The Conservative Ideas That Could Solve Chronic Unemployment

If the president embraces some conservative solutions and Republicans want to do anything other than repeal Obamacare, they could agree on a jobs package.

National Journal
Norm Ornstein
Jan. 29, 2014, 3:04 p.m.

For all the fo­cus on Obama­care and de­fi­cits and debt, the biggest im­me­di­ate prob­lem fa­cing Amer­ica right now, one with im­mense long-term im­plic­a­tions, is that of chron­ic un­em­ploy­ment.

Those un­em­ployed for six months or more have been far high­er in num­ber and pro­por­tion of all those un­em­ployed than at any time since the Great De­pres­sion. From the time we hit bot­tom after the eco­nom­ic col­lapse in the fall of 2008, long-term un­em­ploy­ment has been at or over 40 per­cent of all those un­em­ployed.

We also know that long-term un­em­ploy­ment now is deadly; an in­geni­ous study done by eco­nom­ist Rand Ghay­ad, who sent fake re­sumes to em­ploy­ers with job open­ings and found that bet­ter-qual­i­fied and ex­per­i­enced ap­plic­ants who had been out of work for more than six months were much less likely to be called for in­ter­views than less-ex­per­i­enced in­di­vidu­als who had only re­cently lost their jobs. And this group — those look­ing for work for many months and un­able to find it — are now screwed com­ing and go­ing; they are the ones los­ing ac­cess to un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits.

We know that people out of work for a long time rarely achieve earn­ings that equal what they had be­fore they lost their jobs; we also know that young­er people at the early stages of their ca­reers are par­tic­u­larly dam­aged if they get bumped off the first rung or two of their ca­reer lad­ders; they suf­fer high­er rates of de­pres­sion, drug and al­co­hol ab­use, and oth­er prob­lems later in life, and un­der­achieve sig­ni­fic­antly in their earn­ings. And we know that the phe­nomen­on has been un­usu­al for the United States; it is far more com­mon in many coun­tries in Europe, where stifling reg­u­la­tions provide ma­jor dis­in­cent­ives for com­pan­ies or oth­ers to hire people, be­cause it is very dif­fi­cult to fire or re­as­sign them when tough times come. But this time is dif­fer­ent here at home.

In his State of the Uni­on mes­sage, the pres­id­ent found a bold way on his own to try to ameli­or­ate this prob­lem: He pulled CEOs of ma­jor com­pan­ies to­geth­er to pledge not to dis­crim­in­ate in hir­ing de­cisions against the long-term un­em­ployed, an in­geni­ous route to us­ing the pres­id­en­tial power to help solve a prob­lem in the face of con­gres­sion­al in­transigence. But it re­mains to be seen wheth­er CEO pledges turn in­to real policy change.

Much more has to be done, and the real in­nov­a­tions have to get buy-in from Con­gress. The good news is that there are good ideas out there that have been pro­posed or en­dorsed by well-cre­den­tialed con­ser­vat­ives. And Obama raised a set of ob­ject­ives that should — if the pres­id­ent em­braces some of the ideas and if Re­pub­lic­ans want to do any­thing oth­er than re­peal Obama­care — find co­ali­tions to make a jobs pack­age.

Here is what Obama said Tues­day night:

“So to­night, I’ve asked Vice Pres­id­ent Biden to lead an across-the-board re­form of Amer­ica’s train­ing pro­grams to make sure they have one mis­sion: Train Amer­ic­ans with the skills em­ploy­ers need, and match them to good jobs that need to be filled right now.”

(Cheers, ap­plause.)

“That means more on-the-job train­ing, and more ap­pren­tice­ships that set a young work­er on an up­ward tra­ject­ory for life. It means con­nect­ing com­pan­ies to com­munity col­leges that can help design train­ing to fill their spe­cif­ic needs. And if Con­gress wants to help, you can con­cen­trate fund­ing on proven pro­grams that con­nect more ready-to-work Amer­ic­ans with ready-to-be-filled jobs. I’m also con­vinced we can help Amer­ic­ans re­turn to the work­force faster by re­form­ing un­em­ploy­ment in­sur­ance so that it’s more ef­fect­ive in today’s eco­nomy.”

On the idea of ap­pren­tice­ships, we have a broad­er plan in ro­bustly red South Car­o­lina. That is a pro­gram that en­ables young people (and oth­ers) to com­bine edu­ca­tion with ap­pren­tice­ship, to learn trades and de­vel­op tech­nic­al ex­pert­ise and skills, through part­ner­ships with the state, its schools, and com­pan­ies and in­dus­tries. Com­bined with more and bet­ter vo­ca­tion­al edu­ca­tion, this can mean trained people able to take high-value jobs where we cur­rently have gaps be­cause of a lack of train­ing.

Of course, ap­pren­tice­ships should not be like un­paid in­tern­ships; they should carry a wage, sub­sid­ized if ne­ces­sary, and tied to both work and train­ing.

The best list of con­ser­vat­ive ideas on deal­ing with long-term un­em­ploy­ment comes from my Amer­ic­an En­ter­prise In­sti­tute col­league Mi­chael Strain, in an ac­claimed piece in Na­tion­al Af­fairs. Strain un­der­stands the stakes with the num­ber and pro­por­tion of long-term un­em­ployed, and he of­fers a set of pro­pos­als that could eas­ily be em­braced by the pres­id­ent and Demo­crats, even as they fit with­in the GOP’s wheel­house. One small one, in line with the SOTU, is to re­form the un­em­ploy­ment-in­sur­ance sys­tem, provid­ing a mod­est cash bo­nus for people when they get jobs and go off un­em­ploy­ment, and provid­ing lump-sum pay­ments monthly in­stead of weekly, giv­ing fin­an­cial in­cent­ives for in­di­vidu­als to start jobs at the be­gin­ning of new pay peri­ods in­stead of wait­ing for the weekly UI check.

An­oth­er is to find ways to fa­cil­it­ate re­lo­ca­tion for those who can’t find jobs near their homes, but would find high-qual­ity op­por­tun­it­ies in oth­er areas or re­gions. A simple step: provid­ing real and ac­cess­ible in­form­a­tion for the un­em­ployed about labor mar­kets around the coun­try, to people who have no clue that the lack of jobs that fit their ex­per­i­ence and ex­pert­ise may not be true in oth­er re­gions. A gov­ern­ment-in­dustry part­ner­ship to make this in­form­a­tion eas­ily ac­cess­ible would be nearly cost-free and could be very be­ne­fi­cial — make it al­most like a or Jd­ate for job-seekers and job-pro­viders.

Of course, that is not enough for people who have been out of work for a long time and can­not af­ford any of the up­front costs to re­lo­cate. So the second step is re­lo­ca­tion sub­sidies, gen­er­ous amounts to pay reas­on­able costs for mov­ing and re­lo­cat­ing; there might be pro­vi­sions to re­pay over a long time through a mod­est payroll de­duc­tion for those who can se­cure good jobs in their new loc­ales. Such as­sist­ance might also in­clude help find­ing places to live. Strain wants to lim­it these sub­sidies to the long-term un­em­ployed, and re­cog­nizes that it won’t work for many who can’t or won’t leave their home areas, and also re­cog­nizes that there is a down­side: de­pop­u­lat­ing places that are already strug­gling. But it is a good ad­junct step to help solve the prob­lem.

An­oth­er idea is to al­low firms to pay new hires lower wages un­der cer­tain cir­cum­stances, with an ex­pan­ded Earned In­come Tax Cred­it or oth­er sub­sidy mak­ing up the dif­fer­ence for the work­ers. This would provide an in­cent­ive for com­pan­ies to hire, tak­ing a big­ger risk on those who have been out of work for a long time, and gradu­ally re­du­cing the sub­sidy as the em­ploy­ees prove their worth. Here is what AEI’s James Peth­okou­kis sug­gests: “Com­bine a wage sub­sidy with a lower min­im­um wage for the long-term un­em­ployed. A pos­sible com­prom­ise would be to (a) boost the fed­er­al min­im­um wage to $8.50 an hour — which would put it at all-time high, prop­erly ad­jus­ted for in­fla­tion — and then (b) in­dex the wage to in­fla­tion, and fi­nally (c) top it off with a $1.50 wage sub­sidy, also in­fla­tion in­dexed. If Obama pro­posed some ver­sion of this, he might be sur­prised at the Re­pub­lic­an re­sponse.”

Strain also en­dorses an idea long sup­por­ted by our col­league Kev­in Has­sett, to em­ploy a form of the Ger­man pro­gram for job shar­ing. This in­volves a sub­sidy to firms that spread out the hours of work among ex­ist­ing em­ploy­ees in­stead of lay­ing off a sub­set of their work­ers. If a firm with 100 em­ploy­ees for­goes lay­ing off 20, and in­stead tells all 100 that they will work four days a week in­stead of five, and if there is a sub­sidy for the em­ploy­ees to make up for their lost hours, the cost to the gov­ern­ment will be the same as provid­ing un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits to the 20 laid off, but none will fall in­to the ranks of the un­em­ployed. The firm gains be­cause when it is ready to ramp up as the eco­nomy im­proves, it will not have to go out and hire, and train, 20 new­comers, but has ex­per­i­enced per­son­nel ready to go to full time. A num­ber of states ac­tu­ally have job-shar­ing in­cent­ives; it should be ex­pan­ded to all.

Even a ro­bust com­bin­a­tion of all or most of these ideas will not solve our un­em­ploy­ment prob­lem. The ad­di­tion of a fo­cused in­fra­struc­ture pro­gram, also en­dorsed by Strain, could provide a jump start to the eco­nomy, but some of the prob­lems will per­sist for a long time. But these ideas would un­doubtedly help. And there is no ideo­lo­gic­al reas­on that they can­not be en­dorsed by a wide range of polit­ic­al and non­polit­ic­al act­ors.

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
1 days ago

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.