The deal to extend the payroll tax cut through the end of the year included a deal to “extend” unemployment benefits. I put “extend” in sarcasm quotes because the bill actually reduced that extension gradually. Instead of 99 weeks of unemployment to jobless workers in hard-hit states, the bill gradually backed that off to 79 weeks or less. This hurts the most vulnerable population in the labor force, the long-term unemployed, sadly a fast-growing sector even during this modest recovery.
Evidence comes this week, as eight states will see jobless benefits cut:
More than 230,000 jobless Americans will lose their unemployment insurance by this weekend as reductions in the federal program that provides extended benefits to the long-term unemployed take broader effect.
The new round of reductions is hitting eight states this month, meaning that about 400,000 long-term unemployed Americans in 27 states will have been cut off of the federal government’s extended unemployment benefits program this year, according to an analysis by the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for the unemployed [...]
Most states provide 26 weeks of benefits, and the federal government provides the rest, partially through a complicated formula that requires jobless rates to be both high and increasing to reach the benefit limit.
But the nation’s jobless rate has been steadily declining — from 9.1 percent in August, to 8.1 percent last month — causing the maximum benefit period to contract in most states. The extended benefits were reauthorized in February, but efforts by some Democratic lawmakers to adjust the formula in a way that would have kept the 99-week limit intact were unsuccessful.
The states are California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Colorado and Connecticut. It’s based on the “look-back” in the bill. Jobless rates in these states are now below what they were three years ago, though in some cases above where they were four years ago. But Congress did not extend the look-back to take this into account. As a result, hundreds of thousands will lose benefits.
Not only is this a tragedy for the long-term unemployed in these states, it’s a legitimate hit to the economy. Unemployment benefits are among the best stimulative programs we have, with one of the highest economic multipliers. Taking these benefits away means perhaps billions of dollars in economic activity going away.
The point is not to extend 99 weeks or more of unemployment benefits forever, but it’s to recognize that the recovery has not arrived for a significant subset of unemployed Americans, and that now is not the time to leave them behind.




16 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
No worries about the hit to the economy. These 230,000 people were all obviously lazy good for nothin’s watching
OprahRosieTV all day long instead of out trying to find work. Cause there’s plenty of jobs. So when these lazy bums get off the dole and get a job, it will actually be a plus to the economy.And besides, if it isn’t a plust to the economy, then as sitting Presdint that soshlist Obama gets blamed for it! WIN! WIN!
/rightwinger (who typically knows as much about economics and people as I do about string theory)
FDL should post dual statistics on unemployment. Shadowstatistics.org is a decent source for REAL unemployment figures. The Government is into propaganda not truth. To lower poverty rates they just “redefine” poverty and less people fall under the “new” definition. The GOVERNMENT is doing the same with unemployment; the real percentage is closer to 15% anf that is not adding in severely underemployed young adults. Recent grads from 2007-present are in crisis regarding employment and yet GOVERNMENT propaganda is pervasively insisting things are going in the right direction (although much too slowly); a recent study suggested 50% unemployment or severe underemployment in that group. We particpate in a lie just repeating government stats without immediately stating “real” numbers from alternate sources.
Meanwhile here at home: 93,000 Californians are scheduled to have their extended federal unemployment benefits cut off Saturday because the state is no longer eligible for the long-term aid. (with the associated decrease in the ‘unemployment rate’).
“Bill Feit, 63, of Oceanside, said he received his on Saturday. Feit said he’s been unemployed for 88 weeks after the end of a contract job that paid $33 per hour. He said he’s been applying for many jobs, including those at Home Depot and Costco, but still having no luck.
“I’ve applied for three to five jobs a week for two years. Now I don’t even get any calls anymore,” said Feit, who gets $450 a week in unemployment. “That thing about being long-term unemployed, it’s true. The gates are closed. That’s how I feel.”
Bill Bill Bill your 63 dude.. as we say in NEW JOISEY FOUGETABOUIT!
The U-6 numbers are more revealing. The drop out rate of lookers has made the numbers lower. We need a measure of those without employment and without UE Insurance. The small businesses in our area are taking it in the shorts way down. CA 11.5% unemployment CA dept of employment development department.
But David: those quarter million people MUST get poorer!
Otherwise there is an argument in favor of increasing taxes upon corporate employers and wealthier people, the needed revenue for UI benefits has to come from SOMEWHERE you know.
The labor force is am asset that has huge investment in it. It should be protected. People have to pay mortgage and rent still in the land of shrinking opportunity.
brutal unemployment stats. Unfortunately it ain’t getting better anytime soon.
I know a middle-aged woman, university professional whose benefits are ending.
She’s applied to everything in her field — and out of it — for over 70 weeks, including dogwalker and temp worker.
It’s a waste of talent, and humanity, when she’ll go homeless.
So if the long-term unemployed are unemployable, should they be supported by the government forever? Or do we really expect, in spite of everything we know, that all those jobs are coming back in a great recovery. And how do we justify supporting those that have been employed but not those who have never been employed, but want to be?
This will put an end to their laziness! Now they’ll all be forced to start profitable businesses!
Part of the problem is demand. That’s why alot of people have argued that the government(both federal and local) does not belong tackling the deficit right now and adding to the unemployment rolls.
I’m pretty sure the solution to new individuals entering the workforce unable to find employment and old individuals who were at one time gainfully employed but now are unable to find work is not to pretend these people don’t exist. Almost a quarter of a million people is alot of people. It’s moronic to hope that all of these folks have family that can afford to board them in rooms.
The government isn’t tackling the deficit right now. It’s been over a trillion dollars a year for three years, and there are no plans to significantly reduce annual deficits.
It can’t be the government’s responsibility to support unemployed members of the labor force forever. Certainly a year-and-a half is sufficient for those previously employed, especially when there is no support for those new to the labor force who have never been employed.
Why not attack the real problem, which is the government policy of exporting investment and jobs? Clinton has recently been in India and China obtaining agreements that would allow more US corporate investment and operations in those countries. In China she and Geithner lobbied for, and apparently gained, an increase in permissible US investment from 33% to 49% in Chinese corporations.
Hand-wringing and belly-aching isn’t going to solve the problem — might as well bring dakine back.
Try again. They froze federal pay and cut a bunch of money from the budgets that affected localities such as Child Welfare agencies(all so we could export bombs)
I have a 4 year degree, work in a factory, making just over minimum wage, and so many coworkers have degrees as well. I studied hard, graduated near the top of my class, for nothing. Oh well. If I didn’t have this degree, I may be jobless. It’s the same in retail, so many people I know with basic retail sales job have degrees and were jobless for months. Degrees in America usually means debt, so not only is our potential not being utilized and we are hardly earning a living wage, but we have a massive debt on our shoulders to pay off (therefore we are actually earning less). A master’s degree is the new bachelor’s, just don’t expect to find work in the field you studied nor wages that match what you may need to borrow over the course of 6+ years needed to earn that.
Someone correct me here if I’m wrong, but those 230,000 people, once they drop off the unemployment rolls, if they get discouraged and stop looking for work, don’t they magically not even count as unemployed any more? In fact, has a significant fraction of the drop in the reported U3 unemployment rate been people giving up and no longer even being counted?
If you check the U6 rate (which counts anyone who has looked for work in the last 12 months even if they have given up), the rate is still more than 14 (!) percent. Back during the Great Depression, the U6 rate would have been the basis for jobless reports. U3 came into being because it was useful politically to be able to show a lower rate. It’s sort of the same thing they’ve done with the way inflation is measured. And this smoke and mirrors numbers massage has been fully bi-partisan, with the Clinton admin responsible for the current methodology.
Suggested reading/viewing: Fuzzy Numbers