Does unemployment insurance (UI) incentivise unemployment?

[Desperate Measures]

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.

This broke me.

I think he meant he's not on unemployment.

[Neo Art]

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.

This broke me.

He is, technically correct! There's a difference between someone who is "unemployed" and someone who "doesn't have a job". If he's not looking for work, he's not, by legal defintion, unemployed. He just doesn't have a job.

[Caninope]

This broke me.

He is, technically correct! There's a difference between someone who is "unemployed" and someone who "doesn't have a job". If he's not looking for work, he's not, by legal defintion, unemployed. He just doesn't have a job.

For instance, Mitt Romney was unemployed on Nov. 5, 2012. He now just doesn't have a job.

[Greed and Death]

He is, technically correct! There's a difference between someone who is "unemployed" and someone who "doesn't have a job". If he's not looking for work, he's not, by legal defintion, unemployed. He just doesn't have a job.

For instance, Mitt Romney was unemployed on Nov. 5, 2012. He now just doesn't have a job.

Then he went back to making billions at Bain Capital.
Billions is so comforting, that and the power to fire thousands with the stroke of a pen.

[Neo Art]

He is, technically correct! There's a difference between someone who is "unemployed" and someone who "doesn't have a job". If he's not looking for work, he's not, by legal defintion, unemployed. He just doesn't have a job.

For instance, Mitt Romney was unemployed on Nov. 5, 2012. He now just doesn't have a job.

also technically incorrect. The law requires that to be considered "unemployed" one must be engaged in a "systematic job search" which has been defined as an absolute minimum of three unique job search contacts a week. You must apply to at least 3 jobs a week to be considered unemployed. Not one job for 6 years.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I don't think an income that just barely lets you apply for minimum food benefits is a great incentive. Then again, I'm not a little kid on the internet who has never had a hard time in the real world.

[Caninope]

For instance, Mitt Romney was unemployed on Nov. 5, 2012. He now just doesn't have a job.

also technically incorrect. The law requires that to be considered "unemployed" one must be engaged in a "systematic job search" which has been defined as an absolute minimum of three unique job search contacts a week. You must apply to at least 3 jobs a week to be considered unemployed. Not one job for 6 years.

I knew that, NA. I was simply trying to make a joke.

Gosh.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

I don't think an income that just barely lets you apply for minimum food benefits is a great incentive. Then again, I'm not a little kid on the internet who has never had a hard time in the real world.

Sad thing is that it's not only little kids on the internet that have the same idea.

[Grave_n_idle]

also technically incorrect. The law requires that to be considered "unemployed" one must be engaged in a "systematic job search" which has been defined as an absolute minimum of three unique job search contacts a week. You must apply to at least 3 jobs a week to be considered unemployed. Not one job for 6 years.

I knew that, NA. I was simply trying to make a joke.

Gosh.

Funny comments require form 4(B), not form 14(B).

You have no one to blame but yourself.

[Greed and Death]

also technically incorrect. The law requires that to be considered "unemployed" one must be engaged in a "systematic job search" which has been defined as an absolute minimum of three unique job search contacts a week. You must apply to at least 3 jobs a week to be considered unemployed. Not one job for 6 years.

I knew that, NA. I was simply trying to make a joke.

Gosh.

You do not joke about the law with Neo Art.

[Desperate Measures]

also technically incorrect. The law requires that to be considered "unemployed" one must be engaged in a "systematic job search" which has been defined as an absolute minimum of three unique job search contacts a week. You must apply to at least 3 jobs a week to be considered unemployed. Not one job for 6 years.

I knew that, NA. I was simply trying to make a joke.

Gosh.

*writes down... erases... writes new info down... scratches out... writes down...*

[Grave_n_idle]

I knew that, NA. I was simply trying to make a joke.

Gosh.

You do not joke about the law with Neo Art.

There's an "into Mordor" in there, somewhere, but it's been a long day.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

I knew that, NA. I was simply trying to make a joke.

Gosh.

Funny comments require form 4(B), not form 14(B).

You have no one to blame but yourself.

Before advent of computers in workplace, I could have also said: The forms need to be in triplicates, triplicates! Take the yellow and pink carbon copies to the accounting.

[Ashmoria]

For instance, Mitt Romney was unemployed on Nov. 5, 2012. He now just doesn't have a job.

also technically incorrect. The law requires that to be considered "unemployed" one must be engaged in a "systematic job search" which has been defined as an absolute minimum of three unique job search contacts a week. You must apply to at least 3 jobs a week to be considered unemployed. Not one job for 6 years.

besides, he has a job working 1 week a month for his son's company.

[Grave_n_idle]

Funny comments require form 4(B), not form 14(B).

You have no one to blame but yourself.

Before advent of computers in workplace, I could have also said: The forms need to be in triplicates, triplicates! Take the yellow and pink carbon copies to the accounting.

It's not yellow, it's goldenrod. And triplicate? What was it, a hippy commune? Quadruplicate or nothing.

[Greed and Death]

Funny comments require form 4(B), not form 14(B).

You have no one to blame but yourself.

Before advent of computers in workplace, I could have also said: The forms need to be in triplicates, triplicates! Take the yellow and pink carbon copies to the accounting.

The form has not be digitized. So still use the carbon copies.
Also the yellow goes to accounting and the pink to HR.
The accounting guy is getting upset, because he used to date the HR girl, but they had a bad break. So forcing him to take forms too her is not cool.

[Saiwania]

I don't think an income that just barely lets you apply for minimum food benefits is a great incentive. Then again, I'm not a little kid on the internet who has never had a hard time in the real world.

I'm almost 24 and for the most part, hasn't had a hard time in the real world, in other words I'm a loser! But I don't collect any welfare or government aid, so I'm not a complete burden on society yet.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

Before advent of computers in workplace, I could have also said: The forms need to be in triplicates, triplicates! Take the yellow and pink carbon copies to the accounting.

The form has not be digitized. So still use the carbon copies.
Also the yellow goes to accounting and the pink to HR.
The accounting guy is getting upset, because he sued to date the HR girl, but they had a bad break. So forcing him to take forms too her is not cool.

I know you meant "used to", but "sued to" brought a funny idea of American jurisprudence to mind, and I laughed out loud.

[Greed and Death]

The form has not be digitized. So still use the carbon copies.
Also the yellow goes to accounting and the pink to HR.
The accounting guy is getting upset, because he sued to date the HR girl, but they had a bad break. So forcing him to take forms too her is not cool.

I know you meant "used to", but "sued to" brought a funny idea of American jurisprudence to mind, and I laughed out loud.

Inter office romance, inter office law suit.
Same awkward result.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I don't think an income that just barely lets you apply for minimum food benefits is a great incentive. Then again, I'm not a little kid on the internet who has never had a hard time in the real world.

I'm almost 24 and for the most part, hasn't had a hard time in the real world, in other words I'm a loser! But I don't collect any welfare or government aid, so I'm not a complete burden on society yet.

Let us all know how you feel when you lose your job and your roommates throw you out on a whim. See if you have the same opinion on "WELFURRR" when it's the only way for your kids to eat.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

I don't think an income that just barely lets you apply for minimum food benefits is a great incentive. Then again, I'm not a little kid on the internet who has never had a hard time in the real world.

I'm almost 24 and for the most part, hasn't had a hard time in the real world, in other words I'm a loser! But I don't collect any welfare or government aid, so I'm not a complete burden on society yet.

Nobody thinks you a loser. Have fun figuring out your career.

[Saiwania]

Let us all know how you feel when you lose your job and your roommates throw you out on a whim. See if you have the same opinion on "WELFURRR" when it's the only way for your kids to eat.

I get that not having a job sucks, but my view is that welfare isn't unlimited and can't be relied upon for every time you're unemployed. Otherwise, taxes will be too high and the disposable income which drives the economy would dry up and businesses will leave.

[New Chalcedon]

No.

Well, it actually does, to a small extent.

But it's not a bad thing. American unemployment insurance is not enough to overly incentivize unemployment so that it becomes a problem. In fact, certain types of unemployment can be considered "good". Frictional unemployment is unemployment that results from the mismatch of a person to a particular job; we don't want Physics PhD grads working in ice cream shops, and unemployment insurance helps incentivize their move from ice cream parlor to Physics classrooms.

Now, to the question of whether unemployment insurance incentivizes unemployment to such a large extent to be harmful on the economy? No.

See, now this is more or less the point. The free-market fundamentalists (I refuse to dignify them by calling them "conservatives" - that lumps them in with you, and you deserve better) who want to end any and all forms of social spending fail to see the direct and indirect benefits they bring to society and the economy. This ranges from the prevention of outright class warfare a la the French or Russian Revolutions, to increased economic activity, to greater levels of happiness and social unity across the board.

Should such spending be approached with caution? Absolutely. Everyone who proposed a specific government program should justify its existence by pointing to a specific problem that this program will solve at an acceptable cost, and every government program already extant should regularly be scrutinized to ensure that it is a wise use of the public purse.

But by any rational metric, the US' social programs already meet this standard. Social Security is the most successful - and among the most efficient - poverty-reduction programs in history. Medicare costs per procedure are lower than private-sector medical costs, and the program provides healthcare that seniors won't be able to get in the free market except at exorbitant costs.

And unemployment insurance - as you describe above - prevents physics teachers or philosophers being stuck in ice-cream parlor jobs for their lives where they earn less than their talents merit and generate less wealth for the overall economy, and - as others have described - act as both a barrier to downward pressure on wages/salaries, and as a preventative measure for large-scale social unrest, both of which garner substantial additional benefits for the economy, including those at the top of it.

Of course, none of this matters to free-market fundamentalists like Obamacult, who think that simply repeating their already-debunked bunkum will make it true (see: his repeated citation of the very sources which dispute his argument as somehow "supporting" it), who believe that getting the last word in is synonymous with winning a debate (which is why I left the "Obama Recovery" thread, as it was clear that he would simply repeat himself again and again without bothering to even fairly read what I posted), and who start with a priori assumptions that don't line up with reality and which are never challenged within their reality bubble (see: Obamacult's assumption that people on unemployment benefits attach no moral, ethical or morale value to receiving an earned paycheck over a (also-earned, but less immediately so) payout).

Such people should not call themselves "conservatives", as there is nothing "conservative" about their attitudes or preferred policies. They are radical reactionaries, who would gladly take America back to the days when wealthy magnates boasted of being able to hire half of the working class to kill the other half, when less than half the country's population was literate, when being born poor meant, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, staying poor no matter how hard you worked.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

Let us all know how you feel when you lose your job and your roommates throw you out on a whim. See if you have the same opinion on "WELFURRR" when it's the only way for your kids to eat.

I get that not having a job sucks, but my view is that welfare isn't unlimited and can't be relied upon for every time you're unemployed. Otherwise, taxes will be too high and the disposable income which drives the economy would dry up and businesses will leave.

You need to keep in mind scale of things relative to one another. That's a very tiny fraction of the tax you are concerned about.

[New Chalcedon]

Let us all know how you feel when you lose your job and your roommates throw you out on a whim. See if you have the same opinion on "WELFURRR" when it's the only way for your kids to eat.

I get that not having a job sucks, but my view is that welfare isn't unlimited and can't be relied upon for every time you're unemployed. Otherwise, taxes will be too high and the disposable income which drives the economy would dry up and businesses will leave.

That hasn't happened in Australia, and we've had - unlimited duration - unemployment benefits available since the 1940s.

Could it be that people want to work rather than take benefits? Could it be that the allure of a paycheck is greater for two separate reasons - the psychology of working, and the greater income therefrom?

Naaaaaaah. Poor people are all bludgers, who will party on the government's dime for as long as they're allowed to! Ending welfare and government support will teach 'em to shape up right quick!

But don't touch the subsidies to the banks, to agri-combines, to the military-industrial complex, to Big Oil.....the economy needs those.