Surprise! North Carolina Cuts to Jobless Benefits Did Not Help Workers

 

(AP Photo/Allen G. Breed)

Julie Banner, right, chats with Rebekah Lowe outside the state unemployment office in Cary, North Carolina, on Thursday, Jan. 8, 2009.

This article and accompanying interactive chart were first published at the website of the Economic Policy Institute.

Unemployment insurance (UI) is a vital part of America’s social safety net, providing benefits to eligible workers who have lost a job through no fault of their own. The system is jointly funded by federal and state payroll taxes, but within broad guidelines from the Department of Labor, states have considerable flexibility in deciding benefit eligibility, how much and for how long beneficiaries are paid, as well as the tax structure for funding the state portion of the program. While most states offer a maximum of twenty-six weeks of UI benefits, the historic magnitude and duration of unemployment brought on by the Great Recession prompted Congress to implement federal extensions of unemployment benefits, totaling as much as ninety-nine weeks.

A full six months before Congress allowed these federal UI extensions to expire (in December 2013), the state of North Carolina disqualified its unemployed workers from receiving federal UI extensions by simultaneously cutting duration from twenty-six to nineteen weeks and cutting the amount of weekly benefits (without receiving a waiver from the federal government). The justification for this decision was that by making UI benefits less generous, unemployed workers would have more incentive to take available jobs, and employment levels in the state would rise. If North Carolina’s drastic cuts in UI benefits were an effective policy tool for increasing employment, we would expect to see a very different employment trajectory in North Carolina consistent with the timing of the policy change as compared with nearby states likely experiencing similar macroeconomic conditions.

 

The graph above shows the month-by-month prime-age employment-to-population ratio (EPOP), which is the percentage of the working age population that is employed, for North Carolina and five nearby southern states, from the start of 2012 through the end of 2013. The prime-age EPOP excludes people who are younger than 25 or older than 54, so it is less likely to be affected by people who voluntarily choose not to work because they are enrolled in school or retired.

As the graph shows, North Carolina’s prime-age EPOP began rising rapidly in the months prior to the duration cutback, began falling steadily just two months after the duration cutback, and differed very little in behavior after the cutback from prime-age EPOPs in surrounding states. This outcome provides little reason to believe that North Carolina’s cuts fundamentally improved the labor market in the state.

Comments

Yes, we ended welfare on the same theory. Bill Clinton declared that "there is no excuse" for long-term joblessness. People agreed. He said that any aid provided must be strictly time-limited, to "serve as an incentive to get up every morning and find a job." America applauded. It wouldn't make sense to say that hard-working Americans require more help than many who have significant barriers to employment. Right?

Unlike food stamp and welfare recipients, many unemployment compensation recipients (all of which previously held jobs) are Republicans. If the news media shows one person saying: that he had always voted Republican but if the House leadership does not allow a vote on extension of unemployment benefits he will never vote for a Republican again, the Republicans will cave, as 4.3 million voters could be a critical in the next election.

The joke used to be that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. The new version will be a Democrat is a Republican who had his unemployment benefits ended.

"..It is not just a coincidence that tax cuts for the rich have preceded both the 1929 and 2007 depressions. The Revenue acts of 1926 and 1928 worked exactly as the Republican Congresses that pushed them through promised. The dramatic reductions in taxes on the upper income brackets and estates of the wealthy did indeed result in increased savings and investment. However, overinvestment (by 1929 there were over 600 automobile manufacturing companies in the USA) caused the depression that made the rich, and most everyone else, ultimately much poorer.

Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich and onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers...."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)

Connect
, after login or registration your account will be connected.
Advertisement