It would appear that more foreclosures will equal less unemployment. Article: Home ownership causes unemployment
Thought I'd point out the silver lining to this particular storm cloud.![]()
It would appear that more foreclosures will equal less unemployment. Article: Home ownership causes unemployment
Thought I'd point out the silver lining to this particular storm cloud.![]()
Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!





^^^ as your article points out, this is only true IF the foreclosed homeowner is willing to move to a 'booming' area where jobs are available ( thus severing local / family roots ) and IF the foreclosed homeowner actually has marketable skills to offer. Because there are a fairly large number of foreclosed homeowners for whom this will not be the case, the authors of your article predict increased 'economic segregation'
(snip)"No matter how bad things get in Detroit or Treorchy, the houses will still be there, and if they are cheap enough, people will want to live in them. The likely result is a gloomy sort of segregation: Those who feel that they can find a good job in the boom cities will move there and pay the higher rents. Those who are less confident of that would rather have no job in a cheap house than no job in an expensive house. Detroit will have residents for a long time to come."(snip)
... in other words, Detroit is likely to evolve a permanent community dominated by long term unemployed social welfare benefit recipients ! The resulting question of course is that, with the productive former residents having relocated to different states in order to find job opportunities, where will the state of Michigan find the resources to fund those social welfare benefits for the unemployed / unemployable residents that remain ?
My recruiter guy has encountered plenty of qualified people for a job but they won't go because they are tied down by a house, a wife who wants to stay in the big house (a thread on it's own), and no place to put their house full of shit. Few are willing to wander off and leave the family behind to make the money needed to support their now unsustainable lifestyle.





Arguably, such decisions are based on an (unfounded) hope that the economy in their particular area will eventually rebound and restore their former job / earning power. Inarguably, such decisions are made possible in the real world by repeatedly extended gov't unemployment insurance checks, by gov't mandates / coercion of mortgage lenders / holders which allows the delinquent homeowner to avoid foreclosure and continue living in their house at the expense of the mortgage lender / holder, by other gov't social benefit programs which defray the costs of maintaining health insurance, of paying utility bills, of food etc. Without the existance of such ( new ) gov't benefits, the delinquent homeowners would be foreclosed on and evicted from their former houses, and thus forced to seek job opportunities wherever they could be found ( which typically means relocating to a different state ).plenty of qualified people for a job but they won't go because they are tied down by a house, a wife who wants to stay in the big house (a thread on it's own), and no place to put their house full of shit
Thus in a very real sense, gov't policies encourage such people to remain in their unaffordable house and to remain unemployed. And looking at the flip side, financing those gov't policies has resulted in higher income tax rates for those Americans who are still working - which reduces the net benefit to a delinquent homeowner who decides to dump their unaffordable house and relocate to a different state in order to obtain a high paying 'replacement' job. Not wanting to drift too far toward the political, but the 'tin foil hat' crowd would tell you that such gov't policies have been introduced in order to prevent a repeat of the New Orleans / Katrina demographic shock ... i.e. large numbers of former democrat leaning unemployed / social welfare benefit recipient residents being forced to leave the area to the point where the political balance / election majorities shifted away from the democrats !
Taking a larger view, a few sociologists and economists see the evolution of this trend, i.e. continuation / expansion of gov't benefits and mandates to allow low job opportunity long term unemployed residents of certain states / cities to remain in their houses and maintain some semblance of their former standard of living, while financing such gov't benefits and mandates via increased federal taxes on the working residents of other states / cities with higher job opportunities, as having the potential to establish a new 'State's Rights' based schism between certain states and the power of the US federal gov't ...
~
Last edited by Melonie; 09-07-2009 at 09:08 AM.





actually, it's probably worth posting the specifics of one 'State's Rights' resolution ... with similar resolutions being deliberated in something like 36 states ( albeit with extremely little mainstream media publicity ) ... just to see where this movement is headed.
(snip)"WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, Many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and
WHEREAS, Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed;"(snip)
from
Ultimately, the widespread passage of such state legislation, followed by an attempted assertion of their State's Rights, has incredibly far-reaching economic consequences in terms of future federal spending. It also has incredibly far-reaching economic consequences in terms of the future use of federal taxation authority to involuntarily extract money from workers in some states and subsequently transfer that money to fund gov't social benefit spending in other states.





This is a right wing anti-government wet dream.
Here is the history of the independence movement in Texas:
The movement for independence was started by the research of Richard Lance (Rick) McLaren. McLaren found that, in 1861, eligible white Texan males aged 21 and older voted four-to-one to leave the Union. According to McLaren's work, Texas met the qualifications, under international law, of a captive nation of war, since the end of the American Civil War in 1865. McLaren engaged in a protracted series of court and actual battles.
The movement split into three factions in 1996, one led by McLaren, one by David Johnson and Jesse Enloe, and the third by Archie Lowe and Daniel Miller. In 1997, McLaren and his followers kidnapped Joe and Margaret Ann Rowe, and demanded the release of two movement members in exchange for the Rowes. McLaren's wife, Evelyn, convinced him to surrender peacefully after a week-long standoff with police and Texas Rangers. The McLarens and four other Republic of Texas members were sent to prison. This effectively destroyed the McLaren faction, and the Johnson-Enloe faction was discredited after two of its members, Jack Abbot Grebe Jr. and Johnie Wise, were convicted in 1998 of threatening to assassinate several government officials, including President Bill Clinton.
In 2003, what remained of the movement consolidated into one dominant group recognizing the current "interim" government (which replaced the "provisional" government), headed by President Daniel Miller. This interim government claims authority from the original proclamations of 1995 and set up a seat of government in the town of Overton, Texas. Most of the original personalities of the movement have disappeared from public view. Government finances have come from donations and the sale of some items such as a Republic of Texas Passport. The Republic of Texas headquarters in Overton, Texas burned down on August 31, 2005; one person was moderately injured.
Various Republic of Texas movements maintain several websites, an Internet radio station, online journals and/or newspapers.
Republic of Texas President Miller and Laurence Savage published the Republic of Texas's manifesto Texan Arise in 2004. The book outlines the history of Texas, the history and philosophy of the Republic of Texas group, a road map to independence, and some spiritualistic views of Texas. A second important book for the movement is The Brief by the Republic of Texas, published in 2003, a comprehensive case against the United States and State of Texas governments. The book is laid out like a court case, and cites approximately 250 exhibits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Texas
I predict this resolution will have zero power or effect in Washington. Of course it will give Texas conservatives a new rallying cry.... "Remember the HCR-50 Resolution !!"










obviously at the moment you are correct. I posted about the existance of such resolutions in order to point out that the issue of increasing use of federal taxes to collect taxpayer money in 'prosperous' states and transfer it to other states with heavy debt burdens / high social benefit costs / declining businesses and industries is not going unnoticed !I predict this resolution will have zero power or effect in Washington
Inconvenient Truths ?How can you say this when there are foreclosure moratoriums, extended unemployment benefits, and programs for re-working mortgages being put in place?





from
(snip)"(AP) California is imposing a 90-day moratorium on housing foreclosures under a new law that takes effect Monday.
The law is expected to make lenders try harder to keep borrowers in their homes. Loan companies must prove they tried to modify the delinquent loans before they can begin foreclosing.
But supporters acknowledge the California Foreclosure Prevention Act won't stop thousands of foreclosures from eventually happening.
There have been more than 365,000 foreclosures in California since early 2007, with many more already scheduled.
The bill passed in February is similar to the Obama administration's Making Home Affordable Program that began in March.
Both encourages lenders to cut interest rates or rewrite loans to affordable levels."(snip)
The state of California currently has a foreclosure moratorium in place ... thus enabling de-facto bankrupt Californians to continue living in their houses without making additional mortgage payments ... and thus forcing the actual owners of delinquent California mortgages to take a loss in one way or another ( either a renegotiated lower interest rate or a longer term or via higher administrative and legal fees plus delayed foreclosure and resale ).
Bookmarks