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 »
PROCEDURES NOT FOLLOWED
Trump Not on Ballot in Minnesota
3 days ago
THE LATEST
MOB RULE?
Trump on Immigration: ‘I Don’t Know, You Tell Me’
3 days ago
THE LATEST

Perhaps Donald Trump can take a plebiscite to solve this whole messy immigration thing. At a Fox News town hall with Sean Hannity last night, Trump essentially admitted he's "stumped," turning to the audience and asking: “Can we go through a process or do you think they have to get out? Tell me, I mean, I don’t know, you tell me.”

Source:
BIG CHANGE FROM WHEN HE SELF-FINANCED
Trump Enriching His Businesses with Donor Money
4 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Donald Trump "nearly quintupled the monthly rent his presidential campaign pays for its headquarters at Trump Tower to $169,758 in July, when he was raising funds from donors, compared with March, when he was self-funding his campaign." A campaign spokesman "said the increased office space was needed to accommodate an anticipated increase in employees," but the campaign's paid staff has actually dipped by about 25 since March. The campaign has also paid his golf courses and restaurants about $260,000 since mid-May.

Source:
QUESTIONS OVER IMMIGRATION POLICY
Trump Cancels Rallies
5 days ago
THE LATEST

Donald Trump probably isn't taking seriously John Oliver's suggestion that he quit the race. But he has canceled or rescheduled rallies amid questions over his stance on immigration. Trump rescheduled a speech on the topic that he was set to give later this week. Plus, he's also nixed planned rallies in Oregon and Las Vegas this month.

Source:
‘STRATEGY AND MESSAGING’
Sean Hannity Is Also Advising Trump
6 days ago
THE LATEST

Donald Trump's Fox News brain trust keeps growing. After it was revealed that former Fox chief Roger Ailes is informally advising Trump on debate preparation, host Sean Hannity admitted over the weekend that he's also advising Trump on "strategy and messaging." He told the New York Times: “I’m not hiding the fact that I want Donald Trump to be the next president of the United States. I never claimed to be a journalist.”

Source:
×