You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Then provide the opportunity. Not a hand out.
I imagine it would fall upon the goverment to insure that it is not standing in the way of businesses.Who should do that, then?
The opportunity will come provided business is allowed to flourish.
Has anyone here considered that the real problem here is an administration that is hostile to business?
C
cargau
Guest
That’s really not a rational argument. If it is, then I suppose it could be used to offset anyNot so. You choose to live here and open an business here. If you want to live in a country where the government will leave you alone, I would like to give you the opportunity to move to any one of a number of countries where there is no real government so you can do whatever you want without meddlesome gubmint getting in your way…try anywhere in the third world…Haiti and Somalia are good examples of right-wing no-government paradises you might want to investigate.
Until then, you aren’t coerced into anything because you CHOOSE to own and operate a business in the United States.
disagreement with any government for any reason. If I didn’t like being lied to by Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon, I can move to another country…After all, if we don’t like being lied to, we should not live in USA…Better to stay and work for a better way.
Yes, I choose to operate a business in the United States. I am willing to pay taxes and do my part for my country. I do not, however, have to agree with the manner in which those dollars are utilized. Since I have no say in this, (other than a vote), it seems reasonable to assert that the money is being taken in perhaps a legal form of theft. I do not object to providing unemployment coverage. I object to all the extensions as they seem to exacerbate the unemployment problem. I would much rather see our government work to support employers and thus encourage hiring.
Business owners, by their nature are very concerned about how their money is spent as it relates to a return on investment. Just this past week, 290,000 jobs were filled, yet the unemployment numbers went up. Sound confusing? It’s because those workers that were content to sit on the sidelines were jumping in to the job seeking mode. Why weren’t they actively seeking jobs before? Because they were getting a paycheck every week and thus, there was no real urgency…Extending UI makes for a lousy ROI. I just don’t know why they don’t get it…
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Well thats how you are sounding to most of us with where you put your emphesis of your complaing.Fair enough, but incorrect.
Those that perhaps have not been paying close attention to who has posted what perhaps.Well thats how you are sounding to most of us with where you put your emphesis of your complaing.
I am not complaining.
S
sharmin
Guest
Actually, I was wondering what your answers are to those questions as well…You are answering a perfectly valid question with questions.
This is hardly productive. Perhaps dishonest.
what’s your plan, personally?
…do you have a plan for taking care of yourself until the economy improves and you can start up a new business?
…are you assuming that you are indestructible?
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
This is flat out totally wrong. The unemployment rate is the fraction of the labor force which doesn’t have a job. The labor force consists of those working and those looking for work. You cannot receive unemployment benefits unless you are looking for work, which of course would put you in the labor force. So the new entrants to the labor force had to come from those not receiving benefits.It’s because those workers that were content to sit on the sidelines were jumping in to the job seeking mode. Why weren’t they actively seeking jobs before? Because they were getting a paycheck every week and thus, there was no real urgency…Extending UI makes for a lousy ROI. I just don’t know why they don’t get it…
D
Darkbloom
Guest
I can’t decide whether you’re playing semantic games or are simply naive. You don’t have to be looking for work to get unemployment; you have to give the appearance of looking for work. That’s a very important distinction.This is flat out totally wrong. The unemployment rate is the fraction of the labor force which doesn’t have a job. The labor force consists of those working and those looking for work. You cannot receive unemployment benefits unless you are looking for work, which of course would put you in the labor force. So the new entrants to the labor force had to come from those not receiving benefits.
The idea that an increase in the number of people with jobs in turn increases the number of people without jobs is ridiculously counter-intuitive. It can only be sustained by verbal shell games.
People get discouraged and quit looking because they can’t get the jobs they want, yet, McDonalds and Wal-Mart have beat the recession. Take away UI and many people will take jobs they wouldn’t if a check kept coming in.
If you worked some high prestige job for years and now feel that it is beneath you to work retail or fast food, that’s your prerogative; just don’t expect me to supplement your income in the mean time.
So tell me…What “implied way” are you talking about?
…
And how exactly did you reach this conclusion without reading more into my posts then what I have actually written?
You are answering a perfectly valid question with questions.
This is hardly productive. Perhaps dishonest.
I am sure many are.Actually, I was wondering what your answers are to those questions as well…
But in all fairness we should answer the questions in the order they are received.
R
rjparson
Guest
Someone qualified for a “high prestige job” who takes a job flipping burgers no longer has the time to look for a job that matches his abilities.If you worked some high prestige job for years and now feel that it is beneath you to work retail or fast food, that’s your prerogative; just don’t expect me to supplement your income in the mean time.
Which means the education he received has gone to waste, as have his abilities.
Which means the economy as a whole has suffered, including you, including the teenager who otherwise would have taken that job at McDonald’s.
None of this is partisan opinion; its just reality. Whether you agree or disagree is dependent on your ability to think long term.
I did.Someone qualified for a “high prestige job” who takes a job flipping burgers no longer has the time to look for a job that matches his abilities.
In fact, I took a 3rd shift position to make certain I would be available for job interviews etc during normal business hours.
It is his education and abilities that will get him another job later on.Which means the education he received has gone to waste, as have his abilities.
I am not certain it is possible to quantify any ‘suffering’ anywhere over any given person getting a job over and above any other person.Which means the economy as a whole has suffered, including you, including the teenager who otherwise would have taken that job at McDonald’s.
It would seem a lot to assume to know why someone is not hired for a position.
I agree completely.None of this is partisan opinion; its just reality. Whether you agree or disagree is dependent on your ability to think long term.
What got us into this mess was a lack of foresight (or perhaps a total foresight for those conspiracy nuts out there).
But placing more people in a dependence situation to the government is not the answer.
D
Darkbloom
Guest
Which means the education he received has gone to waste, as have his abilities.Someone qualified for a “high prestige job” who takes a job flipping burgers no longer has the time to look for a job that matches his abilities.
For an education to have (economic) value there has to be someone willing to pay you a price you are willing to accept to put that education to use. If you can’t find a job that fits that criteria, then the education has lost its (economic) value.
Consequently, you have a double inefficiency to the economy; 1) you are not doing something else of (economic) value even though you can, and 2) you take a pay check without producing anything.
T
tjm190
Guest
Really? So everyone who takes a job below their means just stays there indefinitely? I don’t suppose you have a source for this?Someone qualified for a “high prestige job” who takes a job flipping burgers no longer has the time to look for a job that matches his abilities.
Which means the education he received has gone to waste, as have his abilities.
Which means the economy as a whole has suffered, including you, including the teenager who otherwise would have taken that job at McDonald’s.
None of this is partisan opinion; its just reality. Whether you agree or disagree is dependent on your ability to think long term.
J
jmcrae
Guest
In either case, if they are receiving an unemployment cheque (regardless of what they are doing with it) they statistically count as “unemployed workers.”I can’t decide whether you’re playing semantic games or are simply naive. You don’t have to be looking for work to get unemployment; you have to give the appearance of looking for work. That’s a very important distinction.
Discouraged workers don’t receive unemployment benefits - they are either begging on the streets, or relying on support from family members. If they were to “suddenly” reappear in the workforce, it would be because they had gotten a job.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
The government does not distinguish between those who are looking for work and those who are pretending to look for work. If you are looking for work, and we have no real way of measuring this than to just ask people, then you are in the labor force. End of story.I can’t decide whether you’re playing semantic games or are simply naive. You don’t have to be looking for work to get unemployment; you have to give the appearance of looking for work. That’s a very important distinction.
I don’t think the number of people with jobs necessarily increases the number of people without jobs, what I did say was that to be unemployed you have to be in the labor force. And people can enter and leave the labor force.The idea that an increase in the number of people with jobs in turn increases the number of people without jobs is ridiculously counter-intuitive. It can only be sustained by verbal shell games.
People get discouraged and quit looking because they can’t get the jobs they want, yet, McDonalds and Wal-Mart have beat the recession. Take away UI and many people will take jobs they wouldn’t if a check kept coming in.
Actually, it can sometimes be beneficial for the government if spells of unemployment were a little longer, because people ought not necessarily take the first job that is offered. Waiting could provide a better match, which increases the income of the worker and the tax revenues of the government.If you worked some high prestige job for years and now feel that it is beneath you to work retail or fast food, that’s your prerogative; just don’t expect me to supplement your income in the mean time.
F
fulbert4605
Guest
This is really what it boils down to for me. If there was no paying into such an unemployment insurance fund, people would get to keep more of their money. Then they’d be able to save more. This way, the people who are “gaming” the unemployment benefits system (I’ll reuse the XBOX scenario so as to create a pun) by playing XBOX rather than looking for a job wouldn’t be doing it on another’s dime. These would be bound to look harder for a job if it were their own dime. What better motivation to seek a job if you have to subsist, in the mean time, off of your own money rather than someone else’s?If you were allowed to keep that money, don’t you think you would be at least as good a steward of it as the state?
And if employers didn’t have to pay into such an unemployment insurance fund, they’d be able to hire more people.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
And if you think they would, I have ocean front property in Nebraska to sell you.This is really what it boils down to for me. If there was no paying into such an unemployment insurance fund, people would get to keep more of their money. Then they’d be able to save more. This way, the people who are “gaming” the unemployment benefits system (I’ll reuse the XBOX scenario so as to create a pun) by playing XBOX rather than looking for a job wouldn’t be doing it on another’s dime. These would be bound to look harder for a job if it were their own dime. What better motivation to seek a job if you have to subsist, in the mean time, off of your own money rather than someone else’s?
And if employers didn’t have to pay into such an unemployment insurance fund, they’d be able to hire more people.
C
cargau
Guest
Cash is the fuel that drives most businesses. Without it, the business goes no where, as it is stifled. Every time the government takes another dollar, there is less gas in the tank to grow the business. When businesses grow, people get jobs.And if you think they would, I have ocean front property in Nebraska to sell you.
I realize that many of the services governments provide are not done so in a vacuum. They cost money and benefit the organization. Taxes must be paid and fees must be collected to provide these vital and necessary services.
My concern as it relates to UI insurance is not so much the existance of UI as the expansion of UI and the effect it has on the greater good for everyone.
If you are a recipient of UI, it sounds like a good thing to be collecting for more than two years. But, someone is paying the freight and that does tend to choke the business growth engine.
M
Major_Tom
Guest
That’s not entirely true. If you exhaust all of your state-provided benefits, you can qualify for an extended period of Federal benefits ( I think this happens about one year, or eighteen months, into your unemployment cycle). Once you begin that period, you are required to keep a log of companies where you inquired for employment, a minimum of two per week.You don’t have to be looking for work to get unemployment; you have to give the appearance of looking for work. That’s a very important distinction.
I do not know how (or if) the government confirms compliance, but nonetheless, the requirement is there.
M
Major_Tom
Guest
I agree with some of this. I think that there are some people who are “loafing” while on umemployment benefits.This way, the people who are “gaming” the unemployment benefits system (I’ll reuse the XBOX scenario so as to create a pun) by playing XBOX rather than looking for a job wouldn’t be doing it on another’s dime. These would be bound to look harder for a job if it were their own dime.
However… I am currently drawing unemployment. My professional field has been decimated in this area. The leading employment field in this area (metro Detroit) has also been decimated. In many fields, there are simply no jobs to get. So the idea that there are good jobs out there, just waiting for people, and I’m sitting at home eating bon-bons watching cable on the government’s dime, is not accurate. (I’m not meaning to pick on you; there were several people alluding to this point, and I just wanted to say that it is not black and white).
I’ve applied at several local Costco’s. I would LOVE a job at Costco. Too many college degrees, I guess, but they’ve never called me. Does this make me lazy…?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.