Quote :

"Sorry friend, the average number of weeks on unemployment is like 31 or something. I suppose thats the conservative half of the country going back to work at...-30 weeks and all the liberals staying on the dole until it runs out at 99, right (I hope you can understand that math)?"

I just dropped by to say:

You clearly don't understand the math.

If you are assuming that the total unemployed are exactly 50% liberal and 50% conservative (no love for moderates?) then the correct equation would be:
31 (if thats legit, you didn't post a link) = (99 + (# of weeks for liberals))/2, when you solve this you get (# of weeks for liberals) = -37.

I hope this algebra lesson has both informed and entertained.

[Edited on July 15, 2010 at 11:06 PM. Reason : )]

7/15/2010 11:05:45 PM

Quote :

"Socks``: HockeyRoman, Well, I would argue that the McCain jabs started well before he brought on Palin (who was truly a poor choice) and they have obviously continued well past her selection was politically relevant. And I don't buy the second reason, that it was because pandered to Republicans (he did, i hated it, but they are, you know, his base). All politicians pander. Even the ones you like. And I certainly did not see Dems heaping equal measures of scorn on all politicians (certainly not their own when they pandered). But I really don't want to discuss it much. I just got hot because I saw the resentment of him being needlessly drug up from 2 years ago. If this wasn't The Soap Box I would probably have just kept it to myself. Anyways, I made my views known during the election and I think this article sums up my feelings about McCain since he lost. http://www.slate.com/id/2259936/ The entire experience has only left me even more skeptical of the democratic process. So I will just drop it."

No, you didn't make your views known.

All we know is that you were the most #1 crazy awesome big fan Hillary supporter ever!!!!!

!!!!


!111!!!

And then you took a hard right for McCain. And you actually became a pretty rah rah #1 McCain supporter after that.

It was utterly ridiculous and made no sense at all...

And seriously, please don't talk about it.

It makes me really uncomfortable.

7/16/2010 12:11:34 AM

Why doesn't John Kerry just give the unemployed some of his wife's money?

7/16/2010 12:41:13 AM

^ I hate this argument. Kerry and every other member of Congress pay taxes, a portion of that tax money is used for unemployment just as yours is. No one is asking for you to take the money from your savings account and give someone else an extra week of unemployment.

7/16/2010 12:47:43 AM

^ I was joking--but this, of course, was self-evident. Since you've apparently got your hackles up, how long is "long enough" for individuals to draw unemployment payments?



[Edited on July 16, 2010 at 12:56 AM. Reason : And it was ol' Ed who brought up "shocking" GOP "net worth" in the OP. FYI. ]

7/16/2010 12:52:18 AM

^that is a good question, what is the ideal number of weeks for unemployment in a severe recession (haven't seen many specifics in this thread)

7/16/2010 9:22:26 AM

to me, the original 52 week claim period used by the state of NC before the recession is more than enough.

7/16/2010 10:39:38 AM

^^ Thanks. I think it's certainly a fair question.

Maybe we should get everybody on the record with an answer?

7/16/2010 12:37:52 PM

Quote :

"^ I hate this argument. Kerry and every other member of Congress pay taxes, a portion of that tax money is used for unemployment just as yours is. No one is asking for you to take the money from your savings account and give someone else an extra week of unemployment."

Kerry actively votes to spend everyone's money, though. I never consented to pay taxes. I either pay them or I go to jail. Kerry could vote to reduce the tax burden on regular citizens. He doesn't. It's easy to be "generous" with other people's money when you're disconnected from the financial impact it has on regular people.

7/16/2010 1:26:54 PM

How long unemployment is extended probably depends on the goals of unemployment.

From a Keynesian macro perspective, unemployment serves as an automatic stabilizer that helps prevent aggregate demand further from the unemployment that results from this or that demand shock.

To serve this purpose in previous recessions, I can't imagine needing more than 99 weeks (if we really needed that many).

However, as some have pointed out that, long-term unemployment is rising to higher levels than any previous modern recession. So maybe we are in liquidity trap that will not be easy to get out of and maybe we need to extend unemployment longer to avoid another negative demand shock while the economy is still weak?

If that is the case, maybe extending unemployment is the way to go. But I don't know that it is.

Maybe long-term employment isn't increasing because of an extended lack of aggregate demand. Maybe it is rising because we are witnessing a structural shift in the economy away from construction and finance and toward...something else. In other words, maybe the NAIRU itself is increasing.

Greg Mankiw speculated today on his blog about this topic:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/

If that is the case, we shouldn't extend unemployment, we should help the long-term unemployed train for new careers.

7/16/2010 1:26:59 PM

I think unemployment should continue to be extended until the rate of job creation looks like it is meaningfully moving to a point where it will out-pace population growth.

And I echo some of the sentiments from Socks that we have a long term problem on our hands. We essentially squandered the past decade on housing and finance. Some of our best and brightest went into finance because it's easier to get richer in that field, often to the detriment of everyone else.

7/16/2010 5:54:39 PM

Quote :

"I think unemployment should continue to be extended until the rate of job creation looks like it is meaningfully moving to a point where it will out-pace population growth."

What if that doesn't happen? What if we have an extended period of 1970s style "stagflation," or something more similar to what Japan has had since the 1980s?

7/16/2010 6:13:04 PM

We're going to do what we've done for the past decade, leave it to the Corporatacracy to figure out how to get us out of this. My guess is they'll keep pushing for stimulus so their bonuses stay fat for as long as they possibly can. The money thrown at the unemployed is chump change for them.

But, like Socks pointed out, we need to retrain those with stale-ish (and getting staler) skills for new industries.

7/16/2010 6:20:17 PM

The recent efforts to extend unemployment that failed by one vote, how long were they looking to extend it?

7/16/2010 6:49:09 PM

Quote :

"I think unemployment should continue to be extended until the rate of job creation looks like it is meaningfully moving to a point where it will out-pace population growth."

or we can just give everyone money from the government coffers forever. it grows on trees.

7/16/2010 8:08:31 PM

This administration has, and continues to, dole it out to the banks in various forms of stimulus and yet you're in here crying about those lazy unemployed people loving that 20k/yr income and hoping to stay on it forever.

Oh sure, you'll rail on that too. Please, continue to paint your conservative brush on EVERYTHING while ignoring reality as if we can snap our fingers and your panacea of low taxes and personal responsibility will have everyone bootstrapping tomorrow and the economy growing at 10% by next quarter.

7/16/2010 8:52:58 PM

Quote :

"This administration has, and continues to, dole it out to the banks in various forms of stimulus and yet you're in here crying about those lazy unemployed people loving that 20k/yr income and hoping to stay on it forever. Oh sure, you'll rail on that too. Please, continue to paint your conservative brush on EVERYTHING while ignoring reality as if we can snap our fingers and your panacea of low taxes and personal responsibility will have everyone bootstrapping tomorrow and the economy growing at 10% by next quarter."

1. i am against the bailouts of private companies.

2. if you are on unemployment longer than a year then yes (except for the very rare occasion), you are lazy and unrealistic.

you are so dense, it hurts. exactly where does the $texas come from to pay 10% of the population a salary to do nothing for a never-ending amount of time? remember, tax revenues are way down. we are cutting budgets in schools. we are cutting essential government programs at the local and federal level. at what point does personal responsibility kick in?

7/16/2010 10:33:34 PM

Quote :

"i am against the bailouts of private companies."

Everyone with half a brain about the economy is too. But some folks aren't so myopic and slaved to their ideology that they'd cut off grocery money to their fellow Americans in an environment where corporate interests have captured congress to privatize gains and socialize losses. Personally, I think it's fairly hilarious that someone who works in an industry that has been so bastardized and distorted by government corporate intervention (via regulatory and governmental capture) would cut off his own nose to spite his face regarding UI.

Quote :

"exactly where does the $texas come from to pay 10% of the population a salary to do nothing for a never-ending amount of time? "

No one said that and anyone with half an economic brain doesn't expect this recession to continue forever. I'm being dense?

Quote :

" at what point does personal responsibility kick in"

What on earth does this even mean? You have yet to show anything other than your single anecdote that this is anywhere near an egregious problem. You've failed to have a discussion about the fact that this has been the weakest jobs recovery of any recession since the great depression. Again, only someone with a closed minded ideology and a lack of understanding of reality would look at this chart


and scream about personal responsibility.

7/17/2010 7:19:06 AM

I believe that as long as the handout is being offered, it will be taken. After a reasonable amount of time the individual should be responsible for themselves.

You believe it's the governments job to compensate everyone throughout a recession no matter the financial impact in the future.

Your idealism makes you dense. If a person doesn't have a crutch they will adapt and overcome. Too much UE holds them back.

7/17/2010 9:37:53 AM

The uncertainty this admin is creating is keeping businesses from hiring. You can lable it greed or whatever, but a lot of businesses are sitting on their cash, freezing spending/hiring, until they figure out what the admin is going to pass next, see the exact details, and determine what it is going to cost them.

The deficit is hurting and the admin saying we are going to have to make some "hard choices" only means those who produce will be paying more...but how much more?

7/17/2010 9:42:51 AM

^^ I don't think you really grasp macro economics. What you are suggesting - and this is a very important point I will make again and hopefully it sinks into your cranium this time - ABSENT STRUCTURAL FIXES TO THE REST OF THE ECONOMY, you're calling for a depression and a severe drain on the nations skill set that is required to keep the US as an innovative leader and world power. This is what will happen when you force millions to seek a means to survive. They'll sale their homes at losses which will impact their ability to consume. They'll have to settle for jobs where their skill set isn't maximized. Their spouses will have to take different jobs, a further drain on skills. Their childrens lives will be disrupted in ways we aren't sure about.

I thought pointing out I voted for Lawson and Munger would clue you in that I'm not a liberal or believe in liberal policies but you apparently can't entertain the idea that someone can be both fiscally conservative and for UE - and here is another important point - GIVEN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE ECONOMY. Again, so long as corporate interest via back room deals have been in charge of this country for decades, and so long as they've managed to establish socialism for a rich, you're god damn fucking right I'm in favor of my fellow common man and woman getting (for a lot of folks) what amounts to fucking pennies.

We've wound ourselves into a real nasty web of easy credit and government intervention in the economy that spans decades. You don't just unwind that shit by saying "sorry, fuck you, I know the economy sucks but um, too bad, get a lower paying job, I don't care if you were formerly an engineer, this country doesn't need any more of your kind". It's going to take decades to get out of this shit and until there is some real willingness to reign in the elites on that end of the economy I'm not going to call for cutting off UI.

Now, if you'd like to attempt some facts to support your ridiculous idea that people are just happy to hang out on UI then be my guest.

7/17/2010 11:13:03 AM

do I need to post a link to human nature? search unemployment fraud.


I understand macro economics. you assume if a person no longer has UE they will go earn zero dollars. you understand the instinct of self-preservation, that still exists (believe it or not) in the nanny state we have today. there will be added casualties like you suggested but casualties are part of the market being corrected.

you also continually ignore the fact that I am in favor of some UE, just not a blank check forever.
you also have failed to suggest any means of continually paying for such a program.

and yes, a fucking engineer should go flip a burger in the short term to take care of himself. maybe has to take 2 jobs. why is that so wrong? he is capable. then the person who would normally flip the burger could go to the job an illegal is doing, then all the illegals will leave and solve 2 problems at once.

7/17/2010 12:54:19 PM

Again, no facts as to how you arrived at your "UI is too long imho" statement. Good going, you're clueless.

7/17/2010 2:31:16 PM

fraud - http://imkane.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/mismanagement-and-fraud-cause-7-1-billion-overpayment-in-unemployment-benefits/

AND

studies showing people will milk UE - http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/13/effects-of-unemployment-benefits/

Quote :

"In his academic studies Dr. Krueger wrote that “more generous UI benefits have been found to be associated with longer spells of unemployment,” and further finds that “the job finding rate jumps up around the time benefits are exhausted. Most importantly, we find that job search intensity is inversely related to UI benefit generosity for those who are eligible for UI.”"

can you admit you are wrong now?

7/17/2010 4:07:29 PM

^ In support of this:

Quote :

"'The curse of long-term unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time,' Ferguson said. 'Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.'"

--Niall Ferguson, PhD, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor at Harvard Business School

http://tinyurl.com/28pzays

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!!!1

7/17/2010 4:23:23 PM

Why has fraud even enterred into the discussion? Whether the limites are 4 weeks or 99, you're going to have fraudsters. You want to know where else you can find fraud? In the fucking private sector

From this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff
and this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Stanford
and these guys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
and these guys
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/16/583631/goldman-sachs-will-pay-550-million.html

Your study is cute. First of all, it used data from 2003-2007, a time when jobs were plentiful. It was limited to the standard 26 weeks. Before even looking into that study we can try and get in the mind of someone on UI. Jobs are plentiful so fuck it, I am in fact going to milk this for what its worth and I'll snag a job near the time the benefit expires. Btw, those UI benefits those people were milking were paid into by them and their employer, not the taxpayer.

After we look into that study more, we see nuggets like this:

Quote :

"Finally, we report average minutes of job search by UI eligibility status. Those eligible for UI search 13 minutes more on an average day than those who are not eligible. This difference, however, falls to 6 minutes when we control for observable characteristics such as age, education, sex, marital status, and a dummy for the presence of children."

Those fucking leeches, what are they doing looking for work for longer that people without UI?

Interesting

Quote :

"Because of concern about simultaneous causation ?? a high unemployment rate could cause fewer people to search for a job and could be caused by low job search intensity ?? we excluded the unemployment rate and its interaction with benefits from the models in Tables 2 and 3"

Seems like their model breaks down under high unemployment situations.

Quote :

"can you admit you are wrong now?"

You know whats wrong? Bitching about people on UI when there are 5 fucking people for every job opening
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/job-openings-per-worker/

Yeah, those fuckers need to take some personal responsibility and kill the other 4 people for a given job opening. Thats what this country needs, someone who is assertive and does what it takes to get off the dole.

7/17/2010 5:09:26 PM

^ Anger issues?

7/17/2010 6:19:47 PM

Just waiting for someone to tell me why they always try to apply their politics in a vacuum and ignore reality...hell, ignore facts. This goes for both sides but at the moment it's the conservatives (sans Socks``) that can't seem to understand the current state of the economy.

7/17/2010 6:40:23 PM

^

Quote :

"Since you've apparently got your hackles up, how long is 'long enough' for individuals to draw unemployment payments?"

Back again, Chance?

7/17/2010 6:57:26 PM

I figure Potty Mouth has it right. I mean, I understand what the conservatives are saying. Incentives do matter. But I don't think modest extensions in UE are going to result in huge numbers of people abusing it like it were a paid vacation.

7/17/2010 7:29:48 PM

But why do you insist on calling a 200% extension to be modest? It is an insoluble opinion as to how long is long enough. Especially when every modest extension seems to breed yet another modest extension. The objectors in this thread seem to object to the seemingly unending support. So, the question is, Socks, do you not understand why unemployment benefits were time delineated to begin with?

That said, why the objection to portraying what is in effect a generous severance package as paid vacation? It is literally paid vacation. You are being paid not to work. It doesn't take either abuse or fraud for the system to operate as paid vacation. It does not take 40 hours a week to obtain three employment encounters. All three can be knocked out on Monday. Spend the other six days at the beach and you are honoring the system as it was intended to operate and how I want it to operate.

7/17/2010 7:54:17 PM

^ you can scroll up for why i think an extension in unemployment time limits would be warranted (and as you note the question of how long is long enough is "insoluable" or at least doesn't have answers that can be summed up easily in this thread).

As for your second comment, I think we apparently have different definitions of "vacation". True, both unemployment and vacation are paid time off, but does that make them synonyms? Sick leave is also paid time off, but I wouldn't say I was going on "vacation" to recover from strep throat. Vacation has positive connotations that "unemployment insurance" does not.

Think about it this way. Is there a real difference between "jerking off" and getting a "hand job"? They both amount to the same thing (getting your knob polished), but I would still say there is a qualitative difference between the two.

[Edited on July 18, 2010 at 12:06 AM. Reason : ``]

7/18/2010 12:03:44 AM

Quote :

"Think about it this way. Is there a real difference between "jerking off" and getting a "hand job"? They both amount to the same thing (getting your knob polished), but I would still say there is a qualitative difference between the two."

And if I must explain to you that difference...it is conceivable for someone to find the work they are going to return to next week more stressful than having to find a job at some point in the next 99 weeks. But if you are happy just trying to say the two are not identical to each other, so be it. I will happily concede vacation time off and UI are different by degree, but they are not different in kind.

But this has nothing to do with whether UI should be offered for four weeks, 31 weeks, 99 weeks, or 1000 weeks. It is a personal preference, and in my opinion 99 weeks is way too many. It is not a matter of whether they can be summed up in the thread, they cannot be summed up. It cannot be demonstrated that UI should not be zero weeks, so there damn sure is no way to demonstrate it should/should not be any number x. Even infinity is defensible, it all depends how you personally weigh such things.

We can demonstrate that generous benefits drive unemployment statistics higher than they otherwise would be, but you may not believe this matters. We can demonstrate that most people treat UI as paid vacation, you may think this is a good thing. We can demonstrate that some people without UI will lose their home, you may not think personal hardship is the business of government. All these are proven facts, so, choose your poison. I've chosen mine: I would prefer if government provided zero weeks of UI. So, yes, 99 is excessive.

7/18/2010 12:44:11 AM

^ i know.

i personally prefer a longer time period. and not even forever. Primarily for this moment, when I do worry about the economy being in a liquidity trap.

But honestly, I am watching Doctor Who right now and cant even think about it.

7/18/2010 1:05:14 AM

Now that is something that can be discussed and it not be all opinion. A liquidity trap is bunk, the federal reserve (FR) alone can fix any liquidity trap, it just might need powers it does not currently have (Helicopters). But, either way, government spending will not and could not help solve a liquidity trap, as the problem is a shortage of cash and the federal treasury does not currently have the authority to print money, only the FR does, and there is no law that the treasury must issue debt before the FR can print money.

7/18/2010 10:17:58 AM

7/18/2010 9:04:58 PM

Wow, what great, thought-provoking ideas you have brought to light.

7/19/2010 9:05:55 AM

Eureka! We have consensus--that's what many of you claim to want, right?

Quote :

"I can't speak for the Republicans, but I think the general idea is that if you incentivize something you get usually more of it. The argument here is that if you extend unemployment benefits, you're just encouraging recipients to delay finding employment."

hooksaw

message_topic.aspx?topic=500489&page=38

Quote :

"Unemployment insurance also extends the time a person stays off the job. Clark and I estimated that the existence of unemployment insurance almost doubles the number of unemployment spells lasting more than three months. If unemployment insurance were eliminated, the unemployment rate would drop by more than half a percentage point, which means that the number of unemployed people would fall by about 750,000."

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Unemployment.html

--Dr. Larry Summers, now-director of the White House National Economic Council

7/22/2010 9:03:48 AM

according to Potty Mouth Dr. Summers must be an idiot.

7/22/2010 9:25:30 AM

Guess so.

7/22/2010 9:27:25 AM

Quote :

"April: 11 May: 6 June: 23 July so far: 24 26 38"

7/22/2010 10:57:15 AM

hooksaw
I find it a bit telling that you'll readily clown economists, citing the 9/5 that predicted a recession and yet you'll happily site economic theory (not law) if you think it bolsters your case, to whit

Quote :

""I can't speak for the Republicans, but I think the general idea is that if you incentivize something you get usually more of it. The argument here is that if you extend unemployment benefits, you're just encouraging recipients to delay finding employment."

please see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
The surprising truth about what motivates us

Btw, that link you posted of Summers actually has more nuggets that bolster the case I am making than the one you pulled out (which is generally out of context, btw).

The evidence is still piled against you guys. In aggregate, folks would much rather be gainfully employed than drawing UI and so long as the job situation doesn't improve, we should continue to support these folks. I will however side with the conservatives that I would like to see a trimming of the budget somewhere else and I hope November elections means the next time UI needs extending that it will happen this way.

7/22/2010 5:12:06 PM

This is out of context?

Quote :

"Unemployment insurance also extends the time a person stays off the job."

--Summers

Right. And Krugman has said the same thing, BTW.

7/22/2010 5:22:23 PM

I'm kind of bored with this debate since you don't really offer any compelling arguments, but I'll probably go back later and inform you of how you're using that comment in a way that doesn't negate arguments I made before about the current recession and how UI should be treated differently.

7/22/2010 5:29:16 PM

^ Um. . .I wasn't even thinking of you or your "argument" when I posted that. It was DaBird who made the connection--but I don't disagree with him.

Post what you will. But I think I'll decline the offer to participate in one of your nut-riding sessions. Thanks just the same, though.

7/22/2010 5:34:35 PM

Nut riding sessions?

Anyway, the point still stands, looking at studies of unemployment when jobs were plentiful or using low income earners as the standard (which is what Summers apparently does) will give drastically different results. Thats really what this is about anyway, DaBird for sure, but likely you and I imagine the majority of conservatives probably think people on UI are just milking the system and are glad to stay on it despite a deafening roar of numbers and anecdotes that undermines your position.

[Edited on July 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2010 5:41:32 PM

Everyone knows if you subsidize something you get more of it. Except you.

no doubt there are *some* who need that long and legitimately cant find work. there are far more who use the extra time to hold out for something better.

7/22/2010 9:21:02 PM

Are you trolling? I posted a link that calls this THEORY into question using academic studies. I bet you don't even know what a theory is do you?

7/23/2010 7:01:08 AM

I have an opinion and you have an opinion...thats fine. but our current path is irresponsible...we have no way to pay these benefits and they have turned into political fodder.

you cannot just blindly support paying until the economy comes back, because it never will.

7/23/2010 8:23:13 AM

Quote :

"I think unemployment should continue to be extended until the rate of job creation looks like it is meaningfully moving to a point where it will out-pace population growth."

So, literally, forever. Unless you can find a way that sits well with you to curb population growth (I'm personally a fan of shooting unproductive people every 5 years as a negative-reinforcement method of motivation but i have trouble converting people to my cause)

7/23/2010 10:58:31 AM