• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arthur Brooks: Top 10 ways government kills jobs in America

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Arthur Brooks: Top 10 ways government kills jobs in America | Washington Examiner

Our politicians all seem to agree on at least one thing: There will be no recovery unless America gets back to work.

But that’s often where the agreement ends. Once you move on to discuss how to get America back to work, opinions begin to diverge.

In general, the worst thing for job creation is a poor entrepreneurial climate. Such a climate is brought on by the large fiscal debt, unpredictable health care costs, and a generally anti-business and pro-regulation approach by government.

In the run-up to the midterm elections, all of us should be thinking about “climate change”—about the best ways to create jobs in our nation. We’ll hear lots of talk about recovery and stimulus, about fairness and equity, the future and change.

As we listen to the rhetoric, remember the reality. These are the Top job killers in America.
Some of the following have been editied for brevity... please refer to the linked article for the full paragraph for each section. Thanks.

1. Uncertainty and business: “The most important restriction on investment today is not tight monetary policy, but uncertainty about administration policy,” he argues in the other.

2. Uncertainty and the consumer: Uncertainty isn’t just bad for companies—it’s bad for consumers, too. If I think government policy may provoke a double dip in the economy and my job is on the line, there’s no way I’m going out to buy a new car...All this kills jobs.

3. High corporate taxes: ...we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world... Whether we like it or not, the corporate tax is a tax on jobs. It makes it more expensive for firms to function, which costs jobs. But even worse, it drives companies to find more tax-friendly environments in other countries.

4. Unhealthy health insurance costs: The high health insurance costs associated with hiring new workers hits small businesses particularly hard... Government health mandates specify exactly what kinds of coverage have to be included... This makes increasing headcount a costly exercise, and so kills jobs.

5. The threat of unionization: In a global economy, it’s fairly simple for a lot of firms to avoid unionization: They can move overseas and take their jobs with them. Policies that favor unions make this decision more attractive.

6. Inability to hire and fire: In Europe, government regulations and employment protection laws reduce the flexibility of firms to downsize their operations when they need to. They also discourage those same firms from upsizing their operations when they would otherwise do so, and are thus a job killer... Restrictions on firing are a job killer.

7. Trade restrictions: Free trade favors consumers everywhere... Tariffs and other barriers benefit industries that are already in decline. This is why economists always tell us that over the long run, trade barriers slow modernization are a net job killer.

8. Credit: Poor credit access especially hurts new and young firms that are eager to expand their operations. The new Consumer Financial Protection Agency could make matters worse by expanding burdensome regulation of these financial markets, killing jobs in the process.

9. Increasing unemployment insurance: ...this kills jobs and economic recovery. Harvard economist Robert Barro estimates that if unemployment insurance had not been expanded, the unemployment rate would now be 6.8% rather than 9.5%.

10. Encouraging frivolous lawsuits: ...one study estimating that we waste as much as $900 billion a year on excessive tort litigation—that’s 6.5 percent of GNP... As a result, company capital that could be used for expansion and job creation goes to the trial lawyers instead. And like so many anti-business measures, such litigation drives up costs for consumers, which reduces demand and kills jobs even more.

Arthur Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute
 

Awesome!

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
260
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wish you were here Ronnie! We miss you and need you Dutch! :2razz:
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,387
Reaction score
12,179
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Arthur Brooks: Top 10 ways government kills jobs in America | Washington Examiner

Some of the following have been editied for brevity... please refer to the linked article for the full paragraph for each section. Thanks.

1. Uncertainty and business: “The most important restriction on investment today is not tight monetary policy, but uncertainty about administration policy,” he argues in the other.

Uncertainty is created by gridlock in congress and that according to business experts is a good thing. So which is it? I understand that the Obama administration is seen to be uncertain on some of its policies, but as always the detail lies in who is saying that there is uncertainty.. business "experts" and pundits who have a political agenda in getting the GOP back into power. So question is how much of the uncertainty is real and how much is imagined. After all most big corporations are beating profit forecasts and what not.... it aint that bad out there is it now..

2. Uncertainty and the consumer: Uncertainty isn’t just bad for companies—it’s bad for consumers, too. If I think government policy may provoke a double dip in the economy and my job is on the line, there’s no way I’m going out to buy a new car...All this kills jobs.

This uncertainty here is because of the bad news blues. Remember it is not more than 3 years ago everything was great and the news was "good" despite many warnings out there. And because the population was hit by a truck, then of course the pessimism will stay with one for a long time.. they are shell shocked. It took some European nations almost a decade to get out from under the 1970s oil crisis economic shock which was very similar in Europe to what the Americans experienced the last 3 years.

3. High corporate taxes: ...we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world... Whether we like it or not, the corporate tax is a tax on jobs. It makes it more expensive for firms to function, which costs jobs. But even worse, it drives companies to find more tax-friendly environments in other countries.

Only on paper. In reality most US corporations and mulit nationals pay next to nothing in the US due to legal tax evasion. It is amazing how many corporations and multinationals are "loosing" money by being in the US, and yet record profits constantly.

4. Unhealthy health insurance costs: The high health insurance costs associated with hiring new workers hits small businesses particularly hard... Government health mandates specify exactly what kinds of coverage have to be included... This makes increasing headcount a costly exercise, and so kills jobs.

Government health mandates have very little to do with the unhealthy health insurance costs. Lack of competition, a for profit motive and a health industry that has written pretty much the laws that govern them. Add to that an over reliance on last minute emergency care because of a large portion of the population is unable to have health insurance and of course the sometimes idiotic "do anything to keep people alive" policies (especially if they got money) then you have a problem. And it dont help with obesity crisis of course.

5. The threat of unionization: In a global economy, it’s fairly simple for a lot of firms to avoid unionization: They can move overseas and take their jobs with them. Policies that favor unions make this decision more attractive.

The most idiotic comment of all. America and unions. HAHAHA. Yea right. Unionization is not a threat in the US. This is just cold war rhetoric creeping up. The ruskies are coming and bringing their unions! Socialists!.. the boogie man!

6. Inability to hire and fire: In Europe, government regulations and employment protection laws reduce the flexibility of firms to downsize their operations when they need to. They also discourage those same firms from upsizing their operations when they would otherwise do so, and are thus a job killer... Restrictions on firing are a job killer.

Is he smoking pot or something because now he is not making any sense. What does European labour laws have to do with the US government killing jobs? It is so easy to hire and fire people in the US. You can be fired for having the wrong sticker on your personal car for peak sake.

7. Trade restrictions: Free trade favors consumers everywhere... Tariffs and other barriers benefit industries that are already in decline. This is why economists always tell us that over the long run, trade barriers slow modernization are a net job killer.

Er yea, I agree. But those restrictions were put in place under Republican controlled congresses and Republican Presidents.. But hey! The US is no way a free trade country as it imposes restrictions in many major industries on everything from ownership to banning imports from other countries. So he should come back when the US opens up say .. his own industry (media) to non US ownership or maybe the Airline business. Or how about prescription drug imports?

8. Credit: Poor credit access especially hurts new and young firms that are eager to expand their operations. The new Consumer Financial Protection Agency could make matters worse by expanding burdensome regulation of these financial markets, killing jobs in the process.

He has got it the wrong way around here. If the Consumer Financial Protection Agency lives up to its potential, then the consumer will be protected by not allowing the crap that put you into the financial mess you are in now. It was too easy access to credit that caused the problem in the first place after all. It was the lack of regulations and protection that drove the private sub-prime business for years, which lead to the credit crisis.

9. Increasing unemployment insurance: ...this kills jobs and economic recovery. Harvard economist Robert Barro estimates that if unemployment insurance had not been expanded, the unemployment rate would now be 6.8% rather than 9.5%.

So he is saying that there should be no insurance and people should what.. starve? Turn to crime? He does know that there are no jobs right? That his oh so precious "Free Trade" has moved a huge chunk of jobs outside the US right? Or does he expect all those unemployed to be burger flippers?

10. Encouraging frivolous lawsuits: ...one study estimating that we waste as much as $900 billion a year on excessive tort litigation—that’s 6.5 percent of GNP... As a result, company capital that could be used for expansion and job creation goes to the trial lawyers instead. And like so many anti-business measures, such litigation drives up costs for consumers, which reduces demand and kills jobs even more.

Again, the GOP had 6 years of absolute power to change this but did nothing. I do agree with him though, but it is the same old song... complaining about lawyers and yet the GOP is just like everyone else, using lawyers and lawsuits for political gain when it suits them and very willing to take massive donations from the industry who wants the status quo kept.

He seems to me to be another right wing blow-heart spouting out the usual right wing talking points rather than actually coming up with solutions and thinking for himself.
 

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Pete... this is less about 'our' government killing jobs, than it is about 'government in general' killing jobs. I'll respond to some of your more, uninfomed statements, later today.
 

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
14,549
Reaction score
4,358
Location
Denton, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Number 9, Number 9.

So if we canceled the unemployment insurance program, we wouldn't have any unemployed people? That's pure ****ing genius. Problem solved!
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Number 9, Number 9.

So if we canceled the unemployment insurance program, we wouldn't have any unemployed people? That's pure ****ing genius. Problem solved!
That's not what he said. What he said is true. Extending unemployment insurance extends the problem. Even Bill Clinton came to understand this and celebrated the 10th anniversary of welfare reform... which R's forced on him (he once stated he'd never sign such a bill).

Everyone wants to ease the burden on the unemployed, so it is tempting to extend unemployment insurance, as our government has recently—today, to as much as 73 additional weeks. Unfortunately, this kills jobs and economic recovery. Harvard economist Robert Barro estimates that if unemployment insurance had not been expanded, the unemployment rate would now be 6.8% rather than 9.5%.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Arthur Brooks: Top 10 ways government kills jobs in America | Washington Examiner

.
 

Goof Noodle

Active member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
257
Reaction score
60
Location
Omaha, NE
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Number 9, Number 9.

So if we canceled the unemployment insurance program, we wouldn't have any unemployed people? That's pure ****ing genius. Problem solved!


Is english a second language for you? Increasing and canceling do not mean the same thing.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,387
Reaction score
12,179
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Pete... this is less about 'our' government killing jobs, than it is about 'government in general' killing jobs. I'll respond to some of your more, uninfomed statements, later today.

Government does not kill jobs. Policies kills jobs, and that comes from elected people who are suppose to be representing our interests. So in essence you are blaming yourself for any jobs that "government kills". And ironic how you skip past the fact that government also creates a huge amount of jobs. If it was not for government there would be no military industrial complex. There are many examples where government either directly or indirectly have created massive amounts of jobs in the private sector.
 

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Government does not kill jobs. Policies kills jobs, and that comes from elected people who are suppose to be representing our interests. So in essence you are blaming yourself for any jobs that "government kills". And ironic how you skip past the fact that government also creates a huge amount of jobs. If it was not for government there would be no military industrial complex. There are many examples where government either directly or indirectly have created massive amounts of jobs in the private sector.

Supposed to be is correct. The elected people whose policies kill jobs ARE the government. I'm not blaming myself for anything. The author of the article I posted is blaming the people we voted for, for not truly representing the best interests of the voters and instituting policies that create instead of kill jobs. It really isn't all that complicated Pete.

BTW, to cherry pick one area where the government does create jobs, and ignore most others where they kill jobs, is dishonest and disingenuous of you.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,387
Reaction score
12,179
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Supposed to be is correct. The elected people whose policies kill jobs ARE the government. I'm not blaming myself for anything. The author of the article I posted is blaming the people we voted for, for not truly representing the best interests of the voters and instituting policies that create instead of kill jobs. It really isn't all that complicated Pete.

No, they are the legislative branch. Government is a lot more than them, and includes the police and military. Are you saying the military is killing jobs? You need to be more accurate in your accusations. And yes you constantly vote for people who have no interest in your interests and that is the fault of your political system and you.

When money so easily can change the mind of your elected officials, then you know that you have lost them. This is due to very sad fact that big business has far more money than the average American, and hence can influence your elected politicians in a way that benefits THEM and only them. Dont think for a second that what is best for business is best for you, because it is not and never has been.. for the most part. Globalisation is great for business, but I doubt the 9% unemployed in the US would agree when they know their job went to China.

BTW, to cherry pick one area where the government does create jobs, and ignore most others where they kill jobs, is dishonest and disingenuous of you.

I am not cherry picking.. I gave an example.

Government run schools create tons of jobs, from custodial people to teachers and all the suppliers to said school system. Police and fire departments create many jobs as well. Road building again creates a lot of jobs and so on and so on. Remember with every job created by the government in the public sector, there is often several jobs saved or created in the private sector.
 

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, they are the legislative branch. Government is a lot more than them, and includes the police and military. Are you saying the military is killing jobs? You need to be more accurate in your accusations. And yes you constantly vote for people who have no interest in your interests and that is the fault of your political system and you.

When money so easily can change the mind of your elected officials, then you know that you have lost them. This is due to very sad fact that big business has far more money than the average American, and hence can influence your elected politicians in a way that benefits THEM and only them. Dont think for a second that what is best for business is best for you, because it is not and never has been.. for the most part. Globalisation is great for business, but I doubt the 9% unemployed in the US would agree when they know their job went to China.



I am not cherry picking.. I gave an example.

Government run schools create tons of jobs, from custodial people to teachers and all the suppliers to said school system. Police and fire departments create many jobs as well. Road building again creates a lot of jobs and so on and so on. Remember with every job created by the government in the public sector, there is often several jobs saved or created in the private sector.

You really shouldn't take things so personally... you'll blow a vein in your neck.
 

randel

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
5,758
Reaction score
2,093
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Arthur Brooks: Top 10 ways government kills jobs in America | Washington Examiner


Some of the following have been editied for brevity... please refer to the linked article for the full paragraph for each section. Thanks.

1. Uncertainty and business: “The most important restriction on investment today is not tight monetary policy, but uncertainty about administration policy,” he argues in the other.

2. Uncertainty and the consumer: Uncertainty isn’t just bad for companies—it’s bad for consumers, too. If I think government policy may provoke a double dip in the economy and my job is on the line, there’s no way I’m going out to buy a new car...All this kills jobs.

3. High corporate taxes: ...we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world... Whether we like it or not, the corporate tax is a tax on jobs. It makes it more expensive for firms to function, which costs jobs. But even worse, it drives companies to find more tax-friendly environments in other countries.

4. Unhealthy health insurance costs: The high health insurance costs associated with hiring new workers hits small businesses particularly hard... Government health mandates specify exactly what kinds of coverage have to be included... This makes increasing headcount a costly exercise, and so kills jobs.

5. The threat of unionization: In a global economy, it’s fairly simple for a lot of firms to avoid unionization: They can move overseas and take their jobs with them. Policies that favor unions make this decision more attractive.

6. Inability to hire and fire: In Europe, government regulations and employment protection laws reduce the flexibility of firms to downsize their operations when they need to. They also discourage those same firms from upsizing their operations when they would otherwise do so, and are thus a job killer... Restrictions on firing are a job killer.

7. Trade restrictions: Free trade favors consumers everywhere... Tariffs and other barriers benefit industries that are already in decline. This is why economists always tell us that over the long run, trade barriers slow modernization are a net job killer.

8. Credit: Poor credit access especially hurts new and young firms that are eager to expand their operations. The new Consumer Financial Protection Agency could make matters worse by expanding burdensome regulation of these financial markets, killing jobs in the process.

9. Increasing unemployment insurance: ...this kills jobs and economic recovery. Harvard economist Robert Barro estimates that if unemployment insurance had not been expanded, the unemployment rate would now be 6.8% rather than 9.5%.

10. Encouraging frivolous lawsuits: ...one study estimating that we waste as much as $900 billion a year on excessive tort litigation—that’s 6.5 percent of GNP... As a result, company capital that could be used for expansion and job creation goes to the trial lawyers instead. And like so many anti-business measures, such litigation drives up costs for consumers, which reduces demand and kills jobs even more.

Arthur Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute
5,6,7 are definitely a load of crap....
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,716
Reaction score
33,531
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Uncertainty is created by gridlock in congress and that according to business experts is a good thing.

wrong. uncertainty is caused by an anti-business administration which seems to lurch from one 'comprehensive' measure to another. businesses now are still trying to figure out what their tax rates will be, what the new costs of healthcare are going to be, what the regulatory restrictions are going to be, what the EPA costs are going to impose on them..... none of these things are known because this administration doesn't seem to appreciate that people respond to incentives.

my wife's uncle is a small-business owner, a real up-by-his-bootstraps kind of guy that went from living in a trailor to owning and working a construction contracting company worth a couple of million. he's simply waiting to see what the EPA is going to do, and until then, he's not hiring anyone. why? because if the EPA passes a form of cap-and-trade-lite via executive fiat, then he has to fire up to 1/3rd of his workers anyway; just to survive. given that, why would he hire someone when he can't even predict the costs of doing so, only to possibly have to fire him in a couple of months?

This uncertainty here is because of the bad news blues. Remember it is not more than 3 years ago everything was great and the news was "good" despite many warnings out there. And because the population was hit by a truck, then of course the pessimism will stay with one for a long time.. they are shell shocked. It took some European nations almost a decade to get out from under the 1970s oil crisis economic shock which was very similar in Europe to what the Americans experienced the last 3 years.

consumer uncertainty is certainly a psychological factor; but it is tied to high unemployment, which is certainly partially an effect of recent government programs. it is also due to the fact that again no one knows what their individual tax rates will be next year. if i think that my budget might shrink on Jan 1, why would i expand my spending in November?

Only on paper. In reality most US corporations and mulit nationals pay next to nothing in the US due to legal tax evasion.

which nonetheless costs them massive amounts of money. simply attempting to comply with the tax code costs Americans hundreds of billions annually, the vast majority of it paid by business. however, that's only for those companies who's tax liability is significantly higher than the cost of tax avoidance, which is itself significant. for US goods, however, a high portion of the price involves embedded taxes, which include those corporate income taxes. you don't help employees by making it harder on employers.

Government health mandates have very little to do with the unhealthy health insurance costs.

except of course that they are causing costs to skyrocket as benefits shrink. but other than that, certainly, very little indeed. any one-size-fits-all solution forced on the market by government tends to decrease efficiency. and - as mentioned before - this feeds uncertainty as well as increasing the cost of employing someone. if, for example, i used to purchase HSA's for my employees, i can now either purchase much more expensive 'mandated' insurance, or pay additional taxes. either of these decrease my ability to continue to employ or hire new workers.

Lack of competition

caused by the mandates as well as the state barrier; both of which are government creations.

a for profit motive

which, if it were allowed to function, would reduce prices while increasing services. but we have a third-party-payment system (thank you FDR!); which does the precise opposite of those two.

and a health industry that has written pretty much the laws that govern them

yup. that's the natural result of regulation.

The most idiotic comment of all. America and unions. HAHAHA. Yea right. Unionization is not a threat in the US. This is just cold war rhetoric creeping up. The ruskies are coming and bringing their unions! Socialists!.. the boogie man!

most of your responses at least attempt to make an argument; this is just silly. the fact is that unionization does decrease employment; and especially our public sector unions are making trouble for us right now.

Is he smoking pot or something because now he is not making any sense. What does European labour laws have to do with the US government killing jobs?

i think he is using them as an example to demonstrate the effect of what we are doing on a smaller scale.

It is so easy to hire and fire people in the US. You can be fired for having the wrong sticker on your personal car for peak sake.

so long as that person is a straight white male, yes, you can.

Er yea, I agree. But those restrictions were put in place under Republican controlled congresses and Republican Presidents

them too. but it wasn't President Bush who slapped tarrifs on China in 2009, or threatned to renegotiate NAFTA.

He has got it the wrong way around here. If the Consumer Financial Protection Agency lives up to its potential, then the consumer will be protected by not allowing the crap that put you into the financial mess you are in now.

:lol: yes. and if the politicians in washington are visited tonight by the ghost-of-entitlement-disaster-future then we will be protected from irresponsible kicking of the can! and if all bureacrats in congress suddenly become uncorruptible, then they will be less susceptible to industrial capture! and if we just sprinkled Wall Street with pixie dust and thought happy thoughts......

the consumer 'protection' agency exists mostly to make operations more expensive for banks, who pass on the costs to their consumers, and to provide politicians with a "look! i swear i'm not part of the problem!" curtain to drag across their culpability in the sub-prime mortgage disaster.

It was too easy access to credit that caused the problem in the first place after all. It was the lack of regulations and protection that drove the private sub-prime business for years, which lead to the credit crisis.

yes and no. certainly credit was too fast and loose; but the push into sub-prime mortgages and the resultant bubble was the result of regulation, not the lack of it.

So he is saying that there should be no insurance and people should what.. starve?

get lower paying jobs. which is what people do when unemployment insurance runs out; they get jobs.

Again, the GOP had 6 years of absolute power to change this but did nothing

truth. but you will note that this is how government kills jobs, not democrats.

I do agree with him though, but it is the same old song... complaining about lawyers and yet the GOP is just like everyone else, using lawyers and lawsuits for political gain when it suits them and very willing to take massive donations from the industry who wants the status quo kept.

trial lawyers donate to democrats like members of the media and college professors do; overwhelmingly.
 

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Er yea, I agree. But those restrictions were put in place under Republican controlled congresses and Republican Presidents.. But hey! The US is no way a free trade country as it imposes restrictions in many major industries on everything from ownership to banning imports from other countries. So he should come back when the US opens up say .. his own industry (media) to non US ownership or maybe the Airline business. Or how about prescription drug imports?

I'd like to note that as of 2009, the US is one of the most pro-free trade countries in the world. While there are certain specific areas that are not as free as they should be, I'd like to note that according to the WTO (which is where my link takes you), the US has some of the lowest tariff averages (certainly lower than most other developed countries like the EU or Canada) and some of the highest proportions of duty-free goods. This especially applies to agriculture were the average tariff is 1/3rd of the EU (called European Communities for some reason) rate (16% vs. 5.3%). So while we aren't perfectly free trade (and I do support us moving closer to this), we're closer than most places including most of the developed world (which tends to be more pro-free trade overall). Given that Republicans signed 10 fast-track free trade agreements between 2004 and 2007 (with the unfortunate caveat of steel protectionism), I think its disingenuous to say that Republicans have made US trade more restrictive than it was, and in fact overall they probably have had a net benefit to free trade.

So he is saying that there should be no insurance and people should what.. starve? Turn to crime? He does know that there are no jobs right? That his oh so precious "Free Trade" has moved a huge chunk of jobs outside the US right? Or does he expect all those unemployed to be burger flippers?

This is not a controversial economic idea, stretch unemployment benefits and you increase incentive to not look hard for a job. Indeed, if you go to the source of that bullet point the economist arguing against the Obama increase doesn't even argue that any increase is bad or that any insurance is bad. Instead he argues for a far more limited increase that has been typical in the past. The problem isn't the overall issue of unemployment insurance, as he would have been in favor of a smaller increase, but by extending it as long as they did, Obama and the Democrats basically ensured that we would have a long term unemployment issue. When people expect benefits for long periods of time they hold off getting a job, waiting for an ideal job rather than going for what's available. This leads to employers having to raise wages in a recession. Given that there is already less money to go around, this means that they can afford to hirer fewer workers. Those workers that do get hired might be happy, but the masses not getting hired are getting screwed. The government then decides that since unemployment is persisting that they need to extend benefits further thereby increasing the problem. A minor increase that is not then further extended does not have a big enough impact to cause this problem but a 99 week increase is not a minor extension.
 
Top Bottom