**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

If we assume all the unemployed are unemployable, you would be right. What we have seen with regards to how employment changes based on recessions and labor reforms, by large majority, most of the unemployed when the rate is not very low are not unemployable.

This is why I draw a distinction between "unemployed" and "long term unemployed". Most unemployed people are employable, also most unemployed people want a job. I'm talking about the minority who have no intention of working.

I think even banana is happy with a benefit that keeps people afloat between jobs. The "safety net".

[wufwugy]

This is why I draw a distinction between "unemployed" and "long term unemployed". Most unemployed people are employable, also most unemployed people want a job. I'm talking about the minority who have no intention of working.

Most of those are people like stay-at-home moms with children and disabled. Most that don't have jobs because they get enough welfare to be happy enough to not work would work if they didn't get the welfare.

I think even banana is happy with a benefit that keeps people afloat between jobs. The "safety net".

One of the main reasons for difficulty in-between jobs is the existence of the safety net in the first place. It disincentivizes savings and other smart behavior. Unemployment insurance is a good thing when the policyholder pays for it.

[OngBonga]

Most of those are people like stay-at-home moms with children and disabled. Most that don't have jobs because they get enough welfare to be happy enough to not work would work if they didn't get the welfare.

Ok well this is a slightly different argument to the one I'm engaged in. There's probably a cross-over in the demographics though.

I mean I don't think there's many people arguing that a mother with a disabled child is milking the system by not getting a job. Also, lots of stay-at-home mothers have partners who are working, so the state at least gets a rebate in the form of tax. It gets a little more tricky to analyse these people and their circumstances.

I'm talking mostly about the 800k or so people here who have been unemployed for longer than 6 months, and thus are deemd "long term unemployed". I don't know how many stay-at-home mothers are in this figure, but the bulk of this figure is single men with drink and/or drug problems.

One of the main reasons for difficulty in-between jobs is the existence of the safety net in the first place. It disincentivizes savings and other smart behavior. Unemployment insurance is a good thing when the policyholder pays for it.

Sure, but this seems like a minor problem compared to the problems we'd face if there were no safety net at all. Very few people are smart or disciplined enough to save... in fact, not many people have the disposable income to be saving anything significant. How many people can really afford to put 6 months of bills and expenses in a biscuit tin under the bed?

[wufwugy]

Sure, but this seems like a minor problem compared to the problems we'd face if there were no safety net at all. Very few people are smart or disciplined enough to save... in fact, not many people have the disposable income to be saving anything significant. How many people can really afford to put 6 months of bills and expenses in a biscuit tin under the bed?

Everybody used to save. 100 years ago in the US you would be hard-pressed to find a family that didn't save. Look at China today. These poor, uneducated, and often people with a history of childhood malnourishment have savings rates of up to 90%.

People don't save today because the government does it for them*. And the government does it VERY stupidly. Social Security and Medicare are absolutely idiotic retirement strategies, for example.

*Not only does the government doing the "saving" for people encourage people to act stupidly, it does that mostly for the LEAST CAPABLE of people, thereby increasing the gap between rich/poor and smart/stupid. Even with government "savings" programs, higher intelligence/cultured people still save similarly to how they would if the government didn't intervene. It's the lower intelligence/culture people who stop saving when the government intervenes.


Ong, question: you're not a fan of being a pawn of the government right? Government intervention into welfare is arguably the single biggest factor into turning members of the populace into pawns of the government. What do you think about that?

[OngBonga]

Ong, question: you're not a fan of being a pawn of the government right? Government intervention into welfare is arguably the single biggest factor into turning members of the populace into pawns of the government. What do you think about that?

I think there's no getting away from being a pawn. If you stay at home, you're a pawn. Go to work and pay tax, you're a pawn. The only way to not be a pawn is to be a bigger piece. Or don't play chess. I try not to play, but that's near impossible.

Stop feeding the willful homeless and like magic they'll get real damn ambitious.

Yes, but "ambitious" doesn't mean "get a job", it might mean "rob someone", because they might not be able to get a job.

Are you going to employ someone who has had no fixed address for five years? How about no references or qualifications? Perhaps someone who has been in prison? Fair play if you say yes, you're in the minority.

It's not just about creating jobs. It's not just about creating incentives for people to get jobs. We need to create incentives for employers to give jobs to those who are left behind. This sounds like it could get expensive, like government subsidised wages... might as well just have unemployment benefits ffs.

They're unambitious largely because they're not working.

I don't think so. They're unambitious for a number of reasons... drugs, qualifications, traumatic life, not quite right in the head, whatever. I couldn't tell you why I'm unambitious. I always have been, even when working. I think it's just my nature.

[wufwugy]

This is my last post on this topic. I'll give you the last word if you'd like.

I think there's no getting away from being a pawn. If you stay at home, you're a pawn. Go to work and pay tax, you're a pawn. The only way to not be a pawn is to be a bigger piece. Or don't play chess. I try not to play, but that's near impossible.

Let's put a stop to that by limiting government intrusion into personal lives.

Yes, but "ambitious" doesn't mean "get a job", it might mean "rob someone", because they might not be able to get a job.

Welfare reduces the supply of jobs. Regulations and bad monetary policy reduces the supply of jobs. Taxes reduces the supply of jobs.

Jobs were PLENTIFUL back before the government starting fucking peoples lives up. And the crazy thing is that productivity was garbage then compared to now. The potential supply of jobs today is vastly greater than the supply of people, but we will only get there if government stops hurting people.

Are you going to employ someone who has had no fixed address for five years? How about no references or qualifications? Perhaps someone who has been in prison? Fair play if you say yes, you're in the minority.

There are plenty of employers that would do this.

It's not just about creating jobs. It's not just about creating incentives for people to get jobs. We need to create incentives for employers to give jobs to those who are left behind.

The ONLY way to do this without leaving MORE people behind is for employers to benefit from the labor more than it costs. The best known mechanism to do this is the free market. If you choose to involve the government, unless you have discovered something that nobody else has (how to have government only reduce asymmetric information in markets), you will increase the costs of labor and thereby you will share responsibility in people being left behind.

I don't think so. They're unambitious for a number of reasons... drugs, qualifications, traumatic life, not quite right in the head, whatever. I couldn't tell you why I'm unambitious. I always have been, even when working. I think it's just my nature.

Economists model this stuff. Your lack of ambition is directly tied to how much money the government gives you.

[Poopadoop]

Economists model this stuff. Your lack of ambition is directly tied to how much money the government gives you.

Do economists model the fact if their money was cut off some proportion of those on benefits would become homeless people, and another proportion would become criminals? Or do they just assume they'd all become wage earners?