Does unemployment insurance (UI) incentivise unemployment?

[Obamacult]

In sum, the free market isn't perfect -- but part of its strength is that it is dynamic and always competitive -- hence resources can move from heretofore unproductive and passe uses to emerging resources that heretofore were lacking.

Unemployment insurance actually helps create a competitive labor market by lowering the transaction costs of moving from one job to another.

UI creates artificial inducements to enable moves from one market to the other. Hence, any economically rational reallocation from one sector of the economy to the other is based, not on economic reality or sustainability, but what some politician or bureaucrat thinks is beneficial.....

or more likely, how many votes the politician who sponsors the bill thinks the legislation will buy him.

IN sum, an economy run by politicians for politic motives has been demonstrated overtime to be far less effective than an economy run by economic realities.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

Unemployment insurance actually helps create a competitive labor market by lowering the transaction costs of moving from one job to another.

UI creates artificial inducements to enable moves from one market to the other. Hence, any economically rational reallocation from one sector of the economy to the other is based, not on economic reality or sustainability, but what some politician or bureaucrat thinks is beneficial.....

or more likely, how many votes the politician who sponsors the bill thinks the legislation will buy him.

IN sum, an economy run by politicians for politic motives has been demonstrated overtime to be far less effective than an economy run by economic realities.

Your argument is better for railing against inefficient subsidies, not UI.

[Neo Art]

The way you're using the phrase "ad hominem" suggests that you don't know what it is.

Look, the rest of us are just happy he's learned a word that isn't "bullshit".

It's like swearing around a parrot, you have to be careful or it'll just keep shouting "motherfucker" over and over. After a while of that, you're just glad when it picks up something new.

[New Chalcedon]

It is no more rhetorical than the progressive nonsense that I responded to.

The only difference is that my rhetoric is backed by logic. Indeed, see my signature for the raw data, facts and empirical research that supports the logic.

In fact, if empirical research and peer reviewed findings are what you desire -- no progressive has provided more on these forums than me.

INdeed, the only data or research that progressives provide have been leftwing commentary from Krugman and the like.

Please respond to this.

He won't. I did - but he won't. It would require him to actually engage with someone who (somehow) has the patience to sit through his cherry-picking and other forms of intellectually-dishonest bullshit.

[Caninope]

Unemployment insurance actually helps create a competitive labor market by lowering the transaction costs of moving from one job to another.

UI creates artificial inducements to enable moves from one market to the other. Hence, any economically rational reallocation from one sector of the economy to the other is based, not on economic reality or sustainability, but what some politician or bureaucrat thinks is beneficial.....

How does it create "artificial inducements" that distort economic reality and rational reallocation?

After all, the Coase Theorem* only works in markets with sufficiently low or non-existant transaction costs. Would you like to explain to me how unemployment benefits do not reduce the transaction cost of moving between jobs?

EDIT: I know the Coase Theorem applies to property, but the general principle is applicable to resources as a whole.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

The way you're using the phrase "ad hominem" suggests that you don't know what it is.

Look, the rest of us are just happy he's learned a word that isn't "bullshit".

It's like swearing around a parrot, you have to be careful or it'll just keep shouting "motherfucker" over and over. After a while of that, you're just glad when it picks up something new.

Is this the way he always talks? Bizarre... What does he do in real life?

[Silent Majority]

The way you're using the phrase "ad hominem" suggests that you don't know what it is.

You've seen this guy's threads before right?


At a certain point in the thread he starts shouting out random names of fallacies, after that he goes back to saying everyone is an idiot because they're blinded from reality or whatever, eventually someone will take the bait and report him to the mods, at which point they will say it's not actionable but will end up locking the thread anyway. A couple days later he starts a new thread and the whole process starts over again.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

The way you're using the phrase "ad hominem" suggests that you don't know what it is.

You have seen this guy's threads before right?


At a certain point in the thread he starts shouting out random names of fallacies, after that he goes back to saying everyone is an idiot because they're blinded from reality or whatever, eventually someone will take the bait and report him to the mods, at which point they will say it's not actionable but will end up locking the thread anyway. A couple days later he starts a new thread and the whole process starts over again.

Ohh... Thanks for the heads up.

[Caninope]

UI creates artificial inducements to enable moves from one market to the other. Hence, any economically rational reallocation from one sector of the economy to the other is based, not on economic reality or sustainability, but what some politician or bureaucrat thinks is beneficial.....

or more likely, how many votes the politician who sponsors the bill thinks the legislation will buy him.

IN sum, an economy run by politicians for politic motives has been demonstrated overtime to be far less effective than an economy run by economic realities.

Your argument is better for railing against inefficient subsidies, not UI.

It is.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike subsidies, mostly because they interfere with the normal market equilibrium. I feel it important to point out that market equilibrium (i.e. marginal benefit/cost to those involved in a transaction) doesn't always equal the marginal benefit/cost to society.

[Grave_n_idle]

Asking you what your job is wouldn't actually be an ad hominem fallacy.

It would be an amazing job that simply by stating what it is, you are taking part in an ad hominem attack against yourself.

I actually spent a couple of entertaining minutes trying to work out what job you could claim, that it would actually automatically be an ad hominem fallacy against yourself.

Aside from 'a professional liar' - I really couldn't think of anything. Is there a paid 'professional liar' job?

[The Truth and Light]

It would be an amazing job that simply by stating what it is, you are taking part in an ad hominem attack against yourself.

I actually spent a couple of entertaining minutes trying to work out what job you could claim, that it would actually automatically be an ad hominem fallacy against yourself.

Aside from 'a professional liar' - I really couldn't think of anything. Is there a paid 'professional liar' job?

Politician.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Is there a paid 'professional liar' job?

I've heard Rand Paul wants a press secretary.

[Obamacult]

UI creates artificial inducements to enable moves from one market to the other. Hence, any economically rational reallocation from one sector of the economy to the other is based, not on economic reality or sustainability, but what some politician or bureaucrat thinks is beneficial.....

or more likely, how many votes the politician who sponsors the bill thinks the legislation will buy him.

IN sum, an economy run by politicians for politic motives has been demonstrated overtime to be far less effective than an economy run by economic realities.

Your argument is better for inefficient subsidies, not UI.

The problem with UI in the USA is that it is responsible for creating an army of long term unemployed who will likely be on the public dole for many years to come in some shape or form instead of being viable and productive members of society.

Who suffers most from this tragedy?

Well of course the very people who received this poison pill of dependency because they will never gain the pride and satisfaction of gainful employment however modest the wages.

INdeed, meritorious work with market based wages are the most effective, beneficial and rewarding social tool known to mankind.

In contrast, the failed progressive dogma of blame, envy, jeolousy, fear, divisiveness and class warfare would have you believe that a welfare or IU check funded by the threat of violence is the be all and end all of a just and prosperous society.

[New Chalcedon]

Your argument is better for railing against inefficient subsidies, not UI.

It is.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike subsidies, mostly because they interfere with the normal market equilibrium. I feel it important to point out that market equilibrium (i.e. marginal benefit/cost to those involved in a transaction) doesn't always equal the marginal benefit/cost to society.

I believe that what you're referring to is a subset of market failure (the failure of a private market to reach the optimum distribution of goods and services for any of a variety of reasons), and that you consider (limited) unemployment insurance a Pigouvian subsidy of sorts.

Would I be correct in my understanding of your position?

[Caninope]

The problem with UI in the USA is that it is responsible for creating an army of long term unemployed who will likely be on the public dole for many years to come in some shape or form instead of being viable and productive members of society.

You do realize that unemployment benefits were maxed out at 99 weeks, right?

[Obamacult]

I feel it important to point out that market equilibrium (i.e. marginal benefit/cost to those involved in a transaction) doesn't always equal the marginal benefit/cost to society.

By what moral authority do you get to decide that for me or anyone else?

[Neo Art]

edit: mispost

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I feel it important to point out that market equilibrium (i.e. marginal benefit/cost to those involved in a transaction) doesn't always equal the marginal benefit/cost to society.

By what moral authority do you get to decide that for me or anyone else?

That's an economic reality, not a normative decision.

[Caninope]

It is.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike subsidies, mostly because they interfere with the normal market equilibrium. I feel it important to point out that market equilibrium (i.e. marginal benefit/cost to those involved in a transaction) doesn't always equal the marginal benefit/cost to society.

I believe that what you're referring to is a subset of market failure (the failure of a private market to reach the optimum distribution of goods and services for any of a variety of reasons), and that you consider (limited) unemployment insurance a Pigouvian subsidy of sorts.

Would I be correct in my understanding of your position?

While I was referring to Pigouvian subsidies, I wasn't necessarily talking about unemployment insurance.

EDIT: That was more of a general statement on subsidies, altogether.

[Grave_n_idle]

I actually spent a couple of entertaining minutes trying to work out what job you could claim, that it would actually automatically be an ad hominem fallacy against yourself.

Aside from 'a professional liar' - I really couldn't think of anything. Is there a paid 'professional liar' job?

Politician.

I can see why Obamacult would want to protect his identity if that actually was his job.

And he might even be right - that might be considered an ad hominem fallacy.

...I'm now two-thirds convinced we're going to find out Obamacult is a Washington intern.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

The way you're using the phrase "ad hominem" suggests that you don't know what it is.

You've seen this guy's threads before right?

Unfortunately yes.

[Neo Art]

By what moral authority do you get to decide that for me or anyone else?

That's an economic reality, not a normative decision.

I mean, what do you do with someone who demands, over and over, to know what authority you have to state things that are true?

"Why do YOU get to tell me that I have to breath oxygen to survive, huh? HUH? Fucking statist"

I mean, seriously, what the fuck am I supposed to do with that?

[Obamacult]

It would be an amazing job that simply by stating what it is, you are taking part in an ad hominem attack against yourself.

I actually spent a couple of entertaining minutes trying to work out what job you could claim, that it would actually automatically be an ad hominem fallacy against yourself.

Aside from 'a professional liar' - I really couldn't think of anything. Is there a paid 'professional liar' job?

I believe that is an ad hominem, more so because you apparently don't have the wherewithal to offer any substantive or objective rebut to anything I have offered.

But don't worry, I have no intention of reporting you or anyone else to moderators. I will leave that to progressives as a last resort when they are totally unable to counter the facts, logic and empirical research that I present debunking their world view.

[Caninope]

I feel it important to point out that market equilibrium (i.e. marginal benefit/cost to those involved in a transaction) doesn't always equal the marginal benefit/cost to society.

By what moral authority do you get to decide that for me or anyone else?

That's not normative economic policy there.

It's positive economics, based on the concept of externalities.

[Neo Art]

Politician.

I can see why Obamacult would want to protect his identity if that actually was his job.

And he might even be right - that might be considered an ad hominem fallacy.

...I'm now two-thirds convinced we're going to find out Obamacult is a Washington intern.

Obamacult is almost certainly Parthenon. Why would you think otherwise?