Quote :

"You're not looking at the impact of that. There are people who we should pay NOT to work, else we devalue education and force down the workforce."

Except that there's only value in education in so far as what you are educated in is in demand. It's great that you can now get a degree in Beatles (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/27/133266691/first-beatles-scholar-graduates-masters-program) that doesn't mean you should be payed for it, or have a job studying the Beatles.

1/27/2011 6:55:31 PM

Quote :

"I can't even imagine what you just said kris. I might as well respond "jduewtgthgffgyttgtfg""

Perhaps I should speak in terms you are more familiar with:

The cow goes "moo",

Quote :

"Except that there's only value in education in so far as what you are educated in is in demand"

That's not necessarily true. Your education can create value independent to demand. Demand is subject to market forces, the ability to use your education to create value is not. Your education's value is dependent on how you are able to use it. The degree in "Beatles" is useless because you can't use it to do things with it, not just because people don't want it, that's an effect, not a cause.

1/27/2011 10:58:32 PM

But that's my point, sometimes you can't use your education simply because there isn't any demand for you to use it. Therefore your education has less value. The value of your education comes from two places, the ability of you to use it to satisfy some demand, or your ability to use it to create new demand. In either case paying you not to work seems to be a waste.

1/28/2011 7:43:59 AM

Haha kris has no rebuttal for either of our posts because his point was so far out of touch with reality that he can't even defend it in his twisted little head.

We need to pay people not to work so that they don't agree not to undercut our current labor force... Is that what you were trying to say? Really?

Why don't we just destroy buildings, crops, and manufactured goods too while we're at it.

1/28/2011 8:56:45 AM

How about we make everyone from the age of 18 that doesn't find a job in 3 months work in a state-run government factory? Then we would have less unemployed, right face?

1/28/2011 10:37:18 AM

Well if you want to be technical in the short term yes they'd be better off paying them to work in a state run factory then paying them to do nothing for 2 years.

However, the govt would never end that program thereby creating another waste of taxpayer money over the long term.

Also it would be inefficient because ultimately we want people to find jobs that match their skills which is why unemployment insurance exists in the first place.

Notice I said "insurance" as in payouts should reflect the premiums that are paid into the system. That is why benefits should end after 6 months. If they wanted 2 years worth of insurance they should have been paying higher premiums while they were working. As it is now they are leeches and our govt can't afford them.

They have no incentive to take a $45kiyr job when they make 30k for not working.

How many of these people really have no intentions to go back to work (retiring, starting a family, etc) but are still collecting checks? Probably quite a few...

How many have enough in savings to meet their bare minimum expenses but are using the unemployment checks to help them keep their car payments, their cable, their cell phone plans, etc active? Probably a ton of them.

How many are on their couch drinking beer and smoking cigarettes as I type this? More than I'd ever care to count obviously.

Basically we are subsidizing verizon, time warner, marlboro, busch, etc with this madness.

We need a real economy. One where people work and are compensated for their work. Not this total clusterfuck of subsidies, distortions, and inefficiencies that are ripping this nation apart.

We are 9 years away from hitting the point of no return for this debt. We're fucked.

1/28/2011 12:33:37 PM

Quote :

"sometimes you can't use your education simply because there isn't any demand for you to use it"

You might not get hired with it, but you can most certainly still use it.

Quote :

"The value of your education comes from two places, the ability of you to use it to satisfy some demand, or your ability to use it to create new demand."

No, the value of it only comes from creating things, demand is irrelevant. The creation is the driver, not the demand, it is a consequent of the driver.

Quote :

"In either case paying you not to work seems to be a waste."

No, lowering the return on education has long term effects. If anything we should be investing in education during time of unemployment, not making people who have and education worth less.

Quote :

"Haha kris has no rebuttal for either of our posts "

You post was literally jibberish. Not like so silly that it could be compared to jibberish, but you actually posted jibberish. I will quote "jduewtgthgffgyttgtfg". I'd be happy to respond to any non-jibberish response you'd care to make.

Quote :

"We need to pay people not to work so that they don't agree not to undercut our current labor force... Is that what you were trying to say?"

What a simpleton. The problem is that the ROI on education begins to shrink causing less people to go to school, not to mention the inefficencies in having someone overskilled in a position. To put it plainly, possibly in terms you can understand, our economy runs better when an engineer is an engineer than when an engineer is a trashman.

Quote :

"Also it would be inefficient because ultimately we want people to find jobs that match their skills which is why unemployment insurance exists in the first place."

You're beginning to get it.

Quote :

"They have no incentive to take a $45kiyr job when they make 30k for not working."

Let's use real numbers here. I don't know of any state that would pay 30k/year, and in order to even make the max amount, you'd need to have had a job that paid more than $45k.

You should focus more on how it actually works than whining about what people on it are or are not doing.

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ]

1/28/2011 1:03:52 PM

2/1/2011 1:38:17 AM