Should We Have Bailed Out Workers Instead?

[phattonez]

The TARP program was signed in 2008 to bail out banks and prevent mass bankruptcies in the financial sector (the one that was responsible for the whole mess in the first place). $700 billion was authorized to be given to banks, though $431 billion was ultimately spent. What did we get as a result?

Real wages remained stagnant for more than 5 years, while unemployment slowly recovered (at least officially) and the real cost of living rose spectacularly.

Instead, what if we had bailed out workers? There were around 140 million workers around the time that TARP was signed. We could have given each worker around $3000. Yes, home prices would have fallen, but instead today we have the situation where many (most?) young workers are paying more than a third of their income just toward rent. Family formation is down, and working conditions are getting worse. This would have been a far better way to meet the economic challenges at the time. Instead, we bailed out landlords and bankers while our workers suffered. It's time to shift the dialogue in favor of workers. The elite have enjoyed all of the economic gains for the last few decades, and that needs to reverse, or else we're going to see even more radicalization of politics.

 

[Grokmaster]

The UAW was HANDED $BILLIONS, AND MUCH MORE CONTROL of GM, too.


We see how that's gone, haven't we?

 

[Mycroft]

The TARP program was signed in 2008 to bail out banks and prevent mass bankruptcies in the financial sector (the one that was responsible for the whole mess in the first place). $700 billion was authorized to be given to banks, though $431 billion was ultimately spent. What did we get as a result?

Real wages remained stagnant for more than 5 years, while unemployment slowly recovered (at least officially) and the real cost of living rose spectacularly.

Instead, what if we had bailed out workers? There were around 140 million workers around the time that TARP was signed. We could have given each worker around $3000. Yes, home prices would have fallen, but instead today we have the situation where many (most?) young workers are paying more than a third of their income just toward rent. Family formation is down, and working conditions are getting worse. This would have been a far better way to meet the economic challenges at the time. Instead, we bailed out landlords and bankers while our workers suffered. It's time to shift the dialogue in favor of workers. The elite have enjoyed all of the economic gains for the last few decades, and that needs to reverse, or else we're going to see even more radicalization of politics.

Water under Obama and the Dems's bridge.

Trump is correcting their screwup.

Moving on...

 

[phattonez]

The UAW was HANDED $BILLIONS, AND MUCH MORE CONTROL of GM, too.


We see how that's gone, haven't we?

Yet they've become even less powerful.

Libertarians are obsessed with increasing material wealth, even if it all goes only to the rich (as it has over the past 50 years). How do you explain the fact that real wages are lower today than they were 50 years ago despite increasing liberalization of our economy?

 

[washunut]

The TARP program was signed in 2008 to bail out banks and prevent mass bankruptcies in the financial sector (the one that was responsible for the whole mess in the first place). $700 billion was authorized to be given to banks, though $431 billion was ultimately spent. What did we get as a result?

Real wages remained stagnant for more than 5 years, while unemployment slowly recovered (at least officially) and the real cost of living rose spectacularly.

Instead, what if we had bailed out workers? There were around 140 million workers around the time that TARP was signed. We could have given each worker around $3000. Yes, home prices would have fallen, but instead today we have the situation where many (most?) young workers are paying more than a third of their income just toward rent. Family formation is down, and working conditions are getting worse. This would have been a far better way to meet the economic challenges at the time. Instead, we bailed out landlords and bankers while our workers suffered. It's time to shift the dialogue in favor of workers. The elite have enjoyed all of the economic gains for the last few decades, and that needs to reverse, or else we're going to see even more radicalization of politics.

A couple of things. First Bush II actually did that for many people though at a somewhat lower rate. In addition you should try and understand the adverse impact which would occur if the major banks went under. Many corporations use short term lending to make payrolls etc. The scare that happened and caused so many layoffs was that companies lines of credit would be pulled,thus they could not pay their bills.

 

[phattonez]

A couple of things. First Bush II actually did that for many people though at a somewhat lower rate.

Much lower rate.

In addition you should try and understand the adverse impact which would occur if the major banks went under. Many corporations use short term lending to make payrolls etc. The scare that happened and caused so many layoffs was that companies lines of credit would be pulled,thus they could not pay their bills.

I've seen what's happened instead. Rents are through the roof, most workers are totally excluded from the potential of home ownership, and people are working 60+ hours per week just to pay the rent. I've seen our economic reality, and I don't see how the alternative could be anything but better.