View Full Version : Unemployment
MtnBiker
12-07-2010, 07:49 PM
So, just how long should an unemployed person receive government assistance? 2 years?? 3 years?? Why not 4 or 5??
Pagan
12-07-2010, 07:54 PM
So, just how long should an unemployed person receive government assistance? 2 years?? 3 years?? Why not 4 or 5??
Why not based on what you've paid in?
Thus someone who has consistently worked for 10-20 years without drawing should get substantially more than one who only has a work history of 3-5 years.
SassyLady
12-07-2010, 07:56 PM
Why not based on what you've paid in?
Thus someone who has consistently worked for 10-20 years without drawing should get substantially more than one who only has a work history of 3-5 years.
I didn't know that employees paid into unemployment. I've always thought it was UI - Unemployment Insurance that an employer paid.
red states rule
12-07-2010, 07:57 PM
Why not based on what you've paid in?
Thus someone who has consistently worked for 10-20 years without drawing should get substantially more than one who only has a work history of 3-5 years.
The workers do not "pay in the system"
Employers pay into the fund
The Unemployment Insurance Program, commonly referred to as UI, provides weekly unemployment insurance payments for workers who lose their job through no fault of their own. The UI program is 100% funded by employers who pay taxes on wages paid to employees.
http://www.edd.ca.gov/unemployment/
Kathianne
12-07-2010, 07:59 PM
So, just how long should an unemployed person receive government assistance? 2 years?? 3 years?? Why not 4 or 5??
It was at 99 weeks! That's nearly 2 years and now they've added another year and a month!
I think everyone knows I lost my job in June and had started looking for another since last March. Over the summer I spent most of my time applying for teaching positions. I used up 16 weeks of unemployment, before starting to substitute. Now I make about $23 more per week after retirement funds, union payments are taken out, along with taxes. Other than Thanksgiving week, making 17 weeks total unemployment, I've worked 5 days a week since beginning subbing. I'm certain to use another 2 weeks over Christmas of unemployment.
Now why work? I probably spend more than I'm making on gas. However, if I'm ever to get a job, I must have a work record, right? Now I'm not 25, 35, or 45 years old. I can't lift 40lbs or more of anything. However I'm still trying desperately to find a part-time job, to keep from going under.
How can people sit at home saying they 'can't find anything?' $50 more per week, is $50 more per week! Not too mention mental health by getting out of the house!
Anyone not working after 99 weeks, is not going to work.
red states rule
12-07-2010, 08:00 PM
So, just how long should an unemployed person receive government assistance? 2 years?? 3 years?? Why not 4 or 5??
Since libs think payig people not to work is a great way to grow the economy, we should all quit our jobs and then the economy would be in great shape - right?
If you can't find a job after 6 months you are not looking hard enough
Kathianne
12-07-2010, 08:02 PM
I don't think the tea parties are going to like this deal. Here's Michelle Malkin's take, I've a feeling we'll be hearing more on the like from the tea parties:
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/06/deal-with-the-devil-across-the-board-tax-relief-for-more-jobless-benefits/
Deal with the devil: Temporary across-the-board tax relief for more endless jobless benefits
By Michelle Malkin • December 6, 2010 06:06 PM
I understand many Beltway politicos consider the Obama/GOP tax deal — to be announced at 6:10pm Eastern by the president — to be a “win” for Republicans because the White House has conceded much, including a temporary payroll tax cut holiday of one year that would bring down the workers’ portion of FICA/Social Security taxes by 2 percent from 6.2 to 4.2%.
But outside Washington, many small businesses are getting hammered by the bottomless government subsidies for the unemployed at the expense of struggling employers.
Take my home state of Colorado — where I’m getting inundated with e-mails and first-hand stories from restaurant owners, dentists, and other business people (many of whom employ low-wage workers) grappling with massive UI bills. We’re not alone here in the Rockies. Between 30-40 state unemployment funds are bankrupt or teetering on the edge. And small businesses are paying the price. I’ll be reporting much more on the problem in my syndicated column on Wednesday.
Via the Denver Post:
...
MtnBiker
12-07-2010, 08:07 PM
I must have a work record, right? Now I'm not 25, 35, or 45 years old. I can't lift 40lbs or more of anything. However I'm still trying desperately to find a part-time job, to keep from going under.
I believe this is an important point.
A person removed from the labor force for 2 to 3 years is likely to atrophy in skill sets. And with high school, trade school and college graduates entering into the work force this will make the long term unemployed even less valued.
MtnBiker
12-07-2010, 08:12 PM
Why not based on what you've paid in?
Thus someone who has consistently worked for 10-20 years without drawing should get substantially more than one who only has a work history of 3-5 years.
Does a person have any ownership on contributions made into a unemployment fund? If so are people paid on any unused unemployment monies?
Kathianne
12-07-2010, 08:44 PM
Found this interesting:
http://cbs4denver.com/news/unemployment.insurance.premiums.2.2031356.html
Dec 1, 2010 9:56 pm US/Mountain
Unemployment Insurance Premiums On Rise In Colo.
DENVER (CBS4) ―
Many small businesses in Colorado are getting a shock in the mail that could bring higher prices for consumers. More than 116,000 businesses in Colorado will see big increases in their unemployment insurance premiums in 2011.
The Labor Department said they can blame the sluggish economy and an outdated system that determines premiums. Some companies are having to pay higher unemployment insurance to the state even though they've been hiring.
Burt Hedke and his wife own a car reconditioning company. He was shocked how much his unemployment insurance would be going up.
"The rate went up 475 percent from the rate it was in 2010," said Hedke. "Knowing all the various taxes we have to pay as business owners and consumers my initial reaction is you gotta be kidding me."
The reason for the big hike is no money left in Colorado's Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund.
The trust is used to pay for the first 26 weeks of unemployment benefits to people who are out of work...
Thunderknuckles
12-07-2010, 09:41 PM
So, just how long should an unemployed person receive government assistance? 2 years?? 3 years?? Why not 4 or 5??
I don't know what the cutoff should be. All I can say is that considering the current environment, I'm much more lenient than I used to be. I remember when times were pretty good for me and they extended the unemployment to 18 months. I thought "how the hell can anyone not find a good job after a year and half?!"
Well, I now know. I was out of work for almost 99 weeks and was just recently employed. I'm no slacker. I'm highly skilled and passionate about what I do. Yet, I couldn't seem to land more than a handful of interviews.
At any other time before this, I didn't even need to look for a job. I had recruiters and other companies with whom I had contacts with offering me opportunities to leave my employer. If you've been in my position, you know the frustration and despair you begin to feel.
One thing I will admit is that after a number of months with no offers I began to look less diligently for work. I spent more time doing volunteer work at my son's school, church, and the unemployment office itself lol. It made me feel like I was doing something worthwhile with my time.
Thus, considering the times we find ourselves in, combined with my own personal experience, I'll bend with the current proposal. Obviously it is not sustainable and I would expect to bring the number of weeks back down once the economy picks up (if the economy picks up!).
To anyone still looking for work, my heart goes out to you!
SassyLady
12-07-2010, 09:41 PM
It seems that there are about 40 positions available at San Quentin prison in Marin County, CA. Looks like a registered nurser there can make about $10K/month
http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/wvpos/search_p.cfm?county=MARIN
Wonder what happened?
Pagan
12-07-2010, 09:44 PM
The workers do not "pay in the system"
Employers pay into the fund
It's all cost of employing someone, the employer is paying to the government instead of to the employee. In all sense of reality it's coming out of your pocket.
Palin Rider
12-07-2010, 10:03 PM
Germany has a better solution.
No government-paid unemployment or UI taxes at all. Instead, when a company lays off an employee, they are required by law to pay that employee a full year's salary - immediately.
Pagan
12-08-2010, 12:05 AM
Germany has a better solution.
No government-paid unemployment or UI taxes at all. Instead, when a company lays off an employee, they are required by law to pay that employee a full year's salary - immediately.
Actually Germany's unemployment is 80% of what their previous salary was and benefits do not run out.
Mr. P
12-08-2010, 12:20 AM
It was at 99 weeks! That's nearly 2 years and now they've added another year and a month!
I think everyone knows I lost my job in June and had started looking for another since last March. Over the summer I spent most of my time applying for teaching positions. I used up 16 weeks of unemployment, before starting to substitute. Now I make about $23 more per week after retirement funds, union payments are taken out, along with taxes. Other than Thanksgiving week, making 17 weeks total unemployment, I've worked 5 days a week since beginning subbing. I'm certain to use another 2 weeks over Christmas of unemployment.
Now why work? I probably spend more than I'm making on gas. However, if I'm ever to get a job, I must have a work record, right? Now I'm not 25, 35, or 45 years old. I can't lift 40lbs or more of anything. However I'm still trying desperately to find a part-time job, to keep from going under.
How can people sit at home saying they 'can't find anything?' $50 more per week, is $50 more per week! Not too mention mental health by getting out of the house!
Anyone not working after 99 weeks, is not going to work.
It's summed up well in a short book written in 1850 "The Law". Free on the net. A MUST read for everyone.
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
It helps to read what precedes the below but you get it.
Property and Plunder
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use
the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
Palin Rider
12-08-2010, 01:33 AM
Actually Germany's unemployment is 80% of what their previous salary was and benefits do not run out.
I stand corrected. Still, a year's salary with no further benefits should be enough for nearly everyone.
SassyLady
12-08-2010, 02:52 AM
Actually Germany's unemployment is 80% of what their previous salary was and benefits do not run out.
Benefits never run out? Does the employer pay for the benefits until the individual gets another job? What if the employee can go 2-3 years without getting another job because they had savings or something. Does the last employer continue to pay the benefits? And, these employees are not part of a union?
Seems like it would be hard to stay in business with these types of burdens on business.
SassyLady
12-08-2010, 03:32 AM
Here's the type of openings we have in my area:
Animal Rights Activist/ Admin Assistant
A new cooperative mostly non-profit is forming ... a raw, Vegan, organic cafe with a spiritual message, and workshops! This space is new, (for now unnamed), space and will be about Animal Rights, environmental protection and restoration, plastic bottle and plastic bag elimination plan, Breema, Yoga, Chi healing, tons of cool workshops!.....Out of Body training, all paths of spirituality, creativity, and art. Seeking similar minded values to promote the health, environmental, and ethical aspects of a Vegan diet. The space is newly remodeled with all Green non toxic building materials. We have taken a stand to give and promote health and wellbeing, and encourage others to make one change daily........it could be buying no plastic, eating a raw diet, and or forgiving anything thats been weighing you down! Just do something! Wake up to we must change now! Wake up to what you do matters SO MUCH!!!!! One person can make a huge difference! Wake up to how wonderful and great you truely are! If it sounds intetesting email us your resume. Thank you, so much for all you are and do......to make the world beautiful, loving and kind and clean!
JOB DUTIES;
-Talking to people about the many benefits of a plant based diet, explaining the ethics of Veganism.
-Computer work, must be able to work with basic PC programs to promote, create mailing lists, events, talks, potlucks, faxes and calls, ( any graphic design work is a super plus!)
-Be responsible and trustworthy for opening and closing the space.
-Organize literature, filing, photocopying and other basic office duties.
-Greet and welcome people into the space.
-Be a leader for the space at times, explaining things.....making tea, some errands.....
-Leafletting, handing out literature in public, colleges, events, (with others).
-Assisting in renting part of the spaces to other groups/people for day or longterm tenancy (taking names and inquiries)
*We are a love and compassion based non- violent group, and non-judgemental and welcoming!
PREFFERED ATTRIBUTES;
-Cheerful, outgoing, positive, friendly, and embodying similar values.
-Super organized, clean, tidy, team player, patient and flexible, nice, and kind.
-Clean cut, health minded, drug, smoke and alcohol free environment
-Mostly this is is a fun job for the right person, on a mission to create a better world!!!!!!
Compensation: $10/hour ( to start ) 3 days/ week (Mon, Wed, Sat)( flexible on days12-7pm) ish
This is a part-time job.
from craigslist
logroller
12-08-2010, 03:37 AM
It seems that there are about 40 positions available at San Quentin prison in Marin County, CA. Looks like a registered nurser there can make about $10K/month
http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/wvpos/search_p.cfm?county=MARIN
Wonder what happened?
I've always wondered why San Quentin prison isn't relocated; it sits on prime property. Seems to me they could build another prison and have plenty-o-cash leftover! It's not as though the prisoners get to enjoy the view, just a few tower guards.
red states rule
12-08-2010, 03:37 AM
It's all cost of employing someone, the employer is paying to the government instead of to the employee. In all sense of reality it's coming out of your pocket.
That is a far cry from what you posted before
But it is another example of Obamanomics. Increase the cost of doing business while not providing an incentive to go back to work
With Obamanomics, success is measured by how many people are a government handout program
red states rule
12-08-2010, 03:40 AM
Benefits never run out? Does the employer pay for the benefits until the individual gets another job? What if the employee can go 2-3 years without getting another job because they had savings or something. Does the last employer continue to pay the benefits? And, these employees are not part of a union?
Seems like it would be hard to stay in business with these types of burdens on business.
We are doing that here SL. Many states have jacked up enemployment benefits to 99 weeks before the money is cut off
And for some damn reason, Republicans gave Obama another 13 months of benefits
Add to the mix the new taxes and regulations under Obamacare, and we will continue to see near 10% unemployment for awhile
Hey, libs said America should be more like Europe - and they are getting their wet dream wish
KarlMarx
12-08-2010, 08:32 AM
We are doing that here SL. Many states have jacked up enemployment benefits to 99 weeks before the money is cut off
And for some damn reason, Republicans gave Obama another 13 months of benefits
Add to the mix the new taxes and regulations under Obamacare, and we will continue to see near 10% unemployment for awhile
Hey, libs said America should be more like Europe - and they are getting their wet dream wish
OK... I'm confused... I thought that the 99 week unemployment period was extended for another 13 months....
Are you saying then, that, an unemployed person can now collect for 99 weeks + 13 months (I think that amounts to 155 weeks)????
Pagan
12-08-2010, 09:19 AM
That is a far cry from what you posted before
But it is another example of Obamanomics. Increase the cost of doing business while not providing an incentive to go back to work
With Obamanomics, success is measured by how many people are a government handout program
Really how so?
It's coming out of your pocket, you pay for it so one should receive what they pay into it.
Pagan
12-08-2010, 09:27 AM
Benefits never run out? Does the employer pay for the benefits until the individual gets another job? What if the employee can go 2-3 years without getting another job because they had savings or something. Does the last employer continue to pay the benefits? And, these employees are not part of a union?
Seems like it would be hard to stay in business with these types of burdens on business.
Don't know, but I do know that some take advantage of it. But it's also rather interesting that Germany maintains a good economy, even after this crash their recover is going well.
fj1200
12-08-2010, 02:01 PM
Germany has a better solution.
No government-paid unemployment or UI taxes at all. Instead, when a company lays off an employee, they are required by law to pay that employee a full year's salary - immediately.
No, it's a worse solution. Given the high cost of firing/laying off/etc. someone it makes them much less likely to hire anyone in the first place.
fj1200
12-08-2010, 02:08 PM
Really how so?
It's coming out of your pocket, you pay for it so one should receive what they pay into it.
No because it's insurance, you use it IF you need it not because you paid into it.
Besides what employers pay is based on their history of laying off/firing employees. If they're more likely to do that then they pay more.
Palin Rider
12-08-2010, 02:51 PM
No, it's a worse solution. Given the high cost of firing/laying off/etc. someone it makes them much less likely to hire anyone in the first place.
Didn't read Pagan's last post, did you? If it's a worse solution, why is Germany so much more competitive globally than the US?
fj1200
12-08-2010, 02:58 PM
Didn't read Pagan's last post, did you? If it's a worse solution, why is Germany so much more competitive globally than the US?
Actually they're behind us:
http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm
and we've dropped in the past few years. I'll admit that they are right up there but the EU economies have had/still have? issues with unemployment, younger workers especially, simply because companies would not hire them due to potential costs of firing them.
I read Pagan's posts, which one are you referring to and what's your point?
Palin Rider
12-08-2010, 03:12 PM
Actually they're behind us:
http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm
and we've dropped in the past few years.A difference of 0.04 on that index is obviously not statistically significant.
I'll admit that they are right up there but the EU economies have had/still have? issues with unemployment, younger workers especially, simply because companies would not hire them due to potential costs of firing them.And how easy is it for new college grads to get jobs here?
I read Pagan's posts, which one are you referring to and what's your point?I said the "last post," which would be #25. Try to keep up instead of asking dumb questions.
Kathianne
12-08-2010, 04:22 PM
OK... I'm confused... I thought that the 99 week unemployment period was extended for another 13 months....
Are you saying then, that, an unemployed person can now collect for 99 weeks + 13 months (I think that amounts to 155 weeks)????
Yep.
Kathianne
12-08-2010, 04:24 PM
No because it's insurance, you use it IF you need it not because you paid into it.
Besides what employers pay is based on their history of laying off/firing employees. If they're more likely to do that then they pay more.
Yet all are seeing enormous increases in UI. I posted about CO being over 400% increase, across the board in 1 year.
Kathianne
12-08-2010, 04:25 PM
Didn't read Pagan's last post, did you? If it's a worse solution, why is Germany so much more competitive globally than the US?
Proven false in post following PR's. Once again, we learn from his lack of attention to details.
Palin Rider
12-08-2010, 04:29 PM
Proven false in post following PR's. Once again, we learn from his lack of attention to details.
I'd post something here about Germany's economy being less hard hit by the crisis and recovering more quickly than ours, but of course you're too good to have any discussion with the likes of me. :rolleyes:
Pagan
12-08-2010, 04:34 PM
No because it's insurance, you use it IF you need it not because you paid into it.
Besides what employers pay is based on their history of laying off/firing employees. If they're more likely to do that then they pay more.
Yeah you could put it that way, I take a harsher/simpler look at it. It's mandated by the Government so I view it as "Tax" not insurance.
Pagan
12-08-2010, 04:36 PM
Proven false in post following PR's. Once again, we learn from his lack of attention to details.
Really, how so?
SassyLady
12-08-2010, 04:37 PM
Yeah you could put it that way, I take a harsher/simpler look at it. It's mandated by the Government so I view it as "Tax" not insurance.
So, you would view Worker's Compensation insurance that an employer has to pay as a tax also? Or would this be a benefit?
Kathianne
12-08-2010, 04:39 PM
Really, how so?
#29:
Actually they're behind us:
http://www.weforum.org/en/initiative...port/index.htm
and we've dropped in the past few years. I'll admit that they are right up there but the EU economies have had/still have? issues with unemployment, younger workers especially, simply because companies would not hire them due to potential costs of firing them.
I read Pagan's posts, which one are you referring to and what's your point?
PR goes onto say not 'statistically significant', which just fails regarding his point of Germany being ahead of US.
MtnBiker
12-08-2010, 04:47 PM
Why not based on what you've paid in?
Thus someone who has consistently worked for 10-20 years without drawing should get substantially more than one who only has a work history of 3-5 years.
But what if the person with only 3 to 5 years work history unemployment benefits expires right before Christmas?
MtnBiker
12-08-2010, 04:54 PM
Unemployment Insurance
You are planning a research stay in Germany and want to find out about unemployment insurance?
Unemployment Insurance ("Arbeitslosenversicherung") contributions are part of the statutory social security payments. It provides insurance cover for jobless people. Those who fulfil the preconditions for entitlement (i.e., those who were in work immediately before becoming unemployed in Germany and were employed subject to statutory social security for at least 12 months in the last 2 years) and are available for recruitment, are entitled to German unemployment benefit. Previous periods of employment in Member States of the EU/EEA States and Switzerland can be taken into account.
Unemployment Insurance ("Arbeitslosenversicherung") is deducted from salaries at source. The employee does not have to worry about them. As a rule, the employer is responsible for paying half of the contribution towards unemployment insurance, the employee the other half. The employer registers his employee with the respective health insurance provider who then automatically forwards the registration to all the other social security providers.
Fellowships are usually exempt from compulsory social security payments.
To what extent benefits accrued in Germany will be recognized by unemployment insurance companies in other countries must be ascertained in the respective country. If you are returning to a country which does not have a Social Security Agreement ("Sozialversicherungsabkommen") with Germany it will not be possible to receive German unemployment benefit there.
While drawing unemployment benefit ("Arbeitslosengeld"), recipients' contributions towards health insurance and nursing care insurance are paid by the Employment Agency ("Agentur für Arbeit"). Statutory pension scheme contributions will also be paid. The unemployment insurance provider is the German Federal Employment Agency ("Bundesagentur für Arbeit"), represented by its Local Employment Agencies .
http://www.eracareers-germany.de/portal/unemployment_insurance_in.html
No UI in Germany??? hmmmmmm
Pagan
12-08-2010, 05:01 PM
#29:
PR goes onto say not 'statistically significant', which just fails regarding his point of Germany being ahead of US.
Germany has been a major economic engine in the EU. Yes they got hit by the recent crash but they've done a good job handling it, unlike us who bails out those who are responsible for it and put them in charge of the so called "recovery"
Here is the history of their GDP -
http://www.google.com/search?q=german+gdp+history&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&prmd=iv&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=0Pr_TKWFOYH88AaYg8DHBg&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CHcQ5wIwCg
German GDP growth surges in quarter, driving eurozone recovery. In the second quarter, Germany's economy grew at the fastest pace since the country's reunification two decades ago as the global recovery boosted exports and companies stepped up investment.
Now their debt to GDP match's ours due to the crash, it's going to be interesting to see who recovers from it. Germany of course is affected by it being part of the EU, so we shall see.
The debt ratio
http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/
Now further -
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2010/08/germany-vs-us-two-different-approaches-to-the-recession-becker.html
Germany was hit hard by the worldwide great recession as world GDP took a nosedive, mainly because Germany is the world’s second largest exporter after China. Its GDP fell by over 5 percentage points in 2009, and is expected to rise by about 2% this year as world GDP recovers, and because the euro has fallen by about 10% relative to the dollar since the euro peaked at about $1.5 per euro. The German economy as measured by GDP was during the first quarter of 2010 still somewhat below comparable numbers for the first quarter of 2008.
What happened to German employment and unemployment is even more interesting. Employment fell only slightly, but part time work increased sharply as jobs were spread. Unemployment rates increased only a little. Unemployment is now down to its 7.5% pre crisis level, and employment is back at its earlier peak, and part time work is declining, as the German economy continues to recover
So current status of German Unemployment is 6.7% -
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=z9a8a3sje0h8ii_&met=unemployment_rate&idim=eu_country:DE&dl=en&hl=en&q=germany+unemployment+rate
VS the U.S. current Unemployment 9.8% -
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+unemployment+rate
So Germany with such a generous Unemployment package of 80% without expiring vs ours that is about 1/8th of my wages and expiring ... MMMMMMMMM
Kathianne
12-08-2010, 05:03 PM
Germany has been a major economic engine in the EU. Yes they got hit by the recent crash but they've done a good job handling it, unlike us who bails out those who are responsible for it and put them in charge of the so called "recovery"
Here is the history of their GDP -
http://www.google.com/search?q=german+gdp+history&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&prmd=iv&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=0Pr_TKWFOYH88AaYg8DHBg&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CHcQ5wIwCg
German GDP growth surges in quarter, driving eurozone recovery. In the second quarter, Germany's economy grew at the fastest pace since the country's reunification two decades ago as the global recovery boosted exports and companies stepped up investment.
Now their debt to GDP match's ours due to the crash, it's going to be interesting to see who recovers from it. Germany of course is affected by it being part of the EU, so we shall see.
The debt ratio
http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/
Now further -
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2010/08/germany-vs-us-two-different-approaches-to-the-recession-becker.html
Germany was hit hard by the worldwide great recession as world GDP took a nosedive, mainly because Germany is the world’s second largest exporter after China. Its GDP fell by over 5 percentage points in 2009, and is expected to rise by about 2% this year as world GDP recovers, and because the euro has fallen by about 10% relative to the dollar since the euro peaked at about $1.5 per euro. The German economy as measured by GDP was during the first quarter of 2010 still somewhat below comparable numbers for the first quarter of 2008.
What happened to German employment and unemployment is even more interesting. Employment fell only slightly, but part time work increased sharply as jobs were spread. Unemployment rates increased only a little. Unemployment is now down to its 7.5% pre crisis level, and employment is back at its earlier peak, and part time work is declining, as the German economy continues to recover
So current status of German Unemployment is 6.7% -
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=z9a8a3sje0h8ii_&met=unemployment_rate&idim=eu_country:DE&dl=en&hl=en&q=germany+unemployment+rate
VS the U.S. current Unemployment 9.8% -
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+unemployment+rate
So Germany with such a generous Unemployment package of 80% without expiring vs ours that is about 1/8th of my wages and expiring ... MMMMMMMMM
I certainly wasn't dissing Germany. They have been the one upfront member of the EU.
Pagan
12-08-2010, 05:10 PM
I stand corrected, they changed their Unemployment since I was last over there in 2002.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2787.html
Currently their Unemployment policy is
http://www.justlanded.com/english/Germany/Germany-Guide/Jobs/Unemployment-insurance
60-67% of your previous wages and based on how long you've paid into it
Still very generous verses ours. I pull in over $2k a week but if I go on Unemployment I max out at $500 a week here in the State of WA, some States like Texas it max's around $200-$250 a week. People who say that those on Unemployment "choose" to be there instead of working need to get a fucking clue.
MtnBiker
12-08-2010, 05:20 PM
an important note from Pagan's link;
As an incentive to push people back into the workforce, a work plan was established. The premise was that low paying jobs and those without benefits were being unfilled due to the generous benefits of the unemployment system. A work program was intitiated such that in order to receive full state benefits, you had to take a low paying civil service job (1-3 euros an hour which supplemented full benefits) cleaning and maintaining schools, nursing homes, roads, and museums among other jobs. If you declined to work the 20-30 hours a week required by the program, you lost 30% of your benefit check.
And for people under 45 the unemployment benefit of 67% of salary expired in 12 months.
The US Congress has made extension of benefits to 99 weeks and considering another extension.
Kathianne
12-08-2010, 05:23 PM
an important note from Pagan's link;
And for people under 45 the unemployment benefit of 67% of salary is for 12 months.
The US Congress and made extension of benefits to 99 weeks and considering another extension.
I was thinking that when I go to the unemployment office, there are like 40 people standing around. 1 or 2 people taking claims or answering questions, those 1 or 2 people are doing yeoman's work, but probably low man on totem pole. Perhaps they should 'hire' from the unemployed that are waiting hours for answers? Give them a couple bucks more than benefits?
Pagan
12-08-2010, 05:27 PM
an important note from Pagan's link;
And for people under 45 the unemployment benefit of 67% of salary expired in 12 months.
The US Congress has made extension of benefits to 99 weeks and considering another extension.
Yes but again as per my post -
"Still very generous verses ours. I pull in over $2k a week but if I go on Unemployment I max out at $500 a week here in the State of WA, some States like Texas it max's around $200-$250 a week. People who say that those on Unemployment "choose" to be there instead of working need to get a fucking clue."
Pagan
12-08-2010, 05:30 PM
I was thinking that when I go to the unemployment office, there are like 40 people standing around. 1 or 2 people taking claims or answering questions, those 1 or 2 people are doing yeoman's work, but probably low man on totem pole. Perhaps they should 'hire' from the unemployed that are waiting hours for answers? Give them a couple bucks more than benefits?
Here's something that is also completely "obscene", many and I dare to say most States outsource their Unemployment and Welfare help lines overseas.
Also did you know that the IRS outsources 1040 tax processing to India? I saw that on 60 min's back in 2002.
MtnBiker
12-08-2010, 05:32 PM
I haven't made a single comment on a person's choice to be or not be on unemployment.
I do recognize that other countries have different systems for unemployment then we do. I believe Congress is debating an extension of current unemployment benefits. I have seen no evidence that there is Congressional debate on restructuring on how benefits are paid.
Kathianne
12-08-2010, 05:37 PM
Yes but again as per my post -
"Still very generous verses ours. I pull in over $2k a week but if I go on Unemployment I max out at $500 a week here in the State of WA, some States like Texas it max's around $200-$250 a week. People who say that those on Unemployment "choose" to be there instead of working need to get a fucking clue."
One would think. However, that doesn't seem to be the case. There are many jobs for those young and healthy that pay more than unemployment, yet seems many dismiss them. I'm working for seriously, $23 more per week than I'd take home on unemployment. Why? Well I really want a job and this is the best way to get one. Second, sitting home depressed me even more than working for $23 a week.
I got there in less than 16 weeks, most of the time being aggressively filling out applications for my field, along with part-time positions that would work with a possible offer.
Today I asked for letters of recommendations from schools I've subbed at, I am getting them. I already have lots of letters regarding specialty knowledge, but these will address in detail: flexibility, respect for students, ability to follow plans, timeliness, appearance, willingness to follow procedures.
By working for $23 a week I've enhanced my chances of landing a much better position.
Pagan
12-08-2010, 05:37 PM
I haven't made a single comment on a person's choice to be or not be on unemployment.
I do recognize that other countries have different systems for unemployment then we do. I believe Congress is debating an extension of current unemployment benefits. I have seen no evidence that there is Congressional debate on restructuring on how benefits are paid.
What is happening is as usual like the Bullshit TSA shit, the Politicians are just giving the appearance that they're doing something instead of addressing the core problem.
IMO just like the old joke about the woman who married the Politician but was still a Virgin. That's because the Politician would just sit at the corner of the bed telling the Woman how great sex was ;)
Pagan
12-08-2010, 05:43 PM
One would think. However, that doesn't seem to be the case. There are many jobs for those young and healthy that pay more than unemployment, yet seems many dismiss them. I'm working for seriously, $23 more per week than I'd take home on unemployment. Why? Well I really want a job and this is the best way to get one. Second, sitting home depressed me even more than working for $23 a week.
I got there in less than 16 weeks, most of the time being aggressively filling out applications for my field, along with part-time positions that would work with a possible offer.
Today I asked for letters of recommendations from schools I've subbed at, I am getting them. I already have lots of letters regarding specialty knowledge, but these will address in detail: flexibility, respect for students, ability to follow plans, timeliness, appearance, willingness to follow procedures.
By working for $23 a week I've enhanced my chances of landing a much better position.
Which is why you aren't sitting on your ass collecting Unemployment. Are there a "few" abuses out there? Hell yes, there always will be but most arguments against Unemployment are from those who generalize saying "people choose" to be there which is complete horse shit.
Kathianne
12-08-2010, 05:53 PM
Which is why you aren't sitting on your ass collecting Unemployment. Are there a "few" abuses out there? Hell yes, there always will be but most arguments against Unemployment are from those who generalize saying "people choose" to be there which is complete horse shit.
Actually there seems to be a lot of people that have saving that are doing just that. I never made enough to put aside a rainy day fund, but I don't think my actions would be any different if I had enough to 'weather the storm.' I want a job.
If one chooses not to work for over 3-6 months, who is going to hire you? One needs to prove a willingness to work, even when vastly underemployed.
Pagan
12-08-2010, 06:04 PM
Actually there seems to be a lot of people that have saving that are doing just that. I never made enough to put aside a rainy day fund, but I don't think my actions would be any different if I had enough to 'weather the storm.' I want a job.
If one chooses not to work for over 3-6 months, who is going to hire you? One needs to prove a willingness to work, even when vastly underemployed.
You not making enough to put aside for a rainy day is the norm in the U.S., the vast majority have always spent more than what they made. Now though people are buckling up and finally saving, the "consumer confidence" index shows that.
People know that "gaps" in their resume significantly hampers future job/wage prospects. Thus again people want to work and progress in general, Unemployment benefits are only a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.
But the reality is the Manufacturing AND Professional White Collar jobs that have been lost are NOT coming back. The only jobs that are being created are service industry jobs, we're turning into a Bellhop/Bus Boy Society. As long as people blindly support outsourcing and tax incentives and tax breaks for company's who outsource overseas nothing will change the fall of our Nation. This also includes those who patronize company's who outsource.
SassyLady
12-08-2010, 07:05 PM
I was thinking that when I go to the unemployment office, there are like 40 people standing around. 1 or 2 people taking claims or answering questions, those 1 or 2 people are doing yeoman's work, but probably low man on totem pole. Perhaps they should 'hire' from the unemployed that are waiting hours for answers? Give them a couple bucks more than benefits?
Kathi...you have to go to the unemployment office to get your check? In CA they send you a form to fill out. I also just heard that they are going to do away with the form to save money on printing and postage and will be letting people use an automated system from the phone to complete their claims.....and, they won't be sending out checks. Instead they will be issuing debit cards and then the weekly benefits will be automatically deposited to the debit card account.
Guess this makes it easier to travel to other areas to look for a job and cuts down on the people standing in line. My girlfriend also told me that she doesn't have to prove she's looking for work...she's been on it for almost a year and not once has she had to give them information about who she has contacted or interviewed with.
Gaffer
12-08-2010, 07:09 PM
Kathi...you have to go to the unemployment office to get your check? In CA they send you a form to fill out. I also just heard that they are going to do away with the form to save money on printing and postage and will be letting people use an automated system from the phone to complete their claims.....and, they won't be sending out checks. Instead they will be issuing debit cards and then the weekly benefits will be automatically deposited to the debit card account.
Guess this makes it easier to travel to other areas to look for a job and cuts down on the people standing in line. My girlfriend also told me that she doesn't have to prove she's looking for work...she's been on it for almost a year and not once has she had to give them information about who she has contacted or interviewed with.
Wow, Ohio is actually ahead of calif in this? They have been doing the phone call bit for about ten years here. Ohio is usually about 20 years behind the rest of the country.
Kathianne
12-08-2010, 07:15 PM
You not making enough to put aside for a rainy day is the norm in the U.S., the vast majority have always spent more than what they made. Now though people are buckling up and finally saving, the "consumer confidence" index shows that.
People know that "gaps" in their resume significantly hampers future job/wage prospects. Thus again people want to work and progress in general, Unemployment benefits are only a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.
But the reality is the Manufacturing AND Professional White Collar jobs that have been lost are NOT coming back. The only jobs that are being created are service industry jobs, we're turning into a Bellhop/Bus Boy Society. As long as people blindly support outsourcing and tax incentives and tax breaks for company's who outsource overseas nothing will change the fall of our Nation. This also includes those who patronize company's who outsource.
Seriously, if I was young enough and in good enough health, I'd take the jobs in hotels doing maid work. I've no doubt that I'd be promoted quickly, IF I could do the work timely. I know I can't. Age and arthritis. I did debate taking something like this, it paid better than subbing. Alas, I can't physically do the work.
SassyLady
12-08-2010, 07:16 PM
Wow, Ohio is actually ahead of calif in this? They have been doing the phone call bit for about ten years here. Ohio is usually about 20 years behind the rest of the country.
I was watching one of The Apprentice episodes and one of the contestants went off by himself and they filmed him completing his weekly benefit form on his phone ... I was confused at the time, but now it is making sense.
Can you imagine using your cell phone and having it cut out or drop the call in the middle of your sequence. Wonder how the government handles all those screwups?
And, how do you make a copy for your records to prove you filled out the form. I guess I am really getting old ... cannot fathom how the world operates without an audit trail.
Kathianne
12-08-2010, 07:17 PM
Kathi...you have to go to the unemployment office to get your check? In CA they send you a form to fill out. I also just heard that they are going to do away with the form to save money on printing and postage and will be letting people use an automated system from the phone to complete their claims.....and, they won't be sending out checks. Instead they will be issuing debit cards and then the weekly benefits will be automatically deposited to the debit card account.
Guess this makes it easier to travel to other areas to look for a job and cuts down on the people standing in line. My girlfriend also told me that she doesn't have to prove she's looking for work...she's been on it for almost a year and not once has she had to give them information about who she has contacted or interviewed with.
No. My checks are auto deposited, which was great when first started. Then I went to subbing. Until Thanksgiving week, made more than unemployment. That week I needed to get to the office, online stuff seemed hinky, since it had been more than a month since I qualified and they'd taken me officially off the rolls.
SassyLady
12-08-2010, 07:19 PM
No. My checks are auto deposited, which was great when first started. Then I went to subbing. Until Thanksgiving week, made more than unemployment. That week I needed to get to the office, online stuff seemed hinky, since it had been more than a month since I qualified and they'd taken me officially off the rolls.
Oh, OK....got it. Was just thinking about all the unemployed having to stand in line every week to get their checks...what a nightmare.
Palin Rider
12-08-2010, 07:21 PM
I was watching one of The Apprentice episodes and one of the contestants went off by himself and they filmed him completing his weekly benefit form on his phone ... I was confused at the time, but now it is making sense.
Can you imagine using your cell phone and having it cut out or drop the call in the middle of your sequence. Wonder how the government handles all those screwups?My guess would be the same way you'd handle an Internet connection dropping before you press the "Submit" key on a form. Nothing gets saved until after the last step is done.
And, how do you make a copy for your records to prove you filled out the form. I guess I am really getting old ... cannot fathom how the world operates without an audit trail.
Probably the same way you pay a bill by phone, you get a "reference number" read back to you, and if there's an issue later, just call Sanjay and have him help you. :)
Kathianne
12-08-2010, 07:23 PM
Oh, OK....got it. Was just thinking about all the unemployed having to stand in line every week to get their checks...what a nightmare.
Can file and keep qualifying online, not a problem. Mine was the gap of over a month. Probably could have done online, though even the poor person there had to keep changing screens.
Going to happen over Christmas too. Though so far, I'm happy to say, next week I'm booked for 3 days in the 'last week' for the district I'm mostly subbing for. All by 'request.'
The following week? I just don't know that the 'big' district will have any openings, in any case as stated financially doesn't make a huge difference. I'd rather not burn those weeks though.
MtnBiker
12-08-2010, 07:28 PM
So current status of German Unemployment is 6.7% -
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=z9a8a3sje0h8ii_&met=unemployment_rate&idim=eu_country:DE&dl=en&hl=en&q=germany+unemployment+rate
VS the U.S. current Unemployment 9.8% -
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+unemployment+rate
Curious. I wonder, what is Germany's minimum wage is as compared to the US?
Pagan
12-08-2010, 07:35 PM
Curious. I wonder, what is Germany's minimum wage is as compared to the US?
This is what I found -
http://watzmann.net/scg/faq-17.html
17.7 What is the minimum wage in Germany ?
There is no such thing as an overall minimum wage defined by law. There are special regulations and agreements with certain sectors, i.e., construction companies are obliged to pay their workers a minimum hourly wage per an agreement between unions and employers.
The position of trade unions is stronger than in most other countries. Every industrial sector has its wage agreements and most companies pay accordingly. Wages for certain kind of work are described with much detail, this involves of course a minimum for the wage.
Although there are no state-mandated minimum wages one can say that something similar exists. Everyone has a right to Sozialhilfe (social welfare) which is defined very well. No matter whether you are employed or not, you always have the right to a (very limited) income. If you work for less, you will get the rest from the local Sozialamt, the social welfare administration, run by the city or county government.
Sozialhilfe for a family of four is rumored to be a little less than 2000 DM per month, excluding rent. The rent for a reasonable (and often subsidized) apartment is payed by the government on top of this.
Also -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country
None, except for construction workers, electrical workers, janitors, roofers, painters, and letter carriers; set by collective bargaining agreements in other sectors of the economy and enforceable by law
fj1200
12-08-2010, 10:42 PM
A difference of 0.04 on that index is obviously not statistically significant.
I acknowledged that they're right up there but you conveniently ignore the fact that you were wrong. And our vaunted BO led Europeanization has led to lower rankings; yeah Dems. :rolleyes:
And how easy is it for new college grads to get jobs here?
You need to understand the difference between a downturn now vs. historical trends. "Oh yeah what about..." is not a good argument.
I said the "last post," which would be #25. Try to keep up instead of asking dumb questions.
You should put me back on ignore, you'd look less stupid. It would also be helpful for you to understand structural differences between the US and Germany. They don't have the same RE issues that we have and also have not had the US Fed creating bubbles for the last 6-8 years. I also think they've done a better job gearing their economy for growth, either that or we've done such a s'ty job in gearing ours for growth; the latter is definitely true.
fj1200
12-08-2010, 10:50 PM
Yet all are seeing enormous increases in UI. I posted about CO being over 400% increase, across the board in 1 year.
It seems it's quite the crappy system if the state needs to jack up rates that high to cover the shortfall. Counterintuitive too if it leads to further unemployment.
Palin Rider
12-08-2010, 11:01 PM
I acknowledged that they're right up there but you conveniently ignore the fact that you were wrong.
I wasn't wrong.
You need to understand the difference between a downturn now vs. historical trends. "Oh yeah what about..." is not a good argument.
No, you need to understand it.
You should put me back on ignore, you'd look less stupid.Some partisan is bound to rep me for this.
Your style hasn't evolved much past the above, has it, kid?
fj1200
12-08-2010, 11:04 PM
Germany has been a major economic engine in the EU...
Great post, I tried to rep ya.
A couple of the links confirmed my suspicion that France and Germany underperformed in unemployment vs. the US... up until the '08 crisis that is. They have some issues with offering to nice a benefits, i.e. increasing employment costs, vs. companies not wanting to hire because of it. The US is a bit more lean and mean which should allow us to bounce back more quickly. It's not happening this go 'round but that's because of excessively high DC intervention IMO. I saw a graph which compared job growth of various post recessions and this current one shows non-existent where others, especially tax cut led ones, where growth accelerates.
fj1200
12-08-2010, 11:07 PM
I wasn't wrong.
No, you need to understand it.
Some partisan is bound to rep me for this.
Your style hasn't evolved much past the above, has it, kid?
Yeah sure... I do more than you... I hope they don't... Did you see my edit?
fj1200
12-08-2010, 11:16 PM
But the reality is the Manufacturing AND Professional White Collar jobs that have been lost are NOT coming back. The only jobs that are being created are service industry jobs, we're turning into a Bellhop/Bus Boy Society. As long as people blindly support outsourcing and tax incentives and tax breaks for company's who outsource overseas nothing will change the fall of our Nation. This also includes those who patronize company's who outsource.
True, and that is because we've completely neglected the policies, regulations, and tax environment that effects the competitiveness of the private sector. The world has passed us by competitively speaking because some in this country thinks we need high tax rates to get back to the glory days of the '50s. Now if you want to go bomb the rest of the world back to the stone age that might work but that would be taking the easy way out.
Which tax breaks?
Pagan
12-09-2010, 02:22 AM
True, and that is because we've completely neglected the policies, regulations, and tax environment that effects the competitiveness of the private sector. The world has passed us by competitively speaking because some in this country thinks we need high tax rates to get back to the glory days of the '50s. Now if you want to go bomb the rest of the world back to the stone age that might work but that would be taking the easy way out.
Which tax breaks?
The US Corporate Tax Rates are higher than most other countries. According to the Institute for International Economics, the effective rate for US corporations was just over 30% in 2002, while mainland China's effective corporate rate was only 11.3%, Britain's 18.2%, Mexico's 15.1% and Indonesia 0.2%.
The US also attempts to tax money that US-based companies earn in other countries, but only after those profits are brought back to the US. That means profits that remain overseas, perhaps invested in new factories in low-tax countries, never get taxed at the higher US rates. And that's been true through both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Source
http://www.factcheck.org/article225.html
Simply put this is an incentive to outsource and not keep jobs here in the U.S.
fj1200
12-09-2010, 08:12 AM
The US Corporate Tax Rates are higher than most other countries. According to the Institute for International Economics, the effective rate for US corporations was just over 30% in 2002, while mainland China's effective corporate rate was only 11.3%, Britain's 18.2%, Mexico's 15.1% and Indonesia 0.2%.
The US also attempts to tax money that US-based companies earn in other countries, but only after those profits are brought back to the US. That means profits that remain overseas, perhaps invested in new factories in low-tax countries, never get taxed at the higher US rates. And that's been true through both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Source
http://www.factcheck.org/article225.html
Simply put this is an incentive to outsource and not keep jobs here in the U.S.
We're also the only country that taxes overseas corporate profits. We've put ourselves behind that 8 ball because of some misguided thought about the right policy. That very policy PREVENTS profits from coming back and being invested in the home market which prevents US job creation.
We need to eliminate that discrepancy and lower our corporate rate to become competitive again. We're not going to stop off shoring jobs because of a tax decision but we do need to look at the total global environment and make some major changes; I'd say completely eliminate the corporate tax but that might be another thread.
Also, I'm a bit surprised you're referencing a Kerry ad. :)
logroller
12-10-2010, 02:58 AM
http://www.eracareers-germany.de/portal/unemployment_insurance_in.html
No UI in Germany??? hmmmmmm
My brother in law is a German foreign national living here in the states. In discussions with him, I concluded the high income-tax rates combined with their education system which promotes job training and placement to be effective at lessening drastic swings in productivity resulting from economic shifts. However, with this buffer results a social paradigm that places less reward, and thus value, upon work ethic; a poignant criticism of socialist models and one we have indulged domestically with "newdeal" inspired welfare programs.
Palin Rider
12-10-2010, 03:18 PM
My brother in law is a German foreign national living here in the states. In discussions with him, I concluded the high income-tax rates combined with their education system which promotes job training and placement to be effective at lessening drastic swings in productivity resulting from economic shifts. However, with this buffer results a social paradigm that places less reward, and thus value, upon work ethic; a poignant criticism of socialist models and one we have indulged domestically with "newdeal" inspired welfare programs.
On the other hand, how good can it be for work ethic when, no matter how well the workers perform or how productive they are, they can suddenly be unemployed just because management gets a whim that they can do without them?
fj1200
12-10-2010, 03:48 PM
On the other hand, how good can it be for work ethic when, no matter how well the workers perform or how productive they are, they can suddenly be unemployed just because management gets a whim that they can do without them?
So work ethic is better when it's near impossible to be fired than when you need to perform your job to expectations every day? That makes no sense.
Regardless the environment seems to be fine for work ethic in the US despite your unsupported statement.
Palin Rider
12-10-2010, 04:39 PM
So work ethic is better when it's near impossible to be fired than when you need to perform your job to expectations every day? That makes no sense.That's because it's a fallacy of "false dilemma." (And you know better. :no: )
Regardless the environment seems to be fine for work ethic in the US despite your unsupported statement.
You seem not to have any support for your statement that it is fine.
Apart from which, logic is against you.
Worker A is at a company that offers no incentives but the fear of getting fired at any moment.
Worker B is at a company that offers things like performance bonuses and profit sharing.
Guess which one will have a better work ethic.
fj1200
12-10-2010, 04:51 PM
That's because it's a fallacy of "false dilemma." (And you know better. :no: )
Is that how you debate nowadays? Create scenarios based on a facile arguments?
You seem not to have any support for your statement that it is fine.
Apart from which, logic is against you.
My logic is fine, yours is false.
Worker A is at a company that offers no incentives but the fear of getting fired at any moment.
Worker B is at a company that offers things like performance bonuses and profit sharing.
Guess which one will have a better work ethic.
In your silly little world they both work at the same company.
Kathianne
12-10-2010, 04:55 PM
Is that how you debate nowadays? Create scenarios based on a facile arguments?
When was it different?
My logic is fine, yours is false.
:laugh2:
In your silly little world they both work at the same company.
Indeed. Show me an employer that gets rid of a 'very productive' worker. Problem right now, it's nearly impossible to drum up business, much less grow it. So, staff is being cut back. When they get their new unemployment insurance premiums, expect more layoffs, regardless of the two years stability in tax rates.
Palin Rider
12-10-2010, 05:15 PM
Is that how you debate nowadays? Create scenarios based on a facile arguments?
Putting ad hominem on a false dilemma is like putting lipstick on a pig.
My logic is fine, yours is false.Said the pope to Leonardo.
In your silly little world they both work at the same company.
Running from debate while pretending to have won, I see.
Palin Rider
12-10-2010, 05:18 PM
Show me an employer that gets rid of a 'very productive' worker.In the past two years there have been dozens, if not hundreds. Just look at the company who laid off the woman claiming to be frustrated with defending Obama.
Problem right now, it's nearly impossible to drum up business, much less grow it.The latest indicators state otherwise. Holiday spending is already up from last year, for one.
And my own business getting an uptick in new requests from potential clients, thank you very much.
:thumb:
fj1200
12-10-2010, 05:25 PM
Running from debate while pretending to have won, I see.
How am I running from a debate? In the same post you decry the false dilemma you create one. A touch disingenuous shall we say.
Besides, Worker A has a better work ethic because he makes 250k per year, is highly skilled, and knows he can go out and get another job tomorrow because employers are constantly in demand for what he brings to the table.
Worker B has a worse ethic because even though his employer offers those things, his 10% bonus and "profit sharing" on to of his $10 per hour amounts to little although I'm sure his janitorial position is low skilled enough that he will be able to push a broom pretty much anywhere.
fj1200
12-10-2010, 05:29 PM
In the past two years there have been dozens, if not hundreds. Just look at the company who laid off the woman claiming to be frustrated with defending Obama.
She worked for a non-profit iirc, not where I would define "very productive" unless she's a rainmaker, donationally speaking of course.
The latest indicators state otherwise.
An uptick in the unemployment rate is a positive indicator to you?
Palin Rider
12-10-2010, 05:31 PM
How am I running from a debate? In the same post you decry the false dilemma you create one. A touch disingenuous shall we say.Just asking the question, "which of these two has the better work ethic?" is not a false dilemma. A false dilemma would imply that there were no other kinds of workers besides these two.
Besides, Worker A has a better work ethic because he makes 250k per year, is highly skilled, and knows he can go out and get another job tomorrow because employers are constantly in demand for what he brings to the table.
Then why DOESN'T he go get a a job that offers him benefits above the 250K and where the company values his contribution more? :cuckoo:
Worker B has a worse ethic because even though his employer offers those things, his 10% bonus and "profit sharing" on to of his $10 per hour amounts to little although I'm sure his janitorial position is low skilled enough that he will be able to push a broom pretty much anywhere.
Obviously you never heard of supply and demand.
fj1200
12-10-2010, 05:39 PM
Just asking the question, "which of these two has the better work ethic?" is not a false dilemma. A false dilemma would imply that there were no other kinds of workers besides these two.
That's why it's a false dilemma Einstein. And as my example ingeniously demonstrated there is a multitude of other circumstances that you didn't take into consideration.
Then why DOESN'T he go get a a job that offers him benefits above the 250K and where the company values his contribution more? :cuckoo:
250k is benefits. There's a lot you apparently don't understand.
Obviously you never heard of supply and demand.
Try again.
Kathianne
12-10-2010, 05:50 PM
In the past two years there have been dozens, if not hundreds. Just look at the company who laid off the woman claiming to be frustrated with defending Obama.
The latest indicators state otherwise. Holiday spending is already up from last year, for one.
And my own business getting an uptick in new requests from potential clients, thank you very much.
:thumb:
Here's your chance. Give the examples from the 'hundreds' of successful business with productive employees, not examples from community organizations that are losing funding.
Your 'business' whatever it is, doesn't count for this purpose.
Palin Rider
12-10-2010, 05:52 PM
That's why it's a false dilemma Einstein. And as my example ingeniously demonstrated there is a multitude of other circumstances that you didn't take into consideration.
250k is benefits. There's a lot you apparently don't understand.
Try again.
Not if that's all you're going to come up with. Try cleaning up your act again.
fj1200
12-10-2010, 05:56 PM
Not if that's all you're going to come up with. Try cleaning up your act again.
It was enough to show the fallacy of your argument.
Here's a hint, you putting me on ignore says to bystanders that you lost the argument(s).
Good times, good times...
Palin Rider
12-10-2010, 05:56 PM
Here's your chance. Give the examples from the 'hundreds' of successful business with productive employees, not examples from community organizations that are losing funding.
Any business that's had a layoff on a "departmental" basis (i.e., a minimum percentage from any department). If the company is large enough, SOME of those people are statistically certain to have been productive.
Your 'business' whatever it is, doesn't count for this purpose.
Not that it would, because I have no full-time employees. But if I did, I'd manage them far better than these clowns.
Palin Rider
12-10-2010, 05:57 PM
It was enough to show the fallacy of your argument.
Here's a hint, you putting me on ignore says to bystanders that you lost the argument(s).
Good times, good times...
Your attempt to declare victory only serves to damage yourself. Bystanders will make up their own minds regardless of what either of us says on that topic.
fj1200
12-10-2010, 06:00 PM
But if I did, I'd manage them far better than these clowns.
Were you the one who called Whitman a failure when they laid off 1,500? workers after she had been in charge during which time they had hired 15,000, became a household name, and revenues, market share, and market cap absolutely exploded?
fj1200
12-10-2010, 06:01 PM
Your attempt to declare victory only serves to damage yourself. Bystanders will make up their own minds regardless of what either of us says on that topic.
I didn't declare victory, only what your actions would tell them. I can find a post to back me up too if you want.
Kathianne
12-10-2010, 06:05 PM
Any business that's had a layoff on a "departmental" basis (i.e., a minimum percentage from any department). If the company is large enough, SOME of those people are statistically certain to have been productive.
Not that it would, because I have no full-time employees. But if I did, I'd manage them far better than these clowns.
What the heck are you saying? A business is losing money, their full-time employees are not effectively addressing the hemorrhaging. They lay those employees off, for non-productivity. So?
Palin Rider
12-10-2010, 06:23 PM
What the heck are you saying? A business is losing money, their full-time employees are not effectively addressing the hemorrhaging. They lay those employees off, for non-productivity. So?
Most of the businesses laying off in the last couple of years weren't even losing money to begin with. Maybe a client delayed a major purchase. Maybe a supplier raised prices. Maybe all they lost was some market share. In the real world, bad things can happen to a business that the employees aren't responsible for, and that can't be "effectively addressed" overnight.
Mr. P
12-10-2010, 06:23 PM
On the other hand, how good can it be for work ethic when, no matter how well the workers perform or how productive they are, they can suddenly be unemployed just because management gets a whim that they can do without them?
You're confusing "work ethic" with "employee loyalty", apples an oranges.
Kathianne
12-10-2010, 06:33 PM
Most of the businesses laying off in the last couple of years weren't even losing money to begin with. Maybe a client delayed a major purchase. Maybe a supplier raised prices. Maybe all they lost was some market share. In the real world, bad things can happen to a business that the employees aren't responsible for, and that can't be "effectively addressed" overnight.
Once again, links?
Palin Rider
12-10-2010, 06:36 PM
Once again, links?
Here's a whole bunch of them (http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=layoffs+profitable+companies&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS383US384&ie=UTF-8&aq=0&oq=layoffs+profit)....
Palin Rider
12-10-2010, 06:37 PM
You're confusing "work ethic" with "employee loyalty", apples an oranges.
Work ethic and loyalty can both suffer because of bad management.
Kathianne
12-10-2010, 07:27 PM
On the other hand, how good can it be for work ethic when, no matter how well the workers perform or how productive they are, they can suddenly be unemployed just because management gets a whim that they can do without them?
You're confusing "work ethic" with "employee loyalty", apples an oranges.
Here's a whole bunch of them (http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=layoffs+profitable+companies&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS383US384&ie=UTF-8&aq=0&oq=layoffs+profit)....
and with this post, anyone can see why you are dismissed. It's one thing when the poster is not informed o do such, but you know better or are trying r\to portray a fallacy. In any case, you lose.
Palin Rider
12-10-2010, 07:36 PM
and with this post, anyone can see why you are dismissed. It's one thing when the poster is not informed o do such, but you know better or are trying r\to portray a fallacy. In any case, you lose.
And you wonder why I find your posts so amusing. :laugh:
Kathianne
12-10-2010, 07:58 PM
and with this post, anyone can see why you are dismissed. It's one thing when the poster is not informed to do such, but you know better or are trying to portray a fallacy. In any case, you lose.
Sorry PR, I was working on paying my mortgage at the same time. Are you still with your parents?
logroller
12-10-2010, 11:07 PM
On the other hand, how good can it be for work ethic when, no matter how well the workers perform or how productive they are, they can suddenly be unemployed just because management gets a whim that they can do without them?
While you make a good point, I don't believe the condition you stated is a systemic problem worthy of policy consideration; as the behaviors of management to hire, fire, layoff, promote, demote etc is a freedom they reserve; accepting, of course, they haven't infringed upon individual rights or violated EEO rules(if they so subscribe).
Your question serves better to reinforce my point on socialist protections, rather than refute it. Why should one work hard, if alternative outcomes aren't appreciably less desirable? I've been accused of being an idealist ( I thank you), but even I know that a strong work ethic's intrinsic value won't garner much support if society doesn't reward hard work.
NightTrain
12-10-2010, 11:26 PM
Sorry PR, I was working on paying my mortgage at the same time. Are you still with your parents?
:laugh2:
Damn! Gotta spread the rep.
Palin Rider
12-11-2010, 01:09 AM
While you make a good point, I don't believe the condition you stated is a systemic problem worthy of policy consideration; as the behaviors of management to hire, fire, layoff, promote, demote etc is a freedom they reserve; accepting, of course, they haven't infringed upon individual rights or violated EEO rules(if they so subscribe).
Your question serves better to reinforce my point on socialist protections, rather than refute it. Why should one work hard, if alternative outcomes aren't appreciably less desirable?
The thing is, it's well known that when the only motivation is fear of job loss, workers only work hard enough not to get fired.
Does that fact by itself mandate policy intervention? No. But it's certainly symptomatic of a larger problem.
logroller
12-11-2010, 01:21 AM
My father n law was fired, after 8 years of employment, because he complained to a customer that he didn't receive overtime pay. He then filed a complaint of wrongful termination, pending a labor board investigation as to his claims to OT wages. The employer claimed his DOT class did allow for straight wages and, in complaining to a customer, he had violated company policy regarding unprofessional behavior. The employer was vindicated and the termination was considered just.
- no complaints here...
However, his violation wasn't gross enough to be disqualify him from unemployment, contradicting the employer's claims, and he began collecting benefits.
Does anybody know what is considered to be excessively damaging to an enterprise, that one forfeits their right to collect unemployment?
logroller
12-11-2010, 01:24 AM
The thing is, it's well known that when the only motivation is fear of job loss, workers only work hard enough not to get fired.
Does that fact by itself mandate policy intervention? No. But it's certainly symptomatic of a larger problem.
Yea, Americans have become complacent and lazy! I'd suggest federal intervention:poke:, but I know where that will lead;):laugh2:
SassyLady
12-11-2010, 02:07 AM
My father n law was fired, after 8 years of employment, because he complained to a customer that he didn't receive overtime pay. He then filed a complaint of wrongful termination, pending a labor board investigation as to his claims to OT wages. The employer claimed his DOT class did allow for straight wages and, in complaining to a customer, he had violated company policy regarding unprofessional behavior. The employer was vindicated and the termination was considered just.
- no complaints here...
However, his violation wasn't gross enough to be disqualify him from unemployment, contradicting the employer's claims, and he began collecting benefits.
Does anybody know what is considered to be excessively damaging to an enterprise, that one forfeits their right to collect unemployment?
I tried to fight a claim for unemployment for someone I let go ... and was told by the unemployment worker that pretty much unless the employee was drinking or doing drugs on the job, stealing, or failing to show up for work then there wasn't much to keep them from getting unemployment. When I told her that she lied on her application and didn't have the experience she said she had and couldn't do the job she had been hired for, she said that wasn't enough because we should have tested her before hiring her.
I used to think the only way someone could get unemployment was to be laid off, but nowadays they can collect after being let go or if they quit for good reason.
Very frustrating.
Palin Rider
12-11-2010, 03:45 PM
Yea, Americans have become complacent and lazy! I'd suggest federal intervention:poke:, but I know where that will lead;):laugh2:
It's not the laziness of the worker; it's the laziness of managers not even to try to find ways to make their employees happier in their jobs.
SassyLady
12-11-2010, 04:04 PM
It's not the laziness of the worker; it's the laziness of managers not even to try to find ways to make their employees happier in their jobs.
It's a two-way street ... this communication thing .... employees are probably just as lazy about letting managers know what would make them happier, more productive employees.
Kathianne
12-11-2010, 04:08 PM
It's a two-way street ... this communication thing .... employees are probably just as lazy about letting managers know what would make them happier, more productive employees.
I know very few people unhappy with their jobs. I've never not liked a job I had, though my last principal was very difficult. I've not had too many bad bosses either, other than the one mentioned, can't think of another.
Palin Rider
12-11-2010, 04:12 PM
It's a two-way street ... this communication thing .... employees are probably just as lazy about letting managers know what would make them happier, more productive employees.
Lazy or just unimaginative, maybe. Or afraid of being perceived as complaining.
But I believe in honest, open communication, too. So I'm sure you won't mind when I say that dress makes your avatar look fat. :laugh2:
BoogyMan
12-11-2010, 08:15 PM
Who here actually thinks that with UI costs increasing that any company will have the incentive to begin hiring? They will essentially be paying for those who no longer work there and most certainly will not be in a hiring position for quite some time.
logroller
12-12-2010, 05:49 AM
But I believe in honest, open communication, too. So I'm sure you won't mind when I say that dress makes your avatar look fat. :laugh2:
That avatar makes my crotch look chubby.
maybe that's too honest:laugh:
SassyLady
12-12-2010, 02:04 PM
Lazy or just unimaginative, maybe. Or afraid of being perceived as complaining.
But I believe in honest, open communication, too. So I'm sure you won't mind when I say that dress makes your avatar look fat. :laugh2:
Well, if the employee is afraid of perceptions to the point that they allow themselves to be unhappy on the job .... who's to blame?
And, what dress?
Kathianne
12-12-2010, 02:45 PM
Ok, the other morning I was listening to the radio, they were discussing unemployment and the repercussions of 99 weeks, not to mention the additional year and a month.
A lady phoned in, she'd been a pharma rep, made $75k per year. She's been collecting unemployment for 18 months, 24k per year. She's substitute teaching-here and there and going to grad school with aid based on FAFSA. She 'has to' keep her income below 1/2 the weekly amnt of unemployment-or she they would start deducting from that amount.
So, she's making almost $36k per year-while on unemployment. Because she has kids she's also hitting up college money and collecting for food programs.
If I sub 3 days a week, I'm over 1/2 my weekly allowance on unemployment, I've been working 5 days, so I don't receive it any longer. I qualified Thanksgiving week and will do so over Christmas obviously.
After checking it out, she is right. Is it 'gaming' or just being 'smart?' Quite a quandary for me. I'd do better financially by working 2 days a week and filing. Much better.
I'm of two minds. One is that it's better to work, even though it nets me $23 more a week than unemployment. On my cover letter I can explain that I so love my career choice, that it's what I chose to do. In the past week both districts gave me strong letters of recommendation to add to my portfolio for resumes.
The other is to take what will help me stave off collections and give me more time to work on my applications.
Which would be the better choice and why do you think so?
Palin Rider
12-12-2010, 03:06 PM
Ok, the other morning I was listening to the radio, they were discussing unemployment and the repercussions of 99 weeks, not to mention the additional year and a month.
A lady phoned in, she'd been a pharma rep, made $75k per year. She's been collecting unemployment for 18 months, 24k per year. She's substitute teaching-here and there and going to grad school with aid based on FAFSA. She 'has to' keep her income below 1/2 the weekly amnt of unemployment-or she they would start deducting from that amount.
So, she's making almost $36k per year-while on unemployment. Because she has kids she's also hitting up college money and collecting for food programs.
If I sub 3 days a week, I'm over 1/2 my weekly allowance on unemployment, I've been working 5 days, so I don't receive it any longer. I qualified Thanksgiving week and will do so over Christmas obviously.
After checking it out, she is right. Is it 'gaming' or just being 'smart?' Quite a quandary for me. I'd do better financially by working 2 days a week and filing. Much better.
I'm of two minds. One is that it's better to work, even though it nets me $23 more a week than unemployment. On my cover letter I can explain that I so love my career choice, that it's what I chose to do. In the past week both districts gave me strong letters of recommendation to add to my portfolio for resumes.
The other is to take what will help me stave off collections and give me more time to work on my applications.
Which would be the better choice and why do you think so?
In Cali, at least, if you're offered the chance to work 3 days a week and you decide to work only 2, you are "refusing work," which makes you ineligible for UI. Illinois probably has a similar rule.
Kathianne
12-12-2010, 03:12 PM
In Cali, at least, if you're offered the chance to work 3 days a week and you decide to work only 2, you are "refusing work," which makes you ineligible for UI. Illinois probably has a similar rule.
Well that is obviously not being enforced, or people wouldn't be on unemployment as long as they are. Case in point was the woman on the radio.
I've turned down sub jobs, for math, pe, latin, well foreign languages in general. I'm not qualified which goes beyond certification. I've always found a different job though in fields where I'm qualified.
SassyLady
12-12-2010, 03:18 PM
Here's a thought ..... what about people who are earning dividends and interest on their investments. That doesn't count as working....so can they collect unemployment if they are laid off?
Kathianne
12-12-2010, 03:24 PM
Here's a thought ..... what about people who are earning dividends and interest on their investments. That doesn't count as working....so can they collect unemployment if they are laid off?
I'd assume so, not one of those questions I had to answer. They also do not ask the amount you have in savings/checking.
Seriously, I think it's unemployment and questions have been zeroed in for the 26 week deal. No penalties for those who could save, etc. Now with it being put out to 3+ years?
SassyLady
12-12-2010, 03:24 PM
Well that is obviously not being enforced, or people wouldn't be on unemployment as long as they are. Case in point was the woman on the radio.
I've turned down sub jobs, for math, pe, latin, well foreign languages in general. I'm not qualified which goes beyond certification. I've always found a different job though in fields where I'm qualified.
Kathianne....that is what is so insidious about the current unemployment setup .... it is not designed to motivate people to get back to work if you are at the point where you can survive on the benefits.
That lady may have been working for $75K before, but if she can survive on the unemployment while she waits for the economy to pick up, then she will probably do that ..... perhaps she has some savings set aside that can help.
And another thing...A lot of employers don't want to hire someone who is used to making $75K at a $25-50K salary because they think they will bail when the job market picks up. So those that were making really good money are having a hard time finding jobs ... even though they are willing to work at reduced pay.
And, now, in CA the gas prices are so high that people will be losing money if they take a job. Bottom line is that the government needs to do something to stimulate job creation ... in the private sector, not the government sector.
Kathianne
12-12-2010, 03:28 PM
Kathianne....that is what is so insidious about the current unemployment setup .... it is not designed to motivate people to get back to work if you are at the point where you can survive on the benefits.
That lady may have been working for $75K before, but if she can survive on the unemployment while she waits for the economy to pick up, then she will probably do that ..... perhaps she has some savings set aside that can help.
And another thing...A lot of employers don't want to hire someone who is used to making $75K at a $25-50K salary because they think they will bail when the job market picks up. So those that were making really good money are having a hard time finding jobs ... even though they are willing to work at reduced pay.
And, now, in CA the gas prices are so high that people will be losing money if they take a job. Bottom line is that the government needs to do something to stimulate job creation ... in the private sector, not the government sector.
I'm in IL and truth is with gas prices it's questionable if I'm coming out ahead at $23 a week. Still, how does one explain a gap of years in working? It's one think to say, "Well I'm used to $75k a year." Another to say, "I've been at $36k a year, but won't take a job for $36k a year." Of course she's unlikely to have applied for such. I mean, she's 'subbing', 'going to school', and whatever.
SassyLady
12-12-2010, 03:41 PM
I'm in IL and truth is with gas prices it's questionable if I'm coming out ahead at $23 a week. Still, how does one explain a gap of years in working? It's one think to say, "Well I'm used to $75k a year." Another to say, "I've been at $36k a year, but won't take a job for $36k a year." Of course she's unlikely to have applied for such. I mean, she's 'subbing', 'going to school', and whatever.
I have gaps in my history .... I have my own business and show that I was self-employed during those gaps. When I'm asked what my salary history is ... I say there are days I make $5,000, and days where I make nothing.
I've also explained the gaps as going to school, or taking care of a sick relative. Never say to a prospective employer that you are interviewing with ... "wow, I've been looking for a job for two years". Always approach it as, I took some time off, learned some new skills, and now I'm looking for a long-term commitment.
Kathianne
12-12-2010, 03:43 PM
I have gaps in my history .... I have my own business and show that I was self-employed during those gaps. When I'm asked what my salary history is ... I say there are days I make $5,000, and days where I make nothing.
I've also explained the gaps as going to school, or taking care of a sick relative. Never say to a prospective employer that you are interviewing with ... "wow, I've been looking for a job for two years". Always approach it as, I took some time off, learned some new skills, and now I'm looking for a long-term commitment.
I can understand 'days', but unemployment can be checked. Gaps for child rearing cost women dearly. I'll agree that it's worth it, I don't regret those 12 years, but paid for that.
Palin Rider
12-12-2010, 10:05 PM
Well that is obviously not being enforced, or people wouldn't be on unemployment as long as they are.
You're right that it's not being enforced, although in most cases it's probably unenforceable. Someone would have to blow the whistle.
logroller
12-13-2010, 05:00 AM
I took some time off, learned some new skills, and now I'm looking for a long-term commitment.
Oooooo...me likey- its a keeper, for sure!
On this subject of unemployment, taking into account how interlinked gov't has become in the economy, I can't help but wonder what would happen if the gov't just stopped interfering. What would be the effects on employment without UI payments? What percentage of unemployed workers would be hired in the first quarter? ...the fourth, etc? How much do private markets benefit from the influx of these benefits? Certainly government unemployment agencies would be gone overnight. Would these services be privatized like other insurances? What policies would private unemployment insurance adopt; perhaps based on tier levels? The devil is in the details, so they say.
In reality though, wouldn't this service (private or public) be moot if people just saved money while they were working?
I think the problem, (regardless of day, month, years of benefits), is a belief that we are somehow owed something besides a paycheck for work completed. It's transferrence: Everybody owes somebody something; therefore, everybody owes me something. Uh...NO. Not to say the gov't is all to blame, private markets flourish on debted capital, especially that of the individual. I am happy to say that, aside from student loans, I am debt free. Would I like to buy a house, sure. My credit score is good enough to borrow the money, but I can't justify taking a loan from some fictitous entity that shares no personally liability, so I rent from someone who cares about our relationship for more than a service fee. I tell people that and they say"but, you're just throwing your money away, you could be investing it in your own house." I'm not throwing it away, I have a house to live in, it's a fair trade! What's unfair is having a market which is outrageously overpriced because of the near certainty of subsidized debt capital, so that when I save enough money to buy a house outright, I'm required to pay an inflated price. Worse yet, the value of my investment is dependant upon the actions of people who can cast aside their investment because they don't have any personal liability--it's infuriating to say the least, but so long as we find ways to make a flawed system work in our favor, the system has no reason to change. So to answer the dilemma Kathianne stated, don't take advantage of the system. Do what you know is right to remind everyone it can be done that way!
Pagan
12-13-2010, 10:57 AM
I look at it this way, Unemployment if it turns into long term should be used as your "bread and butter" while you're transitioning into a new career. If you can't find a job in your field and the outlook isn't good you need to make a change. I'll give my little brother as an example. Back during the .com bomb he was out of work and he used it along with educational incentives to further his career options. Thru those he was able to get an entry level job and continue on with his education. The results are in 4 years from start to finish he got a double Masters in Physics and Statistics which now he's well into the 6 figures now. Compare that to his $30k job he had before he got laid off and went on Unemployment.
Bottom line is when you get slapped down you just brush yourself off, make use of the resources available and just "Do It". Both of us learned that from our father.
logroller
12-13-2010, 01:42 PM
Bottom line is when you get slapped down you just brush yourself off, make use of the resources available and just "Do It". Both of us learned that from our father.
I think you touched on the solution here. The problem, and the likely solution, resounds in family values. What mechanisms can we promote to assist in the instillation of productive value where one doesn't exist within the family unit? It's a classical slippery slope analogy, how much do we want gov't to interfere if family and community have failed?
Pagan
12-13-2010, 03:22 PM
I think you touched on the solution here. The problem, and the likely solution, resounds in family values. What mechanisms can we promote to assist in the instillation of productive value where one doesn't exist within the family unit? It's a classical slippery slope analogy, how much do we want gov't to interfere if family and community have failed?
The core problem? I see it as being the encroachment of the "Nanny State", no individual responsibility just blaming others for ones own decisions. The Nanny State is being perpetuated by "BOTH" sides pushing their own morals and values on others.
Solution, MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS, concern yourself with raising your own family with your own values and stop using Government to legislate a bastardized version of morals/values. Because the end result is you surrender the raising your family over to the "Nanny State" and EVERYONE loses.
logroller
12-13-2010, 04:12 PM
The core problem? I see it as being the encroachment of the "Nanny State", no individual responsibility just blaming others for ones own decisions. The Nanny State is being perpetuated by "BOTH" sides pushing their own morals and values on others.
Solution, MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS, concern yourself with raising your own family with your own values and stop using Government to legislate a bastardized version of morals/values. Because the end result is you surrender the raising your family over to the "Nanny State" and EVERYONE loses.
Wow Pagan, I thought I was an idealist. I think we agree on limiting the role of gov't, but don't think for a minute that there exists such right vs wrong dichotomies in society. If things were as clear as you perceive them, we wouldn't have these issues plagueing our society. You need to recognize the role society, not just yourself, has in governing itself before discarding the organizational perversion we both seek to minimize.
Pagan
12-13-2010, 04:28 PM
Wow Pagan, I thought I was an idealist. I think we agree on limiting the role of gov't, but don't think for a minute that there exists such right vs wrong dichotomies in society. If things were as clear as you perceive them, we wouldn't have these issues plagueing our society. You need to recognize the role society, not just yourself, has in governing itself before discarding the organizational perversion we both seek to minimize.
There are intrusions which people accept to function in a society/community, but the problem is as I stated the encroachment has went to an extreme, thus the creation of the "Nanny State". The result being the State dictates what is and how to raise a family. We are no longer a Republic governed by the rule of law that applies equally to all.
What you may see as moral I may view as immoral and vice a versa.
Also no one takes responsibility for their actions, they blame others and look towards the Government to raise them.
avatar4321
12-15-2010, 07:35 PM
We should eliminate it at the Federal Level and let the states determine the issue on their own.
logroller
12-16-2010, 03:10 AM
We should eliminate it at the Federal Level and let the states determine the issue on their own.
What if states fail to do so and the problem manifests across state lines; at what level does a problem need to ascend to warrant federal intervention?
BTW, I love your sig!
logroller
12-16-2010, 03:54 AM
There are intrusions which people accept to function in a society/community, but the problem is as I stated the encroachment has went to an extreme, thus the creation of the "Nanny State". The result being the State dictates what is and how to raise a family. We are no longer a Republic governed by the rule of law that applies equally to all.
What you may see as moral I may view as immoral and vice a versa.
Also no one takes responsibility for their actions, they blame others and look towards the Government to raise them.
Pagan, as usual I think we agree, but I find your use of generalities and extreme assertions unjustified in this context. I don't think the state is mandating morality, unless you think eating shitty is a moral choice. I believe people have a right to pursue a premature death, and as a right, it should be preserved; but when society incurs part of the cost of such actions, a republic, being of the people, has a right to address the grievance and, if necessary, demand redress from responsible parties. This doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility, so I'm not sure how a "nanny-state" has infringed upon the "equal rights of citizens" as a "rule of law." Enlighten me with argument, not mere assertion.
logroller
12-16-2010, 04:00 AM
I can understand 'days', but unemployment can be checked. Gaps for child rearing cost women dearly. I'll agree that it's worth it, I don't regret those 12 years, but paid for that.
I can't thank you enough for raising your children; the benefits to society are tremendous. It's a shame our society has inflicted upon you a cost for such behavior.
Kathianne
12-16-2010, 05:54 AM
What if states fail to do so and the problem manifests across state lines; at what level does a problem need to ascend to warrant federal intervention?
BTW, I love your sig!
Actually there shouldn't be a 'what if' game between the levels of government, as the system itself builds in the conflicts and tensions in power.
It's up to the people, through their actions and their representatives to place power-which for the past 100+ years went to the feds, now there's pressure to make it swing back a bit through demands. Today the people do not want the government via the FDA, much less the first lady, determining what or where their children should eat.
Kathianne
12-16-2010, 06:01 AM
Pagan, as usual I think we agree, but I find your use of generalities and extreme assertions unjustified in this context. I don't think the state is mandating morality, unless you think eating shitty is a moral choice. I believe people have a right to pursue a premature death, and as a right, it should be preserved; but when society incurs part of the cost of such actions, a republic, being of the people, has a right to address the grievance and, if necessary, demand redress from responsible parties. This doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility, so I'm not sure how a "nanny-state" has infringed upon the "equal rights of citizens" as a "rule of law." Enlighten me with argument, not mere assertion.
Some people don't visit the dentist-should there be laws mandating such? Eventually regardless of the genetic predisposition to good or bad teeth through neglect they will be lost and ill health will follow. Should the government force them to the dentist? Enforced flossing?
What of those who have the money for healthy meals, but choose very unhealthy foods? Should the sale of the possible bad choices be prohibited from all, to protect the idiots from themselves? They tried that during prohibition, not terribly successful.
At what point would you argue that it's not only desirable to keep the government out of personal choices, but an economic and freedom preserving necessity to do so?
Kathianne
12-16-2010, 06:30 AM
Well to further take this thread off track, here's a related observation to topic as currently stands:
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/americas-10-healthiest-grocery-stores-2420297/
America's 10 healthiest grocery stores
By Pamela Paul
Let’s face it: Your weekly (or daily!) run to the grocery store is the foundation for your good health. So it’s thrilling news that the supermarket industry is on a health kick—these days you’ll likely find organic produce and “natural” packaged foods at almost any store you go to.
But which chains are outdoing themselves to deliver the freshest and healthiest foods to you? And which ones provide the best tools to help you make smart choices?
...
When people want change, what sector is most responsive? In timely manner?
The markets, (pun intended).
Palin Rider
12-16-2010, 01:37 PM
When people want change, what sector is most responsive? In timely manner?
The markets, (pun intended).
That's true only if there's a clear potential for profit.
fj1200
12-16-2010, 02:11 PM
That's true only if there's a clear potential for profit.
So you admit to the failure of government to engage in meaningful change?
Kathianne
12-16-2010, 03:59 PM
That's true only if there's a clear potential for profit.
There's a reason that Whole Foods is ranked the 'healthiest' and priciest-those with the most money are willing to pay for premium goods. Same holds in other markets.
The rest of the list are the biggest grocers in the country. IL biggies include Safeway and Albertson's, here called Dominick's and Jewel. They capture the rest of the people that want more wholesome foods, at a savings through quantity. There's even Tar-Jay getting into the act.
Palin Rider
12-16-2010, 04:43 PM
There's a reason that Whole Foods is ranked the 'healthiest' and priciest-those with the most money are willing to pay for premium goods. Same holds in other markets.
The rest of the list are the biggest grocers in the country. IL biggies include Safeway and Albertson's, here called Dominick's and Jewel. They capture the rest of the people that want more wholesome foods, at a savings through quantity. There's even Tar-Jay getting into the act.
So when you want change quickly, it's at the greatest expense.
No surprise there: every manufacturer wants high quality, low cost, and fast delivery, but the rule is they can pick only two of those.
(Look up "manufacturing triangle" if you want more on that point.)
Kathianne
12-16-2010, 04:55 PM
So when you want change quickly, it's at the greatest expense.
No surprise there: every manufacturer wants high quality, low cost, and fast delivery, but the rule is they can pick only two of those.
(Look up "manufacturing triangle" if you want more on that point.)
On the contrary, innovation like Whole Foods and their success, leads other companies to meet the demand that is there. Some can afford the leader, most follow their pocketbooks to the others. All come out ahead, including the consumer who is getting what they want, at the price they're willing to pay.
Palin Rider
12-16-2010, 07:05 PM
On the contrary, innovation like Whole Foods and their success, leads other companies to meet the demand that is there. Some can afford the leader, most follow their pocketbooks to the others. All come out ahead, including the consumer who is getting what they want, at the price they're willing to pay.
My only point was that Whole Foods, having been first to market, had to charge the highest price. Nothing at all wrong with it. It just shows that the for-profit sector has its limits.
Kathianne
12-16-2010, 07:11 PM
My only point was that Whole Foods, having been first to market, had to charge the highest price. Nothing at all wrong with it. It just shows that the for-profit sector has its limits.
Not because, but they were innovative. They still charge the highest prices and their customers will pay. Part cache and part habit.
logroller
12-16-2010, 09:37 PM
Some people don't visit the dentist-should there be laws mandating such? Eventually regardless of the genetic predisposition to good or bad teeth through neglect they will be lost and ill health will follow. Should the government force them to the dentist? Enforced flossing?
What of those who have the money for healthy meals, but choose very unhealthy foods? Should the sale of the possible bad choices be prohibited from all, to protect the idiots from themselves? They tried that during prohibition, not terribly successful.
At what point would you argue that it's not only desirable to keep the government out of personal choices, but an economic and freedom preserving necessity to do so?
With all due respect to your position; I didn't purpose prohibition of any kind; if I did, show me! I believe you've fallen victim to the "What if" scenario you chastized me for previously. My argument detailed how damages are incurred by society as a direct result of individuals' poor eating habits. If you argue that government should stay out of solving the problem, than you would implore the greatest class action lawsuit in history; far greater than the tobacco suits, which had similar presentation and argument as those I have shown for satfat and processed foods.
BoogyMan
12-16-2010, 10:07 PM
You cannot truly imagine the comparison of fatty foods with cigarettes to be an honest one? Fatty foods are comprised of an addicting chemical as are cigarettes.
With all due respect to your position; I didn't purpose prohibition of any kind; if I did, show me! I believe you've fallen victim to the "What if" scenario you chastized me for previously. My argument detailed how damages are incurred by society as a direct result of individuals' poor eating habits. If you argue that government should stay out of solving the problem, than you would implore the greatest class action lawsuit in history; far greater than the tobacco suits, which had similar presentation and argument as those I have shown for satfat and processed foods.
logroller
12-16-2010, 11:11 PM
When people want change, what sector is most responsive? In timely manner?
The markets, (pun intended).
Agreed. However, the market isn't solely vending locally sourced products. The market is supplied by intrastate, interstate and international markets; extending, in both power and scope, beyond the local and state juridisdictions. LA sewer sludge is trucked in and dumped in my county; local residents passed a law saying no more dumping and it was overturned, stating marketable contracts must be upheld, regardless of municiple law! So I am doubtful as to the impact local government has when faced with an adversary with more money and better lawyers! That's no 'what if'--that happened. Now we have corporations who profit from, in no uncertain terms, selling foods which increase the total social cost associated with bad diets; not just the costs to those who choose to buy the products. To argue that people have freedoms which are unbounded by their impact is no different than saying government can do whatever it wants regardless of who is hurt-- freedom is a two-way street, you're free to do what you want in our society, society is free to make you pay for it!
logroller
12-16-2010, 11:48 PM
You cannot truly imagine the comparison of fatty foods with cigarettes to be an honest one? Fatty foods are comprised of an addicting chemical as are cigarettes.
Strawberries and bananas don’t cause cravings. You never feel guilty about eating too many cantaloupes. You never hear little voices in the back of your head saying eat, eat, eat cantaloupe. No, because natural foods balance the body and physical cravings are caused by biochemical imbalance. Street drugs, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, salt, saturated fat, refined starch and refined sugars cause cravings because they imbalance the body’s chemistry.
Certain foods and drinks act as powerful stimulants to the body and hence are a direct cause of stress. These foods are called "pseudostressors" or "sympathomimetics":
Caffeine containing foods (coffee, tea, colas and chocolates)
Alcohol
Refined sugar
White flour
Salt
Saturated fats
Processed foods. Processed foods, such as junk foods and fast foods, contain synthetic additives - preservatives, emulsifiers, thickeners, stabilizers and flavor-enhancers
Shall I continue, there's ample evidence to support food's effects on the body's health.
"Adults who reported eating fast food on at least one survey day had higher mean body mass index values than those who did not eat fast food on both survey days. A small, but significant, positive association was seen between fast food consumption and overweight status. Within-person comparisons showed that energy intakes were higher on a fast food day than on a non-fast food day...CONCLUSION: Fast food consumption was associated with a diet high in energy and energy density and low in essential micronutrient density. Frequent fast food consumption may contribute to weight gain."-Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2350, USA. sbowman@rbhnrc.usda.gov
There's even evidence linking foods high in cholesterol, saturated fats and trans fats to loss of cognitive ability and memory; but I digress...
American government researchers said that obesity is quickly overtaking smoking as the country's number one killer. In fact, obesity is becoming such a problem that many experts now say it is compromising all the benefits of recent improvements in health care and medical breakthroughs.
According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) smoking in 2000 was the biggest cause of death - 435,000 people died. 18.1% of everyone who died in that year died of a smoking related disease.
Obesity (bad diet and no exercise) was the cause of 400,000 deaths.
129.6M Americans are overweight or obese. That is a staggering 64% of the population.
If obesity continues to rise, by the year 2020, 20% of all health care spending will be on obesity related diseases and conditions. This is according to the Rand Corporation.
The American Health and Human Services Secretary, Tommy Thompson said 'Americans need to understand that overweight and obesity are literally killing us. To know that poor eating habits and inactivity are on the verge of surpassing tobacco use as the leading cause of preventable death in America should motivate all Americans to take action to protect their health. We need to tackle America's weight issues as aggressively as we are addressing smoking and tobacco.'
Need i say more?
PS I can reference the sources if required, but I ask you to submit contrary evidence before challenging my sources.
logroller
12-17-2010, 12:05 AM
Kinda forgot this was an unemployment thread, but don't blame me--Kathianne started it:poke::laugh:
Mr. P
12-17-2010, 12:18 AM
Kinda forgot this was an unemployment thread, but don't blame me--Kathianne started it:poke::laugh:
It all fits though. If yer collecting unemployment you can't eat Twinkies and wash em down with beer. I think? :laugh:
avatar4321
12-17-2010, 12:47 AM
What if states fail to do so and the problem manifests across state lines; at what level does a problem need to ascend to warrant federal intervention?
BTW, I love your sig!
The only time a problem warrants Federal intervention is when it is addressed in the specific enumerated powers of the Federal Government.
Unemployment insurance is not a Federal power. Because of that, the states have full discretion on what to do in this manner. And the Federal Government never has authority to interfer.
Kathianne
12-17-2010, 03:32 AM
Strawberries and bananas don’t cause cravings. You never feel guilty about eating too many cantaloupes. You never hear little voices in the back of your head saying eat, eat, eat cantaloupe. No, because natural foods balance the body and physical cravings are caused by biochemical imbalance. Street drugs, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, salt, saturated fat, refined starch and refined sugars cause cravings because they imbalance the body’s chemistry.
Certain foods and drinks act as powerful stimulants to the body and hence are a direct cause of stress. These foods are called "pseudostressors" or "sympathomimetics":
Caffeine containing foods (coffee, tea, colas and chocolates)
Alcohol
Refined sugar
White flour
Salt
Saturated fats
Processed foods. Processed foods, such as junk foods and fast foods, contain synthetic additives - preservatives, emulsifiers, thickeners, stabilizers and flavor-enhancers
Shall I continue, there's ample evidence to support food's effects on the body's health.
"Adults who reported eating fast food on at least one survey day had higher mean body mass index values than those who did not eat fast food on both survey days. A small, but significant, positive association was seen between fast food consumption and overweight status. Within-person comparisons showed that energy intakes were higher on a fast food day than on a non-fast food day...CONCLUSION: Fast food consumption was associated with a diet high in energy and energy density and low in essential micronutrient density. Frequent fast food consumption may contribute to weight gain."-Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2350, USA. sbowman@rbhnrc.usda.gov
There's even evidence linking foods high in cholesterol, saturated fats and trans fats to loss of cognitive ability and memory; but I digress...
American government researchers said that obesity is quickly overtaking smoking as the country's number one killer. In fact, obesity is becoming such a problem that many experts now say it is compromising all the benefits of recent improvements in health care and medical breakthroughs.
According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) smoking in 2000 was the biggest cause of death - 435,000 people died. 18.1% of everyone who died in that year died of a smoking related disease.
Obesity (bad diet and no exercise) was the cause of 400,000 deaths.
129.6M Americans are overweight or obese. That is a staggering 64% of the population.
If obesity continues to rise, by the year 2020, 20% of all health care spending will be on obesity related diseases and conditions. This is according to the Rand Corporation.
The American Health and Human Services Secretary, Tommy Thompson said 'Americans need to understand that overweight and obesity are literally killing us. To know that poor eating habits and inactivity are on the verge of surpassing tobacco use as the leading cause of preventable death in America should motivate all Americans to take action to protect their health. We need to tackle America's weight issues as aggressively as we are addressing smoking and tobacco.'
Need i say more?
PS I can reference the sources if required, but I ask you to submit contrary evidence before challenging my sources.
http://www.compulsive.ws/compulsive-behavior-research/food-cravings-obsessions-false-hungers
Strawberries and bananas don’t cause cravings. You never feel guilty about eating too many cantaloupes. You never hear little voices in the back of your head saying eat, eat, eat cantaloupe. No, because natural foods balance the body and physical cravings are caused by biochemical imbalance. Street drugs, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, salt, saturated fat, refined starch and refined sugars cause cravings because they imbalance the body’s chemistry.
http://www.healthassist.net/food/side-effects/side-effects.shtml
Certain foods and drinks act as powerful stimulants to the body and hence are a direct cause of stress. These foods are called "pseudostressors" or "sympathomimetics":
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15047683
"Adults who reported eating fast food on at least one survey day had higher mean body mass index values than those who did not eat fast food on both survey days. A small, but significant, positive association was seen between fast food consumption and overweight status.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/6438.php
American government researchers said that obesity is quickly overtaking smoking as the country's number one killer. In fact, obesity is becoming such a problem that many experts now say it is compromising all the benefits of recent improvements in health care and medical breakthroughs.
According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) smoking in 2000 was the biggest cause of death - 435,000 people died. 18.1% of everyone who died in that year died of a smoking related disease.
Obesity (bad diet and no exercise) was the cause of 400,000 deaths.
129.6M Americans are overweight or obese. That is a staggering 64% of the population.
If obesity continues to rise, by the year 2020, 20% of all health care spending will be on obesity related diseases and conditions. This is according to the Rand Corporation.
The American Health and Human Services Secretary, Tommy Thompson said 'Americans need to understand that overweight and obesity are literally killing us. To know that poor eating habits and inactivity are on the verge of surpassing tobacco use as the leading cause of preventable death in America should motivate all Americans to take action to protect their health. We need to tackle America's weight issues as aggressively as we are addressing smoking and tobacco.'
Well it wasn't all that difficult to find the sources, however when 'borrowing' from journals and abstracts of such, a link is necessary-not after someone finds 'contrary evidence'.
I do not think anyone was questioning the premise that eating well is commonsense. It's good for you! Indeed. Logroller wins that part, though no surprise that he brought that strawman to the discussion.
Are we moving onto an argument next on meat eaters v vegans? The effects of exercise v sedentary lifestyle?
Or return to whether the government is to be the great decider of what goes in everyone's pie hole? Soylent green time?
logroller
12-17-2010, 05:03 AM
The only time a problem warrants Federal intervention is when it is addressed in the specific enumerated powers of the Federal Government.
It is.
If states' policies function improperly and affect other states' commerce, federal intervention can be legally prescribed as necessary and proper. We may not agree ethically, but it is legally justified.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 "Commerce Clause"
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof
I invite your arguments as to how these specific references aren't applicable to unemployment benefits; but, respecting the Supreme Court, previous rulings on the commerce clause support congress's right "to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed."
If a state government fails to properly rule themselves, afflicting another state, congressional authority supercedes that of the states. Something as trivial as a person using state unemployment benefits to fill their gas tank to look for work in another state justifies federal interests in state unemployment benefits.
We can talk about how unfair it is until we're blue in the face; but federal intervention can only be opposed by the states if the states are functioning properly. If states can't solve the unemployment problem, the fed's will surely try more and more invasive means.
fj1200
12-17-2010, 08:35 AM
If states' policies function improperly and affect other states' commerce, federal intervention can be legally prescribed as necessary and proper. We may not agree ethically, but it is legally justified.
If a state government fails to properly rule themselves...
.. but federal intervention can only be opposed by the states if the states are functioning properly. If states can't solve the unemployment problem, the fed's will surely try more and more invasive means.
Are you suggesting that the states are NOT functioning properly?
Kathianne
12-17-2010, 08:38 AM
Are you suggesting that the states are NOT functioning properly?
Seems to me that he's missing the point that government at any level really has zero to do with the economy, other than taxing policies. On that level most of the states and certainly the federal government are not doing a good job.
logroller
12-17-2010, 04:56 PM
http://www.compulsive.ws/compulsive-behavior-research/food-cravings-obsessions-false-hungers
http://www.healthassist.net/food/side-effects/side-effects.shtml
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15047683
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/6438.php
Well it wasn't all that difficult to find the sources, however when 'borrowing' from journals and abstracts of such, a link is necessary-not after someone finds 'contrary evidence'.
I do not think anyone was questioning the premise that eating well is commonsense. It's good for you! Indeed. Logroller wins that part, though no surprise that he brought that strawman to the discussion.
Sorry, i'm not all that html code aware, so quoting takes a great deal of effort, one that I don't feel was necessary in the context from which the information was "borrowed", but I shall provide such links in the future.
My response was an answer to a direct question (which I quoted in the responding post), where I was doubted as to my sincerity in drawing similarity in the effects of diet and those of smoking. When the information was removed from contradictory or necessary support- I did offer citation, internally. In my defense, I was tempted to omit the last sentence of the CONCLUSION because it included the weak qualifier "may", but I included it to avoid such fallacy concerns.
So far as my missing the point, and drawing conclusions where they don't exist, ie strawman fallacy; it's no lesser a hyperbolic equation than Kathianne used in nazi youth camps being contingent on authoritarian control of foods offered to children in school-- An equally superficial relation.
Look, I don't think the feds should handle unemployment any more than I think the states should; I suppose I should rally against government intervention and support free markets alone.
"Gov't isn't good for anything, even in the provision of public goods it messes up. Ergo gov't should be abolished. Even nat'l defense and currency, the traditional domain of gov't can be better provided privately. Nations are such a 19th century concept anyway, and as we've seen through the 20th there are now only a handful that are larger than the Fortune Global 500. Corporations should start buying up countries and privatising them. Relying on lobbying and political contributions just maintains the illusion that gov't is worthwhile. I'll applaud the first company that raises a private army and issues its own currency. Then we'll know that the 21st century has begun." http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2004/12/analogy_for_gov.html
avatar4321
12-17-2010, 10:16 PM
It is.
If states' policies function improperly and affect other states' commerce, federal intervention can be legally prescribed as necessary and proper. We may not agree ethically, but it is legally justified.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 "Commerce Clause"
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof
I invite your arguments as to how these specific references aren't applicable to unemployment benefits; but, respecting the Supreme Court, previous rulings on the commerce clause support congress's right "to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed."
If a state government fails to properly rule themselves, afflicting another state, congressional authority supercedes that of the states. Something as trivial as a person using state unemployment benefits to fill their gas tank to look for work in another state justifies federal interests in state unemployment benefits.
We can talk about how unfair it is until we're blue in the face; but federal intervention can only be opposed by the states if the states are functioning properly. If states can't solve the unemployment problem, the fed's will surely try more and more invasive means.
How do the unemployed afflict another state?
Unemployment benefits or the lack thereof have no bearing on interstate commerce.
See interstate commerce means something. It isnt a catch all to legislate whatever you desire.
Kathianne
12-17-2010, 11:21 PM
Sorry, i'm not all that html code aware, so quoting takes a great deal of effort, one that I don't feel was necessary in the context from which the information was "borrowed", but I shall provide such links in the future.
My response was an answer to a direct question (which I quoted in the responding post), where I was doubted as to my sincerity in drawing similarity in the effects of diet and those of smoking. When the information was removed from contradictory or necessary support- I did offer citation, internally. In my defense, I was tempted to omit the last sentence of the CONCLUSION because it included the weak qualifier "may", but I included it to avoid such fallacy concerns.
So far as my missing the point, and drawing conclusions where they don't exist, ie strawman fallacy; it's no lesser a hyperbolic equation than Kathianne used in nazi youth camps being contingent on authoritarian control of foods offered to children in school-- An equally superficial relation.
Look, I don't think the feds should handle unemployment any more than I think the states should; I suppose I should rally against government intervention and support free markets alone.
"Gov't isn't good for anything, even in the provision of public goods it messes up. Ergo gov't should be abolished. Even nat'l defense and currency, the traditional domain of gov't can be better provided privately. Nations are such a 19th century concept anyway, and as we've seen through the 20th there are now only a handful that are larger than the Fortune Global 500. Corporations should start buying up countries and privatising them. Relying on lobbying and political contributions just maintains the illusion that gov't is worthwhile. I'll applaud the first company that raises a private army and issues its own currency. Then we'll know that the 21st century has begun." http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2004/12/analogy_for_gov.html
First off, no html is needed for using links, but if you do need help or tips for doing so quickly, please pm me or any other staff person. Seriously, no sarcasm meant at all.
There is a heck of a lot of difference between the usurpation of powers by the fed that are enumerated and/or left to the states by the Constitution and saying that there shouldn't be any government. There is also the problem of all levels of government concerning themselves with issues best left to the people and whatever organizations they wish to use. While it seems our world is moving towards a Hobbesian end even with government, I agree with his vision of a world without government at all: power to the individual would create a dangerous situation that would start a "war of every man against every man" and make life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. In short, the strongest and the smartest would dominate, enslave, and kill those weaker and more feeble minded.
In my more optimistic moments, I subscribe much more to Locke's philosophy. Yes to government, but keep it as much in a lock box as possible.
logroller
12-18-2010, 12:10 AM
First off, no html is needed for using links, but if you do need help or tips for doing so quickly, please pm me or any other staff person. Seriously, no sarcasm meant at all.
There is a heck of a lot of difference between the usurpation of powers by the fed that are enumerated and/or left to the states by the Constitution and saying that there shouldn't be any government. There is also the problem of all levels of government concerning themselves with issues best left to the people and whatever organizations they wish to use. While it seems our world is moving towards a Hobbesian end even with government, I agree with his vision of a world without government at all: power to the individual would create a dangerous situation that would start a "war of every man against every man" and make life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. In short, the strongest and the smartest would dominate, enslave, and kill those weaker and more feeble minded.
In my more optimistic moments, I subscribe much more to Locke's philosophy. Yes to government, but keep it as much in a lock box as possible.
I believe Gandhi said leadership was once a function of muscle, now it has become a function of wealth(or something like that). Its not about attacking people in an overt, murderous sense; this method is archaic, no wiser than a chimp swing a club. Its about owning their resources, he with the most; leads. This is prevalent in our society, corporations and government promote this method of power distribution, as it adds to their power. When those with little power squabble over the remaining wealth, the power gravitates towards the wealthier; and this is to the detriment of mankind. As I've mentioned before, the problem is at the most fundamental level, that of the ideology which places an individual's wealth above truth, love and understanding; which can never be usurpted by another. So far as war is concerned, another notion of Gandhi said [whatever good is done is forgotten long before the evils have been]; ergo war is evil, regardless of motive or result: this should be held as a truth by all walks of beings who value freedom of thought and reason.
Kathianne
12-18-2010, 12:18 AM
I believe Gandhi said leadership was once a function of muscle, now it has become a function of wealth(or something like that). Its not about attacking people in an overt, murderous sense; this method is archaic, no wiser than a chimp swing a club. Its about owning their resources, he with the most; leads. This is prevalent in our society, corporations and government promote this method of power distribution, as it adds to their power. When those with little power squabble over the remaining wealth, the power gravitates towards the wealthier; and this is to the detriment of mankind. As I've mentioned before, the problem is at the most fundamental level, that of the ideology which places an individual's wealth above truth, love and understanding; which can never be usurpted by another. So far as war is concerned, another notion of Gandhi said [whatever good is done is forgotten long before the evils have been]; ergo war is evil, regardless of motive or result: this should be held as a truth by all walks of beings who value freedom of thought and reason.
I'm not sure how you've segued from nutrition and the power of the government, and now to war. Anyways, I don't know anyone arguing that war isn't evil, even Gandhi recognized there are times war is necessary. I believe he served in the nurses squadron at one time.
I don't think that businesses are at war with the people, on the contrary I believe the government is trying to take control of the people and businesses. Government is much more tyrannical than any CEO could hope to be, other than to those who work for her.
fj1200
12-18-2010, 07:44 AM
I believe...
I admit I'm having a hard time reading you and where you're coming from. Maybe that's on purpose? :laugh:
logroller
12-19-2010, 03:11 AM
Maybe the war thing was out of reach for my position, but where in market data does social welfare come into consideration?
Where I'm coming from.
I worked for a company where the motto was "people, service, profit", but I can tell you that I, like the people who had worked there for 10+ years, knew that was a model, not a priority list. If profits sank, benefits were reduced; from a market perspective this makes sense. When profits increased above previous levels, benefits for employees and customers remained at lowered levels. Perhaps if I had waited longer, these benefits would have been restored, but I highly doubted it. There were times where I considered that I was being selfish; after all, I was well-paid for the service I provided, but in my heart I knew I was alone in my quest for success, unless the business realized profit (or lesser costs). Years later I would be invited into a class-action for labor law violations: forced extended breaks, ie split shift, without additional pay. I remember these occurences; I questioned management and they denied any wrong-doing; that was policy. Now I look at the national debt under our republican government, which inspired corporate structure, and I recognize how completely oblivious government is to profit; yet corporate america still profits under our system. Legislatures aren't paupers and many have close ties to corporations. Now I don't suppose association alone implies collusion, nor do I think that the respecting corporate interest is detrimental to America; but there exist far too many chiefs who wield tremendous authority and influence in our country and I don't think their interests demand any greater consideration than that of the common citizen -- this, to me, seems derogatory of equal rights.
Kathianne
12-19-2010, 10:26 AM
So you are pro-union, no? Seems you want the model that's worked so well in France, England?
red states rule
12-19-2010, 10:28 AM
So you are pro-union, no? Seems you want the model that's worked so well in France, England?
It speaks loundly that as union membership dropped in the US - the US economy grew
Unions have done remarkable things to the auto industry, and to the nations education system
trobinett
12-19-2010, 11:02 AM
Germany has a better solution.
No government-paid unemployment or UI taxes at all. Instead, when a company lays off an employee, they are required by law to pay that employee a full year's salary - immediately.
Damn! That would take my business out of business. We are seasonal, and lay off every winter, for three months the wife and me run the dog, and pony show, then rehire in March, worked pretty good for 30 plus years.:2up:
MtnBiker
12-19-2010, 12:28 PM
Damn! That would take my business out of business.
Yup, it surely would, however that statement was quite inaccurate.
Palin Rider
12-22-2010, 01:29 PM
Damn! That would take my business out of business. We are seasonal, and lay off every winter, for three months the wife and me run the dog, and pony show, then rehire in March, worked pretty good for 30 plus years.:2up:
So you'd hire someone full-time (at 25% less) and give them 90-day vacations! :laugh:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.