Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) The libs aren't going to like this. Can't wait to hear the spin. http://www.washingto...article/2559267 Underpinned by this pretty good source. http://www.nber.org/papers/w20884 Edited January 27, 2015 by Proud Tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,192 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Funny stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 5,665 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Not funny....but explains what some of us have been saying about the fabricated jobs numbers. You can't expect government to tell the truth these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 The Jonestown boys have sure been quiet about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,192 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Not funny....but explains what some of us have been saying about the fabricated jobs numbers. You can't expect government to tell the truth these days. Sorry. Substitute strange for "funny". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) The libs aren't going to like this. Can't wait to hear the spin. http://www.washingto...article/2559267 Underpinned by this pretty good source. http://www.nber.org/papers/w20884 I am not in complete agreement with their conclusions but I see light at the end of the tunnel. I was laughed at when I stated the unemployment rate being under 6% was a positive because welfare assistance would be dropped for many people. No unemployment and no food stamps will cause many to actually start looking for a job. To this I agree and want to see happen. BUTTTTTT !!!! If the end to unemployment benefits caused 1 million people to get a job then what about the "WOE is the worker" crowd talking about hard working people not able to find work? If 1 million lazy slackers got off their butts and found jobs then their was 1 million jobs available in the first place. Edited January 28, 2015 by aubfaninga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUTUmike 79 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 The libs aren't going to like this. Can't wait to hear the spin. http://www.washingto...article/2559267 Underpinned by this pretty good source. http://www.nber.org/papers/w20884 Did you read the paper, or just parrot back the article from the Examiner? I read the paper and there are serious endogeneity issues arising from their methodology. And that's pretty evident in the boldness of their conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 3,748 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Common sense. Subsidize setting on your ass and people set on their ass. Take it away and they get off their ass. Who knew? Anyone with a brain knew. Great, now we have a study to prove human nature once again rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 jt......you do have a way with words.....and brief, to the point messages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,192 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Common sense. Subsidize setting on your ass and people set on their ass. Take it away and they get off their ass. Who knew? Anyone with a brain knew. Great, now we have a study to prove human nature once again rules. Now all we need is a study done by any of the hundreds of lib universities to find out how people FEEL about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUTUmike 79 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 So I guess the answer is no, none of you actually read the study. Shocker. Here are a couple more studies that directly debunk the argument made by Hagedorn, Manovskii, and Mitman: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19048 http://www.nber.org/papers/w17534 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 3,297 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I understand cutting benefits IF, the job picture is improving. However, the same people who argue for cutting benefits, argue that the jobs numbers are fake. If there are opportunities available (jobs), then yes, let's not give incentive to stay on welfare. But, if the employment picture is not better, how can we, in good conscience, cut benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 5,665 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 It's the classic Welfare v/s work scenario..... Welfare for some can bring home more $$$ than a $7.50 hr job. In this day and age, a person needs to make around $11 hr to break even or gain an edge over the government offering. If you are a single mom with two or three kids and you have this as a scenario you won't look for work. Why would you????? That would be financial suicide. And in 2015, with fewer good paying middle class jobs out there that pay upwards of 14-15 bucks an hour, you won't see a big shift from home to the workplace. Anyone out there looking at childcare costs these days????? Our country is in desperate need of jobs reform. Not just the $$$$ thrown at it but how do we increase these kind of jobs while offsetting the education gap for tech jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 3,297 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 It's the classic Welfare v/s work scenario..... Welfare for some can bring home more $$$ than a $7.50 hr job. In this day and age, a person needs to make around $11 hr to break even or gain an edge over the government offering. If you are a single mom with two or three kids and you have this as a scenario you won't look for work. Why would you????? That would be financial suicide. And in 2015, with fewer good paying middle class jobs out there that pay upwards of 14-15 bucks an hour, you won't see a big shift from home to the workplace. Anyone out there looking at childcare costs these days????? Our country is in desperate need of jobs reform. Not just the $$$$ thrown at it but how do we increase these kind of jobs while offsetting the education gap for tech jobs? So there are jobs, those jobs just don't pay as much as welfare? Is there a shortage of minimum wage workers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUTUmike 79 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 It's the classic Welfare v/s work scenario..... Welfare for some can bring home more $$$ than a $7.50 hr job. In this day and age, a person needs to make around $11 hr to break even or gain an edge over the government offering. If you are a single mom with two or three kids and you have this as a scenario you won't look for work. Why would you????? That would be financial suicide. And in 2015, with fewer good paying middle class jobs out there that pay upwards of 14-15 bucks an hour, you won't see a big shift from home to the workplace. Anyone out there looking at childcare costs these days????? Our country is in desperate need of jobs reform. Not just the $$$$ thrown at it but how do we increase these kind of jobs while offsetting the education gap for tech jobs? So there are jobs, those jobs just don't pay as much as welfare? Is there a shortage of minimum wage workers? I would argue there is a shortage of minimum wage workers (not in absolute numbers, but in terms of those willing to work for that rate). There is persuasive research that demonstrates that welfare benefits push the wage rate up because of beneficiaries' simple calculation that a job they begin should pay more than what they are currently receiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 5,665 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 It's the classic Welfare v/s work scenario..... Welfare for some can bring home more $$$ than a $7.50 hr job. In this day and age, a person needs to make around $11 hr to break even or gain an edge over the government offering. If you are a single mom with two or three kids and you have this as a scenario you won't look for work. Why would you????? That would be financial suicide. And in 2015, with fewer good paying middle class jobs out there that pay upwards of 14-15 bucks an hour, you won't see a big shift from home to the workplace. Anyone out there looking at childcare costs these days????? Our country is in desperate need of jobs reform. Not just the $$$$ thrown at it but how do we increase these kind of jobs while offsetting the education gap for tech jobs? So there are jobs, those jobs just don't pay as much as welfare? Is there a shortage of minimum wage workers? There are some jobs in the marketplace that Americans could fill if it made sense to them economically. The country has shifted so much from an industrial nation to a service sector nation that it has choked off a ton of middle class jobs. All that is left is either higher wage positions that require advanced degrees or jobs that pay little and a lot of people think that it is either below them or pays less than government assistance. I could be wrong but the numbers would imply that it's very possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 3,297 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 So, are there a substantial number of low wage jobs that can not be filled? In absolute terms. Is welfare affecting employers ability to fill these jobs? I'm not trying to be clever. I just don't see welfare competing with employers. I don't see the wages going up at that level. What I do see is, employers hiring people off the books in order to avoid taxes. However, that is a personal observation. That doesn't make it a trend. In any event, I believe the only manipulation that makes sense is policy that brings jobs back to this country. Particularly in the case of goods and services for our own consumption. It would cut unemployment, lower the cost of welfare, increase tax revenues, lower the deficit, and lower our trade deficit. Yes, we will have to pay a little more for some consumer goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 5,665 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 So, are there a substantial number of low wage jobs that can not be filled? In absolute terms. Is welfare affecting employers ability to fill these jobs? I'm not trying to be clever. I just don't see welfare competing with employers. I don't see the wages going up at that level. What I do see is, employers hiring people off the books in order to avoid taxes. However, that is a personal observation. That doesn't make it a trend. In any event, I believe the only manipulation that makes sense is policy that brings jobs back to this country. Particularly in the case of goods and services for our own consumption. It would cut unemployment, lower the cost of welfare, increase tax revenues, lower the deficit, and lower our trade deficit. Yes, we will have to pay a little more for some consumer goods. My understanding is that most of the activity I posted above is happening in metro America, which is where the majority of Americans live. There are pockets of people in rural America (Kentucky, West Virginia and Pennsylvania) that add to this but for the most part it's in urban areas. Just look at the number of people on Welfare v/s the number of jobs available v/s he number of jobs taken each month and it kind of makes sense. Of course there are other factors but I've heard some people who receive welfare state this here in AL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now