Economic question about unemployment benefits

[Voyager]

@Mr.Moto

First of all, while the winners of the prize might favor extended benefits, they wouldn’t make the mistake many in this thread make and assume that these benefits don’t have a cost.

I haven’t noticed anyone saying there is no cost. What is being said is that the benefit outweighs the cost. Without a tax increase, the money for extended benefits increases the deficit, which is costly - but worth it in this case.

Secondly, you seem to be considering credit measures and stimulus as equivalent to extended unemployment benefits. Why would you assume that this is so? Might one favor one or another of these things and not the other - or even regard them as having different priorities?

They are all forms of stimulus. Hell, tax cuts for the rich are a form of stimulus also - just not a very good one. Some try to create jobs, some try to preserve existing jobs, like payments to the states to keep cops and teachers from being laid off, and some try to maintain consumption, understanding that the government is not going to fix the job market through any kind of stimulus package. It sounds like extending unemployment benefits is a fairly effective form of stimulus. Beats breaking windows.

I’m not opposed to extending the benefits, so long as we are clear about the various tradeoffs involved.

Good - and the study cited is a way of measuring this.
Notice we don’t even have to get into the human costs of long-term unemployment to see that it is a good idea.

[Voyager]

@Susanann

Immigration has EVERYTHING to do with it. All you gotta know is to know math in order to figure it out. Even a grade schooler can figure it out.

Immigration, just over the past 10 years alone, is responsible for over 13 of the unemployed today.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...110046719.html
Fewer Jobs, More Immigrants: Despite Loss of 1 Million Jobs, 13.1 Million Arrived 2000-09

*WASHINGTON, Nov. 23, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – New Census Bureau data collected in March of this year show that 13.1 million immigrants (legal and illegal) arrived in the previous 10 years, even though there was a net decline of 1 million jobs during the decade.
*

PR Newswire?
First of all, the link is gone. Second, and most important, pr newsire is not news. It is a way of distributing press releases. I know about it because the conference I’m involved with uses it some times, thanks to a committee member who works in PR at a major electronics company and is an expert at these things.

This is a source that makes a random Wiki page look like a paper in Science.

[Susanann]

@George_Kaplin

Your link isn’t working at the moment so I can’t see everything you’re basing this on, but according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics, America ended November with 15.1 million unemployed. Is it really your contention that all but 2 million of America’s unemployed are illegal immigrants?

Fewer Jobs, More Immigrants: Despite Loss of 1 Million Jobs, 13.1 Million...

Works for me.

It is my contention, that if we really have 20 million unemployed, then we do not need to be letting in any more immigrants. We just dont need to be adding millions more job seekers. It is not going to help the unemployment rate if we bring in millions more people from foreign lands who all want our jobs.

[Susanann]

@Voyager

PR Newswire?
First of all, the link is gone. Second, and most important, pr newsire is not news. It is a way of distributing press releases. I know about it because the conference I’m involved with uses it some times, thanks to a committee member who works in PR at a major electronics company and is an expert at these things.

This is a source that makes a random Wiki page look like a paper in Science.

You can add it up any way you want, but you cant argue with the facts.

1. We have lost jobs.

2. We have been adding between 1 - 2 million more immigrants(new job seekers) each year for decades.

3. We currently already have millions of unemployed.

4. Adding millions more job seekers is not going to help.

[bup]

@Susanann

You can add it up any way you want, but you cant argue with the facts.

1. We have lost jobs.

2. We have been adding between 1 - 2 million more immigrants(new job seekers) each year for decades.

3. We currently already have millions of unemployed.

4. Adding millions more job seekers is not going to help.

It’s also the case that adding millions of people to an economy increases demand, which can create jobs. In other words, the entire economy expands.

[Susanann]

@sh1bu1

Of course it has costs, who would deny that?

Why are you maintaining that UI extension and stimulus are two different things? Extending UI is a stimulus, and economists consider it a pretty good one. Certainly better than additional tax cuts for those making over $250,000.

YOu should go to Haiti, and tell the president of Haiti that he no longer needs any of our help. All he has to do is to issue unemployment checks to all the Haiti people to stimulate his economy and to make all the Haitians wealthy beyond their wildest dreams.

Apparently, all the aid, and all the donations that we gave Haiti over the past 20 years, was a total waste, since all they needed was for their own government to issue unemployment checks to everyone.

Quick, call Sarah Palin to come back to America, and then you get in a plane and go there yourself with the perfect solution to the unemployment problem in Haiti.

[Susanann]

Originally Posted by Susanann
You can add it up any way you want, but you cant argue with the facts.

1. We have lost jobs.
2. We have been adding between 1 - 2 million more immigrants(new job seekers) each year for decades.
3. We currently already have millions of unemployed.
4. Adding millions more job seekers is not going to help.

@bup

It’s also the case that adding millions of people to an economy increases demand, which can create jobs. In other words, the entire economy expands.

Over a million immigrants(legal and illegal) came into the United States this year.

OK, show us all the million jobs that got created because of these new immigrants.

If you cant show us the million new jobs this year, or if you cant show us the 13 million new jobs created in the United States over the past 9 years, then you dont know what you are talking about.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@George_Kaplin

Even I can see this is fallacious.

Congratulations. You’re a self-professed complete economic dunce and cretin and yet you are still greatly advanced over certain of our regular posters.

But at least you’re making progress.

[Ace309]

@Susanann

1. Then why dont you extend unemployment benefits to 499 weeks, instead of just 99 weeks?

2. Why dont you double the amount on the unemployment checks?

3. Why dont you give out unemployment checks to everyone who has no job? If unemployment benefits are so great, why not expand it?

Without comment on the specific numbers involved in unemployment, do you understand the concept of diminishing marginal returns?

Apologies if you’re simply using hyperbole, but it’s possible for someone who supports an unemployment extension to a certain length to also support a cutoff after that length because the benefits begin to outweigh the costs. Similar reasoning applies to 2 and 3. Your reasoning doesn’t appear that nuanced, so it doesn’t appear you’ve considered that aspect.

[Susanann]

Originally Posted by Susanann

1. Then why dont you extend unemployment benefits to 499 weeks, instead of just 99 weeks?
2. Why dont you double the amount on the unemployment checks?
3. Why dont you give out unemployment checks to everyone who has no job? If unemployment benefits are so great, why not expand it?

@Ace309

Without comment on the specific numbers involved in unemployment, do you understand the concept of diminishing marginal returns?

Apologies if you’re simply using hyperbole, but it’s possible for someone who supports an unemployment extension to a certain length to also support a cutoff after that length because the benefits begin to outweigh the costs. Similar reasoning applies to 2 and 3. Your reasoning doesn’t appear that nuanced, so it doesn’t appear you’ve considered that aspect.

There is no “certain length”.

There is no standard amount of benefits.

You have no reasoning, nor do you have any consistency.

Unemployment benefits go to some people, but not to others. Most unemployed people dont get any unemployment benefits.

The length of getting unemployment, and the length of and how many extensions are also arbitrary, and inconsistent.

The size of the unemployment checks are all different, from $240 a week in Florida, to $900 a week in Massachusetts. Every state has a different amount.

Your unemployment benefits plan is like a plate of mish mash spagetti.

YOu can not talk of “diminishing returns”, nor of certain cut offs, because there is no standard of anything.

1. Massachusetts ($628-942, 72 weeks)
2. Rhode Island ($528-660, 79 weeks)
3. Pennsylvania ($558-566, 72 weeks)
4. Connecticut ($519-594, 72 weeks)
5. New Jersey (584, 79 weeks)
6. Mississippi ($230, 59 weeks)
7. Arizona ($240, 72 weeks)
8. Alabama ($255, 59 weeks)
9. Tennessee ($275, 59 weeks)
10. Florida ($275, 79 weeks)

There are 12 week extensions, 26 week extensions, 99 week extensions, and everything in between. Who gets what, if anything, is all mixed up. The unemployed people who have been out of work the longest, or the unemployed people who never got anything, or the new college graduates who have no job, get nothing.

The unemployment system should be totally and completely abolished.

IF you want to give out welfare, then at least call it by its rightful name, and at least give it to everyone, including those who used to be self employed and also to new college graduates who have no means of support.

[elfkin477]

@George_Kaplin

Your link isn’t working at the moment so I can’t see everything you’re basing this on, but according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics, America ended November with 15.1 million unemployed. Is it really your contention that all but 2 million of America’s unemployed are illegal immigrants?

That’s not what she’s saying. Her claim is that most of those people were displaced by illegal immigrants who took “their” jobs.

[Ace309]

@Susanann

YOu can not talk of “diminishing returns”, nor of certain cut offs, because there is no standard of anything.

I’ll restate my question.

Do you acknowledge the idea of diminishing marginal returns, without necessarily referring to unemployment benefits?

[Susanann]

@elfkin477

That’s not what she’s saying. Her claim is that most of those people were displaced by illegal immigrants who took “their” jobs.

If you are talking about me, that is NOT at all what I said.

FYI, you are not allowed to misquote or change what someone else says, it is a violation.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Susanann

Immigration, just over the past 10 years alone, is responsible for over 13 of the unemployed today.

@elfkin477

That’s not what she’s saying. Her claim is that most of those people were displaced by illegal immigrants who took “their” jobs.

@Susanann

If you are talking about me, that is NOT at all what I said.

FYI, you are not allowed to misquote or change what someone else says, it is a violation.

If you are not say that the 13 million immigrants over the last decade are responsible for 13 [million] of the unemployed today, how else can we possibly read that sentence?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Susanann

Unemployment benefits go to some people, but not to others. Most unemployed people dont get any unemployment benefits.

So what?

The length of getting unemployment, and the length of and how many extensions are also arbitrary, and inconsistent.

So what?

The size of the unemployment checks are all different, from $240 a week in Florida, to $900 a week in Massachusetts. Every state has a different amount.

So what?

There are 12 week extensions, 26 week extensions, 99 week extensions, and everything in between. Who gets what, if anything, is all mixed up. The unemployed people who have been out of work the longest, or the unemployed people who never got anything, or the new college graduates who have no job, get nothing.

So what?

Each of these means the exact same thing. What does anything that you say (assuming that it has factual validity, some of which is questionable) have to do with either the multiplier effect of UI or the diminishing returns issue? From an economic standpoint, every word of yours is irrelevant to the subjects we have actually been discussing.

The unemployment system should be totally and completely abolished.

IF you want to give out welfare, then at least call it by its rightful name, and at least give it to everyone, including those who used to be self employed and also to new college graduates who have no means of support.

The straightforward answer to this is that an insurance program requires that people pay premiums into the system. Those who don’t pay, or whose premiums run out, do not get a return. This is inherent in why it is called unemployment insurance.In addition, payments are made into the system by employers on behalf of their employees, not by employees themselves. (Which is why you are normally not eligible if you quit or get fired or are self-employed: it’s not your money. It’s the employer paying into a fund.) This negates any and all of your previous comments about the value of the system, which you are saying you don’t understand even the basics of.

[qazwart]

So, Susanann, you’re now quoting yourself?

Like many programs, unemployment is run by the states. It is up to the states to set their own terms and conditions. It’s why it differs from state to state. We could set it up as a national program and create national standards, but that would be interfering with states rights.

Unemployment benefits are normally funded for by the employees themselves. In many states, the premium (and they’re called premiums) for unemployment insurance depends upon the industry and the likelihood it will layoff workers.

Like most insurance programs, you pay money into the program, and you are allowed to claim benefits from the program. You don’t work, and never put money into the program, you can’t get unemployment.

Unemployment is suppose to be a short term program, and there are limits to how long you can claim benefits. Again, this varies from state to state because it is run by the states.

The idea is to tide people over with some income as they look for another job. Otherwise, people may end up losing their place of residence and moving into deeper poverty and never become as fully productive.

Like most things in life, there is a balance. Give too much unemployment benefits, and people may simply to choose to remain unemployed. This happens in Greece and France where unemployment benefits are quite generous and firing workers is very difficult. Companies don’t want to hire, and people don’t want to take jobs when they can make more on unemployment.

You go the other way, you find situations where people turn to crime or simply leave the legal economy all together. You start getting into deep cycles of poverty which become impossible to climb out. This has happened in much of the former Communist countries and in Latin America.

Most economists believe unemployment benefits are a good thing – the question is what level. Too much, and people simply don’t go back to work. Too little, and they may be unable to go back to work. Again, different states have different ideas on the right level, and since they run their own programs, they get to decide.

During economic downturns, it is obvious that many people who are out of work simply cannot find jobs. They simply aren’t there. We could deny people any unemployment compensation and tell them to sell all their worldly possessions and live in the street. Of course, that might make it impossible for them to find employment once the economy picks up. That is, if it can with so many people in poverty.

People have great faith in the Free Market, but in many ways, it is because we define success in terms that will allow the Free Market to succeed:

Economic problems? Let the invisible hand of the free market handle it! People will become unemployed, starve and start to eat each other. The stronger ones will eat the weaker ones. As the weaker members of society are eaten, the overall strength of our workforce becomes stronger. And with fewer people around, there is fewer workers for the jobs that are out there. Thus, wages will increase while unemployment drops.

See? The invisible hand has everything under control!

[Voyager]

@Susanann

You can add it up any way you want, but you cant argue with the facts.

1. We have lost jobs.

2. We have been adding between 1 - 2 million more immigrants(new job seekers) each year for decades.

3. We currently already have millions of unemployed.

4. Adding millions more job seekers is not going to help.

It took me a while to find a table of employment, but, as I expected, your source is lying. Not surprising when you quote a press release. Here is a table of employment data, which you can look back to 1980 or something.

(Pardon the poor formatting - too late to clean it up,)

2010 YTD Average 154,017,667 138,938,222 15,079,444 9.8%
2009 08BM 154,142,000 139,877,000 14,265,000 9.3%
2008 08BM 154,287,000 145,362,000 8,924,000 5.8%
2007 08BM 153,124,000 146,047,000 7,078,000 4.6%
2006 08BM 151,428,000 144,427,000 7,001,000 4.6%
2005 08BM 149,320,000 141,730,000 7,591,000 5.1%
2004 147,401,000 139,252,000 8,149,000 5.5%
2003 146,510,000 137,736,000 8,774,000 6.0%
2002 144,863,000 136,485,000 8,378,000 5.8%
2001 143,734,000 136,933,000 6,801,000 4.7%
2000 142,583,000 136,891,000 5,692,000 4.0%

From 2000 to 2010, the number of jobs grew by 2 million, not much. But that is a carefully selected interval. If you set the endpoint at 2007, employment grew by 10 million (9 million if you use 2008.) Now, when did the immigrants come? During the depths of the recession, or when times were good? It is clear that employment grew strongly along with the immigration. BTW, I personally know immigrants who started high tech companies which created lots of jobs. I also know immigrants who have contributed to the quality of the computer you are using right now.
I’m not surprised by my finding, because I noticed that the press release you cited never actually gave a table with the number employed during this period. You really need to do a better job on your sources - and never use a press release wire as a source. Hell, I’ve been quoted on that thing.

[Johnny_L.A]

@Voyager

It took me a while to find a table of employment, but, as I expected, your source is lying. Not surprising when you quote a press release. Here is a table of employment data, which you can look back to 1980 or something.

(Pardon the poor formatting - too late to clean it up,)

Let me give it a try.

YEAR.............LABOR FORCE.......EMPLOYED......UNEMPLOYED......UNEMP RATE 
2010 YTD Average 154,017,667      138,938,222   15,079,444         9.8% 
2009 08BM        154,142,000      139,877,000   14,265,000         9.3% 
2008 08BM        154,287,000      145,362,000    8,924,000         5.8% 
2007 08BM        153,124,000      146,047,000    7,078,000         4.6% 
2006 08BM        151,428,000      144,427,000    7,001,000         4.6% 
2005 08BM        149,320,000      141,730,000    7,591,000         5.1% 
2004             147,401,000      139,252,000    8,149,000         5.5% 
2003             146,510,000      137,736,000    8,774,000         6.0% 
2002             144,863,000      136,485,000    8,378,000         5.8% 
2001             143,734,000      136,933,000    6,801,000         4.7% 
2000             142,583,000      136,891,000    5,692,000         4.0% 
1999             139,368,000      133,488,000    5,880,000         4.2% 
1998             137,673,000      131,463,000    6,210,000         4.5% 
1997             136,297,000      129,558,000    6,739,000         4.9% 
1996             133,943,000      126,708,000    7,236,000         5.4% 
1995             132,304,000      124,900,000    7,404,000         5.6% 
1994             131,056,000      123,060,000    7,996,000         6.1% 
1993             129,200,000      120,259,000    8,940,000         6.9% 
1992             128,105,000      118,492,000    9,613,000         7.5% 
1991             126,346,000      117,718,000    8,628,000         6.8% 
1990             125,840,000      118,793,000    7,047,000         5.6% 
1989             123,869,000      117,342,000    6,528,000         5.3% 
1988             121,669,000      114,968,000    6,701,000         5.5% 
1987             119,865,000      112,440,000    7,425,000         6.2% 
1986             117,834,000      109,597,000    8,237,000         7.0% 
1985             115,462,000      107,150,000    8,312,000         7.2% 
1984             113,544,000      105,005,000    8,539,000         7.5% 
1983             111,551,000      100,834,000   10,717,000         9.6% 
1982             110,204,000       99,526,000   10,678,000         9.7% 
1981             108,670,000      100,397,000    8,273,000         7.6% 
1980             106,940,000       99,303,000    7,637,000         7.1%

[Colibri]

It’s probably past time to send this over to GD from GQ.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[elfkin477]

@Susanann

If you are talking about me, that is NOT at all what I said.

FYI, you are not allowed to misquote or change what someone else says, it is a violation.

The hell? Trying to interpret your statement is never a violation. Only changing text within an actual quote - and I didn’t even quote you - would be.