Cutting unemployment benefits early hurts workers and state economies
The decision by Republican governors in 25 states - including Maryland last week - to pull out of federal unemployment insurance (UI) support in their states is dangerously shortsighted. The most recent data show that the economy is improving but still far from healthy. Cutting back aid for jobless workers now, while suitable jobs are still not available for many of them, is not just cruel - it is damaging to these states' long-term economic health.
A robust unemployment insurance system serves three main purposes. The first is straightforward - providing a financial cushion to workers who lose their job through no fault of their own, so that they can still pay the bills and keep food on the table while they search for new employment. Aside from being the humane thing to do, providing this safety net is also economically prudent. No state economy benefits from workers and families falling behind on mortgages or auto loans, being evicted, having cars and homes repossessed, cutting back on food, or delaying or opting out of needed health care. Yet, these outcomes will become more likely in the states cutting aid for the jobless.
The states cutting UI are also undermining the program's second goal: to speed recovery by bolstering consumer demand. Unemployment insurance is one of the most powerful economic stimulus measures in a downturn. Unemployed workers tend to quickly spend every dollar they receive, helping businesses by keeping customers coming through the door. Notably, the UI programs that these states are ending are entirely federally funded - meaning they are dollars going into state economies straight from federal coffers. By ending these programs, governors are taking those dollars out of potential spending at businesses in their states.
Lastly, an adequate UI system gives jobless workers time to find suitable work, not just any job that's available. The long-term health of any economy relies upon making the best use of the available workforce, and that means making sure that people can find jobs that are appropriate for their skills and circumstances. Having highly trained teachers, construction workers, machinists or transit operators taking jobs in restaurants, retail or package delivery - if those are the jobs available - is a waste of those workers' investment in their craft and likely involves a pay cut. It also takes opportunities away from other jobseekers who might have been better suited for those roles - both of which represent a drag on workers' long-run earnings and the state's productive potential. And if skills-mismatched workers ultimately leave positions when something more appropriate for them becomes available, that's wasted recruitment and training expenses for employers.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cutting-unemployment-benefits-early-hurts-workers-and-state-economies/ar-AAKNrEg
They don't care. They'd cut off a limb if they thought it would spite the liberals.
= new reply since forum marked as read
