Of all options, which policy will reduce unempl the most?

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
The thread question is which policy strategy has the best effect on unemployment rates. I noted that the CBO said the one having the best effect would be continued benefits because they'd get spent and stimulate the economy, whereas the policy option with the lowest projected benefits would be tax cuts, particularly for the wealthy, because the anticipation is that they would save those dollars rather then spend them.

The entire premise of the GOP argument is that continuing the Bush tax cuts will benefit small business owners, a claim that has been debunked repeatedly as the vast majority of people affected are not small business owners. On top of that, the assumption that those that are such small business owners will use the tax savings to hire people is not borne out by the current trends.

Now, if you want to globally argue that tax increases (or not perpetuating tax cuts, however you want to put it) in a weak economy is a bad idea, I think a good argument can be made for that. After all, even if the wealthy don't use the money to hire people, it will be put into some other vehicle that should have some beneficial effect on the economy. I get that.

But I think that the GOP argument that this is the way to create jobs is a bit of misdirection on their part, using worries over the economy to justify something for which they have ulterior motive.

Again, not saying there isn't some benefit, just not the one that sells as well.
Click to expand...

how is it relavant the majority of people benefits aren't small business owners? the other people wont spend the extra money just as unemployed people will?

and their ulterior motive is what exactly? pay off the rich?
 
#27
#27
Just skimmed through the CBO report - it appears that they modeled the impact of extending the tax cuts via additional revenue into the economy. I saw no impact on hiring modeled due to the "uncertainty" factor that is often cited.

Likewise, much of the impact of extending the UE benefits is modeled in 2010 while the impact of tax cut extensions is not modeled in until 2011 (since this report was at the beginning of 2010 and we were already at those rates).

So we have an apples and oranges comparison - the UE benefits were extended through 2010 (the 99rs are just now coming off UE benefits).

The proper analysis would look at the issue from this point going forward comparing both.
 
#28
#28
droski said:
i'm in an industry that layed off 20% of it's workforce and i still regurally get interest. even for positions i have applied for online with 100 other applicants. it's absurd to argue the labor market is so bad that a willing person couldn't find work of some sort.
Click to expand...

Wow, you must be a superstar. But that is not the case for most. I get contacted about twice a week, but that is a long way from landing a job, if I was interested.
 
#29
#29
droski said:
i'm in an industry that layed off 20% of it's workforce and i still regurally get interest. even for positions i have applied for online with 100 other applicants. it's absurd to argue the labor market is so bad that a willing person couldn't find work of some sort.
Click to expand...

The other widely known fact, it's always easier to find a job if you are already employed, companies tend to want what other companies have. Companies today tend to want younger people which have not been unemployed for an extended period of time. I personally know of some companies that have told their HR department that they do not want to see any resumes of people over 50.
 
#31
#31
lawgator1 said:
He is saying that the labor markets in the 70's and 80's were different and that, when the market for jobs is as shallow as it is now, the disincentivizing effect of unemployment benefits is very low. In particular, he is saying that in the type of labor market we have now those effects are substantially outweighed by the stimulative benefits of unemployment compensation.

Funny that people quote his study to support their argument and then when he explains the significant differences between then and now and why the effect he documented is not present in today's economy he is just abandoned.
Click to expand...
He get to claim he was right then but wrong now, yet gets a pass from you?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#32
#32
overseasorange2 said:
Wow, you must be a superstar. But that is not the case for most. I get contacted about twice a week, but that is a long way from landing a job, if I was interested.
Click to expand...

it's not being a superstar it's having marketable skills that drive revenue. don't drive revenue for a company and you become expendable. it's pretty simple.
 
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
The CBO says that the policy option that is most likely to reduce unemployment rate is to provide MORE unemployment benefits. The rationale is that the unemployed have to spend the money -- they simply cannot afford to just save it.

The policy option LEAST likely to decrease unemployment?

Reduce income taxes.


Interesting.
Click to expand...

Still approaching it from the failed Keynesian model I see.

Cutting unemployment benefits will force people to accept the jobs they can find to begin contributing to the economy again and actually EARN the money they spend. Cutting taxes will provide liquid capital within the economy to hire people.

I do not care really who states the idiocy you posted... it is idiotic. Extending the unemployment benefits has been a drag on the recovery by keeping human assets and skills on the sideline. People who could be helping drive the recovery are instead sitting at home.


You can simplify the Keynesian v Supply Side debate like this: What creates wealth- production or consumption? Once you have wealth it can be distributed. If you have no wealth then you cannot distribute it.
 
Last edited:
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
The thread question is which policy strategy has the best effect on unemployment rates. I noted that the CBO said the one having the best effect would be continued benefits because they'd get spent and stimulate the economy, whereas the policy option with the lowest projected benefits would be tax cuts, particularly for the wealthy, because the anticipation is that they would save those dollars rather then spend them.
Click to expand...
And that is about as stupid as anything you have ever admitted to believing. The "rich" as in the investment class do not save their money under a mattress or in a big vault. They put it to work by investing it. There is not a single sector of our economy to include local and state gov't's (bonds) that do not need an infusion of capital right now. You can spend money for people to consume or you can invest money to create national wealth.

It really isn't a very difficult question to answer or problem to understand. But if you really do struggle with it then you need only compare the re-employment process that worked when we came out of the early 2000's recession and now.

On top of that, the assumption that those that are such small business owners will use the tax savings to hire people is not borne out by the current trends.
Click to expand...
They will do a few things... all of them good for the economy... with those tax savings.

First, they'll consume. They'll replace that truck that they needed to replace before but couldn't. They'll buy a new, faster machine. They'll have their building facade re-done to attract business. They will "buy" things that can help expand their businesses so they can hire people.

Second, they'll hire, give raises, improve benefits, or whatever else is necessary to properly staff their business. I know that staffing for wealth creating jobs is probably alien to you... but when times are tough you accept the limitation of a low head count. You restrict OT even when it hurts and you can't get the job done right. You don't "invest" labor.

Third, some will survive whereas otherwise they would have gone out of business creating ever increasing unemployment claims.
But I think that the GOP argument that this is the way to create jobs is a bit of misdirection on their part, using worries over the economy to justify something for which they have ulterior motive.

Again, not saying there isn't some benefit, just not the one that sells as well.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that every time tax cuts for the "wealthy" have been part of a recovery package... re-employment has occurred almost immediately, right?

The facts are there for you to see. You can employ sophistry all day long but the fundamental, incontrovertible fact is that when you give the investment class more money... lo and behold they invest it and people get jobs as a direct result.
 
#35
#35
LG, the bottom line is that you are accepting the word of people expressing the EXACT ideas that got us into this mess. They are telling you that more of what made us sick is the cure.
 
#36
#36
droski said:
it's not being a superstar it's having marketable skills that drive revenue. don't drive revenue for a company and you become expendable. it's pretty simple.
Click to expand...

I know alot of older,unemployed people very good at finding and developing oil and gas.
 
#38
#38
sjt18 said:
LG, the bottom line is that you are accepting the word of people expressing the EXACT ideas that got us into this mess. They are telling you that more of what made us sick is the cure.
Click to expand...



And here I thought that tax breaks for the wealthy under Bush were so awesome that they by golly need to be extended! I mean, look at all the good that's doing!

Oh wait ....
 
#39
#39
please explain specifically how the bush tax breaks hurt the economy. this i'd love to hear.
 
#40
#40
droski said:
please explain specifically how the bush tax breaks hurt the economy. this i'd love to hear.
Click to expand...

he is checking his "sources".........this argument comes from the same people that say the unemployment benies "help" the economy
 
#42
#42
If we could just get the top 10% of earners to make a little more money and pay more taxes, then the other 90% of us wouldn't have to work and everything would be fine. As long as the Gov is willing to give us money, and we are willing to spend it, then I guess we would have a perfect economy?
 
#43
#43
I would say trade with China, and particulary the undervalued Chinese currency. They have tried to address this before with China. The US lost the manufacturing base.
 
#44
#44
droski said:
are they willing to move overseas?
Click to expand...

Don't know, but my 12 years overseas was the best time of my life(China, Venezuela and Vietnam). However, I would have reservations about going to the Middle East. I just turned down a job in Saudi Arabia 6 months ago.
 
#45
#45
it's obvious, by now, what the proper course of action is, continue to extend unemployment benefits forever and include COLA increases. I mean, the dazzling logic of Pelosi is unassailable, unemployment checks are stimulative and create jobs, just ask the employees of your local Sav-a-Lot and Family Dollar.

/sarcasm
 
#46
#46
if they'd given every business a 35k tax credit for every additional 40k in payroll that they have from the previous year when this thing went down instead of the other crap we'd be out of the this.

35k tax credit first year for 40k in increased payroll.

20k tax credit second year for 40k payroll that stays the same or increased from previous year.

10k tax credit 3rd year for 40k payroll that stays the same or increases over previous year.
 
#47
#47
if each state has 350,000 businesses it would have cost over 3 years $11,375,500,000 and created 18,750,000 jobs.
 
#48
#48
I myself would have hired 2 people if this had of been done.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top