No, Taking Away Unemployment Benefits Doesn’t Make People Get Jobs

[Arbo]

also why we need Public financing of universities so People can get an education and not spend the rest of their lives paying it off.

Instead of that, how about we regulate universities and their rates like government does to industries it doesn't like? Since most of the big money universities make doesn't go towards actual education, just force them to lower the rates and cut out the big paying admin jobs and such. Limit the rate of increase of prices, knock their pricing back a couple decades. I mean, it seems find if government does it to the 'bad' industries, so why continue to NOT do it to the largest producer of brainwashed people (aka voters) ??

 

[RGacky3]

What happens to the value of SS or other retirement pensions for those no longer working if the gov't decides to inflate the MW?

Social Security Basics - Just Facts

You're assuming that raising the MW will mean necessarily significant inflation ...

 

[KevinKohler]

I'm sorry, but that is so stupid and simple minded it's simply amazing. It goes back to the whole belief that there is only so much 'pie' to go around. Yes, it is understood that you believe in a biased bit of economics that thinks saving is bad, because then people would be able to take care of themselves and government would not have to. That bias want's people dependent on government. All crap.

Which reminds me, I need to return to this:



Demand is infinite. People always want things. It's production that grows an economy, not demand. Borrowing and borrowing to purchase items outside the economy (from another country) does not grow our economy, it only inflates a deficit bubble that will eventually implode.

Me wanting a Ferrari 599 GTO =\= increased demand for a Ferrari 599 GTO.

Bill Gates wanting one DOES, though.


Food for thought.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You're assuming that raising the MW will mean necessarily significant inflation ...

Yep. I base this on simple logic. If a worker now makes MW + X/hour then they would expect to continue do so. Do you expect those now making $10.25/hour ($3/hour over the MW) to be happy to still make the same amount if the MW is raised to $10.10/hour?

 

[RGacky3]

Yep. I base this on simple logic. If a worker now makes MW + X/hour then they would expect to continue do so. Do you expect those now making $10.25/hour ($3/hour over the MW) to be happy to still make the same amount if the MW is raised to $10.10/hour?

Everyone wants to get paid more generally ... but they only WILL get paid more if they CAN get paid more .... it doesn't matter what they expect, it matters the wage they can get.

But I don't see how this is an argument against a higher minimum wage?

 

[GottaGo]

Everyone wants to get paid more generally ... but they only WILL get paid more if they CAN get paid more .... it doesn't matter what they expect, it matters the wage they can get.

But I don't see how this is an argument against a higher minimum wage?

It's simple: by increasing those making MW without increasing those who have been making above MW, not only have you reduced their purchasing power, you've removed the merit raises they have received along the way... devaluing them, their incentive to do more/better, and now telling them they are only worth MW.

In addition, the cost of COGs goes up, and highly likely he price of goods produced by MW earners will go up to cover for the cost. Everybody ends up paying that increase.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Everyone wants to get paid more generally ... but they only WILL get paid more if they CAN get paid more .... it doesn't matter what they expect, it matters the wage they can get.

But I don't see how this is an argument against a higher minimum wage?

Really? If all workers get a raise then all retirees fall behind them in purchasing power unless they too get a COLA increase. There is no way to mandate that entry level workers get a raise and thus get closer in pay to those workers now above them; all workers will get the mandated raise to keep the same relative difference in their hourly pay ratios.

 

[RGacky3]

Really? If all workers get a raise then all retirees fall behind them in purchasing power unless they too get a COLA increase. There is no way to mandate that entry level workers get a raise and thus get closer in pay to those workers now above them; all workers will get the mandated raise to keep the same relative difference in their hourly pay ratios.

Wages may be pushed up on the lower end .... but in my book that's a good thing.

But also I dont' think inflation will come into account really, since increased wages mean increased demand, mean increased supply.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Well that's interesting. Living wage depends on the people in the family. Have more kids, get a bigger wage. Sort of like that welfare thing, eh? You really think the wage someone makes should depend on where they live and how big their family is instead of what the work they do is worth?

It is my belief that any job, no matter its subjective value or worth, should allow for that person to feed and shelter themselves.

A duck and cover! Don't answer the questions, obfuscate! LOL

Honestly I thought I answered it. What part did I miss?

 

[imagep]

Yep. I base this on simple logic. If a worker now makes MW + X/hour then they would expect to continue do so. Do you expect those now making $10.25/hour ($3/hour over the MW) to be happy to still make the same amount if the MW is raised to $10.10/hour?

Why does that matter? They don't seem to care that the CEO is getting paid $10,000/hr.

Remember, conservative income distribution theory assumes that what one person receives doesn't effect another person.

 

[Renae]

What creates jobs, is having more spenders. That is the only way capitalism can sustain itself. Spending is reduced when UE bennies are slashed, when there is excess in savings (increases in inequality), and when non demand-pull inflation rises.

"In January, one month after they lost benefits, 64,000 of them, or 86 percent, were still unemployed, according to an analysis of wage records by the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES). February was similar: 61,3000 people were still unemployed, or 82.7 percent of the original group. That means two months later, four out of five people who were cut off from benefits still weren’t bringing in wages.
“This notion that temporary unemployment benefits provide people a reason not to return to work really needs to end because it is not supported by the data,” IDES Director Jay Rowell said.
Other natural experiments have shown that, rather than spurring a flurry of hiring, cutting off benefits can have disastrous consequences. North Carolina was ahead of the pack, making such drastic cuts to its benefits system that it was dropped entirely from the federal long-term compensation program. The number of state residents receiving benefits dropped by 40 percent to 45,000 by December. Since then, the unemployment rate has dropped, but not likely because people are finding work but because they’re giving up altogether. More than 22,000 found a job after the loss of benefits, but the state’s labor force is experiencing the largest contraction in history, with 77,0000 fewer people working or looking for a job in October compared to the previous year.

No, Taking Away Unemployment Benefits Doesn't Make People Get Jobs | ThinkProgress

Just not gonna read a hyper-partisan propoganda site that has an agenda (bigger government and more dem voters) claiming that I need to keep paying for unending unemployment benefits.

When you are faced with no money, or work, people tend to find a job. Common sense is a bitch ain't it?

 

[Renae]

Why does that matter? They don't seem to care that the CEO is getting paid $10,000/hr.

Remember, conservative income distribution theory assumes that what one person receives doesn't effect another person.

Because it's doesn't.

 

[PoS]

It is my belief that any job, no matter its subjective value or worth, should allow for that person to feed and shelter themselves.

If you give everybody a living wage it would pretty much mean the return of Soviet style socialism since fastfood franchises like McDonalds will go bankrupt and will have to be taken over by the government which will mean sky high taxes, nobody will bother to create small businesses since they would rather work for a government that guarantees a living wage so you will be back to the Dark Ages in no time.

 

[RGacky3]

If you give everybody a living wage it would pretty much mean the return of Soviet style socialism since fastfood franchises like McDonalds will go bankrupt and will have to be taken over by the government which will mean sky high taxes, nobody will bother to create small businesses since they would rather work for a government that guarantees a living wage so you will be back to the Dark Ages in no time.

Really? REALLY ....

Dude I live in a country where everyone gets a living wage .... !!!

 

[PoS]

Really? REALLY ....

Dude I live in a country where everyone gets a living wage .... !!!

What country is that? Cuba?

 

[RGacky3]

What country is that? Cuba?

Norway

 

[PoS]

Norway

You realize that Norway is riding a commodities boom and has a low population so not every country has that situation. But if you look back prior to the oil boom of the 80's Norway was a backwater.

And of course oil booms wont last forever...

End of oil boom threatens Norway's welfare model | Reuters

Norway's energy boom is tailing off years ahead of expectations, exposing an economy unprepared for life after oil and threatening the long-term viability of the world's most generous welfare model.

High spending within the sector has pushed up wages and other costs to unsustainable levels, not just for the oil and gas industry but for all sectors, and that is now acting as a drag on further energy investment. Norwegian firms outside oil have struggled to pick up the slack in what has been, for at least a decade, almost a single-track economy.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

If you give everybody a living wage it would pretty much mean the return of Soviet style socialism since fastfood franchises like McDonalds will go bankrupt and will have to be taken over by the government which will mean sky high taxes, nobody will bother to create small businesses since they would rather work for a government that guarantees a living wage so you will be back to the Dark Ages in no time.

None of that is true. I am not asking for MCD's to raise wages, Milton Friedman has been on record as saying people should have a basic income guarantee to supply a living wage. So at min, everyone gets a check of $66 per week in NYC, where it costs $40k a year to live. Other cities it would be much less.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Just not gonna read a hyper-partisan propoganda site that has an agenda (bigger government and more dem voters) claiming that I need to keep paying for unending unemployment benefits.

When you are faced with no money, or work, people tend to find a job. Common sense is a bitch ain't it?

Attacking the source is an ad hominem fallacy. I think you could do better than that. Also the article disproved your last sentence, try reading it please.

 

[imagep]

Everyone wants to get paid more generally ... but they only WILL get paid more if they CAN get paid more .... it doesn't matter what they expect, it matters the wage they can get.

But I don't see how this is an argument against a higher minimum wage?

Exactly. I want to make a zillion dollars a year, but I have to settle for a lot less, because that's the way it is.

Conservatives like to argue both sides. If I complain that CEOs make too much, they will respond that it's none of my business how much CEOs make, and that a CEO making a zillion a year doesn't effect me. Then when I suggest that low paid workers should get paid more, they suddenly want to start shouting about how that effects others.

 

[imagep]

None of that is true. I am not asking for MCD's to raise wages, Milton Friedman has been on record as saying people should have a basic income guarantee to supply a living wage. So at min, everyone gets a check of $66 per week in NYC, where it costs $40k a year to live. Other cities it would be much less.

Would that not just make it even more expensive to live in NYC? More money chasing the same amount of goods?

I would think that if people didn't like the cost of living in NYC, they should move to somewhere that is less expensive. If they prefer living in NYC over other places, then they obviously can afford to live there at whatever standard of living that they are willing to accept.

 

[RGacky3]

You realize that Norway is riding a commodities boom and has a low population so not every country has that situation. But if you look back prior to the oil boom of the 80's Norway was a backwater.

And of course oil booms wont last forever...

End of oil boom threatens Norway's welfare model | Reuters

Actually poverty started dropping significantly before the 1980s, when the labor government reforms came in place.

the US has a much higher GDP per Capita .... rising Norways wages didn't turn it into the USSR.

You're not even addressing the issue, just throwing out red herrings, the fact remains, with much less GDP Norway has a bottom wage level of over $20, and guess what, there is private industry .... and guess what there is non subsidized private industry .... Don't try and change the subject.

 

[PoS]

None of that is true. I am not asking for MCD's to raise wages, Milton Friedman has been on record as saying people should have a basic income guarantee to supply a living wage. So at min, everyone gets a check of $66 per week in NYC, where it costs $40k a year to live. Other cities it would be much less.

LOL and where are these cities going to get that kind of money to give to everybody may I ask?

 

[iguanaman]

Savings removes what 'demand'?

So you think the more some people save, the higher the wages at the bottom should be? You realize that is an endless cycle right? You raise the bottom, labor rates go up, which means prices go up, which means those at the bottom do not end up any better off, where those in the middle and top that also have an increase in income (due to the bottom being raised) end up better off because they know how to save. They save more, and that grows your 'inequality'.

And do you really think government (or anyone) has the business or authority to STEAL the savings of others to redistribute it among those that have not saved?

I find it funny that anyone would think that I, because I save, is 'part of the problem of economic inequality'. No, I am part of the solution, because when horrible things happen, I have always had the savings to get through, and did not need to feed from the government tit.

Govt. has the authority to improve growth in the economy by taxing money not spent at a higher rate. That is what the progressive tax system does. The US economy is 75% consumer spending, not saving.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Would that not just make it even more expensive to live in NYC? More money chasing the same amount of goods?

Who is limiting the amount of goods?