It’s not something I should admit since I work at a think tank, which is based on the idea that substantive analysis can impact public policy, but I sometimes think humor and anecdotes are very effective in helping people understand issues.
On the topic of unemployment insurance, for instance, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this Michael Ramirez cartoon and this Wizard-of-Id parody have been effective in helping folks grasp the unintended consequences of excessive government benefits.
And I bet this story from Michigan and this example from Ohio will ring a bell with many people because they have some relative or buddy who also has used government benefits as an excuse to stay unemployed.
So when I went on Fox to discuss the issue, I mentioned that I had a couple of friends who goofed off instead of looking for work because they got unemployment benefits.
But since I am a think-tank policy wonk, I also explain that even left-wing economists such as Paul Krugman and Larry Summers agree that subsidizing unemployment means more joblessness. The academic research on this topic is virtually unanimous.
Keep in mind, by the way, that the negative impact of unemployment benefits is just the tip of the welfare-state iceberg. Professor Casey Mulligan has some very good work about the negative impact of redistribution programs, and this chart shows how dependency programs create very high implicit marginal tax rates for the less fortunate.
P.S. My opponent got screwed in terms of airtime, something that I can sympathize with since I’m often the one getting the short end of the stick, even when appearing on overseas television. This previous debate on unemployment insurance, by contrast, was very balanced.
P.P.S. If you want an example of unintentional humor, you can watch Nancy Pelosi asserting that paying people not to work is an effective means of creating jobs.
[…] made this point during television interviews, and this Michael Ramirez cartoon echoes our thinking in a more entertaining […]
[…] I even cited Krugman in this 2012 debate on the […]
[…] I even cited Krugman in this 2012 debate on the […]
[…] to say, it’s economic malpractice to make unemployment more attractive than jobs paying $20-$30 per […]
[…] public policy, though, the real problem with such benefits (as personalized here and here) is that they lure people into extended periods of […]
[…] Is it unemployment insurance, which has plenty of defenders even though it actually leads to higher levels of joblessness? […]
[…] made this point during television interviews, and this Michael Ramirez cartoon echoes our thinking in a more entertaining […]
[…] made this point during television interviews, and this Michael Ramirez cartoon echoes our thinking in a more entertaining […]
[…] made this point during television interviews, but I suspect that many people will find this Michael Ramirez cartoon more compelling and […]
[…] made this point during television interviews, but I suspect that many people will find this Michael Ramirez cartoon more compelling and […]
[…] Government Benefits Encourage Unemployment […]
[…] other words, you can’t give people lots of handouts and then expect them to be aggressive job […]
[…] you won’t be surprised to know that I’ve dispensed some tough love on this topic as […]
[…] you won’t be surprised to know that I’ve dispensed some tough love on this topic as […]
[…] Government Benefits Encourage Unemployment […]
Let it to the federal government to try and make things worse.
“excessive government benefits”?
Uh, the correct amount of “government benefits” is greater than zero?
As far as I’m concerned, a legitimate and very good reason not to be employed is to avoid being used as a mule by tax feeders and other vampires who love government and who never tire of making up excuses for the government to provide them with goods and services that they, the vampires, want the government to force other people to pay for. Militarists and a particular employee of a think tank come to mind here.
It’s by the way that “fair and balanced” does not entail giving every advocate of organized crime an equal amount of time. Criminals aren’t entitled to promote crime, see?
And Permanent benefits, like ObamaCare, reduce the labor supply (quantity and quality) to the economy. Permanently! Hence 1-2% euro growth trendlines, hence decline in a world growing at 5%.
We may not be at a 1-2% annual growth trendline quite yet (though we certainly are temporarily), but we have crossed the threshold and set in motion the irreversible vicious cycle momentum that will get us there.
Apart from ObamaCare, we have set in motion benefit and thus inevitably revenue expectations that will make taxes on the rich, some incarnation of VAT, and some energy tax inevitable, either in organized leftist rhetoric fashion or in crisis mode. In addition, as the effects of poorer economic performance (that has already been baked in the cake) start to compound, the electorate will “need” all the other government care packages that Europeans have. They will vote for them, just like Europeans did. And once you get there, there’s no escape from decline.