Does Anyone Believe That Unemployment Would Be Just 6.8% If Obama Hadn't Extended Jobless Benefits?

Robert Barro is another Ivory Tower Academic Idiot who is not in touch with reality

Who is this Robert Barro guy??!!!#*&^#% What a ridiculous comment! Jobs are provided by employers. If no one hires, there will be no jobs, and the people is unemployeed will remain unemployeed. I've been out of work for more than a year till this April. I was looking for work constantly, but no one offered during that period of time. All I can say that guy is just simple stupid!

Sister question :Does a tree make a sound when it falls in the forest and no one is around?
Is it a big sound? or a little sound?
If a person knows they have on ly 24 weks of unemployment benefits will they be more or less likely to seek employment?
Now of course many, MANY of the New Messiah's people ask:
JUS' WHAT IS DIS HERES UN EMPLYMENT BENNY FITS?
We still tryin's to figure outs jus' whats is dis heres M PLOY MENT thing

The unemployment rate doesn't include many unemployed people:
1-Those entering the job market for the first time
2-self employed
3-part timers
4-expired benefits
Yes, the rate could be lower, but there should be more alot more bankrupcy, homeless, riots, .....

For someone who claims that Barros argument is "pretty thin" because he does not produce data to back up his point of view it is ironic that this author produces to evidence to back up his claim that companies "are using cash to fire employees". Pretty much his only evidence is that apparently some companies are buying other companies. He criticizes Barro for presuming "that the different lengths of being able to collect unemployment-insurance is the defining difference between now and then".
But then he glibly goes on to presume that a acquiring company firing employees is the defining motivation of one company acquiring another. In other words, there is no conceivable reason why any of the companies he named acquiring their targets rather than firing their employees and there is no reason for that other than the availability of cash.
He has not done even a cursory analysis to show that there is no other reason. For example, it is impossible that BHP is buying Potash to enter the food fertilizer space where it has no presence and is taking advantage of the current weakness of its competitors. And there is no question that HP/Dell might be looking to acquire 3Par to build a capability in virtualized storage management (which they now lack) to strengthen their position in the cloud computing space. Strangely enough it seems that all the rest of the press that I read seem to entirely see these acquisitions as strategic top line driven moves rather than as cost cutting bottom line driven ones. And if the motives were cost cutting based then then the folks at HP and Dell must obviously be terrible at math given the incredible multiples they are offering for 3Par. Presumably they must be planning to fire the entire company after they acquire it.

I can't stand commentators who presume the stupidity of their audience when they pontificate.

I have full sympathy for people who are genuinely seeking out work but not finding it. But …. Please read on. ====> The average unemployment benefits is about $20,000. So, CAN this cause people to not seek out work ? Who doesn’t like making money from the rocker in the porch or couch watching TV. Here is my opinion. ========= 1) Likelihood of UNSKILLED workers evading work is based on their wage range (i.e. wage that they can get today, not what they got in 2008 ). A) Wage < 20K = Likelihood of evading work 98%. == B) Wage 20K – 30K == Likelihood 70% == C) Wage > 30K – Likelihood 20%. ======== 2) Similarly, for SKILLED workers - though the likelihood will be half of UNSKILLED workers, because NOT working can make a SKILLED worker UNEMPLOYABLE later on. ====== So, without being cynical, it does have a basis.

Perhaps we need to distinguish between the two groups. There are those folks who were professionals and are now financially devastated through long term unemployment and the low weekly amount. Then there is the group where unemployment is equivalent to what they just lost. Perhaps we need separate programs.

The problem isn’t that unemployment spends a lot of money or demotivates unemployed folks, it is that it can disguise a lot of suffering. When the economy is doing so badly that we look to extend unemployment benefits, we should really be doing something more.

I think the problem with unemployment insurance and COBRA insurance subsidies is its unevenness. Those entering the job market for the first time don’t get it. People who’ve lost businesses don’t get it. People who have been working a lot of low-paying jobs don’t get it. Unemployed who were self-employed do not qualify. Independent contractors and freelancers don't qualify.

After 26 weeks the benefits are essentially paid with federal tax dollars for example the extended compensation written into the stimulus bill by Congress. The amount available should be the same for all to cover food and shelter yet low enough to motivate looking for better pay. Currently in Arizona the maximum amount is $240 a week whereas in Massachusetts it is $650 a week. After the first 26 weeks those amounts are paid using the same federal money.

I don't buy it that unemployment would necessarily reach 6.8% if unemployment benefits weren't extended. But Joe Weisenthal is making a stupid case by just using this one number to refute the argument. What's more important here is that extending unemployment benefits definitely makes unemployment numbers worse. Plenty have already admitted they will not accept a job that pays them less than what unemployment pays them. Still others may set the bar even higher. They may not accept a job outside of their field, or paying only 20% more than unemployment pays. There isn't any doubt that extending unemployment keeps unemployment high. A better solution is to cut extending benefits after two years.

German official unemployment rate stable at 7.6%