His first paragraph reminds us of all those about to lose unemployment insurance because of the Republican theories about the economy, which are clearly wrong, but to which they are sticking. After offering the two-word holiday greeting - in the proper form for Sarah Palin, Bill OReilly and Rush Limbaugh (Merry Christmas.) - Krugman writes Now, the G.O.P.’s desire to punish the unemployed doesn’t arise solely from bad economics; it’s part of a general pattern of afflicting the afflicted while comforting the comfortable (no to food stamps, yes to farm subsidies). But ideas do matter — as John Maynard Keynes famously wrote, they are “dangerous for good or evil.” And the case of unemployment benefits is an especially clear example of superficially plausible but wrong economic ideas being dangerous for evil. And we are off to the races with another very much on point Paul Krugman column. Perhaps this column speaks loudly to me because I watched Rand Paul on Fox News Sunday trying to argue that long-term unemployment benefits make it harder for those who receive to get hired, and that this especially hits African-American unemployed. Somehow Paul seems to think correlation is causation- yes, those receiving long-term unemployment benefits have trouble finding jobs because employers do not hire the long-term unemployed - whether or not they are still receiving benefits. So lets look at how Krugman addresses this. After explaining the data, including that long-term (more than 26 weeks) unemployed are up to 4 million today compareed to 1 million in 2007, he writes: Correspondingly, the G.O.P. answer to the problem of long-term unemployment is to increase the pain of the long-term unemployed: Cut off their benefits, and they’ll go out and find jobs. How, exactly, will they find jobs when there are three times as many job-seekers as job vacancies? Details, details. Krugman goes through the concomitant arguments of the Conservatives against unemployment benefits. Let me offer some snips from the next few paragraphs so you have a sense of how he deconstructs - or if your prefer, destroys - them. ... unemployment benefits help create jobs, and cutting those benefits would depress the economy as a whole. As to the idea that cutting unemployment benefits would lead to competition for jobs which would mean lower wages and those would mean more hiring? Cut everyone’s wages, however, and nobody gains an edge. All that happens is a general fall in income — which, among other things, increases the burden of household debt, and is therefore a net negative for overall employment. Because after all, what fuels job growth is consumer spending, and that requires people to be employed - and might I add, making livable wages. Krugman even manages to hit Rand Paul among others. He then writes The good news, such as it is, is that the White House and Senate Democrats are trying to make an issue of expiring unemployment benefits. The bad news is that they don’t sound willing to make extending benefits a precondition for a budget deal, which means that they aren’t really willing to make a stand. Sadly, there are too many Democrats, particularly in the Senate, who still seem to seek some variety of the Grand Bargain - I apologize for being represented by one of the worst, Mark Warner. Normally we are concerned that the bargaining chip they are prepared to surrender is Social Security, or perhaps Medicare and Medicaid. However, given our current economic situation, how badly some people are hurting, and the unwillingness of corporations to start spending some of the trillions of cash reserves upon which they are sitting, the real issue is jobs, and in their absence, supporting those who lack them. Thus extended unemployment insurance is critical. And yes, I agree with Krugman that extending it should be non-negotiable, and for those Senators like Rand Paul? Hit them heavily in their own states among the masses of their long-term unemployed, that their Senators want to balance the federal budget on their backs while continuing to give tax breaks to the wealthy and the corporations. In his final paragraph, Krugman brings it all together: So the odds, I’m sorry to say, are that the long-term unemployed will be cut off, thanks to a perfect marriage of callousness — a complete lack of empathy for the unfortunate — with bad economics. But then, hasn’t that been the story of just about everything lately? That sounds like the political, social and economic marriage from hell: callousness complete lack of empathy for the unfortunate bad economics Pick your poison, because the the cutting off of the long-term unemployed will have a toxic effect not only upon their economic prospects, but also upon the health of the economy as a whole. Read the entire Krugman piece. Pass it on.
Posted on: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:56:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015