Do Unemployment Benefits Increase Unemployment?

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

Please supply some kind of PROOF that unemployment benefits increase unemployment. Otherwise, all we have here is your basic Trim brain-fart: sound and fury (and maybe a pale blue flame) signifying something or other maybe.

 

 

 

Most of the Gopper elite are old white guys. You know, the kind with the expensive golf slacks and the white belts. That's the minority the GOP champions; the way they see it, billionaires are an endangered species, entitled to preservation.

 

 

 

Yup. Aren't you from the US?

Trim does tend to go off the deep end, but no where near as bad as you do. Liberalism is an ideology, not a religion, for the record.

 

By definition, a benefit incentivizes the requirement. So, by denying any corrolation, you are challenging the fundamental definition of the term "unemployment benefits". Furthermore, by asserting that successful individuals need a champion, you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding as to what means to champion a cause; specifically the underlying premise that those being represented are unable to fend for themselves. You're asking them to fend for themselves and others, which [by definition] would make them the potential champions of your cause, albeit forcibly.

 

Sorry, you are simply not educated enough to make a valid point. I'm self educated, so don't even go there with you elitist projectionalism.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Versa-Tech

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

It's a possibility. So can conservatives here now emphatically prove using scientific methods that it DOES and is not just a possibility?

Someone already posted a scientifc graph of the corrolation , though it is a bit hard to undestand. I will say that if you did a scientific poll of 1000 people with dependents (kids, spouse, etc) that are on unemployment- the question being " if you could get a full time job today that pays the same as your unemployment benefit, would you take it?", the results would be prodominantly "NO". I have talked to many people who are in the same position, and it's hard to argue against their logic when their kids' livelyhood hangs in the balance. It's just human nature, and there's really nothing scientific about it.

[Langston Hughes]

Trim does tend to go off the deep end, but no where near as bad as you do.

 

That maybe the perception among conservatives and yourself but others have a different opinion. I feel that he goes off worse than Ed but that's just me. Perhaps we both have a bias based on our own partisan beliefs.

 

By definition, a benefit incentivizes the requirement. So, by denying any corrolation, you are challenging the fundamental definition of the term "unemployment benefits".

 

Yes it does require that you are not employed, but that is not an incentive. There is no incentive to get a job for the number of weeks it requires, perform at your job so as to not be fired for cause and then take a unemployment check that is much smaller than your normal wage. It is not a denial of the premise nor does it show a lack of understanding of the English language because statutory requirements are not incentives in and of themselves. Some people may be motivated to use the system, but there is no large scale incentive.

 

You made a fundamental mistake in thinking that the very fact that you receive a check for being laid off is an incentive to any sort of majority. I see no benefit from getting a smaller wage than I would working after having received the better wage. The fact of the matter is that in most economic times there is an incentive to get back to work if you have a skill, degree or training because most people have bills commiserate with their pay level and dropping 30-40% of your weekly check isn't an incentive at all.

 

Furthermore, by asserting that successful individuals need a champion, you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding as to what means to champion a cause; specifically the underlying premise that those being represented are unable to fend for themselves. You're asking them to fend for themselves and others, which [by definition] would make them the potential champions of your cause, albeit forcibly.

 

Sorry, you are simply not educated enough to make a valid point. I'm self educated, so don't even go there with you elitist projectionalism.

 

I think it's time to sit back and consider that you yourself are engaging in projective identification. Have you considered that you are yourself projecting feelings on to Ed and your interactions with him flavor his responses as to reinforce this.

 

It's like Cal50's use of the popular term "don't feed the troll" in a recent post. A typical response back would contribute even more to Cal50 believing that the person was in fact trolling when it was merely his projection and the way of communicating with the person as to elicit the desired response.

[akirby]

You made a fundamental mistake in thinking that the very fact that you receive a check for being laid off is an incentive to any sort of majority. I see no benefit from getting a smaller wage than I would working after having received the better wage.

 

You severely overestimate the average person's initiative.

 

I've seen perfectly capable grown people sit on their ass and collect $800/month welfare instead of working for twice that. Of course most of them lived in subsidized housing (some even second generation).

 

If you allow people to be lazy, they will be. It's that simple.

[retro-man]

I personally, have never seen these people - I guess because I grew up in a good solid middle class household in a middle class neighborhood. I have also, on occasion, most severely in recent years, seen these good solid middle class people get knocked off their pedestal. I know people, particularly during this current recession ...... in fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that anybody who thinks that unemployment benefits incentivize unemployment have never found themselves or a close loved one in this situation, especially not during the current recession. I have watched good people, laid off in middle age, beat their heads against the wall trying to get re-employed. I have seen them send out hundreds of resumes. I have seen them network, retrain, do pro bono work, take anything they could get for as long as they could get it, take jobs on graveyard shift, and at 25% of what they used to earn - to get off unemployment. Anybody who wants to take people like that and kick them in the teeth while they're down isn't much of a person in my book.

[Versa-Tech]

I personally, have never seen these people - I guess because I grew up in a good solid middle class household in a middle class neighborhood. I have also, on occasion, most severely in recent years, seen these good solid middle class people get knocked off their pedestal. I know people, particularly during this current recession ...... in fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that anybody who thinks that unemployment benefits incentivize unemployment have never found themselves or a close loved one in this situation, especially not during the current recession. I have watched good people, laid off in middle age, beat their heads against the wall trying to get re-employed. I have seen them send out hundreds of resumes. I have seen them network, retrain, do pro bono work, take anything they could get for as long as they could get it, take jobs on graveyard shift, and at 25% of what they used to earn - to get off unemployment. Anybody who wants to take people like that and kick them in the teeth while they're down isn't much of a person in my book.

I know there are people like that, but this isn't psychology it's sociology. You can take a single person and try and predict their outcome in an adverse situation and it's a coin flip. However, it's quite easy to predict the outcome of a million people an adverse situation. Human nature always keeps reaction within a small margin of error. If you soften the consequences of failure for millions of people, their is a precise percentage that will lower their standards of personal responsibility. It's been that way for thousands of years.

 

That said, there are many people whose entire livelyhood is dependent on government aid. Many do have jobs, but that income is supplementary at best. Many collect unemployment while working under the table too.

 

I have nothing against the people that have fallen into hard times. I have a problem with the people that have failed their entire lives, who are now profitting from entitlement expansion. There are tens of millions, if not more.

 

[retro-man]

I have a problem with the people that have failed their entire lives, who are now profitting from entitlement expansion. There are tens of millions, if not more.

WalMart is profiting from entitlement expansion. http://www.walmartmovie.com/facts.php/ Do you have a problem with that?

[Trimdingman]

There are massive administration costs involved in the unemployment insurance program. Hell, they have offices in every town. There can't be any argument that it is not cost-effective. It takes a massive amount of money out of the economy, and puts nothing back in; just moving money from the deserving to the non-deserving. When you take money out of people's pockets, they spend less on manufactured goods. This causes companies to manufacture less. That means they have fewer workers. Has the number of unemployed people increased or declined since the program began? At what point do we admit that it is not working, just making the problem that it was designed to solve worse? Liberals will no more admit that than a Christian will admit that Jesus ain't coming back. I can't prove that two plus two equals four but it does. If you can't see that unemployment insurance causes more unemployment, that's your problem if you are short sighted, or blinded by your religion. I can see it. Where would this army of people who man the unemployment offices go if they solved the unemployment problem? Well, you say, the unemployment insurance program employs them doesn't it? Where does that money come from? For every person working in the unemployment insurance program, there is one person unemployed in the private sector to pay for it. On top of that, more are unemployed because people in the private sector create more value than the amount they are paid. The unemployment insurance program produces nothing, unless you believe they are like Jesus in the story about the fish and the bread.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Trimdingman

[Langston Hughes]

You severely overestimate the average person's initiative.

 

I've seen perfectly capable grown people sit on their ass and collect $800/month welfare instead of working for twice that. Of course most of them lived in subsidized housing (some even second generation).

 

If you allow people to be lazy, they will be. It's that simple.

 

I don't believe that you can determine if I've overestimated it or not based on anecdotal evidence. That being said if there was some sort of evidence concerning the topic that might bolster your case I would be willing to look at it. I will give you that multiple extensions and the high rates of unemployment we had in 2008 2009 did result in people not taking jobs that paid less than unemployment but I don't believe that this was the case during time of growth.

 

I do find the dichotomy of conservatives to be interesting. One hand you have conservatives believing that a majority of citizens in the United States are thoughtful, intelligent people who should be trusted with a weapon but on the other they also believe that these people have the desire to cheat, lie, steal from the government and become dependent on the saftey net know that liberals tend to view things opposite and that I'm off the mind that people can generally be good so they deserve the opportunity for both without fear that they will damage either.

[Langston Hughes]

There are massive administration costs involved in the unemployment insurance program. Hell, they have offices in every town. There can't be any argument that it is not cost-effective. It takes a massive amount of money out of the economy, and puts nothing back in; just moving money from the deserving to the non-deserving. When you take money out of people's pockets, they spend less on manufactured goods. This causes companies to manufacture less. That means they have fewer workers. Has the number of unemployed people increased or declined since the program began? At what point do we admit that it is not working, just making the problem that it was designed to solve worse? Liberals will no more admit that than a Christian will admit that Jesus ain't coming back. I can't prove that two plus two equals four but it does. If you can't see that unemployment insurance causes more unemployment, that's your problem if you are short sighted, or blinded by your religion. I can see it. Where would this army of people who man the unemployment offices go if they solved the unemployment problem? Well, you say, the unemployment insurance program employs them doesn't it? Where does that money come from? For every person working in the unemployment insurance program, there is one person unemployed in the private sector to pay for it. On top of that, more are unemployed because people in the private sector create more value than the amount they are paid. The unemployment insurance program produces nothing, unless you believe they are like Jesus in the story about the fish and the bread.

 

I can't speak to what you have in Canada and i know you can't speak to what we have in Michigan so I will tell you that we do not have offices in every town. We have approximately 14 offices around the state for a population of 9 million. The idea of a safety net is not to create something but to maintain something for a short period, namely a rough approximation of a persons income for a period of time. Trim, my problem with your theory is that even the most optimistic free market economist doesn't believe that we can reach full employment.

 

Given that i am okay with some of my tax dollars going to keep families and fellow citizens afloat until the can find another job.

[Trimdingman]

I can't speak to what you have in Canada and i know you can't speak to what we have in Michigan so I will tell you that we do not have offices in every town. We have approximately 14 offices around the state for a population of 9 million. The idea of a safety net is not to create something but to maintain something for a short period, namely a rough approximation of a persons income for a period of time. Trim, my problem with your theory is that even the most optimistic free market economist doesn't believe that we can reach full employment.

 

Given that i am okay with some of my tax dollars going to keep families and fellow citizens afloat until the can find another job.

 

I would like to see the same thing. You are letting your heart rule your common sense. It doesn't add up. It just creates a bloated beaurocracy which drags down the economy. The root of the unemployment problem is the government. Therefore more government equals more unemployment. Also, people employed by the government are really unemployed; living on the dole. Their wages come out of the economy, decreasing our overall prosperity. It would be better if they were employed in the private sector creating wealth instead. They would if people had more money to spend instead of having it confiscated to support a wasteful government.

 

People are charitable by nature. We will help our neighbours voluntarily. When government gets involved, becoming Robin Hood, and the unemployed start feeling entitled instead of grateful, you lose your sense of charity. It makes people callous, and the ones receiving, spoiled and ungrateful. People forget how to save for a rainy day, and lose self-discipline. This plays right into the government's hands giving them more power over the people as the people become more dependent on the government.

[goinbroke2]

Trim it's not a direct comparison "Gov = unemployment" but I understand where your going. The only gov I want is bare bones basic which covers what I want. In other words, I agree we need cops/fire/military as well as roads and even (socialist) healthcare. I'm willing to hand over some of the wealth I created with my two hands to pay for that which I want. I DON'T want the money I send to the gov used in social experiments (multiculturalism/bilingualism/etc) or "feel good" but ineffective programs such as needle exchanges/etc. If someone is out of work, then heck ya, let's throw a few bucks to cover his mortgage if he needs it until he gets another job...but that doesn't mean he gets to sit on his ass and watch tv until the cash we gave him runs out. Welfare should be strictly controlled because it is in effect saying "you cannot support yourself and must be supported by taxpayers" So what would qualify someone "not able to support themself"? Permanent disability? (depending as lots of disabled work) Single parent? (how about parent works and get daycare credits/reduction?Addiction problem? Put them through an addiction program, if they repeat, they are cut off/possibly a second course?

 

Anything to keep people productive is better than letting people rot. I say all of the "native" issues were caused by the white man in the first place. We could of conquored the land and killed all the natives (crude but effective) or we could of assimilated them into our culture. (and now after all these years we would be equal) but instead we chose to stick them in a cage (reserve) and feed them like wild animals. And now after generations of people with a "caged animal" mentality, we're suprised when they ask for handouts or commit crimes? REALLY? How come reserves where the natives have been entreprenuers,(and assimilated) they are wealthy and have an excellent lifestyle, and others who have only relied on gov cheques are living in deplorable conditions..and crying the gov isn't doing enough?

 

White or black or native, it doesn't matter, give a human a free cheque and they will grow accustomed to receiving assistance and will grow reticent of losing it. Where the "norm" is all your family getting a cheque for doing nothing (second, third gen welfare) then it is normal and you don't have the desire to "be productive" because it's not normal to you.

 

We need to shrink the gov and let people be free to work as hard as they want and enjoy the fruits of their labour.

[Edstock]

Sorry, you are simply not educated enough to make a valid point. I'm self educated, so don't even go there with you elitist projectionalism.

 

:hysterical:

 

That's got to be the funniest post you've ever made! Especially "don't even go there with you (sic) elitist projectionalism". Elitist "projectionalism"? What would "projectionalists" "project"?

 

Anyway, thanks, made my day.

[Langston Hughes]

I would like to see the same thing. You are letting your heart rule your common sense. It doesn't add up. It just creates a bloated beaurocracy which drags down the economy. The root of the unemployment problem is the government. Therefore more government equals more unemployment. Also, people employed by the government are really unemployed; living on the dole. Their wages come out of the economy, decreasing our overall prosperity. It would be better if they were employed in the private sector creating wealth instead. They would if people had more money to spend instead of having it confiscated to support a wasteful government.

 

People are charitable by nature. We will help our neighbours voluntarily. When government gets involved, becoming Robin Hood, and the unemployed start feeling entitled instead of grateful, you lose your sense of charity. It makes people callous, and the ones receiving, spoiled and ungrateful. People forget how to save for a rainy day, and lose self-discipline. This plays right into the government's hands giving them more power over the people as the people become more dependent on the government.

 

What's ironic is that the Detroit News reported yesterday that the Michigan UIA is reducing it's workforce by 400 people because the case load has dropped. Yes, that would be 400 people being laid off because they are not as many laid off people right now.

 

The state now has about 1,200 unemployment insurance workers. That includes the temporary workers hired to deal with large caseloads during the recession

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

:hysterical:

 

That's got to be the funniest post you've ever made! Especially "don't even go there with you (sic) elitist projectionalism". Elitist "projectionalism"? What would "projectionalists" "project"?

 

Anyway, thanks, made my day.

You're laughing at what , exactly?

[Trimdingman]

When the government gives someone a handout, you see the immediate and obvious result. That person pays bills, buys food, etc. What you don't see is the person who gets laid off because of it. Money doesn't go from us to the needy person dollar for dollar, either. There are a lot of administration costs. There have to be checks on the person to determine if he qualifies for the benefit. There is the writing of the checks and mailing them out. There are offices and beaurocrats and their underlings. It probably costs two dollars to deliver one dollar. This department, like any other government entity soon replaces it's original mandate with one of self-perpetuation. To get some perspective on how far we have veered away from what was originally envisioned by the founding fathers, read David Crockett's, "not yours to give" speech.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Trimdingman

[Trimdingman]

What's ironic is that the Detroit News reported yesterday that the Michigan UIA is reducing it's workforce by 400 people because the case load has dropped. Yes, that would be 400 people being laid off because they are not as many laid off people right now.

 

Once your unemployment benefits run out, you are no longer a statistic. You are still unemployed, but you are off the books, and the official unemployment rate is reduced. I see detached houses for sale in Detroit for five thousand dollars. That's the total price; not the down payment. It looks like an exodus of biblical proportions to me.

[Langston Hughes]

Once your unemployment benefits run out, you are no longer a statistic. You are still unemployed, but you are off the books, and the official unemployment rate is reduced. I see detached houses for sale in Detroit for five thousand dollars. That's the total price; not the down payment. It looks like an exodus of biblical proportions to me.

 

While there are people who have exhausted their unemployment, the job market and hiring has picked up in Michigan so any contention that the state isn't having economic growth is untrue. And what your seeing now with houses in Detroit started in the Bush years and it's not an exodus as much as it was repossessions, unpaid taxes and previously abandoned home.

[Trimdingman]

Trim it's not a direct comparison "Gov = unemployment" but I understand where your going. The only gov I want is bare bones basic which covers what I want. In other words, I agree we need cops/fire/military as well as roads and even (socialist) healthcare. I'm willing to hand over some of the wealth I created with my two hands to pay for that which I want. I DON'T want the money I send to the gov used in social experiments (multiculturalism/bilingualism/etc) or "feel good" but ineffective programs such as needle exchanges/etc. If someone is out of work, then heck ya, let's throw a few bucks to cover his mortgage if he needs it until he gets another job...but that doesn't mean he gets to sit on his ass and watch tv until the cash we gave him runs out. Welfare should be strictly controlled because it is in effect saying "you cannot support yourself and must be supported by taxpayers" So what would qualify someone "not able to support themself"? Permanent disability? (depending as lots of disabled work) Single parent? (how about parent works and get daycare credits/reduction?Addiction problem? Put them through an addiction program, if they repeat, they are cut off/possibly a second course?

 

Anything to keep people productive is better than letting people rot. I say all of the "native" issues were caused by the white man in the first place. We could of conquored the land and killed all the natives (crude but effective) or we could of assimilated them into our culture. (and now after all these years we would be equal) but instead we chose to stick them in a cage (reserve) and feed them like wild animals. And now after generations of people with a "caged animal" mentality, we're suprised when they ask for handouts or commit crimes? REALLY? How come reserves where the natives have been entreprenuers,(and assimilated) they are wealthy and have an excellent lifestyle, and others who have only relied on gov cheques are living in deplorable conditions..and crying the gov isn't doing enough?

 

White or black or native, it doesn't matter, give a human a free cheque and they will grow accustomed to receiving assistance and will grow reticent of losing it. Where the "norm" is all your family getting a cheque for doing nothing (second, third gen welfare) then it is normal and you don't have the desire to "be productive" because it's not normal to you.

 

We need to shrink the gov and let people be free to work as hard as they want and enjoy the fruits of their labour.

 

Why are there Indians living on reserves? The same reason why there are poor white people living in homeless shelters. The vast majority of Indians and blacks are totally assimilated. It is the small minority of poor ones that you see living in urban ghettos and Indian reserves. Why are you surprised to see poor Indians living in a place where only Indians are allowed to live?

 

I am in favor of helping people who are down on their luck. It is human nature. The most efficient way to do this is though local charities, or just giving your friend or neighbor a loan. Government exploits our generous nature to set up massive collective institutions that give them more power over us. These institutions are grossly inefficient, and are more interested in maintaining and growing their turf than performing the public service they were supposedly set up for. The cost of the Unemployment Insurance white elephant is a drain on the economy and therefore it creates what it was supposedly set up to solve. That is not being hard-hearted on my part; it is being realistic.