Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
1929crash

Americans See This As "the Katrina Of Recessions"

Recommended Posts

The director of the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University - Carl Van Horn - made the following statement about a new Rutgers survey on unemployment:

Millions of unemployed Americans are suffering economic and personal catastrophes. This is not your ordinary dip in the business cycle. Americans believe that this is the Katrina of recessions. Folks are on their rooftops without a boat. The water is rising, and many see no way out.

The Rutgers survey found, among other things, that many of those who have lost their jobs are poorly positioned to deal with their circumstances:

The survey finds that 60% of the recently unemployed lost their jobs suddenly, without advance warning. Eight in ten got two week’s notice or less. Just 15% of the jobless received any severance, and virtually none were offered retraining. Three in four unemployed workers say the economic situation has had a major impact on them and their family.

Only 40% of the currently unemployed received unemployment insurance to help them weather the economic crisis and 83% of those who did receive aid are concerned that their benefits will run out before they find a job. Underscoring another important debate, only half of the jobless have health benefits.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/09/ame...is-katrina.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Katrina

hmm

government to the rescue

Your point, I presume, is about government incompetence, and that is correct. However, I see no indication that the private sector could have done the job of rescuing the city because there would have been no incentive for them to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your point, I presume, is about government incompetence, and that is correct. However, I see no indication that the private sector could have done the job of rescuing the city because there would have been no incentive for them to do so.

FEMA (the government) stopped people from leaving

the solution is local and people need to take their destiny back into their own hands and stop relying on the government - parasites that a lot of them are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FEMA (the government) stopped people from leaving

the solution is local and people need to take their destiny back into their own hands and stop relying on the government - parasites that a lot of them are

governments do a lot of useful things. take the internet as a first example developed with government money and investment

the private sector does virtually no research and development and almost all the main discoveries in the last 50 years have been based on government r&d parasitically transported to the private sector.

my own experience of developing products for the micro "extreme poor" sector is exactly the same. only charities and government agencies will provide product development funding. the private sector need the products spoon fed, I mean written for my grandma and hand held through it so they can just take cash in hand with no risk and no investment and no research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FEMA (the government) stopped people from leaving

the solution is local and people need to take their destiny back into their own hands and stop relying on the government - parasites that a lot of them are

Agreed that FEMA stopped people from leaving, but if you are saying that the government at state, local and federal level should have done nothing and that everything would have been OK you are making an incredible claim.

It was public authorities who coordinated the mass evacuation that did take place. The levies failed, but it was the state that constructed levees in the first place! What would have been the incentive for the private sector to do so? None, despite vague talk of people taking their destiny back into their hands.

I'll wager that there would have been many more deaths if nothing had been done, except let people get on with it. A lot of the poor could not afford transport out of the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed that FEMA stopped people from leaving, but if you are saying that the government at state, local and federal level should have done nothing and that everything would have been OK you are making an incredible claim.

It was public authorities who coordinated the mass evacuation that did take place. The levies failed, but it was the state that constructed levees in the first place! What would have been the incentive for the private sector to do so? None, despite vague talk of people taking their destiny back into their hands.

I'll wager that there would have been many more deaths if nothing had been done, except let people get on with it. A lot of the poor could not afford transport out of the city.

one of us is deluded

if the State hadnt constructed the levees in the first place - people wouldnt have been there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one of us is deluded

if the State hadnt constructed the levees in the first place - people wouldnt have been there

An excellent point! :lol: So you're in favour of abandoning all coastal defences and flood protection schemes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if the State hadnt constructed the levees in the first place - people wouldnt have been there

So you're saying it was the construction of the levees that resulted in the development of the population centre, rather than the other way around?

Or that they'd have learned their lesson in an earlier hurricane, and abandoned the place?

Edited by huw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Vieux Carré in New Orleans was substantially untouched by Katrina. LINK

In some respects we've gone backwards in the last 300 years.

yep

The French Quarter, like most parts of town developed before the late 19th century, was one of the areas to remain substantially dry, since it was built on dry land that predated New Orleans' levee systems and sits 5 feet (1.5 m) above sea level.[9] Some streets experienced minor flooding, and several buildings experienced significant wind damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
personally i wouldnt build a house on either a flood plain or where nature was eroding the coast

But you'd be quite prepared to seee others drown, obviously. That is the clear implication of your ideological position. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   287 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.