There is no question that the extension was the right thing to do in the big scheme of things.
What amazes me is that last month (December, 2010) and again this month (January, 2011) the "talking heads" on television (particularly CNBC) "pooh-poohed" the idea that extending the benefits had any effect on the unemployment numbers; or that it might have some relevancy for the fact that the percent of Americans now in the work force is at a record low.
It tells me that these talking heads have no understanding of human psychology.
It is my opinion, and I'm probably wrong on this, too, that there is a subset of the American workforce that is not looking for working, or turning down "undesirable" jobs because of the extension:
- One of two spouses who have children who used to work but can now afford to stay home with their children (not necessarily bad)
- Workers who would only be able to find minimum wage jobs; they won't look
- Adult children who had jobs, but now collecting unemployment can get a bit of help from their spouses, or their parents
- State, federal and union workers who are well trained to search the internet for "good" jobs and will turn down or not bother to seek "less than good jobs." I saw civilians in the military who spent an hour or so each day at work on government time looking for a better job; classifications are such that they know exactly what the jobs pay and can sort through them by classification
It is interesting to see that one can get about $800/week in Massachusetts for unemployment benefits. Boston is a high-cost area, but western Massachusetts is much more like the rust belt of mid-America. At $800/week and 40 hours/week, that works out to $20/hour. One can be eligible for as much as $942/week in Massachusetts.
Wow that's crazy. In California, which I consider a high cost state, you can only earn $450 per week. I do agree with you about people not looking for work. I personally know people like that and have friends that know some too. They do need to cap it at 99 weeks though. Otherwise it will be 3 years then 4 then 5 years. People really lose their edge when they are out of the workforce so long. It is actually bad for the unemployed people to have their benefits extended, because they will find it much harder to find a job in the future. It helps them financially, however if they don't have the motivation to look for work then it doesn't help them in the long run. There are actually companies that won't hire people who aren't working for any reason, which I don't think is a good idea.
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent point. One doesn't hear enough in the mainstream media about folks "losing their edge" when they are out of the workforce for so long. Excellent point.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't think folks realize that companies tend not to hire folks who have not worked in a long time. Folks need to make sure they don't have gaps in their resumes, even if that means volunteer community work (which by the way helps them network for a paying job).