Plan: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States by offering contracts to new construction companies who hire the unemployed for the building of low-income urban housing. We fund and enforce through normal means.
Find one inherency card (must cite) and one solvency card (must cite) for this plantext.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just checking in to say hi to all the Fremont debaters from Fremont-Mills! Hope everyone is getting to camp that's going to be a second year or greater debater. If you're unsure about camp, think it's too expensive, or too long, make sure you check out NDI (Nebraska Debate Institute).
ReplyDeleteI'm personally going as a coach to learn as we have two exceptional policy coaches: Tim Royers and Dana Christensen. Royers is an ace at national circuit style and promised special attention for this particular student on framework, which we've learned is mandatory to running anything critical in Iowa. Dana is a critical master, writing the Wake and other deep arguments the circuit saw this last year.
I've been privileged to get to know both of them closer this year and have concluded that bang for the buck, there is no better value than what NDI has for policy. So, get there!
Inherency:
ReplyDeleteHaya El Nasser, USA TODAY Mar 10, 2009 “Urban areas see revival in housing construction”
In more than half of the 50 most populous metropolitan areas, communities at the urban core have captured a significantly larger share of their region's new residential building permits since 2002 than in the first half of the 1990s, according to an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency. "It's a very striking trend," says John Thomas, an EPA policy analyst and author of the report. "It seems to be holding up the first year of the real estate market downturn." Long-standing patterns remain: A large share of residential construction still takes place on farmland on remote fringes of metro areas. In most regions, new housing in urban core neighborhoods accounts for less than half. Nonetheless, there was a consistent increase in housing in urban centers from 2002 to 2007, and the trend could transform growth patterns in some places for decades to come. "For years, there was just one model — homes in auto-dependent suburbs," says David Goldberg with Smart Growth America, a national coalition that advocates denser development to allow easy access to jobs and services on foot or mass transit. Changes in demographics, high gas prices and longer commutes on congested roads are generating more interest in smaller homes in urban settings. "The development industry finally began to create the kind of in-town products that people were looking for," Goldberg says. "It also reflects the investment that a lot of metro areas have made in rail transit systems." The battered economy presents challenges — downtown housing is struggling with vacancies just as exurban subdivisions are, says Joel Kotkin, a presidential fellow at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., who writes about urban history and trends. "You have to have an economy to sustain high-density housing," he says, and most jobs are created in the suburbs. "Very few mayors focus on job creation." The EPA study analyzed the share of residential building permits that were issued in a region's core city, its close-in suburbs and suburbs farther out from 1990 to 1995 and from 2002 to 2007. Comparing those two periods was bound to show a growth in construction in the center because not much was happening in cities in the early '90s, Kotkin says. "It was the absolute nadir," he says. The study highlighted 2007 results to capture the effect of the start of the housing collapse. "There's a clear trend going on, but it's not universal," Thomas says: In 15 regions, the central city greatly increased its share of residential building permits. Those regions include large cities with strong ties to the global economy (New York, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles) and medium cities that are leaders in controlling growth (Portland, Ore., Denver). In 26 cities, including Sacramento and Milwaukee, the share has doubled or tripled since 2000. Old suburbs on the edge of cities captured a significant chunk of new housing in eight metropolitan areas, including Boston, Minneapolis and Washington. The shift also occurred in Atlanta, where the metropolitan area has been sprawling for decades. The share of permits issued in the city went from 4% in the early '90s to 13% this decade. In 2007, it jumped to 21%, reflecting a slowdown in more remote areas. Atlanta renewed its focus on attracting residents after it hosted the 1996 Summer Olympics. Public housing was redeveloped, and a beautification push created parks and trails. Condo development took off as more young professionals came to Atlanta. "Demographics have really changed," says Dan Reuter, land use chief at the Atlanta Regional Commission. "People are waiting longer to get married, longer to have children, and once children are grown up, we're living longer."
DLC | Model Initiatives | June 30, 2008http://www.dlcppi.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=139&subid=277&contentid=250721
Since the beginning of the suburban era in the 1950s, many American cities have been experiencing an exodus of residents from their downtowns. As urban areas were abandoned for the lure of backyards in the "'burbs," the development of new housing for downtown residents dramatically slowed. At the same time, many cities also witnessed the flight of commercial activity as the population of city centers shrank and suburbs grew. Consequently, the urban core of many cities went into steep decline: property values deteriorated, economic growth stagnated, and job opportunities dwindled. To counter these trends and redevelop urban areas, many policymakers turn to outmoded approaches that depend almost exclusively on government subsidization of urban housing projects without much regard for the importance of private-sector participation. For example, some city officials focus single-mindedly on the construction of government-subsidized "affordable housing," neglecting the importance of job availability and the need for market-rate housing to help drive commercial development.
Unemployment rate climbs for local construction workers, EDD reports
ReplyDeleteSan Diego Business Journal , July 16, 1990 by Jim Hathcock
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5247/is_n29_v11/ai_n28590680/
State figures show more workers filing for benefits
Signaling a possible slump in San Diego County's building industry, greater numbers of construction workers are applying for unemployment benefits, according to reports from the local office of the Employment Development Department.
According to the most current data compiled by the state EDD, about 1,324 more construction workers received unemployment checks in the first quarter of 1990 than in the fourth quarter of 1989, said Jack Nowell, labor market analyst for the San Diego office of the EDD.
"The more important number to consider is the percentage of the workforce who filed for unemployment who work in the construction trades," Nowell said.
For 1989, construction workers composed 6.6 percent of San Diego County's labor market. However, they steadily have become a greater percentage of the group that receives unemployment checks, moving from 16 percent to 21 percent from the end of 1989 to the beginning of 1990.
According to Nowell's data, some 50,295 unemployment checks were sent to San Diego County construction workers in the first quarter of 1990 compared to 33,085 in the fourth quarter of 1989. If each applicant received a check per week, the figures mean that 3,868 unemployed construction workers in the first quarter of 1990 applied for unemployment benefits, an increase of 1,324 recipients over the 2,545 unemployed construction workers who applied for unemployment benefits in the fourth quarter of 1989.
The 33,865 unemployment checks written to construction workers for the first quarter of 1989 equaled 16 percent of the 203,230 checks written throughout the county in all employment categories. At the end of the first quarter 1990, the 50,295 checks written to construction workers equaled 21 percent of the 239,445 checks issued.
But the figures do not conclusively show a slump. Employment has risen along with unemployment. According to Nowell's data, 65,000 workers received pay checks from building contractors in May 1990 compared to 63,400 in May 1989 and 55,300 in May 1988.
However, San Diego County Building Industry Association Executive Vice President Bob Morris is surprised at the data showing more paychecks.
"I don't know where they're all working. A lot of them have gone to Sacramento, Modesto and the East Bay area. If the work volume doesn't pick up in San Diego in the next few months, the journeyman construction workers will be hurting," Morris said.
Journeyman workers have completed training and apprentice programs in one or more or the building trades such as carpentry, plumbing, masonry etc.
Some of the workers are transferring to commercial jobs. Others drive into Riverside County each day to build homes in Rancho California and other booming Inland Empire cities. Some of the workers switch over and join crews on public works jobs (roads, bridges, water lines), Morris said. Others are remodeling or expanding clients' existing homes.
Though construction employment hasn't dropped yet, related businesses are laying off staff. Title insurance companies, which insure that sellers deliver the appropriate title to the buyer and disburse the funds, have started cutting staff.
First American Title Insurance has dropped from 160 to 150; Chicago Title Co. dropped from 112 to 106; and Continental Lawyers Title Co. employment fell from 115 to 110 workers. Stewart Title Co. of San Diego has kept all of its 110 workers said President Gilbert Barnes. But he remains cautious.
"Not only are home sales slowing, but the commercial and investment property sales are taking longer and longer to close," Barnes said. "Tighter financing is a big part of it."
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos248.htm
Construction laborers can be found on almost all construction sites performing a wide range of tasks from the very easy to the potentially hazardous. They can be found at building, highway, and heavy construction sites; residential and commercial sites; tunnel and shaft excavations; and demolition sites. Many of the jobs they perform require physical strength, training, and experience. Other jobs require little skill and can be learned in a short amount of time. While most construction laborers specialize in a type of construction, such as highway or tunnel construction, some are generalists who perform many different tasks during all stages of construction. Construction laborers, who work in underground construction, such as in tunnels, or in demolition are more likely to specialize in only those areas.
ok...not the greatest solvency card...but its a good answer to several on case arguments.
INHERENCY
ReplyDeleteDuncan Kennedy November 18-19, 2003
http://duncankennedy.net/documents/Legal%20Economics%20of%20US%20Low%20Income%20Housing%20Informality%20Analysis.pdf
In low income urban housing markets in the United States,
most units are "illegal," in the sense that they have multiple violations
of the formal rules specifying minimum fire and sanitary conditions
and rehab often violates building codes. Public and subsidized new
construction complies with building codes, and usually with fire and
8. The discussion of informality is mainly influenced by the articles collected in sanitary codes. Due to the high cost of compliant new housing
construction, there is no private unsubsidized new construction for low
income people.
The middle and upper income urban market for owner
occupied and rental units is in compliance with the fire and sanitary
minima without significant official enforcement; private rehab and
new construction comply with loosely enforced building codes. But in
these markets sellers and their agents routinely violate antidiscrimination
laws, so that minority renters and buyers are routinely
steered into predominately non-white neighborhoods.
The suburban market is under an effectively enforced zoning
regime of requirements well above the legally specified minima for
urban housing, but significant variances are granted by dispensing
bodies, sometimes under conditions suggesting bribery. Here also
there is widespread racial and class based discrimination in sales.
2. The interaction of illegality and informal norms in the
low income market
The low income sector could be described as "illegal." A large
proportion of units violate building, fire and/or sanitary codes. New
units are created through subdivision of existing buildings in violation
of building codes and zoning regulations. The situation of illegality is
stable because city and state inspectorates are both unable and
unwilling to enforce the regulations in low income areas and because
tenants do not enforce their legal rights.
SOLVENCY
DLC | Model Initiatives | June 30, 2008 http://www.dlcppi.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=139&subid=277&contentid=250721
Since the beginning of the suburban era in the 1950s, many American cities have been experiencing an exodus of residents from their downtowns. As urban areas were abandoned for the lure of backyards in the "'burbs," the development of new housing for downtown residents dramatically slowed. At the same time, many cities also witnessed the flight of commercial activity as the population of city centers shrank and suburbs grew. Consequently, the urban core of many cities went into steep decline: property values deteriorated, economic growth stagnated, and job opportunities dwindled. To counter these trends and redevelop urban areas, many policymakers turn to outmoded approaches that depend almost exclusively on government subsidization of urban housing projects without much regard for the importance of private-sector participation.
Inherency: By Christopher Keating on March 6 2009| Permalink | Comments (0)
ReplyDeleteThe national unemployment rate hit 8.1 percent today - an ominous sign for the American economy.
The U.S. labor secretary released the following statement a few minutes ago through the White House.
"Today we learned that our economy lost another 651,000 jobs in February, bringing the unemployment rate to 8.1 percent. 4.4 million Americans have now lost their jobs since this recession began last year, and there are now nearly 3 million Americans who have been unemployed for six months or more.
"This data does not just represent abstract statistics. Rather it illustrates the struggles of millions of Americans who do not know how they will raise their families, or pay their bills and mortgages. They are the central focus of this administration's economic policies, and why we are moving swiftly and aggressively to jumpstart job creation and grow our economy.
"As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, President Obama and I have already moved to increase unemployment insurance benefits and to extend the duration of unemployment insurance. In addition, I am announcing today that the Labor Department is making available more than $3.5 billion to states for education, training and reemployment services.
"We will continue to do whatever is necessary to break the destructive cycle of job loss in this country and put Americans back to work. That includes our plans to re-start lending for consumers and small businesses, help responsible homeowners pay their mortgages and re-finance their homes, and address the long-term economic challenges we face--including the high cost of health care, our dependence on oil, and the state of our schools.
"From the day this administration began, we knew that solving the economic crisis we were presented with would not be easy and would not happen overnight. But the President and I believe that this nation has both the resources and the will to meet this challenge and emerge stronger and more prosperous than before
Solvency:
Inherency:
ReplyDeleteTHE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: FEBRUARY 2009
Nonfarm payroll employment continued to fall sharply in February (-651,000),
and the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 to 8.1 percent, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Payroll employ-
ment has declined by 2.6 million in the past 4 months. In February, job
losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors.
Unemployment (Household Survey Data)
The number of unemployed persons increased by 851,000 to 12.5 million in
February, and the unemployment rate rose to 8.1 percent. Over the past 12
months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by about 5.0 million,
and the unemployment rate has risen by 3.3 percentage points. (See table
A-1.)
The unemployment rate continued to trend upward in February for adult
men (8.1 percent), adult women (6.7 percent), whites (7.3 percent), blacks
(13.4 percent), and Hispanics (10.9 percent). The jobless rate for teen-
agers was little changed at 21.6 percent. The unemployment rate for Asians
was 6.9 percent in February, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2,
and A-3.)
Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed
temporary jobs increased by 716,000 to 7.7 million in February. This mea-
sure has grown by 3.8 million in the last 12 months. (See table A-8.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)
increased by 270,000 to 2.9 million in February. Over the past 12 months,
the number of long-term unemployed was up by 1.6 million. (See table A-9.)
Solvency:18 February 2009 HUD
The Homeownership Zone program allows communities to reclaim vacant and blighted properties, increase homeownership, and promote economic revitalization by creating entire neighborhoods of new, single-family homes, called Homeownership Zones. Communities that apply for HOZ funds are encouraged to use New Urbanist design principles by providing for a pedestrian-friendly environment, a mix of incomes and compatible uses, defined neighborhood boundaries and access to jobs and mass transit. There have been two competitive funding rounds, one in 1996 and one in 1997. No further funding has yet been made available for this program.
Inherency:
ReplyDeleteWe should not cut funding for safety net and housing programs during this economic crisis. We need to strengthen our commitment to the most vulnerable individuals and families in our state.
• We need to increase the supply of affordable housing by maintaining the Housing Trust Fund at $200 million.
• We must fully fund General Assistance – Unemployable (GAU)
• We should meet the basic survival needs of Washingtonians by allocating $30 million to the Emergency Shelter Assistance Program (ESAP)
• We can provide short term rental assistance and services for homeless and at-risk families and individuals by allocating $10 million for the Transitional Housing Operational and Rent Program (THOR)
• We will ensure that people leaving state care do not end up on the streets by maintaining support for the Re-Entry Housing Pilot Program (RHPP) and housing options for youth aging out of foster care
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2685/t/8761/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1879
Solvency:
The Low Income Housing Institute develops, owns and operates housing for the benefit of low-income, homeless and formerly homeless people in Washington State; advocates for just housing policies at the local and national levels; and administers a range of supportive service programs to assist those we serve in maintaining stable housing and increasing their self-sufficiency.
Founded in 1991, LIHI has grown to be one of the most productive affordable housing developers in the Northwest. LIHI owns and/or manages over 1,500 housing units at 46 sites in six counties throughout the Puget Sound region. Seventy-five percent of LIHI housing is reserved for households earning less than 30 percent of the area median household income.
LIHI provides a variety of supportive services to help residents maintain their housing and develop self-sufficiency. Our efforts include providing residents with case management, life skills training, technology access and training, financial literacy training and savings programs, and activities for some of the more than 500 children in LIHI housing.
LIHI also owns and operates the Urban Rest Stop, a much-needed hygiene facility for homeless individuals and families located in downtown Seattle, serves approximately 5,000 unduplicated individuals each year. The URS is designed to serve a wide range of people including homeless adults, families with children, youth and the elderly. Urban Rest Stop patrons include disabled persons, veterans, non-English-speaking individuals and people of color.
LIHI believes that affordable housing does not mean poor quality housing. We believe that innovative partnerships, creative project development and sustainable design features in affordable housing makes for a healthy, strong, and committed community.
http://www.lihi.org/aboutUs.html
American’s can’t afford housing.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/
The economic expansion of the 1990s obscured certain trends and statistics that point to an increased, not decreased, need for affordable housing. The generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care. An estimated 12 million renter and homeowner households now pay more then 50 percent of their annual incomes for housing, and a family with one full-time worker earning the minimum wage cannot afford the local fair-market rent for a two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the United States. The lack of affordable housing is a significant hardship for low-income households preventing them from meeting their other basic needs, such as nutrition and healthcare, or saving for their future and that of their families.
Help the Poor by Revitalizing the Federal Workforce
Max Stier. January 2, 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-stier/help-the-poor-by-revitali_b_154787.html
Nearly two-thirds of Americans report being "hurt" by the recession, but for the millions who live in poverty, the economic downturn has them not just feeling pain, but facing peril.
The primary safety net for those in poverty is our federal government, which provides many of them cash assistance, medical care, food stamps and housing. There is currently talk of an $800 billion stimulus package to spur an economic recovery, which is likely to include an extension of unemployment benefits and an increased investment in food stamps and Medicaid.
But delivering more money and services will not be enough. To maximize the help provided to America's least fortunate citizens, our government must have a deeply engaged and quality federal workforce to deliver those services more effectively.
The plain truth is that every single policy of President-elect Barack Obama's new administration, from the financial bailout of Wall Street to providing housing and low-income energy assistance to the poor, will be influenced by the people who have to execute those initiatives.
Our federal leaders have tended to emphasize policy to the exclusion of operations, and this has often been a recipe for failure. Good government and effective policies start with good people and good leaders. Today, we have a serious talent and leadership gap in our federal civil service.
Take the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Shaun Donovan, Obama's choice to be HUD secretary, will be at the center of efforts to solve a housing crisis that has dragged the nation into recession. One in 10 home loans is past due on payment or in foreclosure. There will be increased demand for public housing, Section 8 rental assistance for the poor and a growing homeless population.
At this perilous time, Donovan inherits a department that might best be described as rusted. It has the oldest workforce in government, with 26 percent of its employees set to retire by 2012, and many dysfunctional components.
HUD ranked 23 out of 30 large agencies in the 2007 Best Places to Work in the Federal Government survey conducted by the Partnership for Public Service, a sign of the department's internal problems. Employees gave HUD low marks for effective leadership, strategic management and matching the right talent to the right jobs.
That was true for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which ranked 186th of 222 units within various government agencies and departments in the Best Places survey. Medicaid is the health insurance program for the poor, and Medicare provides health coverage for the elderly and disabled. The Partnership's federal worker survey also gave low rankings for leadership and management to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service, which handles food stamps and the school lunch programs for low-income children.
Study after study has shown that leadership is the most critical factor in determining employee engagement and organizational effectiveness. However, leadership consistently ranks near the bottom in the list of 10 different workplace categories in the Best Places government rankings.
Among the challenges facing Donovan at HUD and his colleagues in the new administration will be the lack of managerial skills among some senior leaders and the need to expand the government's career talent pool to fill critical jobs.
Donovan knows the inner workings of HUD, which should give him a leg up in pinpointing areas that need to be strengthened and finding ways to revitalize the career workforce. And Obama seems aware that more is required than just smart policies and additional funding.
"We can't keep throwing money at the problem, hoping for a different result," Obama said during his radio address this month announcing Donovan's appointment. "We need to approach the old challenge of affordable housing with new energy, new ideas, and a new, efficient style of leadership."
At HUD and at many agencies dealing with assistance to the poor, the Obama team will have to make some major changes in today's badly broken federal systems for recruiting, hiring, compensating, and training workers if they want to attract the best and the brightest to public service and give the people the government they need and deserve.
If Obama's call for a new style of leadership and his earlier pledge to create "a more competent government" are to become reality, he must:
· Send an unequivocal message to his political appointees and senior career managers at every federal department and agency that hiring and retaining quality people is a top priority--that it is not just a personnel issue but a leadership issue and a central part of their jobs.
· Fix the government's broken hiring process that is inflexible, confusing, time-consuming, and has difficulty matching the right talent with the appropriate jobs.
· Open up civil service positions traditionally closed to the public to attract experienced and talented mid-career professionals to fill high-skill jobs.
· Seek enactment of expanded loan-repayment programs, "fellowships" for certain jobs, and an ROTC-like program in which students would get educational benefits in return for a commitment to join the government after graduation.
· Invest in the current workforce with leadership, training and development programs for managers and supervisors--sending a message that the administration wants world-class employees operating in a world-class work environment.
· Make sure the political appointees engage career civil servants and their union representatives on ways to improve government performance and effectiveness.
The evidence is readily apparent that the recession is hitting low-income people very hard, and this will mean increased demands on the federal government to assist the poor. We are already seeing more people apply for unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps and housing assistance--not the ingredients for a happy holiday season or a new year.
The foundations, the nonprofit sector and the states can play important roles in dealing with poverty, but the federal government by far is the biggest and most important player on the block. If we care about alleviating poverty, we not only have to care just about getting the policies right but about the improving the quality of the federal workforce that must deliver the services to the American people.
Poverty
Stimulus Package
Housing Crisis
The Recession
Economy
This was originally posted as an exclusive commentary for Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity. A Holiday Appeal to Improve How Government Assists Those in Need Nearly two-thirds of Americans report...
This was originally posted as an exclusive commentary for Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity. A Holiday Appeal to Improve How Government Assists Those in Need Nearly two-thirds of Americans report...
Inherency: right now no one is being hired in the housing department. By Tom Jennemann
ReplyDeleteHoboken Reporter
‘WARM AND FUZZY’ – Outgoing interim Executive Director Robert DiVincent addresses a crowd Thursday night. He was praised for his work in lifting the Hoboken Housing Authority projects out of financial distress.
A majority of commissioners of the Hoboken Housing Authority agreed Thursday night to hire veteran public housing official Robert Graham as their new interim executive director. Graham, who has managed or worked for housing authorities in Jersey City and Bridgeport, Conn., among others, will be replacing Robert DiVincent, who was "borrowed" 18 months ago from West New York to bring Hoboken's troubled authority out of a major financial and management crisis.
So why hire an interim director to replace another interim director?
While DiVincent has been making progress in closing a million deficit left by the previous director, he also serves as the director of the West New York and Weehawken housing authorities.
HHA Commissioner Christopher Campos, who is also the City Council president, said that DiVincent did a good job, but that he was spread too thin between three housing authorities.
Political rumors
Before Thursday's meeting, there were rumors that the HHA board majority wanted to bring an ally of Mayor David Roberts into the executive director's position. Some suggested it might be the city's Human Services director, Carmelo Garcia, who also serves as the Board of Ed. president and hosts a local weekly cable TV show. Garcia's name was not mentioned Thursday night.
After the HHA voted last month to end DiVincent's contract, the federal department of Housing and Urban Development sent the HHA a strongly worded letter telling them to make sure they do a legitimate search for a qualified director.
The HHA oversees the city's federally funded housing projects, including 1,383 units for families and seniors. Graham was awarded a contract Thursday for 60 days.
The resolution hiring Graham passed by a 4-2 vote, with Commissioners Jean Rodriguez and Lynda Walker strongly dissenting. Both of them are the only two commissioners who live in the projects. They said that DiVincent was doing a good job, something the federal government has agreed with - so there was no reason to terminate him.
Solvency: In 1998 the 52 most indebted countries owed US$372 billion. Internationally the Jubilee movement has done the sums and found that these debts can never be repaid. Under the IMF and World Bank's Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative (HIPC) about 15% of the debt has been cancelled to date, allowing children in Uganda access to primary school for example. But any benefits gained for the 24 countries that have received some debt cancellation are likely to be lost in the next few years. Africa alone pays US$13.5 billion every year to service its debts. This is far more than its governments receive in aid.
"Without some fundamental changes in the priorities of the world's richest countries, the poorest countries will simply return any new aid money back in debt repayments. The intentions of the conference are very worthy but there is no indication in a statement agreed before the meeting of any decisive new action to rectify the injustices of a global scale," said Jill Hawkey. "The IMF, the World Bank and the comparatively new World Trade Organisation have a very poor track record in terms of development. Governments must take their lead from the people themselves."
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0274.htm
this would make a nice inherency card and could possibly block out a politics Disad.
ReplyDeletehttp://washingtonindependent.com/29886/%EF%BB%BFsenate-stimulus-bill-cuts-low-income-housing-funds
Inherency:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/
Solvency:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Benefits and facilities such as education, food subsidies, health care, and subsidized housing provided by a government to improve the life and living conditions of the children, disabled, the elderly, and the poor in the national community.
ReplyDeleteMeasures of unemployment and poverty have tended to focus solely on those currently unemployed or below the poverty line. This approach has ignored the members of society that are vulnerable to becoming unemployed or falling into poverty. Current literature in this area has implicitly assumed that since someone who is vulnerable experiences pain from the chance of becoming unemployed or falling into poverty, our standard measures of unemployment and poverty do not accurately account for this pain. The implication is that vulnerability is a 'bad' and policies should aim to reduce the number of people who are vulnerable in a society. In this paper we argue that, at the macro level, vulnerability can be viewed as a 'good' because, with unemployment remaining constant, the presence of vulnerable people implies that there must also exist currently unemployed people who expect to find work in the near future. And a society where unemployment is more equitably shared is better than a society where the burden of unemployment is carried by only a few. Given this view of vulnerability we then suggest a class of measures that, unlike the standard unemployment rate, account for the amount of vulnerability that exists in a society. We show some attractive axioms that our measure satisfies, fully characterize our measure and apply it to data from the U.S. and South Africa. The chronically unemployed live within or haunt the edges of every American community.
One way or another, they affect public expenditures and the quality of life for
everyone. The public expenditures resulting from chronic unemployment and the sustained deep poverty to which it leads
are, among other outlays, those associated
with safety-net programs, emergency
services, public health issues, public
safety systems, and the remedial programs
needed to address negative child
outcomes. Chronic unemployment
reminds America of how far short of the
promise of justice and equality the country
still is. A solution to such unemployment
is a must to those who care about
America keeping that promise, to those
who care about deep poverty on a human
level, to those who recognize a plight that
they or their loved ones could someday
share, and to those who recognize the
cost that they already pay in public
expense and diminished quality of life
that results from chronic unemployment
even if they themselves are not chronically
unemployed or poor.
solvency: that by using the poor and the unemployed to work for construction jobs will icrease social services. and this will create a better overall achivement because not only will the construction employers have a variety of workers for their jobs, but also we will not have all those poor people out in the streets distracting us and asking for food or carrying a sign saying, "will work for food"!!!!!!
so this will further benefit the society thus lowering the unemployed!
INHERENCY, STRATEGY
ReplyDeleteAND
ACADEMIC DEBATE
by
Benjamin R. Bates
According to most debate text authors,
judges, and coaches, there are four
stock issues, or burdens of proof, that an
affirmative team must meet to have a prima
facie case. These issues are topicality, harms,
solvency, and inherency. Topicality is simple
to understand, as it only asks whether the
affirmative team is upholding the resolution.
Harms (which includes significance) is also
not difficult to comprehend. It only asks if
the problem is serious enough to act on.
Solvency asks whether the affirmative plan
can fix the problems. Inherency, however, is
much less clear. Not only is inherency a
poorly defined issue, but there is also a
question of whether or not it is an issue at
all. This article will attempt to define the issue
of inherency and identify when
inherency is or is not a voting issue in a
debate round.
Definitions of Inherency1
To begin this discussion, it is necessary
to define what inherency is. There are
several views as to what "inherency"
means. The most simplistic view, meaning
easiest and clearest to understand, defines
inherency as why smart and reasonable
people allow dumb or bad things to happen
(Grassmick, 1995). This provides a basic
understanding of what inherency is, but it
is not enough. While this definition does
cover the basic question, it leaves out a few
important points such as a bright line, a
method of proof, and standards. More precise
views of inherency make these distinctions
and make inherency into a usable debate
argument.
The first view asks if the affirmative
plan is the only way to get the advantages;
that is, are the advantages inherent to the
plan? This falls under the general definition
as asking why, if the plan is so good, does
the present system not act on it? The affirmative
would claim that there is that there is
something preventing the present system
from accruing the advantages. This view of
inherency merges the issues of inherency
and solvency. If a plan uniquely gains an
advantage by implementing a particular
strategy and that is the only strategy that
will work, then the advantages are linked
with the plan so much that they have become
inherent to the plan. If this claim is
made, the negative can attack inherency by
removing solvency. If the plan cannot solve,
it cannot gain the advantages, and therefore
the advantages are no longer inherent
to the plan.
A second specific view of inherency
asks, "can the problem be solved without
resolutional action?" Sometimes there are
problems that must be solves before it is
too late. This does not mean, however, that
the resolution is the only way to do so. If
the negative chooses to admit that there is
a problem in the real world, it has three options.
The negative can counterplan. A
counterplan admits that there is no mechanism
in the present system that can solve
and that major action must be taken (i.e. it
admits that there is inherency). A second
option is to perform a minor repair: to take
some action that does not adopt the resolution,
but still fixes the problem. This does
admit some level of harms, but if the harms
can be solved for without adopting the resolution,
then there are no inherent barriers to
change. The third negative strategy is to
say, "a change to solve the problem is already
in the works." This was popular with
the national health insurance topic. Many
negatives would say, "if we wait for X number
of years, the Clinton plan will be passed,
and there will be insurance for everyone."
Such a claim, if true, would mean that there
would be no reason to choose the resolution
over the present system, since any
resolutional action would be done by the
system anyway.
The third view of inherency is unrelated
to the effects of the resolution or of
the plan. It asks instead, "what blocks the
plan from being done now?" There are three
levels of inherency accepted in today's debate
community. The first is also the oldest.
It is structural inherency. This type of
inherency identifies laws, treaties, court rulings,
or executive orders that prevent the
proposed affirmative plan. If for example,
the affirmative wanted to import avocados
from Mexico, current laws that say the
United States cannot do so would provide
a clear structural barrier (i.e. a law that must
be repealed first). Also under structural
inherency are structural gaps. Although no
current laws blocks the plan in the present
system, the current actions of the present
system do not go far enough in what they
do. If, for example, the United States limited
its use of weapons of mass destruction toward
Russia already, but the treaty did not
mention China, there would be a structural
gap when it came to limiting use against
China. The second level of inherency is attitudinal
inherency. This identifies any
deep-set feelings that would prevent the
plan from being done now. For example, if
the plan were to enact more species protection
laws, the attitudes of many
congresspeople would prevent them from
approving the plan in the present system.
Structural inherency is easier to prove but
attitudes are almost as strong, although
they do have the propensity to change. The
final type of inherency is existential
inherency. Existential inherency states that
if the harms exist and the plan has not been
done, there must be something blocking action,
even if we do not know what it is. Existential
inherency relies on several assumptions:
1) no one is acting on any level.
2) no one is interested in acting now.
3) there is no propensity for any level
of change.
4) there are no alternate solutions
being proposed now.
Each of these assumptions is faulty, as there
is undoubtedly someone trying to do the
plan, especially if the authors for the sol-
1See Cox, 1975 and Cherwitz & Hikins, 1977, for
an expanded discussion of the definitions of
inherency discussed in this section.
vency section actually advocate the plan.
Even if a minor official in an obscure branch
of government writes a memo on the affirmative
plan, then the present system has
taken some level of action on the plan, making
claims of existential inherency illegitimate.
Practices of Inherency
Although inherency has been defined
as a theoretical issue, this has not been the
way that inherency has been used in debate
rounds over the years. Inherency has
been around since the beginning of formal
academic debate. In this time, its role in the
activity has changed substantially. According
to Meredith Garmon, inherency has
been an issue that has never carried much
weight in a debate round According to his
post to CEDA-L,
Coaches up through the 60s
almost universally told their students
that [inherency was [a voting
issue]. And 1Ns during that
period used to scream about
inherency on the assumption that
it was a v.i. ...But a careful analysis
of all debate ballots ever written will
reveal that the only time a negative
team ever won a round on an
inherency issue was in 1957 --
Abner Sidlebrow from a small Midwestern
college voted for Northwest
Iowa's second team over
Southern Idaho A&M, and his ballot
comment was, "The minor repair
the negative proposes would solve
the problem, thus making
resolutional action unnecessary."
(Garmon 1995)
While this story is a humorous one, it
does underscore a serious point: some
people do not believe that inherency is important.
Other judges, however, consider
inherency to be an important issue. Also,
several debaters have found that inherency
can be made into a winning issue in today's
debate rounds. A brief overview of
inherency, though, shows that the actual
history of debate has been one of devolution
of the inherency standard from a prime
issue to one that is largely ignored.
Just after the turn of the century,
inherency was considered an essential issue.
According to Glen Strickland (1995),
structural inherency arguments were the
heaviest burden for affirmative teams to
carry at this time. As such, many teams were
able to argue that there was nothing in the
present system stopping the plan, making
resolutional action was unnecessary. During
the 1950s and 1960s, negative teams were
successful at arguing this point, and many
won national level tournaments on
inherency alone. During the 1970s and
1980s, the importance of inherency declined.
While it was still possible to win the
inherency argument, the issue was held to
a higher standard and was rarely used in
close rounds (McGee,1995). Lower standards
for meeting the burden of inherency
were due to the introduction of new modes
of inherency. As attitudinal and existential
inherency became more popular, structural
barriers became a kind of "pseudoinherency"
and were no longer necessary
for a prima facie case (Schunk, 1978). In the
1990s, though, judging philosophies were
less and less likely to view inherency as a
central issue in a debate (Pettus, 1991).
Inherency still has a place in debate
rounds. Rather than being a jurisdictional
issue like topicality, inherency is now used
to gain strategic advantages in the debate.
Inherency attacks commonly set up disadvantages
in the following way:
1N: The plan has already been
done, so there is no need for plan
action, right?
2A: No, nothing has been done in
the present system. Nothing at all.
The plan is the only way to get advantages.
2N: Aha! So, your plan makes this
new disadvantage unique and this
uniqueness comes from your own
answers! (Cackles with glee).
Obviously, this dialogue is oversimplified.
Yet, when it comes down to an actual
debate round, this tactic is one way to
link a largely irrelevant (to the plan) disadvantage
to the affirmative. Whatever the
affirmative claim as the inherent barrier can
be turned into proof that there is no risk of
disadvantages occurring in the status quo.
The other use for inherency today
seems to be to waste as much of the affirmative
team's time as possible. While there
are a few judges who will consider
inherency to be a vital issue, a randomly
selected judge from the national judging is
unlikely to vote on inherency. Rather, she
will probably allow the negative to drop the
discussion of inherency because, even if
the affirmative shows it is inherent, winning
a single stock issue does not win an entire
debate round. Because time will have to be
spent answering inherency, this leaves less
time for other issues, making it easier for
the negative to capitalize on strategic errors.
There may be, however, more effective
forms of inherency argumentation, a subject
explored later in this article.
Since inherency is a voting issue with
some judges, we must ask how a judge
should react to an inherency argument.
Again, there are three basic ways for a judge
to react to an inherency argument: accept
it, reject it, or let the debaters fight it out.
The last of these reactions is probably the
most common and the most acceptable to
both judges and debaters. Following the
basic guidelines of a tabula rasa judge, in
this setting inherency is debatable, just as
topicality is debatable. If inherency is purely
debatable, then there are no preconceived
notions as to the worth of the argument
going into the round. The judge will look at
her sheet at the end of the round and, if
enough of the inherency attacked is carried
across the flow, then her only justifiable
decision would be to vote on inherency. If
the negative presents the inherency violation
as a voting issue, and if the affirmative
fails to respond adequately, then just like a
dropped topicality argument, the negative
could win on this argument alone.
There are also some judges for whom
inherency is, was, and always will be an absolute
voting issue. The judge who automatically
accepts inherency as a voting issue
would operate along a stock issues
paradigm. Because she assumes that there
is a set of arguments the affirmative must
win to have any place in the debate, each
one be independently proven for a prima
facie case. For this judge, a lack of inherency
is as important as a lack of solvency or being
non-topical is. If a list of negative
inherency answers were read, this judge
would automatically assume the impacts of
these arguments without requiring the debaters
to make it for her. While this does
assume some level of intervention by the
judge, if she makes her paradigm clear at
the beginning of the round, then all debaters
should be aware that this third party
intervention may happen and should adapt
accordingly. Perhaps the most interesting
part of this judge's philosophy is, however,
that technicalities on inherency may be
enough to win, regardless of how the team
fares on the rest of the argumentation. If
the affirmative can provide even a smidgen
of inherency, the affirmative has technically
passed this text. Alternatively, if the negative
can supply a single point that shows
the plan is being done, that one thing may
be enough to sway the judges ballot on
inherency.
The third reaction to inherency is to
automatically discount it. Tim Mahoney argues
that inherency is not a voting issue
and actually makes the negative team look
worse for running it (1995). According to
him, inherency is not a voting issue because
the attack can be answered on the existential
level. Additionally, if a plan is expected
in the future, as in the NHI example discussed
earlier, there will always be the option
of claiming that the plan is needed because
a few days more of solvency is naturally
better. When time issues are examined
this way, inherency loses meaning because,
even if the plan will be done soon by the
present system, the one day's advantage of
having the plan now is a net benefit to the
affirmative case.
In addition to giving the affirmative
this added weight, the inherency arguments
may also discredit other negative arguments.
If the plan is already going to be put
into effect and the negative claims that the
plan also will not solve, then either the
inherency argument or the solvency argument
is illegitimate. This occurs because one
cannot claim that a plan will both solve for
the problem and will not solve for the problem;
the two contradict. Also, inherency
arguments injure the uniqueness of disadvantages.
If the present system will already
do the affirmative plan, then it will also accrue
the disadvantages that are applied to
case (with the exception of time-delay disadvantages),
making the status quo no less
harmful than doing the affirmative plan.
An Alternative Interpretation
There is, however, an alternative to
viewing inherency as either valid or invalid
in all cases. Because inherency is a debatable
issue, there are times when inherency
is always a voting issue and other times
when inherency is never a voting issue. The
conditions for each type will be described
under what I call scrolling inherency theory.
Under scrolling inherency theory, all of the
previous inherency arguments are included
as legitimate. There are no changes in the
levels of inherency. The only change is
whether or not inherency argumentation is
a legitimate tactic for a particular case and
plan. Unlike conventional inherency theory,
which examines whether the plan will be
implemented in the status quo, scrolling
theory asks if the present system will act
before the impacts of the advantages occur.
There are two types of advantages:
single impactual advantages and continual
impactual advantages. The first assumes
that at a given time a given impact will occur
once, such as a nuclear strike or an invasion
from space with disastrous consequences.
This single impact will be large
enough on its own so that it does not need
to happen again and again to have great
physical, social, or moral impacts. The second
type of advantage assumes that a continuous
problem, such as murders, acid rain,
or heart disease, is the impact. These impacts
occur repeatedly and each time the
harms grow collectively worse.
Under scrolling inherency theory,
inherency would be a voting issue on single
impactual advantages, but not on continuous
impactual advantages. This happens
for the same reasons as why time-delay
counterplans also solve for the affirmative
harms. In the following scenarious, I will
use scrolling inherency theory to explain
why inherency is or is not a voting issue in
the round.
Scenario 1: 1AC claims that
global warming will destroy the
planet if United States emissions
standards are not adopted by 2010,
the cutoff date for taking effective
action. The affirmative plan is to cut
emissions today. 1NC grants the
advantage scenario and makes the
argument that the United States will
adopt emissions standards in 2006.
A disadvantage claims emissions
standards hurt business growth by
10 per cent each year. 2A claims that
this is non-unique because of
inherency argumentation.
Under scrolling inherency theory, the
inherency argument is a winning one for
the negative team as the warming advantage
has a single impact and the present
system will take action before that impact
occurs. Since affirmative evidence indicates
that there is a specific date by which action
must be taken, any solvent action put into
effect before that date will avoid the harm.
Since the present system will adopt the standards
for global warming before the date
indicated in the affirmative evidence, the
present system will solve for the catastrophic
impacts. Although the affirmative
does implement emissions standards before
the present system does, there is no net
benefit, as no other advantages are identified.
The disadvantage does apply to both
sides. Since the affirmative acts 5 years before
the present system does, the net disadvantage
is that the affirmative hurts business
for one year longer than the negative
will. The fact that the United States will meet
the time-frame (i.e. there is not inherency) is
key to the success of the other arguments
in the negative strategy.
Scenario 2: 1AC claims that
every day 5 children die of child
abuse. The affirmative plan is to
conduct child abuse prevention
education which will solve the problem
immediately. 1NC claims that
the federal government will implement
the same program in 2005, so
there is no inherency. Both teams
win their solvency arguments. An
economics disadvantage is placed
on case by 1N. 2A claims that the
disadvantage applies equally well
to the negative.
Under scrolling inherency, the negative
inherency argument actually helps the
affirmative in this round. Since the advantage
has a continuous impact, every day
that the plan or status quo future plan is
not in effect is equal to five more deaths.
Since both teams solve equally well, the time
period becomes very important. Since there
are five more years worth of deaths prevented
by doing the plan now and not waiting,
this serves as a net benefit to the plan.
The disadvantage applies to each team
equally well, but the negative hurts the
economy for five fewer years. At the end of
the round, the judge must weigh the economic
scenario against 6,750 lives. Although
this is a difficult decision in real life,
the assumed sanctity of human life should
win this round handily for the affirmative.
Scenario 3: 1AC presents a
case with two advantages. Advantage
1 is that Americans are not
learning enough now, more funding
will better educate them. Advantage
2 is that if students are not
adequately funded within the next
ten years, the United States will lose
its global leadership. 1N claims that
Bush's educational reforms will adequately
fund schools in 2006, and
therefore there is no inherency. No
disadvantages are presented.
Under scrolling inherency theory, the
inherency attack injures one of the advantages,
but lets the other go through unscathed.
The inherency argumentation on
Advantage 2 is enough to rebut this part of
the case. Since the United States has 10
years to shore up its position as a global
leader, and since Bush's new funding will
be fully in place in 2006, there is no inherency
for this advantage. Since global leadership
can be preserved, there is no need to adopt
the plan to gain that advantage. However,
on Advantage 1, the inherency argumentation
still leaves the affirmative with a case.
Since every day of education is important,
the increase in funding will improve the
overall quality of education over a longer
period. Since there is no threat of the status
quo implementing more funding before
2006, the affirmative gains at least five years
of added benefits over the status quo. This,
given no disadvantages to weigh against
it, provides no reason to vote for the negative
-- not even on the grounds of inherency.
Conclusion
Inherency is an issue that is constantly
evolving (or devolving depending
on your view). Scrolling inherency is a logical
step in the progression of debate, as it
becomes more focused on specialization of
cases and farther away from whole
resolutional issues. Scrolling inherency provides
the opportunity to focus both on the
case specific area, the topic in general, and
a higher level of debate theory. Indeed, only
by combining these elements can a scrolling
inherency argument make sense and
effect the round in a positive manner for
both teams. Instead of cards read from a
generic inherency list, scrolling inherency
forces the debater to ask when impacts are
coming, how they weigh, and if the evidence
on her list meets the time-frame offered by
the affirmative evidence.
Inherency is currently at risk as a viable
debate argument. It was a strong issue
in the 1950s and 60s. In the 1970s and 80s
declined in importance, but was still used
as a strategic position. In the 1990s,
inherency skirted the borders of irrelevance.
Today, debaters and judges can choose the
future of inherency. It can be allowed to disappear
or it can be reasserted as a mighty
argument. As this choice faces debaters,
scrolling inherency could become part of
that second option.
Works Cited
Cherwitz, R., & Hikins, J. W. (1977).
Inherency as a multidimensional construct:
A rhetorical approach to the proof of causation.
Journal of the American Forensic
Association, 14, 82-90.
Cox, J. R. (1975). Attitudinal inherency:
Implications for policy debate. Southern
Speech Communication Journal, 40, 158-
168.
Garmon, M. (1995, Oct. 26).
[sgarmon@dubois.fisk.edu]. "Re:
Inherency." In CEDA-L [CEDAL@
cornell.edu].
Grassmick, D. (1995, Oct. 26).
[Grassmick@aol.com]. "Re: Inherency." Personal
communication.
Mahoney, T. (1995, Oct. 26).
[Pacedebate@aol.com]. "Re: Inherency." In
CEDA-L. [CEDA-L@cornell.edu].
McGee, B. R. (1995, Oct. 27).
[bmcgee@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu].
"Inherency." In CEDA-L. [CEDAL@
cornell.edu].
Pettus, A. B. (1991). From attitudinal
inherency to permutation standards: A survey
of judging philosophies from the 1988
National Debate Tournament. Argumentation
and Advocacy, 27, 159-170.
Schunk, J .F. (1978). A farewell to
"structural change". Journal of the American
Forensics Association, 14, 144-149.
Strickland, Glen. (1995, Oct. 27).
[STICKLG@esumail.emporia.edu]. "Re:
Inherency (fwd) Reply." In CEDA-L.
[CEDA-L@cornell.edu].
(Benjamin R. Bates , M.A., 2000, University
of Georgia, is a doctoral candidate in
Speech Communication at the University
of Georgia.)
Inherency- Us Housing and unemployment crisis continues to worsen
ReplyDeleteVeronica Smith 09-http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/22012009/323/unemployment-rises-housing-crisis-deepens.html
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US unemployment claims hit a 26-year high and housing construction fell to half-century lows, data showed Thursday, highlighting the troubling depths of the recession facing the new Obama administration.
President Barack Obama has made economic recovery his new administration's top immediate priority and is seeking an 825-billion-dollar stimulus package from Congress to kick-start growth.
Official data on Obama's second full day in office highlighted the challenges in two of the worst-hit segments of the economy: the labor market and the collapsed housing sector, the epicenter of the global credit squeeze.
In a sign of a rapidly deteriorating job market, the Labor Department reported the number of new unemployment claims leapt in the week ended January 17 to 589,000, matching the highest level since November 1982.
"The labor market remains a disaster," said Ian Shepherdson, chief US economist at High Frequency Economics.
"It is clear from the latest numbers that the underlying trend in claims is still upwards and we have no hope that the peak is anywhere near. The corporate sector is rolling over, and we probably have not yet seen many job losses stemming from the sudden collapse in international trade."
The economy had capped a full year of deepening recession in December with a total loss of 2.6 million jobs and unemployment at a 16-year high of 7.2 percent.
Rising job losses and fears of layoffs have significantly damaged consumer confidence, leading worried consumers to curb the spending that normally drives two-thirds of US economic activity.
Software giant Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT - news) on Thursday became the latest major employer to slash headcount, announcing up to 5,000 jobs would be eliminated due to weak technology sales in a slowing economy.
The housing sector appeared headed for further distress as the Commerce Department reported housing starts and building permits tumbled in December to half-century lows.
Officials have said a turnaround in the sector is key to economic recovery.
The number of housing starts plunged 15.5 percent in December from November to an annualized rate of 550,000 units.
It was the third consecutive monthly drop in starts as the construction sector retrenched in the face of rising unemployment and tight financing conditions despite unprecedented government measures to break the credit crunch.
Permits to build new homes, an indicator of future activity in the housing sector, dropped 10.7 percent from the prior month to an annualized rate of 549,000.
The sharp drop in housing starts outstripped most analysts' forecasts of 610,000, while the permits decline was not as bad as the 615,000 forecasted.
The official numbers were the lowest on record: Housing starts data were first published in January 1959, and permits data in January 1960.
"To put the December construction number into perspective, it is over 30 percent lower than the weakest home start pace posted in any other slowdown over the past 50 years. It is a number that is almost incomprehensible," said Joel Naroff at Naroff Economic Advisors.
IHS Global Insight's Patrick Newport said the report "points to further double-digit drops in starts during both January and February."
"Conditions in the market for new homes have not been this bad since the 1930s, and they continue to worsen," he added
-------------------------------------------------
Solvency Housing and unemployment are intertwined, solving for 1 solves the other
Chris Hynes on November 8, 2008 http://blownmortgage.com/2008/11/08/the-ties-that-bind-unemployment-and-housing/
Why is this news so dire? For many of us keeping an eye on the economy, the key to recovery has been identified as the housing market. Even though activity has been stirring in the housing market of late, the simple fact is that as people continue to lose jobs, it becomes difficult to make housing payments even in the best of times. When your house is mortgaged for more than it is worth, and your interest rates are suddenly adjusted higher, that makes the situation even worse. As this continues to happen at a national level, money will continue to simply disappear.
Now let?s bring the automakers into the discussion. Anyone who has seen Michael Moore?s ?Roger & Me? can attest to the intense, immediate impoverishment that a closing auto plant can wreak on a local economy. Regardless of what you or I may think of his politics, the scenes of dilapidated houses and boarded-up shops are viscerally evocative of our deepest sympathies. A bankruptcy of the Big Three would cause a ripple effect not only in local economies, but nationwide. The downward spiral of the housing market, and therefore the economy at-large, would continue. Other automakers will fill the gaps in the market left by the Big Three, but even if that took only a year (a highly optimistic estimation), the effects would be devastating.
It?s important to consider that while we rail against large corporations, they employ, and support the lives of everyday, responsible, hard-working people, people who could foreseeably lose their homes. These are not sub-prime homeowners who were suckered into something they could not afford by the allure of the housing bubble. These are victims of mismanaged and outdated corporations. I am not a proponent of the government giving aid to corporations, but when it comes to retaining working-class jobs, our government is required to preserve the well-being of its citizens. If that means lending additional money to the Detroit, our policymakers need to attach some strings that emphasize a change in production emphasis. The same would apply if the government decided to allow the Big Three to have access to the $700 billion bailout package. Automakers should be forced to anticipate future demand for new types of efficient, green vehicles, rather than current demand for gasoline-fueled cars.
By doing so, the government would be killing two birds with one stone, and could avoid a potentially catastrophic acceleration of job-losses. These are the sorts of crises that Keynesian economics are meant to deal with, not those that involve providing corporate welfare. It certainly won’t save the housing industry, but it well prevent the bottom from falling out. We can only hope that the government is aware of the severity of the situation.
Inherency:L
ReplyDeleteREGIONAL AND STATE EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT: FEBRUARY 2009
Regional and state unemployment rates were nearly all higher in
February. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia recorded
over-the-month unemployment rate increases, while all 50 states and
the District of Columbia had higher rates than a year earlier, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported
today. The national unemployment rate rose from 7.6 percent in
January to 8.1 percent in February, which was 3.3 percentage points
higher than a year earlier.
Friday, March 27, 2009
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm
Solvency:
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: FEBRUARY 2009
The construction industry lost 104,000 jobs in February. Employment
in the industry has fallen by 1.1 million since peaking in January 2007.
Two-fifths of that decline occurred over the last 4 months. Employment
fell sharply in both the residential and nonresidential components of
the industry in February.
Friday, March 6, 2009.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
First I am going to introduce myself and then say what I think about Plan 1.
ReplyDeleteHello Fremont Debaters! For those of you who don't know me my name is Lisa Kaplinger. I am currently a sophmore(1st year of college) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. I graduated from Millard South in 2008 and was on their policy debate team for 4 years. My successes include getting to multiple outrounds in-state and out of state since my sophmore year of high school. My senior year my partner and I almost recieved a bid at KCKCC. That year also included only 2 losses in-state all year. I have loads of experience in all different types of arguments. I love critical stuff but staight up policy is pretty sweet too. I am looking forward to working with all of you this next year. However, I have a couple of concerns: 1) I'm dedicating my time to help ALL of you to become better debaters--that means that you have to be just as dedicated as I am. If you're not willing to do the work then I'm going to stop showing up (and your coach will ultimately make you STAY HOME from tournaments). 2)Time is precious. I will only have one or two days a week that I will be able to come to fremont. I will expect ALL of you to show up to debate practice (Of course if you are in other activities or need to be excused because of family reasons that is absolutely fine). 3) Be respectful. If I ask you to do something then it is in your best interest to do it. I am NOT going to put up with debaters talking back to me, not listening, or disrespecting me in any way. Any of this were to happen that debater will have consequences (either from me or from Mrs. Britton) and/or I will decide NOT to waste my time.
I think that is all I have for now. I'm very exicted to start helping everyone. If you have any awesome ideas about what you want to do for next year (affs, t, da, k, case args), just run them by me and we can figure something out. I'm very interested in what YOU GUYS want to run (although it has to be reasonable and we have to start out policy--later we can turn it critical).
I agree with Jamie Saker, all of you need to consider debate camp this summer. Now I know you don't want to waste your summer at debate camp but it is alot more fun then you think it is going to be. I had a BLAST all three years at debate camp; some of my favorite memories are there. For those of you that can not afford debate camp I urge you to still apply and apply for scholarships. NDI (Nebraska Debate Institue) is fairly reasonable in price and it is freakin' awesome. Sitting down with multiple intelligent judges for 9 days and picking their brains....there is not better camp. But for those of you who want more than 9 days or to add to the 9 days I would recommend WDW (Wildcat Debate Workshop (K-state)) or WFI (Wyoming Forensics Institute). If you have trouble affording camp I believe that we might have a small get together before school starts and we can consider that our Fremont debate camp.
******I URGE all of you to go to camp if you can!!!! You will NOT regret it.
Plan 1- I think it is fine for now. I'm not sure what camps will turn out yet so I can't be sure. However, I think whoever runs this aff needs to be good or at least ready for a topicality debate. Creating NEW construction companies then a hiring process for unemployed, then to low-income housing. That is very specific, lots of steps, and creating new is probably going to be T violation next year. Other than that I think this aff has major potenial.
If you guys have any questions or comments hit me up here or my email address is kaplinger.lisa@gmail.com
~Actually I would like most of you to email me so that I have your email addresses...but any questions are welcome as well!
I'm very exicted for this Fremont Debate Chapter!!!
Very cool. Lisa has 100% backing from the coach (the one that manages the team)!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=350
ReplyDeleteMany factors contribute to the persistence of hunger and poverty in this nation, including low wages, lack of access to safety-net programs including child care and Food Stamps, inability to take advantage of most tax benefits aimed at middle- and upper-income households, and a lack of opportunity to accumulate savings and other assets.
Because of its persistence even in times of plenty, hunger and poverty can seem like an intractable problem. Yet hunger and poverty do not exist in the United States and around the world because there are not enough resources. The issue is one of priorities. As former Sen. Mark Hatfield once said, “We stand by as children starve by the millions because we lack the will to eliminate hunger. Yet we have found the will to develop missiles capable of flying over the polar cap and landing within a few hundred feet of their target. This is not innovation. It is a profound distortion of humanity’s purpose on earth.”
RESULTS has been working for more than 25 years to build the political will to end hunger and poverty in the United States. Its efforts have included strengthening the nation’s safety net programs, including the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Child Care Development Block Grant, Head Start, Food Stamps, and Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infant, and Children programs, as well as the Earned Income Tax Credit, and Child Tax Credit. Additionally, RESULTS advocates for innovative solutions to poverty, such as U.S. microenterprise and Individual Development Accounts. In December 2003, the National Anti-Hunger Organizations, including RESULTS, issued a Millennium Declaration to End Hunger in America, calling on “the president, Congress, and other elected leaders in states and cities to provide decisive leadership to end hunger in America.” This was followed by the Blueprint to End Hunger issued in June 2004
April 2nd, 2009
i dont know what im doing...
US unemployment rises, housing crisis deepens
ReplyDeleteBy Veronica Smith
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US unemployment claims hit a 26-year high and housing construction fell to half-century lows, data showed Thursday, highlighting the troubling depths of the recession facing the new Obama administration.
President Barack Obama has made economic recovery his new administration's top immediate priority and is seeking an 825-billion-dollar stimulus package from Congress to kick-start growth.
Official data on Obama's second full day in office highlighted the challenges in two of the worst-hit segments of the economy: the labor market and the collapsed housing sector, the epicenter of the global credit squeeze.
In a sign of a rapidly deteriorating job market, the Labor Department reported the number of new unemployment claims leapt in the week ended January 17 to 589,000, matching the highest level since November 1982.
"The labor market remains a disaster," said Ian Shepherdson, chief US economist at High Frequency Economics.
"It is clear from the latest numbers that the underlying trend in claims is still upwards and we have no hope that the peak is anywhere near. The corporate sector is rolling over, and we probably have not yet seen many job losses stemming from the sudden collapse in international trade."
The economy had capped a full year of deepening recession in December with a total loss of 2.6 million jobs and unemployment at a 16-year high of 7.2 percent.
Rising job losses and fears of layoffs have significantly damaged consumer confidence, leading worried consumers to curb the spending that normally drives two-thirds of US economic activity.
Software giant Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT - news) on Thursday became the latest major employer to slash headcount, announcing up to 5,000 jobs would be eliminated due to weak technology sales in a slowing economy.
The housing sector appeared headed for further distress as the Commerce Department reported housing starts and building permits tumbled in December to half-century lows.
Officials have said a turnaround in the sector is key to economic recovery.
The number of housing starts plunged 15.5 percent in December from November to an annualized rate of 550,000 units.
It was the third consecutive monthly drop in starts as the construction sector retrenched in the face of rising unemployment and tight financing conditions despite unprecedented government measures to break the credit crunch.
Permits to build new homes, an indicator of future activity in the housing sector, dropped 10.7 percent from the prior month to an annualized rate of 549,000.
The sharp drop in housing starts outstripped most analysts' forecasts of 610,000, while the permits decline was not as bad as the 615,000 forecasted.
The official numbers were the lowest on record: Housing starts data were first published in January 1959, and permits data in January 1960.
"To put the December construction number into perspective, it is over 30 percent lower than the weakest home start pace posted in any other slowdown over the past 50 years. It is a number that is almost incomprehensible," said Joel Naroff at Naroff Economic Advisors.
IHS Global Insight's Patrick Newport said the report "points to further double-digit drops in starts during both January and February."
"Conditions in the market for new homes have not been this bad since the 1930s, and they continue to worsen," he added.
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/22012009/323/unemployment-rises-housing-crisis-deepens.html
Employment Situation Summary
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 USDL 09-0224
http://www.bls.gov/cps/
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 Transmission of material in this release
http://www.bls.gov/ces/ is embargoed until 8:30 A.M. (EST),
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 Friday, March 6, 2009.
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: FEBRUARY 2009
Nonfarm payroll employment continued to fall sharply in February (-651,000),
and the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 to 8.1 percent, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Payroll employ-
ment has declined by 2.6 million in the past 4 months. In February, job
losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors.
Unemployment (Household Survey Data)
The number of unemployed persons increased by 851,000 to 12.5 million in
February, and the unemployment rate rose to 8.1 percent. Over the past 12
months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by about 5.0 million,
and the unemployment rate has risen by 3.3 percentage points. (See table
A-1.)
The unemployment rate continued to trend upward in February for adult
men (8.1 percent), adult women (6.7 percent), whites (7.3 percent), blacks
(13.4 percent), and Hispanics (10.9 percent). The jobless rate for teen-
agers was little changed at 21.6 percent. The unemployment rate for Asians
was 6.9 percent in February, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2,
and A-3.)
Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed
temporary jobs increased by 716,000 to 7.7 million in February. This mea-
sure has grown by 3.8 million in the last 12 months. (See table A-8.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)
increased by 270,000 to 2.9 million in February. Over the past 12 months,
the number of long-term unemployed was up by 1.6 million. (See table A-9.)
Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)
The civilian labor force participation rate was about unchanged at 65.6 per-
cent. The employment-population ratio, at 60.3 percent in February, continued
to trend down. The ratio has declined by 2.4 percentage points over the year.
(See table A-1.)
In February, the number of persons who worked part time for economic rea-
sons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose by 787,000,
reaching 8.6 million. The number of such workers rose by 3.7 million over
the past 12 months. This category includes persons who would like to work
full time but were working part time because their hours had been cut back
or because they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-5.)
Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)
About 2.1 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were marginally at-
tached to the labor force in February, 466,000 more than a year earlier.
These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a
job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed
because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
Among the marginally attached, there were 731,000 discouraged workers in
February, up by 335,000 from a year earlier. Discouraged workers are per-
sons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are avail-
able for them. The other 1.3 million persons marginally attached to the
labor force in February had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding
the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.
(See table A-13.)
Industry Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey Data)
Total nonfarm payroll employment dropped by 651,000 in February. Since
the recession began in December 2007, about 4.4 million jobs have been lost,
with more than half (2.6 million) of the decrease occurring in the last 4
months. In February, employment declined in most major industry sectors,
with the largest losses occurring in professional and business services,
manufacturing, and construction. Health care continued to add jobs over
the month. (See table B-1.)
Employment in professional and business services fell by 180,000 in
February. The temporary help industry lost 78,000 jobs over the month.
Since December 2007, temporary help employment has declined by 686,000,
or 27 percent. In February, job declines also occurred in services to
buildings and dwellings (-17,000), architectural and engineering ser-
vices (-16,000), and business support services (-12,000).
Widespread job losses continued in manufacturing in February (-168,000).
The majority of the decline occurred in durable goods industries (-132,000),
with the largest decreases in fabricated metal products (-28,000) and ma-
chinery (-25,000). Employment in nondurable goods manufacturing declined
by 36,000 over the month.
The construction industry lost 104,000 jobs in February. Employment
in the industry has fallen by 1.1 million since peaking in January 2007.
Two-fifths of that decline occurred over the last 4 months. Employment
fell sharply in both the residential and nonresidential components of
the industry in February.
Employment in truck transportation declined by 33,000 in February;
the industry has lost 138,000 jobs since the start of the recession
in December 2007. Nearly two-thirds of the decline (-88,000) occurred
over the last 4 months. The information industry continued to lose
jobs (-15,000). Over the last 4 months, employment in the industry
has decreased by 76,000, with about two-fifths of the decline occur-
ring in publishing.
- 4 -
Employment in financial activities continued to decline in February
(-44,000). The number of jobs in this industry has dropped by 448,000
since an employment peak in December 2006, with half of this loss oc-
curring in the past 6 months. In February, job losses occurred in real
estate (-11,000); credit intermediation (-11,000); and securities, com-
modity contracts, and investments (-8,000).
Retail trade employment fell by 40,000 over the month and has declined
by 608,000 since December 2007. In February, employment decreased in auto-
mobile dealerships (-9,000), sporting goods (-9,000), furniture and home
furnishing stores (-8,000), and building material and garden supply stores
(-7,000). Employment in wholesale trade fell by 37,000 over the month,
with nearly all of the decline occurring in durable goods.
Employment in leisure and hospitality continued to trend down over the
month (-33,000), with about half of the decrease in the accommodation in-
dustry (-18,000).
Health care continued to add jobs in February, with a gain of 27,000.
Job growth occurred in ambulatory health care (16,000) and in hospitals
(7,000).
The change in total nonfarm employment for December was revised
from -577,000 to -681,000 and the change for January was revised from
-598,000 to -655,000. Monthly revisions result from additional sample
reports and the monthly recalculation of seasonal factors.
Weekly Hours (Establishment Survey Data)
In February, the average workweek for production and nonsupervisory
workers on private nonfarm payrolls was 33.3 hours for the third month
in a row. Both the manufacturing workweek and factory overtime de-
creased by 0.2 hour over the month to 39.6 and 2.6 hours, respectively.
(See table B-2.)
The index of aggregate weekly hours of production and nonsupervisory
workers on private nonfarm payrolls fell by 0.7 percent in February.
The manufacturing index declined by 2.0 percent over the month. (See
table B-5.)
Hourly and Weekly Earnings (Establishment Survey Data)
In February, average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory
workers on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 3 cents, or 0.2 percent, sea-
sonally adjusted. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings in-
creased by 3.6 percent, and average weekly earnings rose by 2.1 percent.
(See table B-3.)
The Employment Situation for March 2009 is scheduled to be released
on Friday, April 3, at 8:30 A.M. (EDT).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm