Feds to file suit against AZ imigration law

[Harlowe]

Until the Right becomes less beholden to the crazies, the religious extremists, and fear-mongering morons like Palin, and also stops being the party of "no" and becomes a party of actual ideas, I'm going to be leaning away from it. When people like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Fox News and Coulter represent your world-view well....who wants to live in that world.

Seriously folks, if those people are on your side....might want to think about where you are standing.

The Left is far from perfect, but since Bush Jr it's been a far cry better than anything the Right is offering. It's absolutely the lesser of the evils at this time.

[Ddrak]

I dont think eliminating minium wage for guest workers would materially effect the wage status for the vast majority of American workers.

Sure - I was actually referring to the nonskilled positions. In skilled positions there's already a massive outcry against companies using H1-B workers at a lower price than US workers will accept (even though it's technically illegal). I remember the legal craziness that went around my H1-B and Green Card application where job positions were worded so carefully that only I was able to apply for them. But... that's kinda off topic.

Introduce a guest worker program and you'll see the same stuff happening, only legally. Unskilled US labor will be completely shut out by guest workers. I don't think it's actually as big a problem as illegals given it's already basically happening this way but when it's actually sanctioned you'll find a lot of political pressure to do something about it.

The other "moral" issue is it's effectively saying Mexicans aren't worth as much as US citizens and legislating a kind-of lower-class within the US. Hard to explain what I mean and whether it's even "wrong" is a curious question too.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

as long as Americans can sit on thier asses and collect an unemployment check equal to minimum wage wages...why work?

That's my problem with Unemployment and continually extending it. I feel like if those people weren't getting a paycheck they'd be out there looking harder or creating something for themselves.

[Lurker]

There's what people "feel", and then there's the facts.

Krugman

Do unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to seek work? Yes: workers receiving unemployment benefits aren’t quite as desperate as workers without benefits, and are likely to be slightly more choosy about accepting new jobs. The operative word here is “slightly”: recent economic research suggests that the effect of unemployment benefits on worker behavior is much weaker than was previously believed. Still, it’s a real effect when the economy is doing well.

But it’s an effect that is completely irrelevant to our current situation. When the economy is booming, and lack of sufficient willing workers is limiting growth, generous unemployment benefits may keep employment lower than it would have been otherwise. But as you may have noticed, right now the economy isn’t booming — again, there are five unemployed workers for every job opening. Cutting off benefits to the unemployed will make them even more desperate for work — but they can’t take jobs that aren’t there.

Lawrence Katz

"Traditionally, many economists have been leery of prolonged unemployment benefits because they can reduce the incentive to seek work. But that should not be a concern now because jobs remain so scarce, said Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. For every job that becomes available, about six people are looking, Dr. Katz said. ‘Unemployment insurance gives income to families who are really suffering and can't find work even if they are hustling to look,' he said. With the economy still listing, he added, a temporary extension can provide a quick fiscal stimulus. And, Dr. Katz said, when people exhaust unemployment and health insurance, many end up applying for disability benefits, which become a large, unending drain on the Treasury."

When we asked Katz about the discrepency between his remarks then and now, he explained that labor markets in the late 1970s and early 1980s were significantly different from today. Back then, it was common for companies making layoffs to later recall workers, and often workers accepted those jobs right as their benefits were coming to an end. Today, recalls rarely happen, and with the job market so tight, a job search can prove fruitless for many months. Most unemployed workers don't have the luxury of timing when they accept a job.

For that reason, Katz told us in an interview, "I strongly favor extensions of UI benefits when the labor market is weak and the ratio of job seekers to job openings is very high" – in other words, like the situation is right now.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

How is it that its "facts"? Do they go out and interview people?

I was out of a job for 8 weeks, no unemployment (because I wasn't eligible due to the type of job I had).

The average, last I saw, unemployment for people getting paid unemployment was ~35 weeks.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Those articles read like economic opinions. Last I checked, an opinion isn't a fact.

[Lurker]

It's the view of respected economists based on past and recent studies of the issue and their expertise in the field. If you want to call that their "opinion", fair enough, but their opinion certainly carries more weight and is more rooted in fact than yours.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

More rooted in fact than my own experience and what the national average is?

Lunacy, your name is Lurker.

[Lurker]

Yeah, it's lunacy to put more weight in the views of respected economists who have actually studied the issue than in the anecdotal experience of a single wingnut. Lunacy!

So tell me, wingnut, what percentage of the unemployed do you "feel" are not accepting a job because their benefits haven't run out?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Its not accepting, its not even looking. Why do you think so many people drop off of the unemployment numbers every month? It's not because they all found jobs.

[Lurker]

Ummmm.... First of all, people getting unemployment benefits are required to be active job seekers. And secondly, you just shot your argument in the foot by saying that people no longer getting unemployment benefits are still not getting jobs. But hey, at least you succeeded in dodging the question.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

You know what it takes to be an active job seeker? Applying to a couple of jobs you're interested in and calling it a month.

You know how little actual hiring is going on?

[Lurker]

You shot your argument in the foot by saying that people no longer getting unemployment benefits are still not getting jobs. But hey, at least you succeeded in dodging the question.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Some areas of the country have what we all "employment deserts" where there are no jobs. How do people there get unemployment and remain "active seekers"?

[Lurker]

Hey wingnut, are you smart enough to realize you destroyed your own argument that people aren't getting jobs because they are receiving unemployment benefits? And yeah, that's a rhetorical question.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ummmm.... First of all, people getting unemployment benefits are required to be active job seekers. And secondly, you just shot your argument in the foot by saying that people no longer getting unemployment benefits are still not getting jobs. But hey, at least you succeeded in dodging the question.

Lets define "active job seekers". It revolves around applications for work. So a guy who washes dishes for a living or makes pizzas, can apply for a CEO position at IBM, or legal position at some municipality, or apply to be a doctor at some hospital, knowing that they don't qualify for the position, and still meet the requirements of "looking for work" for the purposes of collecting UI benefits.

Do you deny this Lurker? Simple question. Would someone doing this qualify for UI benefits?

[Lurker]

I understand why you two want to focus on the "active job seeker" part of my comment now that Fallakin destroyed your original argument. Nope, I don't deny that it's easy to satisfy the "active job seeker" requirement. It's also irrelevant to the discussion. Any chance either of you could answer my question now? What percentage of the unemployed do you "feel" are not accepting a job because their benefits haven't run out?

[Embar Angylwrath]

I understand why you two want to focus on the "active job seeker" part of my comment now that Fallakin destroyed your original argument. Nope, I don't deny that it's easy to satisfy the "active job seeker" requirement. It's also irrelevant to the discussion. Any chance either of you could answer my question now? What percentage of the unemployed do you "feel" are not accepting a job because their benefits haven't run out?

I have no idea. Can you answer your own question? Without your estimate, that starting point of the argument is irrelevant. Are you manufacturing an issue without data?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

How about: They're not "accepting" because they're not being offered any jobs?

Would that suffice?

And then Embar's scenario can come into play.

[Lurker]

I have no idea. Can you answer your own question? Without your estimate, that starting point of the argument is irrelevant. Are you manufacturing an issue without data?

Exactly! You have no idea. I asked the question because you are manufacturing a position with no data, so stop projecting. There is data, and if your position were correct there would be a correlation between benefits running out and people getting a job. There isn't. There's a reason economists don't think unemployment benefits discourage people from trying to find work in our current economic situation.