Unemployment

[06wildcat]

I'm not trying to make comparisons to pre-recession employment levels. I'm pointing out the fact that unemployment went down last month when 850,000 people left the workforce. Meaning of the 9-11 million unemployed right now there's another 3-5 million that are also unemployed and have given up looking for work. When the jobs come back, they'll come back to the workforce. Thus you could fill every job opening tomorrow and still have 6-8 percent unemployment (assuming the hiring of 3 million people draws everyone back into the workforce). So you'd have in the neighborhood of 6-10 million people unemployed and zero job openings. That's the reality of the situation.

I agree that 26 weeks of unemployment during most periods is more than enough time to find a job, especially when the economy is at essentially full employment, which it was pre-recession.

I have no problem extending the benefits for a 50-year-old that's been paying into the system for the last 30 years having their benefits extended. Whereas you believe that same 50-year-old hasn't contributed a dime to the money they're now receiving and it's coming directly from you. A point you've yet to address despite prodding from KK.

[Jeffy]

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%.

The U-6 rate was reported as 16.5% in June.



There is always a certain portion of the population that will look for employment, but will not really care about finding a job.  They will merely look so they can keep getting the check. 

I think the question is more "what is Obama doing to create jobs?"  Many people view Obama as anti-business.  That type of mentality will only make job creation more difficult.

[AzCat]

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

Almost certainly true when you account for the overhead cost of operating all of those programs for the deadbeats, the foregone growth due to government's competition with private industry for capital, and the long-term cost of borrowing money in order to give it to deadbeats.

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....

While I wholeheartedly endorse your plan for re-constituting our debtor's / deatbeat prisons I also agree that such is an expensive proposition.  We should probably just execute deadbeats.  Bullets are much cheaper than prisons. 

 

[AzCat]

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.

I can see why you have trouble with Rand.  She is a bit up the literary food chain from Go Spot Go. 

[Dirty Sanchez]

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

Almost certainly true when you account for the overhead cost of operating all of those programs for the deadbeats, the foregone growth due to government's competition with private industry for capital, and the long-term cost of borrowing money in order to give it to deadbeats.

In addition to direct overhead of operating the programs, we stupidly tax government payments, forcing government money to circle back to itself.  The payments should just be lessened and not taxed or simply not taxed at all.  You also have the operating costs of the irs in addition to the other agencies making payments.  Again, the only ones getting stimulated are the pocketbooks of government employees and their unions.

The whole system is like an engine with a couple of spark plugs missing, bad gas, and a vacuum leak.  Its losing an extreme portion of its energy to just keeping the engine going and to radiating heat.  The car is moving, but its getting about 2 mpg. 

At that point, you buy a new car.

[AzCat]

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

Almost certainly true when you account for the overhead cost of operating all of those programs for the deadbeats, the foregone growth due to government's competition with private industry for capital, and the long-term cost of borrowing money in order to give it to deadbeats.

In addition to direct overhead of operating the programs, we stupidly tax government payments, forcing government money to circle back to itself.  The payments should just be lessened and not taxed or simply not taxed at all.  You also have the operating costs of the irs in addition to the other agencies making payments.  Again, the only ones getting stimulated are the pocketbooks of government employees and their unions.

The whole system is like an engine with a couple of spark plugs missing, bad gas, and a vacuum leak.  Its losing an extreme portion of its energy to just keeping the engine going and to radiating heat.  The car is moving, but its getting about 2 mpg. 

At that point, you buy a new car.

There's another type of loss to the US economy as well: the deadbeat is likely, probably more than most, to purchase mostly imported goods.  Sure you funnel the dollar they spend through US (maybe) retail and US (probably but not certainly or entirely) transportation but you've still removed a dollar from a business employing people here and, after the bureaucracy takes its cut, the deadbeat to whom you give it utilizes a portion of it to support foreign, rather than domestic businesses.

[sonofdaxjones]

Just read a column from a few days ago in the Washington Post.   Non financial Fortune 500 companies are sitting on about $1.8 trillion dollars in cash.   Why?  Because they still cannot fully understand the level of regulation and taxes that are coming down the pike at them.   Many of the CEO's say they have cadres of strategic analyst staffers and lawyers working overtime to try and understand what it will all mean.   Meanwhile, they're going to keep hoarding their cash . . . most of them think Obama is Anti-Business and most say they voted for Obama. 

Business people are finally taking notice what we tried to say all along.   Obama is pro-government, pro non-profit . . . anti business.

[AzCat]

Business people are finally taking notice what we tried to say all along.   Obama is pro-government, pro non-profit . . . anti business.

That's not quite accurate.  Obama isn't anti-business so much as he's anti-free market.  Businesses willing to goose-step along with him will be richly rewarded, others ... not so much. 

[fatty fat fat]

when hussein is re-elected, the free market will have spoken up again.

[ChiComCat]

Business people are finally taking notice what we tried to say all along.   Obama is pro-government, pro non-profit . . . anti business.

That's not quite accurate.  Obama isn't anti-business so much as he's anti-free market.  Businesses willing to goose-step along with him will be richly rewarded, others ... not so much. 

Godwin's Law.  Per rules of internet - KK wins 

[Dirty Sanchez]

Business people are finally taking notice what we tried to say all along.   Obama is pro-government, pro non-profit . . . anti business.

That's not quite accurate.  Obama isn't anti-business so much as he's anti-free market.  Businesses willing to goose-step along with him will be richly rewarded, others ... not so much. 

Godwin's Law.  Per rules of internet - KK wins 

The only thing kk wins is a Wabashing contest vs fatty.

[Cire]

God gave people that are unemployed these rights. 

[06wildcat]

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.

I can see why you have trouble with Rand.  She is a bit up the literary food chain from Go Spot Go. 

You wont' even acknowledge that those receiving unemployment have paid into the system. I'm sure you're equally as capable of comparing Objectivism with environmental laws that attempt to deal with negative externalities. Feel free to get back to me after you've skimmed Wikipedia on the topics.

[06wildcat]

Just read a column from a few days ago in the Washington Post.   Non financial Fortune 500 companies are sitting on about $1.8 trillion dollars in cash.   Why?  Because they still cannot fully understand the level of regulation and taxes that are coming down the pike at them.   Many of the CEO's say they have cadres of strategic analyst staffers and lawyers working overtime to try and understand what it will all mean.   Meanwhile, they're going to keep hoarding their cash . . . most of them think Obama is Anti-Business and most say they voted for Obama. 

Business people are finally taking notice what we tried to say all along.   Obama is pro-government, pro non-profit . . . anti business.

Companies are sitting on cash because they've got idle capacity. It makes no sense to expand when you have unused capacity. Real investment won't take place until all of the extra capacity is used. Just like real hiring won't take place while productivity continues to rise. Unfortunately we're a long way from either of those happening. It may be 2015 or longer.

[AzCat]

You wont' even acknowledge that those receiving unemployment have paid into the system.

True, I won't but that's because, well, they don't.  You see here in the United States employers "pay into" the unemployment insurance system while employees  may eventually collect from it but are typically not required to pay in directly.

Lest you not believe that, try an experiment this week: while you're standing at the counter asking your fellow goEMAW.com posters if they'd like fries with their order ponder where, precisely, on your weekly pay stub you see the deduction for unemployment insurance.  When McDonald's gets around to mailing you your next check, scan and post the accompanying accounting with the deduction for unemployment insurance highlighted.   

I'm sure you're equally as capable of comparing Objectivism with environmental laws that attempt to deal with negative externalities. Feel free to get back to me after you've skimmed Wikipedia on the topics.

Sure: Negative externalities of the collective sort you imply are nearly irrelevant to Rand's Objectivism, specifically to laissez-faire capitalism which she chose as her preferred economic model.

But don't take my word for it.  In Return of the Primitive Rand herself said, "Observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for "harmony with nature"—there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears....  In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."

But I must say that you're an absolutely terriffic sock.  For a while there I thought that you were real but nobody could be so wrong so often.  Very well played!

[06wildcat]

You wont' even acknowledge that those receiving unemployment have paid into the system.

True, I won't but that's because, well, they don't.  You see here in the United States employers "pay into" the unemployment insurance system while employees  may eventually collect from it but are typically not required to pay in directly.

Lest you not believe that, try an experiment this week: while you're standing at the counter asking your fellow goEMAW.com posters if they'd like fries with their order ponder where, precisely, on your weekly pay stub you see the deduction for unemployment insurance.  When McDonald's gets around to mailing you your next check, scan and post the accompanying accounting with the deduction for unemployment insurance highlighted.   

I'm sure you're equally as capable of comparing Objectivism with environmental laws that attempt to deal with negative externalities. Feel free to get back to me after you've skimmed Wikipedia on the topics.

Sure: Negative externalities of the collective sort you imply are nearly irrelevant to Rand's Objectivism, specifically to laissez-faire capitalism which she chose as her preferred economic model.

But don't take my word for it.  In Return of the Primitive Rand herself said, "Observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for "harmony with nature"—there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears....  In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."

But I must say that you're an absolutely terriffic sock.  For a while there I thought that you were real but nobody could be so wrong so often.  Very well played!

So my wages aren't depressed in the slightest because my employer has to pay for unemployment insurance?

Yeah, the negative externalities I was referring to are rough ridin' fires. You know damn well the point I was making but just had to be a jackass about it.

[AzCat]

So my wages aren't depressed in the slightest because my employer has to pay for unemployment insurance?

According to lefty, and increasingly many centrist, politicians: no.  It's a free benefit the government forces evil businesses to provide for you.  Yay government!

According to me however:

True, I won't but that's because, well, they don't.  You see here in the United States employers "pay into" the unemployment insurance system while employees  may eventually collect from it but are typically not required to pay in directly.

The English language, learn it, love it, live it.

Yeah, the negative externalities I was referring to are fracking fires. You know damn well the point I was making but just had to be a jackass about it.

Actually you're so incoherent it's often difficult to determine what you mean.  That said, I admit that I have, on occasion, known exactly what you meant and have just yanked your chain anyway.  There's a certain combination of pretention and stupidity that makes doing so nearly irresistible to me. 

But back to your next incorrect assertion about Rand's philosophy:

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.

Because, well, that's pretty much ass-backwards just like everything else you've said about Rand.  In noting that environmental-nazis would take even the most basic tool, such as fire, away from humans and force humanity back to a primitive state were it within their power Rand is pretty much skull-rough ridin' your position: man is ascendant; nature is subservient to man; man's survival and advancement requires the subjugation & modification of nature. 

[06wildcat]

So my wages aren't depressed in the slightest because my employer has to pay for unemployment insurance?

According to lefty, and increasingly many centrist, politicians: no.  It's a free benefit the government forces evil businesses to provide for you.  Yay government!

According to me however:

True, I won't but that's because, well, they don't.  You see here in the United States employers "pay into" the unemployment insurance system while employees  may eventually collect from it but are typically not required to pay in directly.

The English language, learn it, love it, live it.

Yeah, the negative externalities I was referring to are fracking fires. You know damn well the point I was making but just had to be a jackass about it.

Actually you're so incoherent it's often difficult to determine what you mean.  That said, I admit that I have, on occasion, known exactly what you meant and have just yanked your chain anyway.  There's a certain combination of pretention and stupidity that makes doing so nearly irresistible to me. 

But back to your next incorrect assertion about Rand's philosophy:

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.

Because, well, that's pretty much ass-backwards just like everything else you've said about Rand.  In noting that environmental-nazis would take even the most basic tool, such as fire, away from humans and force humanity back to a primitive state were it within their power Rand is pretty much skull-fracking your position: man is ascendant; nature is subservient to man; man's survival and advancement requires the subjugation & modification of nature. 

How about a negative externality that impacts my ability to live freely? Say you own a corn field next to my lake. Fertilizer runoff causes and algae bloom in my lake killing the fish preventing me from doing the one thing I truly love to do. Please enlighten me as to Rand's position on the above. Your actions directly infringe on my rights to fish in my lake. Since I'm not a fisherman for a living, monetary damages are almost impossible to figure.

Is that clear enough for you, or can you only respond with direct quotes because you are incapable of thinking for yourself?

[michigancat]

Pretty reasonable look at extending unemployment insurance:

http://keithhennessey.com/2010/07/08/ui/

[Jeffy]

I'm sure you've heard this quote many times before.  Dr Adrian Rogers has it down....

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

That reminded me of this story going around lately:


An economics professor made a statement that he had never failed a single student before,
but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked & that no one would be poor & no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
 
All grades would be averaged & everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail & no one would receive an A...
After the first test, the grades were averaged & everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset & the students who studied little were happy.
 
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less & the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D!

No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame & name-calling all resulted in hard feelings & no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, & the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.