How Both Parties Win the Unemployment Debate by Screwing the Unemployed

As long-term unemployed are left out in the cold, Democrats and Republicans will both find political silver linings in Congress’ failure to extend long-term benefits.

NORTH MIAMI, FL - JANUARY 07: A job seeker looks at a list of jobs available as the Senate votes on extending the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program.
National Journal
Alex Seitz-Wald
Jan. 17, 2014, midnight

Long-term un­em­ploy­ment in­sur­ance is all but dead. Con­gress will take up the is­sue again after it re­turns from the re­cess that be­gins Fri­day, but even if a bill passes the Sen­ate (where it failed twice on Tues­day), it’s prob­ably dead on ar­rival in the Re­pub­lic­an-con­trolled House.

How could Con­gress fail to ad­dress per­haps the most im­port­ant eco­nom­ic is­sue of the day? Demo­crats rightly blame Re­pub­lic­ans. All but a hand­ful of GOP­ers op­pose re­new­ing the ex­ten­ded be­ne­fits — which were cre­ated as an emer­gency meas­ure dur­ing the depth of the re­ces­sion — on the grounds that the pro­gram boosts the de­fi­cit and breeds a cul­ture of de­pend­ency.

But both parties stand to gain something polit­ic­ally if the be­ne­fits are not re­stored (they ex­pired in late Decem­ber), even as people who have been out of work for a long time get screwed.

Here’s why: Cut­ting off the be­ne­fits will al­most cer­tainly cause the un­em­ploy­ment rate to drop. When it does, Re­pub­lic­ans will feel ideo­lo­gic­ally vin­dic­ated, while Demo­crats will have some good eco­nom­ic news to sell to voters ahead of the 2014 elec­tion.

There are two forces that push down the un­em­ploy­ment rate when be­ne­fits ex­pire, and while eco­nom­ists aren’t ex­actly sure how much re­spons­ib­il­ity to as­sign to either, the out­come is the same either way.

The first ex­plan­a­tion is that people col­lect­ing be­ne­fits get off the dole and find jobs. “You do a dis­ser­vice to these work­ers. When you al­low people to be on un­em­ploy­ment in­sur­ance for 99 weeks, you’re caus­ing them to be­come part of this per­petu­al un­em­ployed group,” Sen. Rand Paul said on Fox News in early Decem­ber. The idea is that people col­lect­ing be­ne­fits who have been hold­ing out for a bet­ter job will now take whatever they can get.

The more likely ex­plan­a­tion is the al­tern­at­ive, which as­sumes that many of the people who lose their be­ne­fits will get dis­cour­aged and give up on find­ing a job. Be­cause the gov­ern­ment counts people as un­em­ployed only if they are cur­rently look­ing for work, there will sud­denly be a lot few­er un­em­ployed people, at least in the eyes of the of­fi­cial stat­ist­ics.

Re­mem­ber, these people have been out of work for a very long time, and nu­mer­ous stud­ies sug­gest that many of them will simply not be able to find jobs, no mat­ter how hard they try, thanks to em­ploy­er dis­crim­in­a­tion and poor job pro­spects. Many re­cip­i­ents may have kept up their job search — and thus con­tin­ued to get coun­ted as “un­em­ployed” — only be­cause they’re re­quired to do so in or­der to col­lect un­em­ploy­ment-in­sur­ance be­ne­fits.

“Both of these forces bring down the un­em­ploy­ment rate, but for very dif­fer­ent reas­ons,” said Aaron Chat­terji, who teaches at Duke Uni­versity’s busi­ness school and pre­vi­ously served as a seni­or eco­nom­ist in the White House Coun­cil of Eco­nom­ic Ad­visers.

Mi­chael Fer­oli, the chief U.S. eco­nom­ist for JP­Mor­gan Chase, es­tim­ated that the “lapsing of [ex­ten­ded un­em­ploy­ment com­pens­a­tion] could lower the un­em­ploy­ment rate by per­haps 0.25%-0.50%-pt, with much of the ef­fect com­ing through re­duced labor force par­ti­cip­a­tion, rather than in­creased em­ploy­ment.” Gold­man Sachs says the drop could be as high as 0.8 per­cent­age points if all 1.3 mil­lion Amer­ic­ans who are ex­pec­ted to lose their be­ne­fits give up look­ing for a new job.

Chat­terji’s state provides a nat­ur­al ex­per­i­ment. Back in Ju­ly, North Car­o­lina’s GOP-con­trolled le­gis­lature cut the max­im­um length of long-term un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits, and re­duced the size of weekly checks, pres­aging what will hap­pen na­tion­ally if Con­gress con­tin­ues to sit on its hands. Since then, the un­em­ploy­ment rate in North Car­o­lina has fallen by about 1.5 per­cent­age points to a five-year low.

At the same time, North Car­o­lina saw its biggest drop ever in work­force par­ti­cip­a­tion, sug­gest­ing that most of the ex­plan­a­tion for the drop is that people just quit look­ing for work, as Evan Soltas ex­plained for Bloomberg. It’s im­port­ant to de­term­ine why cut­ting be­ne­fits pushed the rate down, but there’s little doubt that it did.

And here’s how politi­cians from both parties can win polit­ic­ally, even as the un­em­ployed lose.

For Re­pub­lic­ans, the drop in the un­em­ploy­ment rate gets touted as proof of their anti-safety net world­view. “More people got off un­em­ploy­ment and either got jobs or moved back to where they were go­ing or came from,” North Car­o­lina Gov. Pat Mc­Crory said last week­end when asked why his state’s un­em­ploy­ment rate dropped.

That’s no help to Tar Heel Demo­crats, who have been re­leg­ated to the gov­ern­ing minor­ity. But na­tion­ally, if the trend fol­lows, then the White House and con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats can point to the fall­ing un­em­ploy­ment rate as evid­ence that their shep­herd­ing of the eco­nom­ic re­cov­ery for the past five years has been suc­cess­ful. And the drop in the rate would hap­pen just as can­did­ates are gear­ing up for the elec­tion.

So far, Demo­crats don’t seem to be tak­ing that bait. They des­per­ately want to pass an ex­ten­sion of un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits for more im­port­ant reas­ons (you know, help­ing people). But if and when that ef­fort fails, there’s at least a polit­ic­al sil­ver lin­ing for them wait­ing — as long as they’re will­ing to pa­per over the fact that the work­force par­ti­cip­a­tion rate has fallen dan­ger­ously along with the un­em­ploy­ment rate.

Mean­while, the long-term un­em­ployed are worse off than ever.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
6 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×