• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Rand Paul Making New Friends

PhDeac said:
So all it takes to get a job is incentive.
Click to expand...

No, once again (we need a bell or something) no one is saying that. But when you lack the incentive to do something, your sense of urgency to accomplish that task is diminished accordingly.

Are we really arguing that it is unpossible for people to become dependent on government benefits? Really?
 
jhmd2000 said:
No, once again (we need a bell or something) no one is saying that. But when you lack the incentive to do something, your sense of urgency to accomplish that task is diminished accordingly.

Are we really arguing that it is unpossible for people to become dependent on government benefits? Really?
Click to expand...

jhmd2000 said:
Again, I understand I'm talking to unwilling, delicate ears and a firmly closed mind.
Click to expand...

...
 
jhmd or Tuffalo, is there evidence that people who reach 99 weeks are more likely to get a job than some who hasn't been unemployed and on UI as long?

Seems like that would address jhmd's concerns rather easily. If jhmd is correct, we should see very low unemployment rates among those who reached the end of their UI. On the other hand, if people reach the end (thus having the most incentive) and they aren't more likely to get a job, there isn't much evidence for jhmd's point.
 
PhDeac said:
jhmd or Tuffalo, is there evidence that people who reach 99 weeks are more likely to get a job than some who hasn't been unemployed and on UI as long?

Seems like that would address jhmd's concerns rather easily. If jhmd is correct, we should see very low unemployment rates among those who reached the end of their UI. On the other hand, if people reach the end (thus having the most incentive) and they aren't more likely to get a job, there isn't much evidence for jhmd's point.
Click to expand...

I would be very curious to see those studies.
 
PhDeac said:
jhmd or Tuffalo, is there evidence that people who reach 99 weeks are more likely to get a job than some who hasn't been unemployed and on UI as long?

Seems like that would address jhmd's concerns rather easily. If jhmd is correct, we should see very low unemployment rates among those who reached the end of their UI. On the other hand, if people reach the end (thus having the most incentive) and they aren't more likely to get a job, there isn't much evidence for jhmd's point.
Click to expand...

1. LOL at asking jhmd for evidence. Hilarious. Bravo, Ph.

2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/uireport-2013-12-4.pdf has a good rundown on the issue and a v good bibliography.

3. Once you're at 99 weeks, you're pretty effed in the job search because employers use duration of unemployment as a screen.



The real issue, as always, is that jhmd favors a world in which Labor licks Capital's boots, and you and I don't. jhmd is right to hate UI, because it makes Labor marginally less subservient to Capital. If you are for the working man, then you're for UI durations increasing with the unemployment rate.
 
"he's probably here illegally taking Americans' jobs but you progressives won't let us close the border...and Obamacare...and uhhhh what am I leaving out? bootstraps or sumpin'"
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
He's changed his mind about wanting to repeal a Civil Rights Act that has been in effect for almost a half century in four years? I would love to see a statement about that. I give a lot of credit to people who change their mind based on new information but I'm going to be hard pressed to consider that too seriously when he enters the national spotlight and suddenly shifts on his outlandish, ridiculous views.
Click to expand...

President Obama "changed his stance on gay marriage" the moment he no longer needed the votes. They're all whores Numbers. Grow up.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
http://web.stanford.edu/~cy10/public/UI_and_Job_Search_Activity.pdf

read it and weep
Click to expand...

First of all, why would I weep? What does that even mean, in this context? That you have "proven" (extrapolating a national policy's effectiveness from a sample size of about the sie of Forsyth County...slow clap), what, exactly? That people don't become dependent on government benefits? Do you really think that? Really? Why don't you read your link:

"Much research has examined how Unemployment Insurance affects the rate of job-finding – consistently showing that generous benefits prolong the duration of unemployment. However, the reasons for this result are not entirely clear. For some scholars, this work shows that UI subsidizes the price of leisure, reducing the motivation to return to work (Feldstein 2005). For others, this work suggests that committed job searchers are using UI as a way to hold out for a better job (Chetty 2008). These conflicting interpretations are not yet settled. The contribution of this study is to look at job search activity, rather than the duration of unemployment or the rate at which unemployed people find jobs (see also Krueger and Mueller 2010). Searching for work is not the same as actually finding work."

You don't say...

Putting aside the rather unfortunate predicate facts that your linked article attempts to explain away by pivoting away from actually securing employment towards the less productive activity of unsuccessfully searching for work, what's the point, Tuffy? That we SHOULD keep people on UI as some sort of quasi-permanent solution?

Again from your link: "Research also finds a pronounced spike in re-employment around the time when people’s UI runs out (eg, Katz and Mayer 1990; Mayer 1990; Card, Chetty, and Weber 2007). Before benefits expire, the chance of finding a job is about 7 percent per week. At the point when UI expires, the job-finding rate temporarily spikes up to about 14 percent (Katz and Mayer 1990:990)."

What's the point, again? Back to the link: "The concern is well articulated by one UI recipient, who reported “I’m having the best summer of my life right now. I’m relaxed, my blood pressure has gone down, I’m eating better and I’m seeing a lot more people…”

Oh, that. Why didn't you say so? That actually sounds good. UI for everyone! Seems sustainable.

Again, I don't get the motivation for your call to physical emotion. Why? Why would I want people to settle for extended UI benefits, rather than look for work? Wait....why do you want that?
 
Last edited:
In the first paragraph, a sample the size of Forsyth County is "small" (it's actually massive). By the end, an anecdote is dispositive.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
In the first paragraph, a sample the size of Forsyth County is "small" (it's actually massive). By the end, an anecdote is dispositive.
Click to expand...

You found a study that says unemployed people don't stop searching for jobs. From your friends at the Chris Rock Foundation for Taking Care of Your Kids, heartfelt congrats on winning this year's award.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Again, I understand I'm talking to unwilling, delicate ears and a firmly closed mind, (affirm bloated self worth by degrading others) but to answer your concerns anyway (appearance of engagement with underlying condescension. Prepare for non-answer), illustrating that well-intended policies (the hook)are failing because true believers place blind faith in things like political correctness (pivot) might also be giving an informed, eyes-wide-open opinion on the Emperor's New Clothes(you guys are idiots). There are no shortage of people willing to dock their boats in the safe harbor of political correctness(yay metaphor!), but are people not allowed to point out when it doesn't work(certainty of correctness of own opinion)? Or does this church (like other hard line faiths) (you radicals!) not suffer heresy particularly well?

To be perfectly clear, "offensive" by your definition includes the belief that our government shouldn't actively discriminate against/for people solely because of their race. Watch how your church treats such heresy and you'll see my point (just open your eyes!).
Click to expand...

...
 
jhmd2000 said:
You found a study that says unemployed people don't stop searching for jobs. From your friends at the Chris Rock Foundation for Taking Care of Your Kids, heartfelt congrats on winning this year's award.
Click to expand...

Hasn't your whole point been that government benefits cause unemployed people to stop searching for jobs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top