Deal reached on unemployment, payroll tax cut

cbs ^ | 2/16/2012 | ap

[tobyhill]

Relieved congressional bargainers say they've reached agreement on compromise legislation extending payroll tax cuts and benefits for the long-term unemployed through 2012, edging a white-hot political battle a major step closer to finally being resolved.

Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the two top negotiators, strode from a conference room minutes after midnight Thursday to say that only technical issues and the drafting of legislative language remained. The bill would assure a continued tax cut for 160 million workers and jobless benefits for several million others, delivering top election-year priorities for President Barack Obama.

"It's a very good deal for the country," said Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee.

[NELSON111]

You know...this little back and forth between you all has been entertaining. I will admit that I do not know a lot about how unemployment works personally...especially now...but I watched my dad be on it numerous times. He was a pipefitter.

But anyway...first of all...1rudeboy is RIGHT with the basic premise of his argument. The U3 calculation has NOTHING whatsoever to do with those who are currently receiving compensation via unemployment insurance. U3 is simply a ratio of those who are unemployed and who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks vs those in the total workforce. Nothing more...nothing less. PERIOD. I defy you to find another example....or definition. I challenge you.

However...and this is where I do not know all the states laws...the national laws...the rules about unemployment. I only know what my dad when through (and a Seinfeld episode). Where an extension of the unemployment benefits COULD have impact on the U3 is it WOULD make people START looking again who had STOPPED if that is part of the deal. I know it used to be part of the deal...if you were going to collect unemployment you had to prove you were looking for a job. So if that still applies...it would move those workers from U4 back to U3. So this COULD make the U3 go up because people would reapply and then they would have to start looking again...moving from U4 to U3.

So the U3 WOULD go up....but only because they are forced to look again as part of the stipulations of getting unemployment...NOT because its part of the FORMULA for CALCULATING U3.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's clear that the record length of unemployment benefits is causing people to rejoin the workforce. Just look at the workforce participation rate.

Wait, what?

[Yashcheritsiy]

So the U3 WOULD go up....but only because they are forced to look again as part of the stipulations of getting unemployment...NOT because its part of the FORMULA for CALCULATING U3.

Yes, I know. That was my whole point.

[Brown Deer]

NOT because its part of the FORMULA for CALCULATING U3.

That's right, but neither of the two original comments that 1rudemoron said were false, ever stated that it was part of any formula. For some odd reason, he keeps seeing "unemployment compensation" in those two statements.

[Brown Deer]

It's clear that the record length of unemployment benefits is causing people to rejoin the workforce.

The Wall Street Journal: Unemployment Extension Adds Up to 99 Weeks of Benefits, Nov. 6, 2009

Civilian Labor Force:
Jan 2010, +363,000
Feb 2010, +250,000
Mar 2010, +260,000
Apr 2010, +574,000

Not in Labor Force:
Jan 2010, -454,000
Feb 2010, -84,000
Mar 2010, -100,000
Apr 2010, -394,000

Source: BLS.gov

[Toddsterpatriot]

[Brown Deer]

what’s your point kiddo?

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's clear that the record length of unemployment benefits is causing people to rejoin the workforce. Just look at the workforce participation rate.

Wait, what?

[Brown Deer]

Just look at the workforce participation rate.

I appreciate you reinforcing my point. The 99 weeks of extended unemployment benefits were approved in November 2009 and as your chart shows, in the following several months, it skyrocketed. Let's see if your friend is smart enough to figure it out. I doubt it.

[Toddsterpatriot]

99 weeks of extended benefits didn't keep the participation rate steady for 99 weeks?

Why's that?

[Brown Deer]

Why would it?

[1rudeboy]

Oh, damnit . . . you started talking about numbers.

[1rudeboy]

Let's see if your friend is smart enough to figure it out. I doubt it.

I see a graph line heading downward. You are arguing it should head up. Sucks to be you.

[1rudeboy]

I will tell you this, though . . . it'd be nice to take a look at the 1990's recession. Before the government went crazy about cooking the numbers. I still think our amateur economists are talking out of their asses, but who am I to say?

I was on a blog elsewhere where people were talking about ShadowStats . . . his comment was, "by the time you refute it, they've posted the same BS ten times elsewhere."

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't get me started on ShadowStats again.

Last time I pointed out his BS, you remember what happened.....

[Brown Deer]

I see a graph line heading downward.

I see a ten year graph.

You are arguing it should head up.

The 99 week unemployment was passed in November of 2009. Do you know where that is on the chart?

Sucks to be you.

[1rudeboy]

The only thing missing from this thread is someone making fun of you for posting charts. All I did was post some info from BLS, and look where it got me. :)

Or does that come later, on another econ thread? I can't recall.

As an aside, I have probably close to 300 pounds of old Economics and Statistics textbooks in the basement. They are free to anyone who wants them (but you must pay for shipping).

[Yashcheritsiy]

All I did was post some info from BLS, and look where it got me. :)

No, what got you to this point was your being a churlish ninny who didn't understand what the comments you tried to challenge were even saying, so you took it upon yourself to assume you knew what was meant, rather than simply asking for clarification and a fuller explication of their point, and who then tried to double down on it by attributing to us arguments that we had not made.

THAT'S what got you to where you're at today.

[1rudeboy]

Now that is about as complete a misrepresentation of what happened in comments 12 and 15 as can possibly occur. I really don't see how you can top it.