No Free Lunch in Subsidy Programs

By SHARE

Extending the extra unemployment insurance benefits would be bad for the federal budget and bad for the economy, and there is a better long-term solution for unemployment than the current UI system.

With respect to the budget, the proposed benefits would mean about $50 billion of red ink next year, adding to the huge burden of debt we are imposing on young people. There is no free lunch in subsidy programs: Someone will have to pay the bills.

[Obama Continues Populist Push.]

With respect to the economy, some analysts claim that more UI spending will be stimulative, even though Congress already has $1 trillion of deficit spending in the pipeline for next year. Rather than stimulating anything, such huge deficits are destabilizing financial markets and damaging business confidence.

Furthermore, any stimulus from UI benefits will be counteracted by the anti-stimulus of the higher taxes needed to pay for them. Many states have been raising their UI taxes on businesses in order to replenish their unemployment funds, and these tax increases are surely harming job creation.

Another negative effect of UI benefits is that they increase unemployment because they reduce the incentive for people to find work. Higher UI benefits delay the need for people to make tough choices about their careers, such as switching industries, taking lower pay, or moving to a different city. It's a basic rule that when the government subsidizes something, we get more of it.

[Newt Gingrich’s Ideas Aren't as Creative or Effective as He Thinks.]

Fiscal experts Martin Feldstein and Daniel Altman found that the "most thoroughly researched effect of the existing UI system on unemployment is the increase in the duration of the unemployment spells. By reducing the cost of remaining unemployed, UI benefits induce individuals to have longer spells." Similarly, Larry Summers, a former top economist to Presidents Clinton and Obama, concluded in his academic work that unemployment benefits contribute to long-term unemployment.

Our UI system causes other problems. It suppresses personal savings because people expect the government to care for them when they are unemployed. That is harmful because personal savings are a key source of economic growth—savings get channeled into capital investment, which ultimately raises productivity and wages.

Another problem is the waste and fraud in the current UI system stemming from people getting benefits that they are not entitled to. The Department of Labor estimated that improper UI payments totaled $17 billion in 2010. As UI benefits expand, the waste grows.

[Unemployment Drops--Does Obama Deserve the Credit?]

Rather than extending UI benefits, policymakers should look at alternatives to the current system. One approach would be to substitute personal UI savings accounts for the current tax-based system, as the nation of Chile has done. In 2002, Chile built on the success of its Social Security personal accounts by having workers make an added deposit to fund accounts covering their possible unemployment.

One advantage of this UI system is that workers won't cheat because it's their own money in the accounts. Another advantage is that workers have an incentive to find a job more quickly so as not to consume their UI savings. Finally, the system adds to old-age security because the balances in UI accounts for most workers would rise over time and be available for withdrawal at retirement.

In sum, welfare-state programs such as UI impose costs and distortions on the economy. Policymakers should be on the lookout for better systems, and it appears that Chile's innovative reforms would be a good approach for us to pursue.

Chris Edwards

About Chris Edwards Economist at the Cato Institute

Tags
employment
economy
insurance
unemployment

Other Arguments

#1
67 Pts
Unemployment Insurance Is Financial Life Support for Millions

Yes – Unemployment Insurance Is Financial Life Support for Millions

Howard Rosen Resident Visiting Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics

#2
63 Pts
Putting People Back to Work Must Be the Ultimate Goal

Yes – Putting People Back to Work Must Be the Ultimate Goal

Geoff Davis U.S. Representative, Kentucky's 4th District

#3
56 Pts
Unemployment Insurance Will Promote Economic Recovery

Yes – Unemployment Insurance Will Promote Economic Recovery

Sander Levin U.S. Representative, Michigan’s 12th District

#4
26 Pts
Withdrawing Unemployment Insurance Will Not Solve Job Crisis

Yes – Withdrawing Unemployment Insurance Will Not Solve Job Crisis

Carl E. Van Horn Professor of Public Policy and Director of the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University

#6
6 Pts
Americans Don't Turn Their Backs on Americans in Need

Yes – Americans Don't Turn Their Backs on Americans in Need

Lloyd Doggett U.S. Representative, Texas’ 25th District

#7
1 Pts
More Unemployment Insurance Won't Stimulate Growth

No – More Unemployment Insurance Won't Stimulate Growth

James Sherk Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics at the Heritage Foundation

You Might Also Like


See More