The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Savon]

I wanna post here again but my comp is fried and typing an essay from my iPhone is just a pain. I wanna debate so hard right now

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You agree to the agreement personally by not renouncing citizenship.

As much as I think taxes are important, that's like saying, "She didn't say no, so it wasn't ****."

I think it's better to argue for taxes from a necessary evil point of view. The alternative to not paying our dues is the government collapsing and our society turning into a mess. Yes, without money to pay the police officers, the policemen can't protect us. Without money to pay the soldiers, the soldiers can't protect us. Without money to pay for the judiciary, we don't have justice. Oh and if your government provides healthcare to those who can't afford it, like it does in awesome countries like Australia, and provides unemployment and disability benefits for those who can't find work or can't work, then those people suffer without taxes. And taxes pay for the education of the people who can't afford education.

Sure, taxes hurt the economy. But I think living in a society where I am safe and healthy is more important than my tax dollars. And yes they infringe your rights, because you never really agreed to them, but I think they guarantee you many more rights than you lose.

 

[ballin4life]

As much as I think taxes are important, that's like saying, "She didn't say no, so it wasn't ****."

I think it's better to argue for taxes from a necessary evil point of view. The alternative to not paying our dues is the government collapsing and our society turning into a mess. Yes, without money to pay the police officers, the policemen can't protect us. Without money to pay the soldiers, the soldiers can't protect us. Without money to pay for the judiciary, we don't have justice. Oh and if your government provides healthcare to those who can't afford it, like it does in awesome countries like Australia, and provides unemployment and disability benefits for those who can't find work or can't work, then those people suffer without taxes. And taxes pay for the education of the people who can't afford education.

Sure, taxes hurt the economy. But I think living in a society where I am safe and healthy is more important than my tax dollars. And yes they infringe your rights, because you never really agreed to them, but I think they guarantee you many more rights than you lose.

So I disagree with many of the details here, but I think this is a stronger way to frame the argument - that there are some things that only the government can provide. But that leads to a very different idea of what the government should do.

It's the same principle with democracy. We've all heard the quote "democracy is the worst political system besides all the others". But I say if you recognize the flaws, then you should limit the power to only the things that really are necessary.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

It's the same principle with democracy. We've all heard the quote "democracy is the worst political system besides all the others". But I say if you recognize the flaws, then you should limit the power to only the things that really are necessary.

I'd limit the power only to that which is beneficial. I think the government can do some often rather important things better than the private sector and therefore should do them.

 

[ballin4life]

Depends what you mean by better and at what cost. It seems like the threshold has to be pretty high to avoid justifying all the bad government actions as well. I'd go with criteria like "making it Pareto efficient when it wasn't before" or something like that.

For example, I think unemployment benefits (which are a big negative economically since they encourage people to be unemployed) and government health care would not be justified. I'd say those pretty much are just transfers of wealth from one person to another. There's more of an argument for subsidizing education under the "positive externality" theory, but I don't think that effect is very large (I suppose you could say health care has positive externalities too, but I don't see that argument advanced often). The problem in that case is that the government does a horrible job of implementing these things. In some idealized world where the government can run these enterprises efficiently, it might make more sense.

Anyway, I think there is a big problem though when you say "Ok, democracy/government has the power to do these things". With such a weak justification in place for WHY they should have that power, you can then justify them having power over other things and you run into problems.

 

[Sucumbio]

...you should limit the power to only the things that really are necessary.

I think ideally this was always the intention of the US Government, but as people grew in numbers and so-called entrepreneurs came about to demonstrate new and inventive ways to scam other people out of money more legislation was necessary to help protect "the common man." The passing of Acts and Resolutions, etc... also there are ... unforeseen events in history that came along, that come along, that force the government to take action, and a lot of times these actions remain on the books just in case it should happen again. True our own government is young by comparison to say, British Parliament, but there's still plenty of legislation to go around, we've had tons of it passed over the decades, and you could argue that most of it is currently either outdated, useless, unfair, etc. In other words, "what is really necessary" if often the ideas of the elected body at the time, which in theory should reflect the majority's will, but often does not (because politicians often only say what they need to get elected, not what they really have in mind to do with their power once they're in).

I think unemployment benefits (which are a big negative economically since they encourage people to be unemployed) and government health care would not be justified.

I find this interesting you'd mention these as unnecessary (if we're to continue with this framework). How is it that UEB (unemployment benefits) encourage people to be unemployed?

Why do you think government-sponsored health care is not a justifiable tax burden?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Depends what you mean by better and at what cost. It seems like the threshold has to be pretty high to avoid justifying all the bad government actions as well.

I'd say benefits more people in a greater way than it hurts.

I'd go with criteria like "making it Pareto efficient when it wasn't before" or something like that.

I don't think that's a reasonable criterion. It's not even feasible for any program to make something Pareto efficient. And how would you know it's Pareto efficient, it's a rather abstract concept?

For example, I think unemployment benefits (which are a big negative economically since they encourage people to be unemployed) and government health care would not be justified.

So being able to feed yourself without a job encourages people to be unemployed? Even if it did, I think that ensuring that everyone has enough food to keep themselves alive is more important than worrying if you're encouraging unemployment. Keep in mind that unemployment benefits are probably below the minimum wage. In Australia, the benefits are $228/week while the minimum wage is $589.30/week. I don't see why anyone on unemployment benefits would want to stay unemployed in order to keep the benefits. Especially considering that to be eligible for these benefits one must prove that they are looking for work.

I'd say those pretty much are just transfers of wealth from one person to another. There's more of an argument for subsidizing education under the "positive externality" theory, but I don't think that effect is very large (I suppose you could say health care has positive externalities too, but I don't see that argument advanced often). The problem in that case is that the government does a horrible job of implementing these things. In some idealized world where the government can run these enterprises efficiently, it might make more sense.

Yeah. The government does to a terrible job of some things, but I think that without the government, it wouldn't get done, or that only the privileged would be able to receive the benefits of education and healthcare. I don't think that a society should have that kind of entrenched inequality. Especially considering education, whereby the wealth of your parents determines how well you get educated, meaning that ideas of self-reliance and everyone getting what they deserve get thrown out the window.

And I think it can be done relatively well. Apparently the NHS, Britain's public healthcare system is more cost-effective than the current US one, which is more like private-healthcare in nature.

Anyway, I think there is a big problem though when you say "Ok, democracy/government has the power to do these things". With such a weak justification in place for WHY they should have that power, you can then justify them having power over other things and you run into problems.

Duh. That's circular logic.

Edit: Who's up for a thread about secularism? Anyone want to go Devil's Advocate?

 

[Sucumbio]

Edit: Who's up for a thread about secularism? Anyone want to go Devil's Advocate?

idk, i've pretty much made my entire smash debating career out of playing devil's advocate, even though it may not be so obvious all the time. what did you have in mind?

 

[ballin4life]

I think ideally this was always the intention of the US Government, but as people grew in numbers and so-called entrepreneurs came about to demonstrate new and inventive ways to scam other people out of money more legislation was necessary to help protect "the common man." The passing of Acts and Resolutions, etc... also there are ... unforeseen events in history that came along, that come along, that force the government to take action, and a lot of times these actions remain on the books just in case it should happen again. True our own government is young by comparison to say, British Parliament, but there's still plenty of legislation to go around, we've had tons of it passed over the decades, and you could argue that most of it is currently either outdated, useless, unfair, etc. In other words, "what is really necessary" if often the ideas of the elected body at the time, which in theory should reflect the majority's will, but often does not (because politicians often only say what they need to get elected, not what they really have in mind to do with their power once they're in).

I would agree that my views are close to being in line with the original concept of government in the US. The US Constitution is a pretty good framework. It's just that it isn't really followed today at all. Through an extremely loose interpretation of the meanings of certain clauses the politicians have found a way to "justify" everything.

And if we just leave "what is really necessary" to the majority's will, then that leads to all the problems I pointed out earlier. In fact, the framers of the Constitution specifically didn't want this. They even put in random things like the electoral college to lower the possibility of "tyranny of the majority".

I find this interesting you'd mention these as unnecessary (if we're to continue with this framework). How is it that UEB (unemployment benefits) encourage people to be unemployed?

It's pretty simple. When you increase the benefit to being unemployed, you increase people's incentive to be unemployed.

Why do you think government-sponsored health care is not a justifiable tax burden?

Because the government is likely to do a bad job at providing health care, and will only be able to do this through force? Why do you think government-sponsored cars are not a justifiable tax burden? Why not government-sponsored everything?

I'd say benefits more people in a greater way than it hurts.

What's your opinion of Japanese internment? Or Nazi concentration camps? These were likely supported by a majority.

I don't think that's a reasonable criterion. It's not even feasible for any program to make something Pareto efficient. And how would you know it's Pareto efficient, it's a rather abstract concept?

Well, we do have a whole theory about it within economics. But I'm extremely confused how you can say this right after providing the criteria "benefits more people in a greater way than it hurts". That's MUCH more vague.

So being able to feed yourself without a job encourages people to be unemployed? Even if it did, I think that ensuring that everyone has enough food to keep themselves alive is more important than worrying if you're encouraging unemployment. Keep in mind that unemployment benefits are probably below the minimum wage. In Australia, the benefits are $228/week while the minimum wage is $589.30/week. I don't see why anyone on unemployment benefits would want to stay unemployed in order to keep the benefits. Especially considering that to be eligible for these benefits one must prove that they are looking for work.

Yes. If you were unable to feed yourself without a job, that would be an extremely large incentive to get a job and not be unemployed. Now, most people would probably be smart enough to save up some money so that they could eat for a while even without a job, but they'll probably have to start eating hamburgers rather than steak. So if they like steak (and the other things money buys) they will have a big incentive to find work.

The interesting thing though is that you assume that we need force to help those few people that wouldn't have anything to eat. What's wrong with charity - with VOLUNTARILY helping out these people? Anyone can be really charitable with other people's money.

Other notes: the minimum wage is a terrible idea that causes unemployment also. What's the problem if I and an employer VOLUNTARILY come to an agreement where I work for $500/week? It's a huge disincentive for employers to offer jobs when they have to offer that higher wage. Anyway, you can't deny either that the incentive to find work would be greater if unemployment benefits were lower.

Yeah. The government does to a terrible job of some things, but I think that without the government, it wouldn't get done, or that only the privileged would be able to receive the benefits of education and healthcare. I don't think that a society should have that kind of entrenched inequality. Especially considering education, whereby the wealth of your parents determines how well you get educated, meaning that ideas of self-reliance and everyone getting what they deserve get thrown out the window.

But that already happens! The government doesn't solve that "problem". And I don't see how creating a monopoly on education is going to help that.

Also, there's a lot of money to be made selling things to people that aren't wealthy you know.

And I think it can be done relatively well. Apparently the NHS, Britain's public healthcare system is more cost-effective than the current US one, which is more like private-healthcare in nature.

The US one is not an example of a private system, given that health care is already massively regulated. You're also not really making an apples to apples comparison here.

Duh. That's circular logic.

Not sure what you mean here. All I'm saying though is that if your justification for something also justifies a bunch of really bad things, then maybe it's not a good reason.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What's your opinion of Japanese internment? Or Nazi concentration camps? These were likely supported by a majority.

Benefits =/= supported by.

Well, we do have a whole theory about it within economics. But I'm extremely confused how you can say this right after providing the criteria "benefits more people in a greater way than it hurts". That's MUCH more vague.

No, I don't believe it is much more vague. If a government program costs money and hurts the taxpayer, because he has to pay for it, it should only be implemented if it is of more benefit to the taxpayer.

Pareto efficiency seems like a stupid criteria because, there is no real way to tell if a system is Pareto efficient apart from looking at every possible method of improving the system and then determining that there is no possible way to improve it without hurting someone else. Additionally, the market is not Pareto efficient, how do you know that your "improvement" will make it Pareto efficient? And I'm pretty sure that Pareto efficiency relies on improving someone's condition while ensuring that no others are worsened in any way at all. How the can any government program make sure it treads on a grand total of 0 toes in all of its programs?

Yes. If you were unable to feed yourself without a job, that would be an extremely large incentive to get a job and not be unemployed.

I can't believe that you are suggesting that the threat of starvation should exist as an incentive for people to find work. I think feeding the population should be a higher priority than creating incentives for people to work. They are already there. It's called getting more money.

Now, most people would probably be smart enough to save up some money so that they could eat for a while even without a job, but they'll probably have to start eating hamburgers rather than steak. So if they like steak (and the other things money buys) they will have a big incentive to find work.

Let's pretend that you're an unskilled worker. You have a wage not much higher than the minimum wage. You're struggling to pay your rent, to pay your bills and to buy food for yourself. How the hell are you going to save enough money to feed yourself when you are unemployed, possibly for years at a time?

But hang-on, I thought that not being able to feed yourself if you don't was supposed to be a valid incentive to find and hold a job. If people can live off savings, then where's the incentive for them to find work? Yeah sure, they'll run out, but so will your unemployment benefits if you don't actually prove that you are looking for work.

The interesting thing though is that you assume that we need force to help those few people that wouldn't have anything to eat. What's wrong with charity - with VOLUNTARILY helping out these people? Anyone can be really charitable with other people's money.

Here's the problem with charity. It isn't going to be enough on its own. Even at the moment, with the government and private charity working towards alleviating things such as homelessness, there are still homeless people. How is it possible for charity to magically feed all the people who don't have unemployment benefits, once you take them away.

On the flip-side of this, private charity feeds the people who are unemployed. Whatever happened to the whole, "it diminishes the incentive" argument? Is private charity a bad idea for this reason?

Other notes: the minimum wage is a terrible idea that causes unemployment also. What's the problem if I and an employer VOLUNTARILY come to an agreement where I work for $500/week? It's a huge disincentive for employers to offer jobs when they have to offer that higher wage. Anyway, you can't deny either that the incentive to find work would be greater if unemployment benefits were lower.

Can we stick to the topic of social programs like unemployment benefits? I don't believe that I have enough economic knowledge to debate on a topic like the minimum wage.

But that already happens! The government doesn't solve that "problem". And I don't see how creating a monopoly on education is going to help that.

I think that totally privatising education would exacerbate the situation significantly. I never said the current situation was perfect, but I think there is a good reason for public education.

Also, there's a lot of money to be made selling things to people that aren't wealthy you know.

But not to the people who cannot afford it.

The US one is not an example of a private system, given that health care is already massively regulated. You're also not really making an apples to apples comparison here.

It sure is more private than the NHS.

Not sure what you mean here. All I'm saying though is that if your justification for something also justifies a bunch of really bad things, then maybe it's not a good reason.

I thought you were basically criticising the argument that said: "that the fact that they have the power to do things is the reason that they should have the power".

 

[SuperBowser]

I don't believe there is any evidence of a correlation between how privatised a healthcare system is and its efficiency. Maybe in textbooks, but not in real life.

Yes. If you were unable to feed yourself without a job, that would be an extremely large incentive to get a job and not be unemployed. Now, most people would probably be smart enough to save up some money so that they could eat for a while even without a job, but they'll probably have to start eating hamburgers rather than steak. So if they like steak (and the other things money buys) they will have a big incentive to find work.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I can't help but feel you are implying most people are unemployed because they want to be unemployed and, furthermore, that they could get a job if they wanted to.

 

[Sucumbio]

It's pretty simple. When you increase the benefit to being unemployed, you increase people's incentive to be unemployed.

Increase benefit, though? Hm...

In the US, UEB are 1.) temporary 2.) only offered to those who lost their job under certain and specific circumstances (e.g. you have to have already been employed, and you cannot have been terminated or willfully quit, you pretty much have to have been laid off). So what you're saying is that UEB are attractive enough that people who have jobs would rather be laid off from them so they can take a 6-18 week vacation at roughly the same pay to less pay than they were getting, and without any other benefits they may have gotten from their employer such as group health, 401k, stock options, etc. It just doesn't follow. You can't request to be laid off, lol. You can't even request UEB, it is a -recourse- ... it is the last straw, the last ditch effort to keep you functioning while you look for work.

I've been on it. I worked for a temp agency, and when my job came to an end, there weren't any more available. Just to pay rent, electricity, water, food, and gas for the car... I claimed UEB and searched for another job, and found one about 9 weeks later. While on UEB since it wasn't as much as I was making, I had to get some of my food from a mission, I went to the salvation army for clothes and toiletries and so on. It was horrible, living like that. It's not like people on food stamps, who may already be somewhat gainfully employed, but have kids, and so qualify for EBT food stamps. No... it was a meager 250/wk check which barely covered my living expense, and actually left me needing more than I was getting, which is why I had to rely on charity organizations.

Also UEB are not taken from everyone's tax dollars. It's technically referred to as Unemployment Insurance, and it's something that an Employer pays based on your salary. This is why when you go to collect, you are asked to list all of your previous employers. Because they will be tapping each of them for a check out of their UEB pool on your behalf, going back X years. After so many years have passed, an employer is no longer required to pay UEB to you, regardless of the circumstances.

Also you are expected to prove you are looking for work. It's a fairly rigorous ordeal depending on the state you live in. If at any time they suspect you're just sitting on your *** you'll get cut off, and in most instances, billed for the monies paid to date, which are required to be paid back in full, and by law. Not paying it back in a timely manner comes with a penalty of x years in jail/y dollars fine. This countermeasure and others are in place to prevent UEB fraud.

So basically, no it's not really better to be unemployed, at least to collect UEB. UEB is hard to come by, hard to keep, not all that much help by comparison, and hell if it turns out you didn't deserve it. And it's not even an option to being employed. It's what happens if you were already employed and then lost your job due to lay off, or wrongful termination (which the latter is VERY hard to prove).

Because the government is likely to do a bad job at providing health care, and will only be able to do this through force? Why do you think government-sponsored cars are not a justifiable tax burden? Why not government-sponsored everything?

Well to be fair the US gov isn't actually the Health Care provider, nor would they ever try to be one. They've contracted with a major provider to do the Medicine end of the deal, it's only the processing which is government run. The "force" issue -is- a major problem, mainly because it's unconstitutional to demand people be insured. It should be a states' rights issue at the very least, but this is why Obamacare has so many critics.

Other notes: the minimum wage is a terrible idea that causes unemployment also. What's the problem if I and an employer VOLUNTARILY come to an agreement where I work for $500/week? It's a huge disincentive for employers to offer jobs when they have to offer that higher wage.

I know this wasn't directed toward me but I saw this and had to reply...

Minimum Wage was instituted to prevent people from being under paid. It serves also as a guideline to preserve the US economy. Those making minimum wage, are making the minimum amount of money per week required to spend enough each week that the national economy will remain solvent. This is the theory anyway, as we can see it's not working in practice right now because this wage requires that X amount of people are working, and that number is not being met. But you cannot blame the actual wage amount for this. Employers are asked to pay this amount because if they don't, people won't make enough to drive the economy (by buying food, clothing and shelter - the three basic necessities of living). As judge Joe Brown once said, you don't HAVE to have Cable TV. You don't HAVE to have a big-screen. Sure there's plenty you can do without. But you at least need food, clothing, and a roof over your head, and the minimum wage provides this.

Now this doesn't take into account part-time work. Minimum Wage employees who are NOT full time, will not drive the economy. And due to the slump in America's economy, more and more people are being asked to work Part Time (less than 30 hours a week). Heck, even the definition of Full Time has changed. When I started working it was 40 hours. Now it's 30. I barely make enough to make ends meet at average 35 hours/week. If I were asked to drop to 30, I'd have to give up something major, like my car, or my cable/internet, or my phone service. (You'd don't NEED Cable/Internet!) Shut up Joe Brown, I do! Anyway, not the point. The point is that minimum wage is not a deterrent so much as it is a means to an end. It just so happens that companies are suffering financial loss, so they in turn are cutting jobs and reducing hours. The minimum wage recently went up as a response to this, and in turn more jobs were cut and more hours lost. It's a viscous cycle that can only be remedied by...

Well who knows? The current administration has had 2.5 going on 3 years to figure it out and haven't. Maybe there IS no solution that works. Maybe we're doomed to become an eventual country filled with virtual slave labor, busting our collective ***** for pennies on the dollar. I have a ****ing degree and work at a gas station. Why? Because there's literally nothing else for me, lol. Sad but true, but at least I have a job! ><

 

[ballin4life]

Benefits =/= supported by.

Uh, if everyone supported it, it's likely because they got some benefit out of it. Even if it's just the mental benefit of having a disliked group be discriminated against.

No, I don't believe it is much more vague. If a government program costs money and hurts the taxpayer, because he has to pay for it, it should only be implemented if it is of more benefit to the taxpayer.

How are you going to measure "benefit"? And do you only mean programs that "benefit" ALL taxpayers? If so, then your definition has collapsed into Pareto efficiency anyway. If not, then you're proposing to have some method of calculating the benefits and costs between people to determine if the aggregate benefit is higher than the aggregate cost. This seems incredibly vague to me.

Pareto efficiency seems like a stupid criteria because, there is no real way to tell if a system is Pareto efficient apart from looking at every possible method of improving the system and then determining that there is no possible way to improve it without hurting someone else. Additionally, the market is not Pareto efficient, how do you know that your "improvement" will make it Pareto efficient? And I'm pretty sure that Pareto efficiency relies on improving someone's condition while ensuring that no others are worsened in any way at all. How the can any government program make sure it treads on a grand total of 0 toes in all of its programs?

There's no real way to tell if an action benefits everyone.

Also, you might want to look into the first welfare theorem in economics, which says that the market is Pareto efficient in the absence of externalities.

You ask how you can tell if a program will not hurt anyone (we do have a theory on how to deal with externalities). I ask how you can tell if a program's aggregate benefit is positive.

I can't believe that you are suggesting that the threat of starvation should exist as an incentive for people to find work. I think feeding the population should be a higher priority than creating incentives for people to work. They are already there. It's called getting more money.

Yes, but the incentive is greatly lessened. As for feeding the population being a higher priority than getting people to work - why not have both?

Let's pretend that you're an unskilled worker. You have a wage not much higher than the minimum wage. You're struggling to pay your rent, to pay your bills and to buy food for yourself. How the hell are you going to save enough money to feed yourself when you are unemployed, possibly for years at a time?

By working hard and not wasting money. People do it, you know.

But hang-on, I thought that not being able to feed yourself if you don't was supposed to be a valid incentive to find and hold a job. If people can live off savings, then where's the incentive for them to find work? Yeah sure, they'll run out, but so will your unemployment benefits if you don't actually prove that you are looking for work.

There's a somewhat obvious difference between the two. One comes out of your own money, the other is a handout. You still have your savings if you find work again, and you can spend them on whatever you want.

Here's the problem with charity. It isn't going to be enough on its own. Even at the moment, with the government and private charity working towards alleviating things such as homelessness, there are still homeless people. How is it possible for charity to magically feed all the people who don't have unemployment benefits, once you take them away.

Well, for one the government is taking tons of money away from people that might otherwise go to charity, for one. Also, a charity is more likely than the government to give food away to someone who actually needs it. Politicians on the other hand want to give out benefits because it helps them to get elected.

But it's just interesting - if you have SUCH a big majority that supports these wealth transfers, then why can't that majority just implement a charity system on its own? Maybe because it's all based on stealing from the people that don't support the system? Of course, the real truth is that in developed countries there is plenty of food to go around, but wealth transfers are meant to cover much much more than just food. That's how you wind up with stories like this guy who complains that his unemployment benefits won't cover his "love of dining out".

On the flip-side of this, private charity feeds the people who are unemployed. Whatever happened to the whole, "it diminishes the incentive" argument? Is private charity a bad idea for this reason?

Oh, private charity certainly diminishes the incentive. But it's voluntary, so it provides some benefit to the person giving it (he gets to feel good about himself or whatever). You've also argued that private charity will result in a lower overall level of transfers, which would result in a higher overall incentive to work.

Can we stick to the topic of social programs like unemployment benefits? I don't believe that I have enough economic knowledge to debate on a topic like the minimum wage.

Uh ok ... but my argument on unemployment benefits is mostly based on economics. It's pretty well accepted that unemployment benefits and the minimum wage cause unemployment. One might argue for those policies despite these economic problems (I think the minimum wage is much more difficult to defend), but it's important to recognize the economic consequences.

I think that totally privatising education would exacerbate the situation significantly. I never said the current situation was perfect, but I think there is a good reason for public education.

But not to the people who cannot afford it.

But you'll make a lot of money if you make something people can afford (see Wal-Mart). Anyway, I think it's very difficult to defend public education. You could make a stronger argument for vouchers, since they remove the problem of having a monopoly on education.

It sure is more private than the NHS.

But it isn't a fully private system. That's all I'm saying.

I thought you were basically criticising the argument that said: "that the fact that they have the power to do things is the reason that they should have the power".

Well I disagree with that reasoning too

I don't believe there is any evidence of a correlation between how privatised a healthcare system is and its efficiency. Maybe in textbooks, but not in real life.

I don't think there's a good way to get evidence on this and other economic subjects since you can't really run controlled experiments.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I can't help but feel you are implying most people are unemployed because they want to be unemployed and, furthermore, that they could get a job if they wanted to.

In some cases this isn't true. In others it is. Many people who got laid off from their last job aren't exactly sending out resumes to the local McDonalds. They are instead looking for much better jobs, which are of course going to be harder to get. If they wanted to get a lower paying job, they would probably have more success in their job search.

Also, there is the urgency factor. If you have 1 year of unemployment benefits, then your timeframe for getting a new job has just extended significantly, whereas if you don't have benefits you'll want to get a job much faster and will work harder to apply to more places.

Increase benefit, though? Hm...

In the US, UEB are 1.) temporary 2.) only offered to those who lost their job under certain and specific circumstances (e.g. you have to have already been employed, and you cannot have been terminated or willfully quit, you pretty much have to have been laid off). So what you're saying is that UEB are attractive enough that people who have jobs would rather be laid off from them so they can take a 6-18 week vacation at roughly the same pay to less pay than they were getting, and without any other benefits they may have gotten from their employer such as group health, 401k, stock options, etc. It just doesn't follow. You can't request to be laid off, lol. You can't even request UEB, it is a -recourse- ... it is the last straw, the last ditch effort to keep you functioning while you look for work.

The people who get laid off will take longer to find new jobs.

I've been on it. I worked for a temp agency, and when my job came to an end, there weren't any more available. Just to pay rent, electricity, water, food, and gas for the car... I claimed UEB and searched for another job, and found one about 9 weeks later. While on UEB since it wasn't as much as I was making, I had to get some of my food from a mission, I went to the salvation army for clothes and toiletries and so on. It was horrible, living like that. It's not like people on food stamps, who may already be somewhat gainfully employed, but have kids, and so qualify for EBT food stamps. No... it was a meager 250/wk check which barely covered my living expense, and actually left me needing more than I was getting, which is why I had to rely on charity organizations.

Well, you have to define "need" there. Anyway, let's suppose you didn't have any of that. How badly would you have wanted a new job in that case? Maybe you would have taken even more drastic cost-cutting measures, like living with someone else. How many jobs did you apply for?

Also UEB are not taken from everyone's tax dollars. It's technically referred to as Unemployment Insurance, and it's something that an Employer pays based on your salary. This is why when you go to collect, you are asked to list all of your previous employers. Because they will be tapping each of them for a check out of their UEB pool on your behalf, going back X years. After so many years have passed, an employer is no longer required to pay UEB to you, regardless of the circumstances.

Interesting. This is still a tax. It's just that it's a tax on your employer. Note that this also means that you are getting paid much less by your employers since they have to worry about covering this extra cost. Hell, maybe they don't want to hire anyone because there are so many costs to hiring people?

Also, this doesn't really fit perfectly with some things I've read - like the claim that the budget deficit has gone up due to all the unemployment benefits. It would seem that this tax does not do enough to cover all the benefits.

Also you are expected to prove you are looking for work. It's a fairly rigorous ordeal depending on the state you live in. If at any time they suspect you're just sitting on your *** you'll get cut off, and in most instances, billed for the monies paid to date, which are required to be paid back in full, and by law. Not paying it back in a timely manner comes with a penalty of x years in jail/y dollars fine. This countermeasure and others are in place to prevent UEB fraud.

How do you prove it? There's still the issue of looking for 1 job a week vs 2 jobs a week. If all you have to do is look for 1, then you have less incentive to look for 2.

So basically, no it's not really better to be unemployed, at least to collect UEB. UEB is hard to come by, hard to keep, not all that much help by comparison, and hell if it turns out you didn't deserve it. And it's not even an option to being employed. It's what happens if you were already employed and then lost your job due to lay off, or wrongful termination (which the latter is VERY hard to prove).

Well, that's your opinion. Others might be willing to live off these benefits for longer. But anyway, if these benefits are so worthless, why even have them? I'm sure it's a HUGE cost to do all this checking to make sure someone really deserves the benefits. Maybe they could let the employers keep that tax money and lower their costs to actually hiring someone.

I know this wasn't directed toward me but I saw this and had to reply...

Minimum Wage was instituted to prevent people from being under paid. It serves also as a guideline to preserve the US economy. Those making minimum wage, are making the minimum amount of money per week required to spend enough each week that the national economy will remain solvent. This is the theory anyway, as we can see it's not working in practice right now because this wage requires that X amount of people are working, and that number is not being met. But you cannot blame the actual wage amount for this. Employers are asked to pay this amount because if they don't, people won't make enough to drive the economy (by buying food, clothing and shelter - the three basic necessities of living). As judge Joe Brown once said, you don't HAVE to have Cable TV. You don't HAVE to have a big-screen. Sure there's plenty you can do without. But you at least need food, clothing, and a roof over your head, and the minimum wage provides this.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What do you mean by making the national economy solvent? How is making people unemployed better than having them work at a wage below the minimum wage?

Also, if I offer you a job at $5/hr, and you legitimately couldn't live on that, then you wouldn't take the job. This happens with people all the time - many people wouldn't accept a $20/hr job because they wouldn't want to live on that. Of course, in reality, many people would accept a $5/hr job because it's better than $0/hr. Many young people in particular have low expenses (often they are living at home), and would be willing to make some spending money working at a low wage. But all those people wind up unemployed because it's illegal for them to voluntarily work at a low wage.

Now this doesn't take into account part-time work. Minimum Wage employees who are NOT full time, will not drive the economy. And due to the slump in America's economy, more and more people are being asked to work Part Time (less than 30 hours a week). Heck, even the definition of Full Time has changed. When I started working it was 40 hours. Now it's 30. I barely make enough to make ends meet at average 35 hours/week. If I were asked to drop to 30, I'd have to give up something major, like my car, or my cable/internet, or my phone service. (You'd don't NEED Cable/Internet!) Shut up Joe Brown, I do! Anyway, not the point. The point is that minimum wage is not a deterrent so much as it is a means to an end. It just so happens that companies are suffering financial loss, so they in turn are cutting jobs and reducing hours. The minimum wage recently went up as a response to this, and in turn more jobs were cut and more hours lost. It's a viscous cycle that can only be remedied by...

The minimum wage hurts all those unemployed people too.

Well who knows? The current administration has had 2.5 going on 3 years to figure it out and haven't. Maybe there IS no solution that works. Maybe we're doomed to become an eventual country filled with virtual slave labor, busting our collective ***** for pennies on the dollar. I have a ****ing degree and work at a gas station. Why? Because there's literally nothing else for me, lol. Sad but true, but at least I have a job! ><

What's your degree in? If you're working 35 hrs a week then unless you have a lot of other obligations you should have some time to look for another job if you want to. Uh, not that I'm trying to get too preachy or anything.

 

[Sucumbio]

The people who get laid off will take longer to find new jobs.

Take longer than who? I'm not sure how this addresses what I said. The benefit to being unemployed is that you can sit around the house (if that's what you prefer). Financially speaking there's no real benefit. It's not upwardly mobile, for sure. It barely is enough to keep your life going. It usually results in you having to cut any extras, like Cable/Internet, cell phones, definitely things like going out to movies, dinner, other recreations. This all = hurting the economy, because you aren't spending any money, cause you have none! All you have is enough for the 3 basic necessities, which in this day and age isn't enough to drive the economy.

Well, you have to define "need" there. Anyway, let's suppose you didn't have any of that. How badly would you have wanted a new job in that case? Maybe you would have taken even more drastic cost-cutting measures, like living with someone else. How many jobs did you apply for?

Oh sure, there are definitely scales of poverty, and the bare bare minimum before you're breaking the law (i.e. homeless) is living IN a mission, or half-way house, that kinda thing. I had two roommates, actually, lol. Crazy, eh? Life is expensive. And unless you're smart enough to save for a rainy day, it can blindside you and leave you struggling. I was much younger, then, and didn't plan ahead. I wasted all my extra cash on things I didn't need, and when I lost my job I ended up having to scrape for things to work. Yeah, I could have cut out the cell phone, but then no one could call me for job interviews. I could have cut out internet, but then I'd be stuck having to use more gas to drive to the library 10 miles away any time I wanted to check my email from prospective job interviews/doing job searches. We did successfully cut our food budget way down, by relying on store brands, sales, shopping at ghetto establishments, ya know, the ones where you have to put a quarter into the buggy just to use it, lol! stuff like that. And yeah, I looked for work in tons of places, but I did limit myself to office assistance, I wasn't trying to do manual labor. It wasn't until I gave up and got a job in construction site cleanup that my unemployment was at an end, and technically if I had gone for that kind of job earlier I'd have been unemployed for a shorter amount of time. I was young as I said, and my head filled with notions of things like"I'm too good for that kind of work." Nowadays, heh I'll work anything so long as it pays the bills.

Interesting. This is still a tax. It's just that it's a tax on your employer. Note that this also means that you are getting paid much less by your employers since they have to worry about covering this extra cost. Hell, maybe they don't want to hire anyone because there are so many costs to hiring people?

Nah, it's not that much less, a few cents on the dollar. The hiring thing... it's actually quite involved. There's new business, and businesses in business for 1 year +, then there's businesses in the Red, in the Black, etc. Each category has its method of hiring. New usually borrow money (capital) and spend a % of this on the first years' employee's wages. Because the markets this past several years have been doing badly, lenders are not as generous, and so borrowing has become difficult. This = not being able to borrow enough to hire people, essentially. Depending on where you're at in your business, you may actually still be borrowing X amount/year to cover your company's payroll. This means recently companies have had to lay off people because they cannot afford to pay all their employees. Others have simply cut wages. This however has a direct effect on the very markets that forced this initial decision, which is for less money to be borrowed by consumers, and thus spending is lowered, which furthers the cycle.

Also, this doesn't really fit perfectly with some things I've read - like the claim that the budget deficit has gone up due to all the unemployment benefits. It would seem that this tax does not do enough to cover all the benefits.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbenefitprograms/a/ucprogram.htm

This article pretty much explains how it works. In essence UEB (what they refer to as UC) is almost totally paid for by employers. The money is governed by State and Federal agency. It's origins like in the Social Security act of 1935, and was a response to the Great Depression...

Millions of people who had lost their jobs were unable to buy goods and services, which just led to more layoffs. Sound familiar? Today, unemployment compensation represents the first and perhaps last line of defense against the ripple effect of joblessness. [The] intention of the program is to provide eligible, unemployed workers with a weekly income adequate to allow them to afford the necessities of life, including food, shelter and clothing while they look for new jobs.

How do you prove it? There's still the issue of looking for 1 job a week vs 2 jobs a week. If all you have to do is look for 1, then you have less incentive to look for 2.

Each state has its own process and expectations and rules. In Kansas, where I filed, you prove you are looking for work by calling into a hotline where the representative questions you on your weekly job search. You provide the names and contact numbers of no less than 3 prospective employers. They can then verify you did in fact apply. Also I sense a question coming which I actually asked when I first filed. What jobs do I have to apply for? Any? All? The papers are usually filled with at least dozens of job openings.

Great question.. Typically, you are NOT required to apply for work, whose average wage is LESS than what -you were making on your job that you got laid off from-. This is key. The importance of this lies in the aforementioned original purpose of UEB as passed by the SS Act.

Just imagine that you are a store manager with an average salary of 50k/year. You own a 3 br 2.5 bath home, with a monthly mortgage payment of 1,000/mo. You own a car with a monthly car payment of 500/mo. Your other bills and expenses add up to another 1000/mo (food, electricity, water, etc.). In essence you are contributing this total of $2,500.00/mo to the economy. Now you lose your job. You are laid off (fortunately) which means you qualify for UEB. Are you gonna start apply for a job at McDonald's. Hell no, that salary which is meant for high school kids is SO low, that you'd never make it. The UEB payment is probably HIGHER than 40/wk paycheck from running a cash register or flipping burgers. So now the question becomes, what DO you look for. You have to go out there and hunt for jobs whose yearly salary is about 50k/yr. Well sure, those jobs just grow on trees, right? Wrong. Now multiply this situation times several million, and you have what we're currently faced with.

I understand there's a mentality of "oh well, you do what you have to." But if we take those millions of people, stick them on minimum wage jobs, what happens? They all default on their mortgages. Their cars are repossessed. This is BAD for the economy. This is forcing default on way too many people. The Nation cannot survive on a population of burger flippers. Think about that.

Well, that's your opinion. Others might be willing to live off these benefits for longer. But anyway, if these benefits are so worthless, why even have them? I'm sure it's a HUGE cost to do all this checking to make sure someone really deserves the benefits. Maybe they could let the employers keep that tax money and lower their costs to actually hiring someone.

Well, it's a civil service, working in the UEB office. Most of Obama's job creation efforts to date have been in the civil service sectors. Not the point. Why have them? They're not worthless... they're -just enough- to keep you and the economy going as it was before you got laid off. It's a bandage on a cut. When the cut heals (when the person finds a new job) things go back to normal. It just so happens more people got laid off than was expected. As for companies keeping this money, don't you think that was already tried? Companies are greedy. Every penny, literally... penny that is not forcibly taken from them is put into the pockets of their owners. If you don't mandate (through taxes) that you have to pay X amount a year to UEB funds, then people will have -nothing- to fall back on when they're laid off. This means that instead, as working people, we'll end up having a responsibility to putting half of what we make in the bank, just in case! HALF. That means spending goes way down. This in turn forces companies to pay their employees less, or give less hours to their employees, etc. Another cycle in other words.

I think it's important to note the obvious here. Businesses run on the expectation that they will make as much money as possible. You have to spend money to make money. This means that maximizing the profit becomes a game of balance between how much you spend vs how much you save. The only this doesn't work, is if people default, and that's what's been happening all over the country. Prices keep going up, people can't afford it, so they default, and this starts the domino effect into recession.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What do you mean by making the national economy solvent? How is making people unemployed better than having them work at a wage below the minimum wage?

I'm sorry, you misunderstand me... it's not about preferring people not work. It's in determining the wage minimum based on the calculated necessity of living. It is the opinion of today's legislature that workers cannot sell their labor for less than 7.25/hr (and conversely employers cannot pay their employees less than 7.25/hr). With a 30 hr/wk schedule, this is supposed to be enough for the national economy to work. In other words if everyone only made this amount, the country would still function. People would still be able to afford basic necessities, with enough left over to purchase goods and services a bit beyond that (cause let's face it, there's more to life than the necessities, and the economy does depend on people spending at Christmas time, etc.)

What this implies is that if the wage were less (like 5.00/hr as you've suggested) the economy would NOT sustain; people would NOT be able to afford basic necessities, to say nothing of anything extra to drive recreational commercialism.

Besides, you're not young, are you telling me if you lived on your own that you could survive on 5 bucks an hour? 30 hours a week, that's 150/wk or 600/mo BEFORE taxes? Ha! Good luck with that. Maybe if you had 20 roommate and lived in a garage. But this isn't Mexico for crying out loud, we have a standard of living in this country that we're not willing to give up, and for good reason! If our population had to start living in such poverty other countries would lose even more faith in the value of our dollar (more as in we've already lost some credit due to the republicans bumbling of the debt ceiling issue). And before you say "well, not everyone has to work for less, but it should be an option" remember what I said about businesses being greedy. If the minimum were 5/hr... that's what people would get paid. That's why minimum wage is law, because it's the only way to force companies to at least pay that much. It then becomes a competition between companies as to who offers more. "Come work for ME, I pay .50 cents/hr more than that guy" kinda thing.

Also, if I offer you a job at $5/hr, and you legitimately couldn't live on that, then you wouldn't take the job. This happens with people all the time - many people wouldn't accept a $20/hr job because they wouldn't want to live on that. Of course, in reality, many people would accept a $5/hr job because it's better than $0/hr. Many young people in particular have low expenses (often they are living at home), and would be willing to make some spending money working at a low wage. But all those people wind up unemployed because it's illegal for them to voluntarily work at a low wage.

This is a fair point you make. It really also only applies to teens. Once you're 18+ you're expected to be on your own. You can choose to live at home still, for the safety net of having your parent's roof over your head, and in sharing the expense. But EVENTUALLY you have to move out. This is the American way. You're supposed to plant your roots, in other words, go out, buy your own home, establish your own family, thus increasing the net worth of the national economy and its population.

I will agree that more kids would work if employers were able to hire them in at less / hr. But the difficulty here returns to a much older issue of child labor laws. If you offer a kid 3 bucks/hour to shovel ****, he'll probably take it! C'mon we all have done that. I'll pay you a quarter, sonny for you to clean my pool. 4 hours later and all dirty and disgusting and sweaty and yay! I have a quarter for my piggy bank. I'll say it again. Businesses are greedy, and even exploitative (if you let them be). It's too risky to start ignoring how bad things were 100 years ago. We can't start having sweat shops popping up, we as a nation don't want that image.

What's your degree in? If you're working 35 hrs a week then unless you have a lot of other obligations you should have some time to look for another job if you want to. Uh, not that I'm trying to get too preachy or anything.

I have an English (useless) degree :D I have actually been certified to teach, but teaching jobs are slim to none right now, because our governor hates education. Meanwhile, yes, I have plenty of time to look for work, and I do. You'd be surprised just how little work there is, beyond the type of work I'm already in. Snag-a-job.com is a great resource. They always post tons of positions. And they're all the same... Fast Food or Retail. I technically work in Retail. Beyond this, heh, not a whole lot. Still, I work hard, and have positioned myself to move up the ladder so to speak. There is the possibility I could move into Management. My wife is already in Management. We make enough to live on, and even have some left over to enjoy living. I am bound by some restrictions. We have 1 car, so we both work close to home to avoid any scheduling problems, and the community we live in has no public transportation. One option has been moving to a major city, where we wouldn't need a car as much, and whose wages and job opportunities may be higher. But then we look into it and see that no, not really, the 2 nearest cities of any real size are having just as much problems right now with their job markets, that yeah, we could -transfer- within our own companies but then we'd just be doing the same we are now, and there's more advantages to staying here, due to things like family and friends, and plus, well, we just really like where we live. Trust me, I'm not actually complaining, as I said, at least we work, we are making it. We're heads above countless others at the moment.

 

[ballin4life]

Take longer than who? I'm not sure how this addresses what I said. The benefit to being unemployed is that you can sit around the house (if that's what you prefer). Financially speaking there's no real benefit. It's not upwardly mobile, for sure. It barely is enough to keep your life going. It usually results in you having to cut any extras, like Cable/Internet, cell phones, definitely things like going out to movies, dinner, other recreations. This all = hurting the economy, because you aren't spending any money, cause you have none! All you have is enough for the 3 basic necessities, which in this day and age isn't enough to drive the economy.

Spending money doesn't help the economy lol.

I'm not sure how what you said addresses what I said. All I'm saying is that unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to get another job quickly. Also, not everyone is in the same situation with regards to expenses, desires, etc. Maybe you barely had enough, but maybe others have plenty.

I think I linked this article earlier where a guy was getting over $500 per week and then complaining that it wasn't enough to cover his dining out expenses.

Oh sure, there are definitely scales of poverty, and the bare bare minimum before you're breaking the law (i.e. homeless) is living IN a mission, or half-way house, that kinda thing. I had two roommates, actually, lol. Crazy, eh? Life is expensive. And unless you're smart enough to save for a rainy day, it can blindside you and leave you struggling. I was much younger, then, and didn't plan ahead. I wasted all my extra cash on things I didn't need, and when I lost my job I ended up having to scrape for things to work. Yeah, I could have cut out the cell phone, but then no one could call me for job interviews. I could have cut out internet, but then I'd be stuck having to use more gas to drive to the library 10 miles away any time I wanted to check my email from prospective job interviews/doing job searches. We did successfully cut our food budget way down, by relying on store brands, sales, shopping at ghetto establishments, ya know, the ones where you have to put a quarter into the buggy just to use it, lol! stuff like that. And yeah, I looked for work in tons of places, but I did limit myself to office assistance, I wasn't trying to do manual labor. It wasn't until I gave up and got a job in construction site cleanup that my unemployment was at an end, and technically if I had gone for that kind of job earlier I'd have been unemployed for a shorter amount of time. I was young as I said, and my head filled with notions of things like"I'm too good for that kind of work." Nowadays, heh I'll work anything so long as it pays the bills.

Ok, so this seems in line with what I was saying.

Nah, it's not that much less, a few cents on the dollar. The hiring thing... it's actually quite involved. There's new business, and businesses in business for 1 year +, then there's businesses in the Red, in the Black, etc. Each category has its method of hiring. New usually borrow money (capital) and spend a % of this on the first years' employee's wages. Because the markets this past several years have been doing badly, lenders are not as generous, and so borrowing has become difficult. This = not being able to borrow enough to hire people, essentially. Depending on where you're at in your business, you may actually still be borrowing X amount/year to cover your company's payroll. This means recently companies have had to lay off people because they cannot afford to pay all their employees. Others have simply cut wages. This however has a direct effect on the very markets that forced this initial decision, which is for less money to be borrowed by consumers, and thus spending is lowered, which furthers the cycle.

I'm not really sure what you are saying here with respect to hiring (you'd agree that it's expensive to hire someone, right?), but anyway a few cents on the dollar for unemployment is actually quite a lot. That's like adding a few more percentage points to your taxes.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbenefitprograms/a/ucprogram.htm

This article pretty much explains how it works. In essence UEB (what they refer to as UC) is almost totally paid for by employers. The money is governed by State and Federal agency. It's origins like in the Social Security act of 1935, and was a response to the Great Depression...

This doesn't gel with complaints that unemployment spending has expanded the budget deficit. But anyway, it's still true that your paycheck is lower if your employer has to pay this.

Millions of people who had lost their jobs were unable to buy goods and services, which just led to more layoffs. Sound familiar? Today, unemployment compensation represents the first and perhaps last line of defense against the ripple effect of joblessness. [The] intention of the program is to provide eligible, unemployed workers with a weekly income adequate to allow them to afford the necessities of life, including food, shelter and clothing while they look for new jobs.

Well, I don't really agree with this "ripple effect". Lower consumption due to recession is part of the necessary rebalancing of resource allocation in the economy that comes after a bubble bursts. But anyway, I'm not sure what the point is of quoting the alleged purpose of the benefits.

Each state has its own process and expectations and rules. In Kansas, where I filed, you prove you are looking for work by calling into a hotline where the representative questions you on your weekly job search. You provide the names and contact numbers of no less than 3 prospective employers. They can then verify you did in fact apply. Also I sense a question coming which I actually asked when I first filed. What jobs do I have to apply for? Any? All? The papers are usually filled with at least dozens of job openings.

Great question.. Typically, you are NOT required to apply for work, whose average wage is LESS than what -you were making on your job that you got laid off from-. This is key. The importance of this lies in the aforementioned original purpose of UEB as passed by the SS Act.

Just imagine that you are a store manager with an average salary of 50k/year. You own a 3 br 2.5 bath home, with a monthly mortgage payment of 1,000/mo. You own a car with a monthly car payment of 500/mo. Your other bills and expenses add up to another 1000/mo (food, electricity, water, etc.). In essence you are contributing this total of $2,500.00/mo to the economy. Now you lose your job. You are laid off (fortunately) which means you qualify for UEB. Are you gonna start apply for a job at McDonald's. Hell no, that salary which is meant for high school kids is SO low, that you'd never make it. The UEB payment is probably HIGHER than 40/wk paycheck from running a cash register or flipping burgers. So now the question becomes, what DO you look for. You have to go out there and hunt for jobs whose yearly salary is about 50k/yr. Well sure, those jobs just grow on trees, right? Wrong. Now multiply this situation times several million, and you have what we're currently faced with.

Actually, you are contributing 50k/year to the economy, not 2500/mo. Your contribution is on the production side, not the consumption side.

Anyway, it sounds like you are basically agreeing with me. Maybe the person who gets laid off from the 50k/year job SHOULD go get a lower paying job, perhaps just to make some money while he looks for a better job. But that person has a much lower incentive to do so.

I understand there's a mentality of "oh well, you do what you have to." But if we take those millions of people, stick them on minimum wage jobs, what happens? They all default on their mortgages. Their cars are repossessed. This is BAD for the economy. This is forcing default on way too many people. The Nation cannot survive on a population of burger flippers. Think about that.

Uh, how are they supposed to pay all those things on unemployment benefits? If they have jobs then they are at least contributing something to the economy.

Well, it's a civil service, working in the UEB office. Most of Obama's job creation efforts to date have been in the civil service sectors. Not the point. Why have them? They're not worthless... they're -just enough- to keep you and the economy going as it was before you got laid off. It's a bandage on a cut. When the cut heals (when the person finds a new job) things go back to normal. It just so happens more people got laid off than was expected. As for companies keeping this money, don't you think that was already tried? Companies are greedy. Every penny, literally... penny that is not forcibly taken from them is put into the pockets of their owners. If you don't mandate (through taxes) that you have to pay X amount a year to UEB funds, then people will have -nothing- to fall back on when they're laid off. This means that instead, as working people, we'll end up having a responsibility to putting half of what we make in the bank, just in case! HALF. That means spending goes way down. This in turn forces companies to pay their employees less, or give less hours to their employees, etc. Another cycle in other words.

Some of that unemployment tax money will go to the workers instead though, resulting in higher salaries. I think that you're trying to claim that the company would just keep it all (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing either), but according to that logic, all jobs would pay minimum wage since companies just keep everything above what they have to pay workers. You're ignoring that companies compete for workers, so they have an incentive to offer a higher wage - in other words, if other companies are giving that extra tax back to their employees, then your company will want to do the same to be competitive in the labor market.

I think it's important to note the obvious here. Businesses run on the expectation that they will make as much money as possible. You have to spend money to make money. This means that maximizing the profit becomes a game of balance between how much you spend vs how much you save. The only this doesn't work, is if people default, and that's what's been happening all over the country. Prices keep going up, people can't afford it, so they default, and this starts the domino effect into recession.

You're really confusing me here. Customers defaulting isn't a problem for many businesses (particularly consumer-driven retail businesses, which you seem to be talking about in particular, because their transaction are settled upfront when you pay).

Recessions happen when a bunch of people realize that they have been investing in things that aren't going to satisfy consumers and make money (e.g. housing in the recent US recession). All these businesses suddenly start losing money, so they have to take some time to reallocate their resources (including labor) to some other more profitable ventures.

I'm sorry, you misunderstand me... it's not about preferring people not work. It's in determining the wage minimum based on the calculated necessity of living. It is the opinion of today's legislature that workers cannot sell their labor for less than 7.25/hr (and conversely employers cannot pay their employees less than 7.25/hr). With a 30 hr/wk schedule, this is supposed to be enough for the national economy to work. In other words if everyone only made this amount, the country would still function. People would still be able to afford basic necessities, with enough left over to purchase goods and services a bit beyond that (cause let's face it, there's more to life than the necessities, and the economy does depend on people spending at Christmas time, etc.)

I still don't see why the minimum wage is necessary in this case. After all, would you accept a job that couldn't "satisfy your basic necessities"? Wouldn't you say that each individual person has a better idea of what it means to satisfy his basic necessities than the government does? If people determine that they WANT a $5/hr job, what's the problem? Again, not everyone has the same desires or expenses. Some people couldn't get by on $5/hr, but many of those also couldn't get by at $8/hr. As I said before, many young people would be happy to earn $5/hr because it's enough for what they want (often they have very low expenses - e.g. still living at home, relying on parents etc).

What this implies is that if the wage were less (like 5.00/hr as you've suggested) the economy would NOT sustain; people would NOT be able to afford basic necessities, to say nothing of anything extra to drive recreational commercialism.

Why would all those people bother accepting jobs at $5/hr then? Because they are too dumb to know better? Again, isn't $5/hr better than $0? Many of those people that WOULD work for $5/hr wind up unemployed because the government is FORCING them to NOT work.

Besides, you're not young, are you telling me if you lived on your own that you could survive on 5 bucks an hour? 30 hours a week, that's 150/wk or 600/mo BEFORE taxes? Ha! Good luck with that. Maybe if you had 20 roommate and lived in a garage. But this isn't Mexico for crying out loud, we have a standard of living in this country that we're not willing to give up, and for good reason! If our population had to start living in such poverty other countries would lose even more faith in the value of our dollar (more as in we've already lost some credit due to the republicans bumbling of the debt ceiling issue). And before you say "well, not everyone has to work for less, but it should be an option" remember what I said about businesses being greedy. If the minimum were 5/hr... that's what people would get paid. That's why minimum wage is law, because it's the only way to force companies to at least pay that much. It then becomes a competition between companies as to who offers more. "Come work for ME, I pay .50 cents/hr more than that guy" kinda thing.

I wouldn't want to work for 10 bucks an hour, but that's just me. The point is that I know my preferences better than you, so if I want to work for 5/hr, that's my choice. Some people are willing to work for 10/hr, and some may be willing to work for 5/hr. Maybe they have lower expenses, or will work more hours - it doesn't matter as long as they are willing to work for that amount.

According to your logic, EVERYONE should get paid minimum wage, since after all "businesses are greedy". But this simply isn't true, because businesses compete with each other for labor. And all those people who would work for 5/hr are out of a job since an employer legally cannot even offer the position to them. Maybe there are 3 people who are willing to work for 5/hr, and the employer could afford 3 workers at 5/hr, but at 8/hr they can only afford 2 workers - this means 1 person winds up unemployed if the minimum wage is 8/hr. It's pretty simple.

This is a fair point you make. It really also only applies to teens. Once you're 18+ you're expected to be on your own. You can choose to live at home still, for the safety net of having your parent's roof over your head, and in sharing the expense. But EVENTUALLY you have to move out. This is the American way. You're supposed to plant your roots, in other words, go out, buy your own home, establish your own family, thus increasing the net worth of the national economy and its population.

Who says you HAVE TO move out? Maybe that's the norm, but it might be a better decision financially to continue living with one's parents.

I will agree that more kids would work if employers were able to hire them in at less / hr. But the difficulty here returns to a much older issue of child labor laws. If you offer a kid 3 bucks/hour to shovel ****, he'll probably take it! C'mon we all have done that. I'll pay you a quarter, sonny for you to clean my pool. 4 hours later and all dirty and disgusting and sweaty and yay! I have a quarter for my piggy bank. I'll say it again. Businesses are greedy, and even exploitative (if you let them be). It's too risky to start ignoring how bad things were 100 years ago. We can't start having sweat shops popping up, we as a nation don't want that image.

I still don't see what the problem is if you're willing to do the work for that amount ...

Working conditions and wages were bad 100+ years ago simply because we weren't that technologically advanced, so one person's labor wasn't very valuable. One person today with a computer can in some cases be worth 20 or more people with no tools. Since one person today produces much more value for the business (due to the accumulated capital/technology), the business can afford to pay them more.

It's that simple - a business that pays workers more than the value of their work will lose money and go out of business (leaving everyone unemployed). Otherwise, if the minimum wage is so great, why not make it 15/hr? 25/hr? 100/hr? Because all those 10/hr, 20/hr, 50/hr jobs would disappear, since it wouldn't be profitable to pay the workers the higher wage. And that increases unemployment.

I have an English (useless) degree :D I have actually been certified to teach, but teaching jobs are slim to none right now, because our governor hates education. Meanwhile, yes, I have plenty of time to look for work, and I do. You'd be surprised just how little work there is, beyond the type of work I'm already in. Snag-a-job.com is a great resource. They always post tons of positions. And they're all the same... Fast Food or Retail. I technically work in Retail. Beyond this, heh, not a whole lot. Still, I work hard, and have positioned myself to move up the ladder so to speak. There is the possibility I could move into Management. My wife is already in Management. We make enough to live on, and even have some left over to enjoy living. I am bound by some restrictions. We have 1 car, so we both work close to home to avoid any scheduling problems, and the community we live in has no public transportation. One option has been moving to a major city, where we wouldn't need a car as much, and whose wages and job opportunities may be higher. But then we look into it and see that no, not really, the 2 nearest cities of any real size are having just as much problems right now with their job markets, that yeah, we could -transfer- within our own companies but then we'd just be doing the same we are now, and there's more advantages to staying here, due to things like family and friends, and plus, well, we just really like where we live. Trust me, I'm not actually complaining, as I said, at least we work, we are making it. We're heads above countless others at the moment.

That's good. I'd definitely recommend networking with people to find work opportunities. Either asking people you know or trying to cold call or meet up with people in an industry you're interested in. I've heard that those work better for finding work, in large part because they are much more personal than an online application ever could be. Especially with the down economy, the jobs that wind up getting posted online probably aren't going to be the greatest in the world (and even those will wind up with tons of applicants). Anyway, that's just the advice I've always gotten.

 

[Sucumbio]

Spending money doesn't help the economy lol.

I suppose it depends on your views of macroeconomics and Keynesian models, and saving.

The 3.5% growth in the Gross Domestic Product was largely fueled by an increase in consumer spending, much of which could be attributed to government programs designed to spur the sales of cars and homes. -source

True one should invest some of their earnings to help the economy also, like in banks. But If no one spends, production (demand) is lower, which negatively effects long term markets.

All I'm saying is that unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to get another job quickly.

That's the key word there. You don't want to rush out and get -just another job-. You want to get another job that will sustain at least the level of living you enjoyed before being laid off (which in the ideal assumes your job was upwardly mobile). If not, then your level of spending will have to come down, which further negatively effects the economy on a whole.

I think I linked this article earlier where a guy was getting over $500 per week and then complaining that it wasn't enough to cover his dining out expenses.

From that article:

Since he lost his job, he’s begun to do things more cheaply — bargain movies, not as many pastries from LaSalle Bakery, and getting a less expensive steak on Wednesdays at Texas Roadhouse.

This is the problem. He's actually still able to maintain, mainly I suspect due to the fact he's sharing his expenses. But... as a result, he's spending less, so LaSalle Bakery is making less as is Texas Roadhouse. They may not feel the loss gigantically, but multiply his situation times all the people in that situation, and across the nation, and Bakeries and Steakhouses everywhere see a downturn. This makes their prices go up, which further hurts their clientele.

I'm not really sure what you are saying here with respect to hiring (you'd agree that it's expensive to hire someone, right?), but anyway a few cents on the dollar for unemployment is actually quite a lot. That's like adding a few more percentage points to your taxes.

Yeah, I'll admit it was a bit convoluted. In essence, paying UC taxes is a cost of business, the same as overhead, or any other cost. It's just a normal reality of being a business owner. And yes, it IS expensive to own a business in general, and part of that expense is in hiring, and in paying your employees. But you'd be surprised just how much more tax could be squeezed out of these companies rather than out of personal income tax.

This doesn't gel with complaints that unemployment spending has expanded the budget deficit. But anyway, it's still true that your paycheck is lower if your employer has to pay this.

I'd honestly equate these complaints to ignorance of the situation. I haven't personally read such complaints, but it stands to reason that someone may assume that their tax dollars go towards someone who's not working, when in fact they don't. It may even be a common misconception. And yes, technically speaking, your paycheck is a fraction lower to absorb the cost in UC taxes, but again, without this, those who are laid off have nothing to fall back on, and we have a repeat of the Great Depression.

Well, I don't really agree with this "ripple effect". Lower consumption due to recession is part of the necessary rebalancing of resource allocation in the economy that comes after a bubble bursts. But anyway, I'm not sure what the point is of quoting the alleged purpose of the benefits.

Just to further solidify my points earlier, the article as a whole well explains a lot of this discussion.

Actually, you are contributing 50k/year to the economy, not 2500/mo. Your contribution is on the production side, not the consumption side.

Anyway, it sounds like you are basically agreeing with me. Maybe the person who gets laid off from the 50k/year job SHOULD go get a lower paying job, perhaps just to make some money while he looks for a better job. But that person has a much lower incentive to do so.

I'd agree except that banks aren't friendly. While this person rushes to get a job at McDonald's the bank's already starting the foreclosure process because the person's a month or two behind. I know that seems extreme but we really have to look at this in general terms. Someone making a lot of money that suddenly is forced to make a LOT less money, is going to have cut out... a lot. And it's a problem when those things aren't just steak dinners and bistro. When it's your home or your car, it's a problem, that in many ways only UC can fix.

Uh, how are they supposed to pay all those things on unemployment benefits? If they have jobs then they are at least contributing something to the economy.

Well that's why UC is variable. The amount you qualify for is based on the wage you were earning on the job. The thinking here is that if you make X/year salary, then you've built your life around that by investing in Y. Loss of job = unable to afford Y, so UC comes in to bolster you so you can keep affording Y while looking for a like job. To take your example of incentive...

What incentive do people have to get a job that pays anything at all (ie challenging jobs). Should we not all strive to work for McDonald's? At least then if we're laid off we won't lose anything because we don't have anything to begin with. Why go to college? I don't need a degree to work at McDonald's. Why get a degree to become a 50k/yr business major if when I get laid off I'm going to have to give it all up and start all over again if I somehow get another job like that again?

No, it's not about contributing -something-. It's about contributing -the same thing-. The economy is too fragile as it is to handle millions of people buying homes and cars then suddenly defaulting because they can't afford the payments anymore. It CAN sustain a few defaults made by shady people. But without something in place to keep people solvent like UC, job loss = economic failure.

Some of that unemployment tax money will go to the workers instead though, resulting in higher salaries. I think that you're trying to claim that the company would just keep it all (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing either), but according to that logic, all jobs would pay minimum wage since companies just keep everything above what they have to pay workers. You're ignoring that companies compete for workers, so they have an incentive to offer a higher wage - in other words, if other companies are giving that extra tax back to their employees, then your company will want to do the same to be competitive in the labor market.

Uh...

It then becomes a competition between companies as to who offers more. "Come work for ME, I pay .50 cents/hr more than that guy" kinda thing.

I noted that competitive wages are a reality. I'd say they're a must. What I was also saying is that without UC taxes, there's nothing to fall back on if you lose your job. It becomes a person's responsibility to save up just in case they lose their job. Which isn't itself bad, but the more money you make, the more you tend to spend. Which means the more you have to save in case your income fails. On a low scale this is easy. My grandparents saved 20 bucks a week back in the 50's and it amounted to enough after investment to retire on. They made decent salary. But if you own a 250k dollar home, 2 cars, have 4 kids, etc. how much do you really think you can expect that family to be putting away each paycheck for that rainy day? A few hundred bucks, maybe, if they're lucky. Total. Not the kind of bank necessary to sustain their livelihoods in the event they should suddenly lose all income. Even IF their wages were increased by not losing it to UC, that extra wouldn't translate into enough. Not without a fundamental change in how people save money, and if that's what you're suggesting, then I'm actually all for it. But it'd have be done in segments of the population, not all at once. People like me, we take every penny that comes our way to spend it on the debts we've accrued over the years. Any extra is just a means to get out of the hole we're in. There's no way I'd take an extra 10 or 15 dollars a week and put it aside as if I didn't have it. That's a meal, or two, **** lol.

You're really confusing me here. Customers defaulting isn't a problem for many businesses (particularly consumer-driven retail businesses, which you seem to be talking about in particular, because their transaction are settled upfront when you pay).

Correct. And as proof of this, Wal-mart's never done better. What I was saying is that the normal business model requires a balance between spending and saving. This model is corrupted when default occurs. Industries most effected by this are housing, lending and auto. That was all.

I still don't see why the minimum wage is necessary in this case. After all, would you accept a job that couldn't "satisfy your basic necessities"? Wouldn't you say that each individual person has a better idea of what it means to satisfy his basic necessities than the government does? If people determine that they WANT a $5/hr job, what's the problem? Again, not everyone has the same desires or expenses. Some people couldn't get by on $5/hr, but many of those also couldn't get by at $8/hr. As I said before, many young people would be happy to earn $5/hr because it's enough for what they want (often they have very low expenses - e.g. still living at home, relying on parents etc).

I see what you're getting at here but the difficulty is that the government isn't talking about basic necessities in any broad sense of the phrase. They really mean food, clothing and shelter. On minimum wage, you can afford to buy the cheapest clothing, the most inexpensive food (and probably still need to be on food stamps to boot) and the lowest possible rent (in the worst neighborhood you can imagine. This may in turn be more than a teenager needs (my wife worked for several years spending her money on nothing but video games and pizza). That's not what the minimum wage addresses... it's addressing working class citizens who are on their own. Now if you want to make a case for teenagers and others who happen to still live at home, etc... sure. I may buy that they don't need to make as much, so they should be able to work for less... but then comes the exploitation factor.

Why would all those people bother accepting jobs at $5/hr then? Because they are too dumb to know better? Again, isn't $5/hr better than $0? Many of those people that WOULD work for $5/hr wind up unemployed because the government is FORCING them to NOT work.

Again I see your reasoning but I have to stress that you're really only talking about high school kids. Do they REALLY need jobs? It'd be nice, but right now the necessity is on grown folks. Let them work first, they have real bills. They truly drive the economy. Then we can worry about putting teens to work. I understand there's this window you may see where a teen has no expenses, just money to blow, and this is a good boost to the economy, but right now there's just not enough work to go around. Plus I can't even think of a job that would fit this description, can you?

According to your logic, EVERYONE should get paid minimum wage, since after all "businesses are greedy". But this simply isn't true, because businesses compete with each other for labor. And all those people who would work for 5/hr are out of a job since an employer legally cannot even offer the position to them. Maybe there are 3 people who are willing to work for 5/hr, and the employer could afford 3 workers at 5/hr, but at 8/hr they can only afford 2 workers - this means 1 person winds up unemployed if the minimum wage is 8/hr. It's pretty simple.

Well I addressed the whole everyone should get paid minimum wage, as I understand and fully support competitive wages. However the difficulty with this bit is that it's a slippery slope in a way. If employers are allowed to offer positions for only 5.00/hr you better believe that's what they'll offer. When you start running out of teens who have no expenses who then fills these? Regular people who NEED more than that (who need the grown-up minimum wage), because they have no choice. Remember minimum wage jobs are the entry level positions at most companies. They're the **** jobs. We have a lot of people in this country who are only good for that. They toil for hours a week doing what you or I would otherwise rather die than do. All for a measly 7.25/hr. Now all of a sudden these jobs are only 5.00 so now what, they have to work TWO of these jobs just to make it? Work 80 hours a week instead of 40? Minimum wage prevents exploitation.

Who says you HAVE TO move out? Maybe that's the norm, but it might be a better decision financially to continue living with one's parents.

For some, it is, but we're not talking on micro-scales we talking on national levels. In general, it's best for one to leave the nest.

Working conditions and wages were bad 100+ years ago simply because we weren't that technologically advanced, so one person's labor wasn't very valuable. One person today with a computer can in some cases be worth 20 or more people with no tools. Since one person today produces much more value for the business (due to the accumulated capital/technology), the business can afford to pay them more.

True, but... those aren't minimum wage jobs. We're not talking about computer operators. We're talking about the crap jobs, flipping burgers, cleaning jobs, that kind of thing.

It's that simple - a business that pays workers more than the value of their work will lose money and go out of business (leaving everyone unemployed). Otherwise, if the minimum wage is so great, why not make it 15/hr? 25/hr? 100/hr? Because all those 10/hr, 20/hr, 50/hr jobs would disappear, since it wouldn't be profitable to pay the workers the higher wage. And that increases unemployment.

Okay, the reason why minimum wage is so low is because it's the minimum to sustain one's self. If it were 15/hr -and nothing else changed- then everyone would be driving expensive cars and living in luxurious homes. And competition for jobs would be so bad that even MORE people would be unemployed, because no company can afford to pay its low-tier workers so much. If the minimum is 15/hr then what does an executive VP get, 10 million (that scale fits, sadly).

 

[ballin4life]

I suppose it depends on your views of macroeconomics and Keynesian models, and saving.

The 3.5% growth in the Gross Domestic Product was largely fueled by an increase in consumer spending, much of which could be attributed to government programs designed to spur the sales of cars and homes. -source

True one should invest some of their earnings to help the economy also, like in banks. But If no one spends, production (demand) is lower, which negatively effects long term markets.

It's all just looking at it the wrong way. Your contribution to the economy is what you produce, not what you spend. The increased spending is an effect, not a cause. Simply putting in measures to increase consumer spending doesn't actually increase what was produced in the economy.

That's the key word there. You don't want to rush out and get -just another job-. You want to get another job that will sustain at least the level of living you enjoyed before being laid off (which in the ideal assumes your job was upwardly mobile). If not, then your level of spending will have to come down, which further negatively effects the economy on a whole.

Again, it depends. Some people will want a new job immediately; others will want to wait. But from the perspective of reducing unemployment, increasing people's job search time will exacerbate unemployment.

Also again the fact that a bunch of unemployed people are spending less isn't what hurts the economy. What hurts the economy is that those unemployed people are not producing anything (of course, in a recession this is a necessary part of the rebalancing of resources in the economy - e.g. you can't have everyone working in real estate when no one wants to buy a house any more). If people aren't spending, that simply means that the goods currently available don't satisfy their current desires. So businesses need to readjust to supply goods that do satisfy current desires.

From that article:

Since he lost his job, he’s begun to do things more cheaply — bargain movies, not as many pastries from LaSalle Bakery, and getting a less expensive steak on Wednesdays at Texas Roadhouse.

This is the problem. He's actually still able to maintain, mainly I suspect due to the fact he's sharing his expenses. But... as a result, he's spending less, so LaSalle Bakery is making less as is Texas Roadhouse. They may not feel the loss gigantically, but multiply his situation times all the people in that situation, and across the nation, and Bakeries and Steakhouses everywhere see a downturn. This makes their prices go up, which further hurts their clientele.

When demand goes down, businesses lower their prices. So I'm not sure what you mean by "this makes their prices go up".

Yeah, I'll admit it was a bit convoluted. In essence, paying UC taxes is a cost of business, the same as overhead, or any other cost. It's just a normal reality of being a business owner. And yes, it IS expensive to own a business in general, and part of that expense is in hiring, and in paying your employees. But you'd be surprised just how much more tax could be squeezed out of these companies rather than out of personal income tax.

I don't think much more could be squeezed out of either the corporate or personal income taxes . Also when I said it was expensive to hire someone I wasn't talking about salaries; I was talking about satisfying regulations, filing tax forms, etc.

I'd honestly equate these complaints to ignorance of the situation. I haven't personally read such complaints, but it stands to reason that someone may assume that their tax dollars go towards someone who's not working, when in fact they don't. It may even be a common misconception. And yes, technically speaking, your paycheck is a fraction lower to absorb the cost in UC taxes, but again, without this, those who are laid off have nothing to fall back on, and we have a repeat of the Great Depression.

C'mon now, the Great Depression wasn't caused by the lack of unemployment benefits.

Anyway, I don't really feel like doing extensive research into the accounting behind unemployment, but it looks like it might be either that this unemployment tax isn't enough to cover all the unemployed (according to Wikipedia it's $56 per year per employee, which seems low), or it might be the result of a temporary unemployment benefits extension passed recently (last few years) by Congress.

I'd agree except that banks aren't friendly. While this person rushes to get a job at McDonald's the bank's already starting the foreclosure process because the person's a month or two behind. I know that seems extreme but we really have to look at this in general terms. Someone making a lot of money that suddenly is forced to make a LOT less money, is going to have cut out... a lot. And it's a problem when those things aren't just steak dinners and bistro. When it's your home or your car, it's a problem, that in many ways only UC can fix.

Well that's why UC is variable. The amount you qualify for is based on the wage you were earning on the job. The thinking here is that if you make X/year salary, then you've built your life around that by investing in Y. Loss of job = unable to afford Y, so UC comes in to bolster you so you can keep affording Y while looking for a like job. To take your example of incentive...

I still doubt that it's enough to pay for your house or car payments ... and if it is then again that's a big disincentive to getting another job if the government is going to pick up your big expenses for you. Maybe we can just rely on people actually being responsible and having some money saved up? You shouldn't get a month or two behind the moment you lose your job ...

What incentive do people have to get a job that pays anything at all (ie challenging jobs). Should we not all strive to work for McDonald's? At least then if we're laid off we won't lose anything because we don't have anything to begin with. Why go to college? I don't need a degree to work at McDonald's. Why get a degree to become a 50k/yr business major if when I get laid off I'm going to have to give it all up and start all over again if I somehow get another job like that again?

Because at 50k/yr you can buy more and save more than if you work at McDonalds? I don't understand the question.

No, it's not about contributing -something-. It's about contributing -the same thing-. The economy is too fragile as it is to handle millions of people buying homes and cars then suddenly defaulting because they can't afford the payments anymore. It CAN sustain a few defaults made by shady people. But without something in place to keep people solvent like UC, job loss = economic failure.

This simply wouldn't happen if unemployment benefits did not exist. For one, you're just assuming people have no savings. Also remember that the bank doesn't want to foreclose/repossess since that is a large cost, so if you get a job and you're less than 90 days delinquent you can often get your payments back on schedule.

And what I meant by "contributing" was your work. That's what you contribute to the economy. It's NOT what you spend or buy or whatever. That's the payoff of your contribution, which is the goods and services your work produces.

Uh...

I noted that competitive wages are a reality. I'd say they're a must. What I was also saying is that without UC taxes, there's nothing to fall back on if you lose your job. It becomes a person's responsibility to save up just in case they lose their job. Which isn't itself bad, but the more money you make, the more you tend to spend. Which means the more you have to save in case your income fails. On a low scale this is easy. My grandparents saved 20 bucks a week back in the 50's and it amounted to enough after investment to retire on. They made decent salary. But if you own a 250k dollar home, 2 cars, have 4 kids, etc. how much do you really think you can expect that family to be putting away each paycheck for that rainy day? A few hundred bucks, maybe, if they're lucky. Total. Not the kind of bank necessary to sustain their livelihoods in the event they should suddenly lose all income. Even IF their wages were increased by not losing it to UC, that extra wouldn't translate into enough. Not without a fundamental change in how people save money, and if that's what you're suggesting, then I'm actually all for it. But it'd have be done in segments of the population, not all at once. People like me, we take every penny that comes our way to spend it on the debts we've accrued over the years. Any extra is just a means to get out of the hole we're in. There's no way I'd take an extra 10 or 15 dollars a week and put it aside as if I didn't have it. That's a meal, or two, **** lol.

I just have no idea where your numbers are coming from. If you assume expenses grow proportionately with salary, then the amount you have to save is always the same - just some fixed percentage - e.g. 10% of your pay. Also, you know that you earn money when you save it, right? Either from bank interest, or from investing your money in stocks/bonds/whatever.

But anyway, according to the way you claim unemployment benefits work, all it really is is the government taking that 10 or 15 dollars a week and putting it aside in case you become unemployed. I'm still a bit skeptical that that's how it actually works though.

Correct. And as proof of this, Wal-mart's never done better. What I was saying is that the normal business model requires a balance between spending and saving. This model is corrupted when default occurs. Industries most effected by this are housing, lending and auto. That was all.

Ok, yes, a few specific businesses rely on consumer financing, and they are likely to be cyclical since the number of defaults is going to be related to things like the unemployment rate. I don't think that's the foundation of the entire economy though.

I see what you're getting at here but the difficulty is that the government isn't talking about basic necessities in any broad sense of the phrase. They really mean food, clothing and shelter. On minimum wage, you can afford to buy the cheapest clothing, the most inexpensive food (and probably still need to be on food stamps to boot) and the lowest possible rent (in the worst neighborhood you can imagine. This may in turn be more than a teenager needs (my wife worked for several years spending her money on nothing but video games and pizza). That's not what the minimum wage addresses... it's addressing working class citizens who are on their own. Now if you want to make a case for teenagers and others who happen to still live at home, etc... sure. I may buy that they don't need to make as much, so they should be able to work for less... but then comes the exploitation factor.

Even working class citizens who are on their own are going to vary widely in what they want to have. There will also of course be a big regional component. Someone in a city is going to have higher cost of living than someone in the middle of nowhere.

I don't see the exploitation if someone voluntarily agrees to work for a certain wage.

Again I see your reasoning but I have to stress that you're really only talking about high school kids. Do they REALLY need jobs? It'd be nice, but right now the necessity is on grown folks. Let them work first, they have real bills. They truly drive the economy. Then we can worry about putting teens to work. I understand there's this window you may see where a teen has no expenses, just money to blow, and this is a good boost to the economy, but right now there's just not enough work to go around. Plus I can't even think of a job that would fit this description, can you?

Do they need jobs to survive? Probably not. But if they were able to work it would add to the productivity of the economy. Maybe we could open up a bunch of new pizza parlors or hardware stores with all that new labor. Pretty much any minimum wage job could qualify as a job where the market pay might be lower than the current minimum wage.

Right now there's not enough work to go around AT CURRENT WAGE LEVELS. Maybe if wages fell companies would have more jobs available. Also, I'm not necessarily just talking about "high school kids". Many groups of people might have low expenses - for another example, maybe an unemployed spouse could take a cheap job to get some extra pocket money. Who knows.

Well I addressed the whole everyone should get paid minimum wage, as I understand and fully support competitive wages. However the difficulty with this bit is that it's a slippery slope in a way. If employers are allowed to offer positions for only 5.00/hr you better believe that's what they'll offer. When you start running out of teens who have no expenses who then fills these? Regular people who NEED more than that (who need the grown-up minimum wage), because they have no choice. Remember minimum wage jobs are the entry level positions at most companies. They're the **** jobs. We have a lot of people in this country who are only good for that. They toil for hours a week doing what you or I would otherwise rather die than do. All for a measly 7.25/hr. Now all of a sudden these jobs are only 5.00 so now what, they have to work TWO of these jobs just to make it? Work 80 hours a week instead of 40? Minimum wage prevents exploitation.

Employers will offer 5/hr if people are willing to take 5/hr (in the vast majority of industries, people will probably be unwilling to work for 5/hr). The regular people who NEED more than that won't be willing to work for that amount. They don't have "no choice" - they can choose to not work and look for that mystical 7/hr job instead. And all those people who were willing to work for 5/hr? They wind up UNEMPLOYED if there is a minimum wage.

Again, I don't see how it's exploitation if you are willing to work for that amount. Basically, each individual gets to set his own minimum wage by figuring out what is the minimum wage that he'd be willing to work for. And whaddya know, this minimum wage is actually tailored to his individual preferences and situation. I mean, seriously, what if I really could get by on 6/hr? How is it fair that I cannot offer my labor at that rate?

For some, it is, but we're not talking on micro-scales we talking on national levels. In general, it's best for one to leave the nest.

Best how? It's not the best if you won't be able to support yourself.

True, but... those aren't minimum wage jobs. We're not talking about computer operators. We're talking about the crap jobs, flipping burgers, cleaning jobs, that kind of thing.

The same thing is true though. What's a burger flipper without a grill? Surely that person is WAY more productive than if he had to cook everything on a campfire. The person cleaning probably has many cleaning supplies - heck, they fill up whole stores with different kinds of cleaning chemicals and equipment. You get the point.

Okay, the reason why minimum wage is so low is because it's the minimum to sustain one's self. If it were 15/hr -and nothing else changed- then everyone would be driving expensive cars and living in luxurious homes. And competition for jobs would be so bad that even MORE people would be unemployed, because no company can afford to pay its low-tier workers so much. If the minimum is 15/hr then what does an executive VP get, 10 million (that scale fits, sadly).

Well yes, more people would be unemployed, because businesses simply can't afford to pay every single worker 15/hr. The same may be true at 7/hr, but we will never know about all those jobs that are profitable at 6/hr because the minimum wage prevents them from existing.

 

[Sucumbio]

Long debate is long, lol

I look at economics from a unique perspective. When our store's sales go down, because people are spending less, then my hours get cut. So you can see why I correlate people spending to a downturn in the economy (my economy). This labor vs profit module is consistent in most retail sectors, though not all, and of course there are dozens of other sectors that don't behave this way at all. But in essence it is safe to say that many business rely on sales to put people to work, so even if what we're looking at is production, I can only contribute my man-hours that I'm allotted based on what consumers are spending in our store, so if they spend less, I make less. This means that when the shipyard up the street lays 100 more people off, that's 2 fewer hours/week I'll be granted, unless they claim unemployment, so they can continue to buy stuff at our store, in which case I'll be saved.

I see what you're getting at with the minimum wage argument, I'm just afraid that it could lead to a poorer country. ,I realize that we both have to assume some things to make a case, but whereas you've assumed people would tailor their wages to fit their lives, I'm assuming that people tailor their lives to fit within their wage. I guess there's two ways to look at it. If everyone got to just decide how much they want to make, and then go for it (wait, that's what we do) then I suppose there is some miniscule population of people that would WANT to work for less than 7.25/hr but then, what happens to the people who want to do the same jobs, but make 7.25/hr? In other words what happens to people that want to live on flipping burgers? They now have to do it for 5/hr because someone else is willing to do that. They could look for a different job, but they only qualify for 7.25/hr jobs which are now all 5.00/hr jobs. Yeah? I just see problems with this... without a minimum wage, there seems to be no limit to how low employers can pay for the same jobs that at least pay enough that the ******* of society can make a living. Ok that was harsh, but seriously, there's a LOT of people in the US who have NO skills because they FAILED in school, or couldn't afford it, and NEED their Fast Food jobs to support their kids so they can have a future. How do we fix this so that we can eliminate the minimum wage and still keep people making enough to make ends meet?

 

[ballin4life]

Long debate is long, lol

I look at economics from a unique perspective. When our store's sales go down, because people are spending less, then my hours get cut. So you can see why I correlate people spending to a downturn in the economy (my economy). This labor vs profit module is consistent in most retail sectors, though not all, and of course there are dozens of other sectors that don't behave this way at all. But in essence it is safe to say that many business rely on sales to put people to work, so even if what we're looking at is production, I can only contribute my man-hours that I'm allotted based on what consumers are spending in our store, so if they spend less, I make less. This means that when the shipyard up the street lays 100 more people off, that's 2 fewer hours/week I'll be granted, unless they claim unemployment, so they can continue to buy stuff at our store, in which case I'll be saved.

You have to look at where the money is coming from. If it's coming from transfers, then that's taking money away from someone else who would spend it at some other store, keeping those people in business.

I see what you're getting at with the minimum wage argument, I'm just afraid that it could lead to a poorer country. ,I realize that we both have to assume some things to make a case, but whereas you've assumed people would tailor their wages to fit their lives, I'm assuming that people tailor their lives to fit within their wage. I guess there's two ways to look at it. If everyone got to just decide how much they want to make, and then go for it (wait, that's what we do) then I suppose there is some miniscule population of people that would WANT to work for less than 7.25/hr but then, what happens to the people who want to do the same jobs, but make 7.25/hr? In other words what happens to people that want to live on flipping burgers? They now have to do it for 5/hr because someone else is willing to do that. They could look for a different job, but they only qualify for 7.25/hr jobs which are now all 5.00/hr jobs. Yeah? I just see problems with this... without a minimum wage, there seems to be no limit to how low employers can pay for the same jobs that at least pay enough that the ******* of society can make a living. Ok that was harsh, but seriously, there's a LOT of people in the US who have NO skills because they FAILED in school, or couldn't afford it, and NEED their Fast Food jobs to support their kids so they can have a future. How do we fix this so that we can eliminate the minimum wage and still keep people making enough to make ends meet?

The people who would flip burgers for $7/hr but not $5/hr will get outcompeted IF there are enough people willing to flip burgers for $5/hr. If that's the case then I really don't see the problem. It's the same thing when people complain "these immigrants are willing to work for way less than me and they're taking my work!" You're not entitled to work if someone else will do the same job for less pay. It'd be like me demanding that I get paid $100/hr to work as a cashier. And once again this ignores the people that wind up making $0/hr when the company can only afford to hire two burger flippers at $7/hr instead of three at $5/hr. How is it fair to the person who winds up with NOTHING? The only problem is that this person is a lot harder to recognize, since you can't exactly point to someone and say "oh that's the person who would have gotten the $5/hr job". But that person still exists. And similarly, if I am only willing to flip burgers for $7/hr, and there is someone else willing to do so for $5/hr, and I wind up getting the job since the minimum wage is $7/hr, then that other person again winds up unemployed even though he was willing to work for less than me.

By the way, I think it's safe to say that very few people are truly supporting their kids on minimum wage. Of course, people will use this to justify welfare.

 

[Sucumbio]

You have to look at where the money is coming from. If it's coming from transfers, then that's taking money away from someone else who would spend it at some other store, keeping those people in business.

I'm not sure I follow... People spending less for whatever reason = me losing money, I am not sure how this in any way means anything other than the economy is bad? It'd be different if I was in a specialized commodity market, but we're talking cigarettes, beer, gas, candy, soda, I mean... staples. Necessities. If people can't afford to spend enough to put me to work enough hours so -I- can go out and spend more, then that tells me that in general the economy, at least local to me, sucks.

The people who would flip burgers for $7/hr but not $5/hr will get outcompeted IF there are enough people willing to flip burgers for $5/hr.

Well obviously, but I don't see this as a good thing. It's trading one group of people for another, and I personally believe that people who could live on 5.00/hr aren't worth it... no offense to anyone on this site who currently lacks the need to make more than that, lol I'm just saying, if I run ****, and I have a choice between employing someone who doesn't need more than a few bucks a week, vs a head of household that needs a properly sized wage, I'm going for the latter, my thinking being that although I'll spend more to hire them, they'll in turn do more spending at the gas station, where my son works, and needs the patronage to get enough hours so he can move out on his own and buy a house and car, which the realtor wants cause that's their livelihood, and the car dealer wants cause that's their livelihood. >.> yeah.

And once again this ignores the people that wind up making $0/hr when the company can only afford to hire two burger flippers at $7/hr instead of three at $5/hr.

I'd say this is your best point. It's true that because of the minimum wage companies have to hire fewer people. But my take on this is that the 2 people working for min wage are better people than the 3 that would work for less. Better economically, anyway.

By the way, I think it's safe to say that very few people are truly supporting their kids on minimum wage. Of course, people will use this to justify welfare.

Oh, no doubt, minimum wage is barely enough to make it on your own, and throwing kids into the mix definitely qualifies you for food stamps, rent control, and other government aid programs. It could be satisfied by raising the minimum wage even more, but then the problems you've outlined would actually start to manifest (I don't see it right now, minimum wage was pretty much evened out when it went up to 7.25 due to inflation).

Interestingly enough there's other models that many economists prefer over minimum wage, such as a Guaranteed Minimum Income. Would you prefer one of these other models to minimum wage?

 

[ballin4life]

I'm not sure I follow... People spending less for whatever reason = me losing money, I am not sure how this in any way means anything other than the economy is bad? It'd be different if I was in a specialized commodity market, but we're talking cigarettes, beer, gas, candy, soda, I mean... staples. Necessities. If people can't afford to spend enough to put me to work enough hours so -I- can go out and spend more, then that tells me that in general the economy, at least local to me, sucks.

Huh? What I said was that if you are taking money from an employed person to give it to an unemployed person then that employed person is going to be spending less as well.

Now I have to stress again that I don't think increasing spending helps the economy. Spending is the product of a good economy, not the cause.

Well obviously, but I don't see this as a good thing. It's trading one group of people for another, and I personally believe that people who could live on 5.00/hr aren't worth it... no offense to anyone on this site who currently lacks the need to make more than that, lol I'm just saying, if I run ****, and I have a choice between employing someone who doesn't need more than a few bucks a week, vs a head of household that needs a properly sized wage, I'm going for the latter, my thinking being that although I'll spend more to hire them, they'll in turn do more spending at the gas station, where my son works, and needs the patronage to get enough hours so he can move out on his own and buy a house and car, which the realtor wants cause that's their livelihood, and the car dealer wants cause that's their livelihood. >.> yeah.

I don't understand this really, but if this were the case then companies would always hire the head of household at the higher wage. So I don't see the problem.

Anyway, let's say that this isn't the case though and that the company would prefer to hire the person at the lower wage. If there is a minimum wage and the company hires the head of household, then the other person again winds up unemployed. How is this fair when he was willing to do the exact same work for less money? The government here is PREVENTING that guy from getting a job by making it illegal to sell his labor at the wage he wants.

I'd say this is your best point. It's true that because of the minimum wage companies have to hire fewer people. But my take on this is that the 2 people working for min wage are better people than the 3 that would work for less. Better economically, anyway.

I don't see how you can say this. You mean someone winding up completely unemployed is better?

Oh, no doubt, minimum wage is barely enough to make it on your own, and throwing kids into the mix definitely qualifies you for food stamps, rent control, and other government aid programs. It could be satisfied by raising the minimum wage even more, but then the problems you've outlined would actually start to manifest (I don't see it right now, minimum wage was pretty much evened out when it went up to 7.25 due to inflation).

So I'm still confused on what the point of the minimum wage is. All it does is cause unemployment, especially amongst young and unskilled workers. And pretty much no one is supporting a family on that wage.

Interestingly enough there's other models that many economists prefer over minimum wage, such as a Guaranteed Minimum Income. Would you prefer one of these other models to minimum wage?

Off the top of my head I think a system where the government pays workers might be better. E.g. the company pays $5/hr, and then the government makes up the difference of $2/hr to get to the minimum wage. Overall though I wouldn't support this program either.

 

[Sucumbio]

Huh? What I said was that if you are taking money from an employed person to give it to an unemployed person then that employed person is going to be spending less as well.

I gotcha, that makes sense.

I don't understand this really, but if this were the case then companies would always hire the head of household at the higher wage. So I don't see the problem.

Anyway, let's say that this isn't the case though and that the company would prefer to hire the person at the lower wage. If there is a minimum wage and the company hires the head of household, then the other person again winds up unemployed. How is this fair when he was willing to do the exact same work for less money? The government here is PREVENTING that guy from getting a job by making it illegal to sell his labor at the wage he wants.

Well ok, and this is has been your point... I guess it's a matter of seeing this as a good thing. The government is intervening, preventing the lower-wage worker from nabbing job slots. And now that I think of it I do sort of equate this to immigrants (at least illegal ones) who come in and do work for fractions of the minimum wage, thus stealing jobs from proper citizens.

I don't see how you can say this. You mean someone winding up completely unemployed is better?

Yeah, basically. I'd rather have a bunch of unemployed people who don't really need the job to begin with than spreading the work around at fractions of the wage so everyone can work but no one can be truly productive (in that you won't be buying cars or homes or anything really on 5 bucks/hr).

So I'm still confused on what the point of the minimum wage is. All it does is cause unemployment, especially amongst young and unskilled workers.

Well another alternative is to simply divide hours. Someone who doesn't need but 5.00/hr can achieve this by working for 7.25/hr but for 10 hours/week instead of 20. And the company still wins, AND you don't have the problem of workers competing for the bottom.

Off the top of my head I think a system where the government pays workers might be better. E.g. the company pays $5/hr, and then the government makes up the difference of $2/hr to get to the minimum wage. Overall though I wouldn't support this program either.

I see. Well I would wonder of course where the 2/hr comes from, is that taken from income taxes or something? Why wouldn't you support your own choice? Or are you saying that there should be no federally regulated or influenced wages of any kind, and just let the work force be on their own?

 

[Aesir]

I dunno about everyone else, but I lost hella interest in this sad thing of a debate you guys are having. So here's something a bit more interesting. Iceland over through their government. Discuss.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

nah

Gospel of eve?

 

[Sucumbio]

o.O I read as far as "eating of semen" and closed the window, lol.

 

[Reaver197]

I read this article and feel compelled to post it here. It's a piece written by a Republican staffer who decided that he could no longer support or work for (in both senses) the GOP. It's a rage inducing, chilling, and saddening account of the Republican's motives and beliefs.

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

 

[blazedaces]

I read this article and feel compelled to post it here. It's a piece written by a Republican staffer who decided that he could no longer support or work for (in both senses) the GOP. It's a rage inducing, chilling, and saddening account of the Republican's motives and beliefs.

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

Thank you, I very much enjoyed reading this.

I really wish I knew a republican who could defend the GOP without lying or just playing the blame game... but I don't. I am actually very scared for America's future.

-blazed

 

[Reaver197]

I'm glad you enjoyed it, thought I very much wish this was a world where such things did not have to be written.

I genuinely am concerned for America's prosperity. Not just to stay the #1 superpower, but to just even keep our institutions functional and democratic. I was immensely unsettled reading the section that talked about how the Republicans essentially purposefully screw up the government, decreasing trust in our political institutions and groundwork, discouraging people from voting or taking part, which gives the Republicans more electoral potency to wreak even more, in my opinion, havoc.

A scary cycle.

 

[Aesir]

Today I learned that the PATRIOT Act has been almost exclusively used in drug cases.

 

[Aesir]

This is a bit interesting.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=straight-talk-about-vaccination

 

[Reaver197]

Yeah, that whole vaccines causing autism is such BS. What's even more troubling and infuriating about it is that when a parent is refusing vaccinations for their child, it's not only their child's safety that they're putting in danger, but everyone else in the community who might come into contact with the child.

 

[blazedaces]

This is a bit interesting.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=straight-talk-about-vaccination

The article was very interesting, but I recommend people read the first few pages of comments... that was to me even more interesting.

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

Yeah, that whole vaccines causing autism is such BS. What's even more troubling and infuriating about it is that when a parent is refusing vaccinations for their child, it's not only their child's safety that they're putting in danger, but everyone else in the community who might come into contact with the child.

I'm of the belief that it should be mandatory for children to receive vaccines.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm of the belief that it should be mandatory for children to receive vaccines.

Absolutely this. There's actually a Law and Order SVU episode about a kid who dies of measles because her schoolmate's parent refused to vaccinate her son and it vectored off him to her, and who knows how many others. They tried the mom for negligent homicide, but ultimately the case was dismissed.

My manager where I work did not vaccinate her kids, out of a fear of "big brother."

"I'm a child of the 60's, we don't want the government messing with anything in our personal lives, especially mandating what we will or won't put into our bodies, or our children's bodies." (sound familiar? *looking at you ballin )

Nah, but yeah, it's totally bs that some parents are able to get around it. My JR. High, HS, and college all mandated certain vaccines for entry. But such mandates are not as enforceable as they'd have you believe.

 

[blazedaces]

I'm of the belief that it should be mandatory for children to receive vaccines.

While a large part of me agrees with you I don't see it happening these days, at least talking about the United States. There's too many politicians who would spout how "government is telling us how to run our lives" and other such rhetoric.

I mean, imagine if people tried to take away seatbelt laws on the same grounds? I'm sure you could find people who would make the same claim...

-blazed

 

[Reaver197]

I've actually heard about a growing number of doctor and clinics that will refuse to allow people who have not been vaccinated for the safety of other patients that are there.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Do we have any socially conservative but economically liberal people in here?

I would like to ask a question of them. If one's individual freedoms are limited, how is it possible for that person to be properly economically free? It seems as if there is an inherent contradiction.

I don't believe it applies the other way around, with regard to those who are economically interventionist but socially liberal, because economic regulations such as taxes and mandatory safety requirements do not appear to infringe on individual freedoms, such as whether one can use marijuana legally.

 

[Ocean]

Do we have any socially conservative but economically liberal people in here?

I wasn't aware people like this existed.

 

[blazedaces]

I wasn't aware people like this existed.

Isn't that what "true" libertarians are? Or am I misunderstanding the term "socially conservative"?

Either way a die-hard libertarian would advocate against mandatory vaccinations.

Did anyone else watch the republican debate on monday where mandatory vaccinations were discussed and michelle bachman advocated the libertarian talking point that they are unconstitutional bla bla?

Does anyone else hear the republican debate and feel like they're listening to a combination of a mob following and just a group of absolute morons sometimes?

Even though I very much disagree with ron paul he's the only one on stage that actually tries to make arguments to defend any of his positions. And for that at least I respect him. The rest of them just yell talking points and it gets old very quick, especially when you look up what they say and most of it is just not true.

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

I just saw Contagion, ironically. I really liked it, when comparing it to Outbreak. I thought some story points were either exaggerated or overplayed a bit, but overall it wasn't a bad movie at all.

blazed... I hate to say it, but that's what gets you elected. Most people are dumb to the point that talking points are all they can possibly understand. What I liked about Obama was that he said what he meant, meant what he said, and didn't assume the people were idiots.

Although I think it's over for him. The nation's view of his stay in the white house will go something like this:

he set out to do too much
what he did do was half-***** all around.
the only thing he did right was kill Osama bin Laden, and that may not have even been thanks to him.
obamacare doesn't do enough
jobs are still in the toilet
the global and domestic economies are still screwed
and I can't afford anything.

am I wrong? maybe... but I think this is exactly how people feel about him and his presidency, and I think we'll have a republican president in 2012. The question that's scaring me is which one? Perry is gaining support fast, and he's a total douche. Bachman is insane. Romney is greasy. They all suck.