Observing from previous trends where wars give a massive rise to unemployment rates due to soldiers returning from duty and not finding jobs (this usually occurs a few years after a war has ended)
and considering the current democratically backed bill that will increase minimum wage by almost 50%, which will cause employers to lay off thousands of workers because they cant afford to the salaries and will drive small companies out of business because they cant compete to pay the increase on wages.
Do you believe these factors will cause a sharp rise in unemployment in a few years ?
2007-01-20 06:17:22 · 11 answers · asked by IRunWithScissors 3 in Social Science ➔ Economics
Juan- Incorrect DURING times of conflict the economy does experience low unemployment and higher wages. this is because there are less people in the country. take the current example. why do you think we have such low unemployment now ? its because a portion of the American population is not in America ie. the soldiers. But after a conflict, as I stated, the economy tends to drift downwards because 1. the funding that goes towards the war is taken out of American hands via taxes and it accumulates causing less services for people to have jobs and 2. because of the increase of population when the soldiers return.
2007-01-20 06:34:34 · update #1
yes it will
2007-01-20 06:54:18 · answer #1 · answered by Please Help 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Good grief fella, this is nothing like WWII where half the men in the country are drafted to fight, and then suddenly released at the end of the war. All active duty people on the military added together equals only 1% of the labor force; and only 10% of THEM are actually serving in Iraq; and their terms of active duty are served out regardless of whether they happen to be stationed in Iraq or in Kansas.
Veterans returning from Iraq will have ZERO impact on unemployment.
Furthermore the Iraq war effort is such a minuscule total of GDP that even stopping everything cold right now would have little if any affect on the economy. Last I checked no one is having to ration butter or recycle bacon fat to make ammunition in this war.
You can't just make silly generalizations based on the exceptional case of World War II and try to apply them to utterly different situations.
2007-01-20 14:49:21 · answer #2 · answered by KevinStud99 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unemployment is actually higher than reported.
Statistics for unemployment can be skewed any way you like; it is absolutely strange that the Canadian government is telling everybody that unemployment is at a thirty-year low, while we just lost lock, stock and barrel thousands upon thousands of high paying manufacturing jobs. In my family, my community and amongst the people I work with, there is a lot of uncertainty in terms of employment ... so if unemployment is so low, where are all the jobs?
2007-01-20 15:53:20 · answer #3 · answered by Angela B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it will, but not due to the war. We have a 'perfect storm' of free trade, outsourced jobs, unchecked immigration, corporations 'flush with cash' [heard on 'The Wall Street Report]but lacking any semblance of civic responsibility, the best Congress 'money can buy,' --need I go on? [The minimum wage thing is a MYTH! Huge corp bonuses & give-aways, like to Home Depot's Nardelli [$210 million] and Exxon-Mobil's retiring chief [$400 million]--these are NEVER considered inflationary...why? Only worker wages are!]. You could've given 2000 Home Depot employees 50c/hr raises, paid for three years [INFLATIONARY!!!}and STILL had over $200million to give Nardelli. And it's WAGES causing prices to go up?! Myth busted! CEO pay is performance based? Depot stock is down slightly since Nardelli took over. And oil companies have nothing to do with the price of crude, remember?
2007-01-20 17:12:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The type of war you are talking about when massive unemployment occurs is not the type were currently in. A lot smaller percent of the population is in the military, and no one is drafted. Also, a large percent of military servicemen are "career soldiers", so when the war is over, they will still be employed by the military.
2007-01-20 23:29:22 · answer #5 · answered by Jonathan D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you really understand economics it has an yo yo effect. We have seen the worst under this Republican president, house, and senate. The next decade will be prosperous. When you have democrats in control the world economy will also be better. Hillary and Obama
2007-01-20 20:34:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It'll all work out.
CEO's will need to take smaller bonuses, so that wages can increase. It won't hurt them that much.
Also, take into consideration the giant population of "baby-boomers" that will be leaving the workforce very shortly.
I for one, think that unemployment will drop drastically.
2007-01-20 14:22:14 · answer #7 · answered by MattMan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is very well possible but also keep in mind that some of the companies who moved their manufacturing facilities over seas are now moving back to the U.S.. Reebok was the first to move back due to the high cost of shipping. We can only hope the others will realize the same fact and relocate back to the U.S.
2007-01-20 14:34:16 · answer #8 · answered by Winwon (Cherokee Nation) 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
WRONG! The times following conflicts have historically been economic booms. And the economy right now is cranking, so your argument is baseless.
2007-01-20 14:25:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it depends on the employment market and the economy at the same time
2007-01-20 14:24:57 · answer #10 · answered by Lionel M 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, i still believe we will have a strong economy.
but wouldn't it be great if both the democrats and the republicans helped start another great depression?
2007-01-20 14:21:45 · answer #11 · answered by alohafridayalex 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋