to Alan and manning,

I agree with much of what you both said about what happens during the unemployment process, and the dehumanization of it. We could pursue this discussion asking what's the best way to alleviate symptoms as they currently exist... but I would rather pursue the discussion by asking how to change the symptoms altogether.

My point from the beginning has been that all policy has the effect of reinforcing certain behaviors. People tend to redirect their behavior to wherever the advantage lies. When the advantages shifts position, behavior follows.

All I'm saying is that if the system rewards abuse, you will get more abuse. Obviously, it is necessary to have some recourse for people who have no options. Nobody argues that point. But here is an example of how to change the incentive inherent in the system:

For example:
when a person becomes unemployed, there is a certain amount of money set aside to pay his unemployment benefits. If he gets a job before he uses all those benefits, then benefits stop being paid and he feels cheated... so there is an incentive to remain unemployed until the benefits are gone. This exacerbates the problem, because people should be using that money as a buffer while they look for work, but they don't look for work because they want to get the full benefits. The incentive is in the wrong place, because the need is to encourage activity, but instead inactivity is encouraged.

But, since a set amount of cash is already earmarked for each unemployed individual (and most of them will use it all up, and more) .. what if the government offered to pay the remaining sum directly to the person as soon as he got a job? In that case, people would have an incentive to accept work quickly because they would get a nice lump sum of cash. We're not talking small change. If I were unemployed and could get a check for well over $10,000 USD by accepting a job, I would do it. Even if they withheld the check for a year to make sure I kept the job.

At the LEAST, they shouldn't discourage taking a lower paying job by reducing benefits. I fpeople could get a short-term raise by taking a lower paying job, and continue collecting benefits, they would haver an incentive to find jobs.

All I'm saying is that policy should encourage the better option, not the most debilitating option.

your thoughts?

Last edited by Pat Marr; 03/17/10 09:57 AM.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ey71h8ep047758h/AAC12jNM0Hz9Q8zsh5iDeqNHa?dl=0