Friday, March 5, 2010
Senator Bunnings Universe (3/15)
Where do you stand? If the unemployed cannot get benefits, should we let them starve?? After all, they deserve it---they aren't productive and contributing to society. If they had only listened to the government and teachers, they would have gotten a good education and they would be more employable.......
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There need to be fewer unemployed in the first place. How about stuffing more of that welfare money into long-term, sustainable programs, instead of short-term programs that will run out and leave the unemployed, still unemployed? The unemployed don't always "deserve it," but to the same token, there is always work to be found, it just depends on what you're willing to do. Also, a strong education (human capital) does not guarantee a job. It helps, but it will not stop a company from firing when it cannot sustain it's input of labor (which takes up the largest portion of a firms costs).
ReplyDeleteI believe that unemployment is a great thing for when you first loose a job. During a recession or depression there are less jobs because corporations cannot pay the employees, but that does not mean that there are not jobs open. If we continue to pay people who are fired for a long period of time, they will not go and find a job. There are always jobs open it just depends on how badly you want to work and how hard. As Erika said we should invest in long term instead of short term welfare programs. This would allow for small amounts of money to be paid to the unemployed so they can still purchase what they need, but it will not be enough to support a family.
ReplyDeleteIan, you misunderstand me. I'd prefer the money to go into programs which create jobs, rather than welfare programs which pay the unemployed.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the issue is with a moral discrepancy. The Declaration of Independance grants every citizen the right to "the Pursuit of Happiness." In my opinion, that gives people the obligation to go out and get or find happiness through sustainability. They shouldn't be served happiness. Now say you own a company. A company of janitors. You have 100 janitors working for you, and you need to lay off 20 of them because you can't afford their wages. Are you going to fire them randomly, or based on merit? You'll keep your best 80 janitors and fire the 20 least compitent. Those 20 janitors may be sole providers for large families, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't good enough at their jobs to keep them. It is each individual's responsibility to be the best worker they can and to not get fired. It is not the government's responsibility to allow people to retreat to lives of sloth and inactivity because of their rank incompitence. When Senators and Representatives try to increase unemployment benefits to the the incompitent masses, they are urging their constituents to aim low. They are teaching that you don't have to work for your money, and that the government will always be there to cover your ass. That's not what our money should be spent on.
ReplyDeleteI'd have to agree with Moshe's central assertion on this one: that, more or less, America will provide you with he means to pursuit happiness, but will not force those means upon you, therefore leaving it up to you to take advantage of them! If one were to think strictly economics, yes! it would be beneficial to throw them in the hole that America also dumps its money in to burn it, never to be seen again- but that is a whole other topic, he he. I think we need to specify that here we are only talking about the long-term unemployed, and not the frictionally or structurally unemployed, for, we can hopefully assume, they are not as lazy as those who do not seek jobs and live solely on unemployment money. The lazy and long-term unemployed, though, need to be given serious cuts in their payments so they can feel the choke hold of what a sloth-bound life does to the social animal, and maybe then they will be motivated to get back out there and work! We need to bring some just moral virtues back to the social culture of today's America, for if we don't, then surely the few we have now will vanish.
ReplyDeleteI think you have to fend for yourself. There are jobs out there if you look and you do what you need to survive. Granted, this is coming from my eyes in which I have never been in that desperate situation, I have always been able to wake up in a bed and go get whatever I want from the kitchen. It is hard to say that the government should give hand outs after hand outs to these people.
ReplyDeleteIt really is hard to say -
Increasing and extending unnemployment benefits sends the message: You don't have to work to work for your money because the government will be there to bail you out. You learn about this in psychology, if you know mom and dad will always bail you out then what is there to worry about? There are always jobs out there, you simply have to be willing to work. However, if the government is handing out money, why take the crappy jobs? And it is not just about education, you have to be willing to work, and work hard, no matter what the job.
ReplyDeleteIf they aren't meeting those standards and they choose to be unproductive then why do they deserve it?
We can't just let people starve.
ReplyDeleteNot all people who are unemployed have been unproductive members of society. Some people worked really hard and got laid off because of the recession we're in. There needs to be some unemployment benefits for people, because we're in a recession. If and when we start experiencing economic growth, there's not going to be enough people to employ to fuel the growth if we let them all die now.
The hope is that the high unemployment that exists now is only temporary, and will go away. In the meantime, we need to extend benefits until those people can get jobs and be productive again.
First of all, this article was incredibly biased and showed the true devilish and untruthful ways of Mr. Krugman. From now on, I refuse to read or watch anything he says becuase of his incredibly skewed and unprofessional point of view. Actually, his writings should be used as an example of what terrible journalism looks like. I do not remember reading about how the Federal Government NEEDS to give unemployment benefits in the United States Constitution. I am sick and tired of hearing lines like "We can't just let people starve." Give me a freaking break. If you want to live in a utopia where the government fixes everything, I'll buy your plane ticket to France.
ReplyDeletePeople who are unemployed may very have an education, they just may have trouble finding jobs. Isn't that the point of having different types of unemployment? What about cyclical unemployment? This results in unemployment because of a lack of demand for goods. Demand can determine whether or not people have jobs, so we have no right to say that those who don't have jobs are lazy. A rocket scientist could very well have trouble getting a job because of the economy. I am all for independence and fending for yourself, but that can only be taken to a certain degree. We cannot say that everyone who doesn't have a job is lazy. I believe that under certain circumstances, we should not let those people who are truly trying starve.
ReplyDelete-Allison Silverstone