Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Unemployment Insurance

Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 7:07:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 7:01:41 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
https://www.govtrack.us...

Is there really a plausible argument against the extension of unemployment insurance?

1) It will help people get back into the workforce, by establishing a comprehensive plan, government referrals, and a pool of resources and networking.

2) Will fund unemployed people into employment. The funds allocated are indeed socialistic, but they will ultimately raise the economy. Nationalized government unemployment insurance will give 1000's jobs.

3) It will end all support for government aid to billionaires and millionaires. These people have vast wealth, so the government should not be leaching money whenever someone falls out of favor with the stock market.

4) It will give much needed readjustments to unemployment premiums, which will help millions and boost the economy, that the insurance companies are suppressing.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 11:33:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It disincentivizes reentry into the workforce. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea or that the effect is large, but it is there. That is the main argument.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 5:08:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 11:33:58 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
It disincentivizes reentry into the workforce. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea or that the effect is large, but it is there. That is the main argument.

How does it cause the opposite effect? I'm guessing your argument stems from people who will just collect money and not work. You wont exactly make a living wage on unemployment insurance, but it will keep you above ground while the government gets you a job.

I guess that's what I like the most about the act. All the resources it will provide. I'm also a big advocate for the premium adjustments. They are much fairer, and certainly will check the insurance companies from ripping people off.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 12:28:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 11:33:58 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
It disincentivizes reentry into the workforce. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea or that the effect is large, but it is there. That is the main argument.

If it's an "indisputable fact" and not simply a BS libertarian talking point, where's your evidence? Sometimes I wonder whether libertarians are allergic to facts.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 1:57:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 12:28:50 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:33:58 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
It disincentivizes reentry into the workforce. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea or that the effect is large, but it is there. That is the main argument.

If it's an "indisputable fact" and not simply a BS libertarian talking point, where's your evidence? Sometimes I wonder whether libertarians are allergic to facts.

They also ruined the word libertarian in the US. The more libertarian you are the more freedoms that you believe in, but its been convoluted.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 2:26:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 1:57:09 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:28:50 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:33:58 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
It disincentivizes reentry into the workforce. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea or that the effect is large, but it is there. That is the main argument.

If it's an "indisputable fact" and not simply a BS libertarian talking point, where's your evidence? Sometimes I wonder whether libertarians are allergic to facts.

They also ruined the word libertarian in the US. The more libertarian you are the more freedoms that you believe in, but its been convoluted.

The problem even with that definition is how you define "freedom." Conventionally it's been defined in terms of negative, not positive, freedom. If you were to count positive freedoms as a basis for libertarianism, then I'm more libertarian than, likely, everyone on this site combined save for my fellow super-libs (not communists; super-libs).
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 2:28:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 2:26:13 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 1:57:09 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:28:50 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:33:58 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
It disincentivizes reentry into the workforce. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea or that the effect is large, but it is there. That is the main argument.

If it's an "indisputable fact" and not simply a BS libertarian talking point, where's your evidence? Sometimes I wonder whether libertarians are allergic to facts.

They also ruined the word libertarian in the US. The more libertarian you are the more freedoms that you believe in, but its been convoluted.

The problem even with that definition is how you define "freedom." Conventionally it's been defined in terms of negative, not positive, freedom. If you were to count positive freedoms as a basis for libertarianism, then I'm more libertarian than, likely, everyone on this site combined save for my fellow super-libs (not communists; super-libs).

Your a communist (political spectrum does not lie)
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 2:32:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 2:26:13 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 1:57:09 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:28:50 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:33:58 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
It disincentivizes reentry into the workforce. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea or that the effect is large, but it is there. That is the main argument.

If it's an "indisputable fact" and not simply a BS libertarian talking point, where's your evidence? Sometimes I wonder whether libertarians are allergic to facts.

They also ruined the word libertarian in the US. The more libertarian you are the more freedoms that you believe in, but its been convoluted.

The problem even with that definition is how you define "freedom." Conventionally it's been defined in terms of negative, not positive, freedom. If you were to count positive freedoms as a basis for libertarianism, then I'm more libertarian than, likely, everyone on this site combined save for my fellow super-libs (not communists; super-libs).

And this site has a lot of anarchists, so your not the most libertarian.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 2:47:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 2:32:21 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 2:26:13 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 1:57:09 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:28:50 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:33:58 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
It disincentivizes reentry into the workforce. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea or that the effect is large, but it is there. That is the main argument.

If it's an "indisputable fact" and not simply a BS libertarian talking point, where's your evidence? Sometimes I wonder whether libertarians are allergic to facts.

They also ruined the word libertarian in the US. The more libertarian you are the more freedoms that you believe in, but its been convoluted.

The problem even with that definition is how you define "freedom." Conventionally it's been defined in terms of negative, not positive, freedom. If you were to count positive freedoms as a basis for libertarianism, then I'm more libertarian than, likely, everyone on this site combined save for my fellow super-libs (not communists; super-libs).

And this site has a lot of anarchists, so your not the most libertarian.

Anarchy isn't freedom; anarchy is "let's let people do whatever the hell they want, and if a band of robbers, bankers, etc. rip you off or break your leg, let's say that they did it in the name of freedom -- the market will handle it." It's one of the most asinine systems imaginable and there is no factual basis for it.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 2:49:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 2:47:48 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 2:32:21 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 2:26:13 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 1:57:09 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:28:50 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:33:58 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
It disincentivizes reentry into the workforce. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea or that the effect is large, but it is there. That is the main argument.

If it's an "indisputable fact" and not simply a BS libertarian talking point, where's your evidence? Sometimes I wonder whether libertarians are allergic to facts.

They also ruined the word libertarian in the US. The more libertarian you are the more freedoms that you believe in, but its been convoluted.

The problem even with that definition is how you define "freedom." Conventionally it's been defined in terms of negative, not positive, freedom. If you were to count positive freedoms as a basis for libertarianism, then I'm more libertarian than, likely, everyone on this site combined save for my fellow super-libs (not communists; super-libs).

And this site has a lot of anarchists, so your not the most libertarian.

Anarchy isn't freedom; anarchy is "let's let people do whatever the hell they want, and if a band of robbers, bankers, etc. rip you off or break your leg, let's say that they did it in the name of freedom -- the market will handle it." It's one of the most asinine systems imaginable and there is no factual basis for it.

I'm just saying that anarchy is the extreme end of libertarianism.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 3:57:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 12:28:50 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:33:58 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
It disincentivizes reentry into the workforce. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea or that the effect is large, but it is there. That is the main argument.

If it's an "indisputable fact" and not simply a BS libertarian talking point, where's your evidence? Sometimes I wonder whether libertarians are allergic to facts.

Well, if you subsidize unemployment, then you will get more of it. Sometimes I wonder if progressives are allergic to logic and facts.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 4:04:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:57:27 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:28:50 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:33:58 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
It disincentivizes reentry into the workforce. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea or that the effect is large, but it is there. That is the main argument.

If it's an "indisputable fact" and not simply a BS libertarian talking point, where's your evidence? Sometimes I wonder whether libertarians are allergic to facts.

Well, if you subsidize unemployment, then you will get more of it. Sometimes I wonder if progressives are allergic to logic and facts.

I'm not allergic to logic and facts in the least bit, my friend, but nice projection.

The problem is, your case is highly simplistic and not reflective of reality. That would only be true if we were actually subsidizing unemployment -- if unemployment benefits were actually significant enough to live off of. Unfortunately, we cannot, and I can tell you from personal experience, as someone whose family members have been on unemployment after the horrible crisis of 2008 that the BS policies you support caused, that people depend on these for survival, yet are viciously seeking employment. In fact, if these benefits were large enough that they were comparable to a job, I'd oppose them, as would any sensible progressive. But, yet, that requires nuance, which you're clearly incapable of grasping.

Provide actual evidence that unemployment insurance during a DEMAND crisis -- which this is -- is actually encouraging people to be unemployed, even when there are three job vacancies for every job opening. Your case right now is absolutely laughable.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 4:10:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 4:04:13 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:57:27 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:28:50 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:33:58 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
It disincentivizes reentry into the workforce. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea or that the effect is large, but it is there. That is the main argument.

If it's an "indisputable fact" and not simply a BS libertarian talking point, where's your evidence? Sometimes I wonder whether libertarians are allergic to facts.

Well, if you subsidize unemployment, then you will get more of it. Sometimes I wonder if progressives are allergic to logic and facts.

I'm not allergic to logic and facts in the least bit, my friend, but nice projection.

The problem is, your case is highly simplistic and not reflective of reality. That would only be true if we were actually subsidizing unemployment -- if unemployment benefits were actually significant enough to live off of. Unfortunately, we cannot, and I can tell you from personal experience, as someone whose family members have been on unemployment after the horrible crisis of 2008 that the BS policies you support caused, that people depend on these for survival, yet are viciously seeking employment. In fact, if these benefits were large enough that they were comparable to a job, I'd oppose them, as would any sensible progressive. But, yet, that requires nuance, which you're clearly incapable of grasping.

Provide actual evidence that unemployment insurance during a DEMAND crisis -- which this is -- is actually encouraging people to be unemployed, even when there are three job vacancies for every job opening. Your case right now is absolutely laughable.

I'm gonna pull a progressivedem and just put the burden of proof on the opponent. Now, I'll admit that, in this case, the BoP should be on me. But, since you put the BoP on others even when it is on you (such as the case when it comes to defending the effectiveness of government programs), I'm doing the same.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 4:26:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 4:10:04 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 4:04:13 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:57:27 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:28:50 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:33:58 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
It disincentivizes reentry into the workforce. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea or that the effect is large, but it is there. That is the main argument.

If it's an "indisputable fact" and not simply a BS libertarian talking point, where's your evidence? Sometimes I wonder whether libertarians are allergic to facts.

Well, if you subsidize unemployment, then you will get more of it. Sometimes I wonder if progressives are allergic to logic and facts.

I'm not allergic to logic and facts in the least bit, my friend, but nice projection.

The problem is, your case is highly simplistic and not reflective of reality. That would only be true if we were actually subsidizing unemployment -- if unemployment benefits were actually significant enough to live off of. Unfortunately, we cannot, and I can tell you from personal experience, as someone whose family members have been on unemployment after the horrible crisis of 2008 that the BS policies you support caused, that people depend on these for survival, yet are viciously seeking employment. In fact, if these benefits were large enough that they were comparable to a job, I'd oppose them, as would any sensible progressive. But, yet, that requires nuance, which you're clearly incapable of grasping.

Provide actual evidence that unemployment insurance during a DEMAND crisis -- which this is -- is actually encouraging people to be unemployed, even when there are three job vacancies for every job opening. Your case right now is absolutely laughable.


I'm gonna pull a progressivedem and just put the burden of proof on the opponent. Now, I'll admit that, in this case, the BoP should be on me. But, since you put the BoP on others even when it is on you (such as the case when it comes to defending the effectiveness of government programs), I'm doing the same.

Once again, you've proven yourself an incompetent, illogical buffoon without the ability to comprehend even the simplest point.

Ok, this is enough. I have to go and write my paper -- I'll respond to you in the morning. No, having a life is not "admitting that you owned me." You couldn't friggin own anyone.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 9:39:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 7:01:41 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
https://www.govtrack.us...

Is there really a plausible argument against the extension of unemployment insurance?

It's currently at 99 weeks.
An extension only delays the inevitable (losing it).
The insurance wasn't designed to last that long, so it "bankrupts" the system.
After a year of being "unemployed", as far as I am concerned, it isn't unemployment, it is welfare, so call it such.
My work here is, finally, done.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 9:41:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 9:39:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/11/2014 7:01:41 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
https://www.govtrack.us...

Is there really a plausible argument against the extension of unemployment insurance?

It's currently at 99 weeks.
An extension only delays the inevitable (losing it).
The insurance wasn't designed to last that long, so it "bankrupts" the system.
After a year of being "unemployed", as far as I am concerned, it isn't unemployment, it is welfare, so call it such.

But there are still 3 unemployed people for every job vacancy, and many of those available jobs don't even pay a living wage. So, isn't it a plausible case that, when the economy is still in the gutter, emergency unemployment insurance isn't such a bad thing since it at least allows those people to contribute to the system in some way?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 9:49:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 9:41:26 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:39:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/11/2014 7:01:41 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
https://www.govtrack.us...

Is there really a plausible argument against the extension of unemployment insurance?

It's currently at 99 weeks.
An extension only delays the inevitable (losing it).
The insurance wasn't designed to last that long, so it "bankrupts" the system.
After a year of being "unemployed", as far as I am concerned, it isn't unemployment, it is welfare, so call it such.


But there are still 3 unemployed people for every job vacancy, and many of those available jobs don't even pay a living wage. So, isn't it a plausible case that, when the economy is still in the gutter, emergency unemployment insurance isn't such a bad thing since it at least allows those people to contribute to the system in some way?

I find this figure unsettling, given the unemployment rate is, what, 7.8%, and full employment is 4-5%?

Regardless, how does welfare not contribute in the exact same way?
If, after 2 years, you cannot find employment, why should you still be benefits based on wages that are not current?
My work here is, finally, done.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 9:55:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 9:49:11 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:41:26 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:39:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/11/2014 7:01:41 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
https://www.govtrack.us...

Is there really a plausible argument against the extension of unemployment insurance?

It's currently at 99 weeks.
An extension only delays the inevitable (losing it).
The insurance wasn't designed to last that long, so it "bankrupts" the system.
After a year of being "unemployed", as far as I am concerned, it isn't unemployment, it is welfare, so call it such.


But there are still 3 unemployed people for every job vacancy, and many of those available jobs don't even pay a living wage. So, isn't it a plausible case that, when the economy is still in the gutter, emergency unemployment insurance isn't such a bad thing since it at least allows those people to contribute to the system in some way?

I find this figure unsettling, given the unemployment rate is, what, 7.8%, and full employment is 4-5%?

I think the U3 rate is about 7.2%, U6 is about 13.1%, and full employment is about 6.5%. But I'm not sure how those contradict the vacancy: unemployed workers figure.

Regardless, how does welfare not contribute in the exact same way?
If, after 2 years, you cannot find employment, why should you still be benefits based on wages that are not current?

I mean, you can call it what you'd like, and after an extensive period of time -- and two years is much too long, I think, but looking past that -- you could conceivably call it "welfare" if we're moving past the point that workers contributed to the pool through their payroll taxes. My point, largely, is that without these benefits at a time when people are struggling, they'll retrench from the economy, savings rates will increase substantially, consumption will plummet, and we'll be in an even deeper hole.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 10:00:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 9:55:39 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:49:11 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:41:26 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:39:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/11/2014 7:01:41 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
https://www.govtrack.us...

Is there really a plausible argument against the extension of unemployment insurance?

It's currently at 99 weeks.
An extension only delays the inevitable (losing it).
The insurance wasn't designed to last that long, so it "bankrupts" the system.
After a year of being "unemployed", as far as I am concerned, it isn't unemployment, it is welfare, so call it such.


But there are still 3 unemployed people for every job vacancy, and many of those available jobs don't even pay a living wage. So, isn't it a plausible case that, when the economy is still in the gutter, emergency unemployment insurance isn't such a bad thing since it at least allows those people to contribute to the system in some way?

I find this figure unsettling, given the unemployment rate is, what, 7.8%, and full employment is 4-5%?

I think the U3 rate is about 7.2%, U6 is about 13.1%, and full employment is about 6.5%. But I'm not sure how those contradict the vacancy: unemployed workers figure.

Regardless, how does welfare not contribute in the exact same way?
If, after 2 years, you cannot find employment, why should you still be benefits based on wages that are not current?

I mean, you can call it what you'd like, and after an extensive period of time -- and two years is much too long, I think, but looking past that -- you could conceivably call it "welfare" if we're moving past the point that workers contributed to the pool through their payroll taxes. My point, largely, is that without these benefits at a time when people are struggling, they'll retrench from the economy, savings rates will increase substantially, consumption will plummet, and we'll be in an even deeper hole.

Half of the game is wording, and I don't think one should collect unemployment for over one year, let alone two. That's not how it works, nor is it designed to work.

As far as the consequences, I'm not sure they are as dire as you make them out to be, as I assume most of the money is spent on essentials, just as welfare would be.
Living off of 70% of your income is quite difficult for most people.
My work here is, finally, done.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 10:12:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 10:00:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:55:39 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:49:11 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:41:26 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:39:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/11/2014 7:01:41 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
https://www.govtrack.us...

Is there really a plausible argument against the extension of unemployment insurance?

It's currently at 99 weeks.
An extension only delays the inevitable (losing it).
The insurance wasn't designed to last that long, so it "bankrupts" the system.
After a year of being "unemployed", as far as I am concerned, it isn't unemployment, it is welfare, so call it such.


But there are still 3 unemployed people for every job vacancy, and many of those available jobs don't even pay a living wage. So, isn't it a plausible case that, when the economy is still in the gutter, emergency unemployment insurance isn't such a bad thing since it at least allows those people to contribute to the system in some way?

I find this figure unsettling, given the unemployment rate is, what, 7.8%, and full employment is 4-5%?

I think the U3 rate is about 7.2%, U6 is about 13.1%, and full employment is about 6.5%. But I'm not sure how those contradict the vacancy: unemployed workers figure.

Regardless, how does welfare not contribute in the exact same way?
If, after 2 years, you cannot find employment, why should you still be benefits based on wages that are not current?

I mean, you can call it what you'd like, and after an extensive period of time -- and two years is much too long, I think, but looking past that -- you could conceivably call it "welfare" if we're moving past the point that workers contributed to the pool through their payroll taxes. My point, largely, is that without these benefits at a time when people are struggling, they'll retrench from the economy, savings rates will increase substantially, consumption will plummet, and we'll be in an even deeper hole.

Half of the game is wording, and I don't think one should collect unemployment for over one year, let alone two. That's not how it works, nor is it designed to work.

As far as the consequences, I'm not sure they are as dire as you make them out to be, as I assume most of the money is spent on essentials, just as welfare would be.
Living off of 70% of your income is quite difficult for most people.

I completely agree with you on both counts. Because it's so hard for people to live on unemployment insurance, that's an incentive for them to go and find work, right? Indeed, that's difficult write now, so why maintain it as an additional cushion?

As for the cost to the economy: I think the figure was $39 billion according to Mark Zandi -- mind you, who worked for John McCain (http://www.businessweek.com...) so I do think there is something to be said for the benefit they provide.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 10:13:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 10:12:57 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 10:00:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:55:39 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:49:11 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:41:26 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:39:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/11/2014 7:01:41 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
https://www.govtrack.us...

Is there really a plausible argument against the extension of unemployment insurance?

It's currently at 99 weeks.
An extension only delays the inevitable (losing it).
The insurance wasn't designed to last that long, so it "bankrupts" the system.
After a year of being "unemployed", as far as I am concerned, it isn't unemployment, it is welfare, so call it such.


But there are still 3 unemployed people for every job vacancy, and many of those available jobs don't even pay a living wage. So, isn't it a plausible case that, when the economy is still in the gutter, emergency unemployment insurance isn't such a bad thing since it at least allows those people to contribute to the system in some way?

I find this figure unsettling, given the unemployment rate is, what, 7.8%, and full employment is 4-5%?

I think the U3 rate is about 7.2%, U6 is about 13.1%, and full employment is about 6.5%. But I'm not sure how those contradict the vacancy: unemployed workers figure.

Regardless, how does welfare not contribute in the exact same way?
If, after 2 years, you cannot find employment, why should you still be benefits based on wages that are not current?

I mean, you can call it what you'd like, and after an extensive period of time -- and two years is much too long, I think, but looking past that -- you could conceivably call it "welfare" if we're moving past the point that workers contributed to the pool through their payroll taxes. My point, largely, is that without these benefits at a time when people are struggling, they'll retrench from the economy, savings rates will increase substantially, consumption will plummet, and we'll be in an even deeper hole.

Half of the game is wording, and I don't think one should collect unemployment for over one year, let alone two. That's not how it works, nor is it designed to work.

As far as the consequences, I'm not sure they are as dire as you make them out to be, as I assume most of the money is spent on essentials, just as welfare would be.
Living off of 70% of your income is quite difficult for most people.


I completely agree with you on both counts. Because it's so hard for people to live on unemployment insurance, that's an incentive for them to go and find work, right? Indeed, that's difficult write now, so why maintain it as an additional cushion?

As for the cost to the economy: I think the figure was $39 billion according to Mark Zandi -- mind you, who worked for John McCain (http://www.businessweek.com...) so I do think there is something to be said for the benefit they provide.

*right

Yeah, I'm tired lol.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 10:22:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 10:12:57 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 10:00:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Half of the game is wording, and I don't think one should collect unemployment for over one year, let alone two. That's not how it works, nor is it designed to work.

As far as the consequences, I'm not sure they are as dire as you make them out to be, as I assume most of the money is spent on essentials, just as welfare would be.
Living off of 70% of your income is quite difficult for most people.


I completely agree with you on both counts. Because it's so hard for people to live on unemployment insurance, that's an incentive for them to go and find work, right? Indeed, that's difficult write now, so why maintain it as an additional cushion?

If I was making $20/hr, I make $15/hr for nothing (or so).
However, I also KEEP more, as I pay no payroll taxes, so for the same income, I need to make about $16/hr, probably $16.25 given the increase in taxes too.

There is not incentive to find work that pays less than what I am currently getting, and that is the problem. Further, the problem is exasperated when so many people are out of work, wages go down (supply and demand), thus making it more lucrative to stay on UI.

My wife foolishly took a job while on UI, and she actually made less than she would have otherwise made (mind you, this was part time work, so she still had UI benefits coming in). Then, when she quit due to issues with management (drinking and animal abuse/neglect), she lost UI entirely.
If that is how it generally goes, then only the stupid would take a job just to have one, unless it is financially prudent to do so.
When I was on UI the other month, I was too afraid to quit my second PT job, for fear of loss of benefits, which meant I couldn't look for better work, either.

As for the cost to the economy: I think the figure was $39 billion according to Mark Zandi -- mind you, who worked for John McCain (http://www.businessweek.com...) so I do think there is something to be said for the benefit they provide.

I would rather pay these people to do something that benefits others, like FDR did with the CCC.
They do work that needs to be done for 20 hours a week to get the "UI", and that still leaves 20 hours to look for work.

Win-win, right?
My work here is, finally, done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 6:42:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Even if I don't make as much money on unemployment insurance, getting paid to do nothing still sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

Yea, and jimtimmy3 is right, and there is emperical data to back it up:

http://www.sciencedirect.com...

"In this paper administrative data from the unemployment-insurance (UI) system are used to examine the distribution of unemployment spells. Hazard plots of the data reveal a strong clustering around the benefit exhaustion point. In addition, estimation of the effects of the exhaustion point and of the UI benefit level on spell lengths obtained with a non-parametric proportional-hazards model - estimated by direct maximization of the general likelihood function - shows significant effects of both. However, the effect of the exhaustion point on the hazard is not proportional, making detection of its effect somewhat difficult."
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 12:52:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 6:42:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Even if I don't make as much money on unemployment insurance, getting paid to do nothing still sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

For the love of God, you're ignorant. You're not being "paid to do nothing." Not only did you pay into the system if you're receiving benefits, but you have to report to the unemployment office in your state regularly and prove that you've been actively looking for a job.

This is one of the problems: people, particularly on one side of the aisle, are extraordinarily ignorant of reality.

Yea, and jimtimmy3 is right, and there is emperical data to back it up:

http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Oh wow, you cited the abstract of one paper, so he must be right!

Two can play at that game, my friend: http://link.springer.com...

"In this paper administrative data from the unemployment-insurance (UI) system are used to examine the distribution of unemployment spells. Hazard plots of the data reveal a strong clustering around the benefit exhaustion point. In addition, estimation of the effects of the exhaustion point and of the UI benefit level on spell lengths obtained with a non-parametric proportional-hazards model - estimated by direct maximization of the general likelihood function - shows significant effects of both. However, the effect of the exhaustion point on the hazard is not proportional, making detection of its effect somewhat difficult."

Fun, here's the piece from the paper I cited:

"This study investigates this claim by using European Values Study data from all European Union countries and Norway as well as harmonised macroeconomic statistics from Eurostat. It finds that the effect of unemployment on life-satisfaction is indeed moderated by economic and demographic national-level factors, but not by unemployment benefits. To what extent unemployment reduces life-satisfaction varies greatly between countries, but appears to not be influenced by the extent of state unemployment provisions."
HenryR
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 1:36:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 12:52:17 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 6:42:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Even if I don't make as much money on unemployment insurance, getting paid to do nothing still sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

For the love of God, you're ignorant. You're not being "paid to do nothing." Not only did you pay into the system if you're receiving benefits, but you have to report to the unemployment office in your state regularly and prove that you've been actively looking for a job.

This is one of the problems: people, particularly on one side of the aisle, are extraordinarily ignorant of reality.

Yea, and jimtimmy3 is right, and there is emperical data to back it up:

http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Oh wow, you cited the abstract of one paper, so he must be right!

Two can play at that game, my friend: http://link.springer.com...


"In this paper administrative data from the unemployment-insurance (UI) system are used to examine the distribution of unemployment spells. Hazard plots of the data reveal a strong clustering around the benefit exhaustion point. In addition, estimation of the effects of the exhaustion point and of the UI benefit level on spell lengths obtained with a non-parametric proportional-hazards model - estimated by direct maximization of the general likelihood function - shows significant effects of both. However, the effect of the exhaustion point on the hazard is not proportional, making detection of its effect somewhat difficult."

Fun, here's the piece from the paper I cited:

"This study investigates this claim by using European Values Study data from all European Union countries and Norway as well as harmonised macroeconomic statistics from Eurostat. It finds that the effect of unemployment on life-satisfaction is indeed moderated by economic and demographic national-level factors, but not by unemployment benefits. To what extent unemployment reduces life-satisfaction varies greatly between countries, but appears to not be influenced by the extent of state unemployment provisions."

While you do have to "look for work" if on unemployment insurance, it reduces the incentive to seek a job that is significantly lower-paying than your previous job. This makes it harder for the job market to reach an employment equilibrium at a lower nominal wage level.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 2:08:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 12:52:17 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 6:42:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Even if I don't make as much money on unemployment insurance, getting paid to do nothing still sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

For the love of God, you're ignorant. You're not being "paid to do nothing." Not only did you pay into the system if you're receiving benefits, but you have to report to the unemployment office in your state regularly and prove that you've been actively looking for a job.

This is one of the problems: people, particularly on one side of the aisle, are extraordinarily ignorant of reality.

Another thing that should be noted, is that attending government assistance is mandatory to collect your unemployment insurance. From what we know about the law, is that its been significantly more successful then other socialist programs tried in the past. The governments been VERY selective on who they give insurance to anyways. These people are actually being put back into the workforce.

Yea, and jimtimmy3 is right, and there is emperical data to back it up:

http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Oh wow, you cited the abstract of one paper, so he must be right!

Two can play at that game, my friend: http://link.springer.com...


"In this paper administrative data from the unemployment-insurance (UI) system are used to examine the distribution of unemployment spells. Hazard plots of the data reveal a strong clustering around the benefit exhaustion point. In addition, estimation of the effects of the exhaustion point and of the UI benefit level on spell lengths obtained with a non-parametric proportional-hazards model - estimated by direct maximization of the general likelihood function - shows significant effects of both. However, the effect of the exhaustion point on the hazard is not proportional, making detection of its effect somewhat difficult."

Fun, here's the piece from the paper I cited:

"This study investigates this claim by using European Values Study data from all European Union countries and Norway as well as harmonised macroeconomic statistics from Eurostat. It finds that the effect of unemployment on life-satisfaction is indeed moderated by economic and demographic national-level factors, but not by unemployment benefits. To what extent unemployment reduces life-satisfaction varies greatly between countries, but appears to not be influenced by the extent of state unemployment provisions."
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 2:42:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 1:36:07 PM, HenryR wrote:
At 4/14/2014 12:52:17 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 6:42:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Even if I don't make as much money on unemployment insurance, getting paid to do nothing still sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

For the love of God, you're ignorant. You're not being "paid to do nothing." Not only did you pay into the system if you're receiving benefits, but you have to report to the unemployment office in your state regularly and prove that you've been actively looking for a job.

This is one of the problems: people, particularly on one side of the aisle, are extraordinarily ignorant of reality.

Yea, and jimtimmy3 is right, and there is emperical data to back it up:

http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Oh wow, you cited the abstract of one paper, so he must be right!

Two can play at that game, my friend: http://link.springer.com...


"In this paper administrative data from the unemployment-insurance (UI) system are used to examine the distribution of unemployment spells. Hazard plots of the data reveal a strong clustering around the benefit exhaustion point. In addition, estimation of the effects of the exhaustion point and of the UI benefit level on spell lengths obtained with a non-parametric proportional-hazards model - estimated by direct maximization of the general likelihood function - shows significant effects of both. However, the effect of the exhaustion point on the hazard is not proportional, making detection of its effect somewhat difficult."

Fun, here's the piece from the paper I cited:

"This study investigates this claim by using European Values Study data from all European Union countries and Norway as well as harmonised macroeconomic statistics from Eurostat. It finds that the effect of unemployment on life-satisfaction is indeed moderated by economic and demographic national-level factors, but not by unemployment benefits. To what extent unemployment reduces life-satisfaction varies greatly between countries, but appears to not be influenced by the extent of state unemployment provisions."


While you do have to "look for work" if on unemployment insurance, it reduces the incentive to seek a job that is significantly lower-paying than your previous job. This makes it harder for the job market to reach an employment equilibrium at a lower nominal wage level.

So basically your case is that workers won't be so desperate that they'll take a McJob at McDonalds. That's actually a very plausible case, but I don't see that as an argument against unemployment insurance. If anything, it's an argument for inefficiency: for employing people below their marginal product of labor (mind you, that's only insofar as we can quantity it, but the principle stands).

You mention, also, labor market equilibria. The case is fundamentally flawed however, as it was when Hayek made it. Your case essentially is that prices should be allowed to hit their bottoms, as should wages, and markets are autonomous, omniscient, et al. and capable of clearing at the most efficient equilibrium. Equilibria can be inefficient, however, and the short run can undermine the long run -- so I don't think that making people so completely desperately that they go out and take whichever job possible (which hands even MORE leverage to the McDonalds and WalMart's off the world, and would make them even larger leeches of taxpayer money) is the answer, or even an answer.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 2:54:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 2:42:15 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 1:36:07 PM, HenryR wrote:
At 4/14/2014 12:52:17 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 6:42:32 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Even if I don't make as much money on unemployment insurance, getting paid to do nothing still sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.

For the love of God, you're ignorant. You're not being "paid to do nothing." Not only did you pay into the system if you're receiving benefits, but you have to report to the unemployment office in your state regularly and prove that you've been actively looking for a job.

This is one of the problems: people, particularly on one side of the aisle, are extraordinarily ignorant of reality.

Yea, and jimtimmy3 is right, and there is emperical data to back it up:

http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Oh wow, you cited the abstract of one paper, so he must be right!

Two can play at that game, my friend: http://link.springer.com...


"In this paper administrative data from the unemployment-insurance (UI) system are used to examine the distribution of unemployment spells. Hazard plots of the data reveal a strong clustering around the benefit exhaustion point. In addition, estimation of the effects of the exhaustion point and of the UI benefit level on spell lengths obtained with a non-parametric proportional-hazards model - estimated by direct maximization of the general likelihood function - shows significant effects of both. However, the effect of the exhaustion point on the hazard is not proportional, making detection of its effect somewhat difficult."

Fun, here's the piece from the paper I cited:

"This study investigates this claim by using European Values Study data from all European Union countries and Norway as well as harmonised macroeconomic statistics from Eurostat. It finds that the effect of unemployment on life-satisfaction is indeed moderated by economic and demographic national-level factors, but not by unemployment benefits. To what extent unemployment reduces life-satisfaction varies greatly between countries, but appears to not be influenced by the extent of state unemployment provisions."


While you do have to "look for work" if on unemployment insurance, it reduces the incentive to seek a job that is significantly lower-paying than your previous job. This makes it harder for the job market to reach an employment equilibrium at a lower nominal wage level.


So basically your case is that workers won't be so desperate that they'll take a McJob at McDonalds. That's actually a very plausible case, but I don't see that as an argument against unemployment insurance. If anything, it's an argument for inefficiency: for employing people below their marginal product of labor (mind you, that's only insofar as we can quantity it, but the principle stands).

You mention, also, labor market equilibria. The case is fundamentally flawed however, as it was when Hayek made it. Your case essentially is that prices should be allowed to hit their bottoms, as should wages, and markets are autonomous, omniscient, et al. and capable of clearing at the most efficient equilibrium. Equilibria can be inefficient, however, and the short run can undermine the long run -- so I don't think that making people so completely desperately that they go out and take whichever job possible (which hands even MORE leverage to the McDonalds and WalMart's off the world, and would make them even larger leeches of taxpayer money) is the answer, or even an answer.

Basically their reasoning is that if your not starving and in poverty then you wont have a reason to get a job XD . I mean, WTF?

They are also ignoring other parts of the act, like mandatory government programs, referrals, and premium adjustments which help the economy. They see socialist, and they automatically deny it.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 5:16:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 12:52:17 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:


For the love of God, you're ignorant. You're not being "paid to do nothing." Not only did you pay into the system if you're receiving benefits, but you have to report to the unemployment office in your state regularly and prove that you've been actively looking for a job.

I find the underlined a bit ironic.
My work here is, finally, done.