It is 2003, again!

Li, please post some kind of commentary with the video. Describe the point that you feel the video is making, let us know why it's worth watching.
Next video without some kind of explanation on this thread is going to be sewed up into a leather bag and suspended over a kettle of boiling water until it dies a hideously painful death.

The thumbnails tell the theme of the video. It's visible on a preview and a direct and pertinent response to what is posted above. The videos are also short and succinct. There's no reason to remove them. If someone says capitalism is bad, I'll respond with a video entitled 'In Defense of Capitalism'. That's not spam. In discussions I'm sometimes reminded of an interesting, thought provoking, relevant, informative, persuasive video I've seen ... then I post it ... if it's one of the better ones. Is the person complaining about videos providing profound insights of their own or just complaining?

It'll actually help your case if you add a sentence description: people will be more likely to watch the video. Also, by adding commentary, it can suggest the particular direction  you want the discussion to follow.
   Also, the complete lack of commentary can give the impression of apathy, which can prevent people from watching the clip.

   I'm not calling the contents of your videos spam, but many people dislike having nothing but a video posted. Even in the music threads, I often wish people would say why they posted the music they did.
  Do it for me: it means I don't have to deal with as many complaints! 

The average total unemployment benefit has been $4k a month (because of the extra federal money in addition to the state money). Imagine getting four thousand dollars a month to not work. NorthStar confirmed that was roughly what he was getting. So there's your answer. 40 million Americans won't be clamoring to get into ESL overseas anytime soon. Especially because the layoffs are temporary and even more so because the big unemployment payouts disincentivize looking for work.

Is that before or after taxes?
Median income in US is $78,500. What's disincentivizing people from going back to work is very low wages for what have become high-risk jobs.

The average total unemployment benefit has been $4k a month (because of the extra federal money in addition to the state money). Imagine getting four thousand dollars a month to not work. NorthStar confirmed that was roughly what he was getting. So there's your answer. 40 million Americans won't be clamoring to get into ESL overseas anytime soon. Especially because the layoffs are temporary and even more so because the big unemployment payouts disincentivize looking for work.

https://www.businessinsider.com/600-unemployment-bonus-payments-dont-cause-less-work-yale-2020-7

https://tobin.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/C-19%20Articles/CARES-UI_identification_vF(1).pdf

"We find no evidence that more generous benefits disincentivized work"

I don't see how that could possibly be true. It runs completely counter to common sense. (Like when the media told us George Floyd protests don't spread coronavirus.)

This is not a consensus. Top economists from the very best schools have recently stated big unemployment benefits are in fact a disincentive to look for work.

I'm reading that study trying to find out what could have gone wrong. (I see they used a private firm for data.)

https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1721413453001

I don't see how that could possibly be true. It runs completely counter to common sense. (Like when the media told us George Floyd protests don't spread coronavirus.)

This is not a consensus. Top economists from the very best schools have recently stated big unemployment benefits are in fact a disincentive to look for work.

I'm reading that study trying to find out what could have gone wrong. (I see they used a private firm for data.)

https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1721413453001

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-013-0474-9

A new (in 2013) study shows that even generous unemployment benefits have zero impact on people’s drive to go out and find a job.

"The study is consistent with previous research. A 2011 study by Congress’ Joint Economic Committee found that among the long-term unemployed, those eligible for benefits spent significantly more time looking for jobs than those who didn’t qualify: “In fact, since Congress enacted federal unemployment benefits, time spent looking for a job has tripled among the long‐term unemployed who are out of work as a result of job loss.”"

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3e1016fc-2ef2-451d-bcee-193c1f08b174/the-case-for-maintaining-ui---supporting-workers-and-strengthening-the-economy.pdf

But in 2020 with the $600 bonus benefits exceeded what they were previously making. How is that not a disincentive to work?

OK, I'll go on google...

Oh, here's a study that says the opposite of the studies you posted:

"Reducing the duration of unemployment benefits increases the exit rate from unemployment."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.4073/csr.2018.2

But in 2020 with the $600 bonus benefits exceeded what they were previously making. How is that not a disincentive to work?

OK, I'll go on google...

Oh, here's a study that says the opposite of the studies you posted:

"Reducing the duration of unemployment benefits increases the exit rate from unemployment."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.4073/csr.2018.2

Unemployment decreased in May and June. People know the extra $600 is not permanent.

Ah, so you admit taking away the $600 reduced unemployment? That was my point- that big unemployment payouts disincentivize looking for work. (The media won't admit this.)

I personally knew people who were in no hurry to find work because of the money they were getting from unemployment.

What's human nature? To take a pay cut to work because it's the honorable thing to do? Or to enjoy the vacation at taxpayer expense? People are different. Some will choose the former, some the latter.

But to say there is absolutely no incentive or disincentive at play for anyone is absurd.

When people became aware the $600 a week bonus would expire July 31st, they became more motivated to find work.

Also, for some people, they were making way more working. Some way less. Some people like working. Some people hate it.

Ah, so you admit taking away the $600 reduced unemployment? That was my point- that big unemployment payouts disincentivize looking for work. (The media won't admit this.)

I personally knew people who were in no hurry to find work because of the money they were getting from unemployment.

What's human nature? To take a pay cut to work because it's the honorable thing to do? Or to enjoy the vacation at taxpayer expense? People are different. Some will choose the former, some the latter.

But to say there is absolutely no incentive or disincentive at play for anyone is absurd.

That is where the disagreement is.

In this specific example the extra $600 was always billed as temporary. The discussion now is whether to extend that. There is little to no evidence that this $600 has caused people to give up looking for work.

We can look back to 2009 and the "Great Recession"

http://ftp.iza.org/dp10439.pdf

"large extension of unemployment insurance (U.I.) benefits during the Great Recession had neither statistically significant nor economically meaningful effect on employment, positive or negative."

In this specific example the extra $600 was always billed as temporary.

But Dems wanted to extend it into 2021. Thankfully they were stopped. Imagine getting $4,000 a month for not working- that's more than you make in Korea.

But Dems wanted to extend it into 2021. Thankfully they were stopped. Imagine getting $4,000 a month for not working- that's more than you make in Korea.

4k might be a bit much but I was a big fan of Yang's proposed universal basic income (1k a month). Although the government could also just lower our taxes.

What do you think of the interviews in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA0nc5J_QNs

(I'm having a hard time understanding how you (D.L.) can think big unemployment benefits cannot disincentivize anyone from working. Clearly that's the case for some.)

I mean I guess it might disincentive people from working jobs they hate, but people don't actually enjoy sitting on their ass all day and feeling useless (just look at all the complaints about deskwarming on this website lol).

But getting money to stay at home and/or do whatever you want, like travel, isn't the same as deskwarming.

(I'm having a hard time understanding how you (D.L.) can think big unemployment benefits cannot disincentivize anyone from working. Clearly that's the case for some.)

There will always be some people. Any system. Anywhere. Some people will always try to cheat a system. I don't think the current level of unemployment benefits produces close to enough of those people to worry about.

UBI is the future. it's the only way we will be able to get some financial independence from the primary controllers