Expanded unemployment benefits are fully funded through September, but some states have cut them off already in hopes of getting more people back into the workforce. Does this work?
On Sunday, both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times tried to answer this question. By chance, both of them chose to focus on the state of Missouri. Here's the Journal:
Americans Are Leaving Unemployment Rolls More Quickly in States Cutting Off Benefits
The number of unemployment-benefit recipients is falling at a faster rate in Missouri and 21 other states canceling enhanced and extended payments this month, suggesting that ending the aid could push more people to take jobs.
....Midas Hospitality, a St. Louis-based hotel company with 44 locations around the U.S., started holding job fairs to increase staffing as coronavirus restrictions eased about two months ago....“It’s crazy how quickly” things seem to be ramping up, she said, noting that workers in other states where Midas operates and the federal benefits are still in place appear reluctant to re-enter the workforce.
Spectacular! But here's the Times:
Where Jobless Benefits Were Cut, Jobs Are Still Hard to Fill
By lunchtime, the representatives from the recruiting agency Express Employment Professionals decided to pack up and leave the job fair in the St. Louis suburb of Maryland Heights. Hardly anyone had shown up....Work-force development officials said they had seen virtually no uptick in applicants since the governor’s announcement, which ended a $300 weekly supplement to other benefits. And the online job site Indeed found that in states that have abandoned the federal benefits, clicks on job postings were below the national average.
Both papers used anecdotes and data. And in both papers, the anecdotes matched the data. The Journal says workers are practically fighting over jobs, while the Times says workers are nothing short of disgusted by the crappy jobs on offer.
So which is it? Your guess is as good as mine.
The Wall Street Journal?? I thought we were looking at serious journalism....
You sir (madam?), are CORRECT!
"So which is it? Your guess is as good as mine."?
Really?
Let's compare the track record on intentional BS:
Murdoch or NY Times?
How can we decide?
Maybe it's a collaboration between the Murdoch Bidness Daily & Sulzberger Advertiser, a Judy Miller joint?
+1
Oh Kevin, you should've seen that simple misdirection. A fall in the number of ppl getting unemployment doesnt track to more people working, it just means fewer ppl are getting paid anything while unemployed. Given the cruel nature of this in the US, any correlation with more ppl working is extremely loose. It's at least as likely it means more people are leaving Missouri, possibly because they can no longer get U/B
Lol. Love all the hard data the Midas rep is providing the Journal. With numeral answers like “seem to be ramping up” and “appear reluctant” you too can ace your next calculus exam!
Oh, and if you’re asking a hospitality company to get your pulse on the job market, the answer is always going to be “crappy jobs on offer.”
This was in the paragraph before:
"The number of unemployment-benefit recipients is falling at a faster rate in Missouri and 21 other states canceling enhanced and extended payments this month, suggesting that ending the aid could push more people to take jobs."
I don't agree that it necessarily suggests what the author says it does, but I think that's what KD was referring to.
It's pretty clear to me that the WSJ is cherry-picking; they are using one specific source from one specific industry and claiming that it is the overall trend.
Meanwhile, the Times is casting a wider net.
The joy of anecdotes! You can prove anything with an anecdote. But that's okay, because it's truthier than real data.
Why is it the governments' job to force people back into the labor pool?
Because that way employers can pay them less and treat them like crap.
It's institutional abusiveness.
If I can't piss all over my employees I'll fire them and hire somebody I can piss all over.
This.
There are some solutions to this issue. First wages will/are rising due to labor shortages. Second, there are people in their 60s that want to work - as seen by the level of volunteers that came our of retirement to help with the vaccination effort.
So to that end lets propose this
Allow for both the collection of Social Security benefits AND working wages without restriction and penalty
This would allow for people to return to work AND continue to pay into the Social Security Trust fund making it less in need of capital infusion in the future. It would allow for a lifetime of experience to come back into the workplace. It would also allow states to collect more UI taxes. Reveneues would go up all around. Those seniors that wanted to earn extra cash could do so without worry.
Would it cure labor shortages? No, not even close, but in some areas it would make it easier to deal with
"So which is it? Your guess is as good as mine."
Is this really hard to figure out? What do the WSJ and Fox News have in common? Anyone who constantly makes the point about how Fox News is the source of all problems with the right in the USA should be able to figure out which of the two opposing explanations is likely to be the wrong one.
There are outbreaks in MO in areas with lower vaccination levels. However, vaccination levels in St. Louis higher than the state average, and the case load lower--though numbers are climbing there now too.
It's called confirmation bias. It's widespread.
No clue. Tell me a few weeks when government bean counters catch up.
One site was offering $10.50/hour. The other was offering $13.50/hour + weekly travel allowance of $50.00. Guess which was which.
Cant get behind WSJ paywall. They seem to be saying that in states where they cut benefits the rate of people losing benefits is faster. Isn't that kind of redundant? If you cut off their unemployment of course you have a fast rate of people going off of unemployment. What you really want to know, I think, is did it lead people people to seek work.
Steve
Several factors are at work here.
First - keep in mind there's a difference between ENHANCED benefits (supplemental FED benefits or the additional $300 per week) and-
Second then there's EXTENDED benefits - here in NC UI lasts only 22 weeks - federal supplements can keep that going for quite a bit longer
In states that are ending extended benefits unemployment is FALLING for the simple fact that less people are collecting. This is not a calculation of any sort - it's a computer read out of how many people get deposited money
In some states like SC - they ended ENHANCED benefits
In both cases job applications according to INDEED are NOT increasing. You can guess all you want about the reasons but among the guesses are people being more picky - lack of daycare - wages too low. Take your pick
But keep a few pandemic related things in mind here. First, there is pent up demand and a LOT OF IT. The disruptions in the supply chain for multiple items is causing SOME things to fall in short supply - lumber etc. Then there's the long term shortages in computer "chips" that is causing the shortage in vehicles.
All of this is taking place in the back drop of the BOOMERs retiring in droves from the work place. And at the same time the economy is being juiced with increased spending plans.
We will eventually reach a point of equilibrium - but ti will not be a happy place. We will have more people, with more money with more time on their hands who will DEMAND certain services be available to them. BOOMERS who are retired will WANT restaurants to be open and FULLY Staffed. They will want stores to do the same and due to the lack of warm bodies to choose from those companies will choose from a lower number of applicants.
Throughout our history Americans measured themselves by their work. We are NOT a lazy people. The US DoL released a study IIRC in the 90s that said labor shortages would become acute in certain job functions starting in the 2020s. The pandemic has made it much much worse.