I do not dispute that UI can have efficiency effects, but I see no harm in advocating for it as a pure consumption transfer from the employed to the unemployed any more than is the transfer from the insured whose houses did not burn down to the insured whose houses did.
To me, viewing it as an investment in human capital (a better job match does lead to either better usage of human capital or more growth in human capital. or both), would hopefully result in viewing such programs as important and worth keeping, as well as making claiming UI easier. Even in economic model, we typically see UI as purely impacting consumption, but rarely model it (if ever?) as something that maintains human capital.
The MM paper illustrates how UI benefits generate net value for society, making them a clear positive-sum intervention. Rather than simple redistribution, UI expands economic output by enabling better job matches and greater stability. Given this, expanding UI eligibility would be a socially optimal move."
Perhaps there is some truth to that line, somewhere, but certainly not where I come from. It is a straight up redistribution scheme that foments dependency on others, namely the taxpayer, and poverty. Every cent taken from the 80% of folks who make up this country to support State provided UI is an insult to the working classes and the notion of self reliance and individual sovereignty that built this country.
I might have bought into the premise had the concept of self insurance come up even once. Folks that work for a living are familiar with the concept if they are self insured for long term disability. That works and is totally funded by worker voluntary participation; not like involuntary seizure as in State provided UI or Workers' Compensation.
I believe there is no way a cost:benefit analysis model could have come up with that conclusion sans some serious manipulation of both real economic cost:benefit or social benefit:cost data and most likely, the variables. It does not compute in a real world long term analysis any more than GMI does.
I do not dispute the short term value to the those unemployed because of disability or their employer's economic circumstances, but I will not voluntarily support those terminated for cause, nor should any other American citizen. We, as Americans, are morally bound to care for those among us who cannot realistically care for themselves but also morally bound to demand self reliance and positive contribution to our society by those so capable and reasonably able.
The research design here is quite neat - take two groups of people that are fundamentally similar, give one group unemployment insurance and don't give it to the other one.
Then track their job outcomes for the next two years. The group that got UI worked more in the next two years by 600 hours, and earned more ($15,000), both because they earned more per hour (3$) and because they worked more.
The total earnings far outweigh the cost of UI, meaning governments should invest in this approach.
I notice you do not provide the total amount of UI paid out to either group nor do you define the economic status of either population going in. Nor do you reveal the total population(s) included in the so-called study. No mention of confidence factor in the results either. The facts, assumptions, and the variables are not clear. Governance is responsible for constituent security, not responsible for safety nets that promote dependency. Dependency is antithetic to security no matter how you cut it. If one accepts UI is so valuable to the individual and society then it stands to reason UI should clearly made readily available and be the responsibility of the individual. So why isn't it? That would pretty much secure income security and self reliance for and by the individual.
One could also argue that fostering dependency is simply an insidious means of control and of binding the recipient to the provider. Meaning the dependent will dance to whatever political tune said provider is playing.
In short, our government should run away from any kind of program that fosters dependency in the able bodied population. The only dependency required for our society to thrive is a dependency on the rule of law as defined by the Constitution's intent, spirit and word. And beyond that, we should be able to depend on governance's unfailing adherence to those tenets and its prime directive of providing for National security.
Some of these are mentioned are in the article - the average cumulative UI received by these workers is $4,000.
On the statistical side, the sample size is about 400,000 people. The range for the earnings outcomes has a standard error of $6,000. So the results are pretty robust.
The study shows that there is no dependency - quite the opposite, people that receive UI are less likely to become unemployed in the future. The people that received UI had 1.6 employers fewer in the 2 years after receiving UI, suggesting they stuck with their employer longer. They also worked 600 hours more in those 2 years than non-UI recipients, which is 15 weeks.
I do not dispute that UI can have efficiency effects, but I see no harm in advocating for it as a pure consumption transfer from the employed to the unemployed any more than is the transfer from the insured whose houses did not burn down to the insured whose houses did.
To me, viewing it as an investment in human capital (a better job match does lead to either better usage of human capital or more growth in human capital. or both), would hopefully result in viewing such programs as important and worth keeping, as well as making claiming UI easier. Even in economic model, we typically see UI as purely impacting consumption, but rarely model it (if ever?) as something that maintains human capital.
"Breaking Out of Zero Sum Thinking
The MM paper illustrates how UI benefits generate net value for society, making them a clear positive-sum intervention. Rather than simple redistribution, UI expands economic output by enabling better job matches and greater stability. Given this, expanding UI eligibility would be a socially optimal move."
Perhaps there is some truth to that line, somewhere, but certainly not where I come from. It is a straight up redistribution scheme that foments dependency on others, namely the taxpayer, and poverty. Every cent taken from the 80% of folks who make up this country to support State provided UI is an insult to the working classes and the notion of self reliance and individual sovereignty that built this country.
I might have bought into the premise had the concept of self insurance come up even once. Folks that work for a living are familiar with the concept if they are self insured for long term disability. That works and is totally funded by worker voluntary participation; not like involuntary seizure as in State provided UI or Workers' Compensation.
I believe there is no way a cost:benefit analysis model could have come up with that conclusion sans some serious manipulation of both real economic cost:benefit or social benefit:cost data and most likely, the variables. It does not compute in a real world long term analysis any more than GMI does.
I do not dispute the short term value to the those unemployed because of disability or their employer's economic circumstances, but I will not voluntarily support those terminated for cause, nor should any other American citizen. We, as Americans, are morally bound to care for those among us who cannot realistically care for themselves but also morally bound to demand self reliance and positive contribution to our society by those so capable and reasonably able.
The research design here is quite neat - take two groups of people that are fundamentally similar, give one group unemployment insurance and don't give it to the other one.
Then track their job outcomes for the next two years. The group that got UI worked more in the next two years by 600 hours, and earned more ($15,000), both because they earned more per hour (3$) and because they worked more.
The total earnings far outweigh the cost of UI, meaning governments should invest in this approach.
I notice you do not provide the total amount of UI paid out to either group nor do you define the economic status of either population going in. Nor do you reveal the total population(s) included in the so-called study. No mention of confidence factor in the results either. The facts, assumptions, and the variables are not clear. Governance is responsible for constituent security, not responsible for safety nets that promote dependency. Dependency is antithetic to security no matter how you cut it. If one accepts UI is so valuable to the individual and society then it stands to reason UI should clearly made readily available and be the responsibility of the individual. So why isn't it? That would pretty much secure income security and self reliance for and by the individual.
One could also argue that fostering dependency is simply an insidious means of control and of binding the recipient to the provider. Meaning the dependent will dance to whatever political tune said provider is playing.
In short, our government should run away from any kind of program that fosters dependency in the able bodied population. The only dependency required for our society to thrive is a dependency on the rule of law as defined by the Constitution's intent, spirit and word. And beyond that, we should be able to depend on governance's unfailing adherence to those tenets and its prime directive of providing for National security.
Some of these are mentioned are in the article - the average cumulative UI received by these workers is $4,000.
On the statistical side, the sample size is about 400,000 people. The range for the earnings outcomes has a standard error of $6,000. So the results are pretty robust.
The study shows that there is no dependency - quite the opposite, people that receive UI are less likely to become unemployed in the future. The people that received UI had 1.6 employers fewer in the 2 years after receiving UI, suggesting they stuck with their employer longer. They also worked 600 hours more in those 2 years than non-UI recipients, which is 15 weeks.