Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (9417)	9/13/2009 3:44:33 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

>> I don't have a problem with unemployment compensation. For one, it's a kind of paid insurance. I have a couple of problems with it -- a) It provides a substantial incentive for people NOT to work. As mentioned, I've spoken with a person recently who is drawing unemployment and has clearly indicated the intent is to stay on it as long as possible because he can as much (maybe more) on unemployment as he could in elsewhere in this lousy job market. b) The tax is a disincentive to rehiring, particular on those who need the work most (those who make relatively low wages). Take a guy who can earn 25K/year -- after laying off employees, an employer may know from experience his unemployment rate is going to go to 6% or 7%. To hire an employee back is going to cost him $600 or more the first year, and for that, he'll try to make do on fewer employees (particularly, until he sees some economic growth coming back). That's not to say that I think some kind of "safety net" shouldn't be there -- I think if these two problems could be addressed, somehow, the result would be better. The practice of extended unemployment benefits out arbitrarily with huge sums of government money really isn't a good idea IMO. I guess "unemployment reform" is a job for another time ;)