Cutting Jobless Benefits Did Not Boost Employment

[ksen]

http://www.epi.org/blog/epi-and-aei-agree-cutting-jobless-benefits-did-not-boost-employment/

Now, more than seven months later, data are available to test this idea. Coming from perspectives that diverge greatly along the ideological spectrum, scholars at both AEI and EPI have come to the conclusion that this “bootstraps” theory is incorrect—curtailing jobless benefits did not boost employment. Because unemployment benefits are contingent upon the people who receive them proving that they are looking for a job, receiving jobless benefits appears to make recipients at least just as likely, and certainly not less likely, to rejoin the ranks of the employed.

I'm glad that's settled. I suppose the GOP will be working to restore unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed as soon as possible?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It only works if you take away their Obamaphones. They they will find work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Republicans aren't willing to admit there is an overall problem. It's always just lazy workers. Pay no attention to the fact that the number of unemployed/underemployed vastly exceeds the number of available jobs. If workers try hard they'll all be above average and get hired.

 

[laughing dog]

Is it better for the economy and the individual for that person to take any job that comes up or to search for a better job? Is it better for the economy and the individual to go back to school and get more marketable skills than to take a low-paying job? Those issues are ignored when the focus is reducing the number people getting unemployment benefits.

 

[James Brown]

I'd be curious to see how the political affiliation of the unemployed falls out. What do unemployed Republicans think of the stereotype that unemployment is largely due to laziness?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What do unemployed Republicans think of the stereotype that unemployment is largely due to laziness?

They'll think they'd have jobs, because they're not lazy, except Obama promised their jobs to illegal gay immigrants who're going to vote Democrat for the rest of forever.

 

[doubtingt]

But it makes no sense that cutting funds to the unemployed would not increase employment. Giving $ to people who don't have enough to meet basic needs guarantees that will spend all you give them on goods and services, and consumption the heart and soul of all economic growth, which in turn creates jobs for those unemployed people.

Oh wait, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is it better for the economy and the individual for that person to take any job that comes up or to search for a better job? Is it better for the economy and the individual to go back to school and get more marketable skills than to take a low-paying job? Those issues are ignored when the focus is reducing the number people getting unemployment benefits.

And in a bad economy retraining isn't really an option. Sure, you can go to school but you're now an older worker with zero experience competing against those who have experience. What are your chances of getting a job??

Retraining is useful for those whose field is permanently devastated but that's about it.

 

[laughing dog]

Consumption is not the heart and soul of economic growth. Consumption and investment are the heart and soul of economic growth. An economy needs investment to boost its productivity and consumption to induce more investment.

 

[laughing dog]

Is it better for the economy and the individual for that person to take any job that comes up or to search for a better job? Is it better for the economy and the individual to go back to school and get more marketable skills than to take a low-paying job? Those issues are ignored when the focus is reducing the number people getting unemployment benefits.

And in a bad economy retraining isn't really an option. Sure, you can go to school but you're now an older worker with zero experience competing against those who have experience. What are your chances of getting a job??

Probably better than working part-time at Taco Bell. Since an economy is not going to bad forever, retraining or re-education is an investment in the future.

Retraining is useful for those whose field is permanently devastated but that's about it.

Nonsense. Retraining and education are useful for anyone who is unhappy with his/her current job or career prospects, regardless of his/her current job prospects.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And in a bad economy retraining isn't really an option. Sure, you can go to school but you're now an older worker with zero experience competing against those who have experience. What are your chances of getting a job??

Probably better than working part-time at Taco Bell. Since an economy is not going to bad forever, retraining or re-education is an investment in the future.

Retraining is useful for those whose field is permanently devastated but that's about it.

Nonsense. Retraining and education are useful for anyone who is unhappy with his/her current job or career prospects, regardless of his/her current job prospects.

If your field is wrecked, yes, retrain. It will help you when the economy recovers. If your field is just depressed by the economy, though, when it recovers you'll do better in your field than in one you have no experience in.


How about something that would actually help: Make unemployment one of those protected bits of data they can't ask you about. Mandate that resumes do not have dates on them, just durations.

 

[laughing dog]

If your field is wrecked, yes, retrain. It will help you when the economy recovers. If your field is just depressed by the economy, though, when it recovers you'll do better in your field than in one you have no experience in.

Not if you don't like the field or you think it doesn't have a future or you don't have a field. You appear to assume that there is only one of person who is unemployed or looking to change careers. The world is much more diverse than that.

How about something that would actually help: Make unemployment one of those protected bits of data they can't ask you about. Mandate that resumes do not have dates on them, just durations.

How would that help people with the wrong or no work experience?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not if you don't like the field or you think it doesn't have a future or you don't have a field. You appear to assume that there is only one of person who is unemployed or looking to change careers. The world is much more diverse than that.

How about something that would actually help: Make unemployment one of those protected bits of data they can't ask you about. Mandate that resumes do not have dates on them, just durations.

How would that help people with the wrong or no work experience?

It wouldn't help them as much. It would stop employers from discriminating against the unemployed--it's not a perfect answer but it would help and it's easy to do.