Is high unemployment part of the Republican agenda?

[heidler1]

Thus getting more people to join the National Guard or other military service.

Thus getting payback loyalty from those who enlist for job creation.

Thus enabling the Republicans to inject patriotism into the elections, criticism, and all complaints about the use of these poor guys that are being put in harms way.

Thus demanding hero status for their stooges.

Thus more loyalty at the voting booth that reaches out to the parents of the guys being shot at.

Have any of you read Phillip Wylie's "Generation of Vipers" written about 1950? He thought even Mothers were happy and proud to allow this game to continue with their blessing.

[AllegroRondo]

1. I think its more about cheap labor

high unemployment keeps labor costs low and unions weak. which is good for big business.

[heidler1]

18. Yes that is the standard agenda, but I would like the other insidious

Reasons behind the Republicans agenda to be known. It really pisses me off that they have been getting by with all this shit for so long. Especially their pretence of patriotism. Actually they have even managed to cloak their pure selfishness in the pretence of religion also. When will we wake up?

If you look at Iraq, their religious leaders and political leaders are pulling the same shit in regard to their up coming election, No thought of peace.

[Quill Pen]

24. High unemployment also

...results in increased crime, as people become desperate. Increased crime inspires fear. And we all know how important fear is as a motivational tool with this administration.

[zann725]

38. And that's why they emphasize Religion...

to sedate the Masses when they have little else.

[snippy]

25. Cheap labor has always been a fundamental principle to republicans.

Prior to New Deal labor laws republicans wanted full and cheap employment. Now they want enough unemployment to prevent free market competition in the labor market causing wages and salaries to increase. But if they could repeal the minimum wage and overtime laws and outlaw collective bargaining, republicans would again favor full employment.

[AllegroRondo]

44. Is this why Bush is doing little about illegal immigration?

and the whole "guest worker" thing

[Cronus Protagonist]

36. You got it. It's ALL about cheap labor.

All economic "principles" of Republican business ideology rests on the foundation of cheap labor. Business will move to the cheapest labor source, which is what globalization and the WMF is all about.

Job outsourced? You should work for less money. A lot less.




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[LisaM]

2. YES - it also helps the big corporations

It means they can pay less for workers and systematically disable all workers' rights.

[laheina]

11. And the masses of desperate, cheap labor

will make it seem like the cheap-labor conservatives are being benevolent to the workers, when they kill that evil minimum wage.

[mhr]

3. Thus Higher Profits By Lowering Wages And Outsourcing Jobs

eom

[Radical Activist]

4. Yes, but for more reasons than that

High unemployment means people are desperate for jobs. That means they will work for less money and corporations will be able to cut labor costs. High unemployment also makes it easier to bust unions and deny benefits because people are desperate to keep any job they have. High unemployment works to the advantage of big corporations, so yes that is part of the Republican agenda.

[mcscajun]

15. And that's the heart of the matter...

...the additional, semi-eager supply of cannon fodder is simply a side-benefit.

[LiberalFighter]

16. How about helping out mortgage companies by...

foreclosing on homeowners without jobs

[Radical Activist]

17. and the credit card industry

it helps them a lot too. Republicans like to reward hard work so they want to help bankers who sit on their ass all day and collect credit card interest from people struggling to get by.

[welshTerrier2]

20. i don't agree with this ...

while i appreciate your sentiment and couldn't have greater disdain for banks and mortgage companies, i don't think foreclosures are seen as beneficial to companies in those industries ...

i believe if a foreclosure occurs, the proceeds go first to pay off the mortgage and any excess then goes back to the borrower ... the result is that the bank (or mortgage company) then loses interest it would have earned had the loan remained open ... they may be inflexible jackasses for foreclosing in the first place, but i don't think they consider an increase in foreclosures as good for business ...

[housewolf]

27. Foreclosures

The thing is, many mortgages are federally insured by Fanae Mae or Freddie Mac. Any borrower who is paying for mortgage insurance has their mortgage insured by these institutions.

That means that when a borrower defaults on ae mortgage and the bank has to foreclose, two things happen.

First, the insurer (Fanae Mae) steps in and covers the mortgage.

Second, the bank takes possession of the property and tries to sell it. As you stated, excess proceeds, if any, are given to the borrower.

But basically banks are covered and that is why they'll sell homes on the courthouse steps to the top bidder.

I agree with you that banks don't really want to be in the business of holding and selling real estate. It is not their primary business and they prefer more liquid assets and they would prefer to have the long-terms interest payments. Owning a lot of foreclosed property is not an advantage to banks.

[welshTerrier2]

29. thanks for the added info ...

and welcome to DU, housewolf !!

[gaia_gardener]

33. I'm not sure I'm understanding your post

I worked for The Money Store (B&C mortgage lender, since taken over by First Union which was taken over by Wachovia). I worked in "Asset Integrity Management" - foreclosures.

Most B&C lenders are not insured by Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Even if they are, they pay a butt load of money for employees and attorneys for foreclosures (although the attorneys actually don't get paid that well). Also, the insurance (referred to as PMI, primary mortgage insurance) generally drops off once you have 20% equity in the home.

Your second point is not as easy as you make it sound. The bank doesn't just "take possession of the property and try to sell it". They have to file a lawsuit and work through the courts - depending upon the state and the legal set-up, this can take up to 9 months (more if bankruptcies are filed). The bank has no choice but to offer the house for sell on "the courthouse steps" (anymore, these sales take place in a room in the courthouse). The sheriff's sale is required by the courts. Now, the mortagee CAN proffer a "Deed in Lieu" and then the mortgage company won't have to go through the court hearings.

We were paid very well. Which is probably why our division was closed when First Union took us over. The mortgage company lost a lot of money on foreclosures and we had a department set up strictly to try to work out payment plans.

[Pax Hayden]

5. So the next time some Republican accuses you of being a "Tax & Spend"

Liberal, say:

"Better a tax and spend Liberal than a Cheap-Labor Republican."

It's a great little sound-bite that will keep them awake in bed for weeks.

[mcscajun]

14. Oh yes! Thank for that marvelous sound-bite!

I love it!

An unemployed Dem here...too old for the Army/National Guard, too young for a castrated Social Security. Just the right age to be Totally Pissed!

[TlalocW]

6. I think so

Aside from just being blinded by Clinton-hate, I don't think the republicans enjoyed the 1990s because the economy was too good, and people of all economic strata were getting ahead.

TlalocW

[leftofthedial]

7. cheap labor

fear, uncertainty and doubt

cannon fodder

depress wages, benefits

reward capital, not labor

weaken unions

change the balance of power within the economy

plus, they're just evil bastards

[AmandaRuth]

8. not to mention that underemployed and overworked

people are too tired to pay attention to what is really going on, and much more susceptible to right wing faux news sound bites, like the democrats will take your guns and pets, and all your private property rights and you will be thrown in jail for just saying Merry Christmas. Of course, at first glance they can call BS on that, but over and over it sinks in like subliminal advertising. Or they turn to Churches for support and the extreme Jesus anti-social programs message. This is all part of the plan to destroy the new deal/great society, which is the source of this unreasonable hate.

[The Judged]

9. Desperation can motivate people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do?

[Spyro]

10. High unemployment?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the current unemployment rate (not to mention the average rate during Bush's first term) even with or actually lower than it was during Clinton's eight years?

[rasputin1952]

21. Welcome to DU...The unemployment rate essentially means nothing...

Just because the rate goes down, it is meaningless. Most of those who have fallen off of the rolls have run out of benefits, and have been dropped; since this "Compassionate Conservative" administration would not consider extending benefits, many of those who have fallen from the UI rolls have wound up on Public Assistance, which has gone up by 43% since bush has taken office. Some others have simply given up looking for jobs through the system and have found some general employment through other means.

The UI rate is just a situation of smoke and mirrors, there is no reason to believe that those that have reduced the rate, have found gainful employment, since the government refuses to keep track of those who become gainfully employed through he UI system, you simply fall off the rolls, if you get a job, you are no longer on UI, if you run out of benefits, you are no longer carried under UI. bush is lying when he tries to make it look like employment is up, it is not.

I have been on UI, and know how it works. I am not employed now, FT, but I am not on their rolls either, I am in limbo, and don't exist for bush and his minions. Besides, this administration is so corrupt, if they told me the sky was blue, you can bet your boots, I'd go out and check!

There is NOTHING of honesty in these people. They have charted a course of failure, and are making great headway in that direction.

[Quill Pen]

22. Indeed, even if you get a job

...that pays far less than the one you lost -- which certainly has happened (average worker now making $9,000 less than they were pre-Bush) -- you void your UI claim.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spyro]

39. Hmmm...

Interesting reply to a simple question. Do you always attack newcomers who ask an honest question?

I have a great idea of how hard it is to get a job in this economy. I also have a great idea of what it's like to have to start completely over with no real idea of what direction to take. But instead of attacking others on a message board, I figured out what I wanted to do and then got off my ass and worked toward that goal. Now I have a good stable job, and I'm working toward getting my own small business off the ground.

If you're interested in a job in the financial sector, there's a good chance I could help you out. Part of my job includes dealing with financial institutions all over the country and I may have some contacts that I could put you in touch with.

[newyawker99]

46. Hi Spyro!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: :toast:

[Recovering Texan]

12. Wylie Was Correct

My poor late mother was totally brainwashed into this. She would have made all kinds of excuses to herself to justify sending her grandchildren (children are all too old) to fight in Bush's war.

[newyawker99]

47. Hi Recovering Texan!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[welshTerrier2]

13. yes ... it's a primary ingredient of class warfare ...

look at the Reagan recession of 1981 or the bush I recession in the early 90's or the bush II permanent recession ...

in times of high unemployment, workers have no bargaining power ... at the individual level, workers cannot object to small pay increases or even pay cuts because if they lose their jobs, they may not find another one ... for new hires, starting salaries are reduced because there are many more qualified applicants for fewer positions ... and at the company level, companies can threaten to leave a community causing a widespread loss of jobs ... companies are often able to negotiate favorable tax treatment at both the state and local level ...

it all comes down to supply and demand ... to do well, workers need to be in short supply when jobs are plentiful ... recessions cause the opposite situation ... and power shifts back to the corporate overlords ...

republicans engineer high unemployment to oppress the masses ... democrats often talk about how they will create new jobs but they never tell it like is ... they never seem willing to acknowledge that we are in a class warfare struggle and that high unemployment is not just an unfortunate side effect of bad republican policies but rather a planned attack on working people ...

until democrats are willing to tell the truth and fight the REAL fight, they will continue to lose ...

[w4rma]

19. Yes. It helps to keep the power/money out of the hands of "riff-raff" (nt)

[The Revolution]

23. Unemployment

From "Towards a New Socialism" by W. Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unemployment is the regulator of exploitation and is maintained as such by government policy. The economic policies that will bring about full employment are well known. In Britain, they were followed for some two decades after the second world war, and kept unemployment down to about one in 30 or one in 40 of the labour force. They could be applied now. The economic levers for creating full employment remain the same. The reason why they are not applied is because of what happened during those 20 years.

Those were the days when a Conservative Prime Minister (Harold Macmillan) could honestly say to the working classes that they ‘had never had it so good’. Full employment meant an unprecedented period of continuously rising real wages. Following a half-century of stagnation real take home pay almost doubled.3 But over the same period the share of company output that went towards profits halved from 23.4 percent in 1950 to 12.1 percent in 1970 (Bacon and Eltis, 1978). In other words, employees used the labour shortage to reduce their exploitation. Attempts by companies to maintain their profit share by increasing prices led to inflation.

Since the mid 1970s it has been accepted by politicians of both leading political parties that full employment policies are impractical, and if resumed would once again trigger off inflation. An economy based upon the systematic exploitation of employees required the creation of a surplus in the labour market, and that required unemployment.

There is no logical reason why unemployment should entail poverty and deprivation. If there was no work available, then a civilised society might pay those temporarily idle, but willing to work, a decent income. If somebody is idle through no fault of his own, why should he suffer a drop in income? If, as many people mistakenly believe, the source of unemployment is technological change, the advance of the robot and the computer, there would be no bar to such a rational and humane policy. But unemployment is due to a change in public policy. Once governments accepted unemployment as a permanent necessity for regulating the labour market, they then set about degrading the unemployed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[MsConduct]

26. Yes it is. Then they can really kick us when we're down. That's...

how bullies operate.

[housewolf]

28. Greenspan

I remember reading something about Alan Greenspan and his Ayn Rand Objectivism ideology - that he believed a major aspect of his job was to maintain stress and pressure on workers so that they wouldn't unionize and demand rights.

[tsuki]

30. Beyond "taking care of Number One," I don't think that the

Refundicans have an agenda. It is all about what they don't like. What they don't want. And their list of "don't like and don't want" grows longer each year. They are extremely negative and controlling.

Attack is the answer. They attack Muslims, social security, the internets, gays, non-Xians, minorities, ideas, education, returning troops, the youth, the environment, other countries, other cultures.

They hate Mexicans, Canadians, the French, the Dutch, the Germans, the Russians, the Asians, the UN, Africans. They hate the working man, unions, liberals, progressives, moderates, the poor, and soon, the elderly.

Their message is one of fear and hatred because they have no other message. They hide behind a facade of "moral values, family values" because they have none. They have no hope, charity or love.

It is all about what they don't like, don't want. What they like is money, possessions. Things. Raping the system. Getting away with it. Tax cut. Leona Helmsly syndrome. Only the little people.

I challenged a Refundican to name one program of Dubya's. "No Child Left Behind," was the answer. Then why is he not funding it.

He could not name another that did not attack another group.

It is easier to sell hate and fear than hope and charity. Ask any fascist.

[dchill]

32. Actually,

they just want all us working folk to die. They have all those Indonesian children who'll do their work for next to nothing...

[SammyWinstonJack]

41. That sounds about right. n/t

[heidler1]

45. The fly in the ointment is the corporations need us consumers to make it

work. This class warfare will someday come down to the use of our biggest weapon "BOYCOTT" of those who offend our view of fairness. We talk about it sometimes, but are too disorganized to be affective.

[newyawker99]

48. Hi dchill!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[OnionPatch]

34. Heck Yes, it is!

And they don't even deny it! Alan Greenspan often talks about how they need to "keep labor anxious" etc.

As long as there aren't many jobs out there, they figure we'll all kiss ass and work for peanuts. We'll be afraid to ask for raises, we'll settle for less benefits and work longer hours. This is one of the cornerstones of their whole economic philosophy!!! :grr:

What amazes me is that so many working people don't even realize this and keep voting for them! That's what happens when you don't read, I guess.

[mattclearing]

35. Any way they look at it, it's a winner.

Same with the weak dollar, the pell grant cuts, etc...worst case scenario, you can always join.

[4democracy]

37. the main agenda is to do away with the middle class

Bush and Co want two classes of Americans, the rich and the poor...

[insane_cratic_gal]

40. Don't forget cutting Pell grants

also a stimulas package for the Army GI bill and poor econonmy equals higher recruiting numbers.

No child left behind, lists of highschool students. Targeting.

To help assisting growing need for the armed services, to avoid a draft.

[Skittles]

42. yes

it makes for an employer's market where they screw the workers royally. That is SOP for republicans. Please stop capitalizing the word republican; do not afford those bastards ANY measure of respect

[rman]

43. more unemployment = more "flexible" labor market

= more profit for corporations.

(flexible labor market = low demand for laborers & high supply of laborers = low price/low wage for labor)