Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 03, 2020

(A) study by Yale economists found "no evidence" that enhanced benefits authorized by Congress in March decreased employment. People who were collecting enhanced benefits actually resumed working at a similar and even quicker rate than others who were not eligible for the extra aid once work was available, according to the study, "Employment Effects of Unemployment Insurance Generosity During the Pandemic."

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

"The data do not show a relationship between benefit generosity and employment paths after the CARES Act" enhancement was provided, said economics professor Joseph Altonji, a co-author of the report.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The Trump Administration is caught lying yet again to and about the American workers simply trying to survive?

Quelle surprise....

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-08-03 11:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The Trump Administration is caught lying yet again to and about the American workers simply trying to survive?"

We have a few posters here regularly that repeated the exact same lies, over and over.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2020-08-03 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I made more than twice per week on unemployment then I did working and I Hated the job. I don't want to go back to beating up my car for half the money.
I hope they make the big free cash permanent so I can retire on my $679.00 a week.

LOL!

#3 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-08-03 11:48 AM | Reply

Unless you are disabled or 65 you won't get it for the rest of your life. Maybe use this time off to get a better job or brush up on skills?

#4 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-08-03 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What jobs? I'm 57 with multiple co-morbidities.

I will go back to work when they kick me off the dole permanently. Not before.

I'm not risking my life for a sub-survival wage;
Unless I absolutely have to.

I'm one of "those people" that the Republicans want to feel the sting of the lash.

I may yet feel it too.

#5 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-08-03 12:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

My "clients" tell me that not only are their workers refusing to go to work because of the rich unemployment pay, even though they can't, they are also demanding baby blood sacrifices and casual Friday's

It's outrageous!

I've got a pencil and I have been real successful in making lists. They should be too

- - eberz

#6 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2020-08-03 05:50 PM | Reply

(A)t least five other recent studies examined exactly this question.

These analyses are by researchers at Yale; a group from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Chicago and University of California at Berkeley; economists from the University of Pennsylvania, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Glassdoor; an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst; and an economist at Evercore ISI.

Using a variety of government and private-industry data sets, they all concluded the same thing: The $600 federal supplement does not appear to have depressed job growth.

As the Yale economists summarized: "We find no evidence that high [unemployment insurance] replacement rates drove job losses or slowed rehiring." The Evercore ISI economist, Ernie Tedeschi, also observed that in June, around 70 percent of unemployment recipients who resumed working had been receiving more from benefits than their prior wage " yet nonetheless returned to work.

Why might this be the case?

Because, as a recent survey of elite economists from the University of Chicago's Initiative on Global Markets found, the main force holding back job growth is firms' lack of interest in hiring, not people's unwillingness to work at prevailing wages. With U.S. unemployment in double digits, job vacancies depressed and jobless benefits temporary, most workers don't want to lose any shot they might have at reemployment.

www.washingtonpost.com

It continues to eternally piss me off that Democrats never ever show any effective message discipline like the Republican do in their sleep. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer should be waving these findings around like a favorite whip as they excoriate Republican recalcitrance in providing extraordinary stimulus to teetering American families in the midst of a crisis not of their making.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-08-03 09:15 PM | Reply

"the main force holding back job growth is firms' lack of interest in hiring"

Save a handful of niche businesses that are booming because of the pandemic, what business would seriously try to hire more people with this much uncertainty, and all of it negative?

Reminder, it will be at least another year until this pandemic might possibly finally be over.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-08-03 09:21 PM | Reply

We have a few posters here regularly that repeated the exact same lies, over and over.

#2 | POSTED BY DANNI AT

They were only passing along "information" from their "clients."

#9 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-08-03 10:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The goal of unemployment insurance is twofold, after all: compassion (help struggling families put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads) and stimulus (support consumer spending so the economy can recover more quickly). For both reasons, Congress should immediately renew this supplement - ideally in a form that links benefit levels to public health and economic conditions, and that phases out as the dual crises abate - as some Democrats have already proposed.

If anything, research to date suggests the federal benefit supplement has boosted macroeconomic activity and, therefore, likely supported hiring. That's because these benefits have supported consumer spending, which in turn helps retailers, landlords and other businesses keep workers on their own payrolls.

www.washingtonpost.com

Why is this so damn hard for Republicans to understand? Don't they realize that this is a "pay now or pay for a hell of a lot more later" moment?

The GOP is going to nuke what's left of the economy and plunge millions into poverty because they can't add 2+2 and come up with the right answer.

#10 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-08-03 10:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Let's hold a seance and ask what fiscal conservatism would do.

#11 | Posted by LesWit at 2020-08-03 10:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

9

That's right. I wasn't making it up. I clearly qualified it as anecdotal evidence.

I'm surprised they could finish a study in the middle of July where the time didn't start until these folks started getting benefits.

Which was when? Late April or May. And the study is done middle of July?

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-03 10:30 PM | Reply

I clearly qualified it as anecdotal evidence.

#12 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT

Yeah.

Say, how has finding out that your "clients" are lying sacks of shht impacted your professional relationship?

#13 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2020-08-03 10:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

AUSTERITY:self destructive policies designed to punish the "unworthy poor", keeping them on the edge of homelessness and starvation to show the higher classes what's in store for them if they don't get with the program and kowtow to oligarch ass.

KNOW YOUR PLACE: the simplest explanation of republican policies that hurt everyone to punish a few.

#14 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-08-03 10:36 PM | Reply

"Why is this so damn hard for Republicans to understand?"

They understand it.

They just put a higher priority on punishing the wicked.

And if you don't have a job, or if you're just poor to begin with, you're a bad person.

The GOP has two radically different ways of thinking about economics; one for rich people and one for everyone else.

Economic suffering is simply the consequence of making bad choices. Economic prosperity is the result of making good choices and hard work.

Their morality providea carrots for those already rich, and for everyone else, the stick is there to remind them of their place.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-08-03 10:40 PM | Reply

"Say, how has finding out that your "clients" are lying sacks of shht impacted your professional relationship?"

Clients whine and moan. People problems are always the biggest problems. My clients are biased like anybody else.
Christ, most are Republicans.

This is one study. I'm not doubting it. Just sayin....

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-03 10:56 PM | Reply

#16

Read post #7 Ebs. It's not one study, it's five. And all of them have come to the same conclusion:

"We find no evidence that high [unemployment insurance] replacement rates drove job losses or slowed rehiring." The Evercore ISI economist, Ernie Tedeschi, also observed that in June, around 70 percent of unemployment recipients who resumed working had been receiving more from benefits than their prior wage - yet nonetheless returned to work."
It appears your clients are spinning anecdotes that are not quantified in the data.
Because, as a recent survey of elite economists from the University of Chicago's Initiative on Global Markets found, the main force holding back job growth is firms' lack of interest in hiring, not people's unwillingness to work at prevailing wages. With U.S. unemployment in double digits, job vacancies depressed and jobless benefits temporary, most workers don't want to lose any shot they might have at reemployment.

#17 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-08-03 11:04 PM | Reply

Has Eberly ever been on unemployment?

Why would he know the first thing about it, other than what Republican propaganda tells him to think?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-08-03 11:10 PM | Reply

Thanks Tony.

It's pretty valid. Overall, people went back to work and gave up a Larger benefit to go back to work.

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2020-08-03 11:31 PM | Reply

"and gave up a Larger benefit to go back to work."

A lot of my clients made more with regular UI plus the bump. I don't know of a single one who wouldn't have traded in a New York minute.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-08-04 12:43 AM | Reply

Dumbasses.

#21 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-08-04 01:33 AM | Reply

Here's the bottom line: Unemployment benefits are finite - even the pandemic bump. Recipients need jobs even if they pay less than temporary benefits. Unless these folks were planning on leaving their jobs given any alternative, it only makes sense that they would return to their former jobs when offered the opportunity because their need to live extends beyond this crisis.

Basically, those trying to say that workers would rather take a handout than earn their keep are merely projecting from their own reality of being recipients of unearned government largess they happily receive themselves in the forms of tax breaks, holidays, and exemptions unavailable to meager workers.

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-08-04 08:06 AM | Reply

Maybe the fact that they take away the benefits if you refuse to come back to your old job has something to do with their eagerness to return.

If they could stay on benefits while searching for a new job many would do that, especially if the benefits paid a lot more than the job they had.

#23 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-08-04 10:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The bottom line is there are people like Effeteposer - there have ALWAYS been people like that. Some people that will ride it to the bitter end and for various reasons. I get that. I certainly doubly get it under COVID and with the Bonus. But in all honesty I can't blame the people who received more or around the same for not trying to get work as there are good reasons like say COVID... That is a lot of people. HOWEVER most DID jump back into work as soon as they could and that is usually what happens. I frankly would hate to currently be on the search for a new job. I see signs everywhere around here for low wage jobs but anything respectable - not so much.

My wife jumped back in when her time came. But I know my wife had issues with people not wanting to come back. Those people had a choice - take a leave of absence (no pay/no unemployment), quit or be fired. After the stay at home order was over you can't opt out of working if called back in Michigan. My own company had employees peeved we didn't cut hours under 40 so they could collect the $600 a week "bonus" (they are used to 50-60 hours). Frankly I call them a bunch of hypocrites too because they are the same diehard Trumpers that complain about people riding unemployment, etc and here they are with their own "gimme, gimme, gimme".

#24 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-08-04 12:07 PM | Reply

Republicans don't want the lazy, worthless poor to find out what it is like to earn a living wage. That's why they oppose the $600.00 per week, for many of the lowest paid workers that was the first time in their lives that they didn't have to struggle every single day. Keep it up, they'll return to work but they will want to get paid decently for doing so. In a rich country we shouldn't have working poor people. Anyone who works a full time job should be able to have a place to live, food to eat, electricity, etc. Otherwise quit telling us we live in a rich country, we actually live in a country where the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2020-08-04 01:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#25 | Posted by danni

That's pretty spot on. People are seeing what it is like to basically make 40k or more. Beyond that, for those making a wage equivalent pre-tax to what they were getting on unemployment with the $600 it was in effect a raise since they were not pulling taxes out of the $600. ($600/week is roughly a $30k salary. Basically the $15/hour minimum wage the working poor have been hoping for)

#26 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-08-04 04:03 PM | Reply

This doesn't surprise me.

The myth of the welfare queen spending all their money on lotto tickets and iPhones is an old but persistent one.

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2020-08-04 05:23 PM | Reply

Florida was embarrassed into shutting down their welfare recipient drug testing program after spending a ton of money on it only to find there was like 2 percent positive tests.

Almost everything rwingers buhlieve is a lie.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2020-08-05 12:54 AM | Reply

It's just the new version of the "welfare queen" myth. Its used to divide and its how the wealthy groom their underlings to do the dirty work for them.

#29 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-08-05 12:58 AM | Reply

"Florida was embarrassed into shutting down their welfare recipient drug testing program after spending a ton of money on it only to find there was like 2 percent positive tests."

Yup.

From the Tampa Bay Times:
Required drug tests for people seeking welfare benefits ended up costing taxpayers more than it saved and failed to curb the number of prospective applicants. The findings: only 108 of the 4,086 people who took a drug test failed.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-08-05 02:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Let's hold a seance and ask what fiscal conservatism would do.
#11 | POSTED BY LESWIT

Ouija Says:
LET IT TINKLE DOWN TRUMP'S FOREHEAD

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-08-05 11:42 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort