are there any conservative/libertarian econ policies that you wouldn't say are a scam or a way to keep the little guys down? cuz I can't think of any:)
Note. I did not read your article all the way through yet because I’m cooking dinner. Or the linked article.
My wife and daughter are both working to servers. They both got laid off I guess it was March. They were actually both employer attached, but the system was confusing back then. So for a month they were on normal unemployment insurance, where they were required to apply for two jobs a week to get paid.
They were making about $700 a week, but unemployment insurance was paying them around 1000. It was a pretty good time.
So to meet the requirement for job applications, they would just apply for jobs that were let’s say a reach. There are no server positions, so you apply for administrative assistant or working the front desk at a doctors office. Of course the resume has no experience, so you’re probably not going to get the job or even get called back for an interview. But you met the intent of the regulations.
You apply for the job, and then you submit the relevant information into the states unemployment database. Caseworkers are too busy to verify, so as long as he put something in the computer system you were going to get paid.
Eventually they were able to get it sorted out, and get employer attached. But we know lots of people who did that who weren’t.
When you’re working at this sort of income level, guaranteed job is no big deal. So why wouldn’t you game the system to collect more money. Wait it out.
I don’t know how to make an effect this had, but it did happen.
I glanced briefly at the dudes claims, and they are talking about job openings.
In June or July, my brother-in-law opened up a new fast food place. My daughter and wife, and my other two kids all went to work for him. They lost money, but it’s family. But for a while he did struggle to fill positions. It’s gotten a lot better now, now that UI has gone back down to normal… He’s getting more applicants. He should probably pay more, but that’s his business.
Anyway, I’m not an economist, just a working class dude, with the working class family.
In other news, his fast food drive-through place is doing awesome.
Sorry if this sounds like too basic a question to be asked. The papers you mention -- Marinescu et al., Dube et al., Bartik et al. -- how representative are the data? Do they cover some % of the SMBs and can be used as a good proxy for the whole distribution or possibly are they more representative for some sectors and not all?
Lots of people work despite the $600 bonus? I agree. Mulligan-Moore estimate says that that, relative to the workforce we have with $300 UI bonus, **more than 97%** of it would work with $600 bonus. So yes LOTS of people have reason to stay in work despite the $600.
But having a story that sounds nice for a vast majority of people is not the same as a story for 100% of them. Just 2% of potential workers gets into millions of jobs.
Reduced poverty? That is no surprise. Try reading http://redistributionrecession.com or many other articles I've written on the subject saying "equity-efficiency tradeoff". So unless you assume no tradeoff, pointing to more equity means smaller aggregate economic pie.
You are welcome to assume no tradeoff, but then you have assumed the answer rather than supporting it with the poverty findings.
Funny how these all fit with the usual economic model that when you subsidize something, you get more of it.
Instead of just "glancing" at the Altonji et al paper, try reading its words. “the workers with the largest changes in UI generosity experience the largest declines in employment relative to the January baseline, [but] the differential decline occurs entirely in the weeks prior to the passage of the CARES Act.” In other words, two very opposite interpretations of their estimates are possible, depending on (a) whether the CARES act was anticipated and, if not, (b) how the March shock would have regressed to the mean absent uniform unemployment benefits.
What do you expect from a man who thinks child labor is perfectly fine (Moore). The man is a moral cretin.
Is there a worse pretend-economist out there than Stephen Moore? He's got to at least be in the running for all-time worst, right?
are there any conservative/libertarian econ policies that you wouldn't say are a scam or a way to keep the little guys down? cuz I can't think of any:)
Well, what about Canada? Generous Pandemic UI program, and better job recovery.
OK no I’m gonna do this all again.
Note. I did not read your article all the way through yet because I’m cooking dinner. Or the linked article.
My wife and daughter are both working to servers. They both got laid off I guess it was March. They were actually both employer attached, but the system was confusing back then. So for a month they were on normal unemployment insurance, where they were required to apply for two jobs a week to get paid.
They were making about $700 a week, but unemployment insurance was paying them around 1000. It was a pretty good time.
So to meet the requirement for job applications, they would just apply for jobs that were let’s say a reach. There are no server positions, so you apply for administrative assistant or working the front desk at a doctors office. Of course the resume has no experience, so you’re probably not going to get the job or even get called back for an interview. But you met the intent of the regulations.
You apply for the job, and then you submit the relevant information into the states unemployment database. Caseworkers are too busy to verify, so as long as he put something in the computer system you were going to get paid.
Eventually they were able to get it sorted out, and get employer attached. But we know lots of people who did that who weren’t.
When you’re working at this sort of income level, guaranteed job is no big deal. So why wouldn’t you game the system to collect more money. Wait it out.
I don’t know how to make an effect this had, but it did happen.
I glanced briefly at the dudes claims, and they are talking about job openings.
In June or July, my brother-in-law opened up a new fast food place. My daughter and wife, and my other two kids all went to work for him. They lost money, but it’s family. But for a while he did struggle to fill positions. It’s gotten a lot better now, now that UI has gone back down to normal… He’s getting more applicants. He should probably pay more, but that’s his business.
Anyway, I’m not an economist, just a working class dude, with the working class family.
In other news, his fast food drive-through place is doing awesome.
Sorry if this sounds like too basic a question to be asked. The papers you mention -- Marinescu et al., Dube et al., Bartik et al. -- how representative are the data? Do they cover some % of the SMBs and can be used as a good proxy for the whole distribution or possibly are they more representative for some sectors and not all?
Noah Smith has a habit of offering lengthy opinions on things he hasn’t read, including the work he is citing now.
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/should-i-read-casey-mulligans-book.html
Lots of people work despite the $600 bonus? I agree. Mulligan-Moore estimate says that that, relative to the workforce we have with $300 UI bonus, **more than 97%** of it would work with $600 bonus. So yes LOTS of people have reason to stay in work despite the $600.
But having a story that sounds nice for a vast majority of people is not the same as a story for 100% of them. Just 2% of potential workers gets into millions of jobs.
Reduced poverty? That is no surprise. Try reading http://redistributionrecession.com or many other articles I've written on the subject saying "equity-efficiency tradeoff". So unless you assume no tradeoff, pointing to more equity means smaller aggregate economic pie.
You are welcome to assume no tradeoff, but then you have assumed the answer rather than supporting it with the poverty findings.
RE the 2020 recession and recovery, unless your intention is to build a straw man, you would reference the series that Mulligan and Moore use.
https://twitter.com/caseybmulligan/status/1336537434176294914/photo/1
https://twitter.com/caseybmulligan/status/1336537566384885760/photo/1
https://twitter.com/caseybmulligan/status/1336537816352911363/photo/1
https://twitter.com/caseybmulligan/status/1336537916856819719/photo/1
Funny how these all fit with the usual economic model that when you subsidize something, you get more of it.
Instead of just "glancing" at the Altonji et al paper, try reading its words. “the workers with the largest changes in UI generosity experience the largest declines in employment relative to the January baseline, [but] the differential decline occurs entirely in the weeks prior to the passage of the CARES Act.” In other words, two very opposite interpretations of their estimates are possible, depending on (a) whether the CARES act was anticipated and, if not, (b) how the March shock would have regressed to the mean absent uniform unemployment benefits.
Nice straw man about the ACA. Maybe try reading the ACA book? It has things called dates & magnitudes. It makes projections for specific series.
How do you explain the miracle of "49er" firms exactly at the time when the ACA began taxing @ 50+ FTEs?
https://twitter.com/caseybmulligan/status/1336536158059311104/photo/1
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/708173