OMG Valerie Jarrett: Unemployment Stimulates the Economy

[pinqy]

OK. So to say "there are 5 unemployed people for every one job opening and therefore we need to extend unemployment for 2 years" is stupid.

No, what's stupid is to look at 5 unemployed people for every one job opening and say "nobody needs assistance, they can just get a job." If there are 5 people actively looking for work for every one position open, it seems clear that you're going to have a high level of Unemployment for a while.


But it can't be measured daily, and it really doesn't change that much. Nobody's using unemployment to job openings as a sole factor for anything.

Increasing the length of UE benefits only increases the amount of time people are on it.

Sometimes. But it's hardly universal and it is generally considered a necessary price to help out those who actually need it. Average benefits are about 36% of prior salary. Not many people are willing or able to coast on that kind of a pay cut. And keeping in mind that of those 5 Unemployed, 3 are receiving benefits and 2 are not.

Tell you what...Mexico does not have Unemployment Insurance (except Mexico City), and therefore there is lower Unemployment in Mexico than the US as people take whatever work they can whenever they can. Their Underemployment is much greater than the US. I assume you don't think Mexico is an inspiring model to follow.

Absolutely too generous UI benefits can cause major problems, but we're not seeing that in the US.

You dont think that 2 years of unemployment is generous?

In non-recession times, it would be. When it takes people 2 years of trying to get a job? Not overly generous. At a higher rate, it certainly would be. But not everyone qualifies for 2 years, and the average rate is low enough to be an incentive to find work for most people.

What would you consider generous then, lifetime?

What would you consider to be the right amount? 2 years is usually too long. Under current circumstances, it's probably not.

Remind me what is wrong with people working.

Where have I stated or implied that there's anything wrong with people working? But you have to do something for the people not working or you end up like Mexico.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But you have to do something for the people not working or you end up like Mexico.

Yes make liberalism illegal as the Constitution intended:

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But in general, high unemployment is a key indicator of a bad economy.

Europe always has a bad economy then, i.e., one with too much liberal interference in the free market. Did you think the Girl Scouts caused unemployment or that people suddenly lost their desire to eat?

 

[Listening]

You dont think that 2 years of unemployment is generous? What would you consider generous then, lifetime?Remind me what is wrong with people working. Oh yeah, they won't vote Democrat.

I think you called it.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, what's stupid is to look at 5 unemployed people for every one job opening and say "nobody needs assistance, they can just get a job." If there are 5 people actively looking for work for every one position open, it seems clear that you're going to have a high level of Unemployment for a while.


But it can't be measured daily, and it really doesn't change that much. Nobody's using unemployment to job openings as a sole factor for anything.

Sometimes. But it's hardly universal and it is generally considered a necessary price to help out those who actually need it. Average benefits are about 36% of prior salary. Not many people are willing or able to coast on that kind of a pay cut. And keeping in mind that of those 5 Unemployed, 3 are receiving benefits and 2 are not.

Tell you what...Mexico does not have Unemployment Insurance (except Mexico City), and therefore there is lower Unemployment in Mexico than the US as people take whatever work they can whenever they can. Their Underemployment is much greater than the US. I assume you don't think Mexico is an inspiring model to follow.

Absolutely too generous UI benefits can cause major problems, but we're not seeing that in the US.

You dont think that 2 years of unemployment is generous?

In non-recession times, it would be. When it takes people 2 years of trying to get a job? Not overly generous. At a higher rate, it certainly would be. But not everyone qualifies for 2 years, and the average rate is low enough to be an incentive to find work for most people.

What would you consider generous then, lifetime?

What would you consider to be the right amount? 2 years is usually too long. Under current circumstances, it's probably not.

Remind me what is wrong with people working.

Where have I stated or implied that there's anything wrong with people working? But you have to do something for the people not working or you end up like Mexico.

You confuse cause and effect. People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. THere are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years.
If you want to supprt people being unemployment then you obviously don't want them working. When you mention the problem with Mexico is high underemployment then I ask what is wrong with underemployment as opposed to unemployment. The economies of the US and Mexico are hardly comparable anyway.

 

[Bfgrn]

You dont think that 2 years of unemployment is generous?

In non-recession times, it would be. When it takes people 2 years of trying to get a job? Not overly generous. At a higher rate, it certainly would be. But not everyone qualifies for 2 years, and the average rate is low enough to be an incentive to find work for most people.




What would you consider to be the right amount? 2 years is usually too long. Under current circumstances, it's probably not.

Remind me what is wrong with people working.

Where have I stated or implied that there's anything wrong with people working? But you have to do something for the people not working or you end up like Mexico.

You confuse cause and effect. People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. THere are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years.
If you want to supprt people being unemployment then you obviously don't want them working. When you mention the problem with Mexico is high underemployment then I ask what is wrong with underemployment as opposed to unemployment. The economies of the US and Mexico are hardly comparable anyway.

That has to be the stupidest statement I've heard. Worthy of a sig line shine!


"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

 

[The Rabbi]

In non-recession times, it would be. When it takes people 2 years of trying to get a job? Not overly generous. At a higher rate, it certainly would be. But not everyone qualifies for 2 years, and the average rate is low enough to be an incentive to find work for most people.




What would you consider to be the right amount? 2 years is usually too long. Under current circumstances, it's probably not.



Where have I stated or implied that there's anything wrong with people working? But you have to do something for the people not working or you end up like Mexico.

You confuse cause and effect. People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. THere are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years.
If you want to supprt people being unemployment then you obviously don't want them working. When you mention the problem with Mexico is high underemployment then I ask what is wrong with underemployment as opposed to unemployment. The economies of the US and Mexico are hardly comparable anyway.

That has to be the stupidest statement I've heard. Worthy of a sig line shine!


"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

It would appear stupid to you because you're a dolt.

 

[Bfgrn]

You confuse cause and effect. People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. THere are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years.
If you want to supprt people being unemployment then you obviously don't want them working. When you mention the problem with Mexico is high underemployment then I ask what is wrong with underemployment as opposed to unemployment. The economies of the US and Mexico are hardly comparable anyway.

That has to be the stupidest statement I've heard. Worthy of a sig line shine!


"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

It would appear stupid to you because you're a dolt.

Hey moron, I thought workers don't create jobs? You really are dumber than dogshit.



"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

 

[The Rabbi]

That has to be the stupidest statement I've heard. Worthy of a sig line shine!


"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

It would appear stupid to you because you're a dolt.

Hey moron, I thought workers don't create jobs? You really are dumber than dogshit.



"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

Wow are you fucking stupid. Go read a book or something.

 

[Too Tall]

She said that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, which is self-evident. What is interesting is the degree to which it is so (table 5, http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Policy-Prescriptions-20110826.pdf). They have a multiplier of 1.55, nearly the highest. Among the lowest? A pathetic multiplier of .32 (not 1.32) for corporate tax cuts.

Holy sheep dip Batgirl! We should increase the unemployed rate to 50% and the economy would skyrocket!

 

[Article 15]

And the USMB Right Wing Nut Brigade marches on.....

 

[Too Tall]

When in your adult life have you ever heard the stupid, asinine statement that "Unemployment stimulates the economy"?

Multiple times in this thread (allowing for paraphrasing), zero times from the administration.

This is what Valerie Jarrett said, and the last time I checked, she is one of the spokespersons for the Obama Administration.

"Even though we had a terrible economic crisis three years ago, throughout our country many people were suffering before the last three years, particularly in the black community," Jarrett said. "And so we need to make sure that we continue to support that important safety net. It not only is good for the family, but it's good for the economy. People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that's healthy as well."

 

[zeke]

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

Are you fuking kidding me?
A more stupid statement by the rabbi has not yet been written.......but it is early. So post often.

 

[Too Tall]

It's pretty interesting that everyone seems to just leave out the word "insurance" from this discussion.

Unemployment doesn't stimulate the economy.

Unemployment Insurance does.

Simple fact.

I missed the part about insurance. So, in your mind, the more unemployment insurance that is collected, the better the economy.

Absolutely amazing!

 

[Too Tall]

On a basic level it's true that giving people money will stimulate the economy as people will go out and spend that money. The problem is that by paying people not to work, you're not creating any wealth. You're just redistributing it by taking away from the people who work and giving that money to the people who don't.

Where is the gov't getting the money to give to people to go out and spend?
We have 3 examples of this kind of thinking. Every one of them was a failure. Why do Dems insist on repeating failed policies somehow hoping this time it will be different?

Unemployment Insurance comes from the companies that lay the workers off, and the taxes those workers paid while they were employed.

You are partially correct.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Jobless Americans have collected $434 billion in unemployment benefits over the past four years.

Taxpayers have footed $184.7 billion of the tab incurred during the federal government's unparalleled response to the Great Recession, according to Labor Department data. State and federal taxes on employers cover the rest.

Unemployment benefits cost $434B, extension another $44B - Dec. 5, 2011

 

[The Rabbi]

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

Are you fuking kidding me?
A more stupid statement by the rabbi has not yet been written.......but it is early. So post often.

It might appear stupid to someone who cannot understand even simple thngs. Like you.
You get more of the behavior you reward. If you reward unemployment by paying out for years more people will remain unemployed.
Pretty simple. Unless you're fucking stupid. Like you appear to be.

 

[pinqy]

Nov 2010? That was well over a year ago. Since the UE rate has gone down, that would suggest that what you are presententing is merely a snapshot in time, not anything even short term.

The most recent data is from Dec 2011, at 4 unemployed for every job opening.


Small companies are covered as well. Remember this is a direct survey of businesses, not a count of want ads or posted openings.

I currently don't have any job openings. But if a gunsmith with machine shop ability appeared on my doorstep I might suddenly create one. I would image most small companies work similarly.

But does that happen often enough to be relevant? Mostly, there's no way of measuring that, so you can hardly complain that a survey should measure something that can't be measured. The survey measures job openings, hires, and quits/layoffs/retirements/deaths.

All of that is vitiated by the fact that UE has gone down. If things were static, as suggested there would never be an improvement in UE.

First, who's saying anything is static? No idea where you're getting that from.

Second, the UE rate went down, and so did the rate of UE to job openings. UE level went down, job openings went up.

So there are two ratios here: unemployed/labor force and unemployed/job openings.

 

[kaz]

It does "stimulate" the economy more than giving more money to already rich people.

Neither one really stimulates the economy though.

Giving a check of someone else's money to someone is not the same as government not taking someone's money, comrade...

 

[Foxfyre]

I still say let folks have the first six months of unemployment insurance to look for a new job. Then if the government is going to insist that unemployment insurance be extended beyond that six months, require recipients to do six to eight hours a day of community service picking up trash or cleaning off graffiti or whatever in return for their unemployment check--they will be allowed time off from their community service work to go to job interviews.

I guarantee that if that is the policy, there won't be a whole lot of folks needing unemployment insurance extensions.

 

[Bfgrn]

I still say let folks have the first six months of unemployment insurance to look for a new job. Then if the government is going to insist that unemployment insurance be extended beyond that six months, require recipients to do six to eight hours a day of community service picking up trash or cleaning off graffiti or whatever in return for their unemployment check--they will be allowed time off from their community service work to go to job interviews.

I guarantee that if that is the policy, there won't be a whole lot of folks needing unemployment insurance extensions.

SO, you right wingers really don't have a problem with government dictating, controlling and intervening into people's lives. Hey maybe they could be forced to piss in a cup before their work on the chain gang.

You people are really fucked up...BIG time.