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.
