Over the past several years, I’ve repeatedly argued that you get more unemployment when the government pays people to be unemployed. But I’m not just relying on theory. I’ve cited both anecdotes and empirical research to bolster my case.
You won’t be surprised to learn that many politicians have a different perspective. They say it is compassionate to provide unemployment insurance benefits. And they say it is cruel and heartless to put a time limit on those payments.
And if you believe Nancy Pelosi, unemployment handouts actually are good for the economy!
You might think this is one of these never-to-be-resolved Washington debates, but we actually have two natural experiments over the past year that show one side was right and the other side was wrong.
Writing for the Wall Street Journal, John Hood of the North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation describes what happened when his state decided to limit unemployment benefits.
Here are the changes that were made.
A year ago, North Carolina became the first state in the nation to exit the federal government’s extended-benefits program for the unemployed. …Gov. Pat McCrory and the state legislature…reduced the amount and duration of unemployment-insurance benefits, which had been higher in North Carolina than in most states. As a result the state lost its eligibility to participate in the extended-benefits program on July 1, 2013. …liberal activists pounced. …media outlets excoriated North Carolina for ending extended benefits. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called it a “war on the unemployed.”
And here are the results.
North Carolina didn’t descend into the Dickensian nightmare critics predicted. For the last six months of 2013, it was the only state where jobless recipients weren’t eligible for extended benefits. Yet during that period North Carolina had one of the nation’s largest improvements in labor-market performance and overall economic growth. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of payroll jobs in North Carolina rose by 1.5% in the second half of 2013, compared with a 0.8% rise for the nation as a whole. Total unemployment in the state dropped by 17%, compared with the national average drop of 12%. The state’s official unemployment rate fell to 6.9% in December 2013 from 8.3% in June, while the nationwide rate fell by eight-tenths of a point to 6.7%.
But we didn’t just have a state-based experiment. Hood explains that the same thing happened on the national level six months later. Congress rejected Obama’s call for another extension of benefits.
So what happened?
Still not convinced that leaving the extended-benefits program encouraged both job creation and job acceptance? As of Jan. 1, 2014, the extended-benefits program expired nationwide. Yet there has been no sudden exodus of discouraged workers to the fringes of the national economy. Both job creation and household employment are up. The nation’s employment-population ratio was 58.9% in May, up from 58.6% in December.
This is a powerful point.
We may not have a strong job market, but the numbers definitely have improved since the start of the year.
There’s actually an important lesson here. You don’t need perfect policy to get better performance. The private economy will generate growth so long as it has some breathing room.
Heck, sometimes the absence of bad policy is enough to boost economic performance. The post-2010 gridlock didn’t lead to a lot of good policies, but it did end the threat of major new statist initiatives from the Obama White House. And that was enough, in my humble opinion, to give us better numbers.
But better numbers are not the same as impressive numbers. This is still the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression. So while it’s good to have a bit of improvement, we should be dissatisfied until we at least get back on the long-run trendline for 3 percent average real growth.
And what needs to happen to give us that kind of growth? The answer is simple: Free markets and small government.
P.S. Since the main point of today’s column is unemployment insurance, let’s close with some great cartoons on that topic from Michael Ramirez, Robert Gorrell, and Chuck Asay, as well as a superb Wizard-of-Id parody.
P.P.S. On a separate topic, here’s a superb video of a 1948 cartoon comparing free markets to the poisonous ideology of “isms” such as communism, fascism, and socialism.
Very well done, particularly considering that it’s almost 70 years old. And if you want to see how economic growth can make a huge difference over that amount of time, check out this comparison of Argentina and Hong Kong.
[…] We should have learned that lesson during the Obama years. […]
[…] foi exatamente o que aconteceu nos Estados Unidos quando o Congresso finalmente parou de aumentar o […]
[…] Republicans eventually prevailed in blocking the extended benefits. So what happened? As you might expect, there was an increase in employment. […]
[…] Republicans eventually prevailed in blocking the extended benefits. So what happened? As you might expect, there was an increase in employment. […]
[…] unemployment benefits during the Obama years was finally resolved, it showed that people are significantly more likely to find jobs when they’re no longer getting paid for not […]
[…] benefits were finally halted in 2014, meaning we had a real-world test to see who was right. So what happened? Lo and behold, the jobless rate fell as more people went […]
[…] After that happened, the labor market improved. […]
[…] have a plethora of programs, such as Social Security, housing subsidies, unemployment insurance, college subsidies, and Medicaid/Medicare, that undermine incentives to […]
[…] there are surely other reasons to list, including the long-overdue end of seemingly permanent unemployment benefits and falling defense outlays as forces are withdrawn […]
[…] story has two additional excerpts that help to explain Spain’s anemic performance. We have very strong evidence in the United States that unemployment benefits subsidize joblessness. Spain appears to be learning the same lesson, […]
[…] the perspective of good public policy, though, the real problem with such benefits (as personalized here and here) is that they lure people into extended periods […]
[…] At the bottom of this column, you can watch a much better cartoon from the […]
[…] At the bottom of this column, you can watch a much better cartoon from the […]
[…] At the bottom of this column, you can watch a much better cartoon from the […]
[…] Too bad nobody told the authors that the job market improved in America when subsidies for joblessness were cut back. […]
[…] purpose of alleviating sickness, unemployment, and aging (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, […]
[…] purpose of alleviating sickness, unemployment, and aging (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, […]
[…] is exactly what happened in the United States when Congress finally stopped extending unemployment […]
[…] that the White House is impervious to data and evidence. Indeed, notwithstanding the evidence that the left was wildly wrong about the impact of ending extended unemployment benefits, the White House is proposing to expand […]
[…] Or what’s the real reason why third-party payer is misguided? And why should people be concerned about high marginal tax rates or double taxation? Or Obamacare subsidies? Or unemployment insurance? […]
[…] an economist, I definitely think it’s better to pay people to work instead of subsidizing them for not working. But we also need to understand that this additional spending has two negative tax […]
[…] an economist, I definitely think it’s better to pay people to work instead of subsidizing them for not working. But we also need to understand that this additional spending has two negative tax […]
[…] an economist, I definitely think it’s better to pay people to work instead of subsidizing them for not working. But we also need to understand that this additional spending has two negative tax […]
[…] deserve some of the credit, but it’s also worth noting that Congress wisely put a stop to the initiative-sapping policy of endlessly extending unemployment benefits. Such policies sound compassionate, but they basically pay people not to work and cause more […]
[…] was replaced by spending restraint, the economy did better. And job creation picked up when subsidies for unemployment were limited, just as more sensible economists […]
[…] The Left Was Wrong about Unemployment Insurance…Plus a Message from 1948 about Markets vs. Sta… (danieljmitchell.wordpress.com) […]
[…] H/T Dan Mitchell […]
Thank you Daniel, I had my whole family watch this. The little ones don’t understand what the “isms” are, but they will, and will remember the harm the isms do.
[…] Dan Mitchell, this was part of good post on how the Left was wrong about unemployment […]
[…] Mitchell from the Cato Institute shared with us today this 9:27 minute cartoon from 1948 – entitled Make Mine Freedom, on his International Liberty […]
Charles Krauthammer contended on a recent Fox broadcast that the recent uptick in employment coincided with the {temporary, as it turns out} cessation of extended unemployment benefits.
Denmark originally provided unlimited unemployment benefits. When they shifted to a 4 year period, there was a “hockey-stick” upturn in re-employment within 2 months of the end of benefits. When they shifted to 2 years, they found the same hockey-stick effect.
Re-employment creates the same sort of “benefit cliff” that is found in many of the “means-tested” programs, keeping people from reaching their full potential.