Total Posts:155|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

99ers need more unemployment benefits?

artwomyn
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2011 3:43:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Unemployment is still at a high level these days. The current system of unemployment benefits has proved inadequate, to serve all of the unemployed who have been jobless, for an extended period of time. Many of the 99ers, have no other resources to keep them afloat, once their benefits run out at 99 weeks.

I think that unemployment extensions should go on indefinitely, until the unemployment rate is below 7.5 percent. Do you think that the government should provide additional extensions to help the 99ers, until the unemployment rate drops below 7.5 percent?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2011 3:48:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You want them to never have to get a job?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2011 3:56:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
not much of an incentive for them to get a job is there?
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2011 3:59:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/12/2011 3:43:22 PM, artwomyn wrote:
Unemployment is still at a high level these days. The current system of unemployment benefits has proved inadequate, to serve all of the unemployed who have been jobless, for an extended period of time. Many of the 99ers, have no other resources to keep them afloat, once their benefits run out at 99 weeks.

I think that unemployment extensions should go on indefinitely, until the unemployment rate is below 7.5 percent. Do you think that the government should provide additional extensions to help the 99ers, until the unemployment rate drops below 7.5 percent?

Aside from creating ridiculous disincentives to work, why 7.5%? Why any arbitrary amount? (I suppose if you could prove a certain percentage was the natural rate of unemployment due to frictional seasonal umployment etc you might be able to make a case, but that would be impossible)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2011 4:06:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well Artwoman, i'm getting a little tired of paying for the layabouts. Those of us who actually can get, and hold on to a job are losing patience with the mindset that there is an endless amount of money that i make that someone else has a claim to.

Not sure if you heard, but there ain't no more money, and you can't have any more of mine.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2011 4:06:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/12/2011 4:06:12 PM, innomen wrote:
Well Artwoman, i'm getting a little tired of paying for the layabouts. Those of us who actually can get, and hold on to a job are losing patience with the mindset that there is an endless amount of money that i make that someone else has a claim to.

Not sure if you heard, but there ain't no more money, and you can't have any more of mine.

Can I?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2011 4:12:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/12/2011 4:06:48 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/12/2011 4:06:12 PM, innomen wrote:
Well Artwoman, i'm getting a little tired of paying for the layabouts. Those of us who actually can get, and hold on to a job are losing patience with the mindset that there is an endless amount of money that i make that someone else has a claim to.

Not sure if you heard, but there ain't no more money, and you can't have any more of mine.

Can I?

What benefit can you provide to me?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2011 4:14:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/12/2011 4:12:28 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/12/2011 4:06:48 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/12/2011 4:06:12 PM, innomen wrote:
Well Artwoman, i'm getting a little tired of paying for the layabouts. Those of us who actually can get, and hold on to a job are losing patience with the mindset that there is an endless amount of money that i make that someone else has a claim to.

Not sure if you heard, but there ain't no more money, and you can't have any more of mine.

Can I?

What benefit can you provide to me?

Invisible intangible motor-cycles (red ones)
artwomyn
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 9:33:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/12/2011 4:06:12 PM, inn omen wrote:
Well Artwoman, i'm getting a little tired of paying for the layabouts. Those of us who actually can get, and hold on to a job are losing patience with the mindset that there is an endless amount of money that i make that someone else has a claim to.

Not sure if you heard, but there ain't no more money, and you can't have any more of mine.

The unemployed, are not 'layabouts' as you claim. They are people who have been victimized by this economy, through no fault of their own. Most of the 99ers, tend to be older workers, who are over 45. And they're suffering age discrimination in this job market. They have to depend on the whims of employers, who clearly favor younger workers.

As for 'your money', we all have to pay taxes, for things that we don't want to. I hated to have my tax dollars go towards funding two senseless wars, and also to the bailouts of the banks. At least the unemployed are innocent victims, unlike the banks, and Wall Street.
artwomyn
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 9:48:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/12/2011 3:59:56 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:43:22 PM, artwomyn wrote:
Unemployment is still at a high level these days. The current system of unemployment benefits has proved inadequate, to serve all of the unemployed who have been jobless, for an extended period of time. Many of the 99ers, have no other resources to keep them afloat, once their benefits run out at 99 weeks.

I think that unemployment extensions should go on indefinitely, until the unemployment rate is below 7.5 percent. Do you think that the government should provide additional extensions to help the 99ers, until the unemployment rate drops below 7.5 percent?

Aside from creating ridiculous disincentives to work, why 7.5%? Why any arbitrary amount? (I suppose if you could prove a certain percentage was the natural rate of unemployment due to frictional seasonal umployment etc you might be able to make a case, but that would be impossible)

I disagree, regarding your statement about the 'disincentive to work'. Unemployment benefits, are about half of your former wages. So most people collecting benefits, want to get back to earning liveable wages/salaries, ASAP. They still have their rent or mortgages to pay, utilities, food, and other bills to pay when they're unemployed.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 1:31:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 9:48:01 AM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:59:56 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:43:22 PM, artwomyn wrote:
Unemployment is still at a high level these days. The current system of unemployment benefits has proved inadequate, to serve all of the unemployed who have been jobless, for an extended period of time. Many of the 99ers, have no other resources to keep them afloat, once their benefits run out at 99 weeks.

I think that unemployment extensions should go on indefinitely, until the unemployment rate is below 7.5 percent. Do you think that the government should provide additional extensions to help the 99ers, until the unemployment rate drops below 7.5 percent?

Aside from creating ridiculous disincentives to work, why 7.5%? Why any arbitrary amount? (I suppose if you could prove a certain percentage was the natural rate of unemployment due to frictional seasonal umployment etc you might be able to make a case, but that would be impossible)

I disagree, regarding your statement about the 'disincentive to work'. Unemployment benefits, are about half of your former wages. So most people collecting benefits, want to get back to earning liveable wages/salaries, ASAP. They still have their rent or mortgages to pay, utilities, food, and other bills to pay when they're unemployed.

You would be disagreeing with economic theory as well as available empirical evidence.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 1:57:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 9:48:01 AM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:59:56 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:43:22 PM, artwomyn wrote:
Unemployment is still at a high level these days. The current system of unemployment benefits has proved inadequate, to serve all of the unemployed who have been jobless, for an extended period of time. Many of the 99ers, have no other resources to keep them afloat, once their benefits run out at 99 weeks.

I think that unemployment extensions should go on indefinitely, until the unemployment rate is below 7.5 percent. Do you think that the government should provide additional extensions to help the 99ers, until the unemployment rate drops below 7.5 percent?

Aside from creating ridiculous disincentives to work, why 7.5%? Why any arbitrary amount? (I suppose if you could prove a certain percentage was the natural rate of unemployment due to frictional seasonal umployment etc you might be able to make a case, but that would be impossible)

I disagree, regarding your statement about the 'disincentive to work'. Unemployment benefits, are about half of your former wages. So most people collecting benefits, want to get back to earning liveable wages/salaries, ASAP. They still have their rent or mortgages to pay, utilities, food, and other bills to pay when they're unemployed.

People value their time. How much they value each marginal unit of time determines on how much they would be willing to work for. To many people getting enough to survive on whilst not having to give any time working provides a better scenario than them giving their time working. Thus there is a disincentive for them to work as they would be better off not working.
artwomyn
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 3:18:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 1:57:10 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/13/2011 9:48:01 AM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:59:56 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:43:22 PM, artwomyn wrote:
Unemployment is still at a high level these days. The current system of unemployment benefits has proved inadequate, to serve all of the unemployed who have been jobless, for an extended period of time. Many of the 99ers, have no other resources to keep them afloat, once their benefits run out at 99 weeks.

I think that unemployment extensions should go on indefinitely, until the unemployment rate is below 7.5 percent. Do you think that the government should provide additional extensions to help the 99ers, until the unemployment rate drops below 7.5 percent?

Aside from creating ridiculous disincentives to work, why 7.5%? Why any arbitrary amount? (I suppose if you could prove a certain percentage was the natural rate of unemployment due to frictional seasonal umployment etc you might be able to make a case, but that would be impossible)

I disagree, regarding your statement about the 'disincentive to work'. Unemployment benefits, are about half of your former wages. So most people collecting benefits, want to get back to earning liveable wages/salaries, ASAP. They still have their rent or mortgages to pay, utilities, food, and other bills to pay when they're unemployed.

People value their time. How much they value each marginal unit of time determines on how much they would be willing to work for. To many people getting enough to survive on whilst not having to give any time working provides a better scenario than them giving their time working. Thus there is a disincentive for them to work as they would be better off not working.

What they need, are jobs that pay them enough to support themselves, and their families. Why should they settle for low-wage jobs, especially if they are white collar professionals?? Besides, unemployment benefits are not 'free money'. Claimants payed taxes into the system, while they were working. And they have to qualify, to get their benefits too.

We need the economy to generate more decent-paying jobs. What we DON'T need is an economy that has mainly wage-slave jobs. If we did, no one could afford to buy houses, cars, clothes, medical care, or be able to save money for a retirement nest egg. Nobody can count on living even a halfway decent life, by flipping hamburgers at Mickey 'Ds!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 3:25:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 3:18:11 PM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/13/2011 1:57:10 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/13/2011 9:48:01 AM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:59:56 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:43:22 PM, artwomyn wrote:
Unemployment is still at a high level these days. The current system of unemployment benefits has proved inadequate, to serve all of the unemployed who have been jobless, for an extended period of time. Many of the 99ers, have no other resources to keep them afloat, once their benefits run out at 99 weeks.

I think that unemployment extensions should go on indefinitely, until the unemployment rate is below 7.5 percent. Do you think that the government should provide additional extensions to help the 99ers, until the unemployment rate drops below 7.5 percent?

Aside from creating ridiculous disincentives to work, why 7.5%? Why any arbitrary amount? (I suppose if you could prove a certain percentage was the natural rate of unemployment due to frictional seasonal umployment etc you might be able to make a case, but that would be impossible)

I disagree, regarding your statement about the 'disincentive to work'. Unemployment benefits, are about half of your former wages. So most people collecting benefits, want to get back to earning liveable wages/salaries, ASAP. They still have their rent or mortgages to pay, utilities, food, and other bills to pay when they're unemployed.

People value their time. How much they value each marginal unit of time determines on how much they would be willing to work for. To many people getting enough to survive on whilst not having to give any time working provides a better scenario than them giving their time working. Thus there is a disincentive for them to work as they would be better off not working.

What they need, are jobs that pay them enough to support themselves, and their families. Why should they settle for low-wage jobs, especially if they are white collar professionals?? Besides, unemployment benefits are not 'free money'. Claimants payed taxes into the system, while they were working. And they have to qualify, to get their benefits too.

We need the economy to generate more decent-paying jobs. What we DON'T need is an economy that has mainly wage-slave jobs. If we did, no one could afford to buy houses, cars, clothes, medical care, or be able to save money for a retirement nest egg. Nobody can count on living even a halfway decent life, by flipping hamburgers at Mickey 'Ds!

We work with what we have. Our economy is degenerating to that of a second world country. If the jobs no longer pay what they used to that's "the new normal". Why should they have to take those jobs? Because that is the choice they have. Sometimes you have to take two jobs, or move in with a family member and sell your house. We do what we have to do before we take money forcibly from people we don't even know.

No one is entitled to a high paying job, no one. If they are white collar professionals, why are they better than a guy pushing a broom? You think that it's beneath them to do that, but perfectly acceptable to mooch off others for over 100 weeks as you would suggest?
artwomyn
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 3:54:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 3:25:49 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/13/2011 3:18:11 PM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/13/2011 1:57:10 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/13/2011 9:48:01 AM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:59:56 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:43:22 PM, artwomyn wrote:
Unemployment is still at a high level these days. The current system of unemployment benefits has proved inadequate, to serve all of the unemployed who have been jobless, for an extended period of time. Many of the 99ers, have no other resources to keep them afloat, once their benefits run out at 99 weeks.

I think that unemployment extensions should go on indefinitely, until the unemployment rate is below 7.5 percent. Do you think that the government should provide additional extensions to help the 99ers, until the unemployment rate drops below 7.5 percent?

Aside from creating ridiculous disincentives to work, why 7.5%? Why any arbitrary amount? (I suppose if you could prove a certain percentage was the natural rate of unemployment due to frictional seasonal umployment etc you might be able to make a case, but that would be impossible)

I disagree, regarding your statement about the 'disincentive to work'. Unemployment benefits, are about half of your former wages. So most people collecting benefits, want to get back to earning liveable wages/salaries, ASAP. They still have their rent or mortgages to pay, utilities, food, and other bills to pay when they're unemployed.

People value their time. How much they value each marginal unit of time determines on how much they would be willing to work for. To many people getting enough to survive on whilst not having to give any time working provides a better scenario than them giving their time working. Thus there is a disincentive for them to work as they would be better off not working.

What they need, are jobs that pay them enough to support themselves, and their families. Why should they settle for low-wage jobs, especially if they are white collar professionals?? Besides, unemployment benefits are not 'free money'. Claimants payed taxes into the system, while they were working. And they have to qualify, to get their benefits too.

We need the economy to generate more decent-paying jobs. What we DON'T need is an economy that has mainly wage-slave jobs. If we did, no one could afford to buy houses, cars, clothes, medical care, or be able to save money for a retirement nest egg. Nobody can count on living even a halfway decent life, by flipping hamburgers at Mickey 'Ds!

We work with what we have. Our economy is degenerating to that of a second world country. If the jobs no longer pay what they used to that's "the new normal". Why should they have to take those jobs? Because that is the choice they have. Sometimes you have to take two jobs, or move in with a family member and sell your house. We do what we have to do before we take money forcibly from people we don't even know.

No one is entitled to a high paying job, no one. If they are white collar professionals, why are they better than a guy pushing a broom? You think that it's beneath them to do that, but perfectly acceptable to mooch off others for over 100 weeks as you would suggest?

The unemployed, are not 'moochers'. As I said, they paid into the system via taxes, when they were employed. And getting a decent-paying job, is the intelligent thing to do, if you have the qualifications to do so. It has nothing to do, with thinking that you're 'too good', to push a broom. It has to do with being able to meet your financial obligations.

More white collar jobs, will be created in the future. Especially green jobs. For example, if you were in marketing for a bank, now you might get your next marketing job, working for a solar energy company. It would make no sense whatsoever, to take two jobs paying minimum wage, if you have the qualifications to take one full-time job, making $50K a year!

Not only that, but employers won't hire the white collar professional for a minimum wage job, because they think that that the white collar person, is overqualified!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 4:09:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 3:54:20 PM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/13/2011 3:25:49 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/13/2011 3:18:11 PM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/13/2011 1:57:10 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/13/2011 9:48:01 AM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:59:56 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:43:22 PM, artwomyn wrote:
Unemployment is still at a high level these days. The current system of unemployment benefits has proved inadequate, to serve all of the unemployed who have been jobless, for an extended period of time. Many of the 99ers, have no other resources to keep them afloat, once their benefits run out at 99 weeks.

I think that unemployment extensions should go on indefinitely, until the unemployment rate is below 7.5 percent. Do you think that the government should provide additional extensions to help the 99ers, until the unemployment rate drops below 7.5 percent?

Aside from creating ridiculous disincentives to work, why 7.5%? Why any arbitrary amount? (I suppose if you could prove a certain percentage was the natural rate of unemployment due to frictional seasonal umployment etc you might be able to make a case, but that would be impossible)

I disagree, regarding your statement about the 'disincentive to work'. Unemployment benefits, are about half of your former wages. So most people collecting benefits, want to get back to earning liveable wages/salaries, ASAP. They still have their rent or mortgages to pay, utilities, food, and other bills to pay when they're unemployed.

People value their time. How much they value each marginal unit of time determines on how much they would be willing to work for. To many people getting enough to survive on whilst not having to give any time working provides a better scenario than them giving their time working. Thus there is a disincentive for them to work as they would be better off not working.

What they need, are jobs that pay them enough to support themselves, and their families. Why should they settle for low-wage jobs, especially if they are white collar professionals?? Besides, unemployment benefits are not 'free money'. Claimants payed taxes into the system, while they were working. And they have to qualify, to get their benefits too.

We need the economy to generate more decent-paying jobs. What we DON'T need is an economy that has mainly wage-slave jobs. If we did, no one could afford to buy houses, cars, clothes, medical care, or be able to save money for a retirement nest egg. Nobody can count on living even a halfway decent life, by flipping hamburgers at Mickey 'Ds!

We work with what we have. Our economy is degenerating to that of a second world country. If the jobs no longer pay what they used to that's "the new normal". Why should they have to take those jobs? Because that is the choice they have. Sometimes you have to take two jobs, or move in with a family member and sell your house. We do what we have to do before we take money forcibly from people we don't even know.

No one is entitled to a high paying job, no one. If they are white collar professionals, why are they better than a guy pushing a broom? You think that it's beneath them to do that, but perfectly acceptable to mooch off others for over 100 weeks as you would suggest?

The unemployed, are not 'moochers'. As I said, they paid into the system via taxes, when they were employed. And getting a decent-paying job, is the intelligent thing to do, if you have the qualifications to do so. It has nothing to do, with thinking that you're 'too good', to push a broom. It has to do with being able to meet your financial obligations.

That money they are receiving isn't money that was kept for them, put asside or anything like that. It's a line item in the budget that's paid for by taxes and debt. Financial obligations can be changed, houses can be sold, kids can go to public school, chunk tuna instead of filet mignon. You used the word "white collar" as if they cannot get their hands dirty. Life isn't fair and bad stuff happens.

More white collar jobs, will be created in the future. Especially green jobs. For example, if you were in marketing for a bank, now you might get your next marketing job, working for a solar energy company. It would make no sense whatsoever, to take two jobs paying minimum wage, if you have the qualifications to take one full-time job, making $50K a year!

Green jobs are being outsourced, and you cannot pay bills with no job. You cannot make a plan for one's future that is based on wishful thinking. People sometimes have to change everything including their standard of living. Oh the horror.

Not only that, but employers won't hire the white collar professional for a minimum wage job, because they think that that the white collar person, is overqualified!
I don't believe that. I have a white collar job and could get a job tomorrow if need be, and it could be either white collar or blue collar. I might not get paid what i get paid now, but i could easily get a job, and they wouldn't say i'm over qualified. If i want the job, and i can do it, i generally can market myself to get it.

The negatives greatly outweigh the positives in creating a dependent class, or as you describe a dependent generation. You realize there are many countries that would kill for an unemployment rate of 9%?
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 4:12:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 3:25:49 PM, innomen wrote:

We work with what we have. Our economy is degenerating to that of a second world country. If the jobs no longer pay what they used to that's "the new normal". Why should they have to take those jobs? Because that is the choice they have. Sometimes you have to take two jobs, or move in with a family member and sell your house. We do what we have to do before we take money forcibly from people we don't even know.

No one is entitled to a high paying job, no one. If they are white collar professionals, why are they better than a guy pushing a broom? You think that it's beneath them to do that, but perfectly acceptable to mooch off others for over 100 weeks as you would suggest?

Not really...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 4:13:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 9:48:01 AM, artwomyn wrote:

I disagree, regarding your statement about the 'disincentive to work'. Unemployment benefits, are about half of your former wages. So most people collecting benefits, want to get back to earning liveable wages/salaries, ASAP. They still have their rent or mortgages to pay, utilities, food, and other bills to pay when they're unemployed.

Actually, unemployment benefits only amount to about 1/3rd of former wages.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 4:14:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 4:12:50 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 3/13/2011 3:25:49 PM, innomen wrote:

We work with what we have. Our economy is degenerating to that of a second world country. If the jobs no longer pay what they used to that's "the new normal". Why should they have to take those jobs? Because that is the choice they have. Sometimes you have to take two jobs, or move in with a family member and sell your house. We do what we have to do before we take money forcibly from people we don't even know.

No one is entitled to a high paying job, no one. If they are white collar professionals, why are they better than a guy pushing a broom? You think that it's beneath them to do that, but perfectly acceptable to mooch off others for over 100 weeks as you would suggest?

Not really...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Have anything after 2008?
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 4:19:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 3:18:11 PM, artwomyn wrote:
What they need, are jobs that pay them enough to support themselves, and their families. Why should they settle for low-wage jobs, especially if they are white collar professionals??

Not all unemployed workers are white collar professionals. The unemployment rate is higher among younger people and minorities, both of whom tend to be lower skilled workers. For many people, unemployment benefits, ceteris paribus, is enough of an incentive not to work to ensure that they won't find a job.

Besides, unemployment benefits are not 'free money'. Claimants payed taxes into the system, while they were working. And they have to qualify, to get their benefits too.

Unemployment benefits are there for the unemployed regardless of whether they aid the taxes that happened to go into unemployment or not. For instance, people on welfare are net tax consumers even when they work, so when they go on unemployment, they are drawing money from a pool (unemployment benefits) they could never have conceivably paid for.

We need the economy to generate more decent-paying jobs. What we DON'T need is an economy that has mainly wage-slave jobs. If we did, no one could afford to buy houses, cars, clothes, medical care, or be able to save money for a retirement nest egg. Nobody can count on living even a halfway decent life, by flipping hamburgers at Mickey 'Ds!

There are plenty of good paying jobs in the economy. What we "need" should not be determined by what you think we need. What we "need" should be determined by the voluntary interactions of all market participants. That implies some optimal mix of computer software engineers and people who flip burgers. We need both. How many of each should be determined by market forces.

Besides, jobs like burger flipping can make a decent living depending on your situation. An 18 year old working through college could definitely use the income. Someone whose basket of goods is cheap could also make a decent living. These people are far from "wage slaves" whatever the hell that means. And another thing you miss is that just because someone works a minimum wage job now, that does not imply they will be stuck there forever.
artwomyn
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 1:42:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 4:19:05 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 3/13/2011 3:18:11 PM, artwomyn wrote:
What they need, are jobs that pay them enough to support themselves, and their families. Why should they settle for low-wage jobs, especially if they are white collar professionals??

Not all unemployed workers are white collar professionals. The unemployment rate is higher among younger people and minorities, both of whom tend to be lower skilled workers. For many people, unemployment benefits, ceteris paribus, is enough of an incentive not to work to ensure that they won't find a job.

Besides, unemployment benefits are not 'free money'. Claimants payed taxes into the system, while they were working. And they have to qualify, to get their benefits too.

Unemployment benefits are there for the unemployed regardless of whether they aid the taxes that happened to go into unemployment or not. For instance, people on welfare are net tax consumers even when they work, so when they go on unemployment, they are drawing money from a pool (unemployment benefits) they could never have conceivably paid for.

We need the economy to generate more decent-paying jobs. What we DON'T need is an economy that has mainly wage-slave jobs. If we did, no one could afford to buy houses, cars, clothes, medical care, or be able to save money for a retirement nest egg. Nobody can count on living even a halfway decent life, by flipping hamburgers at Mickey 'Ds!

There are plenty of good paying jobs in the economy. What we "need" should not be determined by what you think we need. What we "need" should be determined by the voluntary interactions of all market participants. That implies some optimal mix of computer software engineers and people who flip burgers. We need both. How many of each should be determined by market forces.

Besides, jobs like burger flipping can make a decent living depending on your situation. An 18 year old working through college could definitely use the income. Someone whose basket of goods is cheap could also make a decent living. These people are far from "wage slaves" whatever the hell that means. And another thing you miss is that just because someone works a minimum wage job now, that does not imply they will be stuck there forever.

Maybe a college kid would think it's ok to work flipping burgers. But an adult who has to support themselves, and their families, might well think differently. Our economy hasn't ever, and won't ever run on only minimum wage jobs.

It's not the fault of the unemployed, that our economy sucks. They didn't do this to themselves. Many long-term unemployed people, have already lost their homes, apartments, savings, assets, cars, and even their families. Very few people, would want to be 99ers, and try to live off of unemployment benefits.

Many of you posters, think that having to rely on unemployment benefits, is a walk in the park. WELL IT'S NOT! Unemployment benefits, are the only thing that is keeping many people from starving, and landing on the streets. And giving the 99ers a helping hand by providing more unemployment assistance, is the least that the government can do. After all, they spent billions, to bail out the viillains of this economy-the banks and Wall Street!
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 2:06:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 1:42:10 PM, artwomyn wrote:
It's not the fault of the unemployed, that our economy sucks. They didn't do this to themselves.

Whose fault is it? If you have the answer to that by all means tell me who we should take money from and give to the unemployed.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 2:21:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 1:42:10 PM, artwomyn wrote:
Unemployment benefits, are the only thing that is keeping many people from working.
Fix'd.
Why work when you can pay the bills and keep your house for (at least) another 99 weeks without working?

After all, they spent billions, to bail out the viillains of this economy-the banks and Wall Street!
"Two wrongs don't make a right."
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
artwomyn
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 3:16:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 2:06:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/14/2011 1:42:10 PM, artwomyn wrote:
It's not the fault of the unemployed, that our economy sucks. They didn't do this to themselves.

Whose fault is it? If you have the answer to that by all means tell me who we should take money from and give to the unemployed.

It's the fault of the big banks and Wall Street's, and the Bush administration, that enabled their economic shenanigans, against the tax payers.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 3:34:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 3:16:13 PM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/14/2011 2:06:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/14/2011 1:42:10 PM, artwomyn wrote:
It's not the fault of the unemployed, that our economy sucks. They didn't do this to themselves.

Whose fault is it? If you have the answer to that by all means tell me who we should take money from and give to the unemployed.

It's the fault of the big banks and Wall Street's, and the Bush administration, that enabled their economic shenanigans, against the tax payers.

Of course, George Bush, and the evil bankers (code word for Jews i think). Too bad we couldn't take some of those hundreds of billions of dollars that your friend Mr. Obama threw away on TARP. Maybe we can chase after that.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 3:43:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 3:34:26 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/14/2011 3:16:13 PM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/14/2011 2:06:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/14/2011 1:42:10 PM, artwomyn wrote:
It's not the fault of the unemployed, that our economy sucks. They didn't do this to themselves.

Whose fault is it? If you have the answer to that by all means tell me who we should take money from and give to the unemployed.

It's the fault of the big banks and Wall Street's, and the Bush administration, that enabled their economic shenanigans, against the tax payers.

Of course, George Bush, and the evil bankers (code word for Jews i think). Too bad we couldn't take some of those hundreds of billions of dollars that your friend Mr. Obama threw away on TARP. Maybe we can chase after that.

Some people employed in other countries are way worse off than unemployed here.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 3:50:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 3:16:13 PM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/14/2011 2:06:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/14/2011 1:42:10 PM, artwomyn wrote:
It's not the fault of the unemployed, that our economy sucks. They didn't do this to themselves.

Whose fault is it? If you have the answer to that by all means tell me who we should take money from and give to the unemployed.

It's the fault of the big banks and Wall Street's, and the Bush administration, that enabled their economic shenanigans, against the tax payers.

So it's the peoples fault for voting certain people into office and turning a blind eye to a government stepping outside its constitutional bounds?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
artwomyn
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 3:52:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 2:21:09 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 3/14/2011 1:42:10 PM, artwomyn wrote:
Unemployment benefits, are the only thing that is keeping many people from working.
Fix'd.
Why work when you can pay the bills and keep your house for (at least) another 99 weeks without working?

After all, they spent billions, to bail out the viillains of this economy-the banks and Wall Street!
"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Nobody can force employers to give them jobs. You're another poster, who thinks that living on unemployment benefits, is a picnic. You might, and I mean MIGHT, be able to survive on unemployment benefits, if you're fortunate enough to get paid enough in weekly benefits. At most, UE benefits are only about half of a recipient's former salary. So recipents of UE, are not living in the lap of luxury, as you assume.

It's a shame that many people need more than 99 weeks of UE benefits, to help them survive on until they can find gainful employment. But that's the way this economy is. It's really awful-the worst since the great depression. And the unemployed didn't destroy the economy. So they are blameless!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2011 3:53:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/14/2011 3:50:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/14/2011 3:16:13 PM, artwomyn wrote:
At 3/14/2011 2:06:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/14/2011 1:42:10 PM, artwomyn wrote:
It's not the fault of the unemployed, that our economy sucks. They didn't do this to themselves.

Whose fault is it? If you have the answer to that by all means tell me who we should take money from and give to the unemployed.

It's the fault of the big banks and Wall Street's, and the Bush administration, that enabled their economic shenanigans, against the tax payers.

So it's the peoples fault for voting certain people into office and turning a blind eye to a government stepping outside its constitutional bounds?

Some people work their entire lives to make sure they do not become obsolete.

Then there are the gravy train riders...