On Dec. 29, the federal program to extend unemployment insurance benefits will end, unless Congress votes to renew it once again. Federal lawmakers have passed 10 such extensions since 2008, but the financial and social costs of paying people not to work are too high to justify extending the program indefinitely. Congress should go back to the 26-week limit that prevailed before the recession — but do so humanely, by giving a single, sizeable lump-sum payment to those whose benefits run out in December.
Unemployment insurance has two upsides. The main one is that people who are laid off suffer a little less, which also makes people who still have jobs feel more secure. A secondary advantage, widely touted at the low point of the recession, is that unemployment insurance gives cash-strapped people some extra money that they quickly spend — which in turn helps boost consumer spending and economic activity.
Comments
Once that lump sum runs out, if they still can't find a job maybe Ed would suggest they take jobs as garment workers overseas. I hear there's a shortage in Bangladesh.
"Congress should go back to the 26-week limit that prevailed before the recession — but do so humanely, by giving a single, sizeable lump-sum payment to those whose benefits run out in December."
Right, their need is so great, that we should this month boorrow billions of dollars we dont have fromt he CVhinese, to pay a new benefit, which our grandchaildren will need to pay back, or which debt will be the cause that I dont the social security I've paid into for 40 years? Right.
See what happens "LLPOH", when YOUR pursuit of happiness collides with someone else's pursuit of happiness, and they contradict each other? I don't know if I agree with the author's proposal, but at least he's trying to offer a COMPROMISE, which is what two people must find when their POH's collide.
Mr. Glaeser carefully avoids mentioning the *salary and compensation* that recipients of extended unemployment benefits receive when they return to work. Massachusetts has more high-income workers than the national average, and we therefore have more extended unemployement benefit recipients who lost and therefore seek (and wait for) high-income jobs. Not surprisingly, the effect of Mr. Glaeser's proposal would be to lower the effective wages of workers by forcing recipients to take whatever scraps are left on the table by wealthy corporate owners, rather than wait for a better (and better compensated) opportunity. Funny how, with the notable exception of Paul Krugman, opinion pieces by high-profile economists so often advocate for the self-interest of the very wealthy at the expense of working men and women.
I've believed the term "sererance pay" to be an equitable and Earned distribution of compensation at a time of untimely separation.No matter the circumstances of that separation, there at one time had to have been a marked contribution to cause by the recipient.
Mr. Glaeser - a suggestion of more Gifts?