General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat is the main cause of unemployment in the US?
I wish some network would ask that question in a poll. None has.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
imanamerican63
(16,176 posts)Outsourcing Big Bird!!!!!!!!
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)aletier_v
(1,773 posts)The average workweek was 48 hours before the Great Depression.
It's been 40 hours since 1938.
As economies become more productive, there's less work to do.
The only equitable way to fix the decline in work is to reduce the workweek and spread it out over a greater number of people.
lpbk2713
(43,273 posts)They are still committed to their oath to make Obama a one term President,
even if it means bringing the country down in the process.
fleur-de-lisa
(14,704 posts)
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I mean, there are people who probably think zombie invasion or Kenyan socialism or God's punishment for homosexuals is the cause.
If you want some of the answers (and I assume they are manifold), you should probably look to economists, social scientists, and other experts: not a TV poll.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)might say what I would say - GREED is the cause of unemployment.
CEO's would rather pay somebody 20 cents an hour, hire children, no benefits, to put more money in their pockets and in their Cayman Island accounts..
They don't draw enough attention to GREED. A big poll on a major network just might embarrass a few of these CEO's, like Romney, who want to blame unions. Even without unions, nobody here is going to work for less than, say, .50 cents and hour 
....
frazzled
(18,402 posts)There are factual answers to these questions, and they are available to be found.
(It's not that I don't think there is not greed or union busting involved, but these things are not the full answers; there are also things like changing technology, which reduces the numbers of jobs required to perform a task and reduces the number of retail jobs); and no one is paying a half a cent an hour (sorry, but that's what .50 followed by cents means; or even 50 cents an hour: that's the kind of hypebole that undercuts an argument, not strengthens it. Why am I even trying here?).
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)and the dirty jobs that ruin your back, your health, and don't pay enough and don't have health benefits and if you can't afford your rent, a car, car insurance, a home, a vet for your dog or cat, then you may as well be unemployed.
Somebody has to clean the bathroom floors and the toilets, do housework for the "tech" people, and all work has to be valued.
matt819
(10,749 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)godai
(2,902 posts)People get more money to spend...demand goes up...people are hired to meet this demand.
Repubs think that, if you lower taxes for companies, they'll hire. They won't, if the demand is not there for their products.
tama
(9,137 posts)when limits of growth have been meat and global neoliberal system has become zero sum game and there is no supply to meet the increase in demand. Standard economics is not science, it's cult of denial of most basic facts of physics and biology.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts).
aletier_v
(1,773 posts)Lack of income creates lack of demand.
Lack of job creates lack of income.
Declining amount of work creates lack of a job.
Declining work which is poorly distributed creates declining income because there's more and more workers unemployed. Government spending offsets the lack of "real" jobs.
hack89
(39,181 posts)as long as companies never lay off people. There would always be demand. So why do you think companies lay off people when all it does is reduce profits?
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)For years, whenever we purchased anything, appliances, hair dryers, furniture, fabrics, dishes, knic-knacs, etc., whatever, we always asked if the store had anything made in the US...
Increasingly the number of American-made products went down, in spite of many people asing for American made stuff.
Now we have no choice. They even try to make us feel guilty by saying that China's economy depends on the stuff we buy, and how could we possibly let that country starve and besides we owe them money, because we don't get enough in taxes because our people aren't working and paying any taxes.
It all starts with a greedy CEO who got China hooked on crummy low paying jobs (or none) and us out of work. There aren't enough bad words to describe these outsourcers (and the American companies with telephone service call numbers are just as bad if not worse)...
dawg
(10,777 posts)People are out of work, so they spend less.
People are underwater on their mortgages. They have credit card debt. They are trying to pay down their debts, so they spend less.
People are fearful of losing their jobs. They don't feel secure, so they save their money and spend less.
State and local governments have depressed tax collections. They are politically unwilling to raise taxes, are legally restrained from running deficits, so they spend less.
All that forgone spending would have been income (and new jobs) for someone else. That is why belt-tightening and eating-our-peas are the last things we need to do on the federal level right now. Like it or not, the federal government is the spender of last resort, and if we turn to austerity on a federal level, we will only make things worse.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)dawg
(10,777 posts)That set-off a vicious cycle of spending decreases that reduced demand elsewhere in the economy. Once job losses start, it creates a feedback loop that perpetuates the crisis. That's why Keynesian economists believe government should step in to temporarily stabilize demand until the private sector has had enough time to pay down it's debts to a manageable level.
The initial cause of a recession doesn't really matter. If nothing is done about it, the results actually become the cause of further job losses - and that's what we are seeing now.
fleur-de-lisa
(14,704 posts)That's the big question. Our infrastructure is crumbling, teachers, cops and firefighters have been laid off . . . all due to repuke obstructionism!
dawg
(10,777 posts)The federal government has done better. The stimulus, while too small, actually did make a difference. Extended unemployment benefits made a huge difference for the good. Even the extension of the Bush tax cuts was stimulative, although that money could have been deployed far more effectively.
librechik
(30,957 posts)to pump up their bottom lines. SINCE REAGAN it's a mark of success as a conservative. Keep the working man down. They and their unions only contribute to Democrats, you know. Why should they fund their own opposition?
It's a nice little circle jerk that is pushing the country off a cliff.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And the 99% are out of money. Many are deeply in debt.
Until they have money, the depression will continue. The only ways out are massive government spending, high inflation (so debts become smaller) or similar.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... because "sizing" is down. It's the endgame of Vulture Capitalism. Always.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)The dollar just doesn't buy what it used to, particularly when it comes to necessities. Can't spend what you don't have.
abumbyanyothername
(2,711 posts)Everybody is doing something.
And all of that something has value to at least someone.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)The rest of these thiings are a symptom of a very randian capitalism. It doesn't work, and can't work, because the happiest and most productive societies share the wealth.
The 40 hour work week was a norm because people figured out that it's the most productive; people who work more than that get less and less productive. By the time you work a sixty hour week, you spend more time correcting mistakes than the overtime is worth. The reason for that forty hour week wasn't to spread the jobs around; it was practical.
MrScorpio
(73,772 posts)Banks that won't free up credit.
Too much capital being hoarded by the very rich, which prevents it from being circulated.
Wasteful military spending.
Weak tax policy.
Government politicians that facilitate all the above and place the blame on the unemployed instead.
porphyrian
(18,530 posts)Direct cause - companies not hiring those who are unemployed.
Root cause - despite everyone wanting a simple answer, this is too complex a problem to reduce to a single cause. Empirically, however, the root cause has been shown NOT to be a lack of tax cuts for corporations and/or the rich.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)When it took one barrel of oil to produce 90, the last few generations went on a building (and breeding) spree. Now we have to maintain it, pay off debts, feed billions and have energy left over for growth (which provides jobs). There is no energy left over for growth. There never will be again, aside from some miraculous scientific innovation. Lets get over it already
abumbyanyothername
(2,711 posts)As a collective (world), the net debt = $0.
Other than that I agree with you.
Transition/Rob Hopkins.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Essentially I mean the proportion of available energy that is previously allocated due prior promises. Im not just talking about 'national debt'.
And no, those promises do not *have* to be honored. If the reality of our physical limits becomes abundantly clear, they will not be.
abumbyanyothername
(2,711 posts)the net debt is $0. Or 0kW. Or whatever.
Energy that has been used has been used.
The world would be far far better off with a debt cancellation mindset on all fronts.
Given where we are at today, and the resources available to us today, what is our best course for the future? That's pretty much all that matters. And I don't think that paying off debts is necessarily or even probably part of the best course for the future?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)That is a promise. An obligation. A debt that requires energy to fulfill now and in the future. When I say debt, Im not referring to the fiscalization of surplus (which has morphed into anything but). Im talking about tangible allocations of current and future energy that isn't being going to be used for substantial economic growth.
"Given where we are at today, and the resources available to us today, what is our best course for the future"
To abandon 'civilization' as a whole, adopt pantheism and convert immediately to a decentralized hunter-gatherer society.
But besides that, we are all pretty much screwed. Our glacier-fueled aquifers are near empty. Cheap oil is a thing of the past (we already scooped up the easy stuff made over millions of years of solar collection, burned in just a blink of the cosmic eye). The oceans are becoming acidic and our streams may be shot for producing salmon in 25 years. And we all know about the atmosphere. Its been a good ride, right? Not really.
The sooner we realize the unfeasability of not just growing, but even maintaining this over-leveraged civilizition, the sooner we can plan ahead and get about our lives. Of course, no empty suit is going to tell anyone the truth. Because of that, this is going to be one long miserable grinding halt we will witness over the next hundred years, while people still ask neo-classical economic questions about why systems fail to provide jobs for everyone.
abumbyanyothername
(2,711 posts)The transition movement acknowledges the need for radical relocalization and attempts to organize local groups to take baby steps in that direction . . . pretty much independent of what nations and world trade anchored corporations do about it.
Providing for the elderly within a localized economy is a lot easier than it is in the free-trade economy of today. By a long ways.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)But the mass majority of the world is most-concerned about two figureheads debating their own mythology of neo-classical economics, and which one can weave the most appealing fantasy. Their followers will have it miserably over the decline. Its the people willing to discard the crap that have a chance, but their numbers are few. Perhaps environmental conditions will change that. Its only conjecture really and anyone's guess on how people react to the facts of the situation when and if they can ever see them.
abumbyanyothername
(2,711 posts)if you are really concerned about these issues, organize a Transition Initiative near you. If you in West LA I will join you. If you are not, I will do my best to follow you over the internet.
No the major parties are not addressing transition at the nation level. But I am having serious transition discussions with a city council candidate for my district. (Whether he is a serious candidate or not is another question.)
Light a candle.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Welcome to DU
meow2u3
(25,250 posts)Those given incentives to hoard their money don't care about unemployment. It's the "I got mine, screw you" mentality.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)uncompetitive industries, economic recession and decreased productivity. Global economy, demand is sluggish almost everywhere, unemployment in Europe (EU-27) is at 11.4% (data from Eurostat).