Carney Discusses Unemployment Benefits

[CaptUSA]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/10/carney_unemployment_benefits_could_create_up_to_1_ million_jobs.html

So this is pretty darn asinine. Obviously never read anything about "that which is seen and that which is unseen" (Bastiat)

But I have another question. Forget the idiocy of unemployment extensions, and the moral implications and let me just ask if there's a better way.

Let's say that instead of just extended everyone's benefits past their initial period, the only way you could get an extension would be to work on some public project (labor on a roadway, clean litter, etc.). That way, these people still get some money coming in and government is getting some use out of it as well. I'm sure it would also have the effect of pushing people back to work a whole lot faster.

Again, I know we're against this from a moral perspective, but just a plain utilitarian point - doesn't it make sense to get something for the money being spent?

[eduardo89]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/10/carney_unemployment_benefits_could_create_up_to_1_ million_jobs.html

So this is pretty darn asinine. Obviously never read anything about "that which is seen and that which is unseen" (Bastiat)

But I have another question. Forget the idiocy of unemployment extensions, and the moral implications and let me just ask if there's a better way.

Let's say that instead of just extended everyone's benefits past their initial period, the only way you could get an extension would be to work on some public project (labor on a roadway, clean litter, etc.). That way, these people still get some money coming in and government is getting some use out of it as well. I'm sure it would also have the effect of pushing people back to work a whole lot faster.

Again, I know we're against this from a moral perspective, but just a plain utilitarian point - doesn't it make sense to get something for the money being spent?


I'd much rather that the taxpayer get somethign in return when they pay our unemployment benefits than the status quo. Right now we simply pay people to do nothing, at least if they were forced (well not really forced, you have a choice...accept unemployment payments and do labor, or do nothing and dont get paid) to work we could get things done for cheaper. I say give everyone on welfare the opportunity to work for $8/hour on infrastructure projects or in nursing homes or things like that. If you don't want to work, alright, that's your choice, but don't expect any money.

[DamianTV]

I think that is a better way to do it.

Instead of getting something for nothing, local State Govts that pay people by putting them to work creates Infrastructure and by offering a means of providing food on ones family. I'd like to say that by working, it may cut into the time that a person has to look for a job, but really, what good does that do if there are no jobs out there to be had?

[CaptUSA]

Right. I mean, it wouldn't even have to be full-time. (Ideally, they'd need time for interviews and job searching) But let's say you had to put in 20 hours a week to stay on unemployment? That's 20 hours of useful service and 20 hours you wouldn't have to pay a government worker $30/hr to do the same thing.

[eduardo89]

I think that is a better way to do it.

Instead of getting something for nothing, local State Govts that pay people by putting them to work creates Infrastructure and by offering a means of providing food on ones family. I'd like to say that by working, it may cut into the time that a person has to look for a job, but really, what good does that do if there are no jobs out there to be had?

Yeah that was something I thought about too, but if you structure it as a "show up, work, get paid" sort of this, it should be fine. If you can't make it that day or hour, its fine, but you just don't get paid.

[eduardo89]

Right. I mean, it wouldn't even have to be full-time. (Ideally, they'd need time for interviews and job searching) But let's say you had to put in 20 hours a week to stay on unemployment? That's 20 hours of useful service and 20 hours you wouldn't have to pay a government worker $30/hr to do the same thing.

I think unionzed government employees make much more than that with benefits included.

[CaptUSA]

I think this would be pretty politically acceptable, too. Should a candidate push for this, I think most people would think, "hell, yeah! I have to work for my money, why don't they?". Plus, they know governments are struggling for funds, so why not kill two birds with one stone?

Sorta like the "welfare to work" thing. Of course, the unions would be hard against it, but it would also highlight their hypocrisy.

[pcosmar]

As I remember this has been attempted before. (perhaps a couple times)
It was defeated, and I believe that the slavery argument was used. Mind boggling.

:(

[CaptUSA]

As I remember this has been attempted before. (perhaps a couple times)
It was defeated, and I believe that the slavery argument was used. Mind boggling.

:(

I'm not talking about the original unemployment benefits - although that would make sense, too.

Just the extensions. "You had 6 months to find a job. In the past, we cut off your benefits. Now, we'll extend those benefits for a period of time, but we require 20 hours of community service for each week of extended benefits."

That should kill the slavery argument.

[pcosmar]

That should kill the slavery argument.

It should. But,,
This was tried with welfare. The programs were eventually dropped. I don't think slavery was a valid argument,, only that it was used.

As far as spending all that money. why not give tax breaks for businesses and hire those businesses to do the work.

Looking back on "Make Work" programs of the past, There were both positive and negative results.