Unemployment

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

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?

The only drag on productivity is increased taxes, or even the perceived threat of increased taxes. Businesses are not going to take a chance on expansion until the threat is gone. That may be why Biden has stated most of the lost jobs are not coming back. He knows tax increases are coming in a big way, unless November elections say differently.

[Kat Kid]

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?

The only drag on productivity is increased taxes, or even the perceived threat of increased taxes. Businesses are not going to take a chance on expansion until the threat is gone. That may be why Biden has stated most of the lost jobs are not coming back. He knows tax increases are coming in a big way, unless November elections say differently.

Seriously.  This board is pointless.

[06wildcat]

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?

The only drag on productivity is increased taxes, or even the perceived threat of increased taxes. Businesses are not going to take a chance on expansion until the threat is gone. That may be why Biden has stated most of the lost jobs are not coming back. He knows tax increases are coming in a big way, unless November elections say differently.

Seriously.  This board is pointless.

The best part is he's 100 percent serious.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

You guys are clueless. How can taking money from a working person and giving it to a non-working person for nearly 2 years be beneficial to productivity? I am all for 3-6 months of unemployment benefits, but beyond that is a drag on the economy.

[AzCat]

How can taking money from a working person and giving it to a non-working person for nearly 2 years be beneficial to productivity?

It can't.  Minimal and very brief unemployment compensation may be positive but it's always a drag on the economy, *always*.  Call it what it is, welfare, then discuss its propriety in the social responsibility a society has to its working citizens (if any).  There's no other justification.

[Kat Kid]

You guys are clueless. How can taking money from a working person and giving it to a non-working person for nearly 2 years be beneficial to productivity? I am all for 3-6 months of unemployment benefits, but beyond that is a drag on the economy.

I just told you why I thought it was beneficial, would you like to respond?

What is the difference between 3-6 months and 2 years?  Would unemployment ever be beneficial to productivity?

How can taking money from a young worker and giving it to an old worker be beneficial to productivity?  How is it fair that working people that are too dumb to go to college have to subsidize people that go to college?  Why do people with no kids have their money taken for public schools?  Why do people with no cars have their money taken for highways?  Why do people who will never leave the country have their money taken to fund embassies, customs and passports?

Assuming these unemployed people had a job at one point, they paid taxes that helped fund the benefits, so I reject the premise.

[Kat Kid]

How can taking money from a working person and giving it to a non-working person for nearly 2 years be beneficial to productivity?

It can't.  Minimal and very brief unemployment compensation may be positive but it's always a drag on the economy, *always*.  Call it what it is, welfare, then discuss its propriety in the social responsibility a society has to its working citizens (if any).  There's no other justification.

So unemployment taxes are a bigger drag than attempting to reduce frictional unemployment and preventing a collapse in consumer spending?

What, pray tell, would you propose for those that are unable to find work for a period longer than 6 months?  You know it costs lots of money to put people in prison too....

[06wildcat]

Somewhere between 9-11 million people are currently unemployed (not counting the people who have given up altogether). There are around 3-4 million job openings right now, including everything from flipping burgers to running companies. So are the 5-6 million unemployed for who there are no jobs all supposed to start their own businesses?

[ben ji]

Somewhere between 9-11 million people are currently unemployed (not counting the people who have given up altogether). There are around 3-4 million job openings right now, including everything from flipping burgers to running companies. So are the 5-6 million unemployed for who there are no jobs all supposed to start their own businesses?

Interesting thought(related to AZcat shrugged):

Why dont the people who complain that there are no good paying jobs and its all the greedy corporations fault start their own business and only pay above average wages?

Would seem to solve the problem.....

[Jeffy]

Somewhere between 9-11 million people are currently unemployed (not counting the people who have given up altogether). There are around 3-4 million job openings right now, including everything from flipping burgers to running companies. So are the 5-6 million unemployed for who there are no jobs all supposed to start their own businesses?

Yes, they could start their own business.  Capitalism allows that.  Anti-business policies make it very prohibitive to do such. 

[06wildcat]

Somewhere between 9-11 million people are currently unemployed (not counting the people who have given up altogether). There are around 3-4 million job openings right now, including everything from flipping burgers to running companies. So are the 5-6 million unemployed for who there are no jobs all supposed to start their own businesses?

Yes, they could start their own business.  Capitalism allows that.  Anti-business policies make it very prohibitive to do such. 

Want to cite some of those specific policies? Or will you dodge that like the original question?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

You guys are clueless. How can taking money from a working person and giving it to a non-working person for nearly 2 years be beneficial to productivity? I am all for 3-6 months of unemployment benefits, but beyond that is a drag on the economy.

I just told you why I thought it was beneficial, would you like to respond?

What is the difference between 3-6 months and 2 years?  Would unemployment ever be beneficial to productivity?

How can taking money from a young worker and giving it to an old worker be beneficial to productivity?  How is it fair that working people that are too dumb to go to college have to subsidize people that go to college?  Why do people with no kids have their money taken for public schools?  Why do people with no cars have their money taken for highways?  Why do people who will never leave the country have their money taken to fund embassies, customs and passports?

Assuming these unemployed people had a job at one point, they paid taxes that helped fund the benefits, so I reject the premise.

I don't see where you explained how unemployment benefits are beneficial to production. You stated paying unemployed skilled laborers to stay home was some how beneficial rather than taking a temporary job they may feel is beneath them until they find a job that will utilize their skills.

Taking money from one person to give to another via mandate is never a good solution. Charity is supposed to be by choice, and US citizens are the most charitable in the world, but the liberals are putting an end to good will in this country.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Somewhere between 9-11 million people are currently unemployed (not counting the people who have given up altogether). There are around 3-4 million job openings right now, including everything from flipping burgers to running companies. So are the 5-6 million unemployed for who there are no jobs all supposed to start their own businesses?

Yes, they could start their own business.  Capitalism allows that.  Anti-business policies make it very prohibitive to do such. 

Want to cite some of those specific policies? Or will you dodge that like the original question?

Overbearing government regulations, especially environmental and labor, are what drives manufacturing off shore. In order to have a competitive business that involves selling a product you design, it is almost always necessary to produce it overseas. And I didn't even mention high corporate tax rates.

[06wildcat]

Somewhere between 9-11 million people are currently unemployed (not counting the people who have given up altogether). There are around 3-4 million job openings right now, including everything from flipping burgers to running companies. So are the 5-6 million unemployed for who there are no jobs all supposed to start their own businesses?

Yes, they could start their own business.  Capitalism allows that.  Anti-business policies make it very prohibitive to do such. 

Want to cite some of those specific policies? Or will you dodge that like the original question?

Overbearing government regulations, especially environmental and labor, are what drives manufacturing off shore. In order to have a competitive business that involves selling a product you design, it is almost always necessary to produce it overseas. And I didn't even mention high corporate tax rates.

In places like China that have no intellectual property rights so your product is being copied almost the minute you start producing it there. Awesome. What's amazing is that largely manufacturing in the U.S. hasn't declined, it's the labor force to produce the same amount of stuff.

If you want to get into environmental law, we'd better take it to the Atlas Shrugged thread because those laws are very, very closely related Rand's philosophy.

[Kat Kid]

You guys are clueless. How can taking money from a working person and giving it to a non-working person for nearly 2 years be beneficial to productivity? I am all for 3-6 months of unemployment benefits, but beyond that is a drag on the economy.

I just told you why I thought it was beneficial, would you like to respond?

What is the difference between 3-6 months and 2 years?  Would unemployment ever be beneficial to productivity?

How can taking money from a young worker and giving it to an old worker be beneficial to productivity?  How is it fair that working people that are too dumb to go to college have to subsidize people that go to college?  Why do people with no kids have their money taken for public schools?  Why do people with no cars have their money taken for highways?  Why do people who will never leave the country have their money taken to fund embassies, customs and passports?

Assuming these unemployed people had a job at one point, they paid taxes that helped fund the benefits, so I reject the premise.

I don't see where you explained how unemployment benefits are beneficial to production. You stated paying unemployed skilled laborers to stay home was some how beneficial rather than taking a temporary job they may feel is beneath them until they find a job that will utilize their skills.

Taking money from one person to give to another via mandate is never a good solution. Charity is supposed to be by choice, and US citizens are the most charitable in the world, but the liberals are putting an end to good will in this country.

I cited an example of how some people use unemployment as an opportunity.  I'll cite some more specific productive things that are available to those on unemployment 1) start a business or pursue an idea 2) free lance and continue to accrue relevant experience but at extremely irregular intervals for much less than a usual salary 3) intern 4) pursue more education/skills 5) and of course provide time and money to pursue an appropriate career commiserate with their skills/productivity/value

I have yet to hear you respond to the idea that these unemployed people at some point had a job and thus, paid in to the same program they are now taking out of.

"Taking money from one person to give to another via mandate is never a good solution."

Taken at face value, this quote describes government.  I don't use the state park, but my taxes go to it.  I don't have a child with special needs, but my tax dollars go to teaching them...  See my last post where I cite other examples of "taking money from one person to give to another" (you didn't bother to respond to it).

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

You guys are clueless. How can taking money from a working person and giving it to a non-working person for nearly 2 years be beneficial to productivity? I am all for 3-6 months of unemployment benefits, but beyond that is a drag on the economy.

I just told you why I thought it was beneficial, would you like to respond?

What is the difference between 3-6 months and 2 years?  Would unemployment ever be beneficial to productivity?

How can taking money from a young worker and giving it to an old worker be beneficial to productivity?  How is it fair that working people that are too dumb to go to college have to subsidize people that go to college?  Why do people with no kids have their money taken for public schools?  Why do people with no cars have their money taken for highways?  Why do people who will never leave the country have their money taken to fund embassies, customs and passports?

Assuming these unemployed people had a job at one point, they paid taxes that helped fund the benefits, so I reject the premise.

I don't see where you explained how unemployment benefits are beneficial to production. You stated paying unemployed skilled laborers to stay home was some how beneficial rather than taking a temporary job they may feel is beneath them until they find a job that will utilize their skills.

Taking money from one person to give to another via mandate is never a good solution. Charity is supposed to be by choice, and US citizens are the most charitable in the world, but the liberals are putting an end to good will in this country.

I cited an example of how some people use unemployment as an opportunity.  I'll cite some more specific productive things that are available to those on unemployment 1) start a business or pursue an idea 2) free lance and continue to accrue relevant experience but at extremely irregular intervals for much less than a usual salary 3) intern 4) pursue more education/skills 5) and of course provide time and money to pursue an appropriate career commiserate with their skills/productivity/value

I have yet to hear you respond to the idea that these unemployed people at some point had a job and thus, paid in to the same program they are now taking out of.

"Taking money from one person to give to another via mandate is never a good solution."

Taken at face value, this quote describes government.  I don't use the state park, but my taxes go to it.  I don't have a child with special needs, but my tax dollars go to teaching them...  See my last post where I cite other examples of "taking money from one person to give to another" (you didn't bother to respond to it).

I cited an example of how some people use unemployment as an opportunity.  I'll cite some more specific productive things that are available to those on unemployment 1) start a business or pursue an idea 2) free lance and continue to accrue relevant experience but at extremely irregular intervals for much less than a usual salary 3) intern 4) pursue more education/skills 5) and of course provide time and money to pursue an appropriate career commiserate with their skills/productivity/value

These are fantastic success stories by people that are driven and would have succeeded with or without 2 years of unemployment benefits. Again, I don't have a problem with a short term unemployment benefits, but Obama extending them rather than attempting to entice small and medium size businesses to hire (tax incentives) is a political move for the upcoming election.

Taken at face value, this quote describes government.  I don't use the state park, but my taxes go to it.  I don't have a child with special needs, but my tax dollars go to teaching them...  See my last post where I cite other examples of "taking money from one person to give to another" (you didn't bother to respond to it).

Infrastructure is a poor analogy for extending unemployment benefits to 2 years.

[Jeffy]

Somewhere between 9-11 million people are currently unemployed (not counting the people who have given up altogether). There are around 3-4 million job openings right now, including everything from flipping burgers to running companies. So are the 5-6 million unemployed for who there are no jobs all supposed to start their own businesses?

Yes, they could start their own business.  Capitalism allows that.  Anti-business policies make it very prohibitive to do such. 

Want to cite some of those specific policies? Or will you dodge that like the original question?

Obamacare

[06wildcat]

Somewhere between 9-11 million people are currently unemployed (not counting the people who have given up altogether). There are around 3-4 million job openings right now, including everything from flipping burgers to running companies. So are the 5-6 million unemployed for who there are no jobs all supposed to start their own businesses?

Yes, they could start their own business.  Capitalism allows that.  Anti-business policies make it very prohibitive to do such. 

Want to cite some of those specific policies? Or will you dodge that like the original question?

Obamacare

Largely irrelevant for most small businesses. Or are you thinking most people unemployed now through their own "laziness" will have built Fortune 500 companies by 2014? Will you please address the issue that if every job opening was filled tomorrow there would still be 5-6 million unemployed. What are they supposed to do?

[Dirty Sanchez]

Somewhere between 9-11 million people are currently unemployed (not counting the people who have given up altogether). There are around 3-4 million job openings right now, including everything from flipping burgers to running companies. So are the 5-6 million unemployed for who there are no jobs all supposed to start their own businesses?

Yes, they could start their own business.  Capitalism allows that.  Anti-business policies make it very prohibitive to do such. 

Want to cite some of those specific policies? Or will you dodge that like the original question?

Obamacare

Largely irrelevant for most small businesses. Or are you thinking most people unemployed now through their own "laziness" will have built Fortune 500 companies by 2014? Will you please address the issue that if every job opening was filled tomorrow there would still be 5-6 million unemployed. What are they supposed to do?

Look for work.

5-6 million unemployed would be considered better than "full employment".  That's less than 2%.

[06wildcat]

Wow, tough to argue with someone who mistakes population for workforce. Also, when companies do start adding jobs again the unemployment rate will go up. Bonus points if you can figure out the answer to that.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Somewhere between 9-11 million people are currently unemployed (not counting the people who have given up altogether). There are around 3-4 million job openings right now, including everything from flipping burgers to running companies. So are the 5-6 million unemployed for who there are no jobs all supposed to start their own businesses?

Yes, they could start their own business.  Capitalism allows that.  Anti-business policies make it very prohibitive to do such. 

Want to cite some of those specific policies? Or will you dodge that like the original question?

Obamacare

Largely irrelevant for most small businesses. Or are you thinking most people unemployed now through their own "laziness" will have built Fortune 500 companies by 2014? Will you please address the issue that if every job opening was filled tomorrow there would still be 5-6 million unemployed. What are they supposed to do?

That would be phenomenal!  That would be less than 4% unemployment in a work force of about 150 mil.  That is about where it was before the Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006.

[Kat Kid]

Somewhere between 9-11 million people are currently unemployed (not counting the people who have given up altogether). There are around 3-4 million job openings right now, including everything from flipping burgers to running companies. So are the 5-6 million unemployed for who there are no jobs all supposed to start their own businesses?

Yes, they could start their own business.  Capitalism allows that.  Anti-business policies make it very prohibitive to do such. 

Want to cite some of those specific policies? Or will you dodge that like the original question?

Obamacare

Largely irrelevant for most small businesses. Or are you thinking most people unemployed now through their own "laziness" will have built Fortune 500 companies by 2014? Will you please address the issue that if every job opening was filled tomorrow there would still be 5-6 million unemployed. What are they supposed to do?

That would be phenomenal!  That would be less than 4% unemployment in a work force of about 150 mil.  That is about where it was before the Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006.

So then extending unemployment for that 4% would be ok?  I thought this was a matter of principle/ideology?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Somewhere between 9-11 million people are currently unemployed (not counting the people who have given up altogether). There are around 3-4 million job openings right now, including everything from flipping burgers to running companies. So are the 5-6 million unemployed for who there are no jobs all supposed to start their own businesses?

Yes, they could start their own business.  Capitalism allows that.  Anti-business policies make it very prohibitive to do such. 

Want to cite some of those specific policies? Or will you dodge that like the original question?

Obamacare

Largely irrelevant for most small businesses. Or are you thinking most people unemployed now through their own "laziness" will have built Fortune 500 companies by 2014? Will you please address the issue that if every job opening was filled tomorrow there would still be 5-6 million unemployed. What are they supposed to do?

That would be phenomenal!  That would be less than 4% unemployment in a work force of about 150 mil.  That is about where it was before the Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006.

So then extending unemployment for that 4% would be ok?  I thought this was a matter of principle/ideology?

No, but it would be more palatable if we had 4% instead of 10% unemployment.

[06wildcat]

Your 4 percent figure is more like 6-8 percent as people will re-enter the workforce when companies start to ramp up hiring. Congratulations on knowing what the workforce actually is though. Now you just need to understand how it actually works. We're getting there, albeit slowly.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Your 4 percent figure is more like 6-8 percent as people will re-enter the workforce when companies start to ramp up hiring. Congratulations on knowing what the workforce actually is though. Now you just need to understand how it actually works. We're getting there, albeit slowly.

Just using government figures for comparison. We all know the actual unemployment rate is over 15%.