Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
No, this is not another sex scandal. Sen. Tom Coburn last week dropped this line invoking his roommate, Democratic Sen. Heath Shuler to defend his position on unemployment benefits:
COBURN: I live with Congressman Heath Shuler. He told me yesterday that a job fair in North Carolina...had over 500 jobs available. Three people showed up. Three people showed up for 500 jobs in an area of unemployment of 10 percent. And his explanation was, "They're not going do it until the benefits lessen." And that may not be an exact interpretation of what his words were but the fact is there is a negative aspect to continuing unemployment.
But it turns out that almost everything about this is a lie:
Did only three people show up to a job fair that had 500 jobs available? As Crooks and Liars noted, this seems highly unlikely. ThinkProgress spoke with a knowledgeable source who helped organize the jobs event with Shuler. The source told us that it was actually a "work force training" and that there were "some jobs available," but not 500 as Coburn had claimed.And did Shuler really suggest that Americans on unemployment benefits won't look for a job until their "benefits lessen?" That statement "is not consistent with what [Shuler's] position has been" on unemployment benefits, said the source, who called Coburn's comment "insulting" because he made Shuler's constituents "out to look like a bunch of deadbeats." ...
Indeed, according to the source, the congressman has had other job events in his district that were "phenomenally attended."
I don't get this argument that extending unemployment benefits prevents people from taking jobs. I'm sure that's true in certain circumstances and on the margins -- for a subset of people when the unemployment rate is not terribly high. But we're in a situation now where the labor force has been shrinking because people have simply given up on finding jobs after years of trying -- and long after they've exhausted their unemployment benefits.
We have millions of people with no unemployment benefits at all and no jobs even for them, much less for those currently getting unemployment. Until those people get back to work, it's folly to even talk about unemployment preventing people from taking jobs.
Politics
Comments
Ed states (rhetorically):
I encounter zero U.S. Republican Congress-people who are economically literate, zero. Even NH Senator Judd Gregg and WI Representative Paul Ryan make statements that don't reconcile to basic economic principles. All they have are their conservative talking points which they are completely dependent upon when discussing economic matters rather than actual empirical results. Therefore I expect only such observations by Republicans.
This sort of fierce ignorance might give them a distinct advantage in red state voting districts, but it's guaranteed to wreak havoc on the national interest if Republicans became the majority part in the House and were forced to actually govern rather than merely attempt to obstruct Democrats from governing (I wouldn't be surprised if they still obstructed even if in the majority).
I'm not a fan of looking at only U4, which is the unemployment rate we see reported and which politicians refer to when discussing the health of the labor market. I think there are other unemployment metrics that are equal or even better at describing the health of the job market in a particular jurisdiction. U4 for example counts people as employed that are part-time even if some of that category of people want full-time work but can't find it for economic reasons. U6 measures such part-timers as not employed (aka "underemployment").
European countries' natural rate of unemployment is higher than the U.S. because they have a more robust social safety nets for their underemployed; therefore the underemployed there are more deliberate in seeking gainful employment. They have less worries about shelter, food, and healthcare while out of work and therefore are more reluctant to accept work below their capabilities. Therefore comparing our U4 to their's is not an apples to apples comparison while comparing U6 to their's is.
IIRC most economists still argue that the European model stifles economic growth in economic up-cycles partly due to their larger social safety net costs. I bring this topic up because from this perspective, Republicans would have a point if they framed their argument as a mere empirical observation benchmarking Europe. I don't think they make such a comparison because I'm fairly confident they're clueless regarding this European model and even if they were cognizant of it, that alone wouldn't suffice as an actual argument rather than mere observation. Unless it was to provide signals to their constituents to bark "just like France" when discussing how the Democrats want to extend unemployment benefits.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 22, 2010 9:31 AM
Has Shuler commented on this publicly? You'd think that'd be the sort of thing he'd want to clear up.
Posted by: Jason! | July 22, 2010 9:31 AM
Michael Heath:
This:
"In the Senate Gregg was the leading Republican negotiator and author of the TARP program, which bailed out financial institutions, while he had a multi-million dollar investment in the Bank of America.[22][23][24]
In February 2009, the Associated Press reported that Gregg and his family profited personally from federal earmarks steered by the senator for the redevelopment of the closed Pease Air Force Base.[25] Gregg has denied any wrongdoing, and claimed his withdrawal for the Cabinet position had nothing to do with what the White House found about his involvement with the real estate companies during the vetting process. Gregg explained his investments by saying, "I've throughout my entire lifetime been involved in my family's businesses and that's just the way our family works. We support each other and our activities."[26]"
from Wiki is prolly a complete and utter smearjob from the Leftwing mediabots but it would appear that the good senaturd Gregg's (Lying Fuckbag, NH) grasp of econmomics is that shared by most reptilicans; what is good for him, personally is right, honest and virtuos (even if he hides it from the public) while what is good for others--especially, "the other" is bad, very bad, extraordinarily bad.
He's a pencil necked,greed driven dickhead, as he was when he was only a venal piece of shit lawyer, through his tenure on the NH Governor's council and his term of office as NH's Governor. I was there.
Posted by: democommie | July 22, 2010 9:42 AM
In a way benefits do stop people from taking a job.
If the benefits pay you $300/week to look for a job that was paying you $900 a week why would you give up the benefits to TAKE a job that pays $200/week???? But if the benefits drop to $100/week, then the minimum wage job looks better.
This may sound petty when you consider the large numbers of people with no job and no benefits.
But that does not solve any problems since you now have everyone working at poverty level and applying for welfare.
Posted by: L.Long | July 22, 2010 9:43 AM
Mr. Brayton might want to correct his categorization of Congressman and failed Redskin quarterback Heath Shuler as Senator Heath Shuler.
Posted by: SLC | July 22, 2010 9:45 AM
I think it would interesting to see if the Congressmen could live on those benefits of their states.
I always get the impression that most people have no idea how much money one actually gets, in unemployment and welfare or how food stamps and subsidized housing are allotted. Or even how unemployment is different from welfare. If you are a homeowner you can't get your mortgage subsidized, and most times the amount you get on unemployment to too much to qualify for food stamps or Medicaid. So now, when those benefits expire they may be eligible for those government benefits, because they may lose their homes and have to become renters and certainly no income should qualify them for Medicaid and food stamps.
Maybe it is hoped that they will wind up in homeless shelters, where the government outlay will be little and indirect.
Posted by: Hathor | July 22, 2010 9:46 AM
500 available jobs, and only 3 people showed up?
SHENANIGANS!
Posted by: WMDKitty | July 22, 2010 9:51 AM
Shorter Coburn:
Posted by: Just Sayin' | July 22, 2010 9:53 AM
I was out of work for 8 months. My $400 a week benefit was 20% of what I was making before I was laid off.
Coburn is right, I'm sure cutting off benefits would have made me try much harder to find a job since I was practically getting rich on unemployement.
Posted by: dogsop | July 22, 2010 10:00 AM
L.Long,
FYI
In the state of Pennsylvania, no able bodied male over the age of 18 can get welfare. That has been the case since Richard Thornburgh was governor in the 80's.
There are also work requirements for women with dependent children. So if they came off of unemployment benefits, they would still be required to look for work.
I am sure that many states have similar requirements as a response to reforming welfare almost twenty years ago.
Posted by: Hathor | July 22, 2010 10:01 AM
Back in March, Casey B. Mulligan wrote at the NY Times Economix Blog about this issue and provided links to studies that do, in fact, show that there is at least some disincentive to work for those that receive unemployment benefits, even during a recession. Republicans like Coburn undoubtedly make much more it than there is, however.
Posted by: JasonTD | July 22, 2010 10:08 AM
IIRC most economists still argue that the European model stifles economic growth in economic up-cycles partly due to their larger social safety net costs.
The converse is that in economic down-cycles, the larger social safety net keeps way more people fed and living (and arguable keeps society much more stable, because fed and housed people are less likely to take the system down). I think politicians are willfully looking at only one end of the situation and not both, which is why we're in the dilemma we're in.
Posted by: gwangung | July 22, 2010 10:22 AM
My employer just advertised for two part-time (with benefits) jobs that pay $13/hour.
Two positions.
Seventy-four applicants.
Posted by: Seth | July 22, 2010 10:33 AM
Whatcha wanna bet that Sen. Coburn accuses his opponents of being "out of touch" with America?
Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 22, 2010 10:40 AM
So, they lied about what the event was? What a surprise. Mr. Coburn should come to my state. If there was a job fair offering 3 jobs, there would be at LEAST 500 people showing up. Sometimes, job fairs are so crowded, one cannot get in the door. I'm willing to go out on a limb here, and guess that's true in all states. Who thinks that unemployment benefits are enough to live on, say nothing about living well? Yes, some people take advantage. Some people will take advantage no matter what. Most people on unemployment would rather work than wonder how they were going to pay the rent next month or pay for a filling in their kid's tooth, or buy food for the kid to chew.
Posted by: Ellie | July 22, 2010 10:43 AM
As usual, Republican lawmakers have the perfect solution for the problems of a world that is as they imagine it should be. Reality? Not so much.
People like Coburn think the world should work in a way that allows people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, no matter how bad the situation is - and stubbornly refuse to even entertain the idea that the real world could be different. When 'conservative principles' and reality collide, they side with the principles.
Posted by: Phillip IV | July 22, 2010 11:01 AM
Maybe I'm naive, or my state is unusual (although I think it's not) but here, in order to collect unemployment, you must apply to a certain number of jobs a week, and if you ever turn down a job offer, you lose your right to collect benefits. Therefore, unemployment insurance is a patent incentive to look for work. Once your unemployment expires and you are emotionally crushed and downtrodden, and your self-esteem is lower than that of a turnip, that's when you stop looking, and go full-on mooch.
Posted by: valor | July 22, 2010 11:08 AM
Wait, you mean Senators are co-habitating? What's next--they're going to start breeding, making Congressbabies? Now I'm not going to be able to eat lunch.
Posted by: Moopheus | July 22, 2010 11:08 AM
Food!? People will use money to buy food!? And for people who don't add to the economy?! Well, so long as the kid doesn't swallow. I mean, that's just like throwing food down the drain! And that just shows that all that welfare money is just being wasted![/snark]
I have to agree with Phillip IV's point: when faced with a choice between reality and "principles", the GOP seems to support (nay, "cling to") their principles (which also includes guns and religion), and they do this with pride, like it's something to trumpet. In the end, to borrow a quote from Franklin about pride: "Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy."
Posted by: mercurianferret | July 22, 2010 11:29 AM
mercurianferret:
Aka, with no need for scare quotes, 'talking points'.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 22, 2010 11:32 AM
This is pure demagoguery. The truth doesn't matter here, anymore than it does in the gay-marriage meltdown, the NYC mosque meltdown, the "death panels" meltdown, the "Sharia law" meltdown, the Schiavo meltdown, or any of the other orchestrated freakouts and temper-tantrums we've had to endure from the far right since 1992. There's no use arguing about facts or economics; this is all about self-pity, scapegoating, and infantile escapism.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 22, 2010 11:36 AM
Jumping off from what L.Long said:
I think it's worth stopping to ask the question: does the government really WANT that $900/week person to take the $200/week job? Is that really what's best for the economy and the nation, as well as the person and his or her family? The job is almost certainly not what the person was trained for, so it would be wasting that training and the person might not even be very good at it -- it's a misallocation of resources.
Instead, would it not be better for that person to spend more time getting extra training in their chosen field, start a small business, do freelance work, volunteer work that uses their training, etc., when not actually continuing to look for a job consistent with their old position?
Posted by: xebecs | July 22, 2010 12:01 PM
valor - are you sure about that?
My understanding is that you can be cut off if you refuse to accept a job that is comparable to the one you lost, or will be after a short period, but that you cannot be compelled to take a position that is significantly lower in pay, status or outside your field. For example, I hold a position that is roughly the same as a senior auditor or team lead in public accounting. I could not be cut off for refusing to take a position as an entry level accounts payable clerk, let alone refusing a job as a waitress. While the amount I'd receive on unemployment is no where near my current salary, that doesn't mean I would be forced to accept a job that paid 30% of my current salary because it's better than what I'd get on unemployment. Yes, I am Canadian, but my understanding is based on conversations I've had with friends in numerous states
Posted by: CanadianChick | July 22, 2010 1:02 PM
If the benefits pay you $300/week to look for a job that was paying you $900 a week why would you give up the benefits to TAKE a job that pays $200/week????
That, of course, is assuming that there enough $200/week jobs available -- without huge numbers of unskilled kids already standing in line for them -- to make this an issue worth mentioning.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 22, 2010 1:14 PM
I think it's worth stopping to ask the question: does the government really WANT that $900/week person to take the $200/week job?
Not if the government has any clue what's right for its people. Society's interest demands the employment of as many low-skilled people as possible, so they'll be more likely to a) remain peaceful and law-abiding, and b) learn new skills and move on to better jobs. High-skilled people are far less likely to cause trouble when forced out of work, and more likely to find another job, than low-skilled people in the same situation.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 22, 2010 1:28 PM
CanadianChick,
I'm not sure about other states, but this is what the Wisconsin Workforce Development FAQ page says about that:
There are ways around it, of course. You have to tell them that you refused a job offer, which you can easily just not do. But the expectation is that you should accept pretty much whatever comes along after 6 weeks.
I just googled this just yesterday trying to figure out why I was denied benefits. I went back to school after being laid off and responded that I was available for work from 3-11 pm. Apparently you MUST be available for first shift. No matter what, as far as I can tell. Life be damned.
Most sane people would rather work than deal with this bullshit. Not to mention it barely pays enough for the average single person to make rent, let alone feed and house a family.
Posted by: Leni | July 22, 2010 2:04 PM
The endless unemployment extensions are hard to justify when I am scraping by having to do whatever it takes to pay my bills. As a “self-employed” / “freelancer” / “independent consultant” for the same company for 5 years I lost my income when the company went bankrupt. . I've cut down everything to the bone and beyond. Sold off personal property. Taken work way below my level, almost entry level. Moved downward in housing. But the “no-work pay” for others keeps getting extended and extended and extended supported by Federal Tax dollars. It leaves a bad taste. Either widen benefits to include the rest of us who did not work on staff or let us all stew in the same thin soup. Maybe more families hung out over the hairy, ragged edge will develop some political will. There is a difference between state and federal unemployment benefits. Federal unemployment benefits extend state unemployment benefits out to 26 weeks. They must be explicitly passed by Congress, which doesn't happen unless there's a particularly bad recession. They're paid for out of our federal tax dollars.
Posted by: dd | July 22, 2010 2:24 PM
I'm certainly under the impression that it's mandatory to take any job offer.... and having just checked with my DLT, I see that it is. Yep, anybody offers you a job, you have to take it. Of course, the goal is to find the requisite number of job openings in your field, and therefore, want to take any job you are offered, but that is simply unlikely most of the time in these parts.
Posted by: valor | July 22, 2010 2:31 PM
That really sucks, dd. I don't know a lot about it, but have you heard about this federal program for self-employed workers?
Posted by: Leni | July 22, 2010 3:01 PM
Valor,
Assuming you're correct about not being able to turn down a job without losing benefits, I'd note the following:
1. That depends on an employer reporting that you turned down the job. I doubt most employers are willing to do the gov't's job for it.
2. In regards to that subset that doesn't really want to take a job at the present time, it would just push them to ask if a job is really available before applying, and apply only at those places where there isn't one. That's not rhetorical or ideological. My mother worked at General Electric for years, a job where she was regularly laid off while they waited for new orders, during which times she would receive unemployment while waiting to be brought back (which was absolutely certain to happen, eventually). While laid off and receiving compensation she would follow the rules of applying for jobs in a very pro forma fashion, putting in applications at places that weren't actually hiring. She wasn't just gaming the system, but didn't want to take a job that she'd then quit after a month or two. But it shows how easily the system can be gamed.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 22, 2010 3:20 PM
"I encounter zero U.S. Republican Congress-people who are economically literate, zero. Even NH Senator Judd Gregg and WI Representative Paul Ryan make statements that don't reconcile to basic economic principles. All they have are their conservative talking points which they are completely dependent upon when discussing economic matters rather than actual empirical results. Therefore I expect only such observations by Republicans."
I don't want to accuse Michael Heath of mistaking this, however...
Cong. Paul Ryan is a minority in Wisconsin, and he has been that since the last time a GOPer won an election here, which would b
Posted by: Lettuce | July 22, 2010 3:21 PM
Excuse me:
Be either when Reagan won this state or (depending on your outlook) when Tommy Thompson was Governor... Both go back to the last generation, and Reagan goes back more than 20 years, in fact far more.
Wisconsin is a left-wing state.
Posted by: Lettuce | July 22, 2010 3:24 PM
If I can be particularly crass, but from personal experience, being on unemployment will murder your sex life. Chicks nor guys find people on unemployment as attractive potential partners.
While unemployment insurance benefits might provide some incentive to sit on one's ass, the desire to get laid provides even more incentive to get a fucking job as soon as possible.
Posted by: History Punk | July 22, 2010 3:37 PM
Republicans would do well to read this http://historyanarchy.blogspot.com/2010/07/some-republican-sanity-on-unemployment.html 12/21/1981 Rudy Giuliani memo on unemployment compensation. It should be noted that unemployment is "earned" and that "acceptance of such benefits does not make one a public charge."
Posted by: History Punk | July 22, 2010 3:40 PM
I'm glad I don't live in one of those places that says any job is better than the job I've trained for and invested tens of thousands of dollars in preparing for...and working at successfully for a decade
I know here unemployment insurance is separately funded and the $$ doesn't come out of general federal revenue...would that be the case for extending benefits in the US as proposed??
We get a max of 52 weeks here, if you qualify.
Posted by: Canadianchick | July 22, 2010 4:39 PM
Lettuce,
I am not able to reconcile what I wrote about Rep. Ryan and your rebuttal(s). I also have no idea what your point actually is given that my assertion regarding the Republicans currently serving in Congress, including Rep. Ryan, has nothing to do with the pro-rata share of Wisconsin voters by party affiliation.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 22, 2010 4:50 PM
I seem to recall reading a few weeks ago that there are about 4.5 unemployed people for each available job. Even if any unemployed person could qualify for any open position, there would still be way too few jobs to employ all the people who need a paycheck. (Got that, Sen. Coburn?)
I think the Repugs are those folks who like to stand around and watch people play musical chairs -- and laugh when ever someone falls down.
Posted by: Gerry L | July 22, 2010 10:52 PM
Gerry L "I think the Repugs are those folks who like to stand around and watch people play musical chairs -- and laugh when ever someone falls down."
And they pull away the chairs as people go to sit down.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 22, 2010 10:56 PM
Meanwhile somewhere in Nevada, a woman who has worked all her life as a waitress in family restaurants....and who had the good or otherwise fortune of a face & body suitable for the adult film industry ....is being told that her benefits will be cut off unless she "really thinks about" and "gives serious consideration to" working in a specific industry that is legal in Nevada but illegal everywhere else...
Posted by: g48 | July 23, 2010 12:59 AM
You forgot the free bus ride part, Tom.
http://www.snopes.com/katrina/politics/jobfair.asp
Posted by: Laurel | July 23, 2010 7:30 AM
And they pull away the chairs as people go to sit down.
No, no, no, that's what socialist regimes do. Here in the free world, that function is handled -- most rationally and efficiently, of course -- by the private sector.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 23, 2010 8:31 AM