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

[JohnfrmClevelan]

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

From the Feds, who have an unlimited ability to create dollars.

BTW, I'm still waiting to hear how an economy keeps its GDP from falling when there is a net saving of income.

 

[Renae]

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.

No, it's think progress.

PAID propaganda.

The Center for American Progress is a partisan liberal public policy research and advocacy organization. Its website states that the organization is "dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action".[2] The Center presents a liberal[3] viewpoint on economic issues. It has its headquarters in Washington, D.C.[4]
Its President and chief executive officer is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.[5] Its first President and chief executive officer was John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Podesta remains with the organization as chairman of the board. The Center for American Progress has a campus outreach group, Campus Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Citing Podesta's influence in the formation of the Obama Administration, a November 2008 article in Time stated that "not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan's transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway".[6]

Center for American Progress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoS]

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.

LOL you just keep ignoring the link I posted in which the reason why Norway's economy is afloat is because of your oil revenues, its funny that you never seem to address that. Every economist knows it and admits to it.

 

[PoS]

From the Feds, who have an unlimited ability to create dollars.

Yeah and yet they dont do it (nor does any other country) because of some little thing called inflation- a word you apparently have never heard of.

BTW, I'm still waiting to hear how an economy keeps its GDP from falling when there is a net saving of income.

Because aggregate demand is a meaningless concept perpetuated by Keynesian fanatics like yourself.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Yeah and yet they dont do it (nor does any other country) because of some little thing called inflation- a word you apparently have never heard of.

On the contrary, just about every country deficit spends. And it doesn't cause inflation (why would it? Explain your reasoning, for once.). China, with all of their foreign reserves, runs a pretty large deficit.

Because aggregate demand is a meaningless concept perpetuated by Keynesian fanatics like yourself.

This has nothing to do with Keynesianism. It is a simple matter of accounting. It's math that you are arguing against.

 

[imagep]

Who is limiting the amount of goods?

In places like Manhatten, God limited the amount of land available.

Some goods are limited, especially in the high rent district. Thats why it is the high rent district.

 

[imagep]

From the Feds, who have an unlimited ability to create dollars.

BTW, I'm still waiting to hear how an economy keeps its GDP from falling when there is a net saving of income.

So if I chose to live in Beverly Hills, the government should subsidize me for doing that?

I don't think you guys have thought this through.

 

[RGacky3]

LOL you just keep ignoring the link I posted in which the reason why Norway's economy is afloat is because of your oil revenues, its funny that you never seem to address that. Every economist knows it and admits to it.

1. Lots of countries have Oil, not all of them have done well.
2. Norway started doing much better before the Oil due to labor party policies.

3. What does this have to do with your argument in post #63 .... you claimed having a huge minimum wage 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.

That hasn't happened in Norway, and Oil has nothing to do with it, Oil isn't even the issue here, since McDonalds (or any other company in Norway paying low wages) are not subsidised by Oil money but still have to pay high wages ....

You're dodging the issue by throwing up a red herring, we are not talking about why Norways economy is doing well or not, we are talking about your rediculous assertion that high minimum wages would mean no one would make a buisiness and the state would nationalize everything ..... because all the companies that higher low wage workers would go bankrupted.

Well that has not happened in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and so on, and ranting about Oil has nothing to do with the argument.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

In places like Manhatten, God limited the amount of land available.

Some goods are limited, especially in the high rent district. Thats why it is the high rent district.

That's true - real estate is one resource where we actually bump up against some limits. And expensive real estate will affect the prices that businessmen have to charge. But the goods themselves are not the limiting factor. It's the shortage of shelf space that causes bread to be priced higher, not the shortage of bread itself. And probably the cost of transportation in NYC, and a bunch of other things.

This is a good real-life lesson in inflation. There are always going to be little instances of friction and leverage that tend to push prices up. While the big lessons remain valid (prices have no reason to go up until there is a shortage, demand in and of itself does not cause inflation, etc.), there are lots of little factors that can muddle the expected outcome. Only grocery store in the area? Higher prices. Gas station on a more convenient corner? Higher prices. Competition is never perfect.

 

[Arbo]

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

So is that a YES to this question: "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?"

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

So if I chose to live in Beverly Hills, the government should subsidize me for doing that?

No, not at all. If you live in Beverly Hills, you don't need the help. But just because the rest of Los Angeles, overall, is going to be more expensive (like NYC), that doesn't mean that everybody lives there by consideration of some pure cost/benefit analysis. There are still low-end workers (and a need for low-end workers) in big, expensive cities. NYC still has rent controls, I believe. We make adjustments all the time - not that they are perfect, but I assume that rent control is in place because it was an adjustment for some other, bigger problem.

There were a lot of complaints about the government spending so many dollars rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina, too. Was it fair that they got money and I didn't? Probably not. But New Orleans has value to our country - it's a port city, a lot of people live there, etc. If the country sees fit to throw some extra dollars their way, that's fine. I don't agree with everything the government spends money on, even though I would like to see them spend more.

I don't think you guys have thought this through.

Everything is still in the early stages. It's not like there has been any history of MMT's ideas being implemented that we can study. So, no, not everything has been nailed down yet. There are a lot of MMTers who believe (with valid reasoning) that a BIG is the wrong way to go. There are others who are philosophically opposed to "forcing" people to work for a guaranteed job if that job is not serving a necessary purpose. A lot of ideas are being kicked around within the group, while at the same time we are trying to gain more mainstream support and just get the basic ideas across to a critical mass.

 

[Arbo]

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.

Wow, did I really just read that?

I'm guessing you typed it out because you don't understand the difference between someone making their own money, and someone making more money because government forces employers to pay more.

WOW.

 

[Arbo]

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,

How much of that goes right back in taxes of any type? You know to pay for schools and healthcare and all that other stuff.

 

[Fearandloathing]

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

More spenders creates demand, but spending on what and jobs where?

with the near sustenance levels of UI, people will be spending it on necessities, food etc, rent, none of which "creates" jobs, and cheap clothing, the occasional appliance made in China.

What creates jobs is confidence, the security of a regular pay check, so they can plan and grow, buy locally made goods, if there are any left, and so forth.

UI, as practiced under Obama and the 99 weeks is a drain on the economy over the long term. the money should be being spent in retraining people so they qualify for the jobs now being filled by immigrants.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

So is that a YES to this question: "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?"

Nobody is paid according to "what they are worth." People are paid based on leverage.

If you are working for me at $30/hour, we can be pretty sure that I am grossing more than $30/hour for your production. But I don't pay you according to how big my profit margin is, I pay you based on the labor market. If I can replace you for a guy that works for $15/hour, I'll do that. And if I can replace that guy with Chinese labor for $2/hour, I'll do that. But I won't adjust the price of my product, as long as people are buying it - I'll just enjoy my higher profit margin.

 

[RGacky3]

How much of that goes right back in taxes of any type? You know to pay for schools and healthcare and all that other stuff.

Quite a bit of that goes to taxes actually, most of the Oil money is saved.

But again ... what does this have to do with your claim in post #63 ... you gonna ever address that?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

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

Not the cities, the federal government of course

 

[JP Hochbaum]

No, it's think progress.

PAID propaganda.


Center for American Progress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you are sticking to ignoring facts, ok then.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

So is that a YES to this question: "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?"

No, I think the wage they earn from their job should be subjected to the value of the work they do.

You are conflating wages from a job with income to support a family. I am not making that argument, and you keep changing the subject. Bad form

 

[JP Hochbaum]

More spenders creates demand, but spending on what and jobs where?

with the near sustenance levels of UI, people will be spending it on necessities, food etc, rent, none of which "creates" jobs, and cheap clothing, the occasional appliance made in China.

What creates jobs is confidence, the security of a regular pay check, so they can plan and grow, buy locally made goods, if there are any left, and so forth.

UI, as practiced under Obama and the 99 weeks is a drain on the economy over the long term. the money should be being spent in retraining people so they qualify for the jobs now being filled by immigrants.

My real stance on UE is that it be replaced with a jobs program that includes training them and hiring them to work temporarily for the government until the private sector is able to hire them again.

 

[Renae]

So you are sticking to ignoring facts, ok then.

Facts require a source that is reliable. An analysis about the benefits of big government spending entitlement programs from think progress is like posting an article about the benefits of smoking from Marlboro...

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Facts require a source that is reliable. An analysis about the benefits of big government spending entitlement programs from think progress is like posting an article about the benefits of smoking from Marlboro...

No it isn't. It is a logical fallacy. You need to learn what an ad hominem is if you want to debate economics and facts:
"What is it?

"To the man" isn't a terribly descriptive translation, but the full name is "argumentum ad hominem." In other words, arguing against the person making the statement, rather than the statement itself. In modern day, this manifests itself as dismissing information from any source, be it a debate partner, politician, TV network, radio station, Web site, or otherwise. Often this dismissal will point to a particular bias from the source, claiming that it cannot be trusted.

Why is it invalid?

Bias doesn't trump facts. If a biased individual makes a factually correct statement, his or her bias does not make the statement factually incorrect. It's important to look at the statements presented on their own merits. It's entirely possible that bias did influence the statement. Someone could have cherry-picked facts, skewed data, or even just be flat-out lying. But those are all critiques of the statement, not the person. To avoid this fallacy, look at the points presented -- even when it's a source you dislike -- and concede or critique those points themselves."

Logical Fallacies 101: Ad Hominem (Attack the Source) - by Steve Watts - Newsvine

 

[Arbo]

If you are working for me at $30/hour, we can be pretty sure that I am grossing more than $30/hour for your production.

Thank you for the attempt at derailment by stating the obvious.

 

[Arbo]

Quite a bit of that goes to taxes actually,

How much. That was the question. More specific please.

ut again ... what does this have to do with your claim in post #63 ... you gonna ever address that?

Post #63 is by a different user.

 

[Arbo]

No, I think the wage they earn from their job should be subjected to the value of the work they do.

You are conflating wages from a job with income to support a family. I am not making that argument, and you keep changing the subject. Bad form

You use a lot of words and never really say anything. You dodge around things you do not want to discuss, and make vague statements. And you think others have bad form?