Embar wrote:I have no idea. Can you answer your own question? Without your estimate, that starting point of the argument is irrelevant. Are you manufacturing an issue without data?
Exactly! You have no idea. I asked the question because you are manufacturing a position with no data, so stop projecting. There is data, and if your position were correct there would be a correlation between benefits running out and people getting a job. There isn't. There's a reason economists don't think unemployment benefits discourage people from trying to find work in our current economic situation.
Your own posts suggest otherwise... and you're coming from a biased position...
Answer your own question Lurker...be honest, as you claim other aren''t when you don't get direct answers to your questions... To remind yhou, this is what you asked...
What percentage of the unemployed do you "feel" are not accepting a job because their benefits haven't run out?
If you can't answer it, its unfair and disengenious to ask it of others.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
I think the number of people waiting for benefits to run out before getting a job is extremely small, maybe 3% of the unemployed. A recent study in Austria found that "fewer than 1% of jobless spells have an ending date that is manipulated to coincide with the expiration of UI benefits", and I'd expect similar numbers in the United States given the current economy.
But an interesting thing happened here. You made an assertion based on nothing but your own feelings and what you've heard from right wing sources. Fallakin mirrored the assertion (and then destroyed it). And you both refused to support it with anything. When I asked a question to pin down what you actually believe you said I was being disingenuous and you deflected. That's no way to have a discussion.
I'm still interested to know what percentage you'd put on it. What percentage of the unemployed won't get a job until their benefits run out?
The other "moral" issue is it's effectively saying Mexicans aren't worth as much as US citizens and legislating a kind-of lower-class within the US.
It's already a class based society, what's one more?
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Lurker wrote:I think the number of people waiting for benefits to run out before getting a job is extremely small, maybe 3% of the unemployed. A recent study in Austria found that "fewer than 1% of jobless spells have an ending date that is manipulated to coincide with the expiration of UI benefits", and I'd expect similar numbers in the United States given the current economy.
But an interesting thing happened here. You made an assertion based on nothing but your own feelings and what you've heard from right wing sources. Fallakin mirrored the assertion (and then destroyed it). And you both refused to support it with anything. When I asked a question to pin down what you actually believe you said I was being disingenuous and you deflected. That's no way to have a discussion.
I'm still interested to know what percentage you'd put on it. What percentage of the unemployed won't get a job until their benefits run out?
Here's the honest answer. No one knows. And no one WILL know until we try it. If your assertion of 3% is correct, then $1.14 billion is being needlessly spent in UI beneiftis in the latest round of the UI benefit extensions. Don't you think that $1.14 billion is worth a look? Can't we spend a little on trying to identify people that can work but don't want to? That $1.14 billion is the wasted expenditures of only a few months, if your 3% is correct. Is that acceptable to you? Can't you see another way around this? Thats about $5 billion per year. And as the CBO extends things into 10 year timeframes, thats $50 billion in wasted spending.
Now please, I've answered your questions directly and honestly in two threads, I ask the courtesy of you to do the same.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
The other "moral" issue is it's effectively saying Mexicans aren't worth as much as US citizens and legislating a kind-of lower-class within the US.
It's already a class based society, what's one more?
It's sad Partha.. you used to bring semi relevant issues to the board. I don't know what happened to you. Now its just hate and misperceptions. No one argues that there are substantive policy issues, but blaming everything on "the man" is just.. well... loserville.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar wrote:Here's the honest answer. No one knows. And no one WILL know until we try it. If your assertion of 3% is correct, then $1.14 billion is being needlessly spent in UI beneiftis in the latest round of the UI benefit extensions. Don't you think that $1.14 billion is worth a look? Can't we spend a little on trying to identify people that can work but don't want to? That $1.14 billion is the wasted expenditures of only a few months, if your 3% is correct. Is that acceptable to you? Can't you see another way around this? Thats about $5 billion per year. And as the CBO extends things into 10 year timeframes, thats $50 billion in wasted spending.
I have no problem with attempts to root out fraud. That wasn't how this discussion began though. It began with you (and then Fallakin) making a claim that people won't get a job if they are receiving unemployment benefits. Fallakin honestly admitted he thinks we're talking about 4-5% of the unemployed. Given that, making statements that lump all unemployed together or coming up with a solution that would impact all unemployed seems incredibly unfair.
On the "wasted" 1.14 billion... It's not entirely wasted since every dollar in benefits provides more than a dollar in economic stimulus. That said, no... it's not acceptable. The money could be used elsewhere and we're incentivizing some unknown number of people to stay unemployed. If there was a way to root out those people without affecting everyone I'd support it. You certainly wouldn't support eliminating tax incentives to all businesses because some unknown number of businesses are committing tax fraud.
The other "moral" issue is it's effectively saying Mexicans aren't worth as much as US citizens and legislating a kind-of lower-class within the US.
It's already a class based society, what's one more?
It's sad Partha.. you used to bring semi relevant issues to the board. I don't know what happened to you. Now its just hate and misperceptions. No one argues that there are substantive policy issues, but blaming everything on "the man" is just.. well... loserville.
Pointing out we have a class based society is 'blaming everything on the man'?
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
This isn't feudalism Partha. There are classes in this society, but it's not classed based. You are really starting to sound like you'r eplayin the victim... we get it. You think no one but the richest 1% is to blame for anything. /yawn
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Oh, it's class based all right. Only now instead of titles and land, the basis is cash. As much as a dockworker would be discouraged from eating at an exclusive club, a billionaire would think it crazy to go into a neighborhood bar. It's merely hidden better here.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Partha wrote:Oh, it's class based all right. Only now instead of titles and land, the basis is cash. As much as a dockworker would be discouraged from eating at an exclusive club, a billionaire would think it crazy to go into a neighborhood bar. It's merely hidden better here.
Really? You're going to equate a personal bank account with classism? Even though that's a pretty ignorant statement, it does explain why you sound half crazy all the time.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Lurker wrote: Fallakin honestly admitted he thinks we're talking about 4-5% of the unemployed. Given that, making statements that lump all unemployed together or coming up with a solution that would impact all unemployed seems incredibly unfair.
I think theres probably around 15-20% applying to jobs but not getting any interviews as well, though.
