Spokane7
55°
January 14, 2012 in City
Half the pay, none of the work? Who wouldn’t?
You know the problem, surely, with unemployment insurance.
It’s so cushy, no one ever wants to go back to work. So trying to help people stay out of the poorhouse while they look for a job is simply counterproductive. Unemployment insurance actually creates unemployment.
You might have thought the unemployment rate was high because the economy was lousy. You could have erroneously concluded that we are living through an epidemic of joblessness. A record period of long-term fruitlessness for millions and millions of Americans.
In truth, what’s happening is one of those government things. The government takes money from productive members of society at gunpoint, and gives it to people who simply will not work.
Because why would they, if they can get that government check?
Don’t take my word for it. Here’s how a Fox News editorial explains it: “In reality, economists have shown that unemployment benefits actually increase unemployment because they increase the average duration of unemployment for individuals. There is less incentive to search for new employment when the government pays people as much as 60 percent of their previous salary to do nothing at all.”
Makes perfect sense. Who couldn’t survive easily on 40 percent less than they make right now? Who among us couldn’t see all the advantages to that, so long as you’re equipped with the weak moral fiber of a poor person? Which members of this society, I wonder, could arrive at the idea that the sudden, unexpected loss of half your income might actually be an incentive?
It’s always tricky to assert what “economists have shown.” They have shown so many different things, these economists, and oftentimes what they show is not so simple. Economists have shown that raising the minimum wage does not hurt employment, and yet you tend not to hear that one argued. One thing that economists are showing a lot of these days is a historic level of long-term joblessness.
In response, Congress has extended jobless benefits, from the 26 weeks to 99 weeks, and the debate will arise once again in February. We will certainly hear about lazy scammers. We will certainly hear about incentives to “do nothing at all.” We will certainly hear that if we help people with no jobs – help them buy ramen and pay rent – we are actually keeping them jobless.
I hear this rationale with some frequency, in the political press and from people who write to educate me about the economic realities. In the land of economic realities, certain truths are held to be self-evident, and one of them is this: There are jobs out there.
Maybe they’re not great jobs. Maybe they’re not what you’re hoping for.
But they are absolutely, positively there.
I wish I had started keeping track, months ago, of the number of times people wrote or called to assure me of this. Every time I wrote about someone who was looking without success for work, this would happen – emails and calls, assuring me that this person was simply choosy or lazy, simply too warmed up by the love and cush of all that wondrous unemployment insurance.
These people often share with me a story of how they once did a difficult, unappealing job. Mucked a stable. Served French fries. Case closed.
Never mind that, in reality, economists have shown that there are 13 million people officially out of work. There are 8 million “involuntary” part-time workers, who’d rather work full-time. There are 2.5 million more who have stopped looking.
What, in reality, do economists show? A report prepared in December by the chairman of the Senate Joint Economic Committee compiled some of the things.
“The problem,” according to the report, “is the jobs simply are not there. A string of 21 consecutive months of expanding private-sector payrolls has added nearly three million jobs; however, there are still more than 4 job seekers for every job opening, not including an additional 2.6 million individuals who would like to work but have given up looking for work because they do not believe there are jobs for them.”
About a third of the unemployed have been jobless more than a year. More than 40 percent have been without work beyond the normal six-month deadline for benefits. In February, more than 2 million 99-ers – people who’ve exhausted their unemployment benefits – will reach the end, unless Congress extends their benefits.
“Claims that extended UI benefits deter unemployed workers from looking for work are unfounded,” says the report, prepared for Sen. Bob Casey, the Pennsylvania Democrat. “On the contrary, beneficiaries of federal UI benefits have spent more time searching for work than those who were ineligible for UI benefits.”
That’s because jobless benefits require you to look for a job. An economist at the University of California-Berkeley has calculated that extended unemployment benefits accounted for no more than half a percentage point of the doubling of the unemployment rate during this recession.
“More importantly,” the report continues, “any increase in the unemployment rate because of federal UI benefits is most likely because the beneficiaries remain attached to the labor force and continue to search for work, not because they refuse employment or do not search for a job.”
That’s based on a Goldman Sachs employment report. It’s just one more of those things that economists show.
Shawn Vestal can be reached at (509) 459-5431 or shawnv@spokesman.com. Follow him on Twitter at @vestal13.
The draw of the unknowable 
Notapatriot on January 14 at 6:37 a.m.
26 weeks. Period. After that you go live with mamma. That will likely motivate your lazy self to take a job you may not want. I have pathetic relatives playing this game and they won’t take a minimum wage job with their high school diploma credentials. They would rather scam the system. One collects SS disability for simply being a loser. Pathetic our government allows these things to transpire.
The gov’t needs to shut off the money spigot. That’s the only thing that will motivate them to change. As long as they can find a way to live off my dime - why would they possibly work?
schleufer on January 14 at 8:49 a.m.
we all pay for it and we all can benefit from it if things go south. thats why they call it insurance. its not welfare and you just dont get to sit at home until it runs out. you have to do a weekly job search and you just cant reject offers because you want to sit at home.
Justsayin' on January 14 at 9:43 a.m.
Shawn, you are full of it! Quote all the statistics you can conjure up to support your slant, but the truth is, if anyone wants work, they can find something to do that pays money. One way to prove this is to force the people getting unemployment insurance, after 26 weeks to work 40 hours per week for that money. I suggest if nothing else, one person dig a hole, the next person fill it in, the next person dig a hole, then the next person fill it in, well, you get the idea… You will be amazed at how many of these folks will find something more to their liking as soon as they get used to the idea of getting up and going to work. Oh I know there will be the so-called “progressives” that will cry “Slave labor” but it ain’t slave labor if you are getting paid to do it. Demeaning? How is it more demeaning to get paid for doing work as opposed to getting paid to not work? Get back to the work ethic, people!
justsayin’
mtharves on January 14 at 11:03 a.m.
Justsayin’
FDR did that and look at the crap he’s still taking for it.
Justsayin' on January 14 at 12:58 p.m.
Mtharves,
Taking it from whom?
If you are talking about the civilian conservation corps, it worked for my dad. He learned skills that carried through his life. I suspect it worked for anyone else that wanted to learn. Oh, and back then, one pretty much had to work if they wanted to eat, wear clothes and live in a home. Not a bad concept, in my opinion.
justsayin’
mtharves on January 14 at 1:34 p.m.
justsayin’
I totally agree, especially about the CCC. I think it was a great idea and would love to see Obama do something like it. BUT, surely you must recognize that the Republican Party has cast FDR as a socialist (or commie) for all time and that rant comes up every time anybody mentions doing anything like that now. Obama gets called a socialist and he hasn’t even come close.
??Riddler?? on January 14 at 1:37 p.m.
?? Mr. Vestal ??
?? Isn’t print media a dying industry ??
?? Aren’t traditional newspapers trying to create alternate electronic media ??
?? Aren’t there constant rumors of layoffs at the SR ??
?? What’s YOUR plan, Stan… ??
bdr on January 14 at 5:27 p.m.
UI isn’t free….the worker pays for it. And its worked so well if the state discontinues it I’m certain a insurance company would put it right back in business.
UI has saved my butt more than once ! Today’s jobs take you thru ridiculous testing,Physicals, drug screens ,back ground screens. It takes about 3 weeks of tests just to flip burgers!
6 months to change crappy diapers on a 90 year old!
If I were rich i could be on a sinking yacht right now with a trial lawyer writing up my lawsuit for a gigzillion bucks.
liveinfearoftheSPD on January 14 at 7:31 p.m.
<sarcasm>I am sure every father in America would rather laze around on 60% of their pay to do nothing.</sarcasm>
Also giving up any health insurance that job included that UI doesn’t.
Giving up 401ks or being forced to cash them in early.
I have used UI in the past but always found work before it ran out. There is much more to lose by staying on UI.
SME on January 17 at 2:09 p.m.
bdr, please check your facts. Unemployment Insurance is a payroll tax paid by employers and is not paid into by employees. So other than having to meet the able, available, and actively searching for work requirements, and being unemployed through no fault of your own, it is free. If you use unemployment insurance simply as a safety net to get you from losing a job to finding your next job, then you are using it for the purpose it was created. Those who lose jobs because of industry changes and whose jobs are not likely to return should be reinventing themselves and preparing for a new career. And they should be (should have been) taking advantage of opportunities for retraining and education before the 99 weeks run (ran) out.
Justsayin' on January 17 at 4:58 p.m.
Free means some one else pays for it. Oh wait, that’s us! Crap! I thought it was free…. Other than that, SME, you are right…