Posted on 12/02/2010 10:24:06 AM PST by Phlap
The size of the job number is probably wildly exaggerated but the reason why there could be job loss isn’t really hard to explain.
It’s a second order effect. Jobless people are still spending some money and the stores they patronize employ people. When the UI checks end the jobless have to cut back on spending even more and as this loss of demand filters to the stores they lay people off. It’s similar to a deflationary spiral.
Yes they do!!! It is insane! They make it sound like if you get unemployment you take home the same salary as if you work. Hello??? It is only a small portion of your income.
A good friend of mine was laid off and went on unemployment, he went from $70,000+ a year to $18,500.00! Luckily they had savings, etc. that they were able to keep their house, but they were bare to the bone necessaties, got rid of cable, cell phones, internet, etc. and grandparents picked up the slack with keeping up with the kids stuff like sports. They also don’t have a dime left in savings.
He is back working but unemployment is NOT a lifestyle. Yet these idiots think that enemployment checks help the community...........MORONS!!!!!!!!
“I don’t get it.”
Apparently, you’ve never read John Maynard Keynes’ “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.” Then again, I’ve read some of it, and I don’t get it, either.
“They need that many people to administer unemployment benefits?”
No, no, no. The idea is that the money to be spent by welfare recipients (aka those on unemployment) sustains jobs. Because all that matters is that people consume things, whether or not they earn the money to be spent.
You know, like how counterfeiting rings sustain economic growth. That’s how come they’re legal...err, wait...
I have an idea: if the government wants to act to help these jobless folks, ask for Federal Employees to volunteer to give them their jobs.
“we are truly through the looking glass. Sending out an unemployment check, is now seen as ‘creating employment’”
Where have you been? That’s been popularly the case for at least more than 80 years. Even longer before it was laid out in plain language.
It is a combination of fewer people needed to interview, authorize and process the payments plus all of the people who will lose their jobs by the unemployment dollars that will no longer be given to the unemployed so that they can make purchases. H’mmm, but then the government will have to hire more people to process the new 600,000 unemployed and that will decrease the unemployment level from 9.6 to 10.6 percent. ;)
“It sounds wonderful; and, in theory, it is.”
It isn’t even wonderful in theory. In order to accept it in the first place, you have to be like the Peter Pan audience and “really believe.” When it comes to intellectuals, the proof of the pudding is NOT in the eating. The free market of ideas does not sift good from bad. If it did, Keynesianism would’ve been dropped long ago, when it failed to predict stagflation. It has continued to be a runaway success because it tells its supporters what they already want to hear.
The effects of “investment” do not magically “multiply” because the money comes from the government. They never have, and they never will. Not in (good) theory nor reality.
“Stop $300 a week payment to 2,000,000 people and you remove $600,000,000 from the economy. I guess that’s how they’re coming up with the number.”
But they said we’d lose $600,000 jobs, which I guess means to the government one job equals $1,000 dollars.
“which I guess means to the government one job equals $1,000 dollars”
Per week, that is.
Can’t pay further unemployment benefits, need the money to bailout more banks.
“unemployment is NOT a lifestyle”
It is for some people. Namely, those who don’t want to work and those who would be making less if they took the jobs they’re offered.
Unemployment benefits are essentially a mandatory insurance policy your employer and the employee are forced to pay on your behalf. You can’t opt out. So while you are employed this is in effect coming out of YOUR paycheck.
The correct way to handle unemployment is either:
- make the coverage optional so that the employer can pay more money up front to the employee
.
- Pay out all benefits in one lump sum just like any other insurance settlement with a valid claim on a loss.
If paid in a lump sum most people would have incentive to find work FAST.
Of course those who would prefer to coddle their sheeple constituents would see this as ‘mean and unfair’.
I live in GA, the max you can get is $375.00 per week, I don’t know anyone with a family that can live on that! Maybe a single person but not anyone with kids and a house note.
Yeah. Riiiiiight.
This may be going out on a limb, but my bet is that if we stop paying people to stay home, they’ll try a little bit harder to get a job and be somewhat less selective on which jobs they will accept. I’m not part of the ruling elite, so I just don’t understand why paying people not to work creates jobs.
“Unemployment benefits are essentially a mandatory insurance policy your employer and the employee are forced to pay on your behalf”
I’m sure by now that the benefits, on both the federal and state level, outstrip the “insurance” fund that was set aside for them. Not that there’s a “lock box” or anything in the first place. But even if there were, the payments by now consist of pure welfare.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.