Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

To think I joked about this....


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#51 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 10 February 2012 - 09:17 PM

better for whom?

It would be better for the employers obviously to get labor at half the price, but it isn't better for the worker.

Not only that, but if the job is over in two weeks, they're not going to pay you $30 an hour to just stand around for 2 weeks. When the job is over, you're done.

If you pay doctors half as much, will people get sick twice as often?

#52 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,796 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 09:22 PM

I actually see lots of smaller employers who do mind paying it, as well as workman's comp rates for some professions being prohibitive.

Of course people mind paying it, but when you're on the receiving end, it's better for you to spread the lie that others don't mind giving you their money.

#53 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 10 February 2012 - 09:28 PM

I explained how it benefits contractors in the construction industry.

And sure, nobody likes paying for anything when it comes right down to it, but the benefits to a large contractor outweighs the costs.

Do you really think the system would be set up the way it is if there was no benefit at all to the larger employers? (I don't)

And you're the one lying, Joke, when you constantly accuse me of lying.

#54 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,796 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 09:56 PM

Do you really think a large contractor wouldn't be happier paying $30 an hour rather than $60 for doing the same job? derpderp

#55 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 24,313 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 10:02 PM

I explained how it benefits contractors in the construction industry.

And sure, nobody likes paying for anything when it comes right down to it, but the benefits to a large contractor outweighs the costs.

Do you really think the system would be set up the way it is if there was no benefit at all to the larger employers? (I don't)

And you're the one lying, Joke, when you constantly accuse me of lying.


The Walmart of contractors.

#56 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 10 February 2012 - 11:10 PM

Do you really think a large contractor wouldn't be happier paying $30 an hour rather than $60 for doing the same job? derpderp


I'm pretty sure you're confusing two separate issues.

Of course a contractor would love to have workers volunteer for free if they would, but we don't.

Contractors want to pay workers as little as possible, which is why they like unemployment. Unemployment keeps the cost of labor down, and unemployment insurance keeps workers from moving to another area for work.

If people move out of an area for work, the unemployment rate in that area is lowered forcing employers to pay workers more. It's simple supply vs. demand.

So, in a nutshell, unemployment insurance keeps the cost of labor down.

http://en.wikipedia....oyment#Benefits

http://upload.wikime...ro_Stiglitz.svg

In the Shapiro-Stiglitz model workers are paid at a level where they do not shirk. This prevents wages from dropping to market clearing levels. Full employment cannot be achieved because workers would shirk if they were not threatened with the possibility of unemployment. The curve for the no-shirking condition (labeled NSC) goes to infinity at full employment.



#57 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,796 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 12:08 AM

Unemployment insurance costs states and tax payers tens of billions of dollars.


Unemployment benefits are payments made by the state or other authorized bodies to unemployed people. Benefits may be based on a compulsory para-governmental insurance system. Depending on the jurisdiction and the status of the person, those sums may be small, covering only basic needs (thus a form of basic welfare), or may compensate the lost time proportionally to the previous earned salary. They often are part of a larger social security scheme.

Unemployment benefits are generally given only to those registering as unemployed, and often on conditions ensuring that they seek work and do not currently have a job.


Effect on state budgets
Another issue with unemployment insurance relates to its effects on state budgets. During recessionary time periods, the number of unemployed rises and they begin to start drawing benefits from the program. The longer the recession lasts, depending on the state’s starting UI program balance, the quicker the state begins to run out of funds. The recession that began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009 has significantly impacted state budgets. According to The Council of State Governments, by March 18, 2011, 32 states plus the Virgin Islands had borrowed nearly $45.7 billion. The Labor Department estimates by the fourth quarter of 2013, as many as 40 states may need to borrow more than $90 billion to fund their unemployment programs and it will take a decade or more to pay off the debt.[41]

http://en.wikipedia....oyment_benefits

#58 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,882 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 11 February 2012 - 12:30 AM

[quote name='Joker']Unemployment insurance costs states and tax payers tens of billions of dollars.


Unemployment benefits are payments made by the state or other authorized bodies to unemployed people. Benefits may be based on a compulsory para-governmental insurance system. Depending on the jurisdiction and the status of the person, those sums may be small, covering only basic needs (thus a form of basic welfare), or may compensate the lost time proportionally to the previous earned salary. They often are part of a larger social security scheme.

Unemployment benefits are generally given only to those registering as unemployed, and often on conditions ensuring that they seek work and do not currently have a job.


Effect on state budgets
Another issue with unemployment insurance relates to its effects on state budgets. During recessionary time periods, the number of unemployed rises and they begin to start drawing benefits from the program. The longer the recession lasts, depending on the state

#59 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 11 February 2012 - 02:23 AM

Just tell the treassury to package some debt in bonds, sell it secondary for the fed to buy and they can "print" more duckets. We can't lose. We'll just print, bomb, ravage and print. It's like our own magic new planet. :gop:

#60 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,882 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 11 February 2012 - 02:33 AM

Just tell the treassury to package some debt in bonds, sell it secondary for the fed to buy and they can "print" more duckets. We can't lose. We'll just print, bomb, ravage and print. It's like our own magic new planet. :gop:


its the holy grail...why ruin it :lol:

#61 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,575 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 06:06 AM

just wanted to add this to the (dead) discussion.

!

#62 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,000 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 01:34 PM

Yeah, I saw that fluff, kris. There was a big-to-do over it on another board.