Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

[Rover]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I'm sensing a healthy dose of elitism out of my right wing friends out here. Given how little (relatively) unemployment pays, not wanting to find a similar paying job as the one that was recently lost would be financial suicide for most people, and I'm guessing for 100% of the USCHO population as all non-students out here most likely work for a lot more than minimum wage.

Therefore, what we're left with are the mythical working class slob who'd rather sit around watching Jerry Springer and collect on the taxpayes dime while a Wal-Mart job would give him the same amount of $$$ as he made previously. I'm sure this person exists, somewhere, and he probably votes GOP ironically , but to imply that this person is the norm is stupid. Its like the notion of everybody collecting welfare is an immigrant black or Hispanic single mother with 8 kids by 8 different fathers, when it fact most welfare recipients are white as a ghost.

The 70's are over people. Sometimes its okay to let go of some of the stereotypes after several decades....

 

[ColbyWMHB]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

The 70's are over people. Sometimes its okay to let go of some of the stereotypes after several decades....

We already have high unemployment, poor American auto sales and ghastly pop music....if inflation does indeed read its ugly head as warned, all we'd need is the return of Studio 54 to make the scenario complete!

 

[Tater]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

The husband of one of my paralegals is a union electrician who was laid off about 9 months ago. He refuses to even apply for temp work or work at WalMart or Home Depot because he collects more on unemployment. And because he thinks it's "not proper work for a licensed electrician". Meanwhile, his unemployment is due to expire in a few weeks, and his wife is looking for a second job.

Typical union sense of entitlement. He should be ashamed his wife is looking for a second job when he is sitting on his hind on our dime. People collecting UI should be required to prove they are looking for jobs. Unfortunate that a small number of people would make it tougher on the whole, but this kind of fraud is frustrating.

 

[moe24]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Typical union sense of entitlement. He should be ashamed his wife is looking for a second job when he is sitting on his hind on our dime. People collecting UI should be required to prove they are looking for jobs. Unfortunate that a small number of people would make it tougher on the whole, but this kind of fraud is frustrating.

You also have to place some blame on the government, whose entitlement programs enable this kind of behavior.

I have a friend who is on unemployment (has been for the past 2 years) and he refuses to look for a job until the government stops paying him to not work. And just last week he received a letter from the local unemployment office stating that his benefits had been extended another 6 months. He did nothing to apply for the extension, he just received it automatically.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Therefore, what we're left with are the mythical working class slob who'd rather sit around watching Jerry Springer and collect on the taxpayes dime while a Wal-Mart job would give him the same amount of $$$ as he made previously.

Who cares if the Wal Mart job pays the same as he made previously? Why is he entitled to that exact amount of income in perpetuity? He's not. The economy sucks and it hurts people. In other news, water is wet.

The fact is that this person would rather sit around on the taxpayers' dime than work at Wal Mart for slightly more money. Heck, if you told me my choices were to sit at home for $12k per year or work at Walmart for $15k per year, I'd be sitting at home, too - no way it's worth the extra $57 per week. That's a completely rational choice on his part. The irrational ones are the people who think this type of disincentive to get back to work - any work - is somehow good for the economy or the long-term future of the country.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I think focusing on unions is a red herring, just like blaming CRA (community reinvestment act) for the worst housing crash in our lifetime.

But I'll agree the root problem is the cost which is wage inflation. And one problem Obama is going after is insurance which went from 90% payout to 80% in the last decade which means the non-unionized insurance industry wages are going up and up. Only problem is the solution Obama/Democrats are loved by the insurance industry, which means it doesn't deal with wage inflation.

Just like our city budget which went up 150% in line with our property value/taxes of 150%. most of that money went to payroll 80% and rest into maintenance and new construction 20%. And our city employees are all unionzed so I have much hate for these guys for not rolling back some of the pay increases they received like they promised.

I also have much hate for all those non-unionized bankers getting mucho wage increases and bonuses while sending us into the worst financial mess since the great depression. I think it matters not if people are union or not they all want more money even if they know they are the ones causing the looming fiscal crisis by the wage inflation which is unsustainable. I'm sure it'll be blamed on the federal minimum wage increases.

One thing that I would say is that at least, going forward, the bankers could receive no bonus, could get no pay raise or could be fired. The same isn't true in many union settings.

A guaranteed annual pay increase is not tied to performance, compounds, drives increases on several lines and the typical remedy is layoffs - this is the case union or otherwise.

Emotionally the bonuses get everybody fired up, but if we're talking about companies with a lot of headcount, then quaranteed and repetitive salary increases not only drive more expense but they can't be unwound.


edit: as for working vs. not...I've also seen plenty of people on severance sit around for the entire period and then start looking. you'd think they'd grab a job and double dip but instead they 'spend time with their family' which apparently means playing a lot of golf and doing some home improvement projects. Now, they earned the severance and can do what they choose, it just goes to the motivation factor mentioned below. You'd also think they'd be concerned about the future etc. but instead of putting some money away or paying down debt, they don't...nobody can question if they are true Americans

 

[Tater]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

The fact is that this person would rather sit around on the taxpayers' dime than work at Wal Mart for slightly more money. Heck, if you told me my choices were to sit at home for $12k per year or work at Walmart for $15k per year, I'd be sitting at home, too - no way it's worth the extra $57 per week. That's a completely rational choice on his part. The irrational ones are the people who think this type of disincentive to get back to work - any work - is somehow good for the economy or the long-term future of the country.

Rational choice?? It is against the law and it is fraud. The irrational ones are those who think this behavior is ok.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Who cares if the Wal Mart job pays the same as he made previously? Why is he entitled to that exact amount of income in perpetuity? He's not. The economy sucks and it hurts people. In other news, water is wet.

The fact is that this person would rather sit around on the taxpayers' dime than work at Wal Mart for slightly more money. Heck, if you told me my choices were to sit at home for $12k per year or work at Walmart for $15k per year, I'd be sitting at home, too - no way it's worth the extra $57 per week. That's a completely rational choice on his part. The irrational ones are the people who think this type of disincentive to get back to work - any work - is somehow good for the economy or the long-term future of the country.

Again with the elitism Lynah. Somebody needs to prove to me that these people exist in large measure. Otherwise its a right wing boogeyman with little basis in reality. Its the same old story. I don't have the same sense of entitlement that the unemployed do and all these people out of work are just too lazy or have no incentive to get some of these millions of job openings that are apparently there for the taking.

In reality, floating people along a bit during an admittedly brutal jobs recession helps keep people in the homes and off even further public assistance. I'm all for keeping unemployement benefits extremely limited in a good national economy, as people can always move to where the jobs are. The problem in this current reality that we live in is that there is nowhere to go to find widespread jobs except for maybe China, and I think that maybe we've outsourced enough things to that country at this point. That in a nutshell is always the problem with conservatism. It doesn't work in the real world, because it fails to take into account the complexity of situations. Its more of a caveman type reaction: WORK...GOOD....NO WORK....LAZY.

BTW moe, your friend has been collecting for over 100 weeks? I was under the impression that 70 weeks is the cutoff.

 

[moe24]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

BTW moe, your friend has been collecting for over 100 weeks? I was under the impression that 70 weeks is the cutoff.

I don't know what the cutoff is, but I know for a fact he has been collecting that long and that it just got extended.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Who cares if the Wal Mart job pays the same as he made previously? Why is he entitled to that exact amount of income in perpetuity? He's not. The economy sucks and it hurts people. In other news, water is wet.

The fact is that this person would rather sit around on the taxpayers' dime than work at Wal Mart for slightly more money. Heck, if you told me my choices were to sit at home for $12k per year or work at Walmart for $15k per year, I'd be sitting at home, too - no way it's worth the extra $57 per week. That's a completely rational choice on his part. The irrational ones are the people who think this type of disincentive to get back to work - any work - is somehow good for the economy or the long-term future of the country.

Well, of course it's a bigger issue than just that. 12k or 15k a year is a pittance when your old job was paying you 45k.

Last I saw, the statistics said there were 5.4 job seekers for every available job in the US. It peaked at 6.4 seekers per job in late 2009. That's the highest that particular ratio has been in a long time. Pre-recession, that number was less than 2.

Who is arguing that we extend UI benefits in perpetuity? Extending them until the job picture gets somewhat more normal is both a moral thing to do and a boost to the economy.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Who is arguing that we extend UI benefits in perpetuity? Extending them until the job picture gets somewhat more normal is both a moral thing to do and a boost to the economy.

The argument can be made on either side of the morality of extending benefits, but how is it good for the economy? The money that is paying those benefits is being has to be taken out of the economy. At best it would be an even trade. Given the overhead, the economy winds up losing on the transaction.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

The argument can be made on either side of the morality of extending benefits, but how is it good for the economy? The money that is paying those benefits is being has to be taken out of the economy. At best it would be an even trade. Given the overhead, the economy winds up losing on the transaction.

Short answer - UI benefits have a strong multiplier effect. People that get them need to spend them, which in turn supports other jobs in the economy.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm

The industry research firm Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.

The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.
Stimulus proponents need to navigate Senate

Tracking that single dollar spent through the economic chain shows what economists call the ripple effect, Zandi said. For example, that dollar spent at the grocery store in turn helps to pay the salaries of the grocery clerks, pays the truckers who haul the food and produce cross-country, and finally goes to the farmer who grows the crops.

The report pointed to expanding unemployment benefits as the program that gets the next biggest bang for the buck. That's because, although the unemployed are already getting checks, they need to spend the money. For every dollar spent here, the economy would see a return of $1.64, Zandi said.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Short answer - UI benefits have a strong multiplier effect. People that get them need to spend them, which in turn supports other jobs in the economy.

If spending drove an economy Eastern Europe would rule the world. If there is such a great multiplier then why don't we double unemployment benefits?

Productivity drives an economy. When you take money out of the economy you are taking it away from more productive means. What you don't see when gov't spends money is what would have been built in the private sector. You don't see how much more effective the private sector could have been with that same money.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Rational choice?? It is against the law and it is fraud. The irrational ones are those who think this behavior is ok.

No one's saying it's ok, but it's economically rational. In order to want to work at Walmart rather than sit at home in that scenario, you'd have to value your free time at ~$1.50/hr. That's rediculous.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

You don't see how much more effective the private sector could have been with that same money.

Once again, did you stop your economics lessons after econ 101 or what?

You talk the talk, but I don't think you fully grasp a single theory you're spouted off.

Supposedly the Government has decided that one can acceptably exist on minimum wage, so I see no reason that a Government benefit should pay more than that.

The extreme majority of minimum wage workers in this country are teenagers. They aren't working those jobs to exist, they're doing them to get money for movie tickets, prom dresses, and gas for their car to cruise down main street.

In that context, the minimum wage is fine, because it is not some defined minimal subsistence level, but rather the minimal level a person must pay an unskilled whiny brat trying to earn "spending money." When you raise the minimum wage, the people most often hurt are teens, who no longer can find work given their lack of experience and marketable skills.

I suppose if you wanted to have 2 minimum wages, one for those who can be claimed as dependants come tax time and one for those who can't, that might work, but then you'd open a whole new can of worms.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Once again, did you stop your economics lessons after econ 101 or what?

You talk the talk, but I don't think you fully grasp a single theory you're spouted off.

The alternative is Keynsian Economics. Show me where that has ever worked.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have unemployment insurance. We should just be aware of the costs.

 

[pardonme]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I suppose if you wanted to have 2 minimum wages, one for those who can be claimed as dependants come tax time and one for those who can't, that might work, but then you'd open a whole new can of worms.

Isn't that essentially what the earned income credit does?

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Plante, I bestow upon you the John McCain 2008 campaign award for lets focus on the smaller issues and ignore the ones with an actual financial impact. I'm guessing you were involuntarily removed from the commercial lending industry with your grasp of facts. However, lets once again hit the highlights in yet another too long rant (I feel sorry for anybody who's ever in a meeting with you).

Smaller issues? Nothing in the Obama plan deals with costs first--why not address cost and see what cracks need to be filled afterwards? This reform package is the equivalent of killing a spider with a sledgehammer; there will be massive collateral damage done.

1) You keep ducking it, but I'll keep putting you on the spot. Quantify in dollar terms how much these union people are costing the health care system and what savings we should achieve from them? Because the problem with your example is that it leaves out too many factors. If NY doctors are in a union but Idaho ones aren't, that drives your 30% difference, even though unionized or not NY doctors will make more than Idaho ones. You are capable of this sort of deeper analysis, right? Right???

Quantify? It's very simple, Rover. Listen as hard as you possibly can: Again, Slappy, payroll is the single largest expenditure in health care. Unionization aside, increased wages drive the cost of health care higher. Unions only drive this cost higher, as we are in agreement that union workers make more than non-union workers. If not wages driving the cost of health care higher, what is? And if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that doctors aren't the ones forming unions--the nurses, administrative staff and maintenance staff are. The local hospital here in Duluth is paying numerous nurses well over $100k in wages--which is preposterous. If health care is a right--as so many on the left say it is--then why should health care workers be allowed to leverage that right against the cost of patient care? It's a glaring double standard--one which isn't being addressed by health insurance reform.

2) I've seen no study saying that of the 45M+ people uninsured, millions of them are in fact insured, just paying for it themselves. Again, please post a link or something on that instead of pulling it out of your rear end. Correct about some being illegal, and they aren't getting any help getting insurance with Obama's plan.

This has been answered already, so I won't bother.

3) Reducing waste is always a goal. In fact its part of the plan (health care panel studying ways to reduce costs - unless you're one of these death panel believers). A laudable effort just like tort reform that should also be pursued. Not sure why you're against the bill then. Especially when your other point, that people should spend less on cable and shoes and buy insurance instead, is rectified by this law (mandatory insurance for all).

Again, Rover, you fail to grasp the concept of cost. If cost and eliminating waste/fraud/abuse were addressed FIRST, and this entire bill will be unnecessary. I wholeheartedly believe that people SHOULD be buying health care insurance, however, if they choose not to THEY should be responsible for paying for it--not the taxpayers. Make THAT a law, and the intended outcome will come to fruition. This would also save current insured Americans billions of dollars, as there wouldn't be an influx of higher-risk insureds flooding the current insurance pools.

4) In your final act of idiocy, you don't deny that leading conservative Tom DeLay, former Majority leader, is directly quoted as saying that people who are unemployed want to be. Rather, you take issue as to where it was reported. Ahhh plante - is your screen name a reflection of a living thing that you have a comparable IQ with?

You're the one consistently asking for unbiased sources. Just sayin'.

Once again, Rover, you've proven yourself to be devoid of logical thought. If costs were lower, health insurance would be cheaper. If health insurance were cheaper, more people would be able to afford it. It is that simple.

Of course, you won't understand this being that you have a hammer and sickle stuck in your earhole--government is the solution, right? OF COURSE! EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED IN GETS CHEAPER!

Who is arguing that we extend UI benefits in perpetuity? Extending them until the job picture gets somewhat more normal is both a moral thing to do and a boost to the economy.

Moral thing to do? Giving someone something and getting nothing in return is hardly moral. In fact, I'd argue the opposite--much like perpetual welfare has decimated the family structure of lower classes by making it possible to survive without doing anything productive on a daily basis.

If you wanted to make it "moral", you'd subsidize whatever job a person is able to get in the private sector to bring the pay to a level the equal of unemployment benefits.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

The argument can be made on either side of the morality of extending benefits, but how is it good for the economy? The money that is paying those benefits is being has to be taken out of the economy. At best it would be an even trade. Given the overhead, the economy winds up losing on the transaction.

You never took Macroeconomics did you?

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

You never took Macroeconomics did you?

Did you? Please prove to me how its net benefit in economic terms to pay people with other peoples' money for years on end to be unproductive.