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

[Renae]

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

The fallacy here is going to a paid, hyper-partisan site and then wondering why people mock your source or disregard it out of hand.

In this case, you have a link to think progress, that says unemployment insurance is GOOD! That ending it doesn't help people!

Gee, think progress saying that big government entitlement program that keeps getting extended and extended is good for people and ending it doesn't encourage people to find jobs...

In the end, we cannot keep paying people to do nothing. That's the end of it all.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

The fallacy here is going to a paid, hyper-partisan site and then wondering why people mock your source or disregard it out of hand.

In this case, you have a link to think progress, that says unemployment insurance is GOOD! That ending it doesn't help people!

Gee, think progress saying that big government entitlement program that keeps getting extended and extended is good for people and ending it doesn't encourage people to find jobs...

In the end, we cannot keep paying people to do nothing. That's the end of it all.

That actually isn't a fallacy, but glad to see you on a debate board attacking sources and not the content.

 

[imagep]

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.

Do companies pay people more than they are worth?

Why would you claim that the income that anyone made was because the government forced it? Regardless of how much minimum wage is, every minimum wage employee must be producing AT LEAST that much work, or else the employer wouldn't have them as an employee.

 

[imagep]

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

If you admit that everyone produces at least the amount that they are paid, then why are you complaining that minimum wage employees make minimum wage?

I'm just trying to understand your motivation in complaining about that, do you just not want those loser type people to have a decent income? You desire for them to live a standard of living that is far below what is worthy of the amount of production that they produce? Maybe you just don't want "those people" to have what you have, or anywhere close to it.

 

[Arbo]

Some fine left wing tactics. Congratulations.

 

[imagep]

Some fine left wing tactics. Congratulations.

Ya, it's called "logic". Maybe when you give up on that tea party stuff, you should try logic instead.

 

[Arbo]

Ya, it's called "logic". Maybe when you give up on that tea party stuff, you should try logic instead.

LOL… man that's some funny stuff right there. Suggesting what others think, when others never said any such thing… demonizing… yeah, that's 'logic', just look it up in the dictionary, that's exactly what it says. :lamo

 

[PoS]

Not the cities, the federal government of course

And where's the Fed Gov going to get the money from? Print it like the Weimar republic did?

 

[PoS]

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



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.

LOL you have no idea how economics works, Norway's oil money is paying for all of its social welfare services. Norway also has no minimum wage so your remark about Norway having a guaranteed living wage is a lie. Instead Norway pays its people money from the oil revenues. Everything in Norway is so much more expensive too, moreso than in the US.

 

[RGacky3]

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

It Depends on how much you make .... you can Google this ...

 

[RGacky3]

LOL you have no idea how economics works, Norway's oil money is paying for all of its social welfare services. Norway also has no minimum wage so your remark about Norway having a guaranteed living wage is a lie. Instead Norway pays its people money from the oil revenues. Everything in Norway is so much more expensive too, moreso than in the US.

1. Norway has no federal minimum wage, but the minimum wage is essencially set by the Unions, at around 120 nok, (over $20).

And no, McDonalds and Subway workers in Norway are not paid by oil Revenues, and Mcdonalds and Subway don't get subsidised by Oil ... so you're full of **** here.

People here don't get a check from the Oil fund, and InFact almost all the Money in the Oil fund is re-invested.

 

[PoS]

1. Norway has no federal minimum wage, but the minimum wage is essencially set by the Unions, at around 120 nok, (over $20).

And taxes eat up at least a third of that salary so youre back to square one, as in Denmark.

And no, McDonalds and Subway workers in Norway are not paid by oil Revenues, and Mcdonalds and Subway don't get subsidised by Oil ... so you're full of **** here.

I never said salaries are paid by oil revenues so stop lying again, I said that if guaranteed living wages were set up in the US it would be catastrophic, you are the one who butted in saying those things exist in Norway when they do not. STOP LYING.

People here don't get a check from the Oil fund, and InFact almost all the Money in the Oil fund is re-invested.

People there have access to UE benefits and in fact there's quite a few people out of work there yet they are supported by state oil money. My point was that the economy on the whole is buoyed by the oil boom so otherwise you would not be able to keep your generous welfare subsidies.

 

[RGacky3]

And taxes eat up at least a third of that salary so youre back to square one, as in Denmark.

I never said salaries are paid by oil revenues so stop lying again, I said that if guaranteed living wages were set up in the US it would be catastrophic, you are the one who butted in saying those things exist in Norway when they do not. STOP LYING.

People there have access to UE benefits and in fact there's quite a few people out of work there yet they are supported by state oil money. My point was that the economy on the whole is buoyed by the oil boom so otherwise you would not be able to keep your generous welfare subsidies.

Post #63 ... this was what we we're talking about.

In Norway the minimum wage is higher than a living wage in the US would be.

In post #63 you said

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.

Now explain to me why this hasn't happened in Norway (or other countries With living minimum wages) ....

If you say "Oil" You have to explain how or why ....

If you say EU benefits, then explain how or why.

In Norway there is less than 4% unemployment ... People have jobs here.

We wern't talkingabout welfare subsidies, we were talking about wages.

Now ADDRESS THE POINT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

 

[PoS]

Now explain to me why this hasn't happened in Norway (or other countries With living minimum wages) ....

Firstly, stop saying that Norway has minimum wage, it doesnt.

Secondly, you dont take into account cost of living as compared to US and Norway so your taxes and higher wages are offset by higher costs in Norway, which makes you no better than a worker in America if you work in fast food. And you forget about population (5 million in Norway compared to 300 million Americans). So plenty of things you dont bother to address plays a role on why the US cannot afford to create a living wage guarantee because the money isnt there. This should be obvious but it isnt to people like you. :roll:

Thanks in part to the Norwegian economy’s heavy reliance on the oil industry, average manufacturing labor costs are about $57.50 an hour, 31 percent higher than in Germany and 65 percent higher than in the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-20/norway-has-too-much-of-a-good-thing

Property prices are rising by nearly 7% a year. McDonalds charges $7.69 for a Big Mac, against $4.37 in America.

Norway: The rich cousin | The Economist

In Norway there is less than 4% unemployment ... People have jobs here.

And that is apparently under reported.

Unemployment rate ‘artificially low’

 

[RGacky3]

1. Firstly, stop saying that Norway has minimum wage, it doesnt.

2. Secondly, you dont take into account cost of living as compared to US and Norway so your taxes and higher wages are offset by higher costs in Norway, which makes you no better than a worker in America if you work in fast food.

3. And you forget about population (5 million in Norway compared to 300 million Americans).

4. So plenty of things you dont bother to address plays a role on why the US cannot afford to create a living wage guarantee because the money isnt there. This should be obvious but it isnt to people like you. :roll:


Norway Has Too Much of a Good Thing - Businessweek

Norway: The rich cousin | The Economist


5. And that is apparently under reported.

Unemployment rate ‘artificially low’

1. Yes it does, functionally, no one gets paid below around nok120.

2. It's still a living wage, and yes, fast Food workers in Norway do get a living wage and are not in poverty the way American workers are,

3. population is lower, but so is GDP per capita.

4. The Money IS there, the US has a huge gdp per capita and corporatiosn are making HUGE profits.

5. the Unemployment numbers are artificially low EVERYWHERE!!!

But the point remains .... Your doomsday scenario simply doesn't happen, post #63 is total nonsense and you know it. Even With Oil Norways GDP per capita is lower than the US.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

And where's the Fed Gov going to get the money from? Print it like the Weimar republic did?

No, not like Weimar, they borrowed in other peoples currencies, which we don't do.

And Weimar also had massive production issues as half its labor force went on strike. The comparison doesn't fly, but you can pay me for the history lesson later

 

[PoS]

No, not like Weimar, they borrowed in other peoples currencies, which we don't do.

And Weimar also had massive production issues as half its labor force went on strike. The comparison doesn't fly, but you can pay me for the history lesson later

And we will have massive problems in imports when the Dollar goes belly up and the rest of the world abandons it as a reserve currency and...

Ah heck we are just going to repeat what we have been doing for years, JP. :lol:

Since youre a Bears fan I respect you and will bow out of this thread and just say its OK to agree to disagree. :mrgreen:

 

[Arbo]

It Depends on how much you make .... you can Google this ...

I'd rather hear the words from the moth of a citizen. Why do you avoid mentioning hard numbers?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

And we will have massive problems in imports when the Dollar goes belly up and the rest of the world abandons it as a reserve currency and...

Ah heck we are just going to repeat what we have been doing for years, JP. :lol:

Since youre a Bears fan I respect you and will bow out of this thread and just say its OK to agree to disagree. :mrgreen:

I use facts and history, not guessing to back up what I say. Money printing doesn't devalue currency. Austrian theory on inflation is that printing = inflation, it is redefined to not mean rising prices. But when we talk about inflation in regards to rising prices, we see that money printing doesn't equal inflation:

Mike Norman Economics: Lehman, QE1, QE2, Operation Twist, QE3 and dollar is still higher!

Mike Norman Economics: Busting the myth again of the dollar's declining value

"Let us take at the period from 1913-2006, where we have complete data. So what do they mean, when they say the dollar lost 95.1% of its value in those 93 years? Essentially, an average good/service that cost $1 in 2006, used to be priced at 4.9 cents in 1913. In other words, the average price level of goods/services increased by 1930% since 1913. True, but guess what, average earned income increased by 6560% during the same time period. Average earned income rose from $740/yr in 1913 to $49,300/yr in 2006. Adjusting for inflation, $740/yr in 1913 is $15,000/yr in 2006 dollars. Average incomes, not only kept pace, but beat price inflation by 230%. Read full article here."

All of this done with a $16 trillion deficit!



So no bowing out here. But I am working all weekend so likely won't see me until Sunday morning

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

...So plenty of things you dont bother to address plays a role on why the US cannot afford to create a living wage guarantee because the money isnt there. This should be obvious but it isnt to people like you. :roll:

The money isn't there (here)??? Are you serioiusly suggesting that the United States government can run out of dollars?

 

[PoS]

The Money IS there, the US has a huge gdp per capita and corporatiosn are making HUGE profits.

And the money wont be there if a living wage is instituted, force the corporations to raise wages and they will leave, make the government print money and you will need a wheelbarrow of cash to buy bread. Its been done before, and it doesnt work.

But the point remains .... Your doomsday scenario simply doesn't happen, post #63 is total nonsense and you know it. Even With Oil Norways GDP per capita is lower than the US.

And yet people smarter than you havent implemented it. Why is that? Since you believe in it so much then write Congress and tell them your "idea".... and be prepared to get laughed out of the room when you do because they will surely do that.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

And the money wont be there if a living wage is instituted, force the corporations to raise wages and they will leave, make the government print money and you will need a wheelbarrow of cash to buy bread. Its been done before, and it doesnt work.

Hyperinflation only happens when production drops by a ton. Warfare, famine, political upheaval, etc. It doesn't happen just by the government printing money.

And yet people smarter than you havent implemented it. Why is that? Since you believe in it so much then write Congress and tell them your "idea".... and be prepared to get laughed out of the room when you do because they will surely do that.

So your argument is that Congress is really smart? That they are so smart that they do everything right?

Even if Congress as a whole was informed enough to implement these ideas, 99% of the voters are still ignorant about economics, and they would vote everybody out.

 

[ludin]

The money isn't there (here)??? Are you serioiusly suggesting that the United States government can run out of dollars?

No companies only have so much money. So by demanding that they pay more than what they bring in then well that means businesses close down.
before you say mcdonalds makes billions not all mcdonalds are owned by corporate in fact 80% of mcdonalds are own by franchisers.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

No companies only have so much money. So by demanding that they pay more than what they bring in then well that means businesses close down.
before you say mcdonalds makes billions not all mcdonalds are owned by corporate in fact 80% of mcdonalds are own by franchisers.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. The post was about the government's ability to pay for social programs. Nobody is asking companies for anything.

 

[RGacky3]

I'd rather hear the words from the moth of a citizen. Why do you avoid mentioning hard numbers?

I know how much tax I personally, pay, but there are different rates for different people, I'd just be googling the different tax rates the same way you would.