[DudeWhoGetsIt]

So, you didn't get any applications for those jobs you gave to your friend and her son cause they needed "extra money"?

eh? No. I recognized that our business needed two additional part time employees, and my boss asked if I knew anyone for the jobs, and I said yes, and I hired them. I could have done the jobs myself but I drew the line at cleaning toilets, and I had other things brewing. That's how it works at the lowest wrung of the economy - people move up and get replaced. Some of the folks below me on the totem poll were un-hirable in almost any other context...but we had our little small business and we ran it together as friends, a group effort...and it is now very successful.

[DudeWhoGetsIt]

So people who have worked for decades and payed taxes for decades should be left to stave if they lose their job? Wow.

First of all, you work for yourself. Nobody owes you favors for doing what you're supposed to do. If your labor is not worth enough money to sustain you in times when you're not being paid, then your labor isn't worth the lifestyle that you desire. Maybe you should improve the value of your labor in any number of ways, or accept the fact that you can't afford the lifestyle you want. That's called reality - and this refusal to accept it is what is wrong with the West today.

No, if they lose their job then they should draw on their decades of savings. They should downshift their lifestyle, sell the car and ride a bus, move in with a friend, or a parent. Work odd jobs, mow lawns, clean gutters, shovel snow. Take a lower paying job, part time, clean toilets, wait tables. I know professionals who made over $100K in the 90's, who shovelled snow last year for $10 an hour. That's what a REAL WO/MAN does when the chips are down.

Now if all of that fails...sure I think unemployment insurance should exist, I never said it shouldn't. What I am advocating is that we place limits on this welfare, so that people are forced to make the hard decisions that I suspect a lot of them are avoiding - yet nevertheless need to get made. At some point the writing is on the wall: you are no longer middle class. Nobody owes you a middle class existence. Perhaps it is time to come to terms with the cold hard reality of the situation and aknowledge that the success you desire in life is going to require a different plan of action from you. That's what I would say to people in hard times.

[Wolfman]

Sure I understand this is the case, this is always the case. And that is the reason we have unemployment insurance, and I think it's a good thing.

You're contradicting yourself here kid.

The number of jobs available is a fluid number. If people started rushing OFF the welfare rolls, and INTO all these low paying jobs at McDonald's and so forth, after a year of this activity the growth in GDP alone would create openings for another untold amount of jobs, and the virtuous cycle would repair the economy. Not a job for every single person...but more of them - and more is better than less.

That makes no sense. There are 13.2 million unemployed Americans, and there are 3.4 million available positions, most of which require prior training or experience. It is literally impossible to do what you are suggesting. And that first link talks about how about less then half of the unemployed are even collecting unemployment. And you have no reason at all to suggest that people going off of unemployment would increase employment

For every person that gets off welfare and starts working, we save what? $13,000 a year? So 100,000 people get off welfare and go to work for McDonald's and suddenly the govt has an extra $1.3billion to give tax breaks or stimulus or hire more teachers.

Or we could not go deeper into debt.

Also McDonald's has a highly motivated workforce, and they begin to produce slightly more profit - and the market notices and people invest, and before you know it another branch opens up and there are 50 more jobs created. And all those new paychecks get spent just like the welfare did...but there's more money left over so folks buy their kids a new toy, and before you know it toymakers are hiring, toystores are hiring, tax revenues are up, the debt goes down, interest rates stay low, foreign investors take a second look at the American economy and say, "hey, those lazy fat americans are actually working hard again, and for less money...think I'll move my corporate HQ over there next to that brand new McDonalds."

Companies can only make profit if they have a positive income. What you're suggesting would depress average income and reduce the ability of people to buy things that they do not need, which means that by just hiring people without them being able to buy the product, you're actually decreasing McDonald's ability to pay it's workers. Which is impressive, considering McDonald's pays its employees so poorly most of them rate welfare. Or did you not know that the reason people don't want to work for McDonald's is because they don't pay a living wage?

[starcraftzzz]

[quote="DudeWhoGetsIt"

First of all, you work for yourself. Nobody owes you favors for doing what you're supposed to do. If your labor is not worth enough money to sustain you in times when you're not being paid, then your labor isn't worth the lifestyle that you desire. Maybe you should improve the value of your labor in any number of ways, or accept the fact that you can't afford the lifestyle you want. That's called reality - and this refusal to accept it is what is wrong with the West today.

No, if they lose their job then they should draw on their decades of savings. They should downshift their lifestyle, sell the car and ride a bus, move in with a friend, or a parent. Work odd jobs, mow lawns, clean gutters, shovel snow. Take a lower paying job, part time, clean toilets, wait tables. I know professionals who made over $100K in the 90's, who shovelled snow last year for $10 an hour. That's what a REAL WO/MAN does when the chips are down.

Now if all of that fails...sure I think unemployment insurance should exist, I never said it shouldn't. What I am advocating is that we place limits on this welfare, so that people are forced to make the hard decisions that I suspect a lot of them are avoiding - yet nevertheless need to get made. At some point the writing is on the wall: you are no longer middle class. Nobody owes you a middle class existence. Perhaps it is time to come to terms with the cold hard reality of the situation and aknowledge that the success you desire in life is going to require a different plan of action from you. That's what I would say to people in hard times.[/quote]
There is a reaosn we pay unemployment taxes, sot hat when we lose a job we can get benefits to sustain us

[Baff]

Yes. Is my answer.

There comes a time when you have to accept that the person you are paying is not looking for work.



So to be honest you then have to give him some other benefit. Dossers Benefit or whatever. Sick leave. Students allowance. "Enterprise Allowance". Or whatever stupid words you want to use which all = the same thing. Unemployment benefit.

But there is a problem here. Once you do this you play into the governments hands and they start relabelling the unemployed as something else in order to lie to everyone.


So on the one hand you shouldn't be treating people who are not looking for work as people who are, but on the other, the last people you can trust to deal with this problem honestly is the government.


I'd like to see benefits reduced over time.
I don't see why people who pay insurance, should not make claims on it, that is what it is there for.
But I do not feel that people who don't should be allowed to ruin it for everyone.

[DudeWhoGetsIt]

Sure I understand this is the case, this is always the case. And that is the reason we have unemployment insurance, and I think it's a good thing.

You're contradicting yourself here kid.

The number of jobs available is a fluid number. If people started rushing OFF the welfare rolls, and INTO all these low paying jobs at McDonald's and so forth, after a year of this activity the growth in GDP alone would create openings for another untold amount of jobs, and the virtuous cycle would repair the economy. Not a job for every single person...but more of them - and more is better than less.

That makes no sense. There are 13.2 million unemployed Americans, and there are 3.4 million available positions, most of which require prior training or experience. It is literally impossible to do what you are suggesting. And that first link talks about how about less then half of the unemployed are even collecting unemployment. And you have no reason at all to suggest that people going off of unemployment would increase employment

For every person that gets off welfare and starts working, we save what? $13,000 a year? So 100,000 people get off welfare and go to work for McDonald's and suddenly the govt has an extra $1.3billion to give tax breaks or stimulus or hire more teachers.

Or we could not go deeper into debt.

Also McDonald's has a highly motivated workforce, and they begin to produce slightly more profit - and the market notices and people invest, and before you know it another branch opens up and there are 50 more jobs created. And all those new paychecks get spent just like the welfare did...but there's more money left over so folks buy their kids a new toy, and before you know it toymakers are hiring, toystores are hiring, tax revenues are up, the debt goes down, interest rates stay low, foreign investors take a second look at the American economy and say, "hey, those lazy fat americans are actually working hard again, and for less money...think I'll move my corporate HQ over there next to that brand new McDonalds."

Companies can only make profit if they have a positive income. What you're suggesting would depress average income and reduce the ability of people to buy things that they do not need, which means that by just hiring people without them being able to buy the product, you're actually decreasing McDonald's ability to pay it's workers. Which is impressive, considering McDonald's pays its employees so poorly most of them rate welfare. Or did you not know that the reason people don't want to work for McDonald's is because they don't pay a living wage?[/quote]

A) I have made no contradiction, read slower.
B) my age has no relevance to this discussion
C) If there are 3.4 million job openings and 13.2 million people on welfare, then we have 3.4 million people too many on welfare, don't we?
D) Unfilled job openings represent firms operating at less than peak efficiency. When people fill the jobs, the firms operate better, make more profit, provide more tax revenue, more services to the economy. The firms then save/invest their increased revenue, and that can create more jobs. ADDITIONALLY: The 3.4 million new paychecks are greater than the welfare checks, so the folks making them have more disposable income. They spend their increased income, creating consumer demand, which will lead to the creation of MORE JOBS. Additionally: the 3.4 million welfare checks no longer have to be written by the govt, freeing up govt resources to be spent elsewhere. One of those places, since you mentioned it, is the DEFICIT. So if the folks do like I suggest and get jobs, they'll help lower the deficit. Is there anything in here that is controversial? I don't think so.
E) "depress the average wages" what? how? What I am saying, is that if you have the option of working, it is preferable to work rather than to draw on welfare. But perhaps you have a different perspective. Apparently you believe that it is better for the economy for a worker to decline a low paying job in favor of staying on welfare. Can you please explain how declining a job offer and staying on welfare will contribute to GDP growth and job creation? Can you please explain how taking the low paying job is a less-preferable option than staying on welfare? Can you please explain to me, as a tax payer, why I should subsidize the welfare checks of people who have options to work, but would rather not "get out of bed" for a less than ideal wage. Oh, geez, excuse the shit out of me, here's a bag of cheetos and a new bong, sorry to bother you.

[Takkon]

Other: The current system of employment is flawed and needs a revisiting.

I tried to make that as general as possible, because I think it's something we can all agree on. The way people are employed and the way they get fired needs to be looked at because it's inefficient for society as a whole. Work should basically be a given, in what capacity that is I'm not sure, but certainly I don't see any reason why a functioning member of society should not be able to get a job.