goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 19, 2010, 12:00:35 AM
-
interesting look at unemployment stats
http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html (http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html)
-
More like FUNemployment am i right? am i right?
-
Notice the purple spreading across the country. Everyone is going EMAW!
-
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.
-
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:
-
This must the the much-ballyhooed change the lefties have been hoping for. We're all welfare deadbeats now! :users:
-
This must the the much-ballyhooed change the lefties have been hoping for. We're all welfare deadbeats now! :users:
Greece is the word!!
-
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
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.
-
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
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:
-
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
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.
-
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.
-
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
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?
-
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
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%.
-
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
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.
-
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
Bottom line: 99 weeks is plenty long enough to find a job. That's almost 2 freaking years!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Unemployment is taxable.
-
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:
-
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?
-
Interesting article in the WSJ today, basic summary below.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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?
-
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.....
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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%.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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%.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchart.apis.google.com%2Fchart%3Fchs%3D600x300%26amp%3Bcht%3Dls%26amp%3Bchco%3DB22222%26amp%3Bchf%3Dc%2Clg%2C45%2CFFFFFF%2C0%2C76A4FB%2C0.75%7Cbg%2Cs%2CEFEFEF%26amp%3Bchd%3Dt%3A7.1%2C7.2%2C7.1%2C6.9%2C7.1%2C7.0%2C7.0%2C7.1%2C7.0%2C6.8%2C7.1%2C6.9%2C7.3%2C7.4%2C7.3%2C7.4%2C7.5%2C7.9%2C7.8%2C8.1%2C8.7%2C9.3%2C9.4%2C9.6%2C9.5%2C9.5%2C9.4%2C9.7%2C9.5%2C9.5%2C9.6%2C9.6%2C9.6%2C9.6%2C9.7%2C9.8%2C10.0%2C10.2%2C10.0%2C10.2%2C10.1%2C10.3%2C10.3%2C10.1%2C10.4%2C10.2%2C10.0%2C9.8%2C9.9%2C9.7%2C10.0%2C9.6%2C9.6%2C9.5%2C9.5%2C9.4%2C9.4%2C9.7%2C9.4%2C9.2%2C9.3%2C9.3%2C9.1%2C8.9%2C8.9%2C9.0%2C8.8%2C8.9%2C9.0%2C8.7%2C8.7%2C8.6%2C8.4%2C8.4%2C8.2%2C8.1%2C8.2%2C8.4%2C8.5%2C8.4%2C8.0%2C8.2%2C8.1%2C8.0%2C8.3%2C8.1%2C8.0%2C8.2%2C8.2%2C8.2%2C8.3%2C8.5%2C8.4%2C8.4%2C8.5%2C8.8%2C9.1%2C8.9%2C9.0%2C9.2%2C9.7%2C10.0%2C10.5%2C10.9%2C11.2%2C11.9%2C12.8%2C13.7%2C14.0%2C15.0%2C15.6%2C15.8%2C16.4%2C16.5%2C16.4%2C16.8%2C17.0%2C17.4%2C17.2%2C17.3%2C16.5%2C16.8%2C16.9%2C17.1%2C16.6%2C16.5%2C-1%2C-1%2C-1%2C-1%2C-1%2C-1%26amp%3Bchds%3D-0%2C20%26amp%3Bchg%3D9.090909090909092%2C10%2C9.0%2C0%2C0%26amp%3Bchbh%3Dr%2C0.5%2C1.5%26amp%3Bchxt%3Dx%2Cy%2Cr%26amp%3Bchxl%3D0%3A%7C2000%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2001%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2002%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2003%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2004%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2005%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2006%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2007%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2008%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2009%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2010%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C1%3A%7C0%7C2%7C4%7C6%7C8%7C10%7C12%7C14%7C16%7C18%7C20%7C2%3A%7C0%7C2%7C4%7C6%7C8%7C10%7C12%7C14%7C16%7C18%7C20&hash=f41b694fedaa81b8f3fd5eefcea17c49116b72b9)
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 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/15/opinion/main5089982.shtml). That type of mentality will only make job creation more difficult.
-
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.
:users:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
when hussein is re-elected, the free market will have spoken up again.
-
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 :pbj:
-
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 :pbj:
The only thing kk wins is a Wabashing contest vs fatty.
-
God gave people that are unemployed these rights.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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, (http://www.amazon.com/Master-Skills-Reading-Comprehension-Grade/dp/1561890448) 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. (http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=3968.msg98370#msg98370) 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.
-
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, (http://www.amazon.com/Master-Skills-Reading-Comprehension-Grade/dp/1561890448) 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. (http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=3968.msg98370#msg98370) 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?
-
Pretty reasonable look at extending unemployment insurance:
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/07/08/ui/
-
I'm sure you've heard this quote many times before. Dr Adrian Rogers has it down....
http://www.lwf.org/site/DocServer/1054_WealthQuote.mp3
-
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.