Once upon a time I became unemployed. And I registered for benefits.
Now, I looked for a job; kinda. But after not very long, it became apparent what I was up against.
My benefit was something like $150.00 a week. If I found work, the first $50 I earned didn’t count against my benefit. However, after that each dollar earned meant one less dollar in benefit.
So, if I earned $50 a week, I could keep my $50 and ALL of my benefit: Net Take $50 + $150 = $200.
If I earned $100 a week, I could keep my first $50, but the next $50 meant that my benefit was reduced by $50. Net Take: $100 + $100 = $200.
If I earned $150 a week, same thing. Net Take: $150 + $50 = $200.
Now, if I earned $200 a week, it turned into this: Net Take: $200 + $50 = $250.
What does this mean? It means that because I was earning unemployment, I did NOT have a financial incentive to work. By working 40 hours a week, I earned $250. If I worked ZERO hours a week, I made $150. At the time, I wasn’t willing to work for the marginal wage of $2.50.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we aren’t seeing our unemployment numbers getting better as Congress continues to remove the incentive to work.
Which is why this is laughable:
Federal unemployment benefits began to expire nearly a month ago. Since then, 1.2 million jobless workers have been cut off. The House passed a six-month extension as part of a broader spending bill in May, but the Senate, despite three attempts, has not been able to pass a similar bill. The majority leader, Harry Reid, said he was ready to give up after the third try last week when all of the Senate’s Republicans and a lone Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, blocked the bill.
The situation cries out for policies to support economic growth — specifically jobless benefits and fiscal aid to states. But instead of delivering, Congressional Republicans and many Democrats have been asserting that the nation must act instead to cut the deficit. The debate has little to do with economic reality and everything to do with political posturing.
This is nonsense of the highest degree.
At the same time Congress is removing the incentive to work, they have also removed the incentive to hire.
Don’t be fooled, while this might be political posturing, it isn’t being done by the Republicans. It’s the Democrats that are posturing.
liberals are all about appearances and not about actual results. that’s why america is going down the drain. these idiots would never survive for long in the private sector where results matter.
liberals are all about appearances and not about actual results.
Correct. It is their populist message that gives them any vote whatsoever.
these idiots would never survive for long in the private sector where results matter.
They are unable to manage an idea into reality. Which is demonstrated by their insistence that we legislate their version of “how lthe world should work”.
[these idiots would never survive for long in the private sector where results matter.]
Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Hollywood, Oprah? Just sayin’
Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Hollywood, Oprah? Just sayin
Bill Gates and Warren Bufffet are advocating giving away their OWN money; not taking more of mine.
Hollywood and Oprah….I suspect they practice conservative principles in business and liberal ones in private.
Yeah, but you said they’d never make it in the private sector.
[Hollywood and Oprah….I suspect they practice conservative principles in business and liberal ones in private.]
And there’s the rub . . . good business practices are neither conservative nor liberal. But when it comes to public policy that affects business – tax policy etc – there is no doubt a divergence.