2014’s Employment Boom Almost Entirely Due to the Expiration of Unemployment Benefits

[BTExpress]

But more than that I've never pounded the drums to cut off unemployment insurance for anybody.

I take that to mean you believe an indefinite period of government assistance would have no negative effect as to whether people are extra motivated to find work.

Laughable.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I take that to mean you believe an indefinite period of government assistance would have no negative effect as to whether people are extra motivated to find work.

Laughable.

Who said anything about indefinite when it comes to unemployment?

 

[User 1019]

Bootstraps!! Self-Reliance!! Initiative!! Hard Work!!

I'm not as liberal as some here, but I'm a good bit to the left of center. I understand many lack opportunity and education. But lazy? **** that.

Here's why I disagree with this statement and find it ignorant. My younger brother got laid off, pending a labor board review, after a recent safety incident on his train (Norfolk Southern). With a small amount of money in the bank, rather than finding a temporary job after his layoff, he decided to sit on his ass until he got word from the committee. Well, he got his termination letter Saturday, after three weeks. He hasn't hit a lick at a snake for three ****ing weeks, despite repeated "encouragement" from my mother and me. Now, he can't feed his two kids.

I had three jobs when I was his age and I have very little pity for his situation. He's healthy and knows he should've been working somehow. Were I in his shoes, I'd have been in the Home Depot parking lot the next day looking for work.

So, your statement is ****ing ignorant.

 

[Songbird]

... hit a lick at a snake ...

 

[User 1019]

Yes. I'm from the south and that's a thing here.

 

[BTExpress]

Who said anything about indefinite when it comes to unemployment?

Starman, whom I quoted as posting, "I've never pounded the drums to cut off unemployment insurance for anybody."

If you never cut off unemployment, the benefits are indefinite.

Frankly, I'd like to see a sliding scale of benefits, where the most you get is in your first week, and then the amount declines by X percentage each succeeding week until it runs out. Likely would motivate some to not wait until the last moment before giving the job search their hardest effort.

 

[YankeeFan]

... hit a lick at a snake ...

Outing alert, TBF is Dan Rather.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Starman, whom I quoted as posting, "I've never pounded the drums to cut off unemployment insurance for anybody."

If you never cut off unemployment, the benefits are indefinite.

Frankly, I'd like to see a sliding scale of benefits, where the most you get is in your first week, and then the amount declines by X percentage each succeeding week until it runs out. Likely would motivate some to not wait until the last moment before giving the job search their hardest effort.

Even at its peak, the benefits were for 99 weeks. Not indefinite.

 

[Boom_70]

Outing alert, TBF is Dan Rather.

Tamp em up solid

 

[BTExpress]

Even at its peak, the benefits were for 99 weeks. Not indefinite.

Yes. Because Starman is not deciding such things. They WOULD be indefinite if he had his way. That's what I was taking issue with.

There's really no need to bog this down in more hair-splitting.

 

[Starman]

Obviously, if cutting off unemployment benefits eliminates unemployment, the answer is to cut them off completely. Woohoo! Zero Unemployment!

 

[goalmouth]

My younger brother got laid off, pending a labor board review, after a recent safety incident on his train (Norfolk Southern). With a small amount of money in the bank, rather than finding a temporary job after his layoff, he decided to sit on his ass until he got word from the committee. Well, he got his termination letter Saturday, after three weeks. He hasn't hit a lick at a snake for three ****ing weeks, despite repeated "encouragement" from my mother and me. Now, he can't feed his two kids.

I had three jobs when I was his age and I have very little pity for his situation. He's healthy and knows he should've been working somehow. Were I in his shoes, I'd have been in the Home Depot parking lot the next day looking for work.

So, your statement is ****ing ignorant.

The rail brotherhoods -- the BLE or other -- would NEVER advise a union member to look for work, temporary or other, while awaiting a review. In fact, it's written into the rules most places that they can't. Know what you're talking about before you shoot off your mouth, Mr. Three Jobs.

 

[YankeeFan]

Well that escalated quickly.

 

[Mr. Sunshine]

The rail brotherhoods -- the BLE or other -- would NEVER advise a union member to look for work, temporary or other, while awaiting a review. In fact, it's written into the rules most places that they can't. Know what you're talking about before you shoot off your mouth, Mr. Three Jobs.

What is the point of that rule?

 

[Starman]

What is the point of that rule?

If you seek other work, that can be taken as evidence you intend(ed) to quit anyway.

And some review boards will dismiss your appeal if you get another job while the review process was in progress, even if your new job is dramatically inferior to your previous union position.

In one sense this is also for the company's protection; they don't want what starts out as a termination-for-cause or disciplinary process against an employee to turn into a bidding war.

Of course in many of these situations the worker may have a pretty good suspicion the decision isn't going to go his way anyway, so the smart person makes second- or third-person inquiries about other jobs while the review is in progress.

 

[User 1019]

The rail brotherhoods -- the BLE or other -- would NEVER advise a union member to look for work, temporary or other, while awaiting a review. In fact, it's written into the rules most places that they can't. Know what you're talking about before you shoot off your mouth, Mr. Three Jobs.

Because he was a new employee, he was not a member of the union and had no representation. Know what you're talking about before shooting off your trap, Mr. Big Mouth.

 

[JC]

If that were the case Theee Bags he'd never post.

 

[Shropshire Slasher]

Something isn't adding up. You need the worker to come off the dole, but you also need the job to come open in the first place. It's apparent that more jobs were created in 2014. That's not the same thing as more workers looking for jobs. It's not a one-for-one deal.

 

[User 11148]

Lots of folks treat growth in jobs as akin to a river flow ... "The economy churned out X new jobs this month, so more people were able to get one." That's not really the right way to look at it. Jobs growth reflects both employers' willingness to consume labor and employees' willingness to supply labor; these forces are inseparable.

Unemployment benefits, etc., act to shift the labor supply curve leftward, meaning that you have fewer workers willing to supply their labor at the prevailing wage rate. If there is a substantive lessening of these benefits, the labor supply curve shifts rightward, meaning that there are more workers willing to supply their labor at the same prevailing wage as before.

It might help to think of the marginal worker ... we'll call him Joe. Let's say that under a given Unemployment Insurance (UI) regime, Joe can almost certainly find a job for which he's worth* $10 an hour. If he looks high and low, and is willing to wait, he's got an OK chance at finding a job at which he's worth $12.50 an hour. And if he's willing to roll the dice and look around long enough, there's a slight chance that he'll find a job at which he's worth $15 an hour.

Now, let's say that there's a change in the UI regime. Suppose the change means that Joe's benefits are about to run out. He's going to become much more inclined to settle for the $10 an hour gig. Alternatively, let's assume that a UI regime is become more generous -- longer or larger benefits. Joe is going to become more inclined to hold back and keep beating the bushes for that $15 an hour job.




*I choose this "for which he's worth" phrasing deliberately. Employers won't generally pay more for an employee's labor than that labor is worth (to those employers).

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Something isn't adding up. You need the worker to come off the dole, but you also need the job to come open in the first place. It's apparent that more jobs were created in 2014. That's not the same thing as more workers looking for jobs. It's not a one-for-one deal.

Precisely. It's not like a bunch of unemployed people decide to look for work and employers suddenly decide to create a job and hire them. The jobs are created first, then the workers apply for them.