It would be more useful if Greenspun had, as he's the one who should carry the burden of proof in this case. He's made the implied claim that unemployment==party-time. You really shouldn't be asking me to refute his assertion. Feel free to disagree or use Google to sate your own curiosity if you don't believe me.
I think it's notable that people are more willing to give his careless characterization a pass, simply because it aligns with our moral sense that economic outcomes have some sort of parallel to our sense of justice. (economic losers must be social losers who deserved and/or inadvertently caused their unemployment/foreclosure/bankruptcy with bad planning/habits/use of time, etc.)
Speaking of Google: Moral Hazard has nothing to do with whether unemployment is party time. I agree that it exists and 99 weeks is far too long for a standard policy. I don't see how that has any bearing on my disagreement with the article.
> It would be more useful if Greenspun had, as he's the one who should carry the burden of proof in this case.
I can see your point...as long unemployment benefits are the current status-quo, and they are, that someone questioning this should carry the burden of proof. I can appreciate this line of thinking.
Another way of thinking about it....if there is a forceful, non-voluntary, ongoing transfer of money from one group of people to another group, should the recipients of the money, or their advocates, not have some obligation (on an ongoing basis), to justify the aggregate benefits to society of this wealth transfer? Can you appreciate this line of thinking, at all?
Don't confuse this with me suggesting the unemployed should be cut off and thrown out on the street. I'm simply trying to point out that it seems to offend some people if anyone merely suggests we have a discussion on the relative merits of various kinds of social welfare.
I'd also like to point out that I am of the opinion that in the aggregate, there might be A LOT more money going in the other direction, especially lately.
Greenspun doesn't bear the burden of proof because he isn't trying to prove anything. He is asking a question and admitting his uncertainty: "The standard 26 weeks of unemployment makes sense to me...But the subsequent 1.5 years don’t make sense...What’s wrong with my thinking?"
Jessriedel did the same thing: "I don't claim he was the norm. I'm just giving this anecdotal evidence to say that...we...need hard data."
You asserted the existence of evidence without providing it (potentially misleading), and then attacked the people who disagreed with you (harmful). If you have your own theory, argue it and acknowledge uncertainty (just as Greenspun and Jessriedel did). If you have facts to support your position, present them (if you do, awesome). Ad hominem attacks provide no value.
I didn't (intend to) take issue with any part of jessriedel's post. Clearly I misspoke in my reply and people were confused. My intent was to concede his point: I was not providing evidence about what unemployment looks like. I provided nothing more than my own opinion. We all agree on that.
And I'm truly not interested in trying to solve political problems on the internet, so I invited him to sate his own curiosity as to what unemployment looks like. You're either interested in the issue and thus need to do your own research or you're not. If I'd used Google to scare up a link or two, that should not be sufficient for any critical and skeptical thinker.
Feel free to disagree with my characterization of unemployment all you like. I invite you to. But please note that you only disagree with me, because I didn't provide any more evidence than Greenspun did.
And then hopefully you'll take a moment to wonder why you're complaining about my lack of evidence, but not Greenspun's.
I think it's notable that people are more willing to give his careless characterization a pass, simply because it aligns with our moral sense that economic outcomes have some sort of parallel to our sense of justice. (economic losers must be social losers who deserved and/or inadvertently caused their unemployment/foreclosure/bankruptcy with bad planning/habits/use of time, etc.)
Speaking of Google: Moral Hazard has nothing to do with whether unemployment is party time. I agree that it exists and 99 weeks is far too long for a standard policy. I don't see how that has any bearing on my disagreement with the article.