I really wish people understood the difference between money and wealth.
It doesn’t.
Drs is believes unemployment creates jobs because people have to spend the money “right away”.
And so how exactly can you justify the argument that unemployment benefits create more jobs?
At what income level does one pay zero in taxes?
DRS has a questionable grasp of reality
Well, that would put him in the same category as most economists.
Because people get unemployment the spend it helping to keep demand.
You can argue it all you want but the people who study the effects are who you are arguing with.
If we follow that logic to its conclusion we should strive for 100% unemployment. Then we can all collect a government benefit check and the economy will grow without limits.
Spending it to help keep demand is different than it creating jobs.
Try to be serious and come up with an actual criticism.
But wait. Then everyone would be employed because the premise is that unemployment benefits CREATE jobs. 
Consumer spending is 70% of the economy so actually it is very nearly the same thing.
I’m not arguing with anyone. I just seriously wonder how anyone with any amount of life experience could believe a person collecting unemployment benefits is helping to create jobs.
And, if you collect unemployment benefits and your income is reduced because of it, how does that effect consumer spending and the creation of jobs?
Because a person receiving unemployment benefits will spend the money and a person who doesn’t receive unemployment benefits won’t. More consumer spending means more jobs.
I did. It is not possible to tax and spend an economy into prosperity. There has to be someone in the economy creating wealth. Wendy is being proposed here is simply moving money around. if that worked I could simply move my money back and forth from my checking to savings and back until I’m rich.
1 Like
The comparison matters. He’s not saying a person receiving unemployment benefits is creating more jobs than a worker. They’re making more jobs than someone laid off that doesn’t receive unemployment benefits.
An employed person has the same demand as an unemployed person. If they receive benefits, they are at a net zero. Still purchasing the same necessities but now at a reduced rate.
So what you are arguing is that unemployment benefits are a cushion against further job loss as a trickle down effect.
The argument I take issue with is that it CREATES jobs.
Let me help you understand.
We are examining two alternatives; paying out UE benefits or not paying out UE benefits. All analysis is based on comparing those two alternatives.
Paying out UE benefits injects that cash into the system which creates some demand.
Not paying out UE benefits sees no additional cash being injected into the system.
Your taxes remain the same.
I have explained already that without the money from unemployment all those folk drop out of the market almost completely.
As those people get money they spend it.
You know how you guys bitch about what people buy in grocery stores with ebt cards? Guess what happens when they buy less?
