Maggie's Farm

Why Fewer People Are Working:

1. People not working because they are retiring should not be a problem. In an earlier and saner world, retirement meant you had stashed away enough so that YOU could provide for YOURself rather than "Hey, I'm 65 and even though I spent excessively rather than saving when I was younger, I now expect everyone else to support me, i.e. I ate my cake and now want a free one." Source of problem: Leftist "Great Society" government programs.

2. Teens opting to stay in school, e.g. college, longer rather than entering the workplace. Where do I start? First, our public schools are so bad - leftist politicos placing diversity and self-esteem agendas above real education - that the average college grad today is less prepared than yesterday's HS grad. The first year or two of college today is basically remedial HS education that the kids didn't get in HS. Second, if the government wasn't subsidizing the education, the kid and his parents would have to actually weigh the value of higher education in terms of how much more productive it will make the kid. Will going to college for 4 (or more) years allow him to recoup the financial loss of not working and bringing in an income during those years? Sadly, the answer is more often than not, "No!" But those tough choices are ignored when Uncle Sugar is paying the bill and even if they make a bad choice a pick a crappy, useless major, it's no big deal because Uncle Sugar will give them welfare benefits when they can't get a job.

Unfortunately, the "economists" at JPM have placed "number of people employed" ahead of "national productivity". We,as a nation, are wealthier and better off not when more people are employed, but when we are producing more. The left doesn't get this either, but then again big bankers and Democratic politicians are in the same - leftists.

3. Many - perhaps most - of the people on disability shouldn't be. It's a fact that many suddenly "discovered" their disability as their unemployment benefits were running out. In both cases - disability benefits and unemployment benefits - the government gives people an incentive to not work (to not be productive) by providing them with a comfortable safety hammock (as opposed to the safety net they should have provided for themselves by saving something rather than spending all of their income when the did work).

4. Discouraged workers. Let's just throw them a freakin' pity party! They have no right to be discouraged. The live in the USA. If they lived in North Korea, I might understand discouragement, but not in the US. Grow a pair and get off your @$$.

5. The criminal record problem. The solution: Don't do $h!t that will get you a criminal record and if you do, accept that you may get stuck doing menial jobs rather than jobs where honesty and adherence to societal rules is a qualification. The problem is not that there aren't plenty of these menial jobs available. It's that the federal government makes it too easy to not work.

Contrary to the paper's conclusion, we don't have a lack of workers (employable people) in America. What we have is a lack of incentive to work, or more precisely too many incentives to not work.

MIDDLE CLASS SPENDING CRASH

1. We're addicted to the internet and our cellphones. For most people, I wouldn't call "home internet" and "cellphone" basic necessities.

2. Look at how many of the top items are subsidized by the government - cellphone, internet (yes, part of your cellphone and internet bill pays for these services for "unemployed" people who chose not to work - this is mandated by the government), home mortgages, education and health insurance. When the government provides subsidies for these things, there are more bidders in the marketplace willing to pay a higher price for these goods and services. This leads to inflated prices - too many dollars chasing the same number of goods/services.

And yet too many middle class workers have been fooled into thinking that the solution is for the government to subsidize even more. Any subsidy that the government provides doesn't ease the middle class burden. It simply ends up in the hands of the people who provide the goods and services being subsidized (along with some that the politicians stuff in their pockets). Sure, it looks like you're getting something for nothing - that's what the pols want you to think - but the only ones getting rich are the service providers.