• Comment (5)

Congress Must Do More for Long-Term Unemployed

May 16, 2012 RSS Feed Print

Chad Stone is chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The long-term unemployed are in deep trouble, with the human and economic costs of long-term unemployment reaching crisis proportions. That was the message of a piece in Sunday's New York Times from an incongruous pairing of economist policy wonks from opposite sides of the political divide. Policymakers should take heed.

Dean Baker from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, with his impeccable progressive credentials, and Kevin Hassett from the American Enterprise Institute, an adviser to top Republicans, write:

Policy makers must come together and recognize that this is an emergency, and fashion a comprehensive re-employment policy that addresses the specific needs of the long-term unemployed…Every month of delay is a month in which our unemployed friends and neighbors drift further away.

[Check out a roundup of editorial cartoons on the economy.]

Long-term unemployment is conventionally defined as unemployment that lasts 27 weeks or longer. (Before recent cutbacks by several states, regular state unemployment insurance for qualified unemployed workers typically lasted up to 26 weeks.) As the chart below shows, the long-term unemployed as a share of the total unemployed rose to unprecedented levels in the Great Recession and remains very high (41.3 percent in April).

Baker and Hassett discuss the special challenges that the long-term unemployed face in finding a job and the need for special policies to assist them. This economics odd couple came together over a shared interest in a policy called work-sharing, which allows employers to avoid layoffs by reducing the hours of a larger group of workers, with the government covering a portion of their lost wages in lieu of paying standard unemployment compensation. Baker and Hassett worked with Sen. Jack Reed, a Democrat of Rhode Island, to craft a work-share provision for the bipartisan agreement of earlier this year to extend the payroll tax cut and federal emergency unemployment insurance.

Unfortunately, that work-sharing provision is a drop in the bucket when it comes to addressing the challenges facing the long-term unemployed. More generally, policies to help them find jobs are seriously hampered by the general lack of jobs in the sluggish economy. Under these circumstances, the additional weeks of federal emergency unemployment insurance that kick in when unemployed workers exhaust their regular benefits provide a crucial safety net for the long-term unemployed and their families. Emergency unemployment insurance also helps to keep the long-term unemployed from dropping out of the labor force entirely, and the extra purchasing power that it provides gives valuable support to the economy.

[See the 10 best cities to find a job.]

For various reasons, policymakers have been reluctant to pursue aggressive monetary and fiscal policies to boost economic growth and improve the job prospects of the long-term unemployed (and everyone else). To add insult to injury, on the very day that the Baker-Hassett article appeared, payments under the Extended Benefits program—one piece of the emergency federal unemployment insurance program—ended prematurely for over 200,000 long-term unemployed workers in eight states. That makes 25 states where Extended Benefits ended prematurely and over 400,000 long-term unemployed who have lost benefits. The premature termination of Extended Benefits payments is part of the phasing down of emergency unemployment insurance in the same legislation that contained the work-sharing measure.

To their credit, Baker and Hassett have shown that political differences need not stand in the way of crafting a real solution to a real problem. But policy wonks don't make policy. It's past time for those who do to roll up their sleeves and get to work finding real solutions to the real problems that we face.

 

Tags:
employment,
economy,
unemployment

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Bruce of NV,

Regarding the latest post from Bill The Missing Link - I'm not certain if both of us should be insulted or neither of us should be insulted, or one of us should be insulted.

The bottom line, as I see it;

" The avaricious pursuit of wealth and power poses one set of threats to society. While the egalitarian regulatory mantra of Green Socialism poses another.

Wealth and power, concentrated in a narrow strata of our nation, is equally as dangerous as the liberal demands for social justice, a Green agenda and the abolishment of all traditional norms and mores.

Our national identity and unity is being torn apart - becoming a shattered, schizophrenic, dysfunctional contrivance; when what we really need is common sense and common ground."

Though both sides claim their cause is pure and just, I reckon there's plenty of blame to go around.

That said, I am right of center.... sometimes pretty far right - but that doesn't make me blind to the excesses of the right and laissez-faire capitalism.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 4:40PM May 17, 2012

R.L. Schaefer of CA

With a little twist you sound like brucetee otherwise known as bruce of NV..

A comment I responded to him:

In “Ted Nugent, Hilary Rosen Sheltering Obama from Scrutiny” you wrote “In fact average workers during that period,lost ground, due to stagnant wage increases,and reduced purchasing power". Did not find proof of that in your two links. Prehaps you can quote as I do... For sure, your earlier quote “the economic growth,of which he speakes, benefited, by a wide margin,those on the upper rungs of the income ladder. very little ,if any, trickled down to the folks on main st” __ is NOT substantiated __ ... What he spoke has nothing to do with your two articles...

In the first link it says “Experts point to some of the usual suspects -- like technology and globalization -- to explain the widening gap between the haves and have-nots”

Also says “One major pull on the working man was the decline of unions and other labor protections, said Bill Rodgers, a former chief economist for the Labor Department, now a professor at Rutgers University”

Also says “International competition is another factor. While globalization has lifted millions out of poverty in developing nations, it hasn't exactly been a win for middle class workers in the U.S.”

Also says “While average folks were losing ground in the economy, the wealthiest were capitalizing on some of those same factors, and driving an even bigger wedge between themselves and the rest of America”

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm

YOUR SECOND ARTICLE SAID ___ Second says “The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/12/16/1713834/census-1-in-2-americans-are-poor.html#storylink=cpy”

YOU WROTE __ Don’t see how this, as you wrote, “In fact average workers during that period,lost ground, due to stagnant wage increases,and reduced purchasing power" MATCH UP as proof.

__

As I have quoted before (Reason for recession and high unemployment. Nothing to do with tax cuts for rich):

"It’s important to keep in mind that the recession had nothing to do with the tax cuts. The recession was brought on by destructive federal intervention in the subprime mortgage market, irresponsible funding and securitization of subprime loans by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, unsound Federal Reserve monetary policy, a lack of oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, greed and fraud committed by certain large banks and investment firms, and consumers who bought homes they really couldn’t afford."

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm

Bill Hedges of MO 4:11PM May 17, 2012

UNEMPLOYMENT IS NOT AN "EMERGENCY"

Sadly, our economic woes are chronic and are politically impossible to solve.

Corporate greed, undeserved bonuses, huge salaries, legacy costs, outsourced jobs, government regulation, unions, Environmentalist dogma, pork barrel politics, open borders, and trial lawyers have destroyed our nation's middle class as well as much of our business and industry. Instead of moving forward we have chosen to try and conserve, regulate and ration ourselves into the future, while clutching to the fantasy of “green jobs”. We have become a debtor nation - hamstrung - unable to produce, compete or pay our debts.

But most importantly, we have lost the personal and political will to change. Corporate greed, wealth concentrated in the hands of too few, entitlements/welfare, Enviro-Socialism, political correctness and educational indoctrination have destroyed the basic system of American values. Judeo-Christian truths and morality have been

replaced by two polarizing dogmas - Ayn Rand style capitalism and the nanny state's dreams of a green utopia and social justice.

The avaricious pursuit of wealth and power poses one set of threats to society. While the egalitarian regulatory mantra of Green Socialism poses another.

Wealth and power, concentrated in a narrow strata of our nation, is equally as dangerous as the liberal demands for social justice, a Green agenda and the abolishment of all traditional norms and mores.

Our national identity and unity is being torn apart - becoming a shattered, schizophrenic, dysfunctional contrivance; when what we really need is common sense and common ground.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 10:54AM May 17, 2012

Economic Intelligence

Insights, perspectives, and commentary on the economy. Follow it on Twitter @EconomicIntel.

advertisement

Latest Videos

advertisement