U.S. Politics, 14

[TerraPrime]

However, I'm pretty sure I've read some statistical research showing that people are more likely to find jobs when their benefits are about to run out. So there is a legitimate concern that extending UI benefits might be counterproductive in a macro sense.

Eh?

So, the GOP policy on cutting unemployment benefits is motivated in part by the desire to encourage unemployed people to seek jobs?

Yeah, right. That's a non-started for me. It seems so much post-hoc justification to me. The real intention is to cut social programs to save money, which is the philosophical pillar for fiscal conservatives. That's like my friend who threw away his apple core to the woods arguing that it is not littering because the core will decompose and become fertilizer, when really, he was just too lazy to walk to the end of the picnic area where the waste basket is.

[Commodore]

Yeah, right. That's a non-started for me. It seems so much post-hoc justification to me. The real intention is to cut social programs to save money, which is the philosophical pillar for fiscal conservatives.

This is actually where the argument is headed. You don't need to oppose social programs ideologically, the simple response is "we don't have any money to do that". It works because it's true.

Chris Christie uses it in NJ. Rather than arguing the merits of X, he says he "would love to do X but we don't have any money, sorry". His opponents can't refute that, unless they find money somewhere or argue for tax hikes, which they aren't willing to do in this economy.

It puts the onus back on the spenders to find money to pay for the things they want.

The debate should be about dividing up a pot of tax revenue or expanding/reducing that pot. But the spending should always be limited to a percentage of the revenue available, not some arbitrary dollar amount.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So, the GOP policy on cutting unemployment benefits is motivated in part by the desire to encourage unemployed people to seek jobs?

In part? Absolutely. The concept isn't even that controversial.

Yeah, right. That's a non-started for me. It seems so much post-hoc justification to me. The real intention is to cut social programs to save money, which is the philosophical pillar for fiscal conservatives.

Well, it may be a "non-starter" for you, but that's a nonsensical position to me. After all, doesn't encouraging people to seek jobs cut the amount of money paid in social services, and therefore save money? To argue that Republicans are indifferent to getting people off the dole and back to work, which is what you're doing when you object to saying its "part of the motivation", doesn't even give the GOP credit for being the cost-cutting bastards you claim they are.

Here's something from the one link I found. I also remember hearing about a survey showing that there was a significant correleation between the timing of new employment and the expiration of benefits, but I don't have the time to look for it. Anyway:

On the other hand, increased availability of UI benefits theoretically can increase unemployment duration through two primary behavioral channels. First, the extension of UI benefits, which represents an increase in their value, may reduce the intensity with which UI-eligible unemployed individuals search for work. This could occur because the additional UI benefits reduce the net gains from finding a job and also serve as an income cushion that helps households maintain acceptable consumption levels in the face of unemployment shocks (Chetty 2008). Alternatively, the measured unemployment rate may be artificially inflated because some individuals who are not actively searching for work or who are unwilling to take available jobs are identifying themselves as active searchers in order to receive UI benefits.

Economists have long recognized that the availability and value of UI benefits can lengthen unemployment spells. Empirical estimates using data from the United States and other countries confirm this general relationship.

[Faelar006]

On the unemployment benefits issue, I have had some direct personal experience with people turning down offers of part-time employment because they're making more on unemployment. I also know of a few individuals who are deliberately not looking for jobs because the combination of unemployment and other social services is about equal to what they'd be making. So, they either sit at home or do some under the table work that doesn't affect unemployment or other benefits.

FLoW,

Speaking from experience, there are a lot of good reasons for people to turn down part-time work in favor of unemployment benefits. Besides, unemployment benefits are not designed as a stop-gap to fill in until you find any old job that comes along, but are designed to provide you time to search for a job that is similar in salary and benefits to the one that you lost. If people are more likely to take jobs when their benefits are about to expire, the likely reason is that they're having to take the job out of desperation. I'd very much like to see how those jobs that are taken when benefits are about to run out compare to the jobs that were held before receiving unemployment.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW,

Speaking from experience, there are a lot of good reasons for people to turn down part-time work in favor of unemployment benefits. Besides, unemployment benefits are not designed as a stop-gap to fill in until you find any old job that comes along, but are designed to provide you time to search for a job that is similar in salary and benefits to the one that you lost. If people are more likely to take jobs when their benefits are about to expire, the likely reason is that they're having to take the job out of desperation. I'd very much like to see how those jobs that are taken when benefits are about to run out compare to the jobs that were held before receiving unemployment.

I'm not sure how that changes the point, though. I'd agree that people might take part-time work out of "desperation" if their benefits are about to run out. But exactly what's wrong with them working for money rather than being handed it for doing nothing? They can always continue looking for full-time positions if only employed part-time, right? For that matter, a great many people look for better full-time work even when they're already employed full-time.

I think it's possible that this could be true yet still leave room for UI benefits in this economy right now. I think the great recession means that a lot of people are not extending their unemployment because of any reason other than that they cannot find a job.

Agreed. I am not claiming that everyone receiving extended UI is turning down offers of employment.

[Faelar006]

Agreed. I am not claiming that everyone receiving extended UI is turning down offers of employment.

In my experience, I'd claim that many, many people receiving UI turn down offers of employment. I know I turned down at least 3 or 4 offers.

I'm not sure how that changes the point, though. I'd agree that people might take part-time work out of "desperation" if their benefits are about to run out. But exactly what's wrong with them working for money rather than being handed it for doing nothing? They can always continue looking for full-time positions if only employed part-time, right? For that matter, a great many people look for better full-time work even when they're already employed full-time.

There is nothing "wrong" with them working part-time, except for the fact that working part-time takes away from searching for employment and/or job training. Also, it is almost a universal maxim that you shouldn't accept job offers that pay significantly less than you are used to making, or in jobs far outside your field, as that could affect your ability to get hired in the future and/or your future pay.

Besides, from a purely selfish perspective, why should I accept crappy part-time work for less money than I'm getting for "doing nothing"?

[Faelar006]

UI is simply not treated the way "welfare" is treated. It'd be interesting to see what happens if these people suddenly start having to receive "actual welfare". Riots, I hope.

Coco,

Maybe it's a regional thing, but around here, UI is very much seen as "welfare", regardless of the fact that it is insurance against unemployment that is actually paid for.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Besides, from a purely selfish perspective, why should I accept crappy part-time work for less money than I'm getting for "doing nothing"?

And from an equally selfish perspective, why should myself and other taxpayers pay you for doing nothing when you get a job that pays?

[Faelar006]

And from an equally selfish perspective, why should myself and other taxpayers pay you for doing nothing when you get a job that pays?

FLoW,

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, but as you failed to address my other points, namely that taking part-time work for significantly less money than one is used to making both detracts time away from job searching and/or job retraining and affects future job choices, I have to ask whether you believe that a former professional flipping burgers is a better use of his or her time, in a macro sense, than that professional seeking employment and/or retraining their job skills?

[Faelar006]

Where are you? That definitely makes a difference.

In Pennsylvania, at least the SE portion, it's seen as less than ideal, but certainly not the same as "welfare". It's in a completely different cultural and linguistic category here. PA has some very lenient welfare laws, for the record.

Oklahoma here. There is a very definite and real stigma to receiving UI benefits, on par with receiving food stamp benefits if I had to give a comparison.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW,

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, but as you failed to address my other points, namely that taking part-time work for significantly less money than one is used to making both detracts time away from job searching and/or job retraining and affects future job choices, I have to ask whether you believe that a former professional flipping burgers is a better use of his or her time, in a macro sense, than that professional seeking employment and/or retraining their job skills?

I wasn't ducking the point, and think I'd already addressed the first one. People can and do still search for full-time employment even when they're already employed full-time. Happens all the time. So I don't see part-time employment as being a credible impediment to a job search. Education is a different issue. If someone doesn't take a job because they're going to school full-time, that's different from turning down a job offer because they can make just as much sitting at home on unemployment.

I have to ask whether you believe that a former professional flipping burgers is a better use of his or her time, in a macro sense, than that professional seeking employment and/or retraining their job skills?

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy when you claim that the choice is part-time flipping burgers or a job search. It is entirely possible to do both, though I understand why the professional may not be pleased with the idea of flipping burgers. But then, I'm not pleased with paying the professional for not working when work is available. Now, I do understand not accepting the first job that's offered. But I also think that after an extended period of unemployment, any job is better than no job, at least from the perspective of the public.

And personally, if someone has been out of work for more than 26 weeks, I'd greatly prefer the professional who says "You're damn right I'll flip burgers if I need to support myself or my family", rather than the guy sitting on his ass turning down work after more than six months. One speaks of having a work ethic and doing whatever it takes, and the other speaks of arrogance and laziness.

[TrackerNeil]

You could argue that, but it isn't fair to accuse the Republicans of going back on a promise they never made based on your idiosyncratic interpretation of what they said. Interpreting their promise not to spend more as being violated by a tax cut, when they were completely upfront about supporting tax cuts, is bogus. There is no inconsistency.

No, they're not. You might argue that tax cuts have the same effect on the deficit as spending, but that doesn't make them the same as spending. By that logic, you could argue that a tax increase is the same thing as a spending cut, which it most assuredly is not.

But like I said, to the extent someone wants to point to the extension of the UI benefits as violating that promise, I'd agree. At least to the extent you're blaming only those GOP members of the Class of 2010 who are currently in Congress already.

So it's not that we increase the deficit, but only how we increase it that's wrong? So deficit spending is bad, but a reduction of revenue that increases the deficit is OK? Funny, but you didn't hear many Republicans trying to make that fine distinction on the campaign trail in 2010, which is probably because that position doesn't make sense.

Look, if the Republicans were serious about deficit reduction I could to some degree get behind them. Deficit reduction is a worthy goal even if I don't think it should be a primary goal right now. However, the people who screamed in June that we couldn't extend UI benefits without finding a deficit-neutral way to pay for it are the same people clamoring for $700 billion dollars in tax cuts they can't pay for either. No matter how you shuffle the papers or cleverly wrap your tongue around the words, those tax cuts are deficit-increasing, and increases to the deficit are what the GOP campaigned against all damned year. Given how the Republicans have treated the results of the 2010 elections as their elevation to imperial status, you would think they might remember for more than one month the central core of their platform.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So it's not that we increase the deficit, but only how we increase it that's wrong?

I've had this discussion on here before, but yes, at least to some extent. To conservatives, reducing the size of government and not running a deficit are related but not identical or fungible concepts, and both goals have independent value. Conservatives wouldn't like a system that takes 80% of wages to fund it's programs, even if that budget is balanced. Democrats repeatedly focus solely on "the deficit", while ignoring the additional issue of the size and scope of government. I think many Democrats believe that we should have all the social programs that we can afford, which is why all they care about is the deficit.

So deficit spending is bad, but a reduction of revenue that increases the deficit is OK? Funny, but you didn't hear many Republicans trying to make that fine distinction on the campaign trail in 2010, which is probably because that position doesn't make sense.

First, as I said, there is a fundamental belief among many conservatives that government is seeking to do too much, and we'd believe that even if the budget was balanced. Second, I'll go back to Roose's point. Many conservatives believe that the budget should be balanced by cutting spending, and the only time the political will ever exists to do that is when there is a deficit. So, all increasing taxes does is essentially enable higher levels of spending. We want the emphasis to be on the spending side, not the revenue side.

I personally would not support a new tax cut right now, which is why I don't support the payroll tax cut. We're enough in the hole as it is. But I do think that raising taxes now is completely nuts, and that's why we need to maintain the current rates and take an ax to spending.

[Faelar006]

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy when you claim that the choice is part-time flipping burgers or a job search. It is entirely possible to do both, though I understand why the professional may not be pleased with the idea of flipping burgers. But then, I'm not pleased with paying the professional for not working when work is available. Now, I do understand not accepting the first job that's offered. But I also think that after an extended period of unemployment, any job is better than no job, at least from the perspective of the public.

And personally, if someone has been out of work for more than 26 weeks, I'd greatly prefer the professional who says "You're damn right I'll flip burgers if I need to support myself or my family", rather than the guy sitting on his ass turning down work after more than six months. One speaks of having a work ethic and doing whatever it takes, and the other speaks of arrogance and laziness.

FLoW,

Ideally, your scenario sounds great. Who wouldn't prefer that "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality? Realistically, however, it is woefully out of touch with reality. Assuming a two-income family with kids where one of the parents loses their job, the one that loses their job typically takes care of the kids when the kids are removed from day care which seriously inhibits their ability to work a part-time job.

And if we're talking about providing for one's family, then it would simply be idiotic to take a job that pays LESS than what one makes from UI. When you're providing for your family, you maximize your income, you don't minimize it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW,

Ideally, your scenario sounds great. Who wouldn't prefer that "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality? Realistically, however, it is woefully out of touch with reality. Assuming a two-income family with kids where one of the parents loses their job, the one that loses their job typically takes care of the kids when the kids are removed from day care which seriously inhibits their ability to work a part-time job.

And if we're talking about providing for one's family, then it would simply be idiotic to take a job that pays LESS than what one makes from UI. When you're providing for your family, you maximize your income, you don't minimize it.

I'd agree that if the only alternative is a job whose pay level and hours are so low that, coupled with the cost of child care, it is a negative amount, then not working makes sense. Of course, that would exclude situations where child care isn't an issue, either because of a stay at home spouse, kids old enough to be home by themselves, job hours on a shift where your spouse would be home anyway, etc. Of course, there's also the child care tax credit for low income folks.

And in the two situation I was dealing with, there weren't children at home. It was just "why should I work a part-time job when I can make just as much money on unemployment?" Again, I understand that from a selfish rational actor perspective. But from the perspective of the rest of society's selfish perspective, that's not a good result.

[TrackerNeil]

've had this discussion on here before, but yes, at least to some extent. To conservatives, reducing the size of government and not running a deficit are related but not identical or fungible concepts, and both goals have independent value.

First, as I said, there is a fundamental belief among many conservatives that government is seeking to do too much, and we'd believe that even if the budget was balanced. Second, I'll go back to Roose's point. Many conservatives believe that the budget should be balanced by cutting spending, and the only time the political will ever exists to do that is when there is a deficit.

Ah...it's as I thought; philosophy. The older I get, the less concerned I am with philosophical views of governing. My view is that those who are concerned with deficits should consider all reasonable options to reduce them, and not only those options that fit their particular philosophy. Those who feel that a consistent philosophical approach trumps workable policy are of course free to hold that position, but they should expect resistance from those of us more concerned with what works in the world than with what fits a certain worldview.

[TerraPrime]

But exactly what's wrong with them working for money rather than being handed it for doing nothing?

Unemployment benefits do not come from individual income tax. They come from tax levied by federal and state on the employers. So, *you* are not paying for *my* unemployment benefits. In my contribution to my employer (before they fired me), I helped them pay the unemployment insurance. So, I really don't see how you can justify cutting unemployment on the ground that I shouldn't have to pay for someone else not having a job.

Also, according to wiki (here), the average pay-out for unemployment is about 36% of the original pay. Very few people can subside on that on a long-term basis. If they are making as much as with unemployment as they do in their job, then someone is very skewed and probably not the average situation.

Also also, they're not doing nothing. They are looking for the next job.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Ah...it's as I thought; philosophy. The older I get, the less concerned I am with philosophical views of governing.

Seriously? I mean, that essentially reduces everything to almost a pure Rawlsian materialism. You don't think things like freedom and individual choice matter?

[Swordfish]

Why Garth, that was a haiku.

:laugh:

Well played....

You may be right. But I wonder if he couldn't just be honest that the tax cuts to the wealthy were a part of a bi-partisan compromise. He doesn't have to ever make the argument that the taxes to those above $250,000 of income were important for the economy.

Maybe. But the whole 'trying to incite class envy' strategy hasn't been very successful so far, so it seems fairly risky, and that's a pretty nuanced distinction to make to TAA, who are generally anti tax coming out of the gate anyway.

If they were going to battle the cuts, it seems like this was the time to do it.

I think what is more likely is that they really just weren't that interested in getting rid of them to begin with, but I might be slightly cynical.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Unemployment benefits do not come from individual income tax.

My apologies. I guess it's really the Chinese buying our bonds who are actually paying the federally-funded extension of benefits.