How do the current benefits compare to those during other periods of prolonged high unemployment?
My gut feeling tells me that politicians are more inclined to extend and extend and extend than in the past.
I lived on unemployment in the 1990 recession. 11 months to find a job, and I was looking hard. Congress extended them at that time, and I was glad about it.
They are generally considered to be a good sense expenditure in a recession. Virtually all the money is immediately respent, stimulating the economy as a whole. During expansions, there are jobs out there: people just need to find them, learn new skills to do them, or move to where they are. In that sort of situation, you don’t want to give people incentives for staying unemployed. In a recession, however, there just aren’t as many jobs as there are people looking for work. You can’t motivate them into finding a job.
Still looking for an answer.
Isn’t six months the standard?
… and I’ve heard people claim they have been collecting for two years now.
In some recessions a person can expect to find a new job within a few months. This time around is different. If extensions weren’t provided there would be a host of people living on assistance, homeless, and without health care instead of being able to focus on finding a new job instead of where their next meal comes from. That could be an even bigger drain on the economy than paying a UI benefit which allows the person to pay their rent/mortgage, buy groceries and just pay the bills while they look or train for a new job.
I think now some people can get up to 99 weeks which is almost 2 years
Oh, I just realized that you may be looking for actual data which I don’t have. I can tell you that in 1990 I was laid off and it took me five months to find a job. I believe (but am not certain) that UI benefits were paid for thirteen weeks in Massachusetts. I think it varies by state.
Extensions are common during recessions. They are uncommon–as far as I know, unheard of–during expansions. This is not a partisan thing. Pretty much every economist agrees that extending unemployment during a recession is a good idea because it is a fundamentally different type of unemployment than what you get during expansions.
Back in the 70s stagflation period, unemployment was repeatedly extended. I was very grateful, since that was my first try at writing full time. I eventually went back to work, tried again. Boom, another recession. I am a leading indicator.
As said, there is nothing new about this, and it makes good economic sense. There is no real “standard.” It varies almost like loan rates and for the same reasons.
YOu are right.
Never before in our history did we ever hand out unemployment benefits for anywhere even close to 99 weeks.
If we are paying people for up to 2 years (99) weeks for not working, then it IS!!! assistance/welfare.
I think after 6 months, we should stop calling it unemployment benefits, and just call it the welfare that it is.
Do you have a cite, or are you guessing? Extensions were passed in the Recessions during the 80’s and 90’s? How long were they extended for?
That was true in the old days, but not anymore.
In the old days, back when the United States was an industrialized manufacturing society, giving unemployment benefits to people meant that they would buy things, our stores would sell more goods, and we would increase our orders from our own factories, and then our American factories would have to hire back American workers in order to produce more.
Times have changed. There are very few consumer goods manufactued in the United States. Increasing spending power of common Americans does not stimulate our economy.
Handing out money today to unemployed people really does not stimulate the economy anymore, esp when you consider the opportunity cost (of what that money could have done had it not been taxed and then given away).
These days, giving out unemployment checks, causes more goods “Made in China” to be sold, re-ordered, production in China increased, and more Chinese factory workers hired, so American unemployment checks, today, for the most part helps to stimulate the Chinese economy.
Originally Posted by Susanann
Never before in our history did we ever hand out unemployment benefits for anywhere even close to 99 weeks.
I am not guessing.
I was there, in person.
I am old, and I can remember very well the unemployment benefits of the 1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s, 1980’s, etc.
YOu’d better believe me that if I could have collected 99 weeks of unemployment checks back then, I would have, but we never had extensions back then like we do now.
This paper says that there have been some form of unemployment benefit extensions in 14 out of the 31 years between 1975-2006. So the answer to the OP’s question is no, extensions are not unusual, we basically do them whenever there’s a recession. The duration maybe longer, but that’s because the period of prolonged unemployment has been considerably longer.
The money is being raised by selling bonds, not through taxes.
Consumer spending made up 71% of the US GDP in 2007. Its huge. And the US is the worlds largest manufacturer. cites
Do you issuing bonds is “free money”?
Where do you think the government gets the money to pay off those bonds? …if not from the taxpayer?
Nothing is “free”. Somebody always has to pay. Whatever/whenver a government spends, the people have to be taxed to pay for it.
Future tax payers. But there is no “opportunity cost” to the current economy, at least not in the form of current tax payers having their money taken away.
- I would not argue that. However, previous extensions were NOT EVEN CLOSE to 99 weeks of today.
- The OP question “IS” one of duration, so the answer to the OP is:
A DEFINITE YES!!! … today’s **" politicians are more inclined to extend and extend and extend than in the past." **
Originally Posted by Susanann View Post
Do you issuing bonds is “free money”?
Where do you think the government gets the money to pay off those bonds? …if not from the taxpayer?
Nothing is “free”. Somebody always has to pay. Whatever/whenver a government spends, the people have to be taxed to pay for it.
That is so WRONG!! …but it is also sooooo off topic.
If what you said was true, then we should just give every person in America today a million dollars in cash (and then just issue some bonds for it).
(Gee, if you can fantasize economics like that, then while you are at it, why not also make the minimum wage $50.00 an hour?)