So we were at our local bar tonight and were talking with a regular, who we see in there frequently.
come to find out, he has been unemployed for a year and is on unemployment!!!
WTF?
chain smoking cigarettes, drinking beers, and buying shots.
>:(
I can't stand those types of people. He was probably pregnant doging about not having any money too wasn't he...
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 20, 2009, 06:21:51 PM
So we were at our local bar tonight and were talking with a regular, who we see in there frequently.
come to find out, he has been unemployed for a year and is on unemployment!!!
WTF?
chain smoking cigarettes, drinking beers, and buying shots.
>:(
It's none of our business what he does with his unemployment benefits.
I collected unemployment for 9 months when the shop that I was working at for 7 years sent the bulk of our jobs to mexico and tennessee. I finished school while I was on unemployment (I had been going while working) adn I also went to the bar and drank and smoked while I was finishing school and collecting my unemployment checks. I think after 7 years of gainful employment I was entitled to a little bit of that. Especially considering my severance package after 7 years was $500 and a big "make the beast with two backs you".
Unemployment is designed as a tool to get you by while you find another job. Not sit on your ass and drink for a year...
Quote from: ducpainter on February 20, 2009, 06:26:25 PM
It's none of our business what he does with his unemployment benefits.
Unemployment should not be used for disposable income activities.
That is just absurd.
Unemployment benefits in the state of Ohio are very thin.
The waiting list is like 6 weeks.
I am sure someone else could use those benefits for something more important than alcohol.
We'll be paying for his lungs and liver sooner or later.
Quote from: needtorque on February 20, 2009, 06:31:52 PM
I collected unemployment for 9 months when the shop that I was working at for 7 years sent the bulk of our jobs to mexico and tennessee. I finished school while I was on unemployment (I had been going while working) adn I also went to the bar and drank and smoked while I was finishing school and collecting my unemployment checks. I think after 7 years of gainful employment I was entitled to a little bit of that. Especially considering my severance package after 7 years was $500 and a big "make the beast with two backs you".
And that right there is a huge problem.
The sense of entitlement.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 20, 2009, 06:35:25 PM
Unemployment should not be used for disposable income activities.
That is just absurd.
Unemployment benefits in the state of Ohio are very thin.
The waiting list is like 6 weeks.
I am sure someone else could use those benefits for something more important than alcohol.
It's none of your business.
It's his money.
So your saying that even though I did not quit I was laid off and had not quite finished school yet that I should have found a job at Mcdonalds making less than unemployment paid so I would not have had time for school because I would have had to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet and that is where I would be now.
I think finishing school and getting a degree in a skilled trade while collecting unemployment was the wiser choice. I have contributed far more to the tax money responsible for government programs than I have ever collected. I have been working full time jobs since I was 16 years old and part time since I was 13.
I am back in school now for a career change and could have collected unemployment again as the auto repair shop I was working at was closed. I never did collect anything this time because at this point my wife had finished school and was making enough money that it was not a necessary means to an end as before.
Do I FEEL entitled? No. I was entitled, feelings had nothing to do with it.
Quote from: ducpainter on February 20, 2009, 06:47:02 PM
It's none of your business.
It's his money.
That the state gave him, that all of the citizens paid in.
I realize it is "his money" but come on.
I guess that's a problem with unemployment on how it is distributed.
During the 9 months you did collect, how many jobs did you apply for?
This guy said he has been on unemployment for 18 months.
How could he not have found a job in that time period?
Most states require you to show proof that you were trying to find a job while collecting the benefits. Were you trying to find a job? If not then you were unemployed by choice. Yes, you may have been laid off, but you chose to remain unemployed. That's taking advantage of the situation. Just my opinion of course....
To some, unemployment is their way of being a lazy ass welfare rat without having to admit to being on welfare. They are quick to admit they are on unemployment, as it doesn't appear to be welfare... it is.
Sounds to me like he was proud to be on unemployment... next time ask what it's like to be on welfare and sitting in the bar.
I'm all for helping someone get back on their feet. I'm all for unemployment as a TEMPORARY fix. I, however, have a problem with someone who gets on a barstool instead of an unemployment line.
How the hell can you afford to party it up on unemployment anyway? I'd make the beast with two backsing starve to death or be homeless if i had to survive on unemployment. Probably why I've never received it, or even tried to.
That guy is nothing more than a good example of someone living off the government tit... how much you want to bet, he has no trouble finding a job when his benefits are about to expire (if they do there like they do here). Until then, he'll milk it till it's dry.
Quote from: Rev. Millertime on February 20, 2009, 06:54:54 PM
That guy is nothing more than a good example of someone living off the government tit... how much you want to bet, he has no trouble finding a job when his benefits are about to expire (if they do there like they do here). Until then, he'll milk it till it's dry.
Funny you say that.
After being on unemployment for 18 months, he has recently found a social program to help him get a job back in his field with extra training, even providing a computer to him.........
His benefits end on Monday.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 20, 2009, 06:49:33 PM
That the state gave him, that all of the citizens paid in.
I realize it is "his money" but come on.
I guess that's a problem with unemployment on how it is distributed.
Unemployment benefits were paid by his employer.
Not the taxpayers.
Seriously...if you work for someone and pay taxes it is an entitlement...limited by law, but there nonetheless.
Your tune might change with the economic climate what it is.
I sincerely hope that doesn't happen to anyone, but if it does I won't judge them because they go to a bar and smoke cigarettes...or however they decide to spend their 'Unemployment Compensation Benefits'
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 20, 2009, 06:57:51 PM
Funny you say that.
After being on unemployment for 18 months, he has recently found a social program to help him get a job back in his field with extra training, even providing a computer to him.........
His benefits end on Monday.
That is a totally different scenario.
Why do you spring that in the end?
Is it to be assumed that everyone that loses their job is a slacker?
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 20, 2009, 06:50:55 PM
During the 9 months you did collect, how many jobs did you apply for?
This guy said he has been on unemployment for 18 months.
How could he not have found a job in that time period?
Absolutely, I applied for many positions in the automotive repair business as that is what I was in school for. I tried to land an entry level position at many dealerships but they were not hiring or just did not like me I dont know. The degree was more of a "just need it for show" thing because I had the experience and the knowledge. As I stated I could have gotten a shit job but there is no way I could have made enough money to pay the basic bills without working 2 jobs and that would have meant no school and I would have gotten trapped in that loop. As soon as I finished school I moved from MI to SC and had a job within 2 weeks of school being complete. I did not wait to "walk" or any of that crap. The point is people who use unemployment as a temporary means to an end are not the problem. It is the fat slobs that work just long enough for benefits and then find a way to lose their jobs and collect who are the problem here.
Quote from: ducpainter on February 20, 2009, 07:03:20 PM
Your tune might change with the economic climate what it is.
Why do you spring that in the end?
Is it to be assumed that everyone that loses their job is a slacker?
If I was receiving unemployment, the last place that I would be is in a bar drinking. I will stand by that.
No, I am not saying that everyone is a slacker.
But apparently this guy is.
I mean come on, 18 months and when his benefits run out......he found a solution?
Ohio as I know it today is one of the most difficult states to find meaningful employment in the U.S. What I am saying is to find a job that pays what the job you had paid.
My g/f has a job where she has worked for over 20 years. She has known for the last year that her Company will be consolidating and she will loose her position.
She has been sending out resumes and talking to perspective Employers for the last year and she has yet to find a job that comes anywhere close to paying what she has been making .
She has a Mortgage and some other fixed liabilities that dictate she earn better than average income that lower level jobs pay .
So far she has had no real good prospects.
She could not pay her bills on Unemployment. She is not an extravagant person such as I.
Ohio just sucks for jobs especially now and especially in South Central , Ohio. ( but it has some of the best twisties )
Quote from: DoubleEagle on February 20, 2009, 07:55:47 PM
( but it has some of the best twisties )
shhhh, don't tell people that, they think Ohio is flat.
I do agree with what you said about the area of Ohio you are speaking of.
There isn't much going there. Same with Cleveland.
Job market in Columbus seems to be pretty decent, which is where this guy lives.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 20, 2009, 08:06:48 PM
shhhh, don't tell people that, they think Ohio is flat.
I do agree with what you said about the area of Ohio you are speaking of.
There isn't much going there. Same with Cleveland.
Job market in Columbus seems to be pretty decent, which is where this guy lives.
OHIO is FLAT .................. just not where I live ! Dolph
Quote from: ducpainter on February 20, 2009, 07:03:20 PM
Unemployment benefits were paid by his employer.
Not the taxpayers.
Seriously...if you work for someone and pay taxes it is an entitlement...limited by law, but there nonetheless.
Thank you Nate for making the distinction of who actually pays for unemployment. That's why crappy employers (like my former employer) often try to find reasons to fire people that allow them to fight or deny paying unemployment benefits.
How is anyone pretending to know anything about this dude who is on unemployment accept that he's on unemployment?
Do we even know what he did/wants to do?
Do we know how much of his own savings he's spending on beers?
Fak, unemployment is $450 a week MAX before taxes in Cal. That doesn't even pay my rent.
Not exactly the high-life. [laugh]
My ex-company just axed 6,000 people. Everyone got it. So many of them are fk'ed, loosing houses and shit.
No, unemployment is not the lap of luxury.
[drink] cheers
Just glad I never had to be unemployed after I found my last job of 30 + years. Dolph
I've never collected unemployment.
If I ever do, I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want with the money.
Why? It's unemployment INSURANCE.
If I paid my bike insurance for 30 years and never got into an accident then one day I totaled my bike I wouldn't think "aww shucks. I don't really want to bother the insurance company."
In short: it's his money, if he wants a new career as a barfly and can afford it on unemployment, more power to him.
Quote from: Drunken Monkey on February 21, 2009, 12:16:28 AM
I've never collected unemployment.
If I ever do, I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want with the money.
Why? It's unemployment INSURANCE.
If I paid my bike insurance for 30 years and never got into an accident then one day I totaled my bike I wouldn't think "aww shucks. I don't really want to bother the insurance company."
In short: it's his money, if he wants a new career as a barfly and can afford it on unemployment, more power to him.
Zakly, not to mention his bar tab money may come from the countless thousands saved while working. I suppose I shouldn't go to the bar and spend money from my Social Security check either.
Quote from: Drunken Monkey on February 21, 2009, 12:16:28 AM
I've never collected unemployment.
If I ever do, I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want with the money.
Why? It's unemployment INSURANCE.
If I paid my bike insurance for 30 years and never got into an accident then one day I totaled my bike I wouldn't think "aww shucks. I don't really want to bother the insurance company."
In short: it's his money, if he wants a new career as a barfly and can afford it on unemployment, more power to him.
+2
I've been on unenjoyment twice now in the last decade due to plant closings/layoffs, just under a month either time. I personally saved as much as I could while on it (not that there was much left after bills), never knowing how long I'd need it. I don't frequent bars much, but if I did I probably still would have gone if on unemployment.
My wife's hours were cut this past week back to 32 so who knows if she'll "get" to "milk" the system soon, or for how long. Could be the difference of us keeping the house or not, depending on what happens for me and my new job. We still won't be going to the bars, but will spend the money as we see fit if it comes to it.
I get unemployment.
Do I want it....nope. I'd rather be working.
But I'm gonn'a take it. But only because I worked for it. I worked for a guy who paid taxes, paid the state and paid the feds, and in doing that.... I earned a lower wage. Had I worked under the states and federal radar, I could have brought home more, but had no insurance, if I was let go.
So with my check.... I make a bike payment, a truck payment, insurance payments, part of the mortgage payment.... and I treat myselt to an ocasional beer.
I also bought some friends breakfast yesterday.... am I a mooch who's living off the government?
No, you are not.
You are paying the bills that you need to.
An occasional beer, I have no problem with.
Taking some friends to breakfast? Not a problem.
Mooch? No, you are not.
A guy racking up 75$ bar bills 4 times a week....................
that is an issue
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 21, 2009, 10:32:41 AM
No, you are not.
You are paying the bills that you need to.
An occasional beer, I have no problem with.
Taking some friends to breakfast? Not a problem.
Mooch? No, you are not.
A guy racking up 75$ bar bills 4 times a week....................
that is an issue
he's a dumb ass.... and there are no laws out there to save people from themselves.
the system is rather scary. it's real easy...... and as much as I like the easy of it.... it's real scary.
no hoops to jump through other than a two second phone interview.
no visits to an office, it's all done on line and via the snail mail. check box, click........ instant money
as a tax payer.... (and yes, they take taxes out of your unemployment check), you have to divorce yourself from the idea that people will do the right thing with the money.... much like I had to do with seeing how my ex spent the child support money. is it right.... nope, but the only two options are..... a larger government workforce established to oversee how funds are distributed (and who wants that).... or you eliminate the program entirely (and that hurts those of us who are in a temporary pickle)
or...... we take the guy out back an curb some sense into him
I just fired an employee last week for cause. I won't get into specifics, but it was a just termination and she was given several opportunities to tell the truth, but failed to.
She will file for unemployment and get it.
The state of Ohio apparently lets terminated employees receive benefits.
Quote from: ducpainter on February 20, 2009, 06:47:02 PM
It's none of your business.
It's his money.
+1
It isn't any of our business. He made no agreement or was given no rules on what he can do with his benefits.
Spending the majority of the payment in a bar is not a wise move. The bar owner probably doesn't mind. What are you going to do? He probably thinks he's getting one over on the system.
You can't stop people from doing stupid things.
If he was using food stamps at the bar then I would be pissed!
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 21, 2009, 12:46:09 PM
The state of Ohio apparently lets terminated employees receive benefits.
Not just OH, Vermont is the same.
Someone I know (not me) got fired from her job and is now collecting unemployment.
Quote from: howie on February 21, 2009, 06:45:19 AM
Zakly, not to mention his bar tab money may come from the countless thousands saved while working. I suppose I shouldn't go to the bar and spend money from my Social Security check either.
I'm gonna spend every nickel of my SSI on booze and expensive hookers....and motorcycle tires...and cigarettes...and any other damn thing I please.
Just like I'd do with my unemployment money if I were eligible for it.
As far as I'm concerned , anyone who works for the Government is on unemployment.
They neither make anything tangible or produce anything that ads to the GDP. Dolph
Quote from: DoubleEagle on February 21, 2009, 02:16:39 PM
As far as I'm concerned , anyone who works for the Government is on unemployment.
They neither make anything tangible or produce anything that ads to the GDP. Dolph
But we won't go there...
right?
Quote from: needtorque on February 20, 2009, 06:31:52 PM
I think after 7 years of gainful employment I was entitled to a little bit of that.
^^^That sentence right there says so much about what is wrong with the American workforce today. Here's a clue, hero: you aren't
entitled to live off the hard work of others (which is what unemployment is, since your contribution doesn't cover you completely). You
do have the
right to your life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness.
Quote from: Sinister on February 21, 2009, 02:32:33 PM
^^^That sentence right there says so much about what is wrong with the American workforce today. Here's a clue, hero: you aren't entitled to live off the hard work of others (which is what unemployment is, since your contribution doesn't cover you completely). You do have the right to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I guarantee you after I worked there for 7 years that the little bit of unemployment I collected was more than paid for with what I alone contributed. I was living off my own hard work and if you cant understand that little bit of information then you should not be contributing to this topic.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 20, 2009, 06:49:33 PM
That the state gave him, that all of the citizens paid in.
I realize it is "his money" but come on.
I guess that's a problem with unemployment on how it is distributed.
Actually that's not entirely true.
Unemployment check amounts are paid to someone based entirely off of what they've paid into it. There is no set amount given to everyone or even a generic scale like welfare.
Every paycheck you pay an unemployment tax as part of your payroll taxes (not income taxes). Your employer likewise has to match that tax payment. It goes into the system and should you get laid off it is that pool of money that is used to determine the amount you receive. The length of time you can receive a check is determined by both fed and state law and as such can vary a little. A full year is beyond the reach of most plans.
So especially in this case it really is his money and he can do whatever the hell he wants with it. I'd hope he is also using it to get by and do what's necessary to get a job so he doesn't end up on the welfare rolls as well though.
As far as who can receive benefits. Firing someone doesn't mean they aren't eligible. Firing someone for cause ("misconduct or substantial fault") will result in them not receiving payments.
in CA the max is 900 bucks every two weeks.
they allow you a years worth based on what you/your employer put in. I'm not sure what happens after a year.
I can understand peoples frustrations on both sides of the issue, those who feel they have contributed and should be compensated and those who feel there are too many milking the system.
I don't care where you stand. If you're working, save what you can. Your job is not guaranteed! You may lose that job and may be forced to collect unemployment. Those checks are not intended for you to live off of. Save for a rainy day! You never know when you might need it. ;)
Quote from: DoubleEagle on February 21, 2009, 02:16:39 PM
As far as I'm concerned , anyone who works for the Government is on unemployment.
They neither make anything tangible or produce anything that ads to the GDP. Dolph
I have to say that I have never heard a more asinine comment in the time I have spent here and on the DML.
Quote from: bobspapa on February 21, 2009, 04:34:49 PM
in CA the max is 900 bucks every two weeks.
they allow you a years worth based on what you/your employer put in. I'm not sure what happens after a year.
I think they shoot you now. :P
Actually, your employer pays into an insurance program - so it depends on how long you've been working. The law is, ONLY if you qualify, your employer's insurance must pay for X number of months, then when that runs out the employer must pay out of pocket. I think only after a very long time - each state varies IMO - it's guaranteed by the state's insurance. You paid for the insurance out of each pay check typically, and then you paid for the state guaranteed aspect with income tax on top of that.
Basically, you paid for your unenjoyment pay. It's not like England where you can 'live on the dole,' where the unemployment comes from the queen.
And it's not welfare. This is money that each employee/employer has put into.
I have worked for the government for almost 15 years now. I hardly feel that military personnel don't do anything for the economy...
Quote from: NAKID on February 21, 2009, 05:40:09 PM
I have to say that I have never heard a more asinine comment in the time I have spent here and on the DML.
Prove me wrong .. Please ! Dolph
Quote from: NAKID on February 21, 2009, 05:47:23 PM
I have worked for the government for almost 15 years now. I hardly feel that military personnel don't do anything for the economy...
I have three cousins that are in the Navy. One is on a Sub as we speak. One is retired Naval Intelligence and the other Xrays welds.
I am very proud of their service and contribution to our Country and Economy .....but they did / are not contributing to the GDP.
The private sector produces "stuff ." The Gov. provides " services ." Services do not contribute to the GDP . Dolph
Quote from: DoubleEagle on February 21, 2009, 06:38:32 PM
I have three cousins that are in the Navy. One is on a Sub as we speak. One is retired Naval Intelligence and the other I'm not sure of his job.
I am very proud of their service and contribution to our Country and Economy .....but they did / are not contributing to the GDP.
The private sector produces "stuff ." The Gov. provides " services ." Services do not contribute to the GDP . Dolph
Let's take your cousin on the sub. The government has a requirement to patrol certain areas with certain vessels. Your cousin is performing a very important job on that sub. If he wasn't performing that job, there would be no need for a sub. If there was no need for a sub, there would be no need for Electric Boat or Newport News shipbuilders. Those companies employ thousands of people...
Quote from: DoubleEagle on February 21, 2009, 06:38:32 PM
I have three cousins that are in the Navy. One is on a Sub as we speak. One is retired Naval Intelligence and the other I'm not sure of his job.
I am very proud of their service and contribution to our Country and Economy .....but they did / are not contributing to the GDP.
The private sector produces "stuff ." The Gov. provides " services ." Services do not contribute to the GDP . Dolph
I'm not an economist, so I don't claim to be certain of how GDP is calculated, but services don't contribute to GDP? Really? So physicians (of which I'm one), nurses, truck drivers, train engineers, etc., do nothing for the economy? Try living without us, then :P
Quote from: Desmostro on February 21, 2009, 05:45:21 PM
(don't even freaking think of starting the anarchy argument. It would be great for 10 minutes, then not. )
+1
"It is the total value of all final goods and services produced in a particular economy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product)
Ok guys, this is getting political.
If you both PM me to agree to stopping your disagreement, I will unlock the thread.
Quote from: DesmoDiva on February 21, 2009, 02:06:11 PM
Not just OH, Vermont is the same.
Someone I know (not me) got fired from her job and is now collecting unemployment.
That is such a crock of bullshit!!!!
You get fired for cause and then get unemployment?
Shit, I thought Ohio was the only make the beast with two backsed up stated that allowed that.
[roll]
Quote from: DoubleEagle on February 21, 2009, 05:59:30 PM
Prove me wrong .. Please ! Dolph
You want to talk services - Hmm.. Right now, Navy ships are protecting shipping lanes that provide goods to you. Govvy Research is developing things we can't even fathom (DARPA). Govvy police are keeping bad people out of your neighborhood. Govvy Firefighters are protecting your house. Govvy teachers are teaching your kids.
Are any of these things "tangible?"
Quote from: NAKID on February 21, 2009, 07:28:28 PM
Let's take your cousin on the sub. The government has a requirement to patrol certain areas with certain vessels. Your cousin is performing a very important job on that sub. If he wasn't performing that job, there would be no need for a sub. If there was no need for a sub, there would be no need for Electric Boat or Newport News shipbuilders. Those companies employ thousands of people...
Yes, doubleEagle is right that military jobs do not contribute to the GDP.
However, that is a moot point to this argument.
The President does not contribute to the GDP either.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 21, 2009, 08:17:54 PM
Yes, doubleEagle is right that military jobs do not contribute to the GDP.
However, that is a moot point to this argument.
The President does not contribute to the GDP either.
Fine, they don't
directly contribute to GDP, although they do contribute to the ability of others to contribute ;D. But I guess the part of the statement that bothered me (personally) was that anyone working for the government (or providing services) is on unemployment. I just disagree with that.
I've worked and/or been in school since I was 15, and I hope never to collect unemployment, but if I ever find myself in that position, I will. It wouldn't amount to much compared to my savings, but every little bit helps, and I contributed to it.
Quote from: swampduc on February 21, 2009, 08:31:54 PM
Fine, they don't directly contribute to GDP, although they do contribute to the ability of others to contribute ;D. But I guess the part of the statement that bothered me (personally) was that anyone working for the government (or providing services) is on unemployment. I just disagree with that.
That's the part that got me. There is no way in hell anyone who's done this would ever consider it "unemployment."
Quote from: swampduc on February 21, 2009, 07:36:47 PM
I'm not an economist, so I don't claim to be certain of how GDP is calculated, but services don't contribute to GDP? Really? So physicians (of which I'm one), nurses, truck drivers, train engineers, etc., do nothing for the economy? Try living without us, then :P
+1
You are in the private sector and contribute to the GDP as are those other occupations you mentioned. Dolph
Quote from: swampduc on February 21, 2009, 08:31:54 PM
Fine, they don't directly contribute to GDP, although they do contribute to the ability of others to contribute ;D. But I guess the part of the statement that bothered me (personally) was that anyone working for the government (or providing services) is on unemployment. I just disagree with that.
I've worked and/or been in school since I was 15, and I hope never to collect unemployment, but if I ever find myself in that position, I will. It wouldn't amount to much compared to my savings, but every little bit helps, and I contributed to it.
Does the the president contribute to the GDP?
How about IRS? CIA?
Quote from: DoubleEagle on February 21, 2009, 08:39:27 PM
You are in the private sector and contribute to the GDP as are those other occupations you mentioned. Dolph
So, private sector doctors, nurses and truck drivers contribute, but people who hold the same job for the government (how about the CDC) don't? [roll]
Quote from: NAKID on February 21, 2009, 08:46:57 PM
So, private sector doctors, nurses and truck drivers contribute, but people who hold the same job for the government (how about the CDC) don't? [roll]
the coastal ducati club brings the beer
and that's a sizable contribution [beer]
Expand your horizons Joel, Centers for Disease Control....
I've never got a piece of that
Quote from: NAKID on February 21, 2009, 08:54:20 PM
Expand your horizons Joel, Centers for Disease Control....
sorry.... the "for" threw me
I'm no Economist (But, do they contribute to the GDP?). And, the only reference I feel like looking up is Wiki (cause I hate economics). But, from what a quick review showed, Govvy spending and Govvy consumption are both covered under the GDP.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product)
Quote from: slowpoke13 on February 21, 2009, 09:00:11 PM
I'm no Economist (But, do they contribute to the GDP?). And, the only reference I feel like looking up is Wiki (cause I hate economics). But, from what a quick review showed, Govvy spending and Govvy consumption are both covered under the GDP.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product)
I stand corrected.
Defense is considered a portion of the GDP under "government spending"
Any reputable source will define GDP as all goods and services in the country, including government and foreign owned.
Dude, did you just say Wiki is a "reputable source?"
:)
Quote from: slowpoke13 on February 21, 2009, 09:07:31 PM
Dude, did you just say Wiki is a "reputable source?"
:)
The definition of GDP is correct, been too long since college that I remembered the parameters of GDP
Quote from: howie on February 21, 2009, 09:05:21 PM
Any reputable source will define GDP as all goods and services in the country, including government and foreign owned.
Yeah, and even if it wasn't part of the formal definition, I'd say the president and CIA indirectly enable the rest of us to contribute to GDP, as do the members of the military. And God knows they're
not unemployed.
And wiki is about as far as I'll go for research on this too :)
Quote from: cyrus buelton on February 21, 2009, 09:08:38 PM
The definition of GDP is correct, been too long since college that I remembered the parameters of GDP
in California... they tried to ban GDPs
Quote from: bobspapa on February 21, 2009, 09:17:34 PM
in California... they tried to ban GDPs
I thought they successfully had.
Quote from: swampduc on February 21, 2009, 09:18:56 PM
I thought they successfully had.
you just cant get married
I'm a gov't employee (teacher) and contribute to GDP not only in spending of the local community, but also in investment in human capital (another part of GDP). I'm also a grad student, so I'm contributing there in both aspects as well.
If the US Army was not part of the GDP (it is), but Blackwater did the exact same services and would clearly count, then you would have an inaccurate aggregate.
By definition, not abstraction, the president and CIA would count as GDP. Their services are part of the aggregate economy.
You might have GDP mixed up with Industrial Output. That's a measure that isn't really used anymore because the private/public line has been blurred significantly from everything ranging from sports stadiums to charter schools.
make the beast with two backs it........
all ur tax monies are belong to us.
-a welfare government employee
Quote from: DoubleEagle on February 21, 2009, 08:39:27 PM
You are in the private sector and contribute to the GDP as are those other occupations you mentioned. Dolph
the problem with this part of the thread is that dolph is basing his argument on one core thesis, that goverment in general should not exist and that everything should be privatized to contribute to GDP, because of the simple assumption that the "free market" and "capitalism" will always be better than any government intervention assuming that people make rational decisions and assuming "textbook" free market conditions and supply and demand again based on rational decisions.
as we are seeing now in the world, you can not "assume" that people will make "rational" decisions (even so called "smart people" in the private sector do not make rational decisions) even in a "free market" because in general people are not rational and are greedy. Thus the "textbook" free market and capitalism models will never apply even if you were to take out government intervention and control completely.
so to constantly try to argue that the "utopian" capitalism model is the right way, is not really correct bc its just as unrealistic as asking for a perpetual motion machine, meaning it only happens in movies and fairy tales and hypothetical classroom arguments.
let's turn this ship.
Quote from: Statler on February 22, 2009, 05:54:31 AM
let's turn this ship.
It would be far simpler to scuttle it.
I agree this thread took a wrong turn.
It has run its course.