TIMOTHY NOAH DECEMBER 19, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The House "reform" of unemployment insurance, which is included in its payroll-tax extension bill, is actually a reduction in benefits. Right now you can collect unemployment insurance up to 99 weeks. Under the House bill, you can collect only up to 59 weeks. By this logic, if you have a loaf of bread and I slice off two-fifths of it then what you're left with is reformed bread. You're welcome!
Or so I thought. But it turns out that this Republican measure actually does include, in addition to the 59-week limit, a few changes to how unemployment insurance is handed out. These will have the effect of reducing spending on unemployment benefits, but that isn't their purpose. Their purpose is to make people who receive unemployment benefits understand that they are losers, and must be stigmatized and harrassed until they prove themselves worthy.
As Mark Schmitt points out, this is a strategy previously applied to welfare recipients. Schmitt observes that there was at least some logic to stigmatizing and harrassing people on welfare. The government was trying to undo the cycle of dependency, tangle of pathologies, etc., etc., all in the interest of getting poor people off welfare and into a job. Welfare recipients were the unvirtuous poor.
The working poor, meanwhile, were the virtuous poor. President Ronald Reagan and especially Bill Clinton sought to reward their "playing by the rules" by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit. These were the folks that everybody, conservative and liberal alike, wanted to help succeed. But conservatives now regard the working poor as morally indistinguishable from welfare recipients. It has therefore become necessary to stigmatize and harrass this group, too. The Republican crusade to force low-income "lucky duckies" to pay income tax was the fist hint of this new paradigm. Unemployment insurance reform is another.
To collect unemployment insurance you have to work. When you take a job your employer pays into a state unemployment-insurance fund. Practically speaking, it is part of your compensation; it just happens to be a part that you never see, pay taxes on, or have to account for. If you lose your job this insurance covers you for up to six months. If you still can't find a job after six months the federal government will pitch in with additional benefits to cover you up to nearly a year and a half more. When the economy is in recession, or recovering from a recession, as it is now, unemployment goes up (right now it's 8.6 percent) and jobs become especially hard to get. This isn't rocket science.
The GOP-sponsored House bill (text) reforms this situation by 1.) loosening requirements on how states spend federal unemployment funds, which flow through them; 2.) tightening the requirement that all benefit recipients look for work (mandatory job interviews, etc.); 3.) allowing states to require recipients to pass a drug test; and, 4.) enrolling those who lack a high school diploma or GED in a GED program (enrollees also have to be "making satisfactory progress in classes").
These last two interest me most, but especially the GED requirement. Requiring a drug test establishes that if you are collecting unemployment you are probably a disreputable character. It's morally repellant, but not particularly novel, since companies now routinely require lower-tier workers to piss into a jar as a condition of unemployment. (Upper-tier workers, apparently, never take drugs.) Many who are required to provide urine samples will have experienced this ritual humiliation before, and be relatively inured to it.
The GED requirement, on the other hand, is a new way to communicate that if you lack a job you must be deficient. Now don't get me wrong. I'm as concerned as the next guy about the fact that the high school graduation rate hasn't increased in decades. If you don't have a high school diploma, or a GED, you're going to have a very difficult time getting a job. But if someone is collecting unemployment who lacks either of these things we know that person managed to get a job in spite of this educational deficit--otherwise he or she wouldn't be on unemployment. To require this person to enroll in a GED program as a condition of collecting benefits is in essence to say that you had no business being in the labor force to begin with. I can imagine that it might pose all sorts of practical problems simultaneously to start a GED program, look for a job, and jump through all the other hoops you need to to shake your unemployment check free from the state bureaucracy. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on getting yourself a job, and then enroll, if circumstances allow, in a GED program?
If you're employed, have no high school diploma or GED, and aren't enrolled in a GED program, you don't get to opt out of the unemployment insurance program. You can't tell your boss, "Hey, give that money to me, not to the state, because I don't have a GED and I don't intend to get one even if I lose my job." You just pay into the insurance pool just like everyone else. It's the same if you're a drug user. You don't get to tell the state not to collect unemployment insurance on your behalf because you smoke weed in your off hours and will continue to do so even if you lose your job. I'm not suggesting that high school dropouts and drug users be given such an opt-out; obviously that would undermine the solvency of the state unemployment insurance fund (which is probably pretty shaky to begin with). What I'm saying is that it's unfair to impose conditions on drawing from an unemployment insurance fund that don't exist when you're paying into it. And it opens the gates wide to imposing all sorts of other petty conditions whose real purpose would be to further stigmatize and humiliate people whose sole offense to society is that they once had a job and then lost it.
23 comments
The best way to cut back on unemployment compensation is to beef up the economy. Instead Republicans want to reduce unemployment compensation by labeling top earners as job creators and showering them with presents. Republican plan B is to label the unemployed as undesireable and make collecting unemployment more difficult. What seems overlooked is that large quantities of the unemployed in a community diminishes consumption and leads to more unemployment. Unemployment compensation saves jobs. Shower the unemployed with presents.
- Nusholtz
December 19, 2011 at 6:16pm
I rather agree that the Republican's intent here is not really socially progressive, but I am not at all sure I think the actual requirement is that bad an idea. Why not require people to get on some kind of program to improve their employment opportunities while we pay their unemployment - as long as we provide real support and opportunities for them to do so? If society wants to say that part of looking responsibly for new employment is making a sincere effort to upgrade your skills, is that really so bad? And, it's strikes me as pretty close to the bleeding edge of bleeding heart to say that being required to improve their educational attainment stigmatizes the un-graduated unemployed as stupid, and should therefore be off the table. Basic reading, writing and arithmetic - and those things are pretty much all the GED test requires - do make you a more valuable citizen and a potentially more hirable person, and I'm pretty sure that every high school dropout trying to stay employed already knows that. If by dint of work and experience they've learned that stuff since dropping out, getting a GED won't be hard, and if they haven't, it will improve their employment odds. So, I'm struggling to see why that's so bad, notwithstanding being convinced the Republican's mean something harsh by it.
- IowaBeauty
December 19, 2011 at 6:34pm
Agreed, these proposals are shameful. I wonder how many Congresspeople have looked at the content of a GED course. I did when I was helping out an acquaintance who was thinking about whether he might want to shoot for his GED. GED requirements a pretty damn rigorous--a lot more rigorous than high school itself, I'd say. What this means is that there are plenty of people out there who can read, write, converse intelligently and do both unskilled and skilled labor who are never going to get anywhere with a GED. It's just another example of how the GOP, supposedly party of liberty, is nothing of the kind, just piling on the pain and misery. Imagine a woman like the mother of a childhood friend of mine, functionally illiterate, but a lightning fingered crab picker. She gets the backfin meat out whole every time and fills twenty tubs an hour. Now imagine the processing plant goes out of business, partly because the market for premium blue crab meat is depressed in our sour economy and partly because the Chesapeake Bay crab fishery is under ecological stress. You're going to tell this woman that in order to receive benefits from a system she's been paying into for thirty years, she has to "show progress" in learning 19th Century American history and algebra when she can't even read a newspaper? What the hell for? You're, correct, Tim, it is nothing but an excercise in humiliation. Is it a new thing that we are ruled by such a pack of punative, hypocritical shits or is it that I'm just now seeing the light?
- AaronW
December 19, 2011 at 6:47pm
Excellent comment, nush.
- liberalref
December 19, 2011 at 7:06pm
Well, I'm not surprised. You see, not taxing people who can very well afford to pay higher taxes is the paramount fight for freedom in this country. Making people jump through crude hoops however is not only not an infringement on freedom, it positively increases it. Kind of like war increases peace.
- SEBASTIANSALING@HOTMAIL.COM
December 19, 2011 at 7:59pm
There is nothing more demoralizing to be actively looking for a job after being laid and not to be able to find one. I foresee the greatest spike in suicides not seen since the darkest days of the depression. I really do not think these people will blame Republicans, they will take it to heart and truly feel like losers not worthy to live. Hell, I have a job and Republicans make me want to kill myself so I can not begin to imagine how bad it must be for many people.
- blackton
December 19, 2011 at 8:27pm
Exactly, ssaling. "Jumping through crude hoops..." True freedom is on the decline in America and perhaps the entire world. This decline is a function partly of us being burdened with leaders in government and business who have real interest in freedom--freedom is not profitable--but also of the digital technological explosion that permits the total documentation of our lives. The proliferation of drug tests and background checks required to work for just about any organization larger than a mom & pop hardware store--if any such entities still exist--shows that this proposed GED requirement is merely emblematic of a larger phenomenon. The explosion of America's inmate population, mostly incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses, is another manifestation of the same anti-freedom processes at work. This kind of thing irks me to no end. I'm becoming a little paranoid. I've turned location services off on my phone, and I've started making most of my purchases in cash. I don't believe anyone is actually monitoring my behavior, but it bugs me that they can.
- AaronW
December 19, 2011 at 8:46pm
That should have read "no real interest in freedom".
- AaronW
December 19, 2011 at 8:48pm
Oh nuts to these guys. I wonder if they've ever been in this situation? As to whether the GED requirement is an onerous burden - it would be great if all Americans got a free university, let alone a quality high school education. However in The Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Judgmental Greedy (I mean, Job Creators) this isn't the case; yet, people manage to work ANYWAY. It is not the business of the state to micromanage its employees. So to speak; especially when people are struggling to begin with. The absolute last thing people need when they are struggling is more damn RULES and that goes for the pee test too. Phony morality of the GOP! fie upon it.
- Sophia
December 19, 2011 at 9:56pm
Great post Tim. I wish you and Chait were speech writers for Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
- PeteM
December 19, 2011 at 9:58pm
Iowa, the Republicans aren't actually going to pay for the GED program. And if they did, they would almost certainly cut it during the next budget fight in, say, February. This is just a way to cut these people out of the economy, because if the unemployed can't pay for the GED that they need just to get unemployment checks, they'll have no ladder to get employed again. Of course, if this were being proposed by people who actually care about the unemployed and poor constituents they represent (say, most Democrats) then I'd feel better about such a program. Do note, however, that welfare reform only works when there are jobs available for workfare. If there aren't, it just means you cut people off the budget and push them onto the streets.
- chaitless
December 19, 2011 at 10:17pm
blackton, I take it you meant "looking for a job after being laid OFF" . . .
- ironyroad
December 20, 2011 at 12:28am
By the way, I just watched Mitt Romney tonight on Charlie Rose, a 50-minute interview all to himself. He did ok, sort of, but I got the impression of a very nervous man who is not sure how things are going.
- ironyroad
December 20, 2011 at 12:30am
Good post and good comments. But the ice is thinner than we think and I wish TNR would start now to contemplate and discuss the extent to which automation and artificial intelligence is going to make most human labor superfluous and unnecessary. This problem is only a tiny part of our unemployment crisis at the moment, but it is going to blow up in our faces much faster than most people expect.
- skahn
December 20, 2011 at 1:10am
Chaitless, I agree - as I said at the outset, I have no doubt the Republicans are not doing this with the notion of improving life for the unemployed, and I would support it only "as long as we provide real support and opportunities for them to [get assistance and support for the GED]." My real disagreement was with the notion that it is somehow demeaning to expect people to improve their educational attainment as part of trying to become employed. Noah made this point pretty bluntly ("a new way to communicate that if you lack a job you must be deficient,") and I really don't buy it. I also find his argument that "it's unfair to impose conditions on drawing from an unemployment insurance fund that don't exist when you're paying into it," specious. Unemployment insurance is not an individual account like a 401K. It's a pay-as-we-go social welfare program, where costs are aggregated across all employers (although those with poor records of continuous employment do pay higher premiums) and benefits are eligibility-tested and broadly speaking payed out of current income (although there is some stockpiling during economic booms for the inevitable downturn, it's not all that significant, which is why the states need Federal general fund support whenever a long lasting slump occurs). In other words, the unemployed are not getting "their" money back, they are benefiting from a support program paid into by everyone who is employed, many of whom will never draw a dime of benefits. I'm OK with that - it's a necessary and beneficial program - but let's not pretend this is some sort of defined-contribution program in which every employee has a personal contract and claim on the benefits that derive from the premiums payed on their behalf.
- IowaBeauty
December 20, 2011 at 8:28am
I am glad Noah is bringing up these points. As I heard the debate in the house on c-span, the cutbacks and humiliations to extend unemployment insurance generated a lot more heat than the pipeline. And the house has rejected the senate bill that kept the pipeline but removed the humiliations, showing (to me at any rate) that it was this stuff that got the tea partiers excited. to IowaBeauty - the problem with the GED requirement as I understand it is that people receiving unemployment will have to pay for it as opposed to paying rent or buying food. Or rather, the states can reduce compensation and say they are using the funds for education. As an *additional* benefit, I am all for general education and training.
- polijunky
December 20, 2011 at 9:15am
I'm stealing Sophia's "Land of The Free and Home of the Judgementally Greedy" and having it crocheted onto a throw pillow.
- Tristan
December 20, 2011 at 9:16am
polijunky - " the problem with the GED requirement as I understand it is that people receiving unemployment will have to pay for it " Yes, and as I (obviously poorly) tried to say, this I find unacceptable. We have an obligation to provide for our citizen's education, and particularly so when society is literally insisting they take up education as a condition for support during forced unemployment. Making them pay for it out of their obviously diminished and stressed resources is simply heinous. Making it available to them, with an EXPECTATION that they take advantage of it - that, I really wouldn't have a problem with.
- IowaBeauty
December 20, 2011 at 9:48am
Tristan, please send a picture when the pillow is finished:) Actually I think a sampler would be nice and in the spirit of Americana:)
- Sophia
December 20, 2011 at 1:13pm
skahn on artificial intelligence. Well there is something to this. Computer tech is a double edged sword. It opens so many doors. But, irrevocably we are losing not only jobs but skills. A prime example, the use of Photoshop and other forms of "art" machinery. Disconnected from our bodies, I think we are losing touch with reality. Republicans are a prime example are they not? But then, how many Gingrich types have actually done physical work? They scorn people without appropriate "brains" and want kids to replace union janitors, one wonders if they have a clue what's involved with actual work like that?
- Sophia
December 20, 2011 at 1:17pm
Well, Soph, I don't think the Republican leadership has the first clue what manual labor means either for the laborer or for society. The trouble is, neither do Democratic leaders.
- AaronW
December 20, 2011 at 4:48pm
I'd like to point out that a lot of states have these provisions built into their UI programs already. And it may not be a defined-contribution program, per se; but I've never seen a program that didn't tie the amount of benefit directly, linearly, to the workers previous earnings. Which, for all intents and purposes, means someone had to pay into it on your behalf and did so because you had a job, and this could readily be considered part of the compensation package from the employer, which makes it more like income insurance than a contribution program, but isn't it called Unemployment Insurance anyway? So now unemployment insurance is supposed to be welfare for the lucky duckies who want to work but can't get a job...?
I was ready to complain about how hard you were stretching to refer to these caveats being proposed as harassment and such, but after reading the entire article I think you are actually quite right. I don't know of any state that gives UI money to people who didn't hold down a regular job and/or show earnings and thereby earn their right to dip into the pool to which they've contributed as a responsible member of society. The GOP is totall full of shit, and thank you for calling them out on it and even convincing me of how right you are to have called them out!
- GSpinks
December 20, 2011 at 5:05pm
OK, I would like to send our Great Leaders And Job Creators here, and work like this for at least a year, then maybe I will listen to their meaningless blather: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/new-blue-collar-temp-warehouses_n_1158490.html This especially goes for Newt, who would abolish child labor laws and of course, unions.
- Sophia
December 21, 2011 at 1:39am