Since 2008, unemployment benefits have been extended eight times, costing taxpayers around $185 billion dollars. Now, however, Congress is debating whether or not to extend unemployment benefits once again, which would cost another $44 billion.
Some economists say that by lengthening unemployment benefits, unemployment is kept high due to the safety net that is provided to the people.
"That's because people can afford to be choosier about taking jobs when they are receiving a regular check. Others may have dropped out of the labor market -- to go back to school, for instance -- but don't because they want to keep collecting a check."
However, the unemployed and supporters argue that unemployment remains high due to the difficulty in finding and maintaining a job.
Do you think that extending unemployment benefits contributes to the high rate of unemployment? Should unemployment benefits be extended for another year?
11 comments:
I do not think that unemployment benefits should be increased. I think that is a very bad idea. The government is already dealing with a huge debt and running up the deficit is probably the worst thing we could do. If we change unemployment benefits at all it should be to cut benefits. I realize that economic times are tough and it isn't easy finding a job, but the unemployed are just going to have to deal with it themselves. That sounds very cold-hearted, but the government's priority right now should be to cut spending not increase it.
I think extending unemployment benefits may not necessarily add to to the high rate, but it definitely supports it. With the option of taking unemployment benefits, many will be inclined to stay unemployed until they can find a job that they want. There isn't much to encourage them to find a job besides maybe their pride. So the unemployment rate would just stay around the same if the unemployed receive more benefits.
Like Colin said, the government has such a large deficit, adding more would be a terrible idea. After being extended eight times, I don't think it's a good idea to do it again. If they extend it now, when will they stop? Will they propose to extend next month? And the month after that? There needs to be a limit. I know it's hard to find a job in today's economy, but the extensions should not continue this way.
I agree with Colin and Kirsten that unemployment benefits should not be increased. Considering the government is cutting funding from other programs, I definitely don't think that the government could justifiably extend unemployment benefits. If the government wanted to help the unemployed, it should be by creating new jobs for them, not simply writing checks and rewarding unemployment.
However, to play devil's advocate, if the government does extend unemployment benefits, it could be to prevent the economy from stagnating. By providing unemployment benefits, the government ensures that money is being spent, which stimulates the economy. Despite this, I still think that extending unemployment benefits is a bad idea.
Unemployment should not be encouraged. But a lot of the unemployment is cyclical. There are many able persons who simply can not find a job because businesses have been forced to lay people off. Give money back to the consumers so they can spend money again, and allow some of the falling businesses to bounce back. In return, if all goes well businesses will be able to expand and employ once again.
I have to agree. Is there a certain point where we shouldn't be putting this much funding into unemployment? Our economy is already a mess and it brings to question whether or not we should risk a drop by stopping funding, or if we should boost it into overdrive just further creating a stronger deficit. I'm beginning to wonder is maybe the government shouldn't be funding unemployment benefits, but maybe they should be using this money to create more jobs, like Roosevelt did during the New Deal. I think if we had another program like the CCC or WPA that we could drastically improve our economy. Maybe we already have one in place, I'm not sure, but if we do maybe it should be expanded to try and offer more stable employment opportunities for civilians.
I agree with Jenifer about creating another government agency that could provide jobs while (hopefully) producing something of value, like repairing crumbling infrastructure (http://www.economist.com/node/18620944). This way, the government can put money into people's pockets to stimulate the economy without providing incentives for people to not work.
Extending unemployment benefits with the current unstable state of our economy would not be a wise move. It's undeniable that unemployment is one of the major reasons why our economy is shaky, but I feel that there are more efficient ways to solve the unemployment problems than giving the unemployed more money without increasing restrictions on who receives it and how much/ for how long they receive the money for. I think Jennifer's idea of directing government spending towards creating programs to help the unemployed (rather than just supporting them) would be an efficient way of decreasing unemployment and stimulating the economy.
This reminds me of AFDC turning into TANF; the change from a categorical grant into a block grant allowed the states to change their motive into helping the unemployed get back on their feet. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
Like everyone has already said, I don't think employment benefits should be extended any further. Rather than rewarding the unemployed, the government should help them find a stable job. Rewards only last a few months but a stable job can last a lifetime. If the government keeps babying the unemployed like this, they'll continue to reject job offers they don't like. There's really no way to encourage these people to find a job and I think unemployment benefits are only encouraging them to stay unemployed.
I definitely agree with all who have commented thusfar.
Not to regurgitate what everyone has already said, but, especially in this economy, our government cannot afford the $44 billion necessary to extend unemployment benefits. I highly doubt the government will find economic answers in raising our nations taxes while *encouraging* a lack of perseverance in job-hunting. With the baby boomer generation aging, we cannot afford to have an excess of young working-age citizens mooching off the "safety net" provided by the government. In my opinion, creating even more unemployment benefits will hurt much more than help. If the government's objective here is to help the economy, a better big-picture approach would be to spend those $44 billion we would have sent to unemployment benefits on *creating new job opportunities. If the working class claims the issue is in finding a job, I think the government should spend money on creating more jobs, rather than discouraging working via *more unemployment benefits.
Considering the financial burden of mandatory spending on the budget, I must echo what others have said about slowing unemployment benefits. That said, dissatisfaction with the economy and job availability undoubtedly has politicians grasping at straws, and unemployment benefits may sadly be that short-term relief. Though everyone currently seems preoccupied with reforming the tax code, it would be more prudent to fix up the welfare system before our national debt gets out of hand.
The problem of extending unemployment benefits seems to run parallel to the issue of systemic risk vs. moral hazard. On one hand, if unemployment benefits are cut, then many honest Americans who unfortunately just can't find a job will not be able to survive. On the other hand, extended unemployment benefits will allow unemployed Americans to become lazy and not look for jobs, which will decrease productivity in the nation and also would be a huge toll on the working population in the form of taxes. According to this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062813/Number-people-seeking-unemployment-benefits-falls-lowest-level-7-months.html , the number of people who receive unemployment benefits has dropped to a 7 month low. Regarding the question of should benefits be extended, I think they shouldn't since the number of people receiving benefits has dropped, the unemployed are no longer too big to fail.
Post a Comment