Does unemployment insurance (UI) incentivise unemployment?

[New Chalcedon]

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?

I thought he might be a reincarnation of Neu Mitanni.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

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?

Caninope was just merely pointing out that the two are not necessarily correlated. It's a common misconception, hence Caninope felt necessary to clarify his stance.

[New Chalcedon]

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.

Ah. Noted. In general terms, which of the kinds of subsidies being issued by the US Government would you consider distortionary?

[Desperate Measures]

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.

I was on food stamps (only food stamps, no other form of income for a month and a half) and took the first job that hired me which was fucking Walmart (God I hate that place) but I was able to provide for me and my daughter and still give some to my ex. I also took a part time job with Frito Lay. Now, I'm doing a job I actually like which is landscaping and gardening. People need a leg up, sometimes. And I'd say that most times, those same people get off of government assistance as quickly as they can because it is not fun. It's like the least fun.

[Caninope]

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.

Ah. Noted. In general terms, which of the kinds of subsidies being issued by the US Government would you consider distortionary?

Subsidies, in general, are inherently distortionary. Now, if you were to ask me which subsidies I were to view as negatively distortionary, I'd point you to sugar subsidies, and corn subsidies (although less so than sugar subsidies).

[Cannot think of a name]

What is it?

Ad hominem time

Let's check:

a progressive drone

This is typical of politically motivated self-serving elites who change positions based on the political winds.

I am convinced that facts and logic don't matter to certain ideologues?

This is a typical example of the way progressives conduct business.

They call it politics, but free and peaceful people call it extortion.

Economic reality exposes and debunks your progressive rant.

Simple question, no suitable answer from progressives, except that their politicians of choice have formed majority coalitions criminal enterprises with equally corrupt and self-serving cronies in the private sector (Wall Street, big oil, environmentalists, big unions, big pharma, etc.) to extort the fair gotten wealth of private citizens in private exchanges that have nothing to do with the crooks in Washington and the lobbyists that support them.

Duke of Progressive bullshit Paul Krugman

IN closing to the peanut gallery:

You don't agree with me now because your ideological views are obviously hardwired in place

[Grave_n_idle]

I believe that is an ad hominem,

Saying that there's no job you could admit to that would actually meet the burden for an ad hominem fallacy by itself... is an ad hominem fallacy?

You might want to rethink that.

more so because you apparently don't have the wherewithal to offer any substantive or objective rebut to anything I have offered.

On the contrary, I already substantively and objectively rebutted your UI claim. The discussion about whether or not someone asking you what your job was, was an ad hominem fallacy... was entirely separate to that.

It's very telling that this is how you're going to derail the thread, though.

But don't worry, I have no intention of reporting you or anyone else to moderators.

Knock yourself out. If you think I said something moderatable, you totally should take it to moderation.

But we both know I didn't, and that that's the reason you're not going to report it.

[Grave_n_idle]

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?

I hadn't made that connection, but the styles are similar. And I think Parthenon did say he was an intern or something, didn't he?

[Obamacult]

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.

I was on food stamps (only food stamps, no other form of income for a month and a half) and took the first job that hired me which was fucking Walmart (God I hate that place) but I was able to provide for me and my daughter and still give some to my ex. I also took a part time job with Frito Lay. Now, I'm doing a job I actually like which is landscaping and gardening. People need a leg up, sometimes. And I'd say that most times, those same people get off of government assistance as quickly as they can because it is not fun. It's like the least fun.

Excellent post.

I agree with you 100% .

I also would like to add that government assistance programs are really a bane to those who depend on them. It is better that society cast off this illusory government safety net which is really a net that will imprison and drown us all eventually.

Essentially, govt. actors have conned us into believing that we can't get along without them. Hence, they create a need that they claim that only they can manage. This gives them carte blanche to plunder societal wealth at will without accountability or restraint. Indeed, they can use repeated failures as excuses for repeated increases in plunder.

Note that the trillions in deficit spending (in the name of helping the poor) has resulted in the following:

record debt increases,
anemic growth rate,
wage stagnation,
increased income inequality,
long term unemployment at decade high levels,
poverty at decade high levels,
food stamps at record levels,
welfare recipients at record levels,
surging education costs,
surging energy costs,
surging food costs,
high wage jobs replaced with low wage jobs,
increase in Americans rejecting citizenship,
local and state govt. cutting jobs and services,
labor participation rate at near record low levels.

It seems like the more govt. spends, the poorer we get and the richer they and their cronies get.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Ah. Noted. In general terms, which of the kinds of subsidies being issued by the US Government would you consider distortionary?

Subsidies, in general, are inherently distortionary. Now, if you were to ask me which subsidies I were to view as negatively distortionary, I'd point you to sugar subsidies, and corn subsidies (although less so than sugar subsidies).

To expand, the dead-weight loss from a subsidy is the amount by which the cost of the subsidy exceeds the gains in consumer and producer surplus. Since a subsidy shifts the market, presumably nudging it toward a more socially beneficial equilibrium, the market will incur some net economic cost, which is called the dead-weight loss, and that's why we generally consider subsidies distortionary.

That said, if we change our metric to social benefit, rather than economic benefit, a subsidy should have a net gain.

[Grave_n_idle]

I also would like to add that government assistance programs are really a bane to those who depend on them.

Right.

You might THINK that the food you're eating is stopping you from starving, but in actuality, it's....

...no, lost it. How was it imprisoning you again? Did I forget the mindcontrol microchips in WIC fruit juice?

[Desperate Measures]

I was on food stamps (only food stamps, no other form of income for a month and a half) and took the first job that hired me which was fucking Walmart (God I hate that place) but I was able to provide for me and my daughter and still give some to my ex. I also took a part time job with Frito Lay. Now, I'm doing a job I actually like which is landscaping and gardening. People need a leg up, sometimes. And I'd say that most times, those same people get off of government assistance as quickly as they can because it is not fun. It's like the least fun.

Excellent post.

I agree with you 100% .

I also would like to add that government assistance programs are really a bane to those who depend on them. It is better that society cast off this illusory government safety net which is really a net that will imprison and drown us all eventually.

Essentially, govt. actors have conned us into believing that we can't get along without them. Hence, they create a need that they claim that only they can manage. This gives them carte blanche to plunder societal wealth at will without accountability or restraint. Indeed, they can use repeated failures as excuses for repeated increases in plunder.

Note that the trillions in deficit spending (in the name of helping the poor) has resulted in the following:

record debt increases,
anemic growth rate,
wage stagnation,
increased income inequality,
long term unemployment at decade high levels,
poverty at decade high levels,
food stamps at record levels,
welfare recipients at record levels,
surging education costs,
surging energy costs,
surging food costs,
high wage jobs replaced with low wage jobs,
increase in Americans rejecting citizenship,
local and state govt. cutting jobs and services,
labor participation rate at near record low levels.

It seems like the more govt. spends, the poorer we get and the richer they and their cronies get.

You're confusing.

[Caninope]

*snip*

You can't say you agree with him 100% and then go on a rant which explicitly contradicts the spirit of what he was saying.

[Desperate Measures]

*snip*

You can't say you agree with him 100% and then go on a rant which explicitly contradicts the spirit of what he was saying.

It makes me laugh, though.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

Subsidies, in general, are inherently distortionary. Now, if you were to ask me which subsidies I were to view as negatively distortionary, I'd point you to sugar subsidies, and corn subsidies (although less so than sugar subsidies).

To expand, the dead-weight loss from a subsidy is the amount by which the cost of the subsidy exceeds the gains in consumer and producer surplus. Since a subsidy shifts the market, presumably nudging it toward a more socially beneficial equilibrium, the market will incur some net economic cost, which is called the dead-weight loss, and that's why we generally consider subsidies distortionary.

That said, if we change our metric to social benefit, rather than economic benefit, a subsidy should have a net gain.

I shudder to think which of the metrics will be chosen to be used given there are plenty of people that share Obamacult's point of view.

[Obamacult]

Excellent post.

I agree with you 100% .

I also would like to add that government assistance programs are really a bane to those who depend on them. It is better that society cast off this illusory government safety net which is really a net that will imprison and drown us all eventually.

Essentially, govt. actors have conned us into believing that we can't get along without them. Hence, they create a need that they claim that only they can manage. This gives them carte blanche to plunder societal wealth at will without accountability or restraint. Indeed, they can use repeated failures as excuses for repeated increases in plunder.

Note that the trillions in deficit spending (in the name of helping the poor) has resulted in the following:

record debt increases,
anemic growth rate,
wage stagnation,
increased income inequality,
long term unemployment at decade high levels,
poverty at decade high levels,
food stamps at record levels,
welfare recipients at record levels,
surging education costs,
surging energy costs,
surging food costs,
high wage jobs replaced with low wage jobs,
increase in Americans rejecting citizenship,
local and state govt. cutting jobs and services,
labor participation rate at near record low levels.

It seems like the more govt. spends, the poorer we get and the richer they and their cronies get.

You're confusing.

In the absence of family, friends, charity, etc. I have no problem with the state acting as a last resort to the down trodden. However, by any objective, rational and independent thinking measure when govt. spending doubles over 15 years and wages are pretty much stagnant then something has to give.

Moreover, if you want to see effective and accountable govt. check out my argument in favor of Federalism in my signature.

Hence, I believe that government that governs closest to the people, governs best. State govt. that is not too big to fail like our federal govt. nor does it impose a one size fits all solution across thousands of disparate and distinct municipalities, state govt is a more effective means to manage all economic affairs and more accountable too because your vote is worth far more than the current puny 1/120,000,000 that it represents today.

The beauty of the federal system with economic issues like education, health care, retirement, transportation, UI, etc. wholly managed by the states would be a laboratory of 50 different experiments from which people could pick and choose the one which best suits their needs and wants.

But I guarantee that no progressive would support a system that denies them the ability to force their will without competition at the point of a gun.

With progressive dogma, it is all about coercive power.

[Obamacult]

Subsidies, in general, are inherently distortionary. Now, if you were to ask me which subsidies I were to view as negatively distortionary, I'd point you to sugar subsidies, and corn subsidies (although less so than sugar subsidies).

To expand, the dead-weight loss from a subsidy is the amount by which the cost of the subsidy exceeds the gains in consumer and producer surplus. Since a subsidy shifts the market, presumably nudging it toward a more socially beneficial equilibrium, the market will incur some net economic cost, which is called the dead-weight loss, and that's why we generally consider subsidies distortionary.

That said, if we change our metric to social benefit, rather than economic benefit, a subsidy should have a net gain.

Here is your 'social benefit' and 'net gain':

record debt increases,
anemic growth rate,
wage stagnation,
increased income inequality,
long term unemployment at decade high levels,
poverty at decade high levels,
food stamps at record levels,
welfare recipients at record levels,
surging education costs,
surging energy costs,
surging food costs,
high wage jobs replaced with low wage jobs,
increase in Americans rejecting citizenship,
local and state govt. cutting jobs and services,
labor participation rate at near record low levels.

[Caninope]

*snip*

Please respond.

[Caninope]

*snip*

Please respond.

[Grave_n_idle]

In the absence of family, friends, charity, etc. I have no problem with the state acting as a last resort to the down trodden...

Social safety net = objective good.

Check.

[Desperate Measures]

You're confusing.

In the absence of family, friends, charity, etc. I have no problem with the state acting as a last resort to the down trodden. However, by any objective, rational and independent thinking measure when govt. spending doubles over 15 years and wages are pretty much stagnant then something has to give.

Moreover, if you want to see effective and accountable govt. check out my argument in favor of Federalism in my signature.

Hence, I believe that government that governs closest to the people, governs best. State govt. that is not too big to fail like our federal govt. nor does it impose a one size fits all solution across thousands of disparate and distinct municipalities, state govt is a more effective means to manage all economic affairs and more accountable too because your vote is worth far more than the current puny 1/120,000,000 that it represents today.

The beauty of the federal system with economic issues like education, health care, retirement, transportation, UI, etc. wholly managed by the states would be a laboratory of 50 different experiments from which people could pick and choose the one which best suits their needs and wants.

But I guarantee that no progressive would support a system that denies them the ability to force their will without competition at the point of a gun.

With progressive dogma, it is all about coercive power.

Oh, because I got help from the state instead of the federal gov't, you're OK with that?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

To expand, the dead-weight loss from a subsidy is the amount by which the cost of the subsidy exceeds the gains in consumer and producer surplus. Since a subsidy shifts the market, presumably nudging it toward a more socially beneficial equilibrium, the market will incur some net economic cost, which is called the dead-weight loss, and that's why we generally consider subsidies distortionary.

That said, if we change our metric to social benefit, rather than economic benefit, a subsidy should have a net gain.

Here is your 'social benefit' and 'net gain':

record debt increases,
anemic growth rate,
wage stagnation,
increased income inequality,
long term unemployment at decade high levels,
poverty at decade high levels,
food stamps at record levels,
welfare recipients at record levels,
surging education costs,
surging energy costs,
surging food costs,
high wage jobs replaced with low wage jobs,
increase in Americans rejecting citizenship,
local and state govt. cutting jobs and services,
labor participation rate at near record low levels.

Is there a point to this?

[Grave_n_idle]

Here is your 'social benefit' and 'net gain':

record debt increases,
anemic growth rate,
wage stagnation,
increased income inequality,
long term unemployment at decade high levels,
poverty at decade high levels,
food stamps at record levels,
welfare recipients at record levels,
surging education costs,
surging energy costs,
surging food costs,
high wage jobs replaced with low wage jobs,
increase in Americans rejecting citizenship,
local and state govt. cutting jobs and services,
labor participation rate at near record low levels.

Is there a point to this?

Ideology as theology. If you repeat it as mantra, it's almost like it's true.

[New England and The Maritimes]

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?

Considering how you only gain back your payments into the system from the last quarter you worked, there's kind of a disconnect in this idea that anyone can sit on it.

[Obamacult]

To expand, the dead-weight loss from a subsidy is the amount by which the cost of the subsidy exceeds the gains in consumer and producer surplus. Since a subsidy shifts the market, presumably nudging it toward a more socially beneficial equilibrium, the market will incur some net economic cost, which is called the dead-weight loss, and that's why we generally consider subsidies distortionary.

That said, if we change our metric to social benefit, rather than economic benefit, a subsidy should have a net gain.

I shudder to think which of the metrics will be chosen to be used given there are plenty of people that share Obamacult's point of view.

The metric that I speak of is the free will and merit of individual citizens functioning within a free, voluntary, competitive and peaceful society in which a central govt. protects life, liberty, private property and acts as an impartial arbiter of legal contracts.

Instead of the society envisioned by progressives who surrendered their natural or God given rights to lead their lives the way they see fit to a politicians and bureaucrats who can best manipulate public opinion to force their will on their fellow man for his own good at the point of a gun.

Indeed, C.S. Lewis said it best:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.