Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/5/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

If you are sitting on your tail collecting unemployment and you refuse because the offer doesn't meet your expectation then yes you are a lazy *******.

So, say you were an IT professional with an advanced degree and a job making $90,000 a year. You get laid off and there aren't any current openings for a IT professional in your city and you can't relocate due to family issues...maybe you're a divorced parent with shared custody.

You're in Massachusetts so you collect the max, $674 a week.

You get offered a job hanging drywall for $10 an hour.

Should you take it?
Are you better off if you take it?
Is the city you live in better off if you take it?
Does anyone at all benefit from you taking that job?

I say no. I say taking that job is a net negative for everyone in this scenario (it's probably neutral at best for the contractor that hired you, since your most valuable skill isn't your back strength).

Arguing that unemployment is bad is arguing that the IT guy should take the drywall job.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/6/2014 12:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/5/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

If you are sitting on your tail collecting unemployment and you refuse because the offer doesn't meet your expectation then yes you are a lazy *******.

So, say you were an IT professional with an advanced degree and a job making $90,000 a year. You get laid off and there aren't any current openings for a IT professional in your city and you can't relocate due to family issues...maybe you're a divorced parent with shared custody.

You're in Massachusetts so you collect the max, $674 a week.

You get offered a job hanging drywall for $10 an hour.

Should you take it?
Are you better off if you take it?
Is the city you live in better off if you take it?
Does anyone at all benefit from you taking that job?

I say no. I say taking that job is a net negative for everyone in this scenario (it's probably neutral at best for the contractor that hired you, since your most valuable skill isn't your back strength).

Arguing that unemployment is bad is arguing that the IT guy should take the drywall job.

That's slightly different than your example because you have now ventured outside of your "service being offered".  Actually by law you cannot refuse that job offer AND continue to collect unemployment. It IS a bit absurd for sure and definitely could be "fixed", but that's where we are now with most states.

Should the guy collect unemployment forever and NEVER get another job unless it meets his "stated price"?

A more apt example would be someone offering you a IT job for only 60K per year, but you think you are worth 90K.

Do you take THAT offer? Should you?
If not, how close to 90 would finally be worth taking? 
Or is it a mindset of 90+ or I'll stick with my unemployment check?

Posted by silentpadna on 5/6/2014 11:12:00 AM (view original):
Would most people in that situation apply for it?

I can think of multiple scenarios where people would not - especially given the idea that unemployment is now treated as welfare and not insurance.  Here's one:

My job lands me somewhere in the range of your IT example above.  If I got laid off tomorrow, I could start drawing unemployment.  Meanwhile, my wife, who works part-time at the local school decides to put her finance degree to work and make $50K, which she could do very easily (she's already had people contact her).  So I collect unemployment.  I know that right now, today, I could easily go get a $60K/yr job in my field at a somewhat lesser, but easier position.  It's a very plausible scenario for me to watch what congress does and then just apply for nothing but jobs I'm not qualified for and take the handout society supposedly wants to give me for producing nothing.  It's a microeconomic decision, based on incentives.

Now I would not do that personally because it's a moral issue.  I don't care what congress does, I do not have an inherent right to anyone else's production.

BL, you and I agree there ought to be a safety net.  I can tell you we entirely disagree on what degree and who provides it.  The minimum wage "issue" that started this thread doesn't do a thing to help that net, and more likely hurts it.  That, and many other ideas that throw money at problems in the name of "fairness" - however that's defined.

Posted by silentpadna on 5/6/2014 1:19:00 PM (view original):
No I'm not saying most people would - never did.  What I am saying is that there are scenarios where people would consider doing that.  You didn't include the increase in what my wife would be making as a factor in the decision - or the value of my time and time with my kids.  Your response is without context.  You say unemployment will eventually run out, but there is zero evidence that congress won't continue to do what they have been doing in terms of the long-term unemployment issue - making it a political trap for conservatives.

I'm in GA.  The benefit is about $330/week (thankfully lower than most).  This is more than what my wife makes for her part-time job.  So, all things being equal - if it was economics alone, the decision is not a slam-dunk.  She works for, let's say $60K.  And I pull more than what she would have made working - all while being productive at home and having time with my kids.

As a matter of fact we could continue to game the system by switching who in the house is working each time one of was potentially laid off.

The point is not that I would do that - I would certainly not.  But together, we could reduce our total working hours and bring home somewhere in the neighborhood of where we were.  And collecting $13K per year from my fellow taxpayers for doing nothing.  That's gaming the system and we would not do it on principle.  But don't think people don't do that now.  The incentives are clearly there.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/6/2014 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/6/2014 12:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/5/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

If you are sitting on your tail collecting unemployment and you refuse because the offer doesn't meet your expectation then yes you are a lazy *******.

So, say you were an IT professional with an advanced degree and a job making $90,000 a year. You get laid off and there aren't any current openings for a IT professional in your city and you can't relocate due to family issues...maybe you're a divorced parent with shared custody.

You're in Massachusetts so you collect the max, $674 a week.

You get offered a job hanging drywall for $10 an hour.

Should you take it?
Are you better off if you take it?
Is the city you live in better off if you take it?
Does anyone at all benefit from you taking that job?

I say no. I say taking that job is a net negative for everyone in this scenario (it's probably neutral at best for the contractor that hired you, since your most valuable skill isn't your back strength).

Arguing that unemployment is bad is arguing that the IT guy should take the drywall job.

That's slightly different than your example because you have now ventured outside of your "service being offered".  Actually by law you cannot refuse that job offer AND continue to collect unemployment. It IS a bit absurd for sure and definitely could be "fixed", but that's where we are now with most states.

Should the guy collect unemployment forever and NEVER get another job unless it meets his "stated price"?

A more apt example would be someone offering you a IT job for only 60K per year, but you think you are worth 90K. 

Do you take THAT offer? Should you?
If not, how close to 90 would finally be worth taking? 
Or is it a mindset of 90+ or I'll stick with my unemployment check?

I think most people would take the 60k job.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/6/2014 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/6/2014 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/6/2014 12:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 5/5/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

If you are sitting on your tail collecting unemployment and you refuse because the offer doesn't meet your expectation then yes you are a lazy *******.

So, say you were an IT professional with an advanced degree and a job making $90,000 a year. You get laid off and there aren't any current openings for a IT professional in your city and you can't relocate due to family issues...maybe you're a divorced parent with shared custody.

You're in Massachusetts so you collect the max, $674 a week.

You get offered a job hanging drywall for $10 an hour.

Should you take it?
Are you better off if you take it?
Is the city you live in better off if you take it?
Does anyone at all benefit from you taking that job?

I say no. I say taking that job is a net negative for everyone in this scenario (it's probably neutral at best for the contractor that hired you, since your most valuable skill isn't your back strength).

Arguing that unemployment is bad is arguing that the IT guy should take the drywall job.

That's slightly different than your example because you have now ventured outside of your "service being offered".  Actually by law you cannot refuse that job offer AND continue to collect unemployment. It IS a bit absurd for sure and definitely could be "fixed", but that's where we are now with most states.

Should the guy collect unemployment forever and NEVER get another job unless it meets his "stated price"?

A more apt example would be someone offering you a IT job for only 60K per year, but you think you are worth 90K. 

Do you take THAT offer? Should you?
If not, how close to 90 would finally be worth taking? 
Or is it a mindset of 90+ or I'll stick with my unemployment check?

I think most people would take the 60k job.

20K = "a net negative for everyone" 
60K = "I think most people would take (it)"

So where's the line where taking the job offer goes from "a net negative for everyone" to being the right move?

30K?
40K?
50K?

Posted by silentpadna on 5/6/2014 3:05:00 PM (view original):
I see where your perspective is.  It's not a matter of "taking it away" from people.  It's a matter of their benefits running out.  It's in your paradigm.  It's a matter of those who get the benefit not exceeding what's been promised.  When the benefits run out, take the MW job - something.  If I get 1 year of $330/wk and I know it's running out, I better do something about it.

I just illustrated a scenario to you.  Scenarios like this are real.  Disincentives are real.  This is one of many such scenarios.  You seem to have some clue about certain economic theories.  Opportunity cost is more than a theory - happens in practice constantly.  Whether you are an individual or a business, your decisions are all about taking one opportunity at the expense of others (including the opportunity of doing nothing).

The government (or my neighbor) does not owe me a chance to stay in my home or to keep my car.  As a society we've tasked the government in replacing individuals for providing safety nets for each other.  As a result, we conveniently get to miss out on seeing ourselves actually take what we produce and go hand it directly to those who don't - for whatever reason (whether a good or bad reason).  It insulates us from having to deal with the fact that there are many who would take advantage of us.  If I was giving my neighbor a hand-out directly, do you think he'd sit on his *** all day in full view?  He'd more likely be motivated to do something in exchange for the help - or at the very least, attempt to find a way to stop receiving it from me.  Putting the government in the middle removes accountability from those being helped to those who are helping.

That is not to say there isn't a place for government to help; but it is completely broken the way it is now.  Raising minimum wage, extending unemployment, taxing the rich, spending on government "make-work" jobs doesn't do anything to remove the disincentives that exist in these perpetual programs.

Posted by examinerebb on 5/6/2014 4:31:00 PM (view original):
The problem is not that some people are gaming the system, or that some people are choosing to stay at home instead of working.  You'll always find people who will try to game the system.

The problem is that the current system encourages people to do that.  The current system makes doing that the only logical choice, as has been illustrated before.  "I think we should help people who need it" is a nice stance.  It does not constitute a reasonable defense of a broken system.