Author Topic: Unemployment  (Read 9829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Unemployment
« on: May 19, 2010, 12:00:35 AM »


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)

Offline ben ji

  • Senior Moderator
  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 11565
  • Alot of people dont hit on an 18
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2010, 09:16:02 AM »
More like FUNemployment am i right? am i right?

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2010, 09:35:46 AM »
Notice the purple spreading across the country.  Everyone is going EMAW!

Offline Brock Landers

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7071
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2010, 11:55:16 AM »
Wow, that was amazing and depressing all at the same time.  It kinda reminds me of those old propaganda-ish newsreeels that show the spread of Nazis and Communism over Europe.

Offline Dirty Sanchez

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1749
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2010, 08:46:38 PM »
Wow, that was amazing and depressing all at the same time.  It kinda reminds me of those old propaganda-ish newsreeels that show the spread of Nazis and Communism over Europe.

Isee what you did there.  :eye:

Offline AzCat

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 963
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2010, 09:22:32 PM »
This must the the much-ballyhooed change the lefties have been hoping for. We're all welfare deadbeats now!   :users:

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2010, 09:55:43 PM »
This must the the much-ballyhooed change the lefties have been hoping for. We're all welfare deadbeats now!   :users:

Greece is the word!!

Offline ben ji

  • Senior Moderator
  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 11565
  • Alot of people dont hit on an 18
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2010, 09:57:17 AM »
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Quote
To see these effects clearly, imagine a two person economy in which one of the two people is paid for being unemployed. From whom do you think the unemployment benefits are taken? The other person obviously. While the one person who is unemployed may "buy" more as a result of unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment sums are taken will "buy" less. There is no stimulus for the economy.

But it doesn't stop there. While the income effects sum to zero, the substitution effects aggregate. The person from whom the unemployment funds are taken will find work less rewarding and will work less. The person who is given the unemployment benefits will also find work relatively less rewarding and will therefore work less. Both people in this two-person economy will be incentivized to work less. There will be less work and more unemployment.


Not only will increased unemployment benefits not stimulate the economy, they will at the same time lower the incentives for people to work by reducing the amount people are paid for working and increasing the amount people are paid for not working. It's pretty basic economics.

Offline AzCat

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 963
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2010, 11:23:55 AM »
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Quote
Not only will increased unemployment benefits not stimulate the economy, they will at the same time lower the incentives for people to work by reducing the amount people are paid for working and increasing the amount people are paid for not working. It's pretty basic economics.

Basic economics refute essentially the entire lefty canon.  This should come as a surprise to no one.   :users:

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2010, 12:42:01 PM »
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Quote
To see these effects clearly, imagine a two person economy in which one of the two people is paid for being unemployed. From whom do you think the unemployment benefits are taken? The other person obviously. While the one person who is unemployed may "buy" more as a result of unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment sums are taken will "buy" less. There is no stimulus for the economy.

But it doesn't stop there. While the income effects sum to zero, the substitution effects aggregate. The person from whom the unemployment funds are taken will find work less rewarding and will work less. The person who is given the unemployment benefits will also find work relatively less rewarding and will therefore work less. Both people in this two-person economy will be incentivized to work less. There will be less work and more unemployment.


Not only will increased unemployment benefits not stimulate the economy, they will at the same time lower the incentives for people to work by reducing the amount people are paid for working and increasing the amount people are paid for not working. It's pretty basic economics.

Unemployment benefits don't stimulate the economy in the above example. In real life they do because A. There are more than two people and B. The above example makes the assumption that no one working saves money (doesn't spend it).

This idea that being on unemployment is some sort of paradise that makes people not want to work is bullshit. If I lost my job tomorrow, I'd get about 40 percent of my current income in unemployment benefits. That seems like such a good deal I hope they fire me tomorrow. Then I could do nothing but sit around the house with no worries at all because while I actually do save money from each paycheck, the bills I have are quite a bit more than 40 percent of my current income. Yeah that sounds like the good life.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53674
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2010, 12:51:28 PM »
Quote from: Laffer
No one opposes unemployment benefits as a transition aid for people to get back on their feet and find a new job.

Didn't he write an entire article doing just that?   That said, why wouldn't he oppose a complete elimination of unemployment benefits?  If there's no transition aid, people will never allow themselves to be laid off.  Basic economics.

Offline ben ji

  • Senior Moderator
  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 11565
  • Alot of people dont hit on an 18
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2010, 01:10:52 PM »
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Quote
To see these effects clearly, imagine a two person economy in which one of the two people is paid for being unemployed. From whom do you think the unemployment benefits are taken? The other person obviously. While the one person who is unemployed may "buy" more as a result of unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment sums are taken will "buy" less. There is no stimulus for the economy.

But it doesn't stop there. While the income effects sum to zero, the substitution effects aggregate. The person from whom the unemployment funds are taken will find work less rewarding and will work less. The person who is given the unemployment benefits will also find work relatively less rewarding and will therefore work less. Both people in this two-person economy will be incentivized to work less. There will be less work and more unemployment.


Not only will increased unemployment benefits not stimulate the economy, they will at the same time lower the incentives for people to work by reducing the amount people are paid for working and increasing the amount people are paid for not working. It's pretty basic economics.

Unemployment benefits don't stimulate the economy in the above example. In real life they do because A. There are more than two people and B. The above example makes the assumption that no one working saves money (doesn't spend it).

This idea that being on unemployment is some sort of paradise that makes people not want to work is bullshit. If I lost my job tomorrow, I'd get about 40 percent of my current income in unemployment benefits. That seems like such a good deal I hope they fire me tomorrow. Then I could do nothing but sit around the house with no worries at all because while I actually do save money from each paycheck, the bills I have are quite a bit more than 40 percent of my current income. Yeah that sounds like the good life.

Are you more willing to take a job that only pays 60% of what you used to make if you are already making 40% of what you used to make doing nothing?

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2010, 01:22:31 PM »
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Quote
To see these effects clearly, imagine a two person economy in which one of the two people is paid for being unemployed. From whom do you think the unemployment benefits are taken? The other person obviously. While the one person who is unemployed may "buy" more as a result of unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment sums are taken will "buy" less. There is no stimulus for the economy.

But it doesn't stop there. While the income effects sum to zero, the substitution effects aggregate. The person from whom the unemployment funds are taken will find work less rewarding and will work less. The person who is given the unemployment benefits will also find work relatively less rewarding and will therefore work less. Both people in this two-person economy will be incentivized to work less. There will be less work and more unemployment.


Not only will increased unemployment benefits not stimulate the economy, they will at the same time lower the incentives for people to work by reducing the amount people are paid for working and increasing the amount people are paid for not working. It's pretty basic economics.

Unemployment benefits don't stimulate the economy in the above example. In real life they do because A. There are more than two people and B. The above example makes the assumption that no one working saves money (doesn't spend it).

This idea that being on unemployment is some sort of paradise that makes people not want to work is bullshit. If I lost my job tomorrow, I'd get about 40 percent of my current income in unemployment benefits. That seems like such a good deal I hope they fire me tomorrow. Then I could do nothing but sit around the house with no worries at all because while I actually do save money from each paycheck, the bills I have are quite a bit more than 40 percent of my current income. Yeah that sounds like the good life.

Are you more willing to take a job that only pays 60% of what you used to make if you are already making 40% of what you used to make doing nothing?

You do know that unemployment runs out, right? It doesn't keep paying forever. Wouldn't it be better for the economy for someone who just lost his job to be able to have some time to try and find a job that pays 90-110% of what he used to make? It seems like he would be overqualified for the job that only pays 60%.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2010, 01:27:30 PM »
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Quote
To see these effects clearly, imagine a two person economy in which one of the two people is paid for being unemployed. From whom do you think the unemployment benefits are taken? The other person obviously. While the one person who is unemployed may "buy" more as a result of unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment sums are taken will "buy" less. There is no stimulus for the economy.

But it doesn't stop there. While the income effects sum to zero, the substitution effects aggregate. The person from whom the unemployment funds are taken will find work less rewarding and will work less. The person who is given the unemployment benefits will also find work relatively less rewarding and will therefore work less. Both people in this two-person economy will be incentivized to work less. There will be less work and more unemployment.


Not only will increased unemployment benefits not stimulate the economy, they will at the same time lower the incentives for people to work by reducing the amount people are paid for working and increasing the amount people are paid for not working. It's pretty basic economics.

Unemployment benefits don't stimulate the economy in the above example. In real life they do because A. There are more than two people and B. The above example makes the assumption that no one working saves money (doesn't spend it).

This idea that being on unemployment is some sort of paradise that makes people not want to work is bullshit. If I lost my job tomorrow, I'd get about 40 percent of my current income in unemployment benefits. That seems like such a good deal I hope they fire me tomorrow. Then I could do nothing but sit around the house with no worries at all because while I actually do save money from each paycheck, the bills I have are quite a bit more than 40 percent of my current income. Yeah that sounds like the good life.

There are too many variables to know exactly what drives a person to look for work if they don't really need to. I know a couple of tile setters that were offered back their jobs, and they just laughed. They have been surfing every day for the last 6 months and said they have another year to go on unemployment.

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2010, 01:40:18 PM »
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Quote
To see these effects clearly, imagine a two person economy in which one of the two people is paid for being unemployed. From whom do you think the unemployment benefits are taken? The other person obviously. While the one person who is unemployed may "buy" more as a result of unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment sums are taken will "buy" less. There is no stimulus for the economy.

But it doesn't stop there. While the income effects sum to zero, the substitution effects aggregate. The person from whom the unemployment funds are taken will find work less rewarding and will work less. The person who is given the unemployment benefits will also find work relatively less rewarding and will therefore work less. Both people in this two-person economy will be incentivized to work less. There will be less work and more unemployment.


Not only will increased unemployment benefits not stimulate the economy, they will at the same time lower the incentives for people to work by reducing the amount people are paid for working and increasing the amount people are paid for not working. It's pretty basic economics.

Unemployment benefits don't stimulate the economy in the above example. In real life they do because A. There are more than two people and B. The above example makes the assumption that no one working saves money (doesn't spend it).

This idea that being on unemployment is some sort of paradise that makes people not want to work is bullshit. If I lost my job tomorrow, I'd get about 40 percent of my current income in unemployment benefits. That seems like such a good deal I hope they fire me tomorrow. Then I could do nothing but sit around the house with no worries at all because while I actually do save money from each paycheck, the bills I have are quite a bit more than 40 percent of my current income. Yeah that sounds like the good life.

Are you more willing to take a job that only pays 60% of what you used to make if you are already making 40% of what you used to make doing nothing?

You do know that unemployment runs out, right? It doesn't keep paying forever. Wouldn't it be better for the economy for someone who just lost his job to be able to have some time to try and find a job that pays 90-110% of what he used to make? It seems like he would be overqualified for the job that only pays 60%.

Don't introduce underemployment to benji's simplistic mind. Why if someone is overqualified for a position (and it has little or no relevance in their previous line of work) taking said position will most likely be detrimental to future income even if the economy rebounds. That's a little bit more than basic economics though.

I could possibly see taking the job if it's still in the same field and with the right company though. Of course getting to 60 percent of my income is much, much easier than it is for a lot of other people.

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2010, 02:30:05 PM »
Unemployment benefits may also act as an entrepreneurial incentive.  Anecdotal evidence:   an in-law living in NYC on unemployment started a successful bakery and spent more time on her (now) award winning comedy troupe.  They just won funding to put together a digital short and her business has been in the black for several months after she was let go as a paralegal.

But I could see how a cop, a government employee, an entry level salesman would be il-equipped to take advantage of an opportunity.  Just because you would watch People's Court, beat your wives and make more Kool-Aide stained off-spring doesn't mean the rest of the country would.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53674
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2010, 02:34:36 PM »
But I could see how a cop, a government employee, an entry level salesman would be il-equipped to take advantage of an opportunity.  Just because you would watch People's Court, beat your wives and make more Kool-Aide stained off-spring doesn't mean the rest of the country would.

:surprised:

Offline Dirty Sanchez

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1749
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2010, 05:51:46 PM »
Bottom line: 99 weeks is plenty long enough to find a job.  That's almost 2 freaking years!

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2010, 06:41:17 PM »
Bottom line: 99 weeks is plenty long enough to find a job.  That's almost 2 freaking years!

Sure, there's a lot of jobs out there. Lots of jobs paying $8 per hour flipping burgers. Of course it makes economic sense that people should choose those jobs over unemployment and searching for a job that would pay in the neighborhood of what you were making. I'm sure you'd become a Walmart greeter before taking unemployment right?

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2010, 07:38:17 PM »
Bottom line: 99 weeks is plenty long enough to find a job.  That's almost 2 freaking years!

Sure, there's a lot of jobs out there. Lots of jobs paying $8 per hour flipping burgers. Of course it makes economic sense that people should choose those jobs over unemployment and searching for a job that would pay in the neighborhood of what you were making. I'm sure you'd become a Walmart greeter before taking unemployment right?

The common sense answer is that people would do whatever it takes to feed their family.  If that meant being a walmart greeter, than so be it.  Lower taxes mean that person gets to take more home from that $8.  With a FairTax, those living in the lower income levels would get a prebate and essentially not get taxed on the basics.

One of the problems here is that government is paying people to be lazy.  I guarantee you, there are many individuals that will become much more motivated to find a job or jobs when the gravy train runs out.  I've been in that situation.  It's amazing how the motivation levels increase.

The next problem is that individuals in a pinch are too picky about what they are willing to do.  Think of any job in these situations as temporary and not the long term career job.  If you have to work two jobs in the short term, then so be it. 

Another problem is people are living beyond their means, acquiring debt that they think they can afford until Murphy throws them for a loop.  Too many (a) car payment(s), credit card debt, HELOCs, buying/financing toys that all serve to put people in a crunch.  Then they follow this by paying on their debts before taking care of themselves and their family.  It's much more possible to save up for that rainy day while working and them much easier to live on less if you get laid off.


Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2010, 08:56:06 PM »
Bottom line: 99 weeks is plenty long enough to find a job.  That's almost 2 freaking years!

Agreed. 99 weeks is too long. Six months should be enough.


The common sense answer is that people would do whatever it takes to feed their family.  If that meant being a walmart greeter, than so be it.  Lower taxes mean that person gets to take more home from that $8.  With a FairTax, those living in the lower income levels would get a prebate and essentially not get taxed on the basics.

One of the problems here is that government is paying people to be lazy.  I guarantee you, there are many individuals that will become much more motivated to find a job or jobs when the gravy train runs out.  I've been in that situation.  It's amazing how the motivation levels increase.

The next problem is that individuals in a pinch are too picky about what they are willing to do.  Think of any job in these situations as temporary and not the long term career job.  If you have to work two jobs in the short term, then so be it. 

Another problem is people are living beyond their means, acquiring debt that they think they can afford until Murphy throws them for a loop.  Too many (a) car payment(s), credit card debt, HELOCs, buying/financing toys that all serve to put people in a crunch.  Then they follow this by paying on their debts before taking care of themselves and their family.  It's much more possible to save up for that rainy day while working and them much easier to live on less if you get laid off.



How do lower taxes affect a tax bracket that is already not taxed? The fair flat tax would actually mean higher taxes for a person making $8/hr. The people who can't find a job before the gravy train runs out should have tried harder/been more willing to move, and should be forced to find a job. There should be a period of time for people who get laid off to search for a similar job to the one they lost, though. It's pretty hard to conduct a job search when you have to work two jobs to barely make more than half of what you used to make. Not to mention the fact that taking a job like that will reduce the amount of money you can expect to make when you finally do find a job in your field.

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2010, 09:13:28 PM »
Unemployment is taxable.

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2010, 09:24:35 PM »
Quote from: Laffer
No one opposes unemployment benefits as a transition aid for people to get back on their feet and find a new job.

Didn't he write an entire article doing just that?   That said, why wouldn't he oppose a complete elimination of unemployment benefits?  If there's no transition aid, people will never allow themselves to be laid off.  Basic economics.

Are you Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)?  Then again, do retards know they're Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)?  These are the question that puzzle the "ill equipped"

 :users:

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2010, 03:20:00 AM »
So if we have skilled laborers and professionals doing unskilled work that's a good thing for everyone?  Seems like a pretty big drag on productivity.

Are there any positives to having extended unemployment?

Offline ben ji

  • Senior Moderator
  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 11565
  • Alot of people dont hit on an 18
    • View Profile
Re: Unemployment
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2010, 08:59:47 AM »
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Quote
To see these effects clearly, imagine a two person economy in which one of the two people is paid for being unemployed. From whom do you think the unemployment benefits are taken? The other person obviously. While the one person who is unemployed may "buy" more as a result of unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment sums are taken will "buy" less. There is no stimulus for the economy.

But it doesn't stop there. While the income effects sum to zero, the substitution effects aggregate. The person from whom the unemployment funds are taken will find work less rewarding and will work less. The person who is given the unemployment benefits will also find work relatively less rewarding and will therefore work less. Both people in this two-person economy will be incentivized to work less. There will be less work and more unemployment.


Not only will increased unemployment benefits not stimulate the economy, they will at the same time lower the incentives for people to work by reducing the amount people are paid for working and increasing the amount people are paid for not working. It's pretty basic economics.

Unemployment benefits don't stimulate the economy in the above example. In real life they do because A. There are more than two people and B. The above example makes the assumption that no one working saves money (doesn't spend it).

This idea that being on unemployment is some sort of paradise that makes people not want to work is bullshit. If I lost my job tomorrow, I'd get about 40 percent of my current income in unemployment benefits. That seems like such a good deal I hope they fire me tomorrow. Then I could do nothing but sit around the house with no worries at all because while I actually do save money from each paycheck, the bills I have are quite a bit more than 40 percent of my current income. Yeah that sounds like the good life.

Are you more willing to take a job that only pays 60% of what you used to make if you are already making 40% of what you used to make doing nothing?

You do know that unemployment runs out, right? It doesn't keep paying forever. Wouldn't it be better for the economy for someone who just lost his job to be able to have some time to try and find a job that pays 90-110% of what he used to make? It seems like he would be overqualified for the job that only pays 60%.

You know that they are trying to extend unemployment so it doesnt run out?
The article is arguing against extending the current unemployment benefits not getting rid of them completely. If you dont find a job paying 90-110% of what you used to make in 99 weeks it might be a good time to look for a lower paying job....