- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Explanation for weak recovery--redistribution did it
Posted on 6/29/14 at 10:05 pm
Posted on 6/29/14 at 10:05 pm
LINK
Very interesting article by a prominent University of Chicago economist. Kinda hits the nail on the head....
Very interesting article by a prominent University of Chicago economist. Kinda hits the nail on the head....
This post was edited on 6/29/14 at 10:06 pm
5
Posted on 6/29/14 at 10:07 pm to lsuprof
quote:
Helping people is valuable but not free. The more you help low-income people, the more low-income people you'll have. The more you help unemployed people, the more unemployed people you'll have
Nailed it.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 10:11 pm to lsuprof
quote:Not even close. An increased effort of the unemployed to suddenly get jobs would not spur the economy... especially if the total available jobs are not increased.
Very interesting article by a prominent University of Chicago economist. Kinda hits the nail on the head....
Posted on 6/29/14 at 10:13 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Not a new concept.
If you want less of something, tax it.
If you want more of something, subsidize it.
If you want less of something, tax it.
If you want more of something, subsidize it.
This post was edited on 6/29/14 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 6/29/14 at 10:13 pm to mmcgrath
sounds like emigration should be the plan
Posted on 6/29/14 at 10:15 pm to lsuprof
Nice read. Thanks for posting.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 10:15 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
An increased effort of the unemployed to suddenly get jobs would not spur the economy... especially if the total available jobs are not increased.
Just curious, did you read the piece?
Posted on 6/29/14 at 10:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
sounds like emigration should be the plan
Where do we start?
Posted on 6/29/14 at 10:47 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Not a new concept. If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more of something, subsidize it.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 11:15 pm to lsuprof
quote:Depressing. Our tax dollars at work.
I met a recruiter—a man whose job it is to find employees for businesses and put unemployed people into new jobs—and he described the trade-off pretty well. Stacey Reece was his name, and he said that in 2009 his clients again had jobs to fill. But he ran into a hurdle he hadn't seen before. People would apply for jobs not with the intention of accepting it, but to demonstrate to the unemployment office that they were looking for work.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 11:24 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Not even close. An increased effort of the unemployed to suddenly get jobs would not spur the economy
Productivity?
Posted on 6/29/14 at 11:25 pm to L.A.
I had a nurse making $17/hr here in South Arkansas which is damn good for the area (Lpn), but was better off me laying her off and going on unemployment and Obamacare. I paid her premiums, but skyrocketing insurance premiums on her husband with health issues and two sons, one with newly dx'd seizures, made it the best decision by far to make ends meet. Plus she can work cash free side jobs during the time she'd normally be working and paying arse loads of taxes. The system is fricked. When people are better off not working than working, the system is complete shite. You have to be a fricking idiot to see it any other way. There should always be a reward for production. Always.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 11:41 pm to SmackoverHawg
quote:
When people are better off not working than working, the system is complete shite. There should always be a reward for production.
You wouldn't believe how many individuals I know that were laid off in the last 2 years that have not returned to work. Mostly males over 50 with health issues. Unemployment has expired for most of these guys.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 7:05 am to L.A.
quote:
quote:I met a recruiter—a man whose job it is to find employees for businesses and put unemployed people into new jobs—and he described the trade-off pretty well. Stacey Reece was his name, and he said that in 2009 his clients again had jobs to fill. But he ran into a hurdle he hadn't seen before. People would apply for jobs not with the intention of accepting it, but to demonstrate to the unemployment office that they were looking for work.Depressing. Our tax dollars at work.
I see this all the time in my business. People will apply I will phone screen them and set up a face to face only to haven them NEVER show up.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 7:34 am to mmcgrath
quote:Didn't read the article, did you?
An increased effort of the unemployed to suddenly get jobs
Posted on 6/30/14 at 8:04 am to lsuprof
The moral impetus for a moral Government, is to take care (subsidize) it's weakest citizenry. The result is that the populous becomes larger in numbers...but weaker as a whole.
It would be a 'Darwinian Economy' (survival and prosperity of the fittest, which cultivates strength, disregarding morality), if society ignored the morality. But it will be societally detrimental - perhaps suicidal - if the weak are given equal power in a Democratic society.
The only solution is to create QUALIFERS of strength (moral/spiritual and practical) as a pre-requisite for subsidization of weak individuals. That would not be any more immoral (taking their freedom through Lawful coercion) than a weak Democratic voting block, voting Socialist and confiscating the freedom/productivity of their fellow strong citizenry.
Qualifiers. It'll be that, or a crash...and Mother Nature pruning out the dead limbs. Wise governance would be preferable. Oh well.
It would be a 'Darwinian Economy' (survival and prosperity of the fittest, which cultivates strength, disregarding morality), if society ignored the morality. But it will be societally detrimental - perhaps suicidal - if the weak are given equal power in a Democratic society.
The only solution is to create QUALIFERS of strength (moral/spiritual and practical) as a pre-requisite for subsidization of weak individuals. That would not be any more immoral (taking their freedom through Lawful coercion) than a weak Democratic voting block, voting Socialist and confiscating the freedom/productivity of their fellow strong citizenry.
Qualifiers. It'll be that, or a crash...and Mother Nature pruning out the dead limbs. Wise governance would be preferable. Oh well.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News