This is 100% what I agree with as well.earthling wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 5:50 pm Not surprising to see hard right support reducing benefits and hard left support above normal unemployment benefits. There are clearly some who are exploiting the benefits moreso than before COViD and there are clearly some who need it because of pandemic impacted job categories.
At this point, perhaps more selective approach to unemployment benefits makes more sense. And the reality is that those collecting unemployment in restaurant/leisure/hospitality industries need to seek other areas that are growing, such as warehouse jobs at least until dust settles. Many retail categories also returning. However there is a boost in pro services and some office jobs while still lower overall in all other categories so I lean a bit towards more than normal unemployment benefits as long as it's at this point more selective.
/moderate
Politics
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3956
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Politics
- TheLastGentleman
- Broadway Square
- Posts: 2952
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm
Re: Politics
THEN WHY DID YOU MAKE THAT CLAIMDColeKC wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 6:32 pmI don’t claim to know more than the experts. They make their statements based off data, research and a bit of politics. How exactly do you find out what percentage of people are simply holding out because they don’t want to work? I’d assume you can find some hard data on lack of child care but I hardly think polls and questionnaires should act as scientific data when trying to find out why people refuse to return the work. Like I’ve said, you’re not going to find a bunch of idiots willing to check the, “just don’t want to work” box when, “I’m afraid of Covid” is an option that half the country will allow you to use despite access to vaccines.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 11240
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
- Location: Historic Northeast
Re: Politics
Making contradictory claims, hmmm. I'm not sure who that resembles.
I'm not saying DColeKC is a liar or even malicious, I'm saying his motive here--which he may not even be cognizant of--is not to actually discuss anything. I think that's what he probably thinks it is, to be fair, but he does argue in bad faith sometimes. I also tend to lean in a more earthling direction, but I have abandoned any interest in pursuit of perfection. If I've learned anything from this forum, it's that the relentless pursuit of a perfect policy (in this case, where nobody could abuse unemployment) is almost always a distraction intended to get the policy rejected. I've been a victim of this in my own mind when I initially opposed the streetcar because it wasn't expansive enough for me, didn't get enough people who needed it (say, on the east side) to enough jobs. But you can only get done what you can get done, and you can only do it in the contexts in which you can do it. Depriving many people of needed income because some small percentage might abuse it is immoral, and trying to split hairs over who needs it and who doesn't to weed out the abusers isn't actually an attempt to weed out the abusers, it's an attempt to scrap the benefits. Even if that isn't the intent the people objecting have in mind, it will be the outcome, so it's the same thing.
edit: shout out to DaveKCMO with whom I argued about the streetcar on this very forum, and he persuaded me.
I'm not saying DColeKC is a liar or even malicious, I'm saying his motive here--which he may not even be cognizant of--is not to actually discuss anything. I think that's what he probably thinks it is, to be fair, but he does argue in bad faith sometimes. I also tend to lean in a more earthling direction, but I have abandoned any interest in pursuit of perfection. If I've learned anything from this forum, it's that the relentless pursuit of a perfect policy (in this case, where nobody could abuse unemployment) is almost always a distraction intended to get the policy rejected. I've been a victim of this in my own mind when I initially opposed the streetcar because it wasn't expansive enough for me, didn't get enough people who needed it (say, on the east side) to enough jobs. But you can only get done what you can get done, and you can only do it in the contexts in which you can do it. Depriving many people of needed income because some small percentage might abuse it is immoral, and trying to split hairs over who needs it and who doesn't to weed out the abusers isn't actually an attempt to weed out the abusers, it's an attempt to scrap the benefits. Even if that isn't the intent the people objecting have in mind, it will be the outcome, so it's the same thing.
edit: shout out to DaveKCMO with whom I argued about the streetcar on this very forum, and he persuaded me.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8519
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
- Location: milky way, orion arm
Re: Politics
DColeKC wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 6:34 pmThis is 100% what I agree with as well.earthling wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 5:50 pm Not surprising to see hard right support reducing benefits and hard left support above normal unemployment benefits. There are clearly some who are exploiting the benefits moreso than before COViD and there are clearly some who need it because of pandemic impacted job categories.
At this point, perhaps more selective approach to unemployment benefits makes more sense. And the reality is that those collecting unemployment in restaurant/leisure/hospitality industries need to seek other areas that are growing, such as warehouse jobs at least until dust settles. Many retail categories also returning. However there is a boost in pro services and some office jobs while still lower overall in all other categories so I lean a bit towards more than normal unemployment benefits as long as it's at this point more selective.
/moderate
???.
- grovester
- Oak Tower
- Posts: 4586
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
- Location: KC Metro
Re: Politics
This is an excellent post, thanks.mean wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 7:06 pm Making contradictory claims, hmmm. I'm not sure who that resembles.
I'm not saying DColeKC is a liar or even malicious, I'm saying his motive here--which he may not even be cognizant of--is not to actually discuss anything. I think that's what he probably thinks it is, to be fair, but he does argue in bad faith sometimes. I also tend to lean in a more earthling direction, but I have abandoned any interest in pursuit of perfection. If I've learned anything from this forum, it's that the relentless pursuit of a perfect policy (in this case, where nobody could abuse unemployment) is almost always a distraction intended to get the policy rejected. I've been a victim of this in my own mind when I initially opposed the streetcar because it wasn't expansive enough for me, didn't get enough people who needed it (say, on the east side) to enough jobs. But you can only get done what you can get done, and you can only do it in the contexts in which you can do it. Depriving many people of needed income because some small percentage might abuse it is immoral, and trying to split hairs over who needs it and who doesn't to weed out the abusers isn't actually an attempt to weed out the abusers, it's an attempt to scrap the benefits. Even if that isn't the intent the people objecting have in mind, it will be the outcome, so it's the same thing.
edit: shout out to DaveKCMO with whom I argued about the streetcar on this very forum, and he persuaded me.
I look forward to DColeKC expounding on the wealthy gaming the tax system.
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3956
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Politics
I agree with a more selective approach and your take about people seeking out other areas of employment. I don't think Missouri has the ability to run a fair process to ensure those who do in fact need the additional federal portion get it and those who are exploiting them don't, so the axe was put to the additional federal portion.earthling wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 7:20 pmDColeKC wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 6:34 pmThis is 100% what I agree with as well.earthling wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 5:50 pm Not surprising to see hard right support reducing benefits and hard left support above normal unemployment benefits. There are clearly some who are exploiting the benefits moreso than before COViD and there are clearly some who need it because of pandemic impacted job categories.
At this point, perhaps more selective approach to unemployment benefits makes more sense. And the reality is that those collecting unemployment in restaurant/leisure/hospitality industries need to seek other areas that are growing, such as warehouse jobs at least until dust settles. Many retail categories also returning. However there is a boost in pro services and some office jobs while still lower overall in all other categories so I lean a bit towards more than normal unemployment benefits as long as it's at this point more selective.
/moderate???.
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3956
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Politics
I feel many people who have spent a lifetime in academia are often out of touch with the real world and the middle class. Once again, I don't claim to know more about economics than Janet, who has a freaking PhD in economics. Most of us on this forum probably have a better temperature on the middle class and life as a middle class or impoverished person than someone like Janet Yellen.TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 6:48 pmTHEN WHY DID YOU MAKE THAT CLAIMDColeKC wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 6:32 pmI don’t claim to know more than the experts. They make their statements based off data, research and a bit of politics. How exactly do you find out what percentage of people are simply holding out because they don’t want to work? I’d assume you can find some hard data on lack of child care but I hardly think polls and questionnaires should act as scientific data when trying to find out why people refuse to return the work. Like I’ve said, you’re not going to find a bunch of idiots willing to check the, “just don’t want to work” box when, “I’m afraid of Covid” is an option that half the country will allow you to use despite access to vaccines.
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3956
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Politics
Here's how things tend to work on here. I post, a few people attack. It goes off the rails and the topic never really gets discussed, which I actually am interested in doing. I say that a portion of people on UI are just lazy and don't want to work and people respond I don't care about the poor. I say I disagree and think Janet Yellen doesn't understand a few real life situations, which is just my opinion, and for some reason my education is brought up in a response.mean wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 7:06 pm Making contradictory claims, hmmm. I'm not sure who that resembles.
I'm not saying DColeKC is a liar or even malicious, I'm saying his motive here--which he may not even be cognizant of--is not to actually discuss anything. I think that's what he probably thinks it is, to be fair, but he does argue in bad faith sometimes. I also tend to lean in a more earthling direction, but I have abandoned any interest in pursuit of perfection. If I've learned anything from this forum, it's that the relentless pursuit of a perfect policy (in this case, where nobody could abuse unemployment) is almost always a distraction intended to get the policy rejected. I've been a victim of this in my own mind when I initially opposed the streetcar because it wasn't expansive enough for me, didn't get enough people who needed it (say, on the east side) to enough jobs. But you can only get done what you can get done, and you can only do it in the contexts in which you can do it. Depriving many people of needed income because some small percentage might abuse it is immoral, and trying to split hairs over who needs it and who doesn't to weed out the abusers isn't actually an attempt to weed out the abusers, it's an attempt to scrap the benefits. Even if that isn't the intent the people objecting have in mind, it will be the outcome, so it's the same thing.
edit: shout out to DaveKCMO with whom I argued about the streetcar on this very forum, and he persuaded me.
I'm always willing to have my opinion changed or explain myself further, but it's usually straight to the insults instead.
On the actual topic, while I think a portion of those receiving benefits could and should return to work, but would rather stay home and collect the checks, I don't think as you said, people who need it should be deprived of it due to a portion of people abusing the system. That's a new revelation for me that I wasn't thinking of when I initially posted. I am happy that more people, who can work, will be forced back into the workforce because so many companies need help. Signing bonuses and raising wages weren't working. I do sympathize with those who sincerely can't return to work for child care or high risk type reasons and will be losing out on the extra cash.
-
- Broadway Square
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm
Re: Politics
If people are refusing to work because expanded UI means that they don't have to then I think that is very cool and I'm all for it
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3956
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Politics
You have no concerns about the companies who can't meet demand right now despite raised wages and sign on bonuses? I understand what you're saying but the negative impact on the economy isn't great. It is shitty that it took a pandemic and trillions of federal dollars to force some industries to increase wages.
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18357
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: Politics
Everyone needs to calm down. I think people will return to work soon. As schools are reopened, more are vaccinated, and mask mandates are rescinded, many people will begin feeling safe again. COVID infection and death rates are dropping quickly around the country. There are issues with child-care still, and hesitancy among many. There are a significant portion of our population who are obese, have diabetes, and are former/active smokers. These workers likely have some COVID hesitancy. That will pass in time and they will go back to work. Many people are chopping at the bit to get back to normal.
- im2kull
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
- Location: KCMO
Re: Politics
As someone who directly supervises a variety of people in the United States, I'd say that the percentage of people who are simply lazy and would rather collect COVID unemployment than work is likely 40%+ of all 16-25 year olds. I imagine a bit less with each older generation, but the entitlement generation are called the entitlement generation for a reason. It's not rocket science.
-
- Broadway Square
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm
Re: Politics
I can safely say I have never been concerned for a companyDColeKC wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:05 pmYou have no concerns about the companies who can't meet demand right now despite raised wages and sign on bonuses? I understand what you're saying but the negative impact on the economy isn't great. It is shitty that it took a pandemic and trillions of federal dollars to force some industries to increase wages.
- Anthony_Hugo98
- Penntower
- Posts: 2007
- Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:50 pm
- Location: Overland Park, KS
-
- Broadway Square
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm
Re: Politics
No, please explain it to me
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3956
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Politics
I can believe that. Even though many of these companies are owned and ran by people you claim to care so much about.phuqueue wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 8:00 amI can safely say I have never been concerned for a companyDColeKC wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:05 pmYou have no concerns about the companies who can't meet demand right now despite raised wages and sign on bonuses? I understand what you're saying but the negative impact on the economy isn't great. It is shitty that it took a pandemic and trillions of federal dollars to force some industries to increase wages.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: Politics
The weakness right now is we haven't seen enough business failures. Not all businesses should survive economic turmoil. The number of restaurants having trouble finding workers is a sign this is coming.
There's a chance for a double dip as economic incentives for businesses end.
What needs to happen is to extend the individual incentives out until we stop seeing large numbers of open positions and to shift individual incentives towards job training and relocation assistance and away from direct payments to where their new job is better pay than unemployment. So people with 12+ months of extra payments are weaned off while people newly unemployed get the help.
The New Deal shows a parallel.
In 1933 when FDR was in his first term the unemployment rate peaked and by 1937 it dropped in half. You'll find various numbers depending on when they record it. That article says 22 down to 10%. Another place says 24.9 down to 14.3%
Then they decided to cut deficits in federal spending
The unemployment rate went back to the 17-19% range by the end of 1938.
In 1938 the minimum wage first went into effect and the unemployment rate dropped again. By the end of 1941 it was down below 10%.
You can see there needed to be an economic incentive better than government handouts and minimum wage was it.
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3956
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Politics
Wouldn’t extending out the individual benefits just keep all the jobs open? Or are you saying the jobs would go away as certain businesses fail and those jobs fall off?flyingember wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 10:17 amThe weakness right now is we haven't seen enough business failures. Not all businesses should survive economic turmoil. The number of restaurants having trouble finding workers is a sign this is coming.
There's a chance for a double dip as economic incentives for businesses end.
What needs to happen is to extend the individual incentives out until we stop seeing large numbers of open positions and to shift individual incentives towards job training and relocation assistance and away from direct payments to where their new job is better pay than unemployment. So people with 12+ months of extra payments are weaned off while people newly unemployed get the help.
The New Deal shows a parallel.
In 1933 when FDR was in his first term the unemployment rate peaked and by 1937 it dropped in half. You'll find various numbers depending on when they record it. That article says 22 down to 10%. Another place says 24.9 down to 14.3%
Then they decided to cut deficits in federal spending
The unemployment rate went back to the 17-19% range by the end of 1938.
In 1938 the minimum wage first went into effect and the unemployment rate dropped again. By the end of 1941 it was down below 10%.
You can see there needed to be an economic incentive better than government handouts and minimum wage was it.
I don’t understand the concept of not all businesses should survive. I’d agree if it were about poor management, bad investments etc, but a business shouldn’t be ruined by a pandemic.
I hope we never see this again but I think we’ve learned shutting down the economy isn’t an option in response to a pandemic.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: Politics
Your understanding of economics is really lacking.DColeKC wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 10:33 am
Wouldn’t extending out the individual benefits just keep all the jobs open? Or are you saying the jobs would go away as certain businesses fail and those jobs fall off?
I don’t understand the concept of not all businesses should survive. I’d agree if it were about poor management, bad investments etc, but a business shouldn’t be ruined by a pandemic.
I hope we never see this again but I think we’ve learned shutting down the economy isn’t an option in response to a pandemic.
The pandemic changed nothing about economic fundamentals. This is the 50th recession/depression in the US since the revolution. We went the longest in the history of the country since the previous recession.
In Capitalism people take on the risk that their industry will shrink in demand from outside events with profits being the result if they estimated the risk correctly.
Look at the many tens of thousands of types of businesses, they don't all deserve to survive. During a pandemic there was less demand for in person speed dating. Why should the federal government prop up a speed dating business? More practical, what if you own an an apartment complex in Orlando, FL. Should you expect to maintain full occupancy with Disney World closed for months?
Wouldn't the economy benefit more by letting the business fail and enabling a new one to utilize the skilled labor available?
The job of the federal government is to compile the data and identify opportunities where the US as a country can compete, and there's businesses who need skilled workers to help get workers trained to fill those spots.
There were plenty of businesses hiring. Grocery delivery would have skyrocketed in demand.
On the other side, I've read stories of people who saw the layoffs as a good thing, it finally pushed them to do what they wanted to. It can be scary to leave a steady paycheck but when the alternative is ruin you'll take that risk.
And going even further, many started a business. I wouldn't be surprised to find many places that are struggling to hire have brand new competition.
In September 2020 new business applications were at a ten year high
- DColeKC
- Ambassador
- Posts: 3956
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am
Re: Politics
What the fuck man. I was simply asking a damn question, politely. I'm not sure if my understanding of economics is lacking (can you not respond without a dig) or if I just disagree with you.flyingember wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 11:19 amYour understanding of economics is really lacking.DColeKC wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 10:33 am
Wouldn’t extending out the individual benefits just keep all the jobs open? Or are you saying the jobs would go away as certain businesses fail and those jobs fall off?
I don’t understand the concept of not all businesses should survive. I’d agree if it were about poor management, bad investments etc, but a business shouldn’t be ruined by a pandemic.
I hope we never see this again but I think we’ve learned shutting down the economy isn’t an option in response to a pandemic.
The pandemic changed nothing about economic fundamentals. This is the 50th recession/depression in the US since the revolution. We went the longest in the history of the country since the previous recession.
In Capitalism people take on the risk that their industry will shrink in demand from outside events with profits being the result if they estimated the risk correctly.
Look at the many tens of thousands of types of businesses, they don't all deserve to survive. During a pandemic there was less demand for in person speed dating. Why should the federal government prop up a speed dating business? More practical, what if you own an an apartment complex in Orlando, FL. Should you expect to maintain full occupancy with Disney World closed for months?
Wouldn't the economy benefit more by letting the business fail and enabling a new one to utilize the skilled labor available?
The job of the federal government is to compile the data and identify opportunities where the US as a country can compete, and there's businesses who need skilled workers to help get workers trained to fill those spots.
There were plenty of businesses hiring. Grocery delivery would have skyrocketed in demand.
On the other side, I've read stories of people who saw the layoffs as a good thing, it finally pushed them to do what they wanted to. It can be scary to leave a steady paycheck but when the alternative is ruin you'll take that risk.
And going even further, many started a business. I wouldn't be surprised to find many places that are struggling to hire have brand new competition.
In September 2020 new business applications were at a ten year high
No shit, I don't think the government should prop up a speed dating service or a corner palm reading shack in a vacation town. I believe the government should help prop up those businesses who employ everyday Americans.
Who the hell plans for a pandemic? This may have been the 50th official recession but only one of a few caused by something so unpredictable as a pandemic. I'm sure theres some benefit to a few types of businesses closing and allowing those people to get different, possibly better jobs. In reality, if one restaurant closes, most of those employees are just going to go get another job at a different restaurant. They're not suddenly going to become UPS drivers or grocery delivery crew.
I'm sure in September of 2020 new business applicants were high. Everyone trying to profit off the pandemic and likely not a great long-term business plan. People jumping in the WFH game overestimating the amount of people who will forever WFH after the pandemic.