"Discouraged workers" are the sub-group of unemployed people so depressed from losing one job and being rejected from others that they have given up on furthering their careers. These people are not counted as part of the workforce anymore, and their abstention decreases what is known as the participation rate, the ratio of people working or actively looking for work to all working-age people. And they are not included in the official unemployment rate. Apart from making unemployment figures seem less awful than they actually are, this also means that unemployment benefit payments, by definition, are not going to the people who gave up on trying to find a job.
Unemployment benefits are going to people who are actively looking for a job, but haven't find one because of a bad economy. It is much more akin to rewarding people for putting the effort into the job hunt, so that they might still clothe and feed themselves and/or their family, while seeking to reinstate themselves as contributing members of society, up to or close to their productive potential. The economy would certainly not be better off if all those people "faced facts," swallowed their pride, and took minimum wage gigs at McDonald's. Massive underemployment would not be much of a victory against high unemployment.
The argument from the political right presupposes that unemployed people are economic robots that say to themselves (robotically): "I sit on couch...not look for work...money get mailed to me from government for sitting on couch...must continue to sit on couch...earn more free government money." The depressingly unimaginative Republicans seem unable to fathom that a large incentive to work in the lower socioeconomic ranks is the very sense of being a productive, contributing member of society; spending time, effort, and maybe even drawing on personal creativity to make something valuable, or perform some valuable service. Those things or those services are traded for money, which is quickly traded for things someone or someone and their family needs to survive and thrive with a degree of comfort and dignity. There is pride in putting effort and seeing it translate into social, familial stability.
Receiving dollars is not the reward, and neither is receiving dollars for doing nothing. If anything, the sense of being a net drain is a punishment. The thrill of getting away with extra cash when you didn't need it or work for it is what the financial sector gets off on, what political crooks specialize in. It is not a hobby of blue-collar workers. Money as the reward in and of itself, the currency-as-ends mentality is one indigenous to wealthier, higher-level intellectual workers. When the "unemployed" label specifically screens out anyone not actively searching for a job, the get-something-for-nothing attitude cannot be ascribed to a vast majority of those who constitute the "unemployed." An example of someone gaming the welfare system is the exception, not the rule.
Receiving dollars is not the reward, and neither is receiving dollars for doing nothing. If anything, the sense of being a net drain is a punishment. The thrill of getting away with extra cash when you didn't need it or work for it is what the financial sector gets off on, what political crooks specialize in. It is not a hobby of blue-collar workers. Money as the reward in and of itself, the currency-as-ends mentality is one indigenous to wealthier, higher-level intellectual workers. When the "unemployed" label specifically screens out anyone not actively searching for a job, the get-something-for-nothing attitude cannot be ascribed to a vast majority of those who constitute the "unemployed." An example of someone gaming the welfare system is the exception, not the rule.
And don't forget to note the survey effect, where people embarrassed about not being able to find a job even though they are actively searching will report that they have given up. So this examination has lead to two conclusions: first, that the identification of unemployed vs. discouraged workers eliminates the scenario that unemployment benefits reward not working, and second, unemployment benefits should probably reach more people if we can hope for the restoration of a vibrant economy and a healthy society.
Thank you for providing a unique and informed perspective. This is one of the few cases where I've never fulled understood how the right has played their cards. Understanding that the GOPs mission is not to serve the public's interest, but instead to win elections. Therefore, it would seem foolish to be out of touch with how this please politically, since it would be so easy to for Democrats to turn things around and say, "Look, under the Republicans, our nation went from running huge surpluses under Clinton to than-historical deficits under Bush, who also allowed our economy to crash. Not only did they readily allow your jobs to get shipped overseas, but now they're saying that if you're out of work because of a recession or outsourcing, tough luck because you're lazy, apathetic, and not worthy of a social safety net. Are these people really representing you or are they just pawns of big business?" Well, that argument would be too bold and obvious for most of the spineless democrats.
ReplyDeleteIf cutting unemployment is to be seen as a political winner, than it seems like it must just be a derivative of the southern strategy, but more broadly defined as a war against the poor. They clearly alienate those on the bottom with their rhetoric and bashing of those who are out of jobs, hoping that this will rally their richer or more agriculturally-dependent constituents. When a large portion of the people you represent are retired, rich, or from farm states, attacking creates a blame game that pits both sides against one another. It becomes almost a rallying cry that the other is just too apathetic and not industrious enough, and that they don't deserve to have government money to put food on the table, to pay their rent, or to take their kids to school. To vilify the unemployed, who the Dems are standing up for, taints perceptions and creates this us v.s. them dynamic. When combined with violent rhetoric and the superfluous name-calling, its no surprise that not only is the country polarizing, but a level of disdain and hatred for the other side which squelches the opportunity for open discourse, which is one of the key ingredients to a successful democratic state.