• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unemployment Benefits Extension

Should benefits be extended?


  • Total voters
    38
If this administrations concern for the unemployed were genuine concern, they would not have given every single person in Congress a Pay Rise.

In truth this administration is more concerned with control of the people as opposed to welfare of the USA.
 
Basically confidence, or in this instance a lack of confidence in USA inc to be able to sustain it's standard of living and pay down it's debts.
If Businesses cannot see profit in future they will not hire, if they can see profit they will hire, if cost of hiring in US is too high they will either close business or move business to more hospitable climes.

Which has nothing to do with your claim that the problem unemployed people had was pricing themselves out of work.
 
And yes ,we that is USA inc will survive this recession and this administration, BUT, we survive immeasurably weakened, the USA is no longer the Power House it once was, likely we shall never be so again.

Where we immeasurably weakened under Reagan? If not, why do you assume that we will be this time?
 
If this administrations concern for the unemployed were genuine concern, they would not have given every single person in Congress a Pay Rise.

In truth this administration is more concerned with control of the people as opposed to welfare of the USA.

What does pay raises for congress have to do with unemployment? Why, nothing at all
 
The bad part for the people collecting unemployment is that it's taxable income. One could opt to have taxes held out, but how many can afford to have that done?
It's already half of what the person is accustomed to bringing home.
 
What does pay raises for congress have to do with unemployment? Why, nothing at all

Maybe not but since unemployment is high and no social security raise this year because Obama claims no cost of living increase then congress should get no raise either.
 
What does pay raises for congress have to do with unemployment? Why, nothing at all

Only in so far as it clearly shows the contempt that these politicians have for the people they are supposed to represent.

And if they have contempt for people, then obviously they are not at all interested in lessening the hardship that unemployed people (who may actually want to work) suffer.

Obama (Yes I shall bring an Obama into this particular discussion) stated that he wanted a corp of people to work for the US, most folk realised this was just talk for the sheer hell of talking.
But it could be a good idea, mop up a lot of unemployed by actually rebuilding the Infrastructure of the US that is falling apart.
 
Last edited:
Bloody hell .. it's insurance that is paid for off their dam paychecks.
Um, not entirely true. How has the extention done by Congress been paid for by workers deduction? There not working. Wasn't the extension passed to cover / extend those who's unemployment would have ran out? At least that was my understanding Congress decided to put more money into it to extend benifits.
 
Um, not entirely true. How has the extention done by Congress been paid for by workers deduction? There not working. Wasn't the extension passed to cover / extend those who's unemployment would have ran out? At least that was my understanding Congress decided to put more money into it to extend benifits.

Hrm, good point but I still think it is a poor move both economically and morally. I honestly believe it is a partisan motivated political play aimed at making the dems look bad considering all the idiocy coming out of the republican party as of late. Preparation for the fall elections.
 
Hrm, good point but I still think it is a poor move both economically and morally. I honestly believe it is a partisan motivated political play aimed at making the dems look bad considering all the idiocy coming out of the republican party as of late. Preparation for the fall elections.

What happened to the dems and their passing of pay go?
 
Maybe not but since unemployment is high and no social security raise this year because Obama claims no cost of living increase then congress should get no raise either.

Social Security raises are tied to cost of living. Guess what did not go up. Darn them facts getting in the way....
 
Only in so far as it clearly shows the contempt that these politicians have for the people they are supposed to represent.

And if they have contempt for people, then obviously they are not at all interested in lessening the hardship that unemployed people (who may actually want to work) suffer.

Obama (Yes I shall bring an Obama into this particular discussion) stated that he wanted a corp of people to work for the US, most folk realised this was just talk for the sheer hell of talking.
But it could be a good idea, mop up a lot of unemployed by actually rebuilding the Infrastructure of the US that is falling apart.

Considering the time and effort that they put into their job, they are underpaid, and yet you see this as contempt.
 
Considering the time and effort that they put into their job, they are underpaid, and yet you see this as contempt.

Yes I do.
Representation of the people USED to be seen as an honor, no longer, now it is a question of amassing as much power over people as is possible to get.
It is about feathering their own nests with the best Health care plans, the best pension plans (that mean they need only serve one session and they are eligible for full pension rights).
Now if they were to turn pass on to the Electorate the goodies they have voted to give themselves, it is likely I might have a slightly more favourable opinion of them.
I see them putting 50% of their effort into getting re elected, 30% of their time in doing what they are paid to do, the remaining 20% is spent on swanning around the world on the Taxpayers buck.
That is why imo they have nothing but contempt for those that elect them.
It is my wish that every single one coming up for re-election this November is booted out of office, then and only then may Politicians realise that they are OUR REPRESENTATIVES.
 
Possibly because they have priced themselves out of the jobs market.

That's the way it appears to me. Our economy became falsely overestimated over the past 20 or so years, and many people have started living on credit cards and financed goods. The market needs equilibrium, and until all the bad debt just floating in the iosphere is settled and we all come to a more realistic basis of functioning in lifestyle and the overall financial sector, we will plunge deeper and deeper into debt. Our children and grandchildren will be saddled with living like paupers while the feds take increasingly more of their labor, and it will eventually result in some pretty unsettling times. All the feds are doing with all the borrowing and spending is putting off the inevitable.
 
Does anyone have any evidence which states that unemployment insurance generosity has a substantial negative impact on short and long term unemployment?
 
If they used pay go and paid for it, it would pass. Besides the GOP does not have the votes to stop it.

This seems to be the elephant in the room (so to speak) that the Democrats/left elects to ignore.

Go figure....




.
 
Does anyone have any evidence which states that unemployment insurance generosity has a substantial negative impact on short and long term unemployment?

I think generosity can have a negative impact on long term (aka structural) unemployment. I would point to Europe as an example.

A general equilibrium search model makes layoff costs affect the aggregate unemployment rate in ways that depend on equilibrium proportions of frictional and structural unemployment that in turn depend on the generosity of government unemployment benefits and skill losses among newly displaced workers. The model explains how, before the 1970s, lower flows into unemployment gave Europe lower unemployment rates than the United States and also how, after 1980, higher durations have kept unemployment rates in Europe persistently higher than in the United States. These outcomes arise from the way Europe's higher firing costs and more generous unemployment compensation make its unemployment rate respond to bigger skill losses among newly displaced workers. Those bigger skill losses also explain why U.S. workers have experienced more earnings volatility since 1980 and why, especially among older workers, hazard rates of gaining employment in Europe now fall sharply with increases in the duration of unemployment.

-Lars Ljungqvist and Thomas J. Sargent 2008
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119389709/abstract
 
Last edited:
I think generosity can have a negative impact on long term (aka structural) unemployment. I would point to Europe as an example.



-Lars Ljungqvist and Thomas J. Sargent 2008
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

This is an exaggerated claim. Inflation only becomes a worry at much much lower levels.. roughly 4-5% atm unemployment is high @ 10% mainly because private enterprise is watching out for a double dip recession. Which becomes a self created prophecy when it is they don't spend to expand. UI is fine it won't cause any negative economic impact and has a stimulating effect on the economy which is desperately needed.

It is fear mongering to say otherwise.
 
This is an exaggerated claim. Inflation only becomes a worry at much much lower levels.. roughly 4-5% atm unemployment is high @ 10% mainly because private enterprise is watching out for a double dip recession. Which becomes a self created prophecy when it is they don't spend to expand. UI is fine it won't cause any negative economic impact and has a stimulating effect on the economy which is desperately needed.

It is fear mongering to say otherwise.

Its not exaggerated, however, I would agree that extended unemployment at this moment is a good idea. The 10% unemployment is caused primarily by cyclical unemployment. I am thinking that a large amount of those that have been laid off due to the business cycle will eventualy be rehired and are therefore classified as short term unemployed. UI will uincrease their disposable income and not only help out those people that have been hurt by the business cycle but also help fight back against it by increasing consumption spending.

I don't know how we got on the topic of inflation, but I would agree a little inflation could help the situation right now since this would also lower the unemployment rate.
 
Last edited:
Its not exaggerated, however, I would agree that extended unemployment at this moment is a good idea. The 10% unemployment is caused primarily by cyclical unemployment. I am thinking that a large amount of those that have been laid off due to the business cycle will eventualy be rehired and are therefore classified as short term unemployed. UI will uincrease their disposable income and not only help out those people that have been hurt by the business cycle but also help fight back against it by increasing consumption spending.

Well it is legit but I think cuts to UI would be more effective in heading off that problem at much lower lvl's of unemployment. It's pretty safe to say many of the people drawing UI would rather be working for at least 2 times as much money as they are receiving. UI is not enough to get ahead it only keeps the dogs away from the door so to speak. Getting a low wage food service industry job in many cases is not an acceptable option as their debt is higher then the wage can provide effectively. America needs to develop manufacturing for export in green technologies bio tech nano tech and so on. Creating more and more low paying .. extremely low quality service sector jobs will not be sustainable, it isn't. America needs to export manufactured goods unfortunately when they try to do this they will have to find some edge they can take advantage of they will find the negative effects of a globalised labour force and have to compete with their economic slaves in China.. America is in trouble without manufacturing exports.
 
Well it is legit but I think cuts to UI would be more effective in heading off that problem at much lower lvl's of unemployment. It's pretty safe to say many of the people drawing UI would rather be working for at least 2 times as much money as they are receiving. UI is not enough to get ahead it only keeps the dogs away from the door so to speak. Getting a low wage food service industry job in many cases is not an acceptable option as their debt is higher then the wage can provide effectively. America needs to develop manufacturing for export in green technologies bio tech nano tech and so on. Creating more and more low paying .. extremely low quality service sector jobs will not be sustainable, it isn't. America needs to export manufactured goods unfortunately when they try to do this they will have to find some edge they can take advantage of they will find the negative effects of a globalised labour force and have to compete with their economic slaves in China.. America is in trouble without manufacturing exports.

I don't disagree that americas UI benefits have been historically less generous and most likely contributed little to structural Unemployment. Right now the benefits are more generous and I think when the labor market improves we should think about reducing them. Right now though, taking these extended unemployment benefits away is a terrible idea, since it is obvious many people are still suffering from the business cycle, there is a negative output gap, we have disinflation, and the feds interest rates are depressed to practically 0. I don't really disagree with you that right now they are definetly doing a lot of good.

As far as manufacturing jobs, it all has to do with comparative advantage. Whatever we have comparative advantage in we should continue to produce. If china can manufacture stuff at a lower opportunity cost, let them, and we will specialize in something else.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom