CDZ redistribution of wealth

[there4eyeM]

To recapitulate, we have, as I'd hoped, established that 'redistribution' can be voluntary and by intelligent wealthy sectors without government involvement. Most also agree that distribution up from the bottom by government intervention, such as regressive taxation, is unjust.
What I would like to talk about further is how our systems can work more for us and we less controlled by them, thus redistributing power outward from the center. When I say system, I mean social and moral at least as much as governmental. When we discuss this, just as an exercise, let's try to avoid the facile dualism of just 'left' and right, 'lib' and 'con'. Why not see if we can find other, non-volatile terms?
For starters, how about organized religion requiring their members to adhere to tenets of charity by donating ten percent of income?

So you suggest we don't use volatile words like lib and con, left and right but then immediately suggest religions require tithes? How do you require tithing without force? The problem we have right now is government wants to be the substitute for religion, where it forces tithing and decides on re-distributions on it's own.

"...how about organized religion requiring their members to adhere to tenets of charity by donating ten percent of income?" I thought this was clear; the members of the sect, or however we wish to identify a particular view of deity, participate. This is at the direction of whatever hierarchy exists in that group. The 'requirement' is in the sense of having moral authority (not AKs). Essentially, this is voluntary; one can always refuse or move on to another sect. The idea was to move people to 'do the right thing' without force, from within the individual.

 

[there4eyeM]

I'm confused again. You want to raise the minimum wage, so more people are unemployed, and earning nothing? This would benefit who, and how?

Actually, I want to solve simple poverty and the capitalist inefficiency of a Natural Rate of Unemployment, via a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines and that is as easy to administer as the concept of employment at will can make it.

I hope you are no longer confused as to my Intent and Purpose.

Right. So the value of the labor is only $7 an hour. The minimum wage is $10 or $12 an hour.

Since the value the employee is creating, is lower than the minimum wage allowed by law, the result is, I law off the employees that have low value labor.

Not only do the employees earn zero instead of the $7/hour they were earning before, but now they can't get work experience, or on the job training, which would allow them to move up the income ladder.

The current CEO of Walmart, started out his career as a low wage seasonal worker, unloading trucks for Walmart during the summer.

You are cutting off the rung of the ladder that the CEO used to get to where he is.

You are missing the point about a form of minimum wage that merely reserves labor from the private sector at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Using Your example, the "minimum wage" could be $8/hour--for ease of discussion.
Value would be created through scarcity (of labor) at a fixed Standard, wage price per hour--a form of minimum wage.

This method is much more market recognizable and much more market friendly.

I don't think some libs understand the simple fact that some jobs are just not worth overpaying someone to do. I find those are usually the same ones that would rather pay someone to do nothing than encourage them to do something worthy of an income that gets them out of poverty.

IOW some libs just want something "done" about the problem of poverty, and are too ignorant or just don't care enough to actually "do" something about the problem. Instead they seem to be encouraging poverty to have a steady stream of voters who vote for redistribution money.

What kind of jobs are overpaying someone to do it? Jobs like joining the military?

Trust me..............nobody ever got rich by joining the military. At best (unless they were O-4's or better) they made it to middle class.

Interestingly enough, active duty members who are E-5 or below qualify for assistance programs like WIC. I know, because I used it when I was in the Navy.

...and can the term "overpaid" be applied when what is fundamentally being discussed is someone investing his/her life, time and energy? These are precious and really beyond price. Basing everything on money misses the essential thing; the only source of value is life, and its value surpasses all other.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm confused again. You want to raise the minimum wage, so more people are unemployed, and earning nothing? This would benefit who, and how?

Actually, I want to solve simple poverty and the capitalist inefficiency of a Natural Rate of Unemployment, via a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines and that is as easy to administer as the concept of employment at will can make it.

I hope you are no longer confused as to my Intent and Purpose.

Right. So the value of the labor is only $7 an hour. The minimum wage is $10 or $12 an hour.

Since the value the employee is creating, is lower than the minimum wage allowed by law, the result is, I law off the employees that have low value labor.

Not only do the employees earn zero instead of the $7/hour they were earning before, but now they can't get work experience, or on the job training, which would allow them to move up the income ladder.

The current CEO of Walmart, started out his career as a low wage seasonal worker, unloading trucks for Walmart during the summer.

You are cutting off the rung of the ladder that the CEO used to get to where he is.

You are missing the point about a form of minimum wage that merely reserves labor from the private sector at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Using Your example, the "minimum wage" could be $8/hour--for ease of discussion.
Value would be created through scarcity (of labor) at a fixed Standard, wage price per hour--a form of minimum wage.

This method is much more market recognizable and much more market friendly.

I don't think some libs understand the simple fact that some jobs are just not worth overpaying someone to do. I find those are usually the same ones that would rather pay someone to do nothing than encourage them to do something worthy of an income that gets them out of poverty.

IOW some libs just want something "done" about the problem of poverty, and are too ignorant or just don't care enough to actually "do" something about the problem. Instead they seem to be encouraging poverty to have a steady stream of voters who vote for redistribution money.

What kind of jobs are overpaying someone to do it? Jobs like joining the military?

Trust me..............nobody ever got rich by joining the military. At best (unless they were O-4's or better) they made it to middle class.

Interestingly enough, active duty members who are E-5 or below qualify for assistance programs like WIC. I know, because I used it when I was in the Navy.

I'm talking about minimum wage jobs that are not worth over paying someone for... and ... Why would you think I was talking about the military?

no...

I was talking about bagging groceries or handing out shopping carts and saying welcome to walmart.

You can't think of a job that is not worth a living wage? Maybe you need to think harder.

 

[RKMBrown]

To recapitulate, we have, as I'd hoped, established that 'redistribution' can be voluntary and by intelligent wealthy sectors without government involvement. Most also agree that distribution up from the bottom by government intervention, such as regressive taxation, is unjust.
What I would like to talk about further is how our systems can work more for us and we less controlled by them, thus redistributing power outward from the center. When I say system, I mean social and moral at least as much as governmental. When we discuss this, just as an exercise, let's try to avoid the facile dualism of just 'left' and right, 'lib' and 'con'. Why not see if we can find other, non-volatile terms?
For starters, how about organized religion requiring their members to adhere to tenets of charity by donating ten percent of income?

So you suggest we don't use volatile words like lib and con, left and right but then immediately suggest religions require tithes? How do you require tithing without force? The problem we have right now is government wants to be the substitute for religion, where it forces tithing and decides on re-distributions on it's own.

"...how about organized religion requiring their members to adhere to tenets of charity by donating ten percent of income?" I thought this was clear; the members of the sect, or however we wish to identify a particular view of deity, participate. This is at the direction of whatever hierarchy exists in that group. The 'requirement' is in the sense of having moral authority (not AKs). Essentially, this is voluntary; one can always refuse or move on to another sect. The idea was to move people to 'do the right thing' without force, from within the individual.

Ah, I see. So you don't go to church? You mention tithing as if tithing does not already exist in the church. Tithing is already a "voluntary" requirement. The church already "moves" people to do the right thing. Unfortunately, if you haven't been paying attention, the people that would otherwise be able to afford to tithe, are being taxed to death by local, state, and federal agencies. These governments are FORCING these people to tithe to the government instead of their church, for the purpose of providing HANDOUTS to recipients rich and poor, foreign and domestic, swine included.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is.

No, it's not. Socialism refers to social ownership of the means of production:

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you are referring to is

Crony capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am referring to the socialism of using the Peoples' money.

That's crony capitalism.

It can't be crony capitalism with public money; it should have to be private money.

Check the definition shared earlier.

It is Your special pleading if you only have obsolete propaganda and rhetoric to work with, but no actual clue and no actual Cause.

Socialism starts with a social Contract and is defined by it in our very own, social, Constitution for our Body politic, it is one example of "moral forms of absolutism" for the Militia of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually, I want to solve simple poverty and the capitalist inefficiency of a Natural Rate of Unemployment, via a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines and that is as easy to administer as the concept of employment at will can make it.

I hope you are no longer confused as to my Intent and Purpose.

Right. So the value of the labor is only $7 an hour. The minimum wage is $10 or $12 an hour.

Since the value the employee is creating, is lower than the minimum wage allowed by law, the result is, I law off the employees that have low value labor.

Not only do the employees earn zero instead of the $7/hour they were earning before, but now they can't get work experience, or on the job training, which would allow them to move up the income ladder.

The current CEO of Walmart, started out his career as a low wage seasonal worker, unloading trucks for Walmart during the summer.

You are cutting off the rung of the ladder that the CEO used to get to where he is.

You are missing the point about a form of minimum wage that merely reserves labor from the private sector at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Using Your example, the "minimum wage" could be $8/hour--for ease of discussion.
Value would be created through scarcity (of labor) at a fixed Standard, wage price per hour--a form of minimum wage.

This method is much more market recognizable and much more market friendly.

I don't think some libs understand the simple fact that some jobs are just not worth overpaying someone to do. I find those are usually the same ones that would rather pay someone to do nothing than encourage them to do something worthy of an income that gets them out of poverty.

IOW some libs just want something "done" about the problem of poverty, and are too ignorant or just don't care enough to actually "do" something about the problem. Instead they seem to be encouraging poverty to have a steady stream of voters who vote for redistribution money.

What kind of jobs are overpaying someone to do it? Jobs like joining the military?

Trust me..............nobody ever got rich by joining the military. At best (unless they were O-4's or better) they made it to middle class.

Interestingly enough, active duty members who are E-5 or below qualify for assistance programs like WIC. I know, because I used it when I was in the Navy.

I'm talking about minimum wage jobs that are not worth over paying someone for... and ... Why would you think I was talking about the military?

no...

I was talking about bagging groceries or handing out shopping carts and saying welcome to walmart.

You can't think of a job that is not worth a living wage? Maybe you need to think harder.

You seem to be missing the point about the concept of employment at will, and a form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor at the rock bottom cost of a minimum wage. It would remove that requirement from the private sector, and lower that "hidden tax" through less regulatory burden.

 

[Andylusion]

Right. So the value of the labor is only $7 an hour. The minimum wage is $10 or $12 an hour.

Since the value the employee is creating, is lower than the minimum wage allowed by law, the result is, I law off the employees that have low value labor.

Not only do the employees earn zero instead of the $7/hour they were earning before, but now they can't get work experience, or on the job training, which would allow them to move up the income ladder.

The current CEO of Walmart, started out his career as a low wage seasonal worker, unloading trucks for Walmart during the summer.

You are cutting off the rung of the ladder that the CEO used to get to where he is.

You are missing the point about a form of minimum wage that merely reserves labor from the private sector at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Using Your example, the "minimum wage" could be $8/hour--for ease of discussion.
Value would be created through scarcity (of labor) at a fixed Standard, wage price per hour--a form of minimum wage.

This method is much more market recognizable and much more market friendly.

I don't think some libs understand the simple fact that some jobs are just not worth overpaying someone to do. I find those are usually the same ones that would rather pay someone to do nothing than encourage them to do something worthy of an income that gets them out of poverty.

IOW some libs just want something "done" about the problem of poverty, and are too ignorant or just don't care enough to actually "do" something about the problem. Instead they seem to be encouraging poverty to have a steady stream of voters who vote for redistribution money.

What kind of jobs are overpaying someone to do it? Jobs like joining the military?

Trust me..............nobody ever got rich by joining the military. At best (unless they were O-4's or better) they made it to middle class.

Interestingly enough, active duty members who are E-5 or below qualify for assistance programs like WIC. I know, because I used it when I was in the Navy.

I'm talking about minimum wage jobs that are not worth over paying someone for... and ... Why would you think I was talking about the military?

no...

I was talking about bagging groceries or handing out shopping carts and saying welcome to walmart.

You can't think of a job that is not worth a living wage? Maybe you need to think harder.

You seem to be missing the point about the concept of employment at will, and a form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor at the rock bottom cost of a minimum wage. It would remove that requirement from the private sector, and lower that "hidden tax" through less regulatory burden.

The value of labor does not increase, simply because you allow people to sit at home doing nothing, collecting 8/hr off the government.

I'm not going to pay someone more money to do a job I think is only worth $5/hr, just because they can sit at home for $8/hr.

No one is.

The result would be that millions of people would sit at home collecting the 'minimum wage' of 8/hr off the government.

We've already seen that happen.

 

[Andylusion]

As for unemployment benefits - stop them.
If a man can work, he should.
If he hasn't got a job, he can go and find one or start a small business.
The minimum wage should also go - a man should get paid according his value he is to the company, not what government decides he's worth.

That way wealth with be redistributed as it should be.

That was how it was done before socialism bailed out capitalism, like usual. Now, we are more civilized.

Civilized, meaning we tax poor people, to pay rich people in government, and then complain about poor getting poorer, and rich getting richer.

That's socialism for you.

 

[danielpalos]

You are missing the point about a form of minimum wage that merely reserves labor from the private sector at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Using Your example, the "minimum wage" could be $8/hour--for ease of discussion.
Value would be created through scarcity (of labor) at a fixed Standard, wage price per hour--a form of minimum wage.

This method is much more market recognizable and much more market friendly.

I don't think some libs understand the simple fact that some jobs are just not worth overpaying someone to do. I find those are usually the same ones that would rather pay someone to do nothing than encourage them to do something worthy of an income that gets them out of poverty.

IOW some libs just want something "done" about the problem of poverty, and are too ignorant or just don't care enough to actually "do" something about the problem. Instead they seem to be encouraging poverty to have a steady stream of voters who vote for redistribution money.

What kind of jobs are overpaying someone to do it? Jobs like joining the military?

Trust me..............nobody ever got rich by joining the military. At best (unless they were O-4's or better) they made it to middle class.

Interestingly enough, active duty members who are E-5 or below qualify for assistance programs like WIC. I know, because I used it when I was in the Navy.

I'm talking about minimum wage jobs that are not worth over paying someone for... and ... Why would you think I was talking about the military?

no...

I was talking about bagging groceries or handing out shopping carts and saying welcome to walmart.

You can't think of a job that is not worth a living wage? Maybe you need to think harder.

You seem to be missing the point about the concept of employment at will, and a form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor at the rock bottom cost of a minimum wage. It would remove that requirement from the private sector, and lower that "hidden tax" through less regulatory burden.

The value of labor does not increase, simply because you allow people to sit at home doing nothing, collecting 8/hr off the government.

I'm not going to pay someone more money to do a job I think is only worth $5/hr, just because they can sit at home for $8/hr.

No one is.

The result would be that millions of people would sit at home collecting the 'minimum wage' of 8/hr off the government.

We've already seen that happen.

Yes, it does, simply by public fiat; why shouldn't command economics be employed instead of laissez-fair capitalism which is too lazy to have a Cause without a profit motive.

 

[danielpalos]

As for unemployment benefits - stop them.
If a man can work, he should.
If he hasn't got a job, he can go and find one or start a small business.
The minimum wage should also go - a man should get paid according his value he is to the company, not what government decides he's worth.

That way wealth with be redistributed as it should be.

That was how it was done before socialism bailed out capitalism, like usual. Now, we are more civilized.

Civilized, meaning we tax poor people, to pay rich people in government, and then complain about poor getting poorer, and rich getting richer.

That's socialism for you.

That is only mediocre socialism, not the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who enjoined us to only use sufficient Socialism, to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

 

[Andylusion]

Like I said; you don't really believe in Capitalism or making more money, with some money.

Another dumb post. If you don't have anything to say, just shut up. You are never going to get a meaningful response from anyone, when you say such absolutely moronic statements. Grow up a little. Be more mature. You'll get more mature responses when you do.

Now, new evidence from a study commissioned by the Labor Department during the Bush Administration reaffirms the value of UI as an automatic economic stabilizer during the latest recession. This study was conducted by the research firm IMPAQ International in conjunction with the Urban Institute and using the macroeconomic model from Moody’s Economy.com.

The study found that UI benefits:

• reduced the fall in GDP by 18.3%. This resulted in nominal GDP being $175 billion higher in 2009 than it would have been without unemployment insurance benefits. In total, unemployment insurance kept GDP $315 billion higher from the start of the recession through the second quarter of 2010;
• kept an average of 1.6 million Americans on the job in each quarter: at the low point of the recession, 1.8 million job losses were averted by UI benefits, lowering the unemployment rate by approximately 1.2 percentage points;
• made an even more positive impact than in previous recessions, thanks to the aggressive, bipartisan effort to expand unemployment insurance benefits and increase eligibility during both the Bush and Obama Administrations. “There is reason to believe,” said the study, “that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly.”
• have a multiplier effect of 2.0: for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, this report finds an increase in economic activity of two dollars.

Source: ETA News Release US Labor Department study underscores positive impact of unemployment insurance 11 16 2010

This is both obvious, stupid, and deceptive.

First, I don't care that "bush said it". I don't give a crap what Bush said. He's wrong.

Second, GDP, the very calculation of GDP, includes government spending.

If the government spent $1 Trillion dollars to hire Japanese sumo wrestlers to poop out of helicopters on top of the White House.... The government could honestly, and truthfully conclude that Sumo poop on the White House increased GDP by $1 Trillion dollars.

Go look it up. GDP includes government spending. If they spent $300 Billion on Unemployment Comp, it would increase GDP by $300 Billion. If they spent $500 Billion, $700 Billion, or $55 Trillion on Unemployment Comp, it would increase GDP by whatever amount they spent.

So that's irrelevant. Because it's not "real" GDP. Real improvements to the economy, do not require government spending to create.


Beyond that, it is absolutely impossible for unemployment insurance to prevent someone from losing their job. It is also false to claim that if those people didn't have unemployment insurance, that they would not have gotten a job. In fact, research for non-government (self-interested) sources, suggest that people act differently (as a normal non-left-wing person would expect), when they have money from the government, verses when they don't. Obviously your incentive to find a job, is higher when you have no more unemployment comp coming.

That isn't to say that everyone sits around until it runs out, only that the incentive is higher when it's running out, than when you have 99 weeks left.

Now, NONE of what I just said, is to suggest there is zero benefit. Of course there is. There is a benefit to all government spending. Increasing military spending would also save jobs, and increase the GDP.

The problem is, we are borrowing money to do it.

If I borrow money to live a better life style, I can safely say that credit cards increased my life style, my happiness, the quality of my health care, and all kinds of things I spent the money on. Until.... I go bankrupt, and I lose everything, including the stuff I had before I went into the debt to boost my life style.

Similarly, Greece's government spending clearly allowed the people of Greece to live a better life style, and increase GDP, and increase social programs and mass transit, and all kinds of stuff.

Yeah.... how's that working for them now? Now they have a worse standard of living than nearly anywhere in Europe.

So short term gain, and long term pain.

Lastly, all of those calculations exclude one key attribute. Specifically what would have been done with the money, if it had not been loaned to the government to fund UI? If the government had not borrowed the money, the people with that money would have been forced to invest it, or spend it somewhere else in the economy. If they used it to buy goods or invest, that would have created jobs in the private sector, then employment would have recovered faster.

Instead it was lent to the government, to pay people to stay at home.

These are not net positives. The claim that there was a "multiplier effect", is crap. Bush's gov-supporters are wrong. I don't care that it's Bush's team, or Obama's Team, or Clinton's team, or whose team it is. The claims about the multiplier effect, are false.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't think some libs understand the simple fact that some jobs are just not worth overpaying someone to do. I find those are usually the same ones that would rather pay someone to do nothing than encourage them to do something worthy of an income that gets them out of poverty.

IOW some libs just want something "done" about the problem of poverty, and are too ignorant or just don't care enough to actually "do" something about the problem. Instead they seem to be encouraging poverty to have a steady stream of voters who vote for redistribution money.

What kind of jobs are overpaying someone to do it? Jobs like joining the military?

Trust me..............nobody ever got rich by joining the military. At best (unless they were O-4's or better) they made it to middle class.

Interestingly enough, active duty members who are E-5 or below qualify for assistance programs like WIC. I know, because I used it when I was in the Navy.

I'm talking about minimum wage jobs that are not worth over paying someone for... and ... Why would you think I was talking about the military?

no...

I was talking about bagging groceries or handing out shopping carts and saying welcome to walmart.

You can't think of a job that is not worth a living wage? Maybe you need to think harder.

You seem to be missing the point about the concept of employment at will, and a form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor at the rock bottom cost of a minimum wage. It would remove that requirement from the private sector, and lower that "hidden tax" through less regulatory burden.

The value of labor does not increase, simply because you allow people to sit at home doing nothing, collecting 8/hr off the government.

I'm not going to pay someone more money to do a job I think is only worth $5/hr, just because they can sit at home for $8/hr.

No one is.

The result would be that millions of people would sit at home collecting the 'minimum wage' of 8/hr off the government.

We've already seen that happen.

Yes, it does, simply by public fiat; why shouldn't command economics be employed instead of laissez-fair capitalism which is too lazy to have a Cause without a profit motive.

Again... because it won't work. Doesn't matter what your high minded sentiment is. It does not work.

 

[Andylusion]

As for unemployment benefits - stop them.
If a man can work, he should.
If he hasn't got a job, he can go and find one or start a small business.
The minimum wage should also go - a man should get paid according his value he is to the company, not what government decides he's worth.

That way wealth with be redistributed as it should be.

That was how it was done before socialism bailed out capitalism, like usual. Now, we are more civilized.

Civilized, meaning we tax poor people, to pay rich people in government, and then complain about poor getting poorer, and rich getting richer.

That's socialism for you.

That is only mediocre socialism, not the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who enjoined us to only use sufficient Socialism, to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

General welfare was only the enumerated powers, none of them include what you are talking about.

And no, that's full blow socialism. Same as we've seen elsewhere when socialism is tried.

 

[ralfy]

No, it's not. Socialism refers to social ownership of the means of production:

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you are referring to is

Crony capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am referring to the socialism of using the Peoples' money.

That's crony capitalism.

It can't be crony capitalism with public money; it should have to be private money.

Check the definition shared earlier.

It is Your special pleading if you only have obsolete propaganda and rhetoric to work with, but no actual clue and no actual Cause.

Socialism starts with a social Contract and is defined by it in our very own, social, Constitution for our Body politic, it is one example of "moral forms of absolutism" for the Militia of the United States.

Socialism refers to social ownership of the means of production. It's not always the opposite of capitalism, as one of the forms of the latter include state capitalism. See the links shared earlier for details.

The origin of social contract is not exactly socialism but the opposite:

Social contract - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[ralfy]

As for unemployment benefits - stop them.
If a man can work, he should.
If he hasn't got a job, he can go and find one or start a small business.
The minimum wage should also go - a man should get paid according his value he is to the company, not what government decides he's worth.

That way wealth with be redistributed as it should be.

That was how it was done before socialism bailed out capitalism, like usual. Now, we are more civilized.

Civilized, meaning we tax poor people, to pay rich people in government, and then complain about poor getting poorer, and rich getting richer.

That's socialism for you.

That is only mediocre socialism, not the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who enjoined us to only use sufficient Socialism, to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

General welfare was only the enumerated powers, none of them include what you are talking about.

And no, that's full blow socialism. Same as we've seen elsewhere when socialism is tried.

Full-blown socialism involves social ownership of the means of production. More details in the link shared in my previous post.

 

[danielpalos]

Like I said; you don't really believe in Capitalism or making more money, with some money.

Another dumb post. If you don't have anything to say, just shut up. You are never going to get a meaningful response from anyone, when you say such absolutely moronic statements. Grow up a little. Be more mature. You'll get more mature responses when you do.

Now, new evidence from a study commissioned by the Labor Department during the Bush Administration reaffirms the value of UI as an automatic economic stabilizer during the latest recession. This study was conducted by the research firm IMPAQ International in conjunction with the Urban Institute and using the macroeconomic model from Moody’s Economy.com.

The study found that UI benefits:

• reduced the fall in GDP by 18.3%. This resulted in nominal GDP being $175 billion higher in 2009 than it would have been without unemployment insurance benefits. In total, unemployment insurance kept GDP $315 billion higher from the start of the recession through the second quarter of 2010;
• kept an average of 1.6 million Americans on the job in each quarter: at the low point of the recession, 1.8 million job losses were averted by UI benefits, lowering the unemployment rate by approximately 1.2 percentage points;
• made an even more positive impact than in previous recessions, thanks to the aggressive, bipartisan effort to expand unemployment insurance benefits and increase eligibility during both the Bush and Obama Administrations. “There is reason to believe,” said the study, “that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly.”
• have a multiplier effect of 2.0: for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, this report finds an increase in economic activity of two dollars.

Source: ETA News Release US Labor Department study underscores positive impact of unemployment insurance 11 16 2010

This is both obvious, stupid, and deceptive.

First, I don't care that "bush said it". I don't give a crap what Bush said. He's wrong.

Second, GDP, the very calculation of GDP, includes government spending.

If the government spent $1 Trillion dollars to hire Japanese sumo wrestlers to poop out of helicopters on top of the White House.... The government could honestly, and truthfully conclude that Sumo poop on the White House increased GDP by $1 Trillion dollars.

Go look it up. GDP includes government spending. If they spent $300 Billion on Unemployment Comp, it would increase GDP by $300 Billion. If they spent $500 Billion, $700 Billion, or $55 Trillion on Unemployment Comp, it would increase GDP by whatever amount they spent.

So that's irrelevant. Because it's not "real" GDP. Real improvements to the economy, do not require government spending to create.


Beyond that, it is absolutely impossible for unemployment insurance to prevent someone from losing their job. It is also false to claim that if those people didn't have unemployment insurance, that they would not have gotten a job. In fact, research for non-government (self-interested) sources, suggest that people act differently (as a normal non-left-wing person would expect), when they have money from the government, verses when they don't. Obviously your incentive to find a job, is higher when you have no more unemployment comp coming.

That isn't to say that everyone sits around until it runs out, only that the incentive is higher when it's running out, than when you have 99 weeks left.

Now, NONE of what I just said, is to suggest there is zero benefit. Of course there is. There is a benefit to all government spending. Increasing military spending would also save jobs, and increase the GDP.

The problem is, we are borrowing money to do it.

If I borrow money to live a better life style, I can safely say that credit cards increased my life style, my happiness, the quality of my health care, and all kinds of things I spent the money on. Until.... I go bankrupt, and I lose everything, including the stuff I had before I went into the debt to boost my life style.

Similarly, Greece's government spending clearly allowed the people of Greece to live a better life style, and increase GDP, and increase social programs and mass transit, and all kinds of stuff.

Yeah.... how's that working for them now? Now they have a worse standard of living than nearly anywhere in Europe.

So short term gain, and long term pain.

Lastly, all of those calculations exclude one key attribute. Specifically what would have been done with the money, if it had not been loaned to the government to fund UI? If the government had not borrowed the money, the people with that money would have been forced to invest it, or spend it somewhere else in the economy. If they used it to buy goods or invest, that would have created jobs in the private sector, then employment would have recovered faster.

Instead it was lent to the government, to pay people to stay at home.

These are not net positives. The claim that there was a "multiplier effect", is crap. Bush's gov-supporters are wrong. I don't care that it's Bush's team, or Obama's Team, or Clinton's team, or whose team it is. The claims about the multiplier effect, are false.

I agree with them; you don't seem to have a valid rebuttal. It really is that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

What kind of jobs are overpaying someone to do it? Jobs like joining the military?

Trust me..............nobody ever got rich by joining the military. At best (unless they were O-4's or better) they made it to middle class.

Interestingly enough, active duty members who are E-5 or below qualify for assistance programs like WIC. I know, because I used it when I was in the Navy.

I'm talking about minimum wage jobs that are not worth over paying someone for... and ... Why would you think I was talking about the military?

no...

I was talking about bagging groceries or handing out shopping carts and saying welcome to walmart.

You can't think of a job that is not worth a living wage? Maybe you need to think harder.

You seem to be missing the point about the concept of employment at will, and a form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor at the rock bottom cost of a minimum wage. It would remove that requirement from the private sector, and lower that "hidden tax" through less regulatory burden.

The value of labor does not increase, simply because you allow people to sit at home doing nothing, collecting 8/hr off the government.

I'm not going to pay someone more money to do a job I think is only worth $5/hr, just because they can sit at home for $8/hr.

No one is.

The result would be that millions of people would sit at home collecting the 'minimum wage' of 8/hr off the government.

We've already seen that happen.

Yes, it does, simply by public fiat; why shouldn't command economics be employed instead of laissez-fair capitalism which is too lazy to have a Cause without a profit motive.

Again... because it won't work. Doesn't matter what your high minded sentiment is. It does not work.

Command economics always works, and may even require a work ethic. What doesn't work is your appeals to ignorance and other diversions.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, delegating a social Power is a for

As for unemployment benefits - stop them.
If a man can work, he should.
If he hasn't got a job, he can go and find one or start a small business.
The minimum wage should also go - a man should get paid according his value he is to the company, not what government decides he's worth.

That way wealth with be redistributed as it should be.

That was how it was done before socialism bailed out capitalism, like usual. Now, we are more civilized.

Civilized, meaning we tax poor people, to pay rich people in government, and then complain about poor getting poorer, and rich getting richer.

That's socialism for you.

That is only mediocre socialism, not the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who enjoined us to only use sufficient Socialism, to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

General welfare was only the enumerated powers, none of them include what you are talking about.

And no, that's full blow socialism. Same as we've seen elsewhere when socialism is tried.

Your special pleading is duly noted. Socialism starts with a social contract. Simply delegating the social Power to tax is a form of socialism not capitalism which would require all parties to agree and sign the contract.

 

[Andylusion]

Like I said; you don't really believe in Capitalism or making more money, with some money.

Another dumb post. If you don't have anything to say, just shut up. You are never going to get a meaningful response from anyone, when you say such absolutely moronic statements. Grow up a little. Be more mature. You'll get more mature responses when you do.

Now, new evidence from a study commissioned by the Labor Department during the Bush Administration reaffirms the value of UI as an automatic economic stabilizer during the latest recession. This study was conducted by the research firm IMPAQ International in conjunction with the Urban Institute and using the macroeconomic model from Moody’s Economy.com.

The study found that UI benefits:

• reduced the fall in GDP by 18.3%. This resulted in nominal GDP being $175 billion higher in 2009 than it would have been without unemployment insurance benefits. In total, unemployment insurance kept GDP $315 billion higher from the start of the recession through the second quarter of 2010;
• kept an average of 1.6 million Americans on the job in each quarter: at the low point of the recession, 1.8 million job losses were averted by UI benefits, lowering the unemployment rate by approximately 1.2 percentage points;
• made an even more positive impact than in previous recessions, thanks to the aggressive, bipartisan effort to expand unemployment insurance benefits and increase eligibility during both the Bush and Obama Administrations. “There is reason to believe,” said the study, “that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly.”
• have a multiplier effect of 2.0: for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, this report finds an increase in economic activity of two dollars.

Source: ETA News Release US Labor Department study underscores positive impact of unemployment insurance 11 16 2010

This is both obvious, stupid, and deceptive.

First, I don't care that "bush said it". I don't give a crap what Bush said. He's wrong.

Second, GDP, the very calculation of GDP, includes government spending.

If the government spent $1 Trillion dollars to hire Japanese sumo wrestlers to poop out of helicopters on top of the White House.... The government could honestly, and truthfully conclude that Sumo poop on the White House increased GDP by $1 Trillion dollars.

Go look it up. GDP includes government spending. If they spent $300 Billion on Unemployment Comp, it would increase GDP by $300 Billion. If they spent $500 Billion, $700 Billion, or $55 Trillion on Unemployment Comp, it would increase GDP by whatever amount they spent.

So that's irrelevant. Because it's not "real" GDP. Real improvements to the economy, do not require government spending to create.


Beyond that, it is absolutely impossible for unemployment insurance to prevent someone from losing their job. It is also false to claim that if those people didn't have unemployment insurance, that they would not have gotten a job. In fact, research for non-government (self-interested) sources, suggest that people act differently (as a normal non-left-wing person would expect), when they have money from the government, verses when they don't. Obviously your incentive to find a job, is higher when you have no more unemployment comp coming.

That isn't to say that everyone sits around until it runs out, only that the incentive is higher when it's running out, than when you have 99 weeks left.

Now, NONE of what I just said, is to suggest there is zero benefit. Of course there is. There is a benefit to all government spending. Increasing military spending would also save jobs, and increase the GDP.

The problem is, we are borrowing money to do it.

If I borrow money to live a better life style, I can safely say that credit cards increased my life style, my happiness, the quality of my health care, and all kinds of things I spent the money on. Until.... I go bankrupt, and I lose everything, including the stuff I had before I went into the debt to boost my life style.

Similarly, Greece's government spending clearly allowed the people of Greece to live a better life style, and increase GDP, and increase social programs and mass transit, and all kinds of stuff.

Yeah.... how's that working for them now? Now they have a worse standard of living than nearly anywhere in Europe.

So short term gain, and long term pain.

Lastly, all of those calculations exclude one key attribute. Specifically what would have been done with the money, if it had not been loaned to the government to fund UI? If the government had not borrowed the money, the people with that money would have been forced to invest it, or spend it somewhere else in the economy. If they used it to buy goods or invest, that would have created jobs in the private sector, then employment would have recovered faster.

Instead it was lent to the government, to pay people to stay at home.

These are not net positives. The claim that there was a "multiplier effect", is crap. Bush's gov-supporters are wrong. I don't care that it's Bush's team, or Obama's Team, or Clinton's team, or whose team it is. The claims about the multiplier effect, are false.

I agree with them; you don't seem to have a valid rebuttal. It really is that simple.

You have the right to be ignorant and wrong. You may by all means, remain so.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, delegating a social Power is a for

As for unemployment benefits - stop them.
If a man can work, he should.
If he hasn't got a job, he can go and find one or start a small business.
The minimum wage should also go - a man should get paid according his value he is to the company, not what government decides he's worth.

That way wealth with be redistributed as it should be.

That was how it was done before socialism bailed out capitalism, like usual. Now, we are more civilized.

Civilized, meaning we tax poor people, to pay rich people in government, and then complain about poor getting poorer, and rich getting richer.

That's socialism for you.

That is only mediocre socialism, not the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who enjoined us to only use sufficient Socialism, to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

General welfare was only the enumerated powers, none of them include what you are talking about.

And no, that's full blow socialism. Same as we've seen elsewhere when socialism is tried.

Your special pleading is duly noted. Socialism starts with a social contract. Simply delegating the social Power to tax is a form of socialism not capitalism which would require all parties to agree and sign the contract.

Tax yes. The rest of the things government is doing, is in direct violation of that social contract.