# Republicans are taking away my unemployment for my own good. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 8, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823 "2013-12-08T15:44:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/441 "2014-01-17T04:29:58Z")
I’m just thinking of those who tell the unemployed to get a job, any job, quit being so picky, nothing is beneath you if you really want to work, etc…but then the applicant is often turned down for being overqualified. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/442 "2014-01-17T15:04:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, employers are a homogenous group, then, and we may rely with confidence that the virtues you so clearly embody are universal among that class of persons? I don’t know why you’re being snarky/incredulous. Based on what I look for in what few resumes/interviews I’ve reviewed/conducted, various anecdotes from my friends (and **Fisha** ), common sense, and whatever studies you can easily google ([New Study: Long-Term Unemployment Viewed By Hiring Companies As Worse Than A Criminal Record](http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/09/18/new-study-long-term-unemployment-viewed-by-hiring-companies-as-worse-than-a-criminal-record/))… it paints a near-unanimous picture that long-term unemployment is probably the worst thing you can do for your employment chances. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/443 "2014-01-17T19:50:21Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > … it paints a near-unanimous picture that long-term unemployment is probably the worst thing you can do for your employment chances. Not unlike driving while black in Beverly Hills. No defensible reason for it, but prudent people of color take heed. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/444 "2014-01-18T00:54:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What a pointless rejoinder. > > The complaint is that employers tend to look askance at resumes from people who have been out of work for a long time. The testimony that one is an employer and does not have that prejudice speaks well for **fisha** , but may only mean that **fisha** is an exception to a rule, or is from Minnesota. > > Seriously, you don’t get that? **fisha** said that she likes the resumes of people who did work, even in crap jobs - not the resumes of people who didn’t work at all. At least that’s my take on it. I agree - except that now my field is hot. I knew someone who couldn’t find a tech sales job during the Bubble - concerns employers might have had were warranted. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/445 "2014-01-18T00:59:19Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > What should the response be to a potential employer who refuses to consider hiring someone on the basis that he/she is “overqualified”? I agree with others that the two reasons are that the person will leave at the earliest opportunity - which is going to be true, right, and that the person might look down on the job and the other people there, which should not be true. If I were in that situation I’d confront leaving right up front - but say that my track record shows that I can quickly become the most productive person there, and probably even find some ways where their profits could be improved through simple and cheap improvements. So, even if I do leave in six months, hiring me will really pay off. Not everyone will respond positively to this - but you probably won’t want to work for those who don’t. ---
**Author:** ![burunduk34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ec8ea/32.png) [@burunduk34](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burunduk34)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/446 "2014-01-18T15:25:49Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Rand Paul has said that extending unemployment beyond Dec. 28 is a [“disservice” to the unemployed.](http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/12/paul-unemployment-benefits-disservice-to-workers-179098.html) Rand Paul is absolutely correct. Taking your unemployment benefits away from you is good not only for you, but for society in general. A noted Nobel-prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, sums it up nicely in his 2010 edition of **Essentials of Economics** : _People respond to incentives. If unemployment becomes more attractive because of the unemployment benefit, some unemployed workers may no longer try to find a job, or may not try to find one as quickly as they would without the benefit. Ways to get around this problem are to provide unemployment benefits only for a limited time or to require recipients to prove they are actively looking for a new job._ And, in the 2009 edition of his textbook **Economics** he writes: _Generous unemployment benefits can increase both structural and frictional unemployment. So government policies intended to help workers can have the undesirable side effect of raising the natural rate of unemployment._ When people so opposite on the political spectrum, as Paul and Krugman, agree on something, chances are they’re correct. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/447 "2014-01-18T15:59:26Z")
> [@burunduk34](#): > > Rand Paul is absolutely correct. Taking your unemployment benefits away from you is good not only for you, but for society in general. > A noted Nobel-prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, sums it up nicely in his 2010 edition of **Essentials of Economics** : > > _People respond to incentives. If unemployment becomes more attractive because of the unemployment benefit, some unemployed workers may no longer try to find a job, or may not try to find one as quickly as they would without the benefit. Ways to get around this problem are to provide unemployment benefits only for a limited time or to require recipients to prove they are actively looking for a new job._ > > And, in the 2009 edition of his textbook **Economics** he writes: > > _Generous unemployment benefits can increase both structural and frictional unemployment. So government policies intended to help workers can have the undesirable side effect of raising the natural rate of unemployment._ > > When people so opposite on the political spectrum, as Paul and Krugman, agree on something, chances are they’re correct. I suspect those quotes are not showing the whole context nor the more recent changes, and that is likely as Krugman is talking of \*\*generous \*\*unemployment benefits and under the context of normal conditions, what is happening now is not the usual. > **[Opinion | The Punishment Cure (Published 2013)](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/opinion/krugman-the-punishment-cure.html)** > > The Republican response to the unemployed is a mix of callousness and bad economics. [QUOTE=PAUL KRUGMAN] Here’s the world as many Republicans see it: Unemployment insurance, which generally pays eligible workers between 40 and 50 percent of their previous pay, reduces the incentive to search for a new job. As a result, the story goes, workers stay unemployed longer. In particular, it’s claimed that the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, which lets workers collect benefits beyond the usual limit of 26 weeks, explains why there are four million long-term unemployed workers in America today, up from just one million in 2007. Correspondingly, the G.O.P. answer to the problem of long-term unemployment is to increase the pain of the long-term unemployed: Cut off their benefits, and they’ll go out and find jobs. How, exactly, will they find jobs when there are three times as many job-seekers as job vacancies? Details, details. Proponents of this story like to cite academic research — some of it from Democratic-leaning economists — that seemingly confirms the idea that unemployment insurance causes unemployment. They’re not equally fond of pointing out that this research is two or more decades old, has not stood the test of time, and is irrelevant in any case given our current economic situation. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > The point is that employment in today’s American economy is limited by demand, not supply. Businesses aren’t failing to hire because they can’t find willing workers; they’re failing to hire because they can’t find enough customers. And slashing unemployment benefits — which would have the side effect of reducing incomes and hence consumer spending — would just make the situation worse. So, indeed, chances are that he is correct. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/448 "2014-01-18T16:35:52Z")
As a DFH of long standing, I am not exactly crazy about the consumer economy we have built, seems to me a like a massive machine for squandering valuable resources on loud, shiny crap. But it is what it is, and its the only economy we have. And gradual reform at an agonizingly slow pace is a better option than burning it all down and starting over. So, at least for now, we are stuck with it. Stark fact: without consumers with money to spend on loud, shiny crap…not to mention food, shelter and clothing…we have no economy. We still have goods and services, just nobody with enough money to buy any of them. Our growth industries are going to be gated communities, security guards and private enterprise prisons. America, fucked _yeah!_ ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/449 "2014-01-18T18:15:35Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > I don’t know why you’re being snarky/incredulous. Based on what I look for in what few resumes/interviews I’ve reviewed/conducted, various anecdotes from my friends (and **Fisha** ), common sense, and whatever studies you can easily google ([New Study: Long-Term Unemployment Viewed By Hiring Companies As Worse Than A Criminal Record](http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/09/18/new-study-long-term-unemployment-viewed-by-hiring-companies-as-worse-than-a-criminal-record/))… it paints a near-unanimous picture that long-term unemployment is probably the worst thing you can do for your employment chances. Another article from your source, [Obama to Americans: You Don’t Deserve to be Free](http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/12/31/obama-to-americans-you-dont-deserve-to-be-free/), provides some of the **Will Farnaby** School of Economics philosophical context from which these kinds of statements are coming. The site won’t allow me to copy and paste so you’ll have to read it yourself, but here’s a few gems: > [@](#): > > The only thing the market doesn’t take care of is anti-market acts: acts that initiate physical force. That’s why we need government: to wield retaliatory force to defend individual rights. > [@](#): > > it was exactly 100 years ago that a gigantic anti-capitalist measure was put into effect: the Federal Reserve System. > [@](#): > > Laissez-faire hasn’t existed since the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. That was the first of a plethora of government crimes against the free market. > [@](#): > > The philosophy of individualism and the politics of laissez-faire would mean government spending of about one-tenth it’s present level. It would also mean an end to all regulatory agencies: no SEC, FDA, NLRB, FAA, OSHA, EPA, FTC, ATF, CFTC, FHA, FCC, to name just some > [@](#): > > Suddenly, the whole issue comes into focus: Obama is saying freedom leads to poverty and that force leads to wealth… As a bit of ugly irony, this is exactly what former white slave owners said after the Civil War: “The black man can’t handle freedom; we have to force him for his own good.” The innovation of the left is to extend this viewpoint to all races. So you see, it is simple. If we simply repeal the minimum wage, and also OSHA, the EPA, Obamacare, food stamps and unemployment insurance, shrink the number of jobs while increasing the population, then only consider hiring people who have worked under deadly conditions for $2/hour without any gaps in their employment record (or a lot of unsightly jumping around from job to job either), we’ll achieve _freedom!!1!11!_ and be holy in the sight of the Lord, Mammon. ---
**Author:** ![burunduk34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ec8ea/32.png) [@burunduk34](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burunduk34)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/450 "2014-01-18T18:49:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I suspect those quotes are not showing the whole context nor the more recent changes What recent changes are you referring to? Surely, the economy now is in much stronger shape than it was around 2009-2010. And, surely, if curtailing unemployment benefits back then was a sound economic policy, it is even more so now. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/451 "2014-01-18T19:56:51Z")
> [@burunduk34](#): > > What recent changes are you referring to? Surely, the economy now is in much stronger shape than it was around 2009-2010. And, surely, if curtailing unemployment benefits back then was a sound economic policy, it is even more so now. That is nice, it does not deal with the fact that Krugman does not agree with you, so as you said, chances are that he is correct. ---
**Author:** ![burunduk34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ec8ea/32.png) [@burunduk34](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burunduk34)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/452 "2014-01-18T21:02:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is nice, it does not deal with the fact that Krugman does not agree with you, so as you said, chances are that he is correct. 😕 Krugman agrees with me (that’s actually why the chances are that he is correct) . He does not agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/453 "2014-01-18T22:11:41Z")
> [@Paul Krugman](#): > > _If unemployment becomes more attractive because of the unemployment benefit, some unemployed workers may…_ Please note the qualifier in that statement: _if_. _If_ unemployment becomes more attractive. You have not shown that it has become so, and Mr. Krugman, based on his current wirtings, clearly does not believe that it has. So sure, Krugman and Paul roughly agree on the general thesis; they patently disagree on whether or not unemployment compensation as it stands is sufficiently attractive to cause problems. Which makes sense: Rand Paul believes _any_ unemployment payment leads to terrible moral decay. Krugman does not. ---
**Author:** ![burunduk34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ec8ea/32.png) [@burunduk34](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burunduk34)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/454 "2014-01-18T22:49:47Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Please note the qualifier in that statement: _if_. _If_ unemployment becomes more attractive. > > You have not shown that it has become so, and Mr. Krugman, based on his current wirtings, clearly does not believe that it has. Oh, I see. Well, this Forbes article [On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States](http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/) states that welfare payments exceed the minimum hourly wage in 35 states. In 13 states, welfare pays more than $15 per hour. 1. Is it appropriate here to equate welfare with unemployment benefits? 2. If so, it would appear there’s an incentive for unemployed to stay unemployed rather than take lower-paying jobs in at least 35 states? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/455 "2014-01-18T22:56:17Z")
> [@burunduk34](#): > > Oh, I see. Well, this Forbes article [On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States](http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/) > states that welfare payments exceed the minimum hourly wage in 35 states. > In 13 states, welfare pays more than $15 per hour. > > 1. Is it appropriate here to equate welfare with unemployment benefits? > 2. If so, it would appear there’s an incentive for unemployed to stay unemployed rather than take lower-paying jobs in at least 35 states? From the linked article. > [@](#): > > At its worst, the welfare system rewards people for not working, and incentivizes people to develop habits that make it harder for them to find work in the future, miring them in permanent poverty. So if staying on welfare mires someone in permanent poverty, why is it a good thing if they take a job that pays _ **less** _? And since there are 3-4 applicants per job opening, what do we do with the surplus population? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/456 "2014-01-19T00:16:51Z")
> [@burunduk34](#): > > 😕 Krugman agrees with me (that’s actually why the chances are that he is correct) . He does not agree with you. Ah the old denial of timelines, it is a syndrome with conservatives. I cited Krugman form 2013 BTW: [QUOTE=Krugman] Correspondingly, the G.O.P. answer to the problem of long-term unemployment is to increase the pain of the long-term unemployed: Cut off their benefits, and they’ll go out and find jobs. How, exactly, will they find jobs when there are three times as many job-seekers as job vacancies? Details, details. Proponents of this story like to cite academic research — some of it from Democratic-leaning economists — that seemingly confirms the idea that unemployment insurance causes unemployment. They’re not equally fond of pointing out that this research is two or more decades old, has not stood the test of time, and is irrelevant in any case given our current economic situation. The view of most labor economists now is that unemployment benefits have only a modest negative effect on job search — and in today’s economy have no negative effect at all on overall employment. On the contrary, unemployment benefits help create jobs, and cutting those benefits would depress the economy as a whole. [/QUOTE] So no, you are wrong again. He agrees with me. ---
**Author:** ![burunduk34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ec8ea/32.png) [@burunduk34](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burunduk34)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/457 "2014-01-19T01:57:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I cited Krugman form 2013 BTW. And I cited Krugman from 2009 and 2010 BTW. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > So no, you are wrong again. He agrees with me. No, you’re wrong again. He agrees with me. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/458 "2014-01-19T02:09:47Z")
> [@burunduk34](#): > > And I cited Krugman from 2009 and 2010 BTW. > > No, you’re wrong again. He agrees with me. So 2009/2010 comes _after_ 2013? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/459 "2014-01-19T02:22:33Z")
> [@burunduk34](#): > > Oh, I see. I’m glad you see that Paul Krugman and Rand Paul do not agree except in the very broadest of terms, and certainly do not actually see eye to eye in this case. I understand you support Paul’s assertions about the moral contagion of unemployment benefits, and I’m sure you were excited about the idea of supporting that position with Krugman’s words. Unfortunately, in your zeal you misrepresented Krugman and incorrectly equated his position to Paul’s. It happens, but please try to avoid it in thfuture. ---
**Author:** ![burunduk34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ec8ea/32.png) [@burunduk34](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burunduk34)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/460 "2014-01-19T02:25:04Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > So 2009/2010 comes _after_ 2013? No, it comes before. Why do you ask? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823.md?page=24)