An estimated 1.8 million jobs were created in 2014 in the US due to unemployment benefit cuts

[laughing dog]

Why the semantic bickering?

A "job" comes into being when an employer and a worker agree on terms. Before that happens you may have employers who want to hire but can't find someone at a price they are willing to pay and workers who want a job but can't find someone to pay them enough to want to work. Economists long ago learned how to draw fancy curves to represent these things called "demand curves" and "supply curves". If you took a course in economics, you may remember these.

An economist would expect unemployment benefits to alter the supply curve. All other things being equal, the price a worker would require to accept a job would be higher if the worker gets paid money not to work. One could argue about the magnitude of the effect, but it's hard to imagine how one would argue against the sign of it.

Anyone remotely familiar with basic reasoning would immediately see that the bold-faced statement contradicts the underlined claim.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Amazon pays people to box stuff up. The pay and benefits suck. They have 20 openings for positions.

Federal Government reduces unemployment insurance.

10 people who lost their unemployment have to go work for Amazon now, making half of what they made before being laid off a year ago.

Republican world... 10 jobs created!!!


Tesla is a new company and wants to create electric cars.

Federal Government supplies loans to Tesla.

In order to design and build the cars, Tesla must hire people. 150 people are employed.

Republican world... choosing the winners and losers. BOOOOOOOO!!!!

 

[Sarpedon]

No, the 'job' is the work to be done. Reducing unemployement benefits does not increase the amount of work that needs to be done. Establishing enterprises, increasing demand for goods and services, constructing public works, encouraging development increase the amount of work that needs to be done.

The agreement between employer and employed is a 'contract.'

Normally I do not like to argue semantics. But when the other side uses semantics to decieve, I must.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, the 'job' is the work to be done. Reducing unemployement benefits does not increase the amount of work that needs to be done. Establishing enterprises, increasing demand for goods and services, constructing public works, encouraging development increase the amount of work that needs to be done.

The agreement between employer and employed is a 'contract.'

Normally I do not like to argue semantics. But when the other side uses semantics to decieve, I must.

So when Obama says, "X number of jobs were created in the last Y time period" he isn't referring to some of these jobs?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, the 'job' is the work to be done. Reducing unemployement benefits does not increase the amount of work that needs to be done. Establishing enterprises, increasing demand for goods and services, constructing public works, encouraging development increase the amount of work that needs to be done.

The agreement between employer and employed is a 'contract.'

Normally I do not like to argue semantics. But when the other side uses semantics to decieve, I must.

So when Obama says, "X number of jobs were created in the last Y time period" he isn't referring to some of these jobs?

No. He is referring to the replacement positions that developed after the massive job cuts due to the Great Recession. IE, demand for labor dropped, so people were laid off. The jobs no longer existed! And then the economy improved, and companies started hiring people again.

Seriously, do you need this explained to you?

 

[ksen]

No, he knows. He's just doing the conservative/libertarian shuffle.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So when Obama says, "X number of jobs were created in the last Y time period" he isn't referring to some of these jobs?

No. He is referring to the replacement positions that developed after the massive job cuts due to the Great Recession. IE, demand for labor dropped, so people were laid off. The jobs no longer existed! And then the economy improved, and companies started hiring people again.

Seriously, do you need this explained to you?

I guess that we need all the organizations that talk about job creation to learn the right nomenclature and not use job creation when they talk about more jobs existing than before.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, he knows. He's just doing the conservative/libertarian shuffle.

I'm not. It's a normal term used when talking about job reports. People use it at the same time as jobs added.

 

[ksen]

No, the 'job' is the work to be done. Reducing unemployement benefits does not increase the amount of work that needs to be done. Establishing enterprises, increasing demand for goods and services, constructing public works, encouraging development increase the amount of work that needs to be done.

The agreement between employer and employed is a 'contract.'

Normally I do not like to argue semantics. But when the other side uses semantics to decieve, I must.

So when Obama says, "X number of jobs were created in the last Y time period" he isn't referring to some of these jobs?

Obama's not a professional economist writing a professional paper. The authors in the OP allegedly are.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So when Obama says, "X number of jobs were created in the last Y time period" he isn't referring to some of these jobs?

Obama's not a professional economist writing a professional paper. The authors in the OP allegedly are.

It's the definition from the Cambridge Dictionary

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/job-creation

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No. He is referring to the replacement positions that developed after the massive job cuts due to the Great Recession. IE, demand for labor dropped, so people were laid off. The jobs no longer existed! And then the economy improved, and companies started hiring people again.

Seriously, do you need this explained to you?

I guess that we need all the organizations that talk about job creation to learn the right nomenclature and not use job creation when they talk about more jobs existing than before.

You didn't address the post. Many jobs created since 2010 were jobs that ceased to exist in 2007 to 2009.

Obama's not a professional economist writing a professional paper. The authors in the OP allegedly are.

It's the definition from the Cambridge Dictionary

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/job-creation

Did you miss the word "new" in the definition?

 

[ksen]

Obama's not a professional economist writing a professional paper. The authors in the OP allegedly are.

It's the definition from the Cambridge Dictionary

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/job-creation

job creation: the process of providing new jobs

new: recently created or having started to exist recently

 

[coloradoatheist]

I guess that we need all the organizations that talk about job creation to learn the right nomenclature and not use job creation when they talk about more jobs existing than before.

You didn't address the post. Many jobs created since 2010 were jobs that ceased to exist in 2007 to 2009.

Obama's not a professional economist writing a professional paper. The authors in the OP allegedly are.

It's the definition from the Cambridge Dictionary

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/job-creation

Did you miss the word "new" in the definition?

But the economy is always in a state of flux with jobs being created and jobs being lost, but that are the terms you hear. So the report you hear will be the economy created 300,000 jobs in Dec and lost 200,000 for a net gain of 100,000. Exact numbers made up.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's the definition from the Cambridge Dictionary

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/job-creation

job creation: the process of providing new jobs

new: recently created or having started to exist recently

And it's bad semantics that you are creating there. By your definition if McDonalds hires a fry cook it's not a created job. However if they hire a fry cook/dishwasher it could be considered a new job if those two responsibilities weren't combined before.

 

[ksen]

You didn't address the post. Many jobs created since 2010 were jobs that ceased to exist in 2007 to 2009.

Obama's not a professional economist writing a professional paper. The authors in the OP allegedly are.

It's the definition from the Cambridge Dictionary

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/job-creation

Did you miss the word "new" in the definition?

But the economy is always in a state of flux with jobs being created and jobs being lost, but that are the terms you hear. So the report you hear will be the economy created 300,000 jobs in Dec and lost 200,000 for a net gain of 100,000. Exact numbers made up.

And reporters aren't professional economists writing a paper for the industry. And while it would be more accurate to say there 300,000 new hires or 200,000 newly laid off I expect reporters to use imprecise terms when reporting because they're lazy. I don't expect professional economists to use imprecise terms.

Also the paper is specifically about the effect of cutting off unemployment benefits. How does that "create" jobs? How does taking money away from an unemployed person cause an unrelated company to open up a new position? I don't get how the dots are supposed to be connected.

 

[ksen]

And it's bad semantics that you are creating there. By your definition if McDonalds hires a fry cook it's not a created job.

Not necessarily. If McDonald's currently only need 3 fry cooks but later decide to add a 4th fry cook position then a new job was created. But if 1 of the 3 fry cooks left and McDonald's hired someone to fill the vacancy then nothing new has been created because the new hire would be a replacement.

 

[dystopian]

Also the paper is specifically about the effect of cutting off unemployment benefits. How does that "create" jobs? How does taking money away from an unemployed person cause an unrelated company to open up a new position? I don't get how the dots are supposed to be connected.

B'cuz, thems there taking our taxmonies 4 doings nothings and if'n they can't get no monies for frees they's gots to get jobs!

Or something.

 

[Trausti]

So a study finds that ending unemployment benefits increases workforce participation, and the dispute is over the definition of "job"? Oy vey.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So a study finds that ending unemployment benefits increases workforce participation, and the dispute is over the definition of "job"? Oy vey.

No, the claim is that cutting unemployment creates jobs, which is not the same thing as saying it increases workforce participation. That is what is being argued about.

 

[Trausti]

So a study finds that ending unemployment benefits increases workforce participation, and the dispute is over the definition of "job"? Oy vey.

No, the claim is that cutting unemployment creates jobs, which is not the same thing as saying it increases workforce participation. That is what is being argued about.

Are more people collecting a paycheck now?