The answer is that we’re facing a coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused. Nothing can be done about the first group, and probably not much about the second. But maybe it’s possible to clear up some of the confusion.
By the heartless, I mean Republicans who have made the cynical calculation that blocking anything President Obama tries to do — including, or perhaps especially, anything that might alleviate the nation’s economic pain — improves their chances in the midterm elections. Don’t pretend to be shocked: you know they’re out there, and make up a large share of the G.O.P. caucus.
By the clueless I mean people like Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for senator from Nevada, who has repeatedly insisted that the unemployed are deliberately choosing to stay jobless, so that they can keep collecting benefits. A sample remark: “You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job but it doesn’t pay as much.
We’ve put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry.”
Now, I don’t have the impression that unemployed Americans are spoiled; desperate seems more like it. One doubts, however, that any amount of evidence could change Ms. Angle’s view of the world — and there are, unfortunately, a lot of people in our political class just like her.
But there are also, one hopes, at least a few political players who are honestly misinformed about what unemployment benefits do — who believe, for example, that Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, was making sense when he declared that extending benefits would make unemployment worse, because “continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.” So let’s talk about why that belief is dead wrong.
Do unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to seek work?
Yes: workers receiving unemployment benefits aren’t quite as desperate as workers without benefits, and are likely to be slightly more choosy about accepting new jobs. The operative word here is “slightly”: recent economic research suggests that the effect of unemployment benefits on worker behavior is much weaker than was previously believed. Still, it’s a real effect when the economy is doing well.
But it’s an effect that is completely irrelevant to our current situation. When the economy is booming, and lack of sufficient willing workers is limiting growth, generous unemployment benefits may keep employment lower than it would have been otherwise. But as you may have noticed, right now the economy isn’t booming — again, there are five unemployed workers for every job opening. Cutting off benefits to the unemployed will make them even more desperate for work — but they can’t take jobs that aren’t there.
Wait: there’s more. One main reason there aren’t enough jobs right now is weak consumer demand. Helping the unemployed, by putting money in the pockets of people who badly need it, helps support consumer spending. That’s why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic stimulus. And unlike, say, large infrastructure projects, aid to the unemployed creates jobs quickly — while allowing that aid to lapse, which is what is happening right now, is a recipe for even weaker job growth, not in the distant future but over the next few months.
But won’t extending unemployment benefits worsen the budget deficit? Yes, slightly — but as I and others have been arguing at length, penny-pinching in the midst of a severely depressed economy is no way to deal with our long-run budget problems. And penny-pinching at the expense of the unemployed is cruel as well as misguided.
So, is there any chance that these arguments will get through? Not, I fear, to Republicans: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something,” said Upton Sinclair, “when his salary” — or, in this case, his hope of retaking Congress — “depends upon his not understanding it.” But there are also centrist Democrats who have bought into the arguments against helping the unemployed. It’s up to them to step back, realize that they have been misled — and do the right thing by passing extended benefits.
Write a comment
Martha (Tuesday, 06 July 2010 19:54)
I read this yesterday and wondered what reaction a person who is far away might have. Anybody?
Yunhan (Friday, 09 July 2010 08:40)
This article is a little difficult for me, I am trying to understand it.
Actually in our country we have no unemployment insurance
Roger (Friday, 09 July 2010 09:11)
What happens to someone who can't work because there is no work?
Martha (Friday, 09 July 2010 10:24)
I wonder about other differences between our two systems in social policy. For instance, I thought that education in China was free, but I now understand that much of it is not. It is free here through high school, but college is very expensive.
Martha (Friday, 09 July 2010 10:26)
And, China and the U.S. are not the only places where people live. I am very curious about all countries and the way the different governments relate to their citizens.
Wolf (Friday, 09 July 2010 10:55)
Unimployment insurance normally untaken by employer when the employee works; if the employee loses his job, he can get unimployment insurance payment for a period from his community. How long of the period depends on his working time. In Shanghai, China, working one year, you will have one month pension when you are jobless.
Yunhan (Saturday, 10 July 2010 00:48)
I don’t think that is unempolyment insurance, I think that is compensation fund. If the company dismissed their employee in the period of the contract life, the employer have to pay for you about one more month for a year working, two month for two year and etc.
So for this, I don’t think all of us have unempolyment insurance expect urban registers in the big city. The big city government will give the little unempolyment insurance to the people who are unemployed, but most of people who live in small cities and all rural registers have no any unemployment insurance.
Wolf (Saturday, 10 July 2010 03:07)
To my knowledge, there exist exactly compensation fund from employer for the sacked employees and at same time some periods pensions from government or community for the jobless citizens in Shanghai and Singapore where I had worked. Just like the article said, the insuruence pensions within a limited period, but may extend if you still are jobless after that periods. But the employer compensations insurence only depends on working period, no extension.
Martha (Saturday, 10 July 2010 08:12)
Ours, as you see, is federal. It is better than some of what you say, but it is still not assured if there are bad times - as there are now. Beginning this month, many people who have been without work for many months will no longer get help, but their rent must still be paid, their families must eat. It is not a good situation.
Roger (Saturday, 10 July 2010 08:42)
Yunhan - in our old group there was a lawyer who Joy had brought into the group. I don't know if you were there when the group was reading the labor law (which was new at the time), and she and others got into heavy discussion. If fact it was almost a word fight sometimes. It went on for several days.
They talked about the one month after one year and so forth that has been memtioned here.
At that time the consensus was that while the government had put this into law, the business men would not do it, and eventually the law would just die.
My question is - is this one month for a year of work as compensation worked, or is it ignored?
Wolf (Saturday, 10 July 2010 13:59)
What happens to someone who can't work because there is no work?
If it's long time in this case, there will be some social problems-- he can't pay living expenses, or his kids facing hungry, what he will do? I suppose he may do stupid things.
Yunhan (Sunday, 11 July 2010 09:22)
Roger--My question is - is this one month for a year of work as compensation worked, or is it ignored?
It is legal effect here, company must pay for it if they dismiss the employee.
Wolf--some periods pensions from government or community for the jobless citizens in Shanghai and Singapore where I had worked.
It is in Shanghai , Beijing, and some big cities, but no for small cities and rural registers.
Martha (Wednesday, 14 July 2010 13:36)
The question of how the employment ends is an interesting one. IF one quite, there is no compensation, and some employers will make life to hard that one must quite. IF one is terminated, THEN they are entitled to unemployment compensation. Still, it can be very, very difficult to collect it sometimes.
Omlazující sérum (Wednesday, 30 May 2012 03:59)
THX for info
Vaša (Monday, 16 July 2012 09:45)
good post