Housing Rescue Plan: For Some or For All?
Vague reports about the Obama administration’s plan in the works to help people in danger of losing their houses are starting to surface. Whether it ends up with the government subsidizing monthly payments or modifying the loans themselves, the big question, it seems to us, is whether the ultimate solution should address only those in…
Vague reports about the Obama administration’s plan in the works to help people in danger of losing their houses are starting to surface. Whether it ends up with the government subsidizing monthly payments or modifying the loans themselves, the big question, it seems to us, is whether the ultimate solution should address only those in immediate trouble or be an across-the-board relief measure. On the one hand, even if you’ve been playing by the rules and aren’t directly benefiting from a homeowner bailout, it’s still in the interest of your own property value to see fewer foreclosures and empty houses in your neighborhood; on the other hand, why should only the irresponsible and the unlucky get hand-outs? Tough stuff.
The bail out money used toward housing shall be used to help 1st time owners or people owning 2 properties max. Whoever owns more than 2 properties shall be considered a speculator, and shall not be helped, Period!
The bail out money used toward housing shall be used to help 1st time owners or people owning 2 properties max. Whoever owns more than 2 properties shall be considered a speculator, and shall not be helped! Period!
anything beyond the bold headlines is beyond the likes of dibs, 11217 et al…
Please do not forget to mention that once your unemployment benefits run out. ( 14 weeks=6 months) You are no longer considered unemployed but unelligible for more benefits. Considering we started losing jobs a year ago 8 percent unemployment is a pretty optimistic number.
Not sure what I’ve said here, or anywhere else, warrants that kind of response – unless it’s in your nature to fling insults at anyone that disagrees with you. If that’s the case, then “dew lay lo mo chow hiy lay been tiy see fat gwai”.
Now we’ve got the name calling out of the way, let’s have a rational debate.
Yes, the above blog was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek look at the reported v actual unemployment statistics – but it doesn’t mean that it’s wrong.
Let’s go to a more “reputable” site then – the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I’m not going to go into the inherent weaknesses in the calculation of the number. I’ll just use the numbers that they report and go from there:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
page 14. Jan 09
Civilian noninstitutional population 234,739k (1)
Civilian labour force 153,445k (2)
Participation rate (1 / 2) 65.4%
Employed 140,436k
Unemployed 13,009k (3)
Unemployment rate (3 / 2) 8.5%
Not in labour force (1 – 2) 81,293k
from page 12.
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of
the following criteria: They had no employment during the
reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime
during the 4-week period ending with the reference week.
Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The
unemployment data derived from the household survey in no
way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of
unemployment insurance benefits.
Two things to point out here. An 8.5% unemployment rate does not mean that we have 91.5% employment rate. From these statistics, at best the employment rate of the adult population is 60% (140,436k / 234,739k). This is overly dramatic because it also includes all manner of people that it is reasonable to exclude; eg college students, wealthy retired, disabled persons, etc.
The second thing to highlight is that it’s not that easy to get included in the unemployed statistics (which is the point my previous link made). If you did any work at all in the week then you are not counted as unemployed. If you got laid off because business is quiet but the boss says he’ll call you back when it gets busier then you’re not unemployed.
Tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber and their armchair economic analysis. Hey chicken shit….that website looks really reputable.
Two dumbasses, both pretty clueless ones at that.
DIBS is not retarded – but I do think his analysis is biased through some vested interests somewhere.
It really brings down the tone of a discussion when name-calling, however instigated, enters it.
“I love that Dave thinks that “93 % of the population is still employed.” Dave, is that according to U3 or U6?”
I bring up quotes from dibs on a daily basis, each showing how much of a retard dibs is
“We are not in a Depression, Asshat. Maybe it feels like one to you but 93% of the population is still employed.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 13, 2009 11:31 AM”
“Whuh…I subtracted the unemployment rate from 100. It may not be precise but its a close enough approximation.
U Dumbass
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 13, 2009 3:02 PM”
Sorry Dave but you’re not even close.
http://www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/unemploymentratemint2.jpg