Go here to see a list of the misfortunes hitting young workers in the ObamEconomy.
Sad, isn't it? And research suggests that the longer you go without that first job, the more you'll exponentially fall behind those who were able to get a job.
But I have an idea....
Let's make it illegal to pay workers less than a certain dollar amount per hour. That way, there will be more earned money in circulation, the workers will have more to spend and it'll help the economy, and greedy corporations won't be able to "exploit" young workers by paying them less than the amount that I think is appropriate.
All but Geithner have now resigned, probably because the populace is about to figure out the con game that Orszag, Romer, Summers, Geithner, and Bernstein have pulled on them.
These jokers backed some semi-trailers up to the Treasury and looted the place. In a less sheep-like society, the mobs with tar and feathers would've already surrounded their homes.
One member of this crew, Larry Summers, has taken to the pages of The Washington Post to try to justify another couple of decades of looting. His article is called The Reality Of Trying To Shrink Government.
Summers says that we won't be shrinking the size of government, or our debt, anytime soon. Here's a summary of his argument:
1) We're living longer than the brain trust that invented Social Security anticipated. In the near future, the number of people on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is going to explode. (Everyone has seen this coming, but nobody has done anything about it. This is a good case for smaller government.)
2) The interest on the national debt is far bigger than anticipated. It's going to consume 3.2% of our GDP by the year 2020. (Everyone has seen this coming, but nobody has done anything about it. This is a good case for smaller government.)
3) Here's the funny one, the one where Summers goes Full Obama Retard on us. Things that government purchases cost more than things that the private sector purchases !!! Here's a terrifying glimpse into the mind of a Statist:
Third, increases in the price of what the federal government buys relative to what the private sector buys will inevitably raise the cost of state involvement in the economy. Since the early 1980s the price of hospital care and higher education has risen fivefold relative to the price of cars and clothing, and more than a hundredfold relative to the price of televisions. Similarly, the complexity, and hence the cost, of everything from scientific research to regulating banks rises faster than overall inflation. These shifts reflect long-running trends in globalization and technology. If government is to continue providing the same level of these services, government spending as a share of the economy has to rise, by at least 3 percent of GDP.
It's almost impossible to write something that stupid without having gone to an Ivy League University for practice.
Do you know why the price of TV's and clothing has dropped like a stone, while the price of healthcare and education has gone into the stratosphere?
It's because TV and T-shirts are relatively unregulated, and the government, for the most part, stays out of the TV and T-shirt industries. Jesus Christ Almighty, get a freakin' clue !! Read some Milton Friedman or some Thomas Sowell or some Henry Hazlitt, or any other reality-based economist. Subsidies and regulations drive up prices. Prices are high for healthcare and education BECAUSE the government helps pay for them. (Everyone has seen this coming, but nobody has done anything about it. This is a good case for smaller government.)
Summers goes on to make a few other lame points. (The one about how we can't reduce defense spending is also a real knee-slapper. We're responsible for 45% of the world's defense spending.)
That's all he had to say.
Anyone who finished middle school could go into D.C. and cut the staff and the spending by 50% with no loss of services that wouldn't immediately be taken over by the private sector at a much lower cost.
Read his whole article. Or Stephen King's Pet Sematary. They're equally scary.
WASHINGTON – The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus, making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion in recovery money.
No serious economist takes the "jobs created or saved" chant seriously. It's an impossible number to know. Money is taken from the public, or their unborn grandchildren in this case, and thrown out there with other money. Taking the money away from you costs jobs in the areas where you would've preferred to spend it. But once it's stolen from you, the money doesn't stay segregated in the stash of the recipient. There is no way to tell how many jobs were created or saved because of the wealth transfer.
I think this is the Obama administrations way of saying "we're not gonna just let people make this shit up any more. We're going to invent a consistent bullshit formula. If you got money from us, and you're paying employees, then money given = jobs saved."
Despite mounting a vigorous defense of its earlier count of more than 640,000 jobs credited to the stimulus, even after numerous errors were identified, the Obama administration now is making it easier to give the stimulus credit for hiring. It's no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it's a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus.
Ok, take the dollars given to your hypothetical company in kickbacks stimulus. Deduct the amount you gave in bribes campaign contributions. Divide the remainder by the average hourly rate at your company. That's how many hours of work you can pay for with that money. Multiply that by 2080, the number of hours in a year, assuming a 40 hour work week. There's your jobs "saved" in Obamathematics.
So if your company got a million dollar kickback stimulus check in exchange for a $5,000.00 bribe campaign donation, the math would look like this: A $1,000,000.00 government check minus a $5,000.00 donation divided by $20.000 per hour average rate, divided by 2080 hours in a year equals 23.91 jobs created or saved for the year.
Brilliant economic thinking. Brilliant. You just throw a million bucks into the pile, and you can claim that it "created or saved" a million dollars worth of jobs. And if you think THAT doesn't make a lick of sense, read the next paragraph:
That means that any stimulus money used to cover payroll will be included in the jobs credited to the program, including pay raises for existing employees and pay for people who never were in jeopardy of losing their positions.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt jumping up and down on a Keynesian pogo stick in Jimmy Carter's stagflation peanut patch, what a bunch of Geithner guano. Let's say that you have 32 neighbors on your block, and each family, including yours, pays $33,333.00 in taxes each year. That's 33 families each paying $33,333.00 to equal that $1,000.000.00 in question.
What were you and the other 32 families going to do with that million dollars if the government hadn't taken it? Were you going to leave it under your mattress? Were you going to burn it? Were you going to give it to Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's ex-pollster, who got six million porkulus dollars to help publicize the switch from analog to digital?
Hell no. You were going to spend it on clothes, food, a guitar amp, a dachshund sterilization program, Jim Beam, washing the truck, a vacation trip to watch them film "Stossel", a new laptop, or (God help us all) college tuition. That million dollars, divided by the average hourly rate at Wal-Mart (clothing), Big Rodrigo's House O' Grease (food), Guitar Center, the veterinarian, the Jim Beam distillery, the car wash, Stossel's film crew, Dell, or (God help us all) Texas A&M University - this would've paid all the people that you chose to pay. Not the people that Barry, Nancy and Harry want to pay.
That's what this is about. The choice is taken from you, and given to them. (But why do so many stimulus supporters call themselves "Pro Choice" on other issues?)
The money in this utterly ludicrous system is taken from your job-funding programs and given to theirs. And when you do look at the growth of companies Nuzzling On The Nurturing Obamabreast, but deduct the job LOSSES at the places where you would've preferred to spend the money, then deduct the amount government keeps for itself, you're looking at a net job loss. It really is that simple.
You could be doing things with the ridiculous amount of money being taken from you. You are the best judge of the best companies and the best jobs to support with your money.
