Turns out $600 extra Unemployment does NOT stop people from going back to work.

[Zan15]

Wow imagine that, an entire party lying about unemployment benefits preventing people from going back to work.

Besides the fact the law says if you refuse to go back to work you lose the benefits or if you are not caught right away you have to pay it back with huge penalties and interest later.

Here we now have a study of the insanity of this lie and the logic at which the republican party is trying to prevent extra unemployment benefits for those most at need (the poor).

While i believe there should be a max up to your max pre unemployment pay, the point of this was to replace pay, help pay for healthcare and stimulate the economy with extra money. The fallacy from the republican party was that this was just unemployment pay.


https://money.yahoo.com/extra-600-in...182827326.html

One big reason critics don’t want to extend the coronavirus unemployment benefits is they’re worried the extra $600 per week will keep Americans from returning to work.

But that’s far from the case, according to a new analysis of workers who made more while unemployed.

Seven in 10 workers who returned to a job in June were making more on unemployment insurance than their previous wages, according to an analysis of the Current Population Survey from Ernie Tedeschi, an economist at Evercore ISI and a former Treasury economist in the Obama administration. Around 65% of those who went back to work in May also took in more from unemployment, he found.

Some Republicans and the White House have been reluctant to support extending the benefits, criticizing the additional aid as a “disincentive” to work, as White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow put it in June.

“We’re paying people not to work,” Kudlow told CNN. “It's better than their salaries would get.”

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Monday that the too-generous bonus is the No. 1 issue that needs to be fixed.


But hey fuck poor people lets just throw more money at FARMS!!!


https://www.kmaland.com/ag/grassley-...9504d0652.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ailouts-359932

Direct farm aid has climbed each year of Trump’s presidency, from $11.5 billion in 2017 to more than $32 billion this year — an all-time high, with potentially far more funding still to come in 2020

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...is/5372654002/

[Milchshake]

Id say the past 40 years have shown conservatives to be absolutely wrong on every economic policy.

• Minimum Wage
• Top End Tax Rates
• Inheritance Tax

Id say they're just projecting their own laziness onto everyone else.

[SirBeef]

Id say the past 40 years have shown conservatives to be absolutely wrong on every economic policy.

• Minimum Wage
• Top End Tax Rates
• Inheritance Tax

Id say they're just projecting their own laziness onto everyone else.

Add to that supply side economics and anything else they claim to be doing for the working class and poor.

[PC2]

You can always give out more money but then you're just adding to a deficit that would shift the burden to the future. There's no free lunch.

[Elegiac]

More interestingly - or, more accurately, depressingly - is some of the posts we're seeing from people for whom the $600 a month stipend is actually in excess of their wages. There's a manifest improvement in morale and quality of life since people have been able to devote time to their hobbies and not worry about a shitty customer service environment for forty to fifty hours a week.

Turns out that Corona does not in fact play by capitalist rules in that it's exposing what a crock of shit the American labor market is.

[Edge-]

You can always give out more money but then you're just adding to a deficit that would shift the burden to the future. There's no free lunch.

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread, which is to debunk the narrative that people getting a livable unemployment wage during a pandemic will mean people won't want to go back to work?

[Elegiac]

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread, which is to debunk the narrative that people getting a livable unemployment wage during a pandemic will mean people won't want to go back to work?

"I have to remind people that unemployment involves the GOVERNMENT involved in the practice of GIVING money to people. Just sayin'."

And then we politely remind them a) taxes exist, and b) that employers pay into unemployment, so it is not in fact a free lunch but is a protection owed to people as a result of a long term payment contract.

We tend to call such plans "insurance" in the private sector.

- - - Updated - - -

You can always give out more money but then you're just adding to a deficit that would shift the burden to the future. There's no free lunch.

Also where was this nonsense concern about the deficit during the last round of tax cuts?

[PC2]

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread, which is to debunk the narrative that people getting a livable unemployment wage during a pandemic will mean people won't want to go back to work?

It's relevant because debunking a highly narrow argument about a few hundred dollars is often seen as a justification for ever-increasing expenditures. Over the long term this just comes down to tax rates and so that is actually the core topic that should be discussed.

[beanman12345]

Oh look, primary color predicting what is gonna happen in the future based on events happening now.

[PC2]

Oh look, primary color predicting what is gonna happen in the future based on events happening now.

Based on inevitable 'causation' and not historical data projection.

[Endus]

You can always give out more money but then you're just adding to a deficit that would shift the burden to the future. There's no free lunch.

Literally no one has ever argued that there is any "free lunch" that comes without any cost to anyone in society. That's a straw man, and it's a highly dishonest one that, at some level, you knew to be a lie as you were choosing to type it out.

Nor does any of this mean we're "shifting the burden to the future", or creating some deficit. We can revamp the tax system to increase revenues from those most able to contribute more, particularly in removing exceptions and loopholes the otherwise exploit, to ensure that revenues still keep pace with expenditures. This is complex in its details, but trivial in its conceptualization. There's really no excuse for pretending that you forgot taxation exists.

[Elegiac]

It's relevant because debunking a highly narrow argument about a few hundred dollars is often seen as a justification for ever-increasing expenditures. Over the long term this just comes down to tax rates and so that is actually the core topic that should be discussed.

The one in which the person who lists Logical Fallacies in their signature explicitly endorses a slippery slope argument.

[Endus]

Based on inevitable 'causation' and not historical data projection.

Literally the only possible way to determine any "inevitable causation" is through the projection of historical data.

You're simply a hypocrite.

[Zan15]

You can always give out more money but then you're just adding to a deficit that would shift the burden to the future. There's no free lunch.

Not giving out money would also add to the deficit.

[PC2]

Literally no one has ever argued that there is any "free lunch" that comes without any cost to anyone in society. That's a straw man, and it's a highly dishonest one that, at some level, you knew to be a lie as you were choosing to type it out.

Nor does any of this mean we're "shifting the burden to the future", or creating some deficit. We can revamp the tax system to increase revenues from those most able to contribute more, particularly in removing exceptions and loopholes the otherwise exploit, to ensure that revenues still keep pace with expenditures. This is complex in its details, but trivial in its conceptualization. There's really no excuse for pretending that you forgot taxation exists.

Indeed on the bolded part and what I'm saying is that should be the actual topic of discussion and not some superfluous topic about how a few hundred dollars doesn't cause people to quit their job and live like kings.

[Edge-]

Indeed on the bolded part and what I'm saying is that should be the actual topic of discussion and not some superfluous topic about how a few hundreds of dollars doesn't cause people to quit there job and live like kings.

Then create a thread for that if you want to discuss it. This thread is discussing the nonsense notion offered by conservatives that the extra $600 a week would keep people from going back to work.

[Endus]

Indeed on the bolded part and what I'm saying is that should be the actual topic of discussion and not some superfluous topic about how a few hundred dollars doesn't cause people to quit there job and live like kings.

You're not the thread police.

You made an argument that implicitly argued that the tax system is inviolable and cannot possible be adjusted to produce more revenue, and thus any increased spending must create a deficit that would be pushed to the future.

That argument was obviously, hilariously incorrect, and now you're trying to avoid admitting how blatantly wrong you were to ever make it.

And no; the thread is about additional social spending. Not tax reform. If you want to talk about the latter and not the former, feel free to go make your own thread to discuss your own preferred topic; it's off-topic here. And not what you were ever discussing, here, either.

[Elegiac]

Then create a thread for that if you want to discuss it. This thread is discussing the nonsense notion offered by conservatives that the extra $600 a week would keep people from going back to work.

I'm sure it'll be a great thread with $600 a week, blackjack, AND hookers.

In fact, forget the blackjack.

[Zan15]

I'm sure it'll be a great thread with $600 a week, blackjack, AND hookers.

In fact, forget the blackjack.

sadly there are a lot of people playing the stock market with that money like a casino....

[Elegiac]

sadly there are a lot of people playing the stock market with that money like a casino....

Yeah I read that article too. More evidence that the DOW is just a made up number of no consequence to most people.