FHA to reject borrowers in minor credit disputes

27 Responses

    1. @Inoculated, When i’m on the JG, can I bring my Kindle Fire (probably can’t afford an ipad) to work and stream Game of Thrones and Dexter all day?

    2. @Inoculated,

      “We could raise wages to $100 an hour, fill the positions and then go out of business, taking all our jobs with us.”

      Leaving more space in the market for more rational businesses that are more efficient or are prepared to pay their employees a living wage.

      All those examples boil down to the usual employers’ call of “We want perfect people to work all hours for nothing”.

      Sorry you can’t have them. You have to create jobs for the people as they are – or go out of business and let somebody else have a go.

      1. @Neil Wilson, Each of the examples offers a higher rate than $8/hr. But I think what matters here, as the last guy points out, is the attitude problem at the heart of our employment woes.

        Any approach to solving unemployment needs to address the motivational and self-fulfillment aspects.

        I think people look at the extent to which many individuals consume given what they produce. And while you can spend all day arguing over the metrics and how to model, it is safe to say that it is the core problem. For moral and for output.

      2. @Inoculated,

        “But I think what matters here, as the last guy points out, is the attitude problem at the heart of our employment woes.”

        Yep. The attitude of the employers stinks. They want to be able to get the perfect person to work all hours for nothing.

        “Any approach to solving unemployment needs to address the motivational and self-fulfillment aspects.”

        The approach to solving unemployment is to give everybody the chance of work and an income – because the job is spending the money in the economy to signal the production system to produce. At this point anything else you get should be seen as a bonus.

        Once we’ve got that sorted we can worry about efficiency and productivity.

        Starving people doesn’t help.

      3. @Inoculated, Can we try it out in the UK first then? Seems like a more natural fit.

        And again, many of the examples here pay more than double your JG rate. (we pay 2.5x in MA and experience same issues)

        I think that most successful employers do not have an issue with paying for quality employees. Businesses in America don’t typically employ human robots and shouldn’t expect to pay as such.

        The majority of our workers do a great job and deserve a high wage. But the bottom quarter do not. It is often more costly to get rid of and hire someone capable. Because we are a union, the pay differential between quality and incompetence is practically non-existent.

        I see these issues in the broader economy. A JG would be wise to consider.

      4. i call it a ‘transition job’ and make a point of it as I’m an inflation hawk and wouldn’t dare propose fiscal expansion without it
        😉

      5. @Inoculated,

        “But the bottom quarter do not. It is often more costly to get rid of and hire someone capable. Because we are a union, the pay differential between quality and incompetence is practically non-existent.”

        They may not, but they do spend money which increases demand which increases business income and profits.

        It is a fallacy of composition to suggest that these people don’t get paid something. So if you are going to pay them something you may as well get them to try and do something for it. It’s good for them and good for everybody else.

        You or anybody else do not receive more by paying these people less. Economies of scale is less, waste is more, production is less. You and everybody else pay more for your goods and services due to the lack of income of the unemployed.

        So you may as well make sure these people have enough to live – because you can’t eliminate them. And since you’re paying them you may as well get them to do something in return.

        And the benefit to you is that their spending increases economies of scale and reduces the price of goods and services. And the benefit of a job is that their employment reduces the cost of hiring, keeping a lid on wages reducing the cost of goods and services to you.

        So why don’t you want the benefits to you of a JG programme? Is it a moral thing – people should be made to suffer for some perceived sin?

      6. @Neil Wilson,

        “You and everybody else pay more for your goods and services due to the lack of income of the unemployed.”

        “And the benefit to you is that their spending increases economies of scale and reduces the price of goods and services.”

        Those are some pretty bold assumptions to be making. Maybe pull up a chart for the past two decades on a basket of industrial metals? Of course, I’m sure you could distort that to fit the desired model if needed.

        Rather than settling with JG in its current socialist state, which will continue to be seen as naive (and reflect poorly on other promising MMT ideas), you should be asking questions about how we can reward those who work harder, encourage productivity and still feed everyone.

      7. i see jg as a transition job that facilitates the transition from unemployment to private sector employment.
        and presumably competition causes the best to be paid the most

      8. @Inoculated,

        ” you should be asking questions about how we can reward those who work harder, encourage productivity and still feed everyone.”

        By having a Job Guarantee using the mechanism I just explained.

        Ultimately you either starve somebody out, or you give them money and/or a job. That’s the way the system works with a capitalist credit economy and no amount of praying that it would be different will change that.

        So are you in the starve people or pay people camp?

      9. @Inoculated,

        ”you should be asking questions about how we can reward those who work harder”

        I think you are arguing not about rewarding those who work harder, but punishing those who have no work.
        Or do you think that those who work harder should feel rewarded enough when they rejoice that they have work?

      10. @Inoculated,

        Keeps coming bak to 10 dogs and only 9 bones, doesn’t it. Not all that hard arithmetically. No higher math needed. All you have to do is be able to count. This has got to be one the simplest models in economics.

    3. @Inoculated,

      > “We’ve resorted to only hiring people who have worked 90 days
      > for a temporary staffing agency.”

      Shades of the JG. So the prophecy is true! 🙁

      Overall, this disdain & outright hatred for our own citizens is a bad sign. American ingenuity is being replaced by class warfare.

  1. If the govt would get out of the way and let the market correct, real estate would get beyond this problem.

    1. @JBH,

      And what would happen as asset values collapse and the banks become insolvent? In many ways, housing is the economy. The Fed is scared to death of an asset collapse, which would likely lead to spiraling debt-deflation. They haven’t exactly adopted the most elegant means or revealed the need for a fiscal solution, but I can understand their thinking about propping up asset values in the hope of engineering a soft landing instead of a crash.

Leave a Reply