- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: Time for a poli board poll
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:31 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:31 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:See, this is what gets missed in all this. If the jobs were there in the first place there wouldn't be so many free riders to police. In 2010, Biden told us it was the summer of recovery, thanks in massive part to the stimulus bill.
So rather than fix problems within the system to eliminate free riders
Your solution is to spend more tax payer dollars to “oversee” the programs? Seems a net negative solution to me, which is perfectly acceptable in our culture of deficit spending and massive debt.
Businesses don't have the power to impose taxes or print money, so instead they have to cut employees.
ETA: Point is, help fix the problem by creating an economic environment favorable to job creation and you won't be in legislative session fighting about extending UE benefits.
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 3:42 pm
0
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:54 pm to Zach
A. I know 2 that play the game.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 4:09 pm to Zach
quote:
Do unemployment benefits decrease the incentive to find a job?
a. Yes
b. No
Neither answer really makes sense with the way the question is worded. One absolute answer won't account for the variety in human behavior.
My answer is c. Sometimes
How different would the answers in this thread be if the question were - "Do unemployment benefits decrease the incentive for you to find a job?"
Given the choice between unemployment benefits and a living-wage job, I think the majority of people would choose the job.
Also, something important to consider in this discussion is that unemployment benefits can help a person find a job, whether it's gas in their car, keeping their power on, keeping their water running, etc.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 4:14 pm to inadaze
A
even the most ambitious guy out there that takes the time to apply for unemployment will ease off the search a little with cash in his pocket.
Qualifying for unemployment often times makes the person eligible for other welfare like food stamps so you can't always consider just the UI benefit.
La maximum benefit is from UI is $258 a week.
even the most ambitious guy out there that takes the time to apply for unemployment will ease off the search a little with cash in his pocket.
Qualifying for unemployment often times makes the person eligible for other welfare like food stamps so you can't always consider just the UI benefit.
La maximum benefit is from UI is $258 a week.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 7:18 pm to Zach
a
Posted on 1/15/14 at 7:26 pm to Zach
This depends on the response of each individual. I can't see where every person will respond the same so I have to say:
both (depending on the person)
that said, I'm thinking that for the majority it is: A
both (depending on the person)
that said, I'm thinking that for the majority it is: A
Posted on 1/15/14 at 7:27 pm to Zach
A
And in the majority of situations it's blatant.
And in the majority of situations it's blatant.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 7:35 pm to Zach
quote:
a. Yes
Posted on 1/15/14 at 7:35 pm to Zach
Don't know about the "genius" part... Krugman is not infallible.
I have seen people disincentivized by unemployment pay. I have also seen people hope for layoffs because of unemployment pay. If he said what you ascribe to him then he's obviously wrong.
I have seen people disincentivized by unemployment pay. I have also seen people hope for layoffs because of unemployment pay. If he said what you ascribe to him then he's obviously wrong.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 7:39 pm to Zach
a, all day
Posted on 1/15/14 at 7:41 pm to FightinTigersDammit
A, more so now than in the past and gradually becoming stronger, sad to say.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 8:39 pm to kingbob
quote:
If my needs are all met (housing assistance, nutritional assistance, medicaid, unemployment insurance, ect) why would I need to work? Sure, working might get me better off than my current level of benefits, but it's not only risky that I might not improve my lot at all, but I have to work for it, and I lose my benefits if as much as try. That's a huge disincentive.
I think the issue here is a disconnection in a sense of community/togetherness. Let's say you lost your job, and the people in your neighborhood all contributed to help you in your time of need. I think you would me much less likely to have the same rationale.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 8:47 pm to Zach
a.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 11:13 pm to Zach
Yes.
Unless the unemployment compensation program is of limited time and properly managed to ensure that the worker is diligently looking for work.
The problem with the entitlement programs being run under Democrat regimes is that proper management of taxpayer dollars is never, ever an important objective. Dems just want to give out as much free money to as many people as possible, even if they have to run TV and radio ads to advertise the give-away programs.
If Democrats were responsible and thrifty with tax dollars, they would not be so odious and dangerous.
Unless the unemployment compensation program is of limited time and properly managed to ensure that the worker is diligently looking for work.
The problem with the entitlement programs being run under Democrat regimes is that proper management of taxpayer dollars is never, ever an important objective. Dems just want to give out as much free money to as many people as possible, even if they have to run TV and radio ads to advertise the give-away programs.
If Democrats were responsible and thrifty with tax dollars, they would not be so odious and dangerous.
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 11:27 pm
Posted on 1/15/14 at 11:16 pm to Zach
C. Works both ways
There is a thing called variables...
There is a thing called variables...
Posted on 1/16/14 at 12:08 am to Zach
So is the argument here to get rid of unemployment insurance?
Posted on 1/16/14 at 12:14 am to Tigah in the ATL
I couldn't agree with completely getting rid of UI. It keeps people off federal doles for a time period while helping them transition in the event of job loss. It has been extended to the point of abuse, though, and definitely makes looking for a job immediately less vital. It should help them make ends meet while they transition to a new job - not pay their bills while they take their time figuring out their life.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News