Jump to content
270soft Forum

Joe Biden - the next Jimmy Carter


Recommended Posts

Biden giving away that stimulus money is going to be one of the critical errors of his presidency. We are back to the tax and spend approach of the Carter era.

 

When people realize they make more money sitting on their couches collecting unemployment/stimulus money than WORKING you see why we have:

- extraordinary misses in the jobs report

- sky-high job openings

- damaging inflation that is only getting worse by the day

 

 Really really bad. Tomorrow is a big day for inflation numbers, but read it in any media right or left, he has bungled the reopening. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anthony_270 said:

Rough few days for Biden, for sure.

It's only at whispers right now bc of how off the economists and media were w the job numbers and no one wants to dare legitimately criticize Biden right now. It will happen soon. 

 

The fact that Powell and Yellin are downplaying inflation is only making it worse. No one is buying it. 

 

He's had a nice honeymoon, but he will be judged his policies and they have been objectively awful. What looks good for approval numbers (at the time) is not what is best for the country as he is finding out..

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PoliticalPundit said:

Biden giving away that stimulus money is going to be one of the critical errors of his presidency. We are back to the tax and spend approach of the Carter era.

 

When people realize they make more money sitting on their couches collecting unemployment/stimulus money than WORKING you see why we have:

- extraordinary misses in the jobs report

- sky-high job openings

- damaging inflation that is only getting worse by the day

 

 Really really bad. Tomorrow is a big day for inflation numbers, but read it in any media right or left, he has bungled the reopening. 

Can you link me to a credible news source regarding Biden's "bad economy"? I've checked the front pages of TheHill, Fox, CNN, and I don't see any discussion of this. 

Also, people might want to work if they're paid more. Fortunately, a lot of companies are raising their wages to $15 an hour without government intervention. That will help. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

He and the vast majority of Americans have been saying a minimum wage increase is needed to incentivize people to work.  Trump campaigned on raising it in 2016, one of many campaign promises he neglected while in office.

266,000 new jobs isn't a bad number except in comparison to what the administration said they expected.  A market driven economy is inherently uncontrollable and unpredictable, despite the proclamations of whatever "man of systems" you listen to says to the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Can you link me to a credible news source regarding Biden's "bad economy"? I've checked the front pages of TheHill, Fox, CNN, and I don't see any discussion of this. 

Also, people might want to work if they're paid more. Fortunately, a lot of companies are raising their wages to $15 an hour without government intervention. That will help. 

I can link you to the jobs report, inflation numbers, job openings, and overheating economy. Time will show the affects of his policy changes and they've already begun.. 

 

Plenty of companies are now being forced to put in massive job incentives to attempt to bring people back to work. People just straight up don't want to work when it's easier to get paid to do nothing at home. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pilight said:

He and the vast majority of Americans have been saying a minimum wage increase is needed to incentivize people to work.  Trump campaigned on raising it in 2016, one of many campaign promises he neglected while in office.

266,000 new jobs isn't a bad number except in comparison to what the administration said they expected.  A market driven economy is inherently uncontrollable and unpredictable, despite the proclamations of whatever "man of systems" you listen to says to the contrary.

It wasn't just the administration, it was economists on both sides and everything flat out missed it by a LOT. 

 

I know this site is liberal, but you know it's bad when even whispers at the Times and CNN are saying it's because of his policy stimulus. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PoliticalPundit said:

I can link you to the jobs report, inflation numbers, job openings, and overheating economy. Time will show the affects of his policy changes and they've already begun.. 

 

Plenty of companies are now being forced to put in massive job incentives to attempt to bring people back to work. People just straight up don't want to work when it's easier to get paid to do nothing at home. 

I look forward to whatever data you can provide. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

So the inflation part and much of this seems to be possibly temporary (i.e. short term). I’d also say business offering bonuses and businesses to get workers is a GOOD thing. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I heard and read about the job report from a week or so ago but you seem to be talking about much more than that. 

absolutely, this is a warning based on the numbers we're all seeing. Lots of spin going on by the Biden administration but everyone sees it. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, vcczar said:

So the inflation part and much of this seems to be possibly temporary (i.e. short term). I’d also say business offering bonuses and businesses to get workers is a GOOD thing. 

temporary as in how long? This is going to go on for months at least till the fall if not the 4th quarter. And if the jobs numbers are bad next month too? Oh boy.

 

And the problem is the bonuses and etc ARE NOT WORKING. People would rather sit at home $300 a week till September then actually go out which is ruining virtually every aspect of pricing (as shown by the articles) and the economy. This was not in the plans when they did this, but Republicans have been saying this since the beginning what a bad idea it was...

 

 

 

Will also add the timing of this could not be any more suspicious w pipeline issues:

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/10/senior-cyber-official-leaves-nsc-486881

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

And the problem is the bonuses and etc ARE NOT WORKING. People would rather sit at home $300 a week till September then actually go out which is ruining virtually every aspect of pricing (as shown by the articles) and the economy. This was not in the plans when they did this, but Republicans have been saying this since the beginning what a bad idea it was...

Where is the data that places offering bonuses + benefits are not getting applicants?

On another note, do the math, why would someone sit at home for $300 a week ($15,600 a year) rather than work for more money, especially places offering bonuses and benefits? That doesn't make any sense, unless these people are perversely lazy. If they're perversely lazy, why would any company or any consumer want them working and doing a half-assed job? I'd rather pay them subsistence level ($300 a week) to stay home and not mess things up. However, I think most people want to make more than $15,600. You can't live off of that. For that reason, I don't think $300 a week is what is keeping people from working (or at least not that in itself). 

Some of these bonuses aren't going to be useful as most of them go to active employees that recruit a new worker. What would pull workers in is the promise of higher wages. Have you ever heard of the Texas franchise Buc-ee's? It's a huge gas station/convenient store chain, mostly outside of the Texas cities. This sign hangs in every one of their stores. They never have labor shortages. They aren't part of a union, so they can easily fire anyone that is incompetent or lazy, but they offer decent wages and benefits--a sign of respect and camaraderie with even their lowest level employees. All of their locations are spotless. The advertise the cleanest restaurooms, etc.  I think every business should follow suit. And this is Texas. I used to go to these regularly.: 

Buc-Ee's Texas Convenience Store Chain Displays Its Pay and Benefits 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vcczar said:

why would someone sit at home for $300 a week ($15,600 a year)

Working minimum wage = $600 per week. If you get $300 per week if not working anyways, then you are effectively working for an additional $300 per week, i.e., $7.50 per hour, half of minimum wage.

Note that if you're not working, you can be doing all sorts of other things. For some, it might make more sense to take the $300 and invest their time in something else.

People can live off $15,600 per year. Consider if 3 people do this and share an apartment. In many places, that's more than enough for rent + food + etc.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, vcczar said:

Where is the data that places offering bonuses + benefits are not getting applicants?

On another note, do the math, why would someone sit at home for $300 a week ($15,600 a year) rather than work for more money, especially places offering bonuses and benefits? That doesn't make any sense, unless these people are perversely lazy. If they're perversely lazy, why would any company or any consumer want them working and doing a half-assed job? I'd rather pay them subsistence level ($300 a week) to stay home and not mess things up. However, I think most people want to make more than $15,600. You can't live off of that. For that reason, I don't think $300 a week is what is keeping people from working (or at least not that in itself). 

Some of these bonuses aren't going to be useful as most of them go to active employees that recruit a new worker. What would pull workers in is the promise of higher wages. Have you ever heard of the Texas franchise Buc-ee's? It's a huge gas station/convenient store chain, mostly outside of the Texas cities. This sign hangs in every one of their stores. They never have labor shortages. They aren't part of a union, so they can easily fire anyone that is incompetent or lazy, but they offer decent wages and benefits--a sign of respect and camaraderie with even their lowest level employees. All of their locations are spotless. The advertise the cleanest restaurooms, etc.  I think every business should follow suit. And this is Texas. I used to go to these regularly.: 

Buc-Ee's Texas Convenience Store Chain Displays Its Pay and Benefits 

What newspapers or reporting do you read? The REASON Chipotle, Uber, are offering these insane benefits is bc of LACK of employees and that's why inflation today is at sky high levels. They don't just do it "because", they do it for survival. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anthony_270 said:

Working minimum wage = $600 per week. If you get $300 per week if not working anyways, then you are effectively working for an additional $300 per week, i.e., $7.50 per hour, half of minimum wage.

Note that if you're not working, you can be doing all sorts of other things. For some, it might make more sense to take the $300 and invest their time in something else.

People can live off $15,600 per year. Consider if 3 people do this and share an apartment. In many places, that's more than enough for rent + food + etc.

Exactly. Having these go till September is absolutely ridiculous. I understand a few months, but at the point you're able to get vaccinated it needs to stop. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PoliticalPundit said:

What newspapers or reporting do you read?

TheHill, Politico, Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, RealClearPolitics, BuzzFeed, Forbes, Huffington Post, Reuters. Basically, the major ones. I avoid the ones that promote conspiracy theories like OANN and InfoWars and crap like that. 

3 hours ago, Anthony_270 said:

Working minimum wage = $600 per week. If you get $300 per week if not working anyways, then you are effectively working for an additional $300 per week, i.e., $7.50 per hour, half of minimum wage.

Note that if you're not working, you can be doing all sorts of other things. For some, it might make more sense to take the $300 and invest their time in something else.

People can live off $15,600 per year. Consider if 3 people do this and share an apartment. In many places, that's more than enough for rent + food + etc.

Maybe in small towns and rural areas. You can't live off that, even with three people, in most cities unless you have a rent-subsidized apartment or cheap government housing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, vcczar said:

TheHill, Politico, Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, RealClearPolitics, BuzzFeed, Forbes, Huffington Post, Reuters. Basically, the major ones. I avoid the ones that promote conspiracy theories like OANN and InfoWars and crap like that. 

Maybe in small towns and rural areas. You can't live off that, even with three people, in most cities unless you have a rent-subsidized apartment or cheap government housing. 

Politico, TheHill, Reuters Forbes have all been taking about this for weeks.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

TheHill, Politico, Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, RealClearPolitics, BuzzFeed, Forbes, Huffington Post, Reuters. Basically, the major ones. I avoid the ones that promote conspiracy theories like OANN and InfoWars and crap like that. 

Maybe in small towns and rural areas. You can't live off that, even with three people, in most cities unless you have a rent-subsidized apartment or cheap government housing. 

You're certainly right that in more expensive markets, it's a no go without subsidized apartments or what have you (which, of course, includes many apartments). But not sure where you're getting your numbers on this.

According to here 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1063502/average-monthly-apartment-rent-usa/#statisticContainer

average for 3 bdr is $1,284 = $428 per month per renter. That means half of the rents are less than this per person. Totally doable on $1,300 per month per person for a large part of the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

TheHill, Politico, Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, RealClearPolitics, BuzzFeed, Forbes, Huffington Post, Reuters. Basically, the major ones. I avoid the ones that promote conspiracy theories like

Many of those news outlets promote conspiracy theories, like "Trump won the 2016 election by conspiring with Russia." In fact, it's quite common that they promote conspiracy theories related to Trump.

(It also doesn't mean the conspiracy theories are incorrect.)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anthony_270 said:

@vcczar Which conspiracy theories has OANN been promoting?

General pro-Trump conspiracy theories, murder of Seth Rich, David Hogg conspiracy theory, Jack Posobiec conspiracy theory, COVID-19 conspiracy theories, and lots of other false claims and misinformation. 

You can see all sort of them in the reference section at the bottom of the OANNs wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_America_News_Network . It's quite an embarrassing news outlet.

1 hour ago, Anthony_270 said:

You're certainly right that in more expensive markets, it's a no go without subsidized apartments or what have you (which, of course, includes many apartments). But not sure where you're getting your numbers on this.

According to here 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1063502/average-monthly-apartment-rent-usa/#statisticContainer

average for 3 bdr is $1,284 = $428 per month per renter. That means half of the rents are less than this per person. Totally doable on $1,300 per month per person for a large part of the country.

That could be the case, depending on expenses. Expenses in the city are often much higher -- gas (or public transportation), energy bills, internet/cable bills, healthcare, food, etc., etc., etc..  

When I lived in San Marcos, TX in 2001, all of my expenses amounted to about $500 a month. At that time, $1,300 would have meant I was saving money. By 2008, when I moved to NYC, the costs rose to where I was paying $1,000 a month for all expenses. Still would save money. When I moved back to San Marcos, briefly in 2013, all my expenses were about $1,500 month, which would be below your threshold. And this is a small town of 70,000 people equidistant between Austin and San Antonio. 

In NYC and Philadelphia, living off $1,300 is impossible unless you're living in a very cheap rent-subsidized apartment or in government housing. 

I'm sure rural and sub-rural communities in the Deep South, Upper South, Great Plains, and Mountain States benefit the most from $1,300. I can't imagine--with very notable exceptions--that $1,300 would be livable in any region outside of these areas. I don't think Minimum Wage is close to livable for most of the US. About 43% of minimum wage workers are younger than 24 and presumably might live at home with family, however. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

General pro-Trump conspiracy theories

Sounds like they've got the pro-Trump conspiracy theories covered, CNN has the anti-Trump ones covered!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

About 43% of minimum wage workers are younger than 24 and presumably might live at home with family, however. 

Yes, a lot of them are going to be either living at home or renting a room in a house or apartment, such that rent costs are lower than for many other people. Again, the average number cited above while renting a room in a 3-bdrm apartment seems completely doable on $1300 a month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...