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: Alighieri who wrote (17159)	4/20/2010 6:04:15 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

We don't have 10% unemployment suddenly because a few millions people suddenly realized that they could collect unemployment. Just about no one speaking on this point is claiming suddenly. Its not "we have high unemployment now because of unemployment benefits", but rather we always have slightly higher unemployment because of such benefits. And that generally everything else being equal, the more generous your benefits are the more unemployment you get. Countries that have generous unemployment benefits, generous welfare benefits, restrictions on firing people (so employers are more reluctant to hire in the first place), and other such policies have chronically had higher unemployment than the US has had. Now we fairly "suddenly" have high unemployment too, because of the recession. But the claim is not that the recession or our current high unemployment is caused by the benefits, or the extension of the benefits, but rather that such things will at the make the average long term unemployment rate in our country higher than it would otherwise have been.

To: Alighieri who wrote (17159)	4/20/2010 6:33:32 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

An insignificant one. Well, that's a step in the right direction--recognizing both the point on the table and the factuality of the point made. Now, why dismiss it as garbage out of hand? That's not constructive. Constructive is, "well, yes, that's so, but it would be a shame if that minor side effect were interpreted as undermining the notion of providing unemployment insurance." instead of slamming it as garbage. No...i'd say your brain is the kind that sees the negative in things. Not negative. Skeptical. I evaluate everything. If something makes sense, then it makes sense. If it doesn't hold up, it doesn't hold up. I don't care what it is or who claims it. I don't care if it resonates with me or not. All input gets a critical evaluation. There are no sacred cows. That's not negative. That's thoughtful. The world is out to screw you kind of attitude. Where in the world did you get that? That's not where I'm coming from at all. My analysis is detached, rarely personal. First of all, I'm trained to be detached. And secondly, very little of this affects me personally and what does is not all that critical to me. I'm just not personally affected enough to have that attitude. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of people are struggling to find work, care for their family and sincerely contribute to society...to folks like you it's more important to point out that a handful might be "gaming the system"... When analyzing one component of a system, say the impact of a particular incentive on behavior within the system, it's true that other factors don't matter. Critical thinking requires isolating the components. Sloppy thinkers muddle everything together and can't stay on point. If we're discussing folks struggling to find work, then we stay on that point. If we're discussing a perverse incentive in unemployment insurance, then we stay on that point. If we're discussing the intersection between the two, then we stay on that point. It takes skills, discipline, patience, and detachment to do that. Feeling sad that folks are struggling to find work doesn't change the dynamics of the system one bit and serves only to compromise one's ability to analyze it effectively.