On the heels of the latest weak jobs report, the U.S.Chamber of Commerce is calling for an end to the $300-per-week federal unemployment payments.
"The disappointing jobs report makes it clear that paying people not to work is dampening what should be a stronger jobs market," the chamber's chief policy officer, Neal Bradley, said in a statement.
The latest jobs report released on Friday showed the economy recovering 266,000 jobs in April, a massive miss from the median estimate of 1 million or more new payrolls, shocking many economists. And it was a sharp decrease from the 770,000 jobs regained in March.
Commerce, which can be weak on basic economics, gets this right.
Based on the Chamber’s analysis, the $300 benefit results in approximately one in four recipients taking home more in unemployment than they earned working.
Meanwhile, President Joe Biden said April’s lower-than-expected job growth shows that his massive infrastructure and family support bills are needed now more than ever.
-RW
Wrong. Obviously the best course of action is to relocate the entire population of Mexico, Central America and Africa into the US to provide big business with cheap labor.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of economic activity is to satisfy consumers' preferences, not to employ people. So if locals won't work and produce to satisfy consumers' preferences, why not bring on those who will?
DeleteHey Napster, maybe we could replace what you do with someone cheaper? It would be great for the economy because in libertardian land everything comes down to a damn dollar.
DeleteThis is the same Chamber Pot of Commerce that wants to import more human debris.
It doesn't seem like you've properly absorbed Austro-libertarian concepts.
DeleteEmployers should be free to decide who to employ -- after all, it's part of their income that they're paying out to workers -- and they would make that decision based on cost, quality (productivity), and personal preferences. Some might share your views and not employ immigrant workers because they don't look the same, and that's their choice. Others would focus only on cost and quality, and this would give them a wider pool from which to choose, which would give them a hiring advantage.
I have faced competition my whole life; any employer of mine has always been free to replace me with someone cheaper, but none has so far.
So what you're saying is to restart the slave trade? What could be cheaper than that? Since globalization seems to be failing, why not?
Delete