- 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
re: Obama: Extending Unemployment Benefits “Creates New Jobs”
Posted on 1/8/14 at 8:12 pm to cajunangelle
Posted on 1/8/14 at 8:12 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
Obama: Extending Unemployment Benefits “Creates New Jobs”
He means it creates more jobs for the IRS to tax you and an army of bureaucrats to dole it out.
0
Posted on 1/8/14 at 9:44 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Your prejudice shows further in this statement:
How am I prejudiced? What am I supposed to think when the same lady in front of me in line pays for her steak and crabmeat with food stamps while bragging about her new hair do, pulls her LA purchase card out of her brand new purse, then loads her groceries into a very nice car with new rims on it?
shite, I used to deliver pizza back in high school to some of the most broken down houses and neighborhoods. shite houses, then when they open the door, they have on new Jordans, and are playing the newest madden on the newest console on their huge arse tv.
Prejudiced? More like telling you what I'm seeing first hand based on FACT. So please excuse me if I don't exactly think the "poor" are financial gurus.
quote:
It would, if you were equally likely to spend it as someone with no income would be. Each additional dollar in income is less likely to be spent and more likely to be saved, and spending money is what lubricates and grows an economy. Would you like to dispute this very simple point I am making, or would you like to continue going off on tangents?
I am equally likely to spend it. And even if I weren't, it goes into a bank, who in turn is going to invest it somehow which is going to affect someone.
Extending any types of welfare or unemployment is a terrible idea. It is the enemy of personal responsibility and eliminates a good bit of incentive. If you truly think these "poor" people are all angels using their money solely to survive and not on luxury, then you are a fool.
You are essentially arguing that more taxpayer money be taken from the taxpayer and given to the less fortunate because they will utilize it better as it concerns the economy.
ETA: To me there's poor because you've lost a job or you have legitimate hardship. Then there's individuals, families, and generations who choose poor as a career. I am furious with the latter, and where I am from those career "poor" are in extreme abundance.
This post was edited on 1/8/14 at 9:47 pm
Posted on 1/8/14 at 10:20 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Why do you guys insist on taking things to extremes? I have already said that obviously there are limits to things, and that at a point they become detrimental.
The policy is failed from the first dollar if youre hoping for a stimulus. Its not a dollar for dollar exchange. If it was, you'd have no increase in jobs, only a transfer of dollars. To increase jobs someone has to invest in a business to expand and create jobs hire more people and pay more. If you take his money, then lose money on it because you are paying interest on debt plus govt inefficiency, give it to someone who is pretty much just paying bills, you get a net loss.
How much unemployment do you think these folks get? Plus, the employer is paying a good portion of that making it hard to hire another person. I get what youre trying to say, but it just doesnt work that way. Unemployment isnt a stimulus plan, its a safety net. If it worked like you say, unemployment numbers in the high 20s would create an economic boom. No boom. Just more of the same or worse. If I lost my job making say 60-70k and my employer paid whatever in unemployment and I got say 20k in unemployment how is that a net gain? I get lazy and figure video games and beer is more fun than work and get to spend more time not making 60-70k how is that a gain?
Now, say i cant find work. 20k > 0k but it took 22k to get me that 20k. Loss again. Where is the stimulation? You had to take that from someone who could've used all 22k. I dont know the cost to transfer the 20k, but any cost is a loss in demand. Its like you're trying to create perpetual motion. The loss of dollars is friction. You can't do it that way. You can't have friction.
This post was edited on 1/8/14 at 10:25 pm
Posted on 1/9/14 at 10:14 am to geauxturbo
quote:
To increase jobs someone has to invest in a business to expand and create jobs hire more people and pay more.
I've seen this stated in this thread a hundred times, and I know this "job creators" shtick is one of the right's war cries, but nobody can explain the mechanism that makes it work. What is the incentive to invest, expand, and create jobs? Investment and job creation will not happen unless there is demand (desire + means) for a product or service.
If you are selling a product for $5, and everybody wants one and only one, in which scenario is demand going to be higher:
A. 1 million people each have $1000 in discretionary funds ($1billion total)
OR
B. 1.25 million people each have $800 in discretionary funds (still $1billion total)
quote:
Unemployment isnt a stimulus plan, its a safety net. If it worked like you say, unemployment numbers in the high 20s would create an economic boom.
No, not at all. It's pretty obvious that the ideal scenario is everyone has a job, and everyone is both a producer and consumer. However, given the impossibility of everyone always having a job, the next best option for the economy is to make sure everyone remains a consumer so that the producers have reason to produce. Tell me this... is there a difference between creating a job and saving a job? Not really, both are driven by demand for products. The only difference is which direction the unemployment chart is heading at the time, and the same pressure that slows a fall in employment spurs a rise.
quote:It is not a net gain if you include the forces that caused you to lose your job to begin with. But given the scenario of you being jobless, is it not clear that you having money in your pocket to spend is a net gain? Not only for you, but for the businesses you patronize?
If I lost my job making say 60-70k and my employer paid whatever in unemployment and I got say 20k in unemployment how is that a net gain?
quote:That is an entirely different problem.
I get lazy and figure video games and beer is more fun than work and get to spend more time not making 60-70k how is that a gain?
quote:And how would they have used that 22k? To create a job? Why? You don't have any money to buy what they produce. As long as you have $0 income, you do not exist in the economy. You are suggesting that we just knock a few million people out of every business's potential base of customers.
Now, say i cant find work. 20k > 0k but it took 22k to get me that 20k. Loss again. Where is the stimulation? You had to take that from someone who could've used all 22k.
quote:How are these dollars "lost"? Where do these "lost" dollars go? Here are two ways dollars are "lost": 1. a business loses customers and the value of the business declines 2. a dollar is saved instead of spent and essentially taken out of the economy for a period of time. That's friction. Money in pockets that will be spent immediately is lubrication.
I dont know the cost to transfer the 20k, but any cost is a loss in demand. Its like you're trying to create perpetual motion. The loss of dollars is friction. You can't do it that way. You can't have friction.
Posted on 1/9/14 at 10:19 am to Korkstand
quote:
I said that giving 1000 people $1000 each (who altogether had $1million between them before) would do a lot more economically than giving one person $1million (who already had $1million himself). That same $1million will create more jobs being spread out.
you throw this out and the burden is for, get this, someone else to disprove
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:01 am to Korkstand
quote:
I've seen this stated in this thread a hundred times, and I know this "job creators" shtick is one of the right's war cries, but nobody can explain the mechanism that makes it work. What is the incentive to invest, expand, and create jobs? Investment and job creation will not happen unless there is demand (desire + means) for a product or service.
Yes and no. This is the part of economics where things like R&D come into play. If a business perceives that there is an opportunity for expansion, they invest in researching it first.
Another part of this is that businesses generally don't have the funds on hand to expand (if Demand is shown to be there) so they get it from either loans or monies collected from investments in the company.
If I own a widget store and it took me $500k in loans to get it off the ground and the business does gang-busters, it behooves me to expand to meet my Demand before a competitor does. Although I am making enough money to pay my monthly bills as well as put a little back, I still don't have enough to build another half-mil store to sell more widgets. So instead of digging back into debt, I sell 25% of my company to my in-laws. This extra money is now seed money to build my expansion.
That's a MASSIVELY simplified example of how investments work, but it's pretty much what happens every day.
Now to the discussion of doling out monies to the poor being good for the economy.
It can be, but only in the short-term. The reasons for this are many, but for me the main one is that it takes $3 of government spending to equal $1 spent in the private sector (all apologies for not providing a link, it's been years since I read that study and can't find it now :( ). This level of inefficiency permeates the federal government (look at the fiasco going on with all levels of the ACA for example).
Another aspect of this is that government monies for the poor is an artificial injection into the economy. What I mean by that and why it's bad is that the people spending the money aren't creating any goods or services of value to earn that money, thus warping Demand (desire + means). It's an artificial economy.
The problem we are facing now is that much more of the economy has become dependent on this injection. This is compounded by the fact that Congress is generally loathe to cut spending to social programs (as it hurts their re-election chances). This, to me, is the crucial point. It's not so much the spending itself as the likelihood that it will never go away (more likely, it will increase). This extension is a perfect example because when it was implemented it was with the understanding that the limit would be more than enough time for the system to fix itself. Instead we've seen a large drop in the Labor Participation Rate as more people get more comfortable living off government subsidies. And now the solution is to extend that. This is not a recipe for success.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:29 am to Bard
quote:
Bard
I agree with all of that. As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I am generally against handouts and I fear the tendency they have to get out of hand. The only point I was trying to make throughout all of this is that the economic reasons for wanting everyone to have cash are valid and sound. The social and personal issues that arise from these programs which often result in effects detrimental to the economy are beside that point, and obviously should be avoided.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 11:05 am to Korkstand
quote:Nope. With $1million I can build NEW a factory, that produces goods, and employs people. With $1000, I have a couple of trips to the existing WalMart and grocery store.
I said that giving 1000 people $1000 each (who altogether had $1million between them before) would do a lot more economically than giving one person $1million (who already had $1million himself). That same $1million will create more jobs being spread out.
One is expansive, the other just feeds the existing retail supply chain.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News