Go to Detroit and ask the long-term unemployed line workers if they are unskilled. Heck, go to Silicon Valley and see how many long-term unemployed or underemployed are unskilled.

 

I would be hesitant to make a gross generalization about long-term unemployed workers. If it was 2000, maybe. Not 2009.

 

I said in my experience, which covers 30+ years. Besides, unemployment rates have been on the low side until the past several months. There will always be pockets of high unemployment but this stimulus bill covers the entire nation. There will be many people getting jobs that shouldn't if his goal accepted.

There will be many people getting jobs that shouldn't if his goal accepted.

 

If we're talking unskilled labor or low-skill labor jobs why would you think many will be unqualified?

 

I've seen no mention of these jobs being high-paying highly-skilled jobs.

If we're talking unskilled labor or low-skill labor jobs why would you think many will be unqualified?

 

I've seen no mention of these jobs being high-paying highly-skilled jobs.

 

I don't think 20% of a construction site is non skilled jobs. I might be wrong. Even if it were, why be forced to hire long term unemployed when other lower level people who have been employed will also be applying? As I said, give me the guy who has kept himself employed over a long term unemployed person as my experience is that they make better employees. I'm just against quotas.

I'm just against quotas.

 

Fine. I get that argument and it has merit. However, THIS THREAD was started becuase many folks seem to believe that white guys are no longer going to get jobs or receive any of the proposed aid.

I said in my experience, which covers 30+ years. Besides, unemployment rates have been on the low side until the past several months. There will always be pockets of high unemployment but this stimulus bill covers the entire nation. There will be many people getting jobs that shouldn't if his goal accepted.

 

I guess you have to define "long term". Prior to about 12-15 months ago, it was almost impossible to find qualified workers. In fact, you had to hire somebody who already had a job.

 

You certainly have some skilled, qualified workers who are unemployed right now but I wouldn't consider them the "long term unemployed".

Fine. I get that argument and it has merit. However, THIS THREAD was started becuase many folks seem to believe that white guys are no longer going to get jobs or receive any of the proposed aid.

To be fair, I'd say this thread was started because in the video, it sounds like white males weren't going to get any relief (or very little) from this joke of a stimulus.

Agenda-driven people will read anything they want into comments like that, which in the end, accomplishes very little other than inciting the fringes.

 

It's amazing to me how intelligent people can read or hear the same thing and at the same time interpret it totally opposite. I guess that you could be right...........it all depends on their agenda and how it affects them.

 

I believe I see what they are trying to do and it seems to make some sense, but I suppose we could just continue to allow the government to take care of them instead of putting them to work.

To be fair, I'd say this thread was started because in the video, it sounds like white males weren't going to get any relief (or very little) from this joke of a stimulus.

 

You mean the severly parsed audio/video with commentary added. It took me about 5 minutes max to find the entire interview and to realize what he was saying and it wasn't close to the implied message from the video.

Okay is my understanding correct in that this stimulus bill has 800Billion dollars spent and 100 Million on infrastructure?

Okay is my understanding correct in that this stimulus bill has 800Billion dollars spent and 100 Million on infrastructure?

 

I don't know the number but its my understanding that the bill does not contain as much infrastructure as many had hoped/expected.

 

While Reich thinks infrastructure spending is important I'm pretty sure I read in Rolling Stone that he doesn't think there is enough infrastructure work to be done to sustain a middle class revivial. I find that hard to believe with all of the old bridges/subways/train tracks that have been around for decades.

It's amazing to me how intelligent people can read or hear the same thing and at the same time interpret it totally opposite. I guess that you could be right...........it all depends on their agenda and how it affects them.

 

I believe I see what they are trying to do and it seems to make some sense, but I suppose we could just continue to allow the government to take care of them instead of putting them to work.

 

Excellent post. I think I need to start a new thread on where it leads my thinking.

I don't know the number but its my understanding that the bill does not contain as much infrastructure as many had hoped/expected.

 

While Reich thinks infrastructure spending is important I'm pretty sure I read in Rolling Stone that he doesn't think there is enough infrastructure work to be done to sustain a middle class revivial. I find that hard to believe with all of the old bridges/subways/train tracks that have been around for decades.

 

I was a huge proponent of infrastructure and then I read an article on Japan in the 90's. Spent a trillion dollars on infrastructure to help the economy and it did not do it.

 

I don't see how it could not but that is what the artlcle was saying. Showed some stats that indicated their recession continued on despite the 1 trillion dollar of infrastructure spending.

 

There seems to be a lot in the bill that has little to do with jumpstarting the economy across the board.

 

Rachel Mudow, I can't stand her, was driling a GOP legislator that sod on the National Mall would create jobs for the park service. He tried to point out to her a) that those jobs are already there and just gives them something to do not create more jobs; b) need jobs create across the country. She was having no part of it and just wanted to point out that any spending creating jobs.

 

Now she did have something that was really interesting and came from Moody's. $1.00 of food stamps creates $1.77 to the economy. $1.00 of Unemployment benefits was around $1.60. $1.00 of tax cuts created $1.03 for the economy. Now she didn't say who got those tax breaks.

I was a huge proponent of infrastructure and then I read an article on Japan in the 90's. Spent a trillion dollars on infrastructure to help the economy and it did not do it.

 

I don't see how it could not but that is what the artlcle was saying. Showed some stats that indicated their recession continued on despite the 1 trillion dollar of infrastructure spending.

 

.

 

Economists differ on the Japan issue. Some agree with what you've stated. Others say its not an apples to apples thing. For example, some say it didn't work because Japan waited to long to recapitalize their banks. They also say that deflation was a problem in Japan that we are not yet experiencing. They say that even with its problems the stimulus plan probably prevented a weak economy from plunging into a depression. Some economists believe that it failed because of scaling back on spending and attempting to raise taxes.

 

What I got out of all of it is that despite what the talking heads say its not a simple comparison.

Economists differ on the Japan issue. Some agree with what you've stated. Others say its not an apples to apples thing. For example, some say it didn't work because Japan waited to long to recapitalize their banks. They also say that deflation was a problem in Japan that we are not yet experiencing. They say that even with its problems the stimulus plan probably prevented a weak economy from plunging into a depression. Some economists believe that it failed because of scaling back on spending and attempting to raise taxes.

 

What I got out of all of it is that despite what the talking heads say its not a simple comparison.

 

Honestly, Clyde, I am still confused after reading your post twice.:idunno::confused::lol:

Honestly, Clyde, I am still confused after reading your post twice.:idunno::confused::lol:

 

Essentially it says that using Japan as a benchmark or as an example is not smart. Conditions are not the same.

 

Are they? I'm not that smart to answer that one.