Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A new book by University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan explains that through a major expansion of the welfare state we are paying people not to work:
[i]n the matter of a few quarters of 2008 and 2009, new federal and state laws greatly enhanced the help given to the poor and unemployed — from expansion of food-stamp eligibility to enlargement of food-stamp benefits to payment of unemployment bonuses — sharply eroding (and, in some cases, fully eliminating) the incentives for workers to seek and retain jobs, and for employers to create jobs or avoid layoffs.
Remember when Romney ran an ad attacking for Obama lossening welfare requirements the Left screamed foul?
Quote:
Mulligan gives the example of a two earner couple — each earning $600 a week. After the wife gets laid off she obtains a new job offer, paying $500 a week. But after deducting taxes and work related expenses her take home pay would be $257. Since untaxed unemployment benefits total $289, clearly she is better off not working.
All in all, Mulligan estimates that about half the precipitous 2007-2011 decline in the labor-force-participation rate and in hours worked can be blamed on easier eligibility rules for unemployment insurance, food stamps and housing aid.
It's all about Confidence or the lack of it in your leaders. Obama is pretty much anti Business and will continue to hurt regulate, tax and restrict the people who run the Business world.
Obama is Pro welfare, Anti business. Really very simple.
Remember when Romney ran an ad attacking for Obama lossening welfare requirements the Left screamed foul?
Add the length of time you can draw as well. I remember reading somewhere that once you're past a certain length of time (9 months I think), it is actually determental to extend benefits. The benefit period needs to be short enough that people feel some stress to find work. 1.5 years (or is it longer now? I haven't been following this one since we were way past the point where we were encouraging people to not look for work) is long enough to get very used to someone else paying the bills. It needs to be half of that....and will be soon as we start running out of money to pay the bills.
The first time I drew unemployment, back in the '80's it was 13 weeks. I got a 7 week extension and THAT was a BIG deal. How did we get to the point we're paying unemployment for YEARS?
It's all about Confidence or the lack of it in your leaders. Obama is pretty much anti Business and will continue to hurt regulate, tax and restrict the people who run the Business world.
Obama is Pro welfare, Anti business. Really very simple.
Yup, it's very simple. He doesn't scare me though. He'll be out of office in 4 years. What scares me is the people who voted him in will vote in the next election too so we can expect more of the same. A string of anti business, pro welfare presidents will bankrupt this country. Then who knows who will take over.
Well, I'm working, have seen steady improvement in the jobs I've been able to find for over two years.
And I want to keep improving, but not in a dead-end, service-oriented, post-industrial economy, where some poseur like the previous poster, is re-selling my time and attention at several times what I'm being paid to some half-in-the-bag great-grandparent.
I want to participate in the production and distribution of things that matter, on as open and flexible a schedule as the requirements of serious industrialism will permit. My current employer (my best to date) has a flex-time policy which understands that things at home don't always go according to plan, and an occasional late start or early quit on short notice is allowed.
And I want it absolutely understood that I have worn anything more confining, humiliating, and utterly unnecessary than "business casual" to work for the last time. PERIOD.
Provide that kind of environment, let Gramps and Gram understand the basics aren't very expensive, but if they want their foibles indulged, it will cost them a lot more. And tax such foolishness directly and heavily; you'll see a lot less pressure for the rackets called labor unions,
and help with the budgetary problems in the process.
I want to keep my dignity as a competent, but somewhat more autonomous individual, rather than a glorified errand boy and personal servant. Nothing more, nothing less.
And those values have nothing to do with selling your birthright to the Lefties, BTW.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-16-2012 at 04:32 PM..
Remember when Romney ran an ad attacking for Obama lossening welfare requirements the Left screamed foul?
There are at least 4 unemployed people for each open position. How does the article deal with that? If the US offered some sort of tapered welfare system, I'd say your guy has a point, but until then... the entire article is making moot points.
Yup, it's very simple. He doesn't scare me though. He'll be out of office in 4 years. What scares me is the people who voted him in will vote in the next election too so we can expect more of the same. A string of anti business, pro welfare presidents will bankrupt this country. Then who knows who will take over.
The Chinese. They've been working in the background counting what was once our money for years thanks to the willingness of the American public to sell-out at the checkout counter.
[black Friday, kids, is just around the corner...get in line like sheep]
Remember when Romney ran an ad attacking for Obama lossening welfare requirements the Left screamed foul?
The welfare requirement reforms were to hand over more jurisdiction to the state governments in order for them to better manage things. I'm generally in favor of these sort of devolution of government where states and local municipalities handle more of it. The only issue I might have is if it becomes a race to the bottom (like film/media tax breaks in different states which are sort of questionable), but I think for welfare reform it might make more sense since the idea is that the state level is more responsive and flexible than the federal. I understand if you disagree with that though and you want the federal government to set the standard, but I don't know about having that be the case for all things especially certain domestic policies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A string of anti business, pro welfare presidents will bankrupt this country. Then who knows who will take over.
58% approval
