If saying that unemployment benefits shouldn’t go on forever is being a prick, then… no, I’m not going to say guilty as charged… I’m going to say you’re a complete idiot.
I can agree that there can be reasonable disagreement on that.
I, personally would rather ten moochers get a free ride before one hard worker falls into miserable poverty, but I’m a goofy leftish type.
I think the argument is harder if there is high levels of unemployment, and you don’t want to extend the baseline level of unemployment benefits. It seems that when there are fewer jobs than there are applicants, you need to modify the system.
I think that’s a very compelling argument, but I can just barely see where an otherwise good ideologue can fall down on the, “No extensions” side of that line.
I mostly had a problem with your idea that casually starting a business, when most (or very nearly most) businesses fail, was the answer. And the sense that you implied that since you did it, the OP was somehow beneath you if he didn’t. Starting a business is a roll of the dice, but it might not be an answer, depending where you are. You mention tutoring in the other thread. What if you only get a few bites? You waste a month you could have spent searching for a job that will keep your family afloat and end up making less than a burger flipping job. Starting a business needs enough of a safety net that reaching for the ring isn’t likely to ruin you.
I’m not saying you said that explicitly, but that’s what I inferred from your posting.
But as I said, grading on a curve, even if what I perceived was true, you’re ten thousand times more awesome than the tyrant-prick Martin Hyde. What a small, worthless clot of gristle and feckless rage that one is.
Looking over the thread to see who is arguing for eternal and unending unemployment benefits, the position you are so firmly arguing against. Can’t find it. Advise.
If I felt ike there was a decent safety net waiting for folks who max out their UI, then I wouldn’t have a problem with setting a hard limit.
But we don’t have a safety net. I’m all for tough love, as long as there is some “love” in the equation. What the Republicans seem to care about is the “tough”. As in “tough titty”.
Nobody said “unlimited”.
But if you’re talking the desirability of handouts, let’s do some math, OK? Suppose the OP’s unemployment stops dead on December 28 and he takes a McJob. I’m going to guess that with even with 2 incomes at that level, with deductions and everything, Uncle Sam is going to get essentially nothing from them at tax time and might even have to shell out subsidies for health insurance and maybe even food stamps. But the OP was formerly making a decent salary – I think he said five times minimum wage. So let’s say a household income of $80K a year, conservatively. Even after deductions, that’s (roughly) around $9K in income taxes * per year *. So if the UI pays out $1500/month for the next six months and the OP gets a job that pays his previous salary, then the Feds break even in * one year * and every additional year is gravy.
So being a Scrooge about unemployment benefits is not only dickish, but it’s actually economically counterproductive, provided we make the assumption that the job market hasn’t degraded to the point where the well-paying middle class jobs are just gone forever.
Really well said.
Well said indeed. And if I may add the republican ( my daddy was Ron Paul ):
I Got Mine
In case anyone hasn’t heard the news yet, the decision has been made in the new budget agreement to not include the extended benefits (although Democrats are talking about bringing them back later).
and earlier
[QUOTE=John Mace]
So, Rand Paul is exactly right, in your case.
[/QUOTE]
I notice you’ve never addressed the point I raise in #86, which was directed at you.
To me, this is just more evidence that “Libertarians” are all about “I’ve got mine: Fuck You” and that their philosophic claims are just sanctimonious bullshit.
HTH.
No, there should be time limits. In fact, there are time limits now. They are just longer than time limits during periods of prosperity or semi-prosperity.
I haven’t looked at that particular data, but I’m pretty skeptical of the implication. The employment/population ratio is quite low. Unemployment is declining, but there’s no reason to believe we’re anywhere near full employment.
If I was to look at the data, I’d like to see how that particular figure compares to, say, 2003-3006. 3.4% might actually correlate with high unemployment.
FWIW, the studies are on your side. IIRC, Rand was quoting a study based on data during times of prosperity.
[QUOTE=Paul Krugman]
Proponents of this story like to cite academic research — some of it from Democratic-leaning economists — that seemingly confirms the idea that unemployment insurance causes unemployment. They’re not equally fond of pointing out that this research is two or more decades old, has not stood the test of time, and is irrelevant in any case given our current economic situation.
The view of most labor economists now is that unemployment benefits have only a modest negative effect on job search — and in today’s economy have no negative effect at all on overall employment. On the contrary, unemployment benefits help create jobs, and cutting those benefits would depress the economy as a whole.
[/QUOTE]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/opinion/krugman-the-punishment-cure.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0#h[]
Balanced budget multipliers are discussed in sophomore macroeconomics. Given the disparity in marginal propensities to consume between the employed and unemployed (which follows from, among other theories, the Permanent Income Hypothesis espoused by Milton Friedman), there are solid armchair reasons to believe in the multiplier.
And back in reality, extending unemployment insurance is thought to have a multiplier of 1.64 according to, you know, professional economists. http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/pocketfull_of_m.html
It’s amazing that two faced proponents of fiscal austerity are still taken seriously.
Don’t confuse not knowing for not caring.
Hi again, John Mace.
Sanctimonious snark in another thread but no answer here? I’ll take this as an implicit acknowledgment of your stupidity. 
I’m gonna guess you’d be a dirt farmer full of intestinal parasites if not for the government. So, bear that in mind while you’re puffing yourself up for your amazing ability.
The vapid stupidity of Libertarianism never ceases to impress.
Hi, septimus, and welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board!
The OP apparently DID live under his income prior to losing his job, and his family DID have savings and resources… which are now gone. Just how many years’ income is the average person supposed to have in savings again?
That’s NOT what they are for! Food stamps are to keep people fed. A laudable goal if you ask me.
So… how, exactly did you know that she used food stamps? Did you ask her? Did you lean over her shoulder as she paid? Do you do this to every person you are in line behind at the grocery store?
And even if that was the case, you do know that the plural of anecdote is not data, correct?
During the depression food stamps didn’t exist, so that’s irrelevant. After awhile a certain amount of food was simply given to families that qualified, if you received that, and if your family utilized the WPA or CCC work options, congratulations, you were one of the first welfare families in America. If it was good enough for you when your family needed help why aren’t needy people today deserving?
So… just completley ignore that up until 6 months ago the OP did, in fact, make things work out with a stay-at-home parent… are you jealous that they were able to do that or something? And his current plan isn’t to have a stay-at-home parent, it’s to have TWO working parents but their combined wage still has to be sufficient to support the household.
Again, until 6 months ago he was living below his means. Up until now he’s been able to meet the bills due to good planning and fiscal responsibility. But, hey, go ahead and call him lazy, a freeloader, a terrible person because he lost his job, obviously anyone without an income for even a moment is scum.
You clearly have no experience with Section 8. I don’t know about where the OP lives, but where I live there is a ten year waiting list for Section 8. Yay, they apply for Section 8, get on a waiting list – where, exactly are they supposed to live for the next decade until their name comes to the top? How, exactly, does abandoning a house and becoming homeless benefit the OP and his family?
And who, exactly, are you to determine that someone else’s house is “too expensive or some other thing”? Are you ready to start justifying YOUR living arrangements?
Translated: “I don’t have a good answer to your arguments so I am resorting to insulting your intelligence and gender”. Which is consistent with the rest of your posting here. You are quite free with slinging the mud.
Ah, here we go again – a low income means your life is a waste. That is, I suppose, in addition to laziness and stupidity. Hey, Martin, you do realize that a bank account balance and IQ are not the same thing, correct? Having more money doesn’t make you smarter, as you so amply demonstrate in this thread.
Government subsidized? Really? Where? Certainly now where I live!
Please point to what FEDERAL agency subsidizeing daycare, because I’m not aware of one. If it’s not Federal it isn’t “the laws of this country” it’s provided by a lower level unit of government or a private charity or church or something.
Why would being poor make me an expert in childcare?
Oh, I see – you seem to think that VIRGINA=THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES. And you called me moronic? Why should I, someone living in Indiana, be conversant with the state-level public aid in Virginia?
I never said it generated $1.80, I said money given to the unemployed doesn’t stay with them, it immediately goes back out into the economy because they have bills to pay and food to buy. When come back bring reading comprehension instead of self-righteous pie.
This, by the way, is far better than YOUR scheme to lock up millions of dollars in private accounts where it will sit for DECADES and do nothing to stimulate the economy. Way to go, Skippy.
Stop looking for work you stop getting paid. How is that not “paid to look for work”? The benefits are contingent on the search. When I was on UI several years ago my job search was monitored AND I was audited during the period as well. You act as if there is no oversight. There is.
And you would force all those workers to lock that money up for DECADES in “private accounts” where it will do even less to stimulate the economy. This is better… how?
Like I said – why stop at just the first $7k of income? Why shouldn’t the wealthy pay UI tax on ALL their income, just like the dirt poor do?
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! You so funny!
Just because it’s better doesn’t mean it’s good. That’s like saying, oh, your broken leg has been in a cast for a week, it’s better, now you have no excuse not to run the Boston Marathon tomorrow, because you’re better.
The economy is still not healthy.
So… instead of everyone paying into a fund that is distributed to those in need, with the amount in the fund adjusted according to actual need, you propose locking up what would be millions, if not billions of dollars for decades in these “private accounts” where the money will just sit, doing nothing to stimulate the economy?
Again, this is better… how?
How the FUCK is an “insolvent company” supposed ot INCREASE a contribution? THEY’RE INSOLVENT!!! That’s bankrupt, as in has no more money! What, you wave a magic wand and suddenly they discover money for this fund?
And if the company is GONE then what? Around here, when that’s happened former employees saw their pensions and health care simply evaporate and NO ONE AND NOTHING stepped in to help them. Frankly, I am far more confident that the US government will continue to exist than any particular company.
Regrettably, it DOES count as genius among that set.
Clearly, he does not.
^ Word.
Unfortunately… I do.
Here we go again – six months without a job and you are now part of the permanent underclass!
What do you suggest, we start branding poor people so their superiors can easily spot them at a distance and avoid them?
Let’s see – people who lose their jobs are lazy, stupid, permanently underclass… how many different ways do you have to declare other humans beings as less than you?
So… only wealthy people are allowed to stay home with their kids, now? Everyone else HAS TO work and park the kids in daycare? Oh, and everyone please note – he’s calling the OP stupid again. And, with the “dream world” remark, also claiming the OP is out of touch with reality. Seriously, you can’t do better than that?
Why don’t you stop making assumptions? Your track records with them has been pretty poor.
Two points: the OP has already detailed that his wife is educated and worked prior to having a child, so she’s not some high school drop out, and second point, if it was so damn easy to find a “decent job” that a wife who hasn’t been in the job market for a couple years (because she’s raising a child) can simply find one at the drop of a hat then the OP wouldn’t have been out of work for six months!
That’s because they are deploying a kind of straw man. You also see it with the example of the bum or the moocher who spends their food stamps on lobster or expensive cuts of meat. Here’s an example. Righties love to tell stories of people living in luxury off of food stamps, when the reality is that it mostly keeps the destitute fed.
Meanwhile, according to this (admittedly in need of further examination) cite, for a person who makes $50k/year:
$6.36 in taxes goes to welfare
$22.88 goes to unemployment insurance
$36.82 goes to SNAP
$246.75 goes to defense
$4000 goes to corporate welfare
Wtf is with the focus on the tax burden of food stamps? If you are like Martin Hyde and your gripe is along the lines of
, shouldn’t those types be focusing their outrage on corporations/corporate lobbyists and the Defense Department instead of food stamp and unemployment insurance recipients? I mean, there are more applicants than jobs in today’s economy.
Martin Hyde, you’re not just a bad poster with some bad ideas, you’re actually a bad person. Pathetic. Then again, conservatives who hold their ideology higher than other human beings often are
Ideology is mostly things you believe but cannot prove. Right now, my ideology is that if suddenly America were made up entirely of middle and upper class professionals…lawyers, bankers, stock brokers…America would be a howling wasteland in a matter of days, populated by roving bands of cannibalistic savages.
“You’re walking the desert, Leon, when you see a tortoise lying there on its back, its belly baking in the sun. You could reach down and flip it over, but you won’t help. Why is that, Leon?”
“Because I’m a Republican?”
“Oh. Right. Guess that would explain it…”
And here I thought it was because you are really Vorbis using a fake name …
Me, what I would like to see is instead of all the abandoned and empty buildings like the Norwich State Hospital sitting empty and then getting torn down being turned into some sort of section 8 housing where people would get assigned living space, and instead of food stamps the government opens up the cafeterias and serves them food. While out driving, I can see empty closed school buildings, hospitals, factories … sitting there - hell, there is a motel on 395n exit 80 that was being built and construction halted with it almost completed - it could easily be turned into section 8 housing. And why can’t we have community run soup kitchens instead of food stamps or in addition to food stamps? Why can’t we have “food stamp grocery stores” where the only products are the specific ones on the food stamp program so there isn’t any customer suck quibbling about what is and isn’t allowed on food stamps and the only ‘currency’ allowed is the food stamp debit card, whatever it is called in your location.
Someone linked to a story about the US as an evil stratified society where the poor ended up warehoused in hives and down in Australia it was paradise… to be honest, I think most of the population would like to live in a comfortable hive room with a great TV, adequate food and no need to work sort of like pre-idiocracy, or a lot of SF novels/stories. Not that I would turn my nose up at that Australian paradise.