**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

Which is why I asked you what the fuck you were saying.

So, what were you saying?

That paying somebody to be unproductive is a bad idea.

[OngBonga]

That paying somebody to be unproductive is a bad idea.

Ok, let me go over old ground with you, because you're not emotional when it comes to these things.

What do you think would happen if unemployment benefits ceased to exist? Do you think it would result in a net gain, or net loss, for the taxpayer?

I make the assumption that most long term unemployed people are so for a reason... I call it unemployability. They can't hold down jobs, maybe because they're useless, stupid, untrustworthy, or unable to work with other people, amongst other reasons. These people still need to eat, they still need shelter. If society does not provide this, what happens?

[BananaStand]

These people still need to eat, they still need shelter. If society does not provide this, what happens?

They can go find a society that does......in Europe

[OngBonga]

They can go find a society that does......in Europe

lol dumb emotion

[wufwugy]

Ok, let me go over old ground with you, because you're not emotional when it comes to these things.

What do you think would happen if unemployment benefits ceased to exist? Do you think it would result in a net gain, or net loss, for the taxpayer?

I make the assumption that most long term unemployed people are so for a reason... I call it unemployability. They can't hold down jobs, maybe because they're useless, stupid, untrustworthy, or unable to work with other people, amongst other reasons. These people still need to eat, they still need shelter. If society does not provide this, what happens?

If we assume all the unemployed are unemployable, you would be right. What we have seen with regards to how employment changes based on recessions and labor reforms, by large majority, most of the unemployed when the rate is not very low are not unemployable.

[OngBonga]

If we assume all the unemployed are unemployable, you would be right. What we have seen with regards to how employment changes based on recessions and labor reforms, by large majority, most of the unemployed when the rate is not very low are not unemployable.

This is why I draw a distinction between "unemployed" and "long term unemployed". Most unemployed people are employable, also most unemployed people want a job. I'm talking about the minority who have no intention of working.

I think even banana is happy with a benefit that keeps people afloat between jobs. The "safety net".

[wufwugy]

This is why I draw a distinction between "unemployed" and "long term unemployed". Most unemployed people are employable, also most unemployed people want a job. I'm talking about the minority who have no intention of working.

Most of those are people like stay-at-home moms with children and disabled. Most that don't have jobs because they get enough welfare to be happy enough to not work would work if they didn't get the welfare.

I think even banana is happy with a benefit that keeps people afloat between jobs. The "safety net".

One of the main reasons for difficulty in-between jobs is the existence of the safety net in the first place. It disincentivizes savings and other smart behavior. Unemployment insurance is a good thing when the policyholder pays for it.

[OngBonga]

Most of those are people like stay-at-home moms with children and disabled. Most that don't have jobs because they get enough welfare to be happy enough to not work would work if they didn't get the welfare.

Ok well this is a slightly different argument to the one I'm engaged in. There's probably a cross-over in the demographics though.

I mean I don't think there's many people arguing that a mother with a disabled child is milking the system by not getting a job. Also, lots of stay-at-home mothers have partners who are working, so the state at least gets a rebate in the form of tax. It gets a little more tricky to analyse these people and their circumstances.

I'm talking mostly about the 800k or so people here who have been unemployed for longer than 6 months, and thus are deemd "long term unemployed". I don't know how many stay-at-home mothers are in this figure, but the bulk of this figure is single men with drink and/or drug problems.

One of the main reasons for difficulty in-between jobs is the existence of the safety net in the first place. It disincentivizes savings and other smart behavior. Unemployment insurance is a good thing when the policyholder pays for it.

Sure, but this seems like a minor problem compared to the problems we'd face if there were no safety net at all. Very few people are smart or disciplined enough to save... in fact, not many people have the disposable income to be saving anything significant. How many people can really afford to put 6 months of bills and expenses in a biscuit tin under the bed?

[wufwugy]

Sure, but this seems like a minor problem compared to the problems we'd face if there were no safety net at all. Very few people are smart or disciplined enough to save... in fact, not many people have the disposable income to be saving anything significant. How many people can really afford to put 6 months of bills and expenses in a biscuit tin under the bed?

Everybody used to save. 100 years ago in the US you would be hard-pressed to find a family that didn't save. Look at China today. These poor, uneducated, and often people with a history of childhood malnourishment have savings rates of up to 90%.

People don't save today because the government does it for them*. And the government does it VERY stupidly. Social Security and Medicare are absolutely idiotic retirement strategies, for example.

*Not only does the government doing the "saving" for people encourage people to act stupidly, it does that mostly for the LEAST CAPABLE of people, thereby increasing the gap between rich/poor and smart/stupid. Even with government "savings" programs, higher intelligence/cultured people still save similarly to how they would if the government didn't intervene. It's the lower intelligence/culture people who stop saving when the government intervenes.


Ong, question: you're not a fan of being a pawn of the government right? Government intervention into welfare is arguably the single biggest factor into turning members of the populace into pawns of the government. What do you think about that?