Homelessness grows as more live check-to-check

USA Today ^ | 8/12/03 | Stephanie Armour

[Gothmog]

Homelessness in major cities is escalating as more laid-off workers already living paycheck-to-paycheck wind up on the streets or in shelters.

As Americans file for bankruptcy in record numbers and credit card debt explodes, more workers are a paycheck away from losing their homes. Now the frail economy is pushing them over the edge. With 9 million unemployed workers in July, the face of homelessness is changing to include more families shaken by joblessness.

[Conservative til I die]

It's from the "For Dummies" series. "Online Job Searching for Dummies." I picked it up on a whim at a discount book outlet for like $4. A lot of it I didn't need, like how to format emails and what the big job engines are, but if you're dad's not been out of work in the digital age, he might find it even more useful than I did. The meatiest parts are on how to tailor and target resumes and cover letters when searching online, compared to the tradiditional offline methods.

[BMiles2112]

Thanks. To add to the idea that tariffs are a means to fund gov't, not to "protect jobs and wages", I would be all for a relatively steep, across the board tariff on ALL imported goods, if it meant a matching reduction in our income tax. (By reduction, I mean elimination) This would fund gov't and protect jobs and wages, not directly due to the tariffs, but because the overall operating costs would decline for US businesses.

[AlBondigas]

to your list I would add a tariff based on the differential for REGULATORY COMPLIANCE (OSHA, EPA, etc) between U.S. and the exporting country.

[Conservative til I die]

One correction though, I didn't voluntarily go down to the local labor office. They make you come down and get oriented (more to prove you exist IMO, since everything is filed and applied for online or on the telephone with unemployment now). They offer services and state that they're going to look for work for you, althought they do let you opt out of them helping you.

But yeah, I totally agree with you on computers. You gotta know the basics. Word, Outlook, maybe Excel. PowerPoint is helpful. 90% of people can get by without Access. But Word, Outlook, and Excel definitely.

[DugwayDuke]

To add to the idea that tariffs are a means to fund gov't, not to "protect jobs and wages", I would be all for a relatively steep, across the board tariff on ALL imported goods, if it meant a matching reduction in our income tax."

Never happen because the politicians realize that tariffs are an unreliable way to fund government compared to income taxes. No matter how high they raise income taxes, you still have to work. But, tariffs can be avoided by switching sources.

But the main reason's I don't like tariffs are I'm afraid we'd get stuck with both tariffs and income taxes and we'd also get stuck with inferior domestic products. I've seen what stiff competition from the Japanese have done for the quality, cost, and performance of everything from automobiles to electronics. Tariffs stiffle that kind of competition and ultimately hurt the consumer.

[DugwayDuke]

"Actually, they affect everything like it affects everyone else, I am just not looking to fill my pockets as fast as the rest are, I would rather do the long term thing, not the short term mistake."

That doesn't answer the question of whether your family businesses would benefit from protective tariffs at the expense of other businesses and consumers.

[Tokhtamish]

The vital point you seem incapable of grasping is that the Japan of the 1980's was not the Japan of the 1930's. It was not an ambitious rival power dreaming of one day being a superpower. Like China is now.

Allowing American manufacturing to flow to China, subordinating our long term national security to shareholder equity is stupid.

[BMiles2112]

After a quick review, I can't say I disagree with you on much of this.
#1.Our gov't shouldn't subsidize anything (farmers included).
#2. Don't agree. If France wants to subsidize Airbus, (pay us to use their services), that's fine. It hurts Boeing, but helps everyone else who's flying Airbus at France's expense. (I think France owns them??)
Slave conditions for workers? Depends on what you mean. If they are actual slaves, we shouldn't buy from them. Period. If they are voluntarily going to work in poor conditions, I don't agree with you.
#3. If our nat'l security is truly at stake, tariffs are fine.
#4. Agreed
#5. Agree with the idea of no corporate tax and only employing Americans/legal immigrants.
#6-10. Agreed

[Tokhtamish]

Sure. Learn new skills. Like the spanking new Visual Basic programmers who are being turned out by technical schools looking for jobs that don't exist.

You see, given pervasive unemployment there will be lots of experienced people out of work in any given field. And experience is to be preferred over any certification. That is what college graduates now are discovering

[holdmuhbeer]

So you don't have a solution for the trade deficit? You'd rather continue to buy all our stuff from foreign countries and manufacture nothing? No need to get nasty just asking a question.

[BMiles2112]

Never happen because the politicians realize that tariffs are an unreliable way to fund government compared to income taxes. No matter how high they raise income taxes, you still have to work. But, tariffs can be avoided by switching sources.
I know, but it would be nice.

You're right about the last part. American automobile quality SUCKED compared to what the Japanese brought in with the CVCC and others. American auto quality has been improving ever since and in some cases is aproaching the reliability of the "foreigns" (quotes because they are mostly built in the US now.) The big winners have been everyone who owns a vehicle.

[harpseal]

#2. Don't agree. If France wants to subsidize Airbus, (pay us to use their services), that's fine. It hurts Boeing, but helps everyone else who's flying Airbus at France's expense. (I think France owns them??) Slave conditions for workers? Depends on what you mean. If they are actual slaves, we shouldn't buy from them. Period. If they are voluntarily going to work in poor conditions, I don't agree with you. #3. If our nat'l security is truly at stake, tariffs are fine. #4. Agreed #5. Agree with the idea of no corporate tax and only employing Americans/legal immigrants. #6-10. Agreed

Since the most that can be said against tariffs are they do not hurt the American economy and the sucsidy of airbus does hurt Americans by cutting both overseas sales and American sales the little bit of French German subsidy to American air travelers does nothing to make up for the harm it does the rest of us by limiting economic activity. I would have no problem with a 50% revenue tariff deswigned to cut income and payroll taxes.

[harpseal]

But the main reason's I don't like tariffs are I'm afraid we'd get stuck with both tariffs and income taxes and we'd also get stuck with inferior domestic products. I've seen what stiff competition from the Japanese have done for the quality, cost, and performance of everything from automobiles to electronics. Tariffs stiffle that kind of competition and ultimately hurt the consumer.

Somne evidence for your concern. I have yet to see any proof of any harm from tariffs. the most anyone has been able to offer so far is that whentariffs were removed the industry suffered no ill effects. Tariffs are clearly Constritutional including protective tariffs.

I love the fact that a so called conservative is defending the icome tax over tariffs.

[jjm2111]

Then why learn VB in the first place? I agree that we shouldn't be farming out jobs overseas when Americans are unemployed at home, but in the long run, survival is up to the individual.

Why are some people always employed? They have skills that are in demand. They recognize changes in the job field as they are happening and adapt. They don't just rest on their laurels and bitch about their cost-of-living increases.

Just like business owners, employees should look to do things that make a company profitable. Not everyone can sell, but the office manager who makes sure the place is ALWAYS humming will never want for work. Same thing with the line supervisor that is on top of every problem.

[Chances Are]

So in essence you're saying that markets everywhere have collapsed, that supply has exceeded demand by an unknown exponent, and that we're all just fried, so why bother showing up?

There's no chance this economy can rebound. Them darn Asians and Injuns have taken away all the programming jobs, and all the manufacturing jobs, and we're now closing in rapidly on 100% unemployment, all because Bush won't listen!

And let's not forget that back in '80, that depression was Reagan's fault, too, and we all know how that one turned out!

And futhermore, this is new homelessness, which is only occurs during Republican administrations. I know this, 'cuz you said so, and the national press says so, too. So it must be true! Ain't no truth to the argument that this homelessness stuff has been around for decades. So there.

All this stuff about an "improving economy" is all just smoke and mirrors. Personal grit, hard work, and common sense no longer apply, and have no effect, because the sky is falling! This economy cannot make adjustments to new "realities" 'cuz guys like you can't see them. So there.

For me, I see only one option - stick my head up my ass and hope for the best, i.e., a Democratic win next year. Yeah, that's the ticket. They'll listen; they always have, haven't they? They create jobs, good jobs, high paying jobs; they always have, haven't they?

And then about this silly globaliztion thing - they're gonna put a stop to that, too, aren't they? They'll see the wisdom of tarrifs, buy American programs, reinstalling the industrial base, won't they? Of course they will; they always have, haven't they?

And finally, we have to address the awful stories going around that this economy is in a mess 'cuz of failed policies in the past. Now, that just ain't true, trust me. Our highly esteemed X42 gave this country a whole lot. Ask Monica - she'll back me up on this!

--------------------------------------

The simple fact of the matter is, Bush inherited an awful mess. Time and effort must be expended to reverse, if possible, the damage done in the previous 12 years. He was not ably assisted by one Alan Greenspan. He is not ably assisted by the "loyal opposition". He is not even being well served by some members of his own party.

Economies always run in a "lag" mode. It takes time for changes to filter through the system, and it takes time to wring excess from a over-extended situation.

With all due respect, there is no other economy in the world that is better suited to make adjustments than this one. Even with all the government intervention we have today, this is true.

The end of the world has been preached since, well, the beginning of the world. And to the best of my knowledge, the business cycle still exists. It cannot be legislated out of existence, and there is nothing - nothing! - that the Chinese or the Indians or anyone else can do about it.

And what's this stuff about "the wrong side of history"? You think Bush is on the wrong side of history? If you knew anything about business cycles, anything about demograhics, anything about history, you'd at least be aware that this economy will come back, and when it does, it will do so in spades. It's composition may develop into a landscape you can't see or recognize now, but it'll be there, and it will deliver the goods. The only constant is change. Remember that.

It is a common perception among average people that the current situation will last into at least the forseeable future, if not forever. When times are good, well, that's how it is, and that's how it's going to be for a loooong time. And when times go bad, then, shoot, that's how it's gonna be for years, maybe decades, maybe forever! We'll never snap out of this.

Most people out there have a short attention span, and an even shorter memory. This is the condition that seems to afflict you.

Let me just say this: If we fail and go down, everyone else is going down with us! Everyone. And all this small talk we're now making won't amount to a hill of beans.

That's my take...

CA....

[DugwayDuke]

"The vital point you seem incapable of grasping is that the Japan of the 1980's was not the Japan of the 1930's. It was not an ambitious rival power dreaming of one day being a superpower. Like China is now."

Really, Japan had no ambitions of being a superpower? They had the fastest growing economy in the world.

[Gothmog]

I apologize, I did not intend my answer to come across as nasty. My point to you is: prove how having a trade deficit is necessarily a bad thing. The US has had trade deficits for decades, yet we have also had the best economy in the world (whether the US economy is up or down) for most of that time as well.

Regardless of the trade deficit, the US has created more jobs than it has ever lost, and most importantly -- prospered. By whatever yardstrick you use, the standard of living in the US is better than anywhere else -- regardless of the trade deficit.

I'm not an economics history buff, so could you provide a comparison of countries that addressed a trade deficit (in the manner of your choosing -- raised tariffs, lowered them, whatever). What happened to their trade deficits and what happened to their economy?

Your pet issue might be to focus on trade deficits, but until you specify exactly what your problem is I'm not going to waste my time solving what you percieve to be a problem.

I'll tell you what, here's an honest solution to solve your problem with the US trade deficit. Raise tariffs to whatever corporations and labor unions want. Then US corporations will be able to simply keep raising the price of their goods without ever having to improve efficiency.

Overall, this will help some rich fat cats and labor goons while the ordinary joe and jane have to get along with paying more for inferior products.

Soon, almost everyone but the wealthy and the political powerful will be worse off -- but the trade deficit will be solved. That's your goal, right?

[MeekOneGOP]

Good job with that Davis (lack o') Energy ...

[Alouette]

The worst unemployment I ever experienced in my career was when GM had a "night of the long knives" and laid of gazillions of workers, starting with Roger Smith, the CEO. Middle management came next, then us lowly tech workers.

I couldn't find another job for three years. That was from 1992-1995. Who was in the White House then?

[DugwayDuke]

"Somne evidence for your concern. I have yet to see any proof of any harm from tariffs. the most anyone has been able to offer so far is that whentariffs were removed the industry suffered no ill effects. Tariffs are clearly Constritutional including protective tariffs."

No harm from tariffs? How can you logically say that? If the purpose of tariffs is to raise the cost of imported goods to that of domestically produced goods then anyone who buys imported products will be hurt.

"I love the fact that a so called conservative is defending the icome tax over tariffs."

My point was that I don't think it will be a choice between income taxes or tariffs. We'll get both, now tell me what's conservative about that?