The Apocalypse comes early to Colorado Springs

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And these benefits would come from where when the local/state/federal government budgets are already heavily in the red while unemployment rate is about 10%?

I think you're massively overstating your case.

Ugh, this is getting tedious because there's always like 10 intermediate argumetns before you get to the point you're trying to make. But if you really want to know, unemployment benefits are still getting paid, largely using state but sometimes federal funds. Of course, I think you forgot that we're talking about a municipal budget here, so what the feds or state spend isn't their concern.

[Kalbear]

I'm curious how much savings you think a groundskeeper who has a family has, exactly. That's kinda amusing.

[Swordfish]

*ignores Swordfish*

no wait...back to the Groundskeeper. He freezes to death in his shack outside of the school because we all know how damn cold SMARCH is.

THEN he comes back for swordfish!

Friggin vengeful frozen zombie groundskeepers.....

WHY DOES THAT KEEP HAPPENING TO ME?!?!!???

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm curious how much savings you think a groundskeeper who has a family has, exactly. That's kinda amusing.

No idea. Maybe ask the guy who posed the hypothetical in the first place.

What is your point? That the City should keep the guy on the payroll even though they don't have the funds to pay him? Or that it is the function of the government to provide full income replacement everytime someone loses a job? I suppose we could debate the wisdom/merits of those two alternatives, but trust me, I've thought both of them through, and there isn't a thing you could say that would make me think that either is a good idea.

[The Progressive]

Ugh, this is getting tedious because there's always like 10 intermediate argumetns before you get to the point you're trying to make. But if you really want to know, unemployment benefits are still getting paid, largely using state but sometimes federal funds. Of course, I think you forgot that we're talking about a municipal budget here, so what the feds or state spend isn't their concern.

I think you forgot that a large percentage of county or city budget came from state or federal grants, which is also in the red.

Is raising tax to provide vital assistance to the needy poors such a dirty and unimaginable concept?

[The Progressive]

No idea. Maybe ask the guy who posed the hypothetical in the first place.

What is your point? That the City should keep the guy on the payroll even though they don't have the funds to pay him? Or that it is the function of the government to provide full income replacement everytime someone loses a job? I suppose we could debate the wisdom/merits of those two alternatives, but trust me, I've thought both of them through, and there isn't a thing you could say that would make me think that either is a good idea.

I can't claim all the credit; after all, it was you who introduced us to this groundkeeper in the first place. ;)

And who's talking about full income replacement?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think you forgot that a large percentage of county or city budget came from state or federal grants, which is also in the red.

I forgot nothing. The reality, however much you want to avoid it, is that people nationwide are still receiving unemployment benefits despite your attempt to prove that is impossible.

Is raising tax to provide vital assistance to the needy poors such a dirty and unimaginable concept?

No.

The point of the groundskeeper example was to point out that it costs the city government less to terminate the guy's employment than it does to keep him on. Arguing that he's no longer paying taxes is circular, because the money with which he would be paying those taxes is money the government paid him in the first place.

[The Progressive]

These unemployment benefits have been promised, so they will be paid...with borrowed money, just as they have been for some time. Currently, I believe much of our borrowing of funds is from China. State and local governments borrow, too, not just the Feds. So when the unemployment fund runs low in a state, they borrow.

I forgot nothing. The reality, however much you want to avoid it, is that people nationwide are still receiving unemployment benefits despite your attempt to prove that is impossible.

Wait, I thought you're against deficit spending and the stimulus bill?

This might be confusing for you, but when citizens don't want taxes raised, they either have to borrow, or they have to go without. Go without. Hmmm - maybe words that we need to become used to???

And going without raising a little tax would mean FLOW's hypothetical groundkeeper becoming homeless and his children without health insurance. If you fine with that, then it's would be the end of this discussion.

The point of the groundskeeper example was to point out that it costs the city government less to terminate the guy's employment than it does to keep him on.

I agree. But there are vital needs that should be met by a humane society. Cutting his job without providing them would not be a mark of a humane society.

[ljkeane]

I won't bore you with what happens when governments borrow too much, but you might want to Google "Greece Financial Crisis" or "Greece Debt Crisis" or even "UK credit rating falls".

Neither of those actually apply to this situation, the problems in Greece are a concern to the Eurozone for various reasons most of which aren't relevant to the US and the UK's credit rating wasn't actually downgraded.

[Eponine]

*ignores Swordfish*

no wait...back to the Groundskeeper. He freezes to death in his shack outside of the school because we all know how damn cold SMARCH is.

THEN he comes back for swordfish!

On a recent drive through Co Springs, I was surprised to see how many people appeared to be living in tents grouped around the river. The hypothetical groundskeeper would probably end up there.

In all seriousness though, it seemed like a fairly large number of people living that way, although I'm probably not a good judge since it's a larger city than anywhere I've previously lived.

[Kalbear]

What is your point? That the City should keep the guy on the payroll even though they don't have the funds to pay him? Or that it is the function of the government to provide full income replacement everytime someone loses a job? I suppose we could debate the wisdom/merits of those two alternatives, but trust me, I've thought both of them through, and there isn't a thing you could say that would make me think that either is a good idea.

No. My point is that justifying that he'll be okay because he has savings is basically a way to handwave an acceptably moral outcome that is very, very unlikely.

If you're willing to fire someone, at least allow for what's likely to happen to the guy. Don't sugar coat it, and don't make up things about his demographic that don't exist. If he's like most poor Americans, he has almost zero savings, has a good amount of credit card debt and other debt, and is likely living close to paycheck to paycheck. That's his reality.

Now, that doesn't mean you shouldn't fire him or get rid of him if the job isn't desirable. But it does mean you should actually know what's going on and not claim otherwise.

[Shryke]

No idea. Maybe ask the guy who posed the hypothetical in the first place.

What is your point? That the City should keep the guy on the payroll even though they don't have the funds to pay him? Or that it is the function of the government to provide full income replacement everytime someone loses a job? I suppose we could debate the wisdom/merits of those two alternatives, but trust me, I've thought both of them through, and there isn't a thing you could say that would make me think that either is a good idea.

The point, in the general sense, is that "Cutting services" in bad economic times has rippling effects. And some of those effects can cost you more money in the long run. Thinking you can just cut services and it will all work out is pretty myopic.

Fire someone, and they start collecting unemployment.

Cut public transit, people lose jobs. Then those people can't afford other things (like, say, daycare) and more people lose jobs.

And then there's the various social costs of this sort of shit.

And a whole host of other things.

EDIT: Also what Kalbear said.

[Trebla]

On a recent drive through Co Springs, I was surprised to see how many people appeared to be living in tents grouped around the river. The hypothetical groundskeeper would probably end up there.

In all seriousness though, it seemed like a fairly large number of people living that way, although I'm probably not a good judge since it's a larger city than anywhere I've previously lived.

Not anymore.

City Council Votes to Ban City Camping

A very interesting place.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No. My point is that justifying that he'll be okay because he has savings is basically a way to handwave an acceptably moral outcome that is very, very unlikely.

Okay, that's a fair point. I was not trying to imply that "he'd be okay". I was actually trying to give a snarky answer to what I perceived as a snarky question. The reality is that it would suck for that guy to get fired.

Now, that doesn't mean you shouldn't fire him or get rid of him if the job isn't desirable. But it does mean you should actually know what's going on and not claim otherwise.

Here's the thing -- we were discussing a hypothetic employee in CS, and I was asked "what is going to happen to him when he goes homeless", etc." Now what I was thinking when I read that was "how the fck should I know?" But rather than say that, I thought I'd tweak the guy who posed the question by saying "well, he might get unemployment, etc."

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I like how *job loss = homelessness starvation and death* is taken as a given by the participants here. Is that what has happened to folks in this thread? I'm betting that we've all lost our job or had a spouse/cohabitant lose theirs at some point. Just about all of us seemed to have survived. Hell I actuall WAS homeless for a little while and I managed. In reality, what would happen is our hypothetical family would trim what they could. They'd make minimum payments on everything, stop eating out, and cut out luxuries. Things got really bad and they would rely on family, friends, and charities such as the local church and the United Way. As is often pointed out to me, no man is an island. This is not the only job in the world and our hypothetical groundskeeper is not one man against the world.

[Shryke]

I like how *job loss = homelessness starvation and death* is taken as a given by the participants here. Is that what has happened to folks in this thread? I'm betting that we've all lost our job or had a spouse/cohabitant lose theirs at some point. Just about all of us seemed to have survived. Hell I actuall WAS homeless for a little while and I managed. In reality, what would happen is our hypothetical family would trim what they could. They'd make minimum payments on everything, stop eating out, and cut out luxuries. Things got really bad and they would rely on family, friends, and charities such as the local church and the United Way. As is often pointed out to me, no man is an island. This is not the only job in the world and our hypothetical groundskeeper is not one man against the world.

We were more jokingly taking it to the most extreme result we could think of.

(ie - dying in the street and coming back as a frozen zombie to feast on the brains of Conservatives)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I like how *job loss = homelessness starvation and death* is taken as a given by the participants here. Is that what has happened to folks in this thread? I'm betting that we've all lost our job or had a spouse/cohabitant lose theirs at some point. Just about all of us seemed to have survived. Hell I actuall WAS homeless for a little while and I managed. In reality, what would happen is our hypothetical family would trim what they could. They'd make minimum payments on everything, stop eating out, and cut out luxuries. Things got really bad and they would rely on family, friends, and charities such as the local church and the United Way. As is often pointed out to me, no man is an island. This is not the only job in the world and our hypothetical groundskeeper is not one man against the world.

I agree completely with that point, Tormund. I'm just sort of worn out from that type of "you just want everyone to die" argument, and didn't want to take the effort to respond. But from what I've seen, you are exactly right.

[Shryke]

The point that I am trying to make is that Lev, Shryke, etc all seem to think that we MUST do everything we can to sustain full services and full employment, without looking at the larger picture. Indeed, ignoring the larger picture.

Gee, I'd call ignoring the effects of cutting those services "ignoring the larger picture".

But hey, I'm crazy like that....

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Gee, I'd call ignoring the effects of cutting those services "ignoring the larger picture".

But hey, I'm crazy like that....

Shryke, that is right where we differ.

For me, the larger picture is how can we best get this guy back to a productive, wealth-creating job of some kind that doesn't require government largesse. It may just be a buzz phrase, but there is a lot of truth in the idea that the best welfare program ever created is a job. And with all due respect to the Keynesians out there, I think that a lot of things you advocate would, over the long term, amount to job-killers. And whatever appeal the idea of "deficit-spending during a recession" may have had in the past, I think the current national debt and prospect of a currency collapse means that idea's time may have passed.

It's easy to portray guys like me as just heartless bastards, but I can honestly say I think what I support is the best way to really help people in the long term. Short-term, it admittedly sucks.

[The Progressive]

The point that I am trying to make is that Lev, Shryke, etc all seem to think that we MUST do everything we can to sustain full services and full employment, without looking at the larger picture. Indeed, ignoring the larger picture.

I have to say that your point is very poorly made. First, nobody said that full services and full employment must be sustain for our hypothetical unemployed groundkeeper. We're talking about things that are provided by law (unemployment insurance) and things that are humane (health insurance for his children); we're not talking about paying for cellphone or haircut.

The second thing which illustrated how poorly made your argument are is that it ignores the amount of deficit spending that is necessary to provide for those services. Granted that it would be less than the amount of deficit spending it would take to keep him employed (which I don't dispute and will even agree that the elimination of his job is fiscally defensible), it still has to be paid for somehow.