I don’t doubt for one second that there are people out there gold bricking, but to make sweeping generalizations? I know of several people who just haven’t been able to get a job. Perhaps there are better people to attack than the jobless.
Much of the unemployment situation depends on location. Those of us living in Northern Virginia are fortunate. We haven’t been hit as hard as other localities.
Was Beck lacking sensitivity? Is it fair to attack people for being unemployed after 99 weeks?
This isn’t new. A lot of conservatives (even supply-side godfather Arthur Laffer) have recently written columns declaring that unemployment benefits cause higher unemployment because the income may cause some people to not look for work. I don’t know whether it’s dishonesty or idiocy that makes these guys argue that cutting unemployment benefits will have a significant effect on unemployment under the current economic conditions.
Laffer’s column offered a chart showing the correlation between the unemployment rate and total unemployment payments to support his argument never even considering the possibility that maybe total unemployment payments is dependent on the unemployment rate, not the other way around. Not even Kenny Bania could think of something that ridiculous.
I personally know a woman, very sweet woman who often takes care of my son, that has refused to look for work as long as she has unemployment checks coming in. She was upset a while back because she wasn’t sure if they were going to extend unemployment benefits or not and she started to send out her resume. Once they extended unemployment benefits (with back pay) she quit her search for a job. It happens, to think that it doesn’t is ignorant at best. I have seen it with my own eyes, with someone that I love and respect.
@hello
Well I suspect that for every person like the “very sweet woman” you know, there are 10 people who do not have the skill sets employers are looking for. Perhaps if you didn’t hire her to take care of your son, she would put out her resume again. Do ya suppose?
I am constantly amazed at the people who pay heed to Glenn Beck. Just think, if eveyone stopped listening to him, what do you think would happen? Think about a grape in the sun–he would become a raisin, which really does disservice to the grape, the sun and the raisin.
Cynthia Tucker of the Atlantic Jounal says it far better than I ever could: http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/08/18/the-odious-glenn-beck-has-every-right-to-his-rally/?cxntfid=blogs_cynthia_tucker
Hi George, I’ve talked to her about this issue several times… I’m actually kind of selfish when it comes to this subject because she is great with my son and my son loves her to death. I only pay her $10 an hour because that is all I can afford, she has told me time and time again that once her unemployment runs out she will no longer be able to watch him because she can’t live off of just $10 an hour.
So the answer to your question is no, she takes care of my son to earn ‘spending’ money and she has a bond with him. She has been watching him since he was 3 months old. For me, and my son, I would rather her not to have to look for a job because once she has to she will no longer be able to watch him. Very selfish on my part… I know.
What kills me though is that people get bashed for sometimes stating the obvious, if you keep extending unemployment benefits people will put off looking for a job. I know this for a fact because I have seen it with my own eyes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704895004575395491314812452.html
The above is mainly to George but can go for Hello as well.
In the article it points out that 0.4 to 1.7% of the unemployment rate can be attributed to unemployment benefits (people staying home and collecting a check versus looking for employment).
You also have people like Hello’s friend that don’t really want to adjust to this new economy. They don’t want to do a new line of work or the same for less pay. Those are the people that can be employed but don’t seek gainful employment.
You also have the people that are on the cusp of retiring and instead of transitioning to a new job or career take themselves out of the working force by collecting early retirement from SS.
Lot of factors play into this. In my field we’re desperate to find people to fill slots but can’t find any that’ll punch all the right tickets (mixture of experience, education, certification, trustworthiness, etc.) So, we operate at less than our maximum economic effeciency.
So, while I buy into the sandwich that El Guapo says I’m biting into I also understand that lazy deadbeats are only a small part of the overall problem. Would encouring those people to get back into the labor market (even if it’s cooking my burger at McDonalds) by cutting off unemployment and thus taking the food off there table… Sure. I can buy into that arguement. Otherwise, we are allowing a moral hazard to exist where people can ‘take the summer off’ and not worry about their bills because the govt’s got them covered.
I have no doubt that there are bums and loafers among the ranks of those collecting unemployment checks. They have always been there and always will be there. However, the vast majority of the unemployed want desperately to find work again.
First, let’s throw Beck under the bus where he belongs. To make a point about the unemployed, he sets up a straw man that virtually everyone opposes. This is a group of lunatics composed of communists, socialists, SEIU, etc. Attack them, get viewers on your side, and then blame the nearly ten percent of Americans who are unemployed by association. Anyone with an IQ above freezing and basic knowledge of rhetoric and argumentation can see through this tactic in an instant.
Unemployment benefits are not social welfare. They represent insurance that both employees and employers pay to provide protection against unemployment. Saying that people should not receive payments is tantamount to saying that if you are a beneficiary on a life insurance policy, but don’t really need the money, you should not receive the payment when the insured dies.
People are unemployed for the most part because of a dismal economic situation caused by corruption and mismanagement by government and large financial institutions. We’ve discussed the causes of the financial collapse and the Great Recession elsewhere in the blog so I won’t repeat all of that here.
Where were all of these bums and loafers prior to the crash when the economy was doing well and the unemployment rate was significantly below where it needed to be for full employment?
“Go get a job” is mantra often heard during times such as these. I agree with Beck that people should take a job that pays less than they might want, or is not as rewarding as they might hope, rather than remain unemployed. However, the above-mentioned corruption in government and business makes that all but impossible.
As I have written in this blog repeatedly, the illegal immigration problem is driven by employers hiring people not eligible to work in the United States, and paying them less than a fair market wage with no benefits and skirting payments into unemployment. This depresses wages in areas that would otherwise be reasonable employment for Americans to levels that makes taking such work impossible.
There is no job Americans won’t do. There are only jobs Americans won’t do for poverty-level compensation. Crack down on illegal employers, make them pay fair market wages, obey labor laws, pay FICA and unemployment premiums, and the unemployment rate would drop at least two or three percentage points immediately.
Bottom line, Beck is nothing but a propagandist who knows nothing about economics and what’s going on in the United States. Moreover, he is serving as a mouthpiece for corporations who want to continue enjoying the benefits of cheap illegal labor. When was the last time you heard Beck, Corey Stewart, or anyone like them even mention cracking down on illegal employers to help get unemployed Americans back to work? Trust me, you won’t.
Unemployment insurance life insurance. With life insurance I have the option to buy it or not. With unemployment insurance my employer is REQUIRED to ‘buy’ it for me when they could’ve simply have given me that share, split it with me or kept it for themselves.
* Other states have the employee/employer pay a share into the system. Virginia taxes the employer only.
NTK, define what you mean by ‘fair market wage’ as I believe it doesn’t fall into my definition – a wage that is negotiated in good faith by both a prospective employer and employee for a service devoid of government regulation.
The blog killed my “” from above. It should be in between unemployment insurance and life insurance to show that they are “not the same”.
Question – what’s going to happen when the current benefits extension runs out?
We are going to have the same exact discussion at the end of the current extension. GOP will want it to be paid for, the Dems will claim the GOP doesn’t care about people. All the while nothing is being done about the real issue. That unemployment has been stuck around 9.5% for months and months and months.
Didn’t Obama promise that spending a TRILLION dollars wouldn’t let it get about 8%?
Didn’t Nancy Pelosi promise that passing Obamacare would instantly create over 400,000 jobs and over 4 MILLION later on? It’s been 9 months now…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/25/pelosi_health_reform_will_create_400000_jobs_almost_immediately.html
Hello, I was just beginning to think that you were participating in dialogue…until I read comment #10 and all the bashing started. I don’t recall anyone ‘promising’ anything. And its irrelevant.
I think you should turn in the person who is cheating on the unemployment benefits. It shouldn’t be about how we feel about people. What if the person I hired lacked documentation but my child loved them and had bonded with them? Wouldn’t you tell me to turn them in?
Yes, there are scofflaws out there. We have all known them. My stepson has some living out across the street from him, just living pretty. It enrages him. But…I think the cheaters are vastly outnumbered by the people who really can’t find work.
Young people can adjust and adapt. Older workers can just go out and start swinging a pick axe. And even some usual jobs people think of getting aren’t really available. Areas like Detroit are just horrible. If you have a job, you had better hang on it it.
@hello
Yes, but saying that you have “seen it with your own eyes” could be misleading. Is your experience based on a cohort of one? If so, it is like saying, “I once saw an indian walking single file, therefore all indians walk single file.” Note what marinm has said, “In the article it points out that 0.4 to 1.7% of the unemployment rate can be attributed to unemployment benefits (people staying home and collecting a check versus looking for employment).”
He further makes my point about skill sets when he writes: “Lot of factors play into this. In my field we’re desperate to find people to fill slots but can’t find any that’ll punch all the right tickets (mixture of experience, education, certification, trustworthiness, etc.) So, we operate at less than our maximum economic effeciency.”
Very complicated and non-ending.
“What if the person I hired lacked documentation but my child loved them and had bonded with them? Would’t you tell me to turn them in?”
Odd, I haven’t heard of you telling TWINAD to turn her husband in.
What bashing are you talking about anyway? Obama told the American people that passing ‘Stimulus’ would keep unemployment under 8%. Barney Frank even called Obama ‘Dumb’ for saying so: http://amerpundit.com/2010/08/18/frank-obama-was-dumb-to-predict-unemployment-below-8/
It’s funny how when you see Obama and Pelosi comments straight from their own mouths and someone points it out it’s ‘bashing’. Trust me, they ‘bash’ themselves plenty with their own words Moon, I’m just pointing out their lies. If that’s ‘bashing’ them then so be it.
Plus, what do I do to turn her in? She just hasn’t been ‘looking’ for a job because she doesn’t have to, she is getting a check every week from uncle Sam. What law has she broken?
She is taking money and she has not looked for a job. You obviously have her ss number if you employee her.
Are you married to this woman? Didn’t think so. Twinad is married to her husband. She also isn’t on here talking about how he is cheating the system. He works hard in their business and they pay taxes. They are cheating no one and it is all a matter of paperwork.
I do think you would advise me to turn in my child care person who simply lacks documentation but you don’t see a similar moral equivalency over someone cheating Virginians over a thousand dollars a month.
Does she file taxes and does she pay taxes on that money she is getting from the state?
As for Obama and Pelosi, why can’t you just have a discussion without bringing them up? You just have to take a swipe. Also, surely you are mature enough to know that elected officials really cannot create jobs without bringing back the New Deal. I don’t think they promised. I think their goal was to have certain things happen.
@marinm
By “fair market wage” I mean a wage determined by supply and demand, without government failing to enforce labor laws and turning a blind eye to employment of people not eligible for employment in the United States to reduce labor costs for businesses.
I hope you don’t advocate returning to no regulation of the labor market, including child labor, workplace safety, unemployment insurance and other advances agreed to for decades by both Republicans and Democrats.
What law has she broken? She is making fraudulent claiims that she is looking for work and she is not. She has to submit paper work every 2 weeks. Obviously she isn’t being truthful.
Jesus, and you are worried about an illegal immigrant or 2? It is cheating and stealing.
An illegal immigrant or 2? How about and illegal immigrant or 20 MILLION. Why am I so worried about an “illegal immigrant or 2”, for the safety of my family.
There has already been a murder behind the 7-11 down the street from my house not too long ago and just the other day someone was stabbed in an attempted robbery at the same 7-11. So, with a 16 month old son and a wife I am worried about an “illegal immigrant or 2” as you put it. My safety and that of my family is at risk. You can sit in your nice little neighborhood and judge me all you want Moon, I don’t care. I live in the thick of it, I have to worry about it, you don’t.
Here is a video on the requirements for unemployment insurance.
http://www.vec.virginia.gov/vecportal/unins/insunemp.cfm
Video on how it all works:
NTK,
Those regulations act as a constaint on the free market so where possible and wise to do so, I would advocate dropping those regulations.
Good answer on the fair market wage.. I thought you meant ‘minimum wage’ and/or other regulatory schemes to exact a certain wage for a type of service. Bravo, sir.
George, even I concede that the issue can’t simply be solved by flogging deadbeats or kicking illegals out of the country as we have a system issue that needs to be fixed. And, part of that is looking at employment as we do housing – we had a ‘bubble’ in employment. We had high wages and low unemployment. Maybe our new economy has to deal with higher employment and lower wages as a matter of course? Maybe the old 100K earner is really only worth 80K.
We need to accept that employment may not get to Clinton/Bush era employment for 10-20 years and adjust lives accordingly. Even when things were good I don’t think unemployment was under 5%..
If I was an employer, a rate of 9% means I can either squeeze current staff for more productivity on the treat of them joining that 9-10% OR I can hire in people at the wages *I* would want to pay them. 🙂
@marinm
marinm, go back and reread Adam Smith and other works on free market economics. In particular, read Adam Smith’s “Theory of Moral Sentiments.” “Theory” preceded “Wealth of Nations” and laid out the context of a free market economy. Smith never advocated allowing a “free market” to exploit children or to pursue other measures inimical to everyone’s well-being. In fact, if I gave a copy of “Theory” to those who consider themselves advocates of a free market with Smith’s name taken off of it, they would likely ascribe its authorship to Karl Marx or someone in that vein. Smith never supported allowing firms to do whatever they wanted regardless of the social consequences. In fact, Smith’s original discipline was moral and ethical philosophy.
Moreover, most advocates of a free market have never even read the key sections of Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” Smith wrote, for example:
“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” (“The Wealth of Nations,” Book V, Chapter 2, Article I: Taxes upon the Rent of House)
Yes, regulations act as a constraint on free behavior (note, not free markets). Markets are not free if one side of the equation is able to exploit the other, as in firms that can demand people work for low wages, no benefits or as children. Firms have the ability to do this in the absence of regulation because of dispersed negotiating power. This imbalance is addressed through unionization or government regulation. I tend to prefer regulation because unions often become as corrupt and manipulative of their members as the firms do of their employees.
So you actually want to repeal child labor laws because they are a “constraint” on employers? Do you advocate also completely free flows of labor including unrestricted immigration that allows anyone and everyone to enter the United States to compete for jobs? All such restrictions act as a constraint on markets and raise the price of labor. The result is people being able to earn a living on their own without resorting to public assistance.
Your way of eliminating essentially all regulations would have many Americans living permanently at the poverty level and/or being dependent on public support to some degree. In the worst case, you get a situation like Tsarist Russia where communists were able to mobilize the working people and throw off any semblance of a free market.
I favor reasonable government regulation to make free labor markets work for everyone. That includes child labor, worker safety, unemployment insurance, restrictions on immigration that prevent immigrants from depressing wage levels, and other commonsense measures. If you oppose this, you are placing yourself far out of even the mainstream Republican consensus.
Most of the uninformed, uneducated rubbish about “free markets” from people like Glen Beck bears no resemblance to the writings of the originators of free market ideas, such as Adam Smith. It’s mostly excuse making and propaganda to cover for corporations that buy political influence to get their own way at the expense of the rest of us. Not only is this behavior not the “free market,” it moves us even farther away from a system people such as Adam Smith would recognize as free, competitive enterprise.
You’re right that Smith showed a more moral view vice what a lot of people will push as free markets. I don’t deny that. I embrace it. But, since we don’t have that type of economic system here in the US I think it’s short sighted to say that the outcome will swing that far away from employees.
I will debate a few points you’ve made because they’re not really centered on Smith but on our system today.
You mention that markets are not free if one side of the equation is able to exploit the other and you assume that employers will [always] be the ones on the winning side. But, what of the boom years we enjoyed? Employees were constantly jumping ship from employer to employer. Salaries were climbing. Benefits such as ‘pet insurance’ became in vogue. Did not the pendulum swing in favor of employees? With economic cycles being what they are employers now have the command position. That’s not to say it won’t come back in a few years..
Additionally on that point what if I am willing to take 80% of your pay for the same job? Sure it hurts you but what if that salary is a 20% bump for me? Is the employer taking advantage of me or am I taking advantage of the employer?
I agree with you WRT unions and corruption.
I agree that regulation is preferable to unionization.
Your immigration question is a very good and juicy one. I think a classic pure capitalism ideal is that labor is labor. Regardless of it being ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ makes no difference to the employer. However, I disagree with that position. Much like a child requires a ‘work permit’ in order to work I don’t see any issue with the government regulation of the labor force in such a manner. My belief is that a company or government should not reward criminal behavior so allowing an illegal to be hired and work for a company is the same as aiding a criminal. The last point in your paragraph speaks to government assistance which I believe is denied anyone (or should be denied) of illegal status.
I don’t see how eliminating all regulations (I didn’t say that) will lead to the mobilization of the working class against government. We can look at our own Industrial Revolution to see that what you propose did not occur.
Our definition of reasonable government regulation may differ but I do believe some laws should exist. We need to collectively figure out which laws serve a vital public interest and which ones are mearly punitive for the sake of being that way or were put in place to put an artificial limit on an activity that may no longer be needed.
For example; I see it as reasonable for the govt to say; we will only fish 100M pounds of crab per year because we need our crab grounds to repopulate. That obviously puts a constraint on the market but it does so to protect the ability for crabbers to continue to use those grounds into the future.
Something less reasonable would be to require a person that wants to catch a few crabs for his own personal consumption a ‘fishing license’. I think that’s unreasonable.
To your last para, you make a lot of good points and then you toss them out with this last comment. While I’m not a fan of Beck (I think he’s an entertainer and not a journalist) the guy has his own opinion and his ratings show that he has a large number of ‘followers’. Sure you might not agree with him but do you really have to go with the ‘uneducated’ remark? You also make a point to talk about the 1A rights of corporations. I agree with that ruling. We can talk about that in a different thread – if you wish.
Lastly, we will never, ever get to anything close to what Smith visioned. It ain’t gonna happen here in the US of A.
@marinm
Saying that we don’t have the same sort of economic system Adam Smith wrote of is, in effect, negating the contemporary relevance of everything he wrote. Technology has certainly advanced since Adam Smith’s time but I think otherwise he is still very relevant to us. Relevant, taken as a whole as in what he wrote in both books; not quoted selectively to make an ideological point.
I think we could get very close to the sort of system Smith envisioned but it would require the political will to eliminate money and corrupt influence-buying from the political process.
Regarding our industrial revolution and avoiding socialism/communism, I would point again to some rereading; American history in this case. Reforms by the “progressives” Beck seems to hate so much, such as Republican Teddy Roosevelt, and unionization avoided such a transformation here. We had our share of unrest and the socialists made some inroads before dying out as a viable political force in the United States. It was the very regulation you oppose, among other factors, that helped save the United States from leftist revolutions.
Beck is not the person to whom anyone should turn to learn about any of this. His knowledge is based on sporadic reading of a few selected works and political propaganda. He has never studied history systematically or thoroughly, and has little or no understanding of the broad array of forces and events that made the United States what it is today. One example is his comparison of Teddy Roosevelt to the loony leftists today just because both used the term “progressive.” “Progressives” of the early 20th century bear no resemblance to the nutcase leftists that call themselves “progressive” today.
Do you support unrestricted immigration or not?
NTK, you’ve misread much of what I wrote about Smith and the context so I ask you to re-read what I wrote.
To your question – no. I am in full support of using any and all means including lethal force to protect our national borders.
Glenn Beck was telling stories of tremendous Indian cities all over North America today and about their writings. I thought the Seminoles were the only Indians with an actual written language.
The person who kicks back and collects unemployment insurance rather than look for a job doesn’t affect the unemployment rate. The job that said person otherwise would have taken will be filled by one of the other many unemployed persons. The net effect on the unemployment rate is zero. During a time of full employment the result would obviously be different.
The person who works a job as a babysitter and doesn’t report said so she can collect unemployment benefits commits fraud.
@Moon-howler
@marinm
Moon – I didn’t see that show but think what Beck was likely doing was discussing his Mormon faith and presenting it as history. I want to be very careful here because I have many Mormon friends and respect their beliefs even though I do not share many of them. In addition, Mitt Romney is on my short list of candidates to support for President in 2012. His Mormon faith does not bother me, any more than I would criticize Glen Beck for being a person of faith. A Mormon could describe this much better than I can, but as I understand their beliefs, North America was populated prior to the arrival of Europeans by advanced societies who were descended from the ancient tribes of Israel. I have a hard time with this assertion because there is no archeological evidence to support it.
The problem here is not Beck’s faith but his presenting his religious beliefs as objective history. If any Mormons are reading I would appreciate reading their take on this also.
marinm – after you have actually read “The Wealth of Nations” and the “Theory of Moral Sentiments” we’ll discuss this further. Both are available on Amazon. I used to teach a college course in economic philosophy and history before my life went in other directions. I always had little patience with students who tried to bluff their way through discussions of important works they had not read.
I don’t support killing anyone (lethal force), but I think we agree that immigration policy should put the interests of American workers (citizens and legal residents) first, and consider the cost of labor for corporations and the desire of non-Americans to immigrate of secondary importance.
Agreed, NTK. I thought that also although I could not remember the exact details of that part of Mormon theology. I used to live next door to a Mormon family and the kids all practiced on me (ministering to others) because I was considered a hopeless case. That was too many years ago to remember the details though.
I don’t think Indian mounds have a darn thing to do with cities. It made me wonder if Beck knew how small an Indian mound is. He spoke like we were talking about mountains instead of small hills. And I agree, the problem is not with the faith. I find the Mormon faith intellectually fascinating. I find him presenting it as history and not describing it as his faith to be disingenuous and dishonest.
On borders, I think all nations have the right to defend their borders and to say who comes in to the country. I think it is especially critical to pay close attention to the border towns where so much violence is taking place. That is the real danger. Way too much emphasis is being placed on Juan the dishwasher who, once in country goes by the rules and not enough attention is being paid to an unrelated problem which is the horrible drug violence.
NTK,
Reviewing what I wrote and what you wrote and having a third party that I trust read both I concede that I shouldn’t have argued from the perspective of Smith.
I’m not wrong on the substance of my arguements and those can be debated back and forth but when I’m wrong, I’m wrong.
@marinm
Thanks marinm. Intellectual honesty is always appreciated.
@hello
Has does an undocumented person qualify for unemployment? Does she have a real or a fake social security number? Are you paying your share of social security for this person? It seems to me both of you are breaking the law–fraud and failure to pay social security tax. AND you are perpetuating the illegal immigration problem.
@Moon-howler
Actually it was the Cherokees who had a written language develope by Sequoyah. It was a syallabary; i.e., the characters represent syllables. Came into being in the frst half of the 19th century. Cherokees also had a newspaper, the Cherokee Phoenix.
Oops, Sorry George. Did the Seminoles have a language also or not?
@Moon-howler
Not exactly. There doesn’t seem to be anything that is distinctly “Seminole” since they speak mainly Creek–the Seminoles were originially Creeks who went to Florida. They also spoke a language related to the Muscogees (where Muskogee, Oklahoma got its name) called Mikasuki–a blend of Choctaw and Chickasaw (Choctaw OK and Chickasa OK). The difference is the Cherokees had a written language. As you may recall, there were five “civilized” tribes–Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaw, Creeks and Seminoles–mostly living in Oklahoma today but There are Florida Seminoles and a large group of Cherokees in the Carolinas and Georgia.