I'll admit it. I don't have an answer for unemployment. (Dude, we need more jobs!) I don't have the slightest idea what to do about all the jobs flowing out of the US to countries where people are paid a lot less. Morgan Warstler does not have any idea what to do about it, either.
Here’s an immediate employment policy for Republicans to take to
Obama: Keep the cheap jobs here.
Instead of some convoluted tax credit for new job creation…. let’s see
what kind of new low-economy businesses blossom when:
After 3 months of receiving unemployment insurance, a worker must be
willing to work 30 hours a week at a wage-subsidized job.
Unemployment insurance will make up for difference between what the
employees earn and $300 per week. ($7.25 x 40 hours). This means the
unemployed are earning $10 per hour ($300 for 30 hours work), and have 10
business hours left for job hunting.
Employers will be be able to search through anonymous lists of local
unemployed and hire these workers at a discount. Highest bids per hour
win. Employers will have to hire the workers for at least two weeks time.
To continue to receive federal aid, states must adopt this type of
policy and platform.
We have a large supply of untrained & unemployed
young workers & minority workers suffering disproportionately. The
government is spending billions in unemployment insurance. Why not
re-jigger the unemployment system to require work even if the real pay is low,
and make up the difference?
Perhaps daycare will get cheaper. Perhaps housecleaning will get
less expensive. Perhaps we’ll be able to compete with call centers in
India. These are all services that would help single mom’s and poor people
go back to work…. even to work from home. I suspect, like many credible
economists, when subsidized labor is $3, $4, $5 per hour, shovel ready jobs will
What we do know is that if the unemployed have to work 30 hours per
week to receive their benefits… they will have more reason to go looking for
work and less reason to collect unemployment insurance.
$1200 a month, and Mr. Warstler doesn't mention taxes. Average rent in Boise, Idaho* is $600 per month for a 2 bedroom apartment. That's 2 paychecks per month under Mr. Warstler's plan. And that's just housing. That's not including transportation, food, health care, child care, heat, electric, water, etc.
But Mr. Warstler's idiocy doesn't end with assuming that $300 per week is sufficient.
Basically, you would create a permanent underclass of temp workers- Employers will have to hire the workers for at least two weeks time- without health care (total win for employers), who are significantly cheaper to hire than even full time minimum wage workers. Why would employers ever go back to paying even minimum wage when they could pay $2/hr for the same work for people they don't have to pay any kind of benefits for? They wouldn't. It would be stupid.
Perhaps daycare will get cheaper. Perhaps housecleaning will get less expensive. Perhaps we’ll be able to compete with call centers in India. These are all services that would help single mom’s and poor people go back to work. Go back to work for what? Permanent day laborer status with no possibility of benefits? Fantastic! Also, maybe we shouldn't create a permanent underclass of temp workers because "perhaps" anything. Maybe we should have proof first. Maybe that's just me.
*I had trouble finding overall housing costs for the US, so if you have that link, please let me know, and I'll update it. I chose Boise because it seems like a place that wouldn't have sky high rents like NYC or LA.