See link in title for the Washington Post Article on this.When I heard this news I was a little shocked to hear that all of the Senate voted unanimously on a bill to extend unemployment benefits in states that have high unemployment rates. This measure was done to stimulate the economy but I feel like extending these benefits only extends the amount of time people don't have to work while they look for a new job. The money would be much better spent creating new jobs for people instead of giving it to people who would most likely freeload off of it for longer. By actually lowering the unemployment benefits it would encourage people to work harder to find a new job instead of knowing that they can be more lax in terms of finding new work for themselves.
I completely see the merit of this bill, the homebuyer tax credits, and the business tax credit refund that are being coupled with the increased unemployment benefit bill. However, these economy boosting ideas may not produce the best effect. These bills are supposed to make people want to spend more knowing that they are receiving something back for their expenses but handing money back could just result in people saving it for later use instead of immediately spending it and thus stimulating the economy.
I have doubts that these bills will actually end up being effective in the long-run but then again if all of the senate voted yes on these bills then they have to work! right? maybe? I'm unsure!
3 comments:
The answers to many of your questions are probably hidden within the details of the bill (which the article doesn't talk about). One big thing to think about is the definition of "unemployed." I know that in many polls, the "unemployed" are those who do not have a job but are actively looking for one. I can't imagine that money would be given to just anyone who is jobless. People probably have to qualify to receive the funds.
-Julia
Julia is most likely correct about what defines "unemployed" in the bill. In any case, there really are many people who legitmately can't find a job despite their best efforts. These kind of people need some funding to sustain themselves.
"The money would be much better spent creating new jobs"
There are two ways to achieve that: stimulus money to businesses or public projects.
By public project I mean,
"You want a job? Here's shovel; dig a hole for me. The world needs more ditcher-diggers anyways."
The people will spend it. They might not spend every penny of the benefits, but they will still spend some of it. They are unemployed, and they still need to live. Even if unemployed people save 99% of the money that they would receive due to the bill, they're still spending 1%. And if there weren't a bill, then they would receive no money once they no longer qualified and would not be able to save or consume.
-Francis Wang
Post a Comment