We just looked at the latest from Krugman and Sumner-or expect a piece from Sumner soon to push back at Krugman. Which is cool-I love Krugman and Sumner locking horns.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/07/sumner-vs-krugman-on-sheltered-life-and.html
However, it's important to realize just what a bad argument the case against UI is. The real argument against UI that Sumner and company always make is that UI make very lowly paid workers a little more choosy. In the link above, I considered my own experience on UI. I did once reflect that if I got a very low payng job-less after taxes than the $144 a week UI benefit-it would not be worth it. Now I didn't get such an offer but I did reflect on this.
Yet how would the economy improve by forcing these low tier workers to take jobs that pay less than UI? It wouldn't as it would actually be less money in consumption from them. So maybe that would bring down the official rate of the unemployment rate a couple tenths of a percent-but how is the economy any better for this?
One trouble is that folks like Sumner never consider that the quality of the jobs being created is of some consequence as well. That's why, while superficially the 'Bush boom years' might have looked pretty good-after all the official UR was down to 5%, so many of these jobs created since the 2001 recession were low paying service jobs.
As Krugman points out, what forcing these low level workers to take very low paying jobs could do is bring down the natural unemployment rate-the famous NAIRU. Yet why would this even be an issue during an economy where unemployment is still way too high and the inflation rate is now 1%?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/opinion/krugman-the-war-on-the-unemployed.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
Krugman chronicles how down in North Carolina the GOP is amping up the war on the unemployed by both cutting back the number of weeks of unemployment and also cutting the amount. Yes, they've actually sent money back to the Feds.
We;ve heard a lot about what the GOP may have learnt form 2012? One thing they seemed to have take from it, is that in the states where they do still hold power, just relentlessly overreach on everything.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/07/sumner-vs-krugman-on-sheltered-life-and.html
However, it's important to realize just what a bad argument the case against UI is. The real argument against UI that Sumner and company always make is that UI make very lowly paid workers a little more choosy. In the link above, I considered my own experience on UI. I did once reflect that if I got a very low payng job-less after taxes than the $144 a week UI benefit-it would not be worth it. Now I didn't get such an offer but I did reflect on this.
Yet how would the economy improve by forcing these low tier workers to take jobs that pay less than UI? It wouldn't as it would actually be less money in consumption from them. So maybe that would bring down the official rate of the unemployment rate a couple tenths of a percent-but how is the economy any better for this?
One trouble is that folks like Sumner never consider that the quality of the jobs being created is of some consequence as well. That's why, while superficially the 'Bush boom years' might have looked pretty good-after all the official UR was down to 5%, so many of these jobs created since the 2001 recession were low paying service jobs.
As Krugman points out, what forcing these low level workers to take very low paying jobs could do is bring down the natural unemployment rate-the famous NAIRU. Yet why would this even be an issue during an economy where unemployment is still way too high and the inflation rate is now 1%?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/opinion/krugman-the-war-on-the-unemployed.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
Krugman chronicles how down in North Carolina the GOP is amping up the war on the unemployed by both cutting back the number of weeks of unemployment and also cutting the amount. Yes, they've actually sent money back to the Feds.
We;ve heard a lot about what the GOP may have learnt form 2012? One thing they seemed to have take from it, is that in the states where they do still hold power, just relentlessly overreach on everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment