[licence2kill]

If you were made dictator of America (meaning no political constraints, you have complete control over all Federal functions) what would you do to bring unemployment down?

[F1VENOM]

Ship the unemployed to Mexico because they're lazy and a drain on the system.

[barrel roll]

Dictator?

Take complete control of industry, make employment in government factories mandatory.

[licence2kill]

No political constraints, but you are constrained by law.

[Animal_Mother (Banned)]

I would take those currently on unemployment and give them a job improving our infrastructure, security, and cleanliness. Not just unemployment insurance, but all federal assistance. I would actively ensure that anyone currently unemployed collecting funds from working tax payers would be doing their part to make our country better. Whether that be removing and collecting trash from roadsides, digging ditches, or working at soup kitchens. Nobody rides for free.

[licence2kill]

So fiscal stimulus.

[Animal_Mother (Banned)]

Yes and no. Like the proposed rail in Wisconsin that would have connected Madison and Milwaukee. The Republicans said no because we didn't have the money. My argument was that there were millions of people collecting unemployment that could have been collecting a paycheck while doing something worthwhile and productive. Other than that, I honestly believe that people should be forced to pick up trash for their unemployment/welfare checks until they find employment.

edit - Don't get it twisted. I don't support the Liberal platform of throwing more money at a problem, but at the same time I don't support the Conservative platform of saying no to everything. Both parties are completely Jedi mind-****ed and need to be eradicated for the good of our future.

[drgonzo]

Unemployment is paid for by workers so there is no no grounds to ask them to work for it.
Furthermore it would be economically unproductive to do so.

[Animal_Mother (Banned)]

Not entirely true. Sometimes, employees only need 13 weeks of employment and are then granted much longer than 13 weeks in unemployment insurance. Especially with all of the unemployment benefit extensions a few years back, there were plenty of people that didn't "pay for" those benefits that ended up receiving them.

edit - The 13 weeks of employment was just an example to illustrate that some people "earned" more paychecks from unemployment than at their actual employment given the unemployment extensions.

[$h@key J0nEZ]

Print more money.

[Animal_Mother (Banned)]

Problem solved.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Animal_Mother

Not entirely true. Sometimes, employees only need 13 weeks of employment and are then granted much longer than 13 weeks in unemployment insurance. Especially with all of the unemployment benefit extensions a few years back, there were plenty of people that didn't "pay for" those benefits that ended up receiving them.

Actually 13 weeks is far less than most people "pay for," at 12% 13 weeks is just over 2 years of paying in. Because of the higher numbers of more experienced workers becoming unemployed in the recession, it is a proper and correct reflection of value to extend unemployment benefits.

But regardless it is an insurance system. People aren't necessarily supposed to pay for as much as they claim, that's the point. Working for unemployment payments basically amounts to working for free, which creates social problems.

[Animal_Mother (Banned)]

And not working because it's easier to ride out unemployment benefits than actually working another job creates fiscal problems.

[licence2kill]

are people not working because they're receiving unemployment benefits or are they not working because theres no jobs available because of a demand shock?

is UI endogenous or exogenous of aggregate demand?

[Animal_Mother (Banned)]

Both. A lot of people are not working because they make more money in unemployment than they would at the currently available jobs, though.

[licence2kill]

thats impossible

[Animal_Mother (Banned)]

Oh? If the only jobs in the area that are available are paying $8-10/hr, but the person on UIC is collecting $300/wk after tax, what do you think they're more inclined to take advantage of?


This is actually a real world example of a dilemma that a couple of my buddies are facing right now. They are perfectly capable of working but they keep milking unemployment. I call them out on being lazy ****s but they continue to do nothing to better their situations.

[licence2kill]

i misunderstood you.

yes thats possible, but my argument would be that extended UI is endogenous of the level of AD. Raise AD and congress will bring down UI benefits.

[Animal_Mother (Banned)]

My solution would be to quit giving job creators more incentive to offshore their **** than to keep it here in the States. Over regulating and over taxing job creators will only make them exploit labor somewhere else.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Animal_Mother

And not working because it's easier to ride out unemployment benefits than actually working another job creates fiscal problems.

No, it is fiscally beneficial. As I already said, UI benefits are paid for in advance.

[Animal_Mother (Banned)]

You're right, everything is already paid for so **** it let's get paid bro!