Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council did attempt to set the record straight.

Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council did attempt to set the record straight.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/unemployment-insurance-doesnt-raise-jobless-rate/
"Summers, in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, said he was quoted out of context in a story which claimed the benefits extension discourages those out of work from looking for jobs."

I found this article at Unemployed Advocate site http://sites.google.com/site/unemployedadvocate/ under 'Unemployment News' tab.

Tier 5 unemployment benefits: 32000 jobs created won't help most of the ...
Examiner.com
http://news.google.com/news/url?fd=R&sa=T&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.examiner.com%2Fx-27052-Rochester-Unemployment-Examiner~y2010m5d5-Tier-5-unemployment-benefits-32000-jobs-created-wont-help-most-of-the-unemployed-millions&usg=AFQjCNF6J3ybIDlcgn3Bumfp3-MMqo9Vgg

The article was released April 21, 2010, 2 weeks ago, by foxbusiness.com
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/unemployment-insurance-doesnt-raise-jobless-rate/

I'll be sure to check in with the Wall Street Journal more often. I don't recall them reporting this little known fact to the public, and I certainly didn't see his letter being reported by any mainstream media.

This is strong info.
You may want to forward this info to your Congresspersons. Especially those who think we're lazy and who are taking Mr. Summer's statements out of context and using him to justify not expanding EUC/EB benefits.

Special thanks to:
Michael Thornton at Rochester Unemployment Examiner.
Another dude named Michael, who sent the foxbusiness.com link to Michael Thornton.
Unemployed Advocate at http://sites.google.com/site/unemployedadvocate/home
Lawrence Summers for attempting to set the record straight, although it didn't get much attention. He should have made a better effort to get the word out there.

WE NEED TO SLAM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA FOR THEIR SHORTCOMINGS.

Good Macro discussion of this on CNBC's "The Call" this morning

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1540882662&play=1

Sheesh, there it is again...another expert convinced that there are plenty of jobs in spite of the fact that there are way too few jobs. Sure, not having benefits, like not haveing a life preserver, will make us swim harder. But it wont cover the distance before our strength and resources run out. I've already spent my savings, cashed out my IRA, declared bankruptcy, sold my backup car, stopped buying clothes or upkeep on anything, canelled my landline phone, buy generic, lost my health insurance, don't go out to eat or to movies, and applied for every job in my area that I think I can do. My fiancee who has an MBA and who took a twelve dollar per hour job to supplement my income before all this happened is now stuck in that job and is being worked like a dog and can't even afford to replace a ripped skirt or worn out blouse. This isn't affecting only the unemployed. It's affecting the employed too who are having a heck of a time improving their lot. Some of these experts make me wanna rub their noses in it and give them a good swat. The job loss started in 2006, and we've lost probably ten million jobs, with nearly five million new workers added to the work force at the same time, leave a deficit of fifteen million jobs. And those with jobs are hanging onto them. Okay I'm done venting.

Jeff wrote:Sheesh, there it is again...another expert convinced that there are plenty of jobs in spite of the fact that there are way too few jobs. Sure, not having benefits, like not haveing a life preserver, ...

I know. I've become so tired of these dreary self-justifying idiots that I don't even bother to read the articles after the first few lines because we all know what will be said, no matter how nuanced they think they are making it.

I have started to remind myself when I see stuff like that, that Hitler got a lot of free press coverage too, but it didn't quite work out for him in the end.

Im not sure how Hitler networked his way into this (you should make him register here) . What I thought was intersting is that this article (and some of my previous posts on this thread) did articulate both sides of the argument.

This is one of those rare subjects where I think both sides have a point. Im sure what Jeff said about his experience with the job market is true. (and there are hundreds like him) . I also have first hand knowlege of some folks that have avoided a lower paying job they were suited for (and there were other nuiances involved like less convenient working hours) because with UI benefits it pushed them over the line in allowing them to do so.) There are also several press reports to the same . (I dont think there is some huge underground out there loafing on UI benefits, but it only takes a few examples to make a headline) [

The tax payer angst right now is being generated from items like Treas Sec Tim Geithner on Meet the Press this morning bemoaning that Americans "will have to live within their means", while his Administration's party refused to use unspent stimulus or tarp money in lieu of deficit spending to fund this recent EUC extension. That is what is making the exception cases of folks decling work for UI good copy for the media.

sc4ram wrote:

Im not sure how Hitler networked his way into this (you should make him register here) . What I thought was intersting is that this article (and some of my previous posts on this thread) did articulate both sides of the argument.

This is one of those rare subjects where I think both sides have a point. Im sure what Jeff said about his experience with the job market is true. (and there are hundreds like him) . I also have first hand knowlege of some folks that have avoided a lower paying job they were suited for (and there were other nuiances involved like less convenient working hours) because with UI benefits it pushed them over the line in allowing them to do so.) There are also several press reports to the same . (I dont think there is some huge underground out there loafing on UI benefits, but it only takes a few examples to make a headline) [

The tax payer angst right now is being generated from items like Treas Sec Tim Geithner on Meet the Press this morning bemoaning that Americans "will have to live within their means", while his Administration's party refused to use unspent stimulus or tarp money in lieu of deficit spending to fund this recent EUC extension. That is what is making the exception cases of folks decling work for UI good copy for the media.

Among the unemployed, the further down the economic ladder you go, the more people there are. So there's no shortage of people to fill minimum wage jobs, especially with more than a hundred thousand people per month entering the work force. So someone who made say forty grand a year isn't going to negatively impact the workforce by not taking a minimum wage job. It just means greater odds of getting a job for those lower on the ladder. Furthermore, the liklihood of someone used to eight hundred dollars a week who is getting 275 weekly from unemployment, that they are somehow living large is simply absurd. Heck that's nearly a seventy five percent reduction in income. And if someone was only bringing home say 200 dollars a week from a part time job, their unemployment might be 100 dollars which isn't enough to live on. So they too have an incentive to get a job to make more money. Unemployment simply isn't setup to be enough to make a living on. At any rate, Do we teach Boyscouts not to help elderly people across the street because some of those elderly people might have been SOB's in life? Heck no. WE teach them that all old people are like their Grandparents and ought to be helped. Likewise the unemployed.

I dont have any skin in this argument (because its one of those rare subjects where I think both sides of the argurment have merrit) , but this CNBC video quotes noted left wing economist Paul Krugmen as saying in 2009 that EUC benefits can cause structural unemployment. The two panelists, one the former lefty Sec of Labor Robert Reich suggested at the end (in the context of the arguement that EUC could prevent someone from normally taking a lower paid job from doing so) said that perhaps the Feds should offer to pay the difference in the orginal salary vs a lower salary of a re-employed worker as a incentive to return to work. (interesting as that implies that the fmr Labor Sec believes that EUC is incentivizing people to not re-enter the work force as well) .......



http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1578636984&play=1

sc4ram wrote:I dont have any skin in this argument (because its one of those rare subjects where I think both sides of the argurment have merrit) , but this CNBC video quotes noted left wing economist Paul Krugmen as saying in 2009 that EUC benefits can cause structural unemployment. The two panelists, one the former lefty Sec of Labor Robert Reich suggested at the end (in the context of the arguement that EUC could prevent someone from normally taking a lower paid job from doing so) said that perhaps the Feds should offer to pay the difference in the orginal salary vs a lower salary of a re-employed worker as a incentive to return to work. (interesting as that implies that the fmr Labor Sec believes that EUC is incentivizing people to not re-enter the work force as well) .......



http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1578636984&play=1

Give me strength! True to form Kudlow extracts quotes from Krugman about OTHER countries, where they have massively larger unemployment benefits and plasters them over the screen while he raves on. This shill for the right blathers on about 2% that he didn't even research otherwise it would have been published somewhere more reputable than the Kudlow show, as opposed to the actual science and research already done on this subject that was reported earlier this year that indicates there might be a fraction of a percentage of difference. I've always thought the brilliant Robert Reich has the patience of a saint to put up with being on the same screen with these idiots.

There is no "argument" here to have any "skin" in. An argument for a actual debate requires that there be actual facts on both sides that can be debated, not a trumped up show that was set up really for the purpose of attacking the stimulus toward the end!

As for Reich's comments at the end, he is suggesting what many think would help employers be able to hire more mid and upper level employees, such as the "wage-sharing" ideas that were floating around Congress this year.

On top of all that, not only are these shows giving the wrong answers, but they are asking the wrong questions. There is obviously a difficulty in expecting a person who has existing bills coming in that total twice as much as any job that pays 8 bucks an hour could possibly pay for. So at least in the beginning months, that person is not able to take that $8 job for several reasons: 1) the first month's bills would all come overdue with not enough income, putting that person into serious credit/legal trouble, 2) there would be no day hours available to interview for an even slightly better job, 3) no employers are going to hire this mid-to upper level worker anyway, the old "over-qualified" catch-22, and lastly, 4) for many states the structure of unemployment benefits is so skewed as to punish people for taking temporary work, taking away their safety net when they finish the few weeks of work and go back to lower benefits that don't even meet basic survival needs.

So the question is not about how generous employment benefits are (and "generous," as Reich pointed out, is not the issue of 99 weeks, but the issue of the low weekly benefit amounts that people actually get, and many don't even get any benefits), but rather, what is wrong with the structure of our wage system. This was the reason for his suggestion for wage-sharing at the end. And what is wrong with the fact that there simply are NO JOBS available ANYWHERE for 4 out of 5 of the unemployed. This FACT is never addressed on shows like Kudlow's, showing up his total journalistic dishonesty.

sc4ram, if you say you "don't have any skin in this argument," it would seem that you don't have any need for a Tier V. Is it just a little extra change for you? I sometimes wonder why you are even on this board for those who need to survive while unemployed.

My no skin comment was two-fold, I was trying to post the video while minimizing my editorial comments (and let the viewer conclude the validity of its arguments which you seemed to do quite handily) and that Ive seen case examples of both sides of the arguments (some of them are real life where I live) . Many of your points are valid for many of the unemployed, I also know first hand examples where people can get by on their savings + EUC and are willing to avoid a lower paying job because they can get by on that income stream (in the hope that a higher paying job will present itself in the future). In a example I came across last week (which fits neither side of this arguement) somebody I know took a tougher job than they had before for a $30-50K pay cut . [Although I admire the work ethic of this person, I personally would take a Tier ext before I would back slide to that degree on a pay scale].

Also if you had managed to absorb more of the video before concluding everybody that doesnt agree with you is a "idiot" , you may have heard Mr. Kudlow propose a compromise solution, which was fund a Unemployment Extension on humanitarian grounds and include a Corporate tax rate reduction in a effort to establish some economic stability, jump start the economy and create some jobs . (I would hope that you dont think that proposal was idiotic, after all any legislation that comes from Congress will be a compromise to some degree)

As for me personally, I find the argument intersting on a intellectual basis (and that it seems to reveal to me that there are economists out there that tweak their views on this subject depending on which job in the government they are lobbying for) , that aside it has nothing to do with my views on a Tier V.

Im all for a Tier V if it is funded out of already appropriated TARP or Stimulus monies, if it s borrow and spend bill under the guise of emergency spending I think there would be much less enthuiasum for it Nationally. (The Dems had many opportunities to call the Repubs bluff on this and failed to do it)

I post on this board to provide some kind of balance of views, it would be easy for all of us to comiserate and fall into a rut of preaching to our own choir and blaming "the man" everyday. I like to remind us of the big picture and that there is a recovery on the timeline out there eventually and we are in the best country to take advantage of it when it gets here. The question will be weather our leaders have tweaked the wrong knobs and have done more harm than good. A video about a abstract argument weather extended benefits increases or decreases employment wont hurt anybody and hopefully informs the reader about what other people in the country think about a unemployment extension (which is why I posted it) .