance of pay and resource allocation.  If you have a beef with tax credits, go talk to your congressman/woman.  How difficult is that to comprehend?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:06 | 533284 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Three easily escaped murderers, from privatized prison, now back in jail thanks to government-employed ranger.

Yup, those privatized prisons doing a bang-up job, just like that privatized war now over in Iraq?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:13 | 533308 spartan117
spartan117's picture

And that government mail delivery we call the USPS has made how much money for us taxpayers?  Yeah....

So far government owes taxpayers about $14 Trillion.  What a bang up job our government is doing for us!

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 18:35 | 533937 granolageek
granolageek's picture

Hank Paulson, Secretary of the treasury and ex Goldman CEO. Lampposts. Really easy to comprehend.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:42 | 532942 granolageek
granolageek's picture

So the person who loses a job as a plumber or engineer at $30/hr and is trying to find another job at that rate doesn't count as unemployed because he or she could have taken a job flipping burgers for $5/hr?


Also, I just googled up that the federal minimum wage started at $0.25/hr in 1938. Please explain how there was 25% unemployment in 1932, wthout a minimum wage.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:06 | 532998 spartan117
spartan117's picture

You need to google some more.

There were state imposed minimum wages prior to the federal minimum wage.  And the federal minimum was established in 1933, not 1938 as you had indicated.  That was a second attempt.

And to answer your first question, YES.  Employment is employment.  You continue to fail to understand that your salary is a wage paid by your employer.  It's a cost, like anything else.  As with all costs, the marketplace should dictate the price, not government.  Would you continue to buy bread if the government mandated that it cannot be sold for less than $7.50 per loaf?

I can't believe I'm giving an Econ 101 course on Zerohedge...


Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:15 | 533028 Johnny Bravo
Johnny Bravo's picture

Hell yeah!  Pay everybody a penny an hour!  Then they'll need government services just to eat, but that's okay, because the GOVERNMENT will subsidize them anyway, right?

In other words, companies pay people too little (walmart *cough*) and the government picks up the tab to make the people able to survive.

Yet, somehow the government subsidizing the corporation's low pay is capitalism.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 23:17 | 534323 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

See Fuckstick,  you keep acting like a troll and so will I.  Now I understand how much fun you have.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:20 | 533040 spartan117
spartan117's picture


Time to update the CAPTCHA to something a bit more robust.  It'll kill your hits, but remove some of the fauna that has been coming onto this site.  Perhaps a simple PV or annuity calculation would do the trick.  I wouldn't go as far as Black-Scholes, though. :\

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:02 | 533145 Johnny Bravo
Johnny Bravo's picture

Oh no!  You mean I'd have to use Excel to post?  Now that would just be too effing hard... *chuckle*

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:43 | 533235 spartan117
spartan117's picture

Interesting that you have such a engrained and negative opinion regarding gold, yet you can't even understand basic economics.  What's up with that?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:21 | 533189 granolageek
granolageek's picture

You're not teaching econ 101, You're going for doublethink 602 (graduate level). Let's go back to 1980, when I was 27 with an MSEE and we actually made things in America. If I had a fight with my boss and told him where to put his job, it would have taken me roughly 30 days (well within my savings) to find another job doing electronic design. I could have indeed started the next morning at McDonalds.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that I would not have been unemployed for those 30 days because I could have been working at McDonalds. Is that correct?

Alternatively, the company I was working for in 1980 was on "cash with order" terms with most of its suppliers. It could have easily gone under. Again, 30 days to an engineering job, 1 day to McDonalds. Would I have been unemployed for that 30 days?

And as for your other comments, 1933 is not 1932 (that whole math thing), and why did the states without minimum wage laws also have unemployment in 1932?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:45 | 533224 spartan117
spartan117's picture

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that I would not have been unemployed for those 30 days because I could have been working at McDonalds. Is that correct?

Correct.  The market place dictates the value of your services.  If there is no demand for your engineering skills, why do you deserve $30 an hour?  Makes no sense.  That's effectively placing a floor on a cost.  You.  I can't believe you still don't get that.  You're still arguing 100% versus 99.8%.  Ok, I'll give you that.  There's a float in the time between you losing your job and getting a new one.  But if you really wanted a new job, an employer will most likely be found if the cost of your labor comes down to where they can afford you. Get it?  It's not about YOU.  It's about the general business environment that dictates what you get paid - not the other way around.  Your ego is obviously a bit too big for that concept.

Did you read the link I gave you?  Minimum wage started in 1912, and within 8 years at least 13 states had imposed some type of minimum wage law. States are/were not closed systems.  If California has a minimum wage, and Arizona doesn't, do you think I will work for 25 cents an hour in Phoenix when L.A. pays $7.50? 

You are beyond help.  I suggest you stop reading Zerohedge since you obviously do not understand simple economics.  You've become accustomed to a certain living standard.  That living standard is dying here in the US.  You are here at Zerohedge because something attracted you here, yet you are not just ignoring that message, but fighting it.  You're going to lose.  Folks like you don't seem to be able to comprehend that there is a sea-change coming. 

If you are so smart, tell me why there would be unemployment if we removed minimum wage?  You continue to argue percentages here and fail to see the much bigger picture of the underlying problem that price controls cause.  That's an engineer for you.  While the world is blowing up, you're still trying to identify the fastest way to complete the rubix cube.

Anyways, I'm done with you.  Keep arguing the 0.2% position, smart guy.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:52 | 533396 granolageek
granolageek's picture

OK dude. If  your version is that I was not unemployed for the 30 days that it took me to replace the $100k  job that I used to have, then I want to see you dangling from a lamppost.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 18:52 | 533958 granolageek
granolageek's picture

Hay Soos. Any company hiring for a $100k/yr position is going to spend some time at it. If you claim that a candidate for that position should be flipping burgers instead of trying to land that $100k job (yup, unemployed) then you live in fantasyland.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:07 | 533288 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

You have any idea how difficult it is to actually get a job at Mickey D's????

This former computer scientist has been turned down many times there......

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:02 | 533277 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

"..where the price of labor is determined by market forces .."

That supply and demand concept is really, really difficult for you, huh, dood?

And that " marketplace .."???

Please point me in its direction as I've yet to find one?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:10 | 533297 spartan117
spartan117's picture

It seems to be difficult for you.  Where supply meets demand, you have equilibrium.   Get it?

As for for a free marketplace, GOVERNMENT intrusion is the cause of your problems.  Don't blame the marketplace. 


Sun, 08/22/2010 - 12:49 | 536085 TheGoodDoctor
TheGoodDoctor's picture

Sorry. Wrong. Then you get deflation. And TPTB will not have that in this fiat pro inflationary environment. (not saying they will get that either) Unless they really want to increase the illegal immigration program. Nice try. Next!

PS For bonus points: What do you do for a career and what is the lowest wage you would work for? Or can you not walk in another man's shoes?

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 10:29 | 532745 william the bastard
william the bastard's picture

Many self employed and independant contractors are ineligble for unemployment claims. The numbers of unemployed in this nation are grossly understated

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:06 | 532841 ZeroPoint
ZeroPoint's picture

Forced to look for a job? Come now, Tyler, you can't be serious. Do you think people are 'living it up' on a max of 500 dollars a week pre-tax?

The 2 times I have found myself unemployed, I have had to keep a log book of company contacts each week and be prepared to defend it, or no check.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 12:59 | 533132 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Clearly you need to move to another state. :>)

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:04 | 533280 JohnKing
JohnKing's picture

The 2 times I have found myself unemployed, I have had to keep a log book of company contacts each week and be prepared to defend it, or no check.


Wild guess here...You are Caucasian?



Fri, 08/20/2010 - 15:24 | 533491 ZeroPoint
ZeroPoint's picture


Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:36 | 533355 midtowng
midtowng's picture

You get the impression that few people on ZeroHedge, Tyler included, have ever been on unemployment. They can't seem to tell the difference between UI or food stamps and welfare.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 15:35 | 533515 JohnKing
JohnKing's picture

The ZH demographic is definitely not in the public assistance echelon. I don't think many of them even know people who are.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:08 | 532845 aaronb17
aaronb17's picture

Of course we should be outraged at those lowlife unemployed, suckling at the government's teat.  Wow, the idea that citizens could be making free money almost indefinitely at the government's and ultimately taxpayers' expense is shocking, absolutely shocking. 

Thank you, Goldman, for pointing us to this possible loophole.  Now, please, go back to borrowing money from the Fed a 0% and investing it in treasuries for a free and handsome profit at the taxpayer's expense.

Welfare for the poor is now 198 weeks.  Welfare for the rich banks is, as always = infinite.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:22 | 532889 ZeroPoint
ZeroPoint's picture

Nice one.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:10 | 533299 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Props and kudos, aaronb17.

And in the same thougtful pattern:

Why isn't the so-called media paying any attention to that missing $8.7 billion mentioned by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction's report?

Could it have something to do with J.P. Morgan Chase (as in Daniel Zelikow) and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (as in Timothy Geithner)?

Just asking....

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:11 | 532855 MarketFox
MarketFox's picture

Well let's see....

Economy = Credit + Asset Valuations

The equation is negated over 40%...soon to be 70%...


Government solution to date ?

Counterfeit $

Fraudulent Accounting 

Why is there any surprise that all moves to date have been only adding to the economic problem ?


Solution ?

Drastic downsizing in government

Tax structure change 


Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:21 | 532868 MarketFox
MarketFox's picture

Well let's see....

Economy = Credit + Asset Valuations

The equation is negated over 40%...soon to be 70%...


Government solution to date ?

Counterfeit $

Fraudulent Accounting 

Bigger government

Why is there any surprise that all moves to date have been only adding to the economic problem ? All government solutions = flawed....

Taxing a retired person 100% of their income ....IS A SOLUTION ....IN THE USA ??????

WTF ????????????


Solution ?

Drastic downsizing in government

Tax structure change ....elimination of all individual and corporate taxes....

Perhaps the most efficient form of tax is a "money tax"....not a consumption tax....

ie 40 basis points per month maximum on any named money balance in any type of depository....

Government size of the economy ? Not greater than 10% mandate....


Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:20 | 532878 walküre
walküre's picture

Cut all welfare after max. one year.

Period. Make it law and give people 3 months to adjust.

No mo free money!

People are more resilient than government gives 'em credit for. Time to cut the embelical cords.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:38 | 532929 Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

Or, perhaps, politicians like having a large class dependent on entitlements, so those entitlements can regularly be threatened, the political hack can "rush to their defense," and get lots of votes that way.

All the while, the elites continue their looting in the background, unfettered.

If you work for a living (i.e. are not fabulously rich) and are still gainfully employed, none of this is in your interest.  But you are becoming politically irrelevant.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 15:37 | 533522 JohnKing
JohnKing's picture

You'd have to offset that cut with big increases in law enforcement.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:20 | 532880 walküre
walküre's picture

Cut all welfare after max. one year.

Period. Make it law and give people 3 months to adjust.

No mo free money!

People are more resilient than government gives 'em credit for. Time to cut the embelical cords.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 11:43 | 532948 PorscheNoSub
PorscheNoSub's picture

I still don't understand how someone could claim UC for 198 weeks. The way the extended benefits are structured one has to exhaust the previous Tier before a certain date. At most, I could see people getting another 26 weeks past the 99 which would just be the regular state UC, and in some cases maybe Tier 1 of the federal extended. For that to happen, someone would have to have filed their new initial claim 26 weeks prior to the cutoff dates below and even earlier to get more than Tier 1.


For example, if someone exhausted all 99 weeks of regular and extended benefits, a new initial claim would be for 26 weeks of regular UC from the state. This person would not be eligible for federal extended benefits until they exhaust the state regular benefits. To be elegible for Tier 1 (20 weeks) of federal benefits, this person would have to exhaust their regular state benefits by 11/20. To be eligible for Tier 2 (14 weeks), this person would have to exhaust their Tier 1 benefits by 11/27. To be eligible for Tier 3 (13 weeks), this person would have to exhaust their Tier 2 benefits by 11/27. To be eligible for Tier 4 (6 weeks), this person would have to exhaust their Tier 3 benefits by 11/27. And currently, the last week that any of these federal EUC benefits (Tiers 1 through 4) can be paid is the week ending 4/30/2011. No federal EUC benefits will be paid after that time unless the law is changed. Yes, the higher Tier deadlines are the same date.

And in my state for a single person, the maximum weekly payment is $372 before tax. That's not very much especially with a car and housing payment (rent/mortgage).

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:13 | 533305 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Ya know, dood, I still don't understand how USAID can help build factories and production centers for American-based multinationals to ship all those American jobs to.

Ya know, dood, I still don't understand why the union pension funds haven't gleaned onto the fact that they are invested in private equity LBO funds (as in Blackstone Group, KKR, Carlyle Group, Citadel, etc., etc., etc.) which then do rape and pillaging (leveraged buyouts) of companies, destroying said companies and (frequently) union jobs.

I guess there are many things we both don't understand, dood.....

Sun, 08/29/2010 - 18:09 | 551887 PorscheNoSub
PorscheNoSub's picture

Don't leave pointless or off topic replies to my posts.


I have given clear facts to dispute the original post/article and am asking for clarification to support the original claim that 198 weeks of UC is possible. The stereotypical idea that people on extended unemployment do not want to work is patently false and the original claim bolsters the incorrect idea.

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:07 | 533157 glenlloyd
glenlloyd's picture

man tilton can talk it to death can't he...

Fri, 08/20/2010 - 14:33 | 533344 midtowng
midtowng's picture

This whole article smells like a load of cr*p. Why are we even wasting time with this?

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 06:31 | 620579 Herry12
Herry12's picture

There are certainly a lot of details like that to take into consideration.I read and understand the entire article and I really enjoyed it to be honest.
virtual server hosting
windows 2008 vps hosting
mssql hosting
windows vps server

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!