Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Would Create ‘600,000 Jobs’

reply to post by JIMC5499

I'm in agreement with Mr. Harrison. The company that I work for cannot find enough qualified people either.

Good analysis.

Perhaps one reason for not finding qualified people is that many decide to "stay home" and collect combined benefits that might be worth as much as the job after losing the benefits.

Many may view a job as more temporary than the (longer term) benefits.

Some who get unemployment also get;

food stamps;

medicaid;

section 8 rent;

etc.

add it all up, and it could be worth more than some jobs.

reply to post by narwahl

This "Demand"-thingy works like the "Job-Creator" you worship, It's the tide that lifts the boat, not the boat pulling the water up.

Now now.. don't go being a typical economist and lie. Unemployment creates a depreciation in demand because it is a significant decrease in consumption power. Because you take a significant portion of income away, if anything is spent on consumption, it is so significantly smaller that it results in job losses.

Unemployment Insurance keeps job losses from being maximized, but it in no way "creates" jobs.. it's an oxymoron. It's what we economist call common sense.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Would Create ‘600,000 Jobs’

Jeeeeze .. this woman never stops. There should be a course in ''Pelosi Fuzzy Math' somewhere .... so the rest of us can get a glimpse into how that brain of hers functions. She provides no information to back up her claims (as usual.) really, really insane. How'd she get in DC anyways??

She got to D.C. by way of local Congressional vote.

Her small district elected her to U.S. Congress (the 8th Congressional District of California).
She got about 168,000 votes in 2010.

If you don't live and vote in her district, you never saw her name on a ballot.

The Dems in Congress "appointed" her to higher internal positions including Speaker, and now minority leader.

The entire nation never elected her to anything.

She has only ran in her small district.

And just think, she was 2nd in line to be POTUS while she was the Speaker of the House !!!!

reply to post by Indigo5

I don't like Pelosi, but that doesn't mean she isn't correct in the suggestion that unemployment benefits are the best Stimulas there is.

The money spent adds hundreds of billions into the economy over time, and since many on unemployment lose their homes as well they spending habits are ultimately altered to spend more on frivolous items. However it's impossible to earn more on unemployment, many are used to making 4k+ a month and get drastically downsized.

Yes, it helps the GDP.. so did sending out $300 checks to every American .. but does it fix the problems? No. And it doesn't create jobs it saves some jobs

Firing Pelosi could create 600 jobs.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I don't like Pelosi, but that doesn't mean she isn't correct in the suggestion that unemployment benefits are the best Stimulas there is.

The money spent adds hundreds of billions into the economy over time, and since many on unemployment lose their homes as well they spending habits are ultimately altered to spend more on frivolous items.

People who have lost their homes are not spending money on "Frivolous" items...that seems a particularly outrageous claim without any logical or factual support. Those people are struggling to feed thier families and survive. Those unemployment benefits are spend on food and rent...immediately.

Yes, it helps the GDP.. so did sending out $300 checks to every American ..

No, it is not as effective and all of the historical data going back 50 years shows the same.

Give everyone $300 dollars and many of those folks will save that money.

Give someone that is hungry or has a family that is hungry $300 dollars and they buy groceries.

Not only is this logical, it is factually supported by a long history and tonnage of data...non-partisan, non-idealogical.

Unemployment benefits get a much better bang for the buck in the form of stimulas than a general tax break.