An estimated 1.8 million jobs were created in 2014 in the US due to unemployment benefit cuts

[coloradoatheist]

So a study finds that ending unemployment benefits increases workforce participation, and the dispute is over the definition of "job"? Oy vey.

No, the claim is that cutting unemployment creates jobs, which is not the same thing as saying it increases workforce participation. That is what is being argued about.

Take my example though. If McDonalds is looking at having 4 fry cooks but they have 3 and now because a person that was receiving the same money as a fry cook but loses that money so they take the job as a fry cook, then one job was created.

 

[ksen]

So a study finds that ending unemployment benefits increases workforce participation, and the dispute is over the definition of "job"? Oy vey.

No, the claim is that cutting unemployment creates jobs, which is not the same thing as saying it increases workforce participation. That is what is being argued about.

What Jimmy said.

Here's the claim in the OP:

1.8 million additional jobs were created in 2014 due to the benefit cut

- - - Updated - - -

No, the claim is that cutting unemployment creates jobs, which is not the same thing as saying it increases workforce participation. That is what is being argued about.

Are more people collecting a paycheck now?

Not the same thing as new, additional jobs being created.

If the authors wanted to argue that cutting UE benefits increases labor force participation then that's what they would have done because I presume, being economists, they know the difference.

 

[Medicine Man]

We measure the effect of unemployment benefit duration on employment. We exploit the variation
induced by the decision of Congress in December 2013 not to reauthorize the unprecedented benefit
extensions introduced during the Great Recession. Federal benefit extensions that ranged from 0 to
47 weeks across U.S. states at the beginning of December 2013 were abruptly cut to zero. To achieve
identification we use the fact that this policy change was exogenous to cross-sectional differences
across U.S. states and we exploit a policy discontinuity at state borders. We find that a 1% drop in
benefit duration leads to a statistically significant increase of employment by 0.0161 log points. In
levels, 1.8 million additional jobs were created in 2014 due to the benefit cut. Almost 1 million of
these jobs were filled by workers from out of the labor force who would not have participated in the
labor market had benefit extensions been reauthorized.

Full paper here:

http://c0.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/w20884.pdf

I'm guessing job-creation started.....​

...A Little-BEFORE 2014
July 12, 2014

*​

"It’s 2014, and once again, we have a very important election ahead of us. Yet, there are a lot of very loud progressives who have done nothing since President Obama was elected five years ago but complain, because he’s not perfect. They claim that he’s no progressive.

That’s a lie."

 

[dismal]

No, the 'job' is the work to be done.

So if I want Yasmine Bleeth to rub oil on me for $20 per hour that creates "a job"?

I think my version where both parties have to agree to terms before someone has a job enjoys being consistent with reality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, the claim is that cutting unemployment creates jobs, which is not the same thing as saying it increases workforce participation. That is what is being argued about.

Are more people collecting a paycheck now?

Which would be evidence for higher workforce participation, not job growth. Companies didn't all of a sudden see a surge in work that required additional workers because of the unemployment cuts.

 

[Sarpedon]

So if I want Yasmine Bleeth to rub oil on me for $20 per hour that creates "a job"?

Oh for fuck's sake, weren't you the one complaining about semantic arguments a moment ago? The job is the work, and to justify the name, it has to be at least somewhat reasonable. I merely distinguish the two to take into account the idea that there might be 'job vacancies,' where no one is available to do the job that is available. In your system, there's no 'job' unless there's someone to do the job, therefore, there can be no such thing as a job vacancy, which is manifestly absurd. Therefore, your definition is faulty, absurd, and probably deceptive.

Now be serious or fuck off.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, the claim is that cutting unemployment creates jobs, which is not the same thing as saying it increases workforce participation. That is what is being argued about.

What Jimmy said.

Here's the claim in the OP:

1.8 million additional jobs were created in 2014 due to the benefit cut

- - - Updated - - -

No, the claim is that cutting unemployment creates jobs, which is not the same thing as saying it increases workforce participation. That is what is being argued about.

Are more people collecting a paycheck now?

Not the same thing as new, additional jobs being created.

If the authors wanted to argue that cutting UE benefits increases labor force participation then that's what they would have done because I presume, being economists, they know the difference.

His argument using my example is that in 2007 McDonalds had 4 fry cooks, by the beginning of 2008 they had 3. Now 2014 comes around and McDonalds hires a 4th fry cook. Is that a job created? Normal conversation and economic conversation is yes. To Jimmy it's no.

 

[ksen]

So if I want Yasmine Bleeth to rub oil on me for $20 per hour that creates "a job"?

Oh for fuck's sake, weren't you the one complaining about semantic arguments a moment ago? The job is the work, and to justify the name, it has to be at least somewhat reasonable. I merely distinguish the two to take into account the idea that there might be 'job vacancies,' where no one is available to do the job that is available. In your system, there's no 'job' unless there's someone to do the job, therefore, there can be no such thing as a job vacancy, which is manifestly absurd. Therefore, your definition is faulty, absurd, and probably deceptive.

Now be serious or fuck off.

I don't know Sarpedon . . . I would seriously pay Yasmine Bleeth $20/hr for a massage.

- - - Updated - - -

His argument using my example is that in 2007 McDonalds had 4 fry cooks, by the beginning of 2008 they had 3. Now 2014 comes around and McDonalds hires a 4th fry cook. Is that a job created? Normal conversation and economic conversation is yes. To Jimmy it's no.

I already addressed your McDonalds hypothetical above.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, the claim is that cutting unemployment creates jobs, which is not the same thing as saying it increases workforce participation. That is what is being argued about.

Take my example though. If McDonalds is looking at having 4 fry cooks but they have 3 and now because a person that was receiving the same money as a fry cook but loses that money so they take the job as a fry cook, then one job was created.

A couple things. Firstly, in what way did the unemployment benefits cut lead to that 4th job being available? IE the claim the cuts create jobs.

The irony here is that if this thread had a different angle, you'd be (more likely were actually) complaining that the new jobs being created by Obama were for fry cooks and not high paying, high skill jobs. But because it was a cut in spending that led to this, you are cheering on these "new jobs".

It is like watching National Geographic. One episode you are cheering on the gazelle to get away and the next, you are hoping the lion gets the gazelle to feed her cubs.

- - - Updated - - -

His argument using my example is that in 2007 McDonalds had 4 fry cooks, by the beginning of 2008 they had 3. Now 2014 comes around and McDonalds hires a 4th fry cook. Is that a job created? Normal conversation and economic conversation is yes. To Jimmy it's no.

Not really. If they had 4 positions and then cut back to 3 and by 2011, were looking to hire a 4th, that would be a new job.

What you were saying is that the 4th position was always open.

 

[Axulus]

You are having a semantic dispute with the author's use of "created". "Created" in this context simply means the increase in the number of individuals employed during the year. This word is often used in this context by the media and by politicians, so I don't really understand your objection to the particular word. Therefore the summary is not inaccurate, you just don't like the word they choose to use and the context in which they are using it.

A professional economist in a professional paper ought to use terminology properly. This term is misleading, because it clearly lends the impression that this paper shows that reducing the duration of unemployment leads to jobs that would otherwise not have existed. The study does not even attempt to model or study such a result. At best, the results of this paper show that reducing the duration of unemployment benefits induces more unemployed people in and out of the labor force to find and accept offers to work in existing jobs. That is a significant difference.

It does lead to jobs that would otherwise not have existed, 1.8 million of them in fact. Are you using the word "jobs" to also describe employment openings regardless of whether the job is filled or not? That seems quite confusing and I don't believe I have seen economists use the word in such a manner.

 

[laughing dog]

A professional economist in a professional paper ought to use terminology properly. This term is misleading, because it clearly lends the impression that this paper shows that reducing the duration of unemployment leads to jobs that would otherwise not have existed. The study does not even attempt to model or study such a result. At best, the results of this paper show that reducing the duration of unemployment benefits induces more unemployed people in and out of the labor force to find and accept offers to work in existing jobs. That is a significant difference.

It does lead to jobs that would otherwise not have existed, 1.8 million of them in fact.

On what basis do you draw that conclusion? Read the paper. Nothing in the paper indicates how reduction in the duration of unemployment benefits prompts business and gov't to create new jobs.

How else would you describe the contention that 1.8 million more individuals obtained employed in 2014 due to the benefit cut?

I would describe that as the conclusion of the paper based on their model and methodology. But that is not the same thing as saying that 1.8 million jobs were created because of the reduction in the duration of unemployment benefits.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Take my example though. If McDonalds is looking at having 4 fry cooks but they have 3 and now because a person that was receiving the same money as a fry cook but loses that money so they take the job as a fry cook, then one job was created.

A couple things. Firstly, in what way did the unemployment benefits cut lead to that 4th job being available? IE the claim the cuts create jobs.

The irony here is that if this thread had a different angle, you'd be (more likely were actually) complaining that the new jobs being created by Obama were for fry cooks and not high paying, high skill jobs. But because it was a cut in spending that led to this, you are cheering on these "new jobs".

It is like watching National Geographic. One episode you are cheering on the gazelle to get away and the next, you are hoping the lion gets the gazelle to feed her cubs.

- - - Updated - - -

His argument using my example is that in 2007 McDonalds had 4 fry cooks, by the beginning of 2008 they had 3. Now 2014 comes around and McDonalds hires a 4th fry cook. Is that a job created? Normal conversation and economic conversation is yes. To Jimmy it's no.

Not really. If they had 4 positions and then cut back to 3 and by 2011, were looking to hire a 4th, that would be a new job.

What you were saying is that the 4th position was always open.

I agree with your middle part and it being normal politics. If one side creates jobs, the other looks for excuses and vice versa.

Your argument is that McDonalds was always looking for the 4th.

 

[Sarpedon]

I don't know Sarpedon . . . I would seriously pay Yasmine Bleeth $20/hr for a massage.

Reasonable for all parties. In that sense, dismal is correct that the employee must be considered. The argument is that the job can exist independent of the employee.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you using the word "jobs" to also describe employment openings regardless of whether the job is filled or not? That seems quite confusing and I don't believe I have seen economists use the word in such a manner.

Funny, I haven't seen them use it in any other manner.

 

[Trausti]

Are you using the word "jobs" to also describe employment openings regardless of whether the job is filled or not? That seems quite confusing and I don't believe I have seen economists use the word in such a manner.

Funny, I haven't seen them use it in any other manner.

I imagine the definition that matters is the one where the employer notifies the government of the hire. It's the employer's responsibility to report the employee's income to the IRS and to pay its contribution to social security and Medicare on behalf of the employee. How can the government know of the job otherwise?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your argument is that McDonalds was always looking for the 4th.

My argument was never saying that.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny, I haven't seen them use it in any other manner.

I imagine the definition that matters is the one where the employer notifies the government of the hire. It's the employer's responsibility to report the employee's income to the IRS and to pay its contribution to social security and Medicare on behalf of the employee. How can the government know of the job otherwise?

The paper cited in the OP is the thing that is saying it can tell the difference.

 

[ksen]

How can the government know of the job otherwise?

Well, they could consult their Job Openings and Labor Turnover Study for one.

 

[arkirk]

How can the government know of the job otherwise?

Well, they could consult their Job Openings and Labor Turnover Study for one.

Control the language, control the entire society....how modern politics works today...and for at least the last eighty years. What exactly is this report saying? It is just another version of oligarchic control of the masses. The very existence of this report represents a crass objectification of workers, treating them as if they only exist to meet some owner's purposes. It proves nothing. Its definition of a healthy economy is all the slaves' shoulders pushing against the wheel...and not human welfare. It is really about that simple.

 

[Axulus]

It does lead to jobs that would otherwise not have existed, 1.8 million of them in fact.

On what basis do you draw that conclusion? Read the paper. Nothing in the paper indicates how reduction in the duration of unemployment benefits prompts business and gov't to create new jobs.

How else would you describe the contention that 1.8 million more individuals obtained employed in 2014 due to the benefit cut?

I would describe that as the conclusion of the paper based on their model and methodology. But that is not the same thing as saying that 1.8 million jobs were created because of the reduction in the duration of unemployment benefits.

How are you defining "job created"? Is seeking a person to fill a position a "job created" at the time the seeking begins? Does one just need to post a Craigslist ad to create a job regardless of whether it gets filled or not?

 

[ksen]

How are you defining "job created"? Is seeking a person to fill a position a "job created" at the time the seeking begins? Does one just need to post a Craigslist ad to create a job regardless of whether it gets filled or not?

If there's no position already existing there's nothing to fill. Seems pretty basic to me. So imo the "job" is created when the employer decides they need someone additional on their payroll. The job is filled when the employer hires someone for that job.

Back to the claim about UE benefits, how, specifically, does stopping UE benefits create a new job? The only thing I can think it does is that it puts pressure on the former recipient to take a job that pays less than what he was willing to take before. IOW, stopping UE benefits givers employers even more bargaining power over potential employees. After all, the business won't starve if person X isn't hired. But person X may very well starve if he doesn't get hired.

I'm not sure how that's two equal parties negotiating over labor prices but your side seems to like it that way.