Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Obama persists in his propaganda. Just this week, he made the bizarre assertion that extending unemployment benefits "actually helps the economy, actually creates new jobs"   (townhall.com) divider line 383
    More: Obvious, Obama, unemployment benefits, economic liberalism, propaganda, scientific methods  
•       •       •

894 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jan 2014 at 12:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



383 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-10 05:09:38 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: How do you justify this policy in light of the failure of trickle-down over the last three decades? It is glaringly obvious that simply giving money to a business does not make them hire people.

Who's talking about 'trickle down'? Who's talking about 'simply giving money to a business'?

For Fark's sake I STARTED by referencing one of Obama's plans to do this EXACT THING,

BojanglesPaladin: Does anyone remember that tax break for employers who actually, you know, HIRED people? I do. SOUNDED like a great idea, and I was excited by it, but the rules were so limiting and nonsensical that it was virtually impossible to actually qualify. I ended up hiring three employees during the time frame, but not a one qualified me for the tax break. I assume some people did, though.
BojanglesPaladin: I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people. As I mentioned above there WAS a poorly implanted and uselessly restricted plan at the beginning of the recession that just sort of disappeared from everyone's minds. We need a good version of THAT more than we need to give out unemployment for two years.
BojanglesPaladin: So I think it would be more effective to (for instance) give a payroll tax exemption to any business that hires an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee for at least 9 months of the year for as many as they hire. Or push on the banks to give more loans to small businesses. Maybe provide additional guarantees when those businesses can show an annual employment increase of full time employees.Basically, anything that produces actual employment is a better use of tax dollars than paying unemployment more.

I think I've been pretty clear that I am advocating for programs and incentives predicated on the hiring of long term, full time employees. So since nothing in your questions is related to anything I have advocated, I'm afraid I don't have an answer for you.


Your entire policy recommendation is predicated on the fundamentally flawed assumption that a tax break alone is sufficient to encourage a business to hire. This is completely incorrect, and is not supported by any evidence, either historical or current. It is also the same philosophy that underpins trickle-down economics: if businesses have more money, they'll hire people just because.

They'll get a $5,000 tax break if they hire someone at $50,000? Great. Now, please explain why any business would spend $45,000 to hire someone they don't need.
 
2014-01-10 05:11:23 PM  

jst3p: And what effect do you think cancelling unemployment benefits for a large group of people will do to the demand that is on the cusp of requiring more workers?


IMMA POST FROM ABOVE:

Average benefits are about $300/month. That's approximately 390 million being recycled back through the economy via unemployment benefits. Since all that was ALREADY being previously spent, it is in no way, shape, or form contributing to ADDITIONAL economic stimulus, and compared to what these same 1.3 million had been spending in the economy prior, it represents a reduction.

Now these 1.3 million are real people, with real problems. But they are less than 1% of the population and if we can get jobs and the economy rolling again, it benefits all 96% of Americans. (fark the top 2%).
But here's the KEY:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are now about 2.9 unemployed workers for every job opening. That's worse than the ratio at any point during the 2001 recession. It is absurd to insist that unemployment benefits in any way CREATE additional demand, and thereby increase job demand. It not only doesn't make any sense, it is demonstrably not happening.
We need to be spending money on incentivizing companies (particularly small to medium businesses) to go ahead and hire that one additional employee NOW instead of down the line.
Hell, a $25K a year job means over $1,500 a month in take home pay, and it's a sure bet that all of that will have to go to rent, food, gas, etc. and go straight into the economy. Just ONE low-wage job worker is better for putting money into the economy than 3-5 people getting unemployment benefits. Imagine what a $50K (average median income) job does.
So I think we KEEP the unemployment benefits where they have always been, let the extension lapse, having served it's purpose, and refocus the money and resources toward job creation. KEEPING the extended benefits is just deciding to tread water (while accruing interest).
 
2014-01-10 05:12:54 PM  

jst3p: BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: That's great. The problem is that no business is going to spend $45,000 to hire someone they don't need. How is this so hard to comprehend
jst3p: You think a business will hire someone they don't need to realize a $5,000 tax savings?This is why no one takes you seriously.

Imma just repost from above:

BojanglesPaladin: Sigh. I'm not sure we are going to be able to communicate here. I've thrown out some general ideas, and they are there to be read, but I'm not presenting a detailed policy paper or sponsoring a bill here. The point is that now that the economy is not going down and beginning to creep up, any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas.

Why is this so hard to comprehend? Or is it just asking too much that you actually read what I already posted on the topic when someone already asked?

And what effect do you think cancelling unemployment benefits for a large group of people will do to the demand that is on the cusp of requiring more workers?


You're forgetting about the corporate benevolence factor. Study it out.
 
2014-01-10 05:13:29 PM  

PsiChick: iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.

I think we found the  real Republican mantra: I don't know how money works so I assume I'm the only one paying taxes and giving to charity will solve all problems.


Why do they always trot out this derp about Democrats taking other people's (or even their) money? Everyone paying taxes, regardless of political affiliation, can use this logic to "claim" the money as "theirs." And from what I've noticed, most of the loud republicans/conservatives are something along the lines of low-earning trailer people, low-earning rednecks/hillbillies and government/SSI-earning retirees. I'd be surprised if even 1% of registered Repubs are the actual rich the entire party exists to serve exclusively. It's our money too, derptards, and we have a right to try and see it spent on helping people as much as you have a right to make sure we waste it all on military equipment and corporate welfare.
 
2014-01-10 05:15:04 PM  

qorkfiend: Your entire policy recommendation is predicated on the fundamentally flawed assumption that a tax break alone is sufficient to encourage a business to hire.


Actually it is hinged on the assumption that hiring in small medium businesses is lower than it should be and would otherwise be because capital has locked up and growth is being impeded. That you continue to miss this means you need to read more carefully or slower or stop ignoring it.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:
...any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas.
 
2014-01-10 05:18:02 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: jst3p: And what effect do you think cancelling unemployment benefits for a large group of people will do to the demand that is on the cusp of requiring more workers?

IMMA POST FROM ABOVE:

Average benefits are about $300/month. That's approximately 390 million being recycled back through the economy via unemployment benefits. Since all that was ALREADY being previously spent, it is in no way, shape, or form contributing to ADDITIONAL economic stimulus, and compared to what these same 1.3 million had been spending in the economy prior, it represents a reduction.

Now these 1.3 million are real people, with real problems. But they are less than 1% of the population and if we can get jobs and the economy rolling again, it benefits all 96% of Americans. (fark the top 2%).
But here's the KEY:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are now about 2.9 unemployed workers for every job opening. That's worse than the ratio at any point during the 2001 recession. It is absurd to insist that unemployment benefits in any way CREATE additional demand, and thereby increase job demand. It not only doesn't make any sense, it is demonstrably not happening.
We need to be spending money on incentivizing companies (particularly small to medium businesses) to go ahead and hire that one additional employee NOW instead of down the line.
Hell, a $25K a year job means over $1,500 a month in take home pay, and it's a sure bet that all of that will have to go to rent, food, gas, etc. and go straight into the economy. Just ONE low-wage job worker is better for putting money into the economy than 3-5 people getting unemployment benefits. Imagine what a $50K (average median income) job does.
So I think we KEEP the unemployment benefits where they have always been, let the extension lapse, having served it's purpose, and refocus the money and resources toward job creation. KEEPING the extended benefits is just deciding to tread water (while accruing interest).



I agree.

You still haven't explained why a business is going to hire someone at $50,000 that they almost have the demand to need in order to realize a $5000 tax savings. You can keep reposting the same broken words over and over again, it doesn't make it make sense.
 
2014-01-10 05:20:21 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: Your entire policy recommendation is predicated on the fundamentally flawed assumption that a tax break alone is sufficient to encourage a business to hire.

Actually it is hinged on the assumption that hiring in small medium businesses is lower than it should be and would otherwise be because capital has locked up and growth is being impeded. That you continue to miss this means you need to read more carefully or slower or stop ignoring it.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:
...any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas.


No one is debating the point that hiring in small/medium businesses is lower than it should be. What do you think drives the growth of small businesses? I'll give you a hint: it's demand for their products or services. Growth is being impeded because there's not enough demand. Proposing that they get a tax break does nothing to solve that problem, and still assumes that they'll spend $45,000 to hire someone they don't need.

"Any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand". I'm sure you have some data to support this assertion.
 
2014-01-10 05:20:53 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Remember that I am not advocating for NOT giving unemployment benefits - we can and should do that. The question is about the special, additional and extended unemployment period out to almost two years.


That two year number was probably based on previous recession periods. Unfortunately, the current recession model is far longer than it used to be.
 
2014-01-10 05:22:46 PM  

qorkfiend: "Any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand". I'm sure you have some data to support this assertion.


Zero is a number.
 
2014-01-10 05:23:40 PM  

qorkfiend: BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: Your entire policy recommendation is predicated on the fundamentally flawed assumption that a tax break alone is sufficient to encourage a business to hire.

Actually it is hinged on the assumption that hiring in small medium businesses is lower than it should be and would otherwise be because capital has locked up and growth is being impeded. That you continue to miss this means you need to read more carefully or slower or stop ignoring it.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:
...any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas.

No one is debating the point that hiring in small/medium businesses is lower than it should be. What do you think drives the growth of small businesses? I'll give you a hint: it's demand for their products or services. Growth is being impeded because there's not enough demand. Proposing that they get a tax break does nothing to solve that problem, and still assumes that they'll spend $45,000 to hire someone they don't need.

"Any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand". I'm sure you have some data to support this assertion.


Well, he is technically correct. Zero is a number so is a billion. I am sure the number of businesses on the cusp of needing to hire someone but "prevaling economic factors are inhibiting this" (what a vague useless description) is within the set of numbers that is 0-1,000,000,000.
 
2014-01-10 05:26:10 PM  

qorkfiend: No one is debating the point that hiring in small/medium businesses is lower than it should be. What do you think drives the growth of small businesses? I'll give you a hint: it's demand for their products or services. Growth is being impeded because there's not enough demand.


Actually, it's (gasp! Shock and suprise?!?!) ...not that simple.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

There are, of course, many reasons for this, but the primary one is that the rate of new job creation in the SMB market is way down from where it needs to be. Part of that is a lack of credit (HBR did a good break-down of this), part of that is a stagnant economy, part of that is economic uncertainty and low consumer confidence, etc.
Yes, yes, wall street is doing great, but I think we have all noticed that stock prices are utterly detached from jobs numbers.
So I think it would be more effective to (for instance) give a payroll tax exemption to any business that hires an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee for at least 9 months of the year for as many as they hire. Or push on the banks to give more loans to small businesses. Maybe provide additional guarantees when those businesses can show an annual employment increase of full time employees.

qorkfiend: "Any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand". I'm sure you have some data to support this assertion.


More data than you have provided on either the number or impact of the people currently on extended unemployment.

jst3p: You still haven't explained why a business is going to hire someone at $50,000 that they almost have the demand to need in order to realize a $5000 tax savings.


Nor am I going to. That was a response to your dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What you said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it wrth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway.
 
2014-01-10 05:27:21 PM  
Have you guys gotten to the incentives part yet? I'm waiting to see what BJpaladin imagines incentives other than tax breaks might be, cuz he keeps deflecting the "$5K tax break for a $50K employee" scenario.
 
2014-01-10 05:28:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: jst3p: You still haven't explained why a business is going to hire someone at $50,000 that they almost have the demand to need in order to realize a $5000 tax savings.

Nor am I going to.


Look at my shocked face.

t1.gstatic.com
 
2014-01-10 05:28:45 PM  

Evil High Priest: That two year number was probably based on previous recession periods. Unfortunately, the current recession model is far longer than it used to be.


It's actually up to 73 weeks which is about a year and a half, not two years. And as far as I know, we've never extended unemployment benefits this long before, but feel free to verify. Maybe in the 70s, but I doubt it.
 
2014-01-10 05:29:32 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: Have you guys gotten to the incentives part yet? I'm waiting to see what BJpaladin imagines incentives other than tax breaks might be, cuz he keeps deflecting the "$5K tax break for a $50K employee" scenario.


Predicting his response:

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE ...
 
2014-01-10 05:31:02 PM  

menschenfresser: PsiChick: iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.

I think we found the  real Republican mantra: I don't know how money works so I assume I'm the only one paying taxes and giving to charity will solve all problems.

Why do they always trot out this derp about Democrats taking other people's (or even their) money? Everyone paying taxes, regardless of political affiliation, can use this logic to "claim" the money as "theirs." And from what I've noticed, most of the loud republicans/conservatives are something along the lines of low-earning trailer people, low-earning rednecks/hillbillies and government/SSI-earning retirees. I'd be surprised if even 1% of registered Repubs are the actual rich the entire party exists to serve exclusively. It's our money too, derptards, and we have a right to try and see it spent on helping people as much as you have a right to make sure we waste it all on military equipment and corporate welfare.


First, I'm neither a conservative nor a Republican. Nor did I say that only "I" or only "republicans" pay taxes.

Second, it is your money, then it's taken by the govt. When the GOP says "they're taking OUR money" it's not meant to say that they're not also taking YOUR money.

Third, once it's taken, you and I don't get to say what happens. It's no longer "the taxpayer's money." It's then the govt's money. And they'll do what they want with it.

If you read above, I'd support extending unemployment or a "everyone gets a govt job" plan or even a "here's your monthly check, citizen" plan if corporate welfare were ended to fund it. Throw in ending the drug war, the hot wars, privatize some national parks, bailouts, and domestic spying programs, and I'd support giving everyone $10k per month if the govt insists on playing any role in the economy.
 
2014-01-10 05:31:35 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: It's actually up to 73 weeks which is about a year and a half, not two years. And as far as I know, we've never extended unemployment benefits this long before, but feel free to verify. Maybe in the 70s, but I doubt it.


Perhaps we started too late and ended too early.

images.bwbx.io
 
2014-01-10 05:31:39 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: cuz he keeps deflecting the "$5K tax break for a $50K employee" scenario.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:


"That was a response to his dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What he said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it wrth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway."

But you knew that already. Right? Surely you haven't gotten confused about things.

rzrwiresunrise: I'm waiting to see what BJpaladin imagines incentives other than tax breaks might be


You might want to grease up that 'ol scroll button.
 
2014-01-10 05:33:03 PM  

cousin-merle: Perhaps we started too late and ended too early.


Perhaps. I have no clue. But it's clear we need to get some new jobs created, and no matter HOW you look at it, endless unemployment benefits isn't going to INCREASE the economy of create new jobs.
 
2014-01-10 05:34:24 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: No one is debating the point that hiring in small/medium businesses is lower than it should be. What do you think drives the growth of small businesses? I'll give you a hint: it's demand for their products or services. Growth is being impeded because there's not enough demand.

Actually, it's (gasp! Shock and suprise?!?!) ...not that simple.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

There are, of course, many reasons for this, but the primary one is that the rate of new job creation in the SMB market is way down from where it needs to be. Part of that is a lack of credit (HBR did a good break-down of this), part of that is a stagnant economy, part of that is economic uncertainty and low consumer confidence, etc.
Yes, yes, wall street is doing great, but I think we have all noticed that stock prices are utterly detached from jobs numbers.
So I think it would be more effective to (for instance) give a payroll tax exemption to any business that hires an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee for at least 9 months of the year for as many as they hire. Or push on the banks to give more loans to small businesses. Maybe provide additional guarantees when those businesses can show an annual employment increase of full time employees.


You have yet to offer any reason as to why a business would spend $45,000 to hire an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee that they DO NOT NEED.

The stock market is actually a prime example of this: companies are performing better, better revenues and more cash on hand, and they're still not hiring. You recognize this, and yet you inexplicably continue to insist that incentivizing at the top with a $5,000 tax break will somehow make all the difference.
 
2014-01-10 05:34:24 PM  
You said the following:

m00: BojanglesPaladin: m00: So the USA is over 49% bigots?

Obviously! Binary politico Farkers can only accommodate two extremes at any given moment. There are no bigots on Team A, therefore ALL bigots are on team B. It's just simple logic.

Well, it's simple math really. I was responding to "The Republican party is composed of basically the 1% and bigots." Republican Party represents about 50% of the voters nation-wide. So if the Republican party is comprised of the 1% and bigots, then 49% of voters are bigots.


I have bolded your error.
 
2014-01-10 05:36:22 PM  

qorkfiend: You have yet to offer any reason as to why a business would spend $45,000 to hire an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee that they DO NOT NEED.


Go back and check context. Idiot boy posted that gross mischaracterization. Which I plainly said was dumb.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:
"That was a response to his dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What he said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it wrth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway."

But you knew that already. Right? Surely you haven't gotten confused about things.
 
2014-01-10 05:36:55 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: cousin-merle: Perhaps we started too late and ended too early.

Perhaps. I have no clue. But it's clear we need to get some new jobs created, and no matter HOW you look at it, endless unemployment benefits isn't going to INCREASE the economy of create new jobs.


Booting people off unemployment benefits isn't going to INCREASE the economy or create new jobs, either. In fact, it will in all probability have the opposite effect.

If the current system is treading water, your proposed solution is to stop paddling and hope that someone is kind enough to give you a hand when you start to sink.
 
2014-01-10 05:38:47 PM  

ScaryBottles: ikanreed: Rev. Skarekroe: Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes.  FACT.

Hey, hey, let's not forget dumping toxic waste.

And hating gays.


And transvaginal ultrasounds.
 
2014-01-10 05:39:40 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: You have yet to offer any reason as to why a business would spend $45,000 to hire an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee that they DO NOT NEED.

Go back and check context. Idiot boy posted that gross mischaracterization. Which I plainly said was dumb.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:
"That was a response to his dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What he said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it wrth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway."

But you knew that already. Right? Surely you haven't gotten confused about things.


You were the one who tossed out the $5,000 tax break for a $50,000 employee. Do you disagree that this is a net cost to the business of $45,000? So, once again, why would a business spend $45,000 to hire an employee that they do not need?
 
2014-01-10 05:42:06 PM  

qorkfiend: BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: You have yet to offer any reason as to why a business would spend $45,000 to hire an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee that they DO NOT NEED.

Go back and check context. Idiot boy posted that gross mischaracterization. Which I plainly said was dumb.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:
"That was a response to his dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What he said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it wrth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway."

But you knew that already. Right? Surely you haven't gotten confused about things.

You were the one who tossed out the $5,000 tax break for a $50,000 employee. Do you disagree that this is a net cost to the business of $45,000? So, once again, why would a business spend $45,000 to hire an employee that they do not need?


Good luck, the density is strong with him.
 
2014-01-10 05:42:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Perhaps. I have no clue. But it's clear we need to get some new jobs created, and no matter HOW you look at it, endless unemployment benefits isn't going to INCREASE the economy of create new jobs.


I think you are technically correct in saying that extending unemployment benefits is not going to create jobs, but when unemployed people have less money to spend, jobs will be lost.  There will be more jobs overall if people receive unemployment benefits than if they do not.
 
2014-01-10 05:43:32 PM  

qorkfiend: If the current system is treading water, your proposed solution is to stop paddling and hope that someone is kind enough to give you a hand when you start to sink.


You have obviously missed the countless times I have advocated DOING something with that money. Really. try going more slowly. You keep missing things that have been stated many times. I'm going to start to think you are doing it on purpose.
 
2014-01-10 05:45:33 PM  

cousin-merle: I think you are technically correct in saying that extending unemployment benefits is not going to create jobs


CBO says otherwise, to the tune of 200,000 jobs.

CBO estimates that extending the current EUC program and other related expiring provisions until the end of 2014 would increase inflation-adjusted GDP by 0.2 percent and increase full-time-equivalent employment by 0.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2014. Link
 
2014-01-10 05:45:49 PM  

qorkfiend: You were the one who tossed out the $5,000 tax break for a $50,000 employee.


Go back and look for context.
 
2014-01-10 05:46:03 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: If the current system is treading water, your proposed solution is to stop paddling and hope that someone is kind enough to give you a hand when you start to sink.

You have obviously missed the countless times I have advocated DOING something with that money.


Specifically what? You have said tax breaks, but that doesn't explain why a business is going to be willing to save x on their taxes if the cost of the employee is many times x.
 
2014-01-10 05:46:53 PM  
Hey 17 charisma, when EVERYONE is not getting what you are saying, you are the common denominator.
 
2014-01-10 05:47:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: If the current system is treading water, your proposed solution is to stop paddling and hope that someone is kind enough to give you a hand when you start to sink.

You have obviously missed the countless times I have advocated DOING something with that money. Really. try going more slowly. You keep missing things that have been stated many times. I'm going to start to think you are doing it on purpose.



I have yet to see what would motivate a business to hire more empoyees. Giving someone a tax break wouldn't make them automatically hire more employees if demand in a consumer-based economy doesn't increase. Businesses only hire if there is a need for more employees.
 
2014-01-10 05:49:01 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: CBO says otherwise, to the tune of 200,000 jobs.


And not extending benefits would cost 240,000 jobs, according to The Council of Economic Advisers and the Department of Labor (PDF)

Failing to extend UI benefits would put a dent in job-seekers' incomes, reducing demand and costing 240,000 jobs in 2014.
 
2014-01-10 05:51:12 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: CBO says otherwise, to the tune of 200,000 jobs.

CBO estimates that extending the current EUC program and other related expiring provisions until the end of 2014 would increase inflation-adjusted GDP by 0.2 percent and increase full-time-equivalent employment by 0.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2014. Link


Right, but the CBO is saying that it is an increase against current law, which is not to extend benefits.  I think his argument is that if a large number of long-term unemployed people receiving benefits wase the status quo, and we simply extended benefits, that jobs would not be "created".
 
2014-01-10 05:52:31 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: And not extending benefits would cost 240,000 jobs, according to The Council of Economic Advisers and the Department of Labor (PDF)

Failing to extend UI benefits would put a dent in job-seekers' incomes, reducing demand and costing 240,000 jobs in 2014.


Yes, exactly what I'm trying to say, thank you. 

-240,000 + 200,000 = -40,000 

Jobs would not technically be "created", but it would worse if we did not extend them.
 
2014-01-10 05:52:49 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: CBO estimates that extending the current EUC program and other related expiring provisions until the end of 2014 would increase inflation-adjusted GDP by 0.2 percent and increase full-time-equivalent employment by 0.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2014. Link


Compared to NOT doing it? Obviously. (SEE ABOVE, 1.3 million people and $300/month on average is real money.) But that is not the same thing as saying that it is CREATING net jobs.
 
2014-01-10 05:54:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Compared to NOT doing it? Obviously. (SEE ABOVE, 1.3 million people and $300/month on average is real money.) But that is not the same thing as saying that it is CREATING net jobs.


So, now that this pedantic argument is out of the way, do you support extending long-term unemployment benefits?
 
2014-01-10 05:54:36 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: But that is not the same thing as saying that it is CREATING net jobs.


Well whoopdi f*cking do. Give the outcomes, we should extend benefits.
 
2014-01-10 05:55:11 PM  

cousin-merle: Dusk-You-n-Me: And not extending benefits would cost 240,000 jobs, according to The Council of Economic Advisers and the Department of Labor (PDF)

Failing to extend UI benefits would put a dent in job-seekers' incomes, reducing demand and costing 240,000 jobs in 2014.

Yes, exactly what I'm trying to say, thank you. 

-240,000 + 200,000 = -40,000 

Jobs would not technically be "created", but it would worse if we did not extend them.


Why on earth did you add together those two numbers?
 
2014-01-10 06:02:46 PM  

Tyrano Soros: I have yet to see what would motivate a business to hire more empoyees. Giving someone a tax break wouldn't make them automatically hire more employees if demand in a consumer-based economy doesn't increase. Businesses only hire if there is a need for more employees.


IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

BojanglesPaladin: I've thrown out some general ideas, and they are there to be read, but I'm not presenting a detailed policy paper or sponsoring a bill here. The point is that now that the economy is not going down and beginning to creep up, any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum.

Feel free to propose your own ideas.

And again, unemployment benefits do not CREATE demand. They preserve a slightly lower amount of demand, which is good, but does not add ADDITIONAL demand. if you want ADDITIONAL demand (more than the current reduced status quo) you need these people to have MORE income to spend than the reduced level of unemployment benefits. That means jobs.

BojanglesPaladin: See no matter HOW long we pay unemployment, it will by it's nature be LESS than an actual paycheck. So what is BETTER for the economy is to get JOBS. Paying unemployment may help reduce the negative impact on the economy and limit the resulting further loss of even more jobs, but it doesn't really do anything to get new jobs, or even replace lost jobs. The last 6 years are a good indication of that. We've BEEN paying the long term unemployment, but job growth is still very, very anemic. There are, of course, many reasons for this, but the primary one is that the rate of new job creation in the SMB market is way down from where it needs to be. Part of that is a lack of credit (HBR did a good break-down of this), part of that is a stagnant economy, part of that is economic uncertainty and low consumer confidence, etc.
Yes, yes, wall street is doing great, but I think we have all noticed that stock prices are utterly detached from jobs numbers.
So I think it would be more effective to (for instance) give a payroll tax exemption to any business that hires an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee for at least 9 months of the year for as many as they hire. Or push on the banks to give more loans to small businesses. Maybe provide additional guarantees when those businesses can show an annual employment increase of full time employees.
Basically, anything that produces actual employment is a better use of tax dollars than paying unemployment more.
 
2014-01-10 06:04:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Tyrano Soros: I have yet to see what would motivate a business to hire more empoyees. Giving someone a tax break wouldn't make them automatically hire more employees if demand in a consumer-based economy doesn't increase. Businesses only hire if there is a need for more employees.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

BojanglesPaladin: I've thrown out some general ideas, and they are there to be read, but I'm not presenting a detailed policy paper or sponsoring a bill here. The point is that now that the economy is not going down and beginning to creep up, any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum.

Feel free to propose your own ideas.

And again, unemployment benefits do not CREATE demand. They preserve a slightly lower amount of demand, which is good, but does not add ADDITIONAL demand. if you want ADDITIONAL demand (more than the current reduced status quo) you need these people to have MORE income to spend than the reduced level of unemployment benefits. That means jobs.

BojanglesPaladin: See no matter HOW long we pay unemployment, it will by it's nature be LESS than an actual paycheck. So what is BETTER for the economy is to get JOBS. Paying unemployment may help reduce the negative impact on the economy and limit the resulting further loss of even more jobs, but it doesn't really do anything to get new jobs, or even replace lost jobs. The last 6 years are a good indication of that. We've BEEN paying the long term unemployment, but job growth is still very, very anemic. There are, of course, many reasons for this, but the primary one is that the rate of new job creation in the SMB market is way down from where it needs to be. Part of that is a lack of credit (HBR did a good break-down of this), part of that is a stagnant economy, part of that is economi ...


None of that explains why any business would hire someone they don't yet need for a tax break that saves them less than the employee costs them. Your flawed post is flawed no matter how many times you post it.
 
2014-01-10 06:06:24 PM  

cousin-merle: BojanglesPaladin: It's actually up to 73 weeks which is about a year and a half, not two years. And as far as I know, we've never extended unemployment benefits this long before, but feel free to verify. Maybe in the 70s, but I doubt it.

Perhaps we started too late and ended too early.

[images.bwbx.io image 630x597]


Thanks. That was the exact graphic I was thinking about.
 
2014-01-10 06:06:57 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: a payroll tax exemption to any business that hires an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee for at least 9 month


I'd prefer to help people directly, instead of helping businesses and hoping they in turn help people. How about we exempt the first $20K of income from the payroll tax for all earners. You've just given everyone an instant raise, and those at the bottom who need it most will spend it.
 
2014-01-10 06:07:16 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: rzrwiresunrise: cuz he keeps deflecting the "$5K tax break for a $50K employee" scenario.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:

"That was a response to his dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What he said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it wrth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway."

But you knew that already. Right? Surely you haven't gotten confused about things.

rzrwiresunrise: I'm waiting to see what BJpaladin imagines incentives other than tax breaks might be

You might want to grease up that 'ol scroll button.


Here you mention how you hired 3 employees but failed to qualify for a tax break.
Here you mention tax breaks for businesses, especially SMB companies.
Here you you mention payroll tax exemptions, which is just another term for tax breaks.
Here you mention a tax holiday, which is another term for tax break.
Here you get a little vague and mention a "reason" to hire new employees. And then you mention a tax write-off, which is just another term for tax break.
Here you still remain a bit vague, with "focused incentives", and then Bush tax cuts wasn't what you meant.
Here is where you get a bit flowery, with that "cusp of demand" and "prevailing economic factors", but you still stay vague with that term "incentives."

And you did mention the $50K job. Others speculated what the tax break might be, say $5K, but if that's not reasonable, you didn't throw your own figure out there as a counterpoint.

So you went from tax-breaks to tax exemptions to tax holiday to write-off to incentives, without answering the question posed: how does a business justify hiring someone at $50K to receive $X (X < $50K) in tax breaks?

Since you didn't answer that question, then it could be that you imagine there are other incentives that might tip a business on the cusp of demand that would require more employees to, in fact, hire those employees. What might those incentives be?

If there aren't any others, then what would justify the hiring in hopes of a tax break that equals far less than the cost of hiring that employee?

You said you hired 3 new employees. What motivated you to do that?
 
2014-01-10 06:07:51 PM  

cousin-merle: So, now that this pedantic argument is out of the way, do you support extending long-term unemployment benefits?


Extending them how? Past the 60-73 weeks? Restoring the recently expired extension back to 60-73 weeks?

No. The long-term extension was an emergency measure and I think it is time to go back to the norm, which is about 26 weeks. That's where the bulk of people on unemployment are anyway, and the long term unemployed are already off the rolls.

I think instead we should be focusing our money and resources on incentivizing job growth.
 
2014-01-10 06:10:12 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: cousin-merle: So, now that this pedantic argument is out of the way, do you support extending long-term unemployment benefits?

Extending them how? Past the 60-73 weeks? Restoring the recently expired extension back to 60-73 weeks?

No. The long-term extension was an emergency measure and I think it is time to go back to the norm, which is about 26 weeks. That's where the bulk of people on unemployment are anyway, and the long term unemployed are already off the rolls.

I think instead we should be focusing our money and resources on incentivizing job growth.


WHAT DOES THAT MEAN??!?
 
2014-01-10 06:10:14 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Tyrano Soros: I have yet to see what would motivate a business to hire more empoyees. Giving someone a tax break wouldn't make them automatically hire more employees if demand in a consumer-based economy doesn't increase. Businesses only hire if there is a need for more employees.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

BojanglesPaladin: I've thrown out some general ideas, and they are there to be read, but I'm not presenting a detailed policy paper or sponsoring a bill here. The point is that now that the economy is not going down and beginning to creep up, any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum.

Feel free to propose your own ideas.

And again, unemployment benefits do not CREATE demand. They preserve a slightly lower amount of demand, which is good, but does not add ADDITIONAL demand. if you want ADDITIONAL demand (more than the current reduced status quo) you need these people to have MORE income to spend than the reduced level of unemployment benefits. That means jobs.

BojanglesPaladin: See no matter HOW long we pay unemployment, it will by it's nature be LESS than an actual paycheck. So what is BETTER for the economy is to get JOBS. Paying unemployment may help reduce the negative impact on the economy and limit the resulting further loss of even more jobs, but it doesn't really do anything to get new jobs, or even replace lost jobs. The last 6 years are a good indication of that. We've BEEN paying the long term unemployment, but job growth is still very, very anemic. There are, of course, many reasons for this, but the primary one is that the rate of new job creation in the SMB market is way down from where it needs to be. Part of that is a lack of credit (HBR did a good break-down of this), part of that is a stagnant economy, part of that is economi ...


Just out of interest, do you have any formal economics education or is this stuff that you just sort of cook up yourself at the library?
 
2014-01-10 06:12:43 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: No. The long-term extension was an emergency measure and I think it is time to go back to the norm, which is about 26 weeks. That's where the bulk of people on unemployment are anyway, and the long term unemployed are already off the rolls.


This is now going to bite you on the ass.

This recession is not 'normal'. See the chart, above. And the long-term unemployed are off the rolls because they've given up completely.
 
2014-01-10 06:13:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I think instead we should be focusing our money and resources on incentivizing job growth.


Will this create more jobs than will be lost by not extending benefits?  Why would businesses hire when their customers have less money to spend?
 
Displayed 50 of 383 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report