We're Sorry, 8% Permanent Unemployment is not Acceptable!

Imagine my disgust at this headline: New Normal of 2% GDP Growth where experts are claiming America just had to get used to it with permanent 8% unemployment numbers.

Americans may have to get used to unemployment greater than 8 percent for the first time since 1983 and an economy that won’t grow much beyond 2 percent as a consequence of the lost confidence in consumer credit that shattered financial markets.

Who is saying this? Pimco, the biggest bond trader and it's co-founder, Bill Gross, who is becoming more powerful by the day.

I'm sorry Pimco but that is unacceptable and we really do not care what full employment does to your portfolio.

Read the article, they go on whining about $200 dollar handbags, uh we're sorry, the United States must tackle global labor arbitrage and start enacting policies to support, promote and strengthen the U.S. labor force. We ain't buyin' no $200 handbags here, we're trying to pay the rent!

Subject Meta: 

Forum Categories: 

This would require a serious reduction in the

standard of living. It seems we are heading in that direction anyway.

I wish and hope people will reject this consumer based economy and start really saving and continue deleveraging.

You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.

there is std. of living and then there is income period

What they are talking about is no job period. Not some poverty level wage or anything....so this means our homeless will dramatically increase for without income, people plain cannot pay the rent, even when that rent is reduced.

You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.

Are policy makers at all concerned with

the implications of this "race to the bottom"? This idea of trickle down economics has been totally destroyed so what is left - "survival of the fittest". That would be very ugly.

You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.

Policy Makers

Are the ones actively creating the "race to the bottom"- and have been ever since they decided in the late 1960s to start worrying about the "standard of living gap" between the first and third world.

Of course, they sold it to us that they'd be raising up the third world, not tearing us down, but most intelligent people realized sometime in the late 1990s/early 2000s that both sides would have to give.

One smart man whom I voted for instead of Bill Clinton in my first Presidential election saw it coming- and even as a part of his campaign put on half-hour infomercials about it back in 1992- but 84% of America thought he was nuts and didn't vote for him.

Executive compensation is inversely proportional to morality and ethics.

You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.

Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.

But the target is ensuring slack labor markets ...

... to ensure no growth in real wages across the board, so that productivity growth can continue to be captured for profit income.

Its even more critical for the Reagan political economy now that the "smartest men in the room" lost trillions of dollars in paper wealth and more cream for the skimming.

You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.