Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:42 amI'm cool with it.
If you do indeed up copying part of my posts, I'd love it if you could send me a link.
I'm cool with it.
If you do indeed up copying part of my posts, I'd love it if you could send me a link.
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Does unemployment insurance (UI) incentivise unemployment?
Page 7 of 38
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:42 amI'm cool with it.
If you do indeed up copying part of my posts, I'd love it if you could send me a link.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:42 amNeo Art wrote:Cannot think of a name wrote:Here's the problem I have with that and I'll address you instead of the OP for obvious reasons.
First, let me grant that this is partially anecdotal.
What this conceit relies on is that there are jobs to take, and the people on unemployment are simply not taking them. And even so, that we're focusing on only one reason that they're not taking them: They do not pay enough.
But while there are a ton of jobs, effectively, I'm looking at every day, only a small fraction of the listings every day are jobs I in any way qualify for, and of the ones that I do qualify for only a portion of those are actually viable in that I have a required element (reliable car, piece of tech, whatever) or I'm close enough to the job, etc.
And I'm not talking about limiting selections to jobs in my field or close to my original salary (which in my case was low to begin with, so that's not much of a barrier).
Even granting that parenthetical, I have not (in this case supporting your premise) restricted my job search to a wage floor...with a graduate degree and career experience I'm still applying to burrito shops and oil change stations and indoor go kart tracks as a concession monkey. That latter job, the indoor kart track advertising what was essentially a minimum wage job, they listed four positions and thought they'd get maybe 50 applicants. They got over 400 and interviews took all day. People in suits, with degrees, people who had respectable jobs applying for one of the four positions pushing the electric karts out on the track and warming up shitty pizza for patrons. I've applied to be a night stocker at toy stores...there aren't jobs where I go "no," well, except sign waver.
The people filling these jobs, the ones who view my resume and still interview me, every single one of them has focused on the same concern, that the job they're offering is not as 'sexy' as the one I've been doing and that as soon as opportunities open back up in my field I will be out the door faster than the little dust cloud in my shape will be.
Which is true. But I still need the job now.
So while we, including you, have argued that UI helps people hold out for optimal employment, I would also argue that it's not alone. I find myself not including my educational background when I can avoid it now, trying to figure out a way to not make my freelance period not that lucrative looking while not making it look like additional unemployment time just so these lower wage jobs I'm supposedly disincentivized to look for (well, not according to the premise, I do not receive unemployment) will actually hire me.
And that's one really big problem with the current state of the economic situation. The other really big problem, as I mentioned before. Let's say you, with your graduate degree, or one of those guys in suits with strong work history, DOES get the job setting up go karts and warming pizza, because, fuck it, that's all there is.
What about the guy who setting up go karts and warming pizza was the best he was ever gonna get?
What happens to him now?
As I said, if you REALLY want to make this about economics, if you REALLY want to bring this down to bare bones dollars and cents, it's a fuck load cheaper to temporarily help me (or you), for a little while, until we're back on our feet, than help him, for the rest of his life.
Fuck, I meant to bring that up but forgot once I got into it. Now I'm going to pretend it was on purpose so you could bring the conclusion in that I would have left out.
Thank you.
Caninope wrote:Secondly, I'm not really that opposed to current unemployment benefits in the state of the current economy. I'm opposed to current unemployment benefits if the American economy were to mirror the growth of the 1990s (I'd also advocate a government surplus, should our economy mirror the growth of the 1990s).
I feel like I'm just taking someone's word for it that you're a conservative and that if that's actually true you're one that has just recently been thawed and will be shocked at what people who call themselves that have been doing to the ideology. Because I find this more or less agreeable and conservatives of late don't do agreeable.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:43 amCaninope wrote:
I'm not understanding what you're saying.
If you saying that economic growth cannot mirror the 1990s, I'd disagree. The economy under Clinton was drove by a massive increase in productivity originating in the increase penetration of computers and the Internet in our daily lives. While it seems impossible that the computer revolution will further expand productivity in the same way it did in the 1990s, that doesn't mean there cannot be another innovation that does the same thing.
The current increase in productivity, and there has been one, has been driven by fear of unemployment. Workers know that there are more than a few people out there who would be deeply grateful to have their jobs, and employers know it, too.
And really, Can, "was drove"? I am disappoint.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:44 amPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:45 amIn practice, it comes quite close. See: Confederate States of America.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:46 amCannot think of a name wrote:I feel like I'm just taking someone's word for it that you're a conservative and that if that's actually true you're one that has just recently been thawed and will be shocked at what people who call themselves that have been doing to the ideology. Because I find this more or less agreeable and conservatives of late don't do agreeable.
No, I'm genuinely a conservative. However, I'm a neoconservative, so I don't have a rabid hatred for anything related to the government. I've also done some study (both in formal schooling and self taught) into the ideas of Keynes, and various monetarists.
The ultimate conclusion of all this is that I like the American economy and the free market, so let's try and keep it the way it is (but a little closer to full employment), mmkay?
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:46 amThis makes me wonder why AuSable even thinks he is superior to you in this one. Like, fuck. He's just a kid or young adult spouting rhetoric, and you're talking about the shit you deal with constantly.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:48 amSure. The Nazis were deliberately evil, they did evil things because they cared about the continued existence of people they disliked. Libertarians are innocuously, uncaringly evil. They allow evil things to happen to other people because, as long as no one is the boss of them, they don't really care about other people, outside of their immediate circle of family and friends.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:48 amFarnhamia wrote:Caninope wrote:I'm not understanding what you're saying.
If you saying that economic growth cannot mirror the 1990s, I'd disagree. The economy under Clinton was drove by a massive increase in productivity originating in the increase penetration of computers and the Internet in our daily lives. While it seems impossible that the computer revolution will further expand productivity in the same way it did in the 1990s, that doesn't mean there cannot be another innovation that does the same thing.
The current increase in productivity, and there has been one, has been driven by fear of unemployment. Workers know that there are more than a few people out there who would be deeply grateful to have their jobs, and employers know it, too.
We're not going to see a growth similar to the 1990s until something utterly life-changing comes along. The only question is how long it will take for that to appear.
And really, Can, "was drove"? I am disappoint.
I'm from the South. I'm allowed to speak bad.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:49 amCaninope wrote:Neo Art wrote:
No, I'm saying the current unemployment benefits could not exist if the economy was like it was in the 90s.
Oh yeah. I'm not disagreeing with you on that point.
I was instead trying to point out that my support for a more expansive unemployment insurance program at this point in time does not translate into my support for such an expansive unemployment insurance program at all points in time.
And, in fact, the law agrees with you.
OK, quick lesson time kids. THe maximum duration of unemployment at the height of the recession was 99 full weeks (meaning the maximum total collection was 99 times the weekly rate, if people collected less than the max they could extended it beyond 99 weeks, better think of it in terms of dollars than weeks, but "99 weeks" works, just keep in mind I mean 99 FULL WEEKS).
Where do those 99 weeks come from?
26 of them are state minimum standards that were created more or less with the UI system back in the 30s.
34 of them were part of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 signed by Bush.
19 of them were an amendment to the EUC 08 act signed in November 2009 by Obama
20 of them are granted through the Federal-State Extended Benefits Compensation Act ("EB act"). Do you know when the EB act was created?
In 1970. The whole "99 weeks of unemployment"? almost half of that had been in existance for fourty three years. The EB program, and the EUC programs, only kick in when certain economic conditions are met.
A lot of these emergency extensions are there, they've always BEEN there. They only trigger when certain conditions are met. Even if the EUC 08 program didn't have a kill switch date (it does, 12/31/13), eventually the conditions that allow for its existence will end, and it'll fade away (and, indeed, already is, the november 2009 extensions are all but gone in this country, EB is essentially triggered off nationally, and 14 of the 34 original EUC 08 weeks are starting to flicker out)
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:49 amNo. Not even vaguely.
Libertarianism is objectively worse than Nazism.
Heh, 'objectively'.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:50 amCaninope wrote:Farnhamia wrote:The current increase in productivity, and there has been one, has been driven by fear of unemployment. Workers know that there are more than a few people out there who would be deeply grateful to have their jobs, and employers know it, too.
We're not going to see a growth similar to the 1990s until something utterly life-changing comes along. The only question is how long it will take for that to appear.And really, Can, "was drove"? I am disappoint.
I'm from the South. I'm allowed to speak bad.
The hell you are. Sherman didn't make the South howl just so you could mangle the English language.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:51 amPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:51 amAm just wondering, but how long have you been unemployed before? Or are you well read on what the current unemployment laws are?
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:51 amFarnhamia wrote:Regnum Dominae wrote:More evil than Nazism? Are you kidding me?
Sure. The Nazis were deliberately evil, they did evil things because they cared about the continued existence of people they disliked. Libertarians are innocuously, uncaringly evil. They allow evil things to happen to other people because, as long as no one is the boss of them, they don't really care about other people, outside of their immediate circle of family and friends.
It would be entirely possible to have a Nazi agenda that wasn't actually evil. The genocide, etc is optional.
Libertarianism, being entirely self-serving, is intrinsically evil.
*nods*
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:51 amCaninope wrote:Farnhamia wrote:The current increase in productivity, and there has been one, has been driven by fear of unemployment. Workers know that there are more than a few people out there who would be deeply grateful to have their jobs, and employers know it, too.
We're not going to see a growth similar to the 1990s until something utterly life-changing comes along. The only question is how long it will take for that to appear.And really, Can, "was drove"? I am disappoint.
I'm from the South. I'm allowed to speak bad.
And on topic, did you think productivity had declined since the 1990s?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunda ... gnate.html
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:53 amSaiwania wrote:Neo Art wrote:I am willing to bet that on all NSG, of all current posters, there is no one, not one single person, who knows the unemployment system in this country better than I do. As far as NSG goes, I am the absolute expert of this category.
And my answer remains.
Am just wondering, but how long have you been unemployed before? Or are you well read on what the current unemployment laws are?
He's a lawyer, and IIRC, he handles a lot of this stuff.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:54 amPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:55 amI mean, would you believe there are actual people out there who have, as the better part of their actual jobs, to track these various and varied conditions on a state, local, regional, and national level, in order to predict the ongoing development of certain economic trends, and work with their counterparts in other states, as well as function as a liason to the USDOL, in order to help craft a coherent national policy?
Would you believe that there are people on this very forum who earn a living by understanding precisely what the unemployment system in this country actually looks like, and what effect long term unemployment has, both in terms of human capital, and revenue?
Would you believe there are people on this very forum whose livelihood depends on understanding these topics every single day?
I mean, what are the odds of that, huh?
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:55 amPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:57 amSaiwania wrote:Neo Art wrote:I am willing to bet that on all NSG, of all current posters, there is no one, not one single person, who knows the unemployment system in this country better than I do. As far as NSG goes, I am the absolute expert of this category.
And my answer remains.
Am just wondering, but how long have you been unemployed before? Or are you well read on what the current unemployment laws are?
I have spent I think three, MAYBE four weeks on the unemployment lists in my entire life. I learned very very little about the process during that time.
However, I am an attorney and am currently employed by the Department of Labor. I don't get my understanding of current unemployment laws by being, or having been, unemployed. I get my understanding of current unemployment laws because it's my job.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:57 amCaninope wrote:He's a lawyer, and IIRC, he handles a lot of this stuff.
Okay, for myself; I'm not unemployed but I don't have any job either. I'm not looking for work currently but I probably should.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:57 amFarnhamia wrote:Caninope wrote:We're not going to see a growth similar to the 1990s until something utterly life-changing comes along. The only question is how long it will take for that to appear.
I'm from the South. I'm allowed to speak bad.
And on topic, did you think productivity had declined since the 1990s?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunda ... gnate.html
No, productivity has continued to grow and will continue to grow for the near future. However, productivity growth rates during the 1990s were exceptionally high.
Productivity in this decade will continue to grow, buoyed by further advances in computers, the introduction fo 3D printers, etc. However, computers revolutionized the American way of life and economy. I guess what I'm saying is that productivity today is being drove by innovation, but the productivity growth of the 1990s (and one of the reasons for the rapid expansion of the American economy at the time) was drove by revolution as opposed to innovation.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:58 amNeo Art wrote:
I mean, would you believe there are actual people out there who have, as the better part of their actual jobs, to track these various and varied conditions on a state, local, regional, and national level, in order to predict the ongoing development of certain economic trends, and work with their counterparts in other states, as well as function as a liason to the USDOL, in order to help craft a coherent national policy?
Would you believe that there are people on this very forum who earn a living by understanding precisely what the unemployment system in this country actually looks like, and what effect long term unemployment has, both in terms of human capital, and revenue?
Would you believe there are people on this very forum whose livelihood depends on understanding these topics every single day?
I mean, what are the odds of that, huh?
Were that the case, starting an ill-informed thread based on talking points and sources you clearly don't understand would be like bringing your hand held like a pretend pistol to a cannon fight.
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:59 am