tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post7647898444796603486..comments2024-03-28T02:46:41.090-05:00Comments on Supply and Demand (in that order): Make More by Working Less? Not as Uncommon as You'd ThinkCasey B. Mulliganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03317454408275318282noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post-16737296782045196772012-11-01T09:23:41.382-05:002012-11-01T09:23:41.382-05:00This contrived example is all fine and dandy, exce...This contrived example is all fine and dandy, except for the fact that there aren't any $500/wk job openings out there with a dearth of applicants. Additional incentive to work achieves nothing.<br /><br />This kind of disincentive is exactly the type we need to shift available jobs to those who need them the most, as people who haven't had a $600/wk job in the previous couple years or are new to the workforce (and ineligible for UI) are more likely to take an opportunity.<br /><br />If there's only one job for two applicants, it makes far more sense for a youth with no family get a job and have the parent stay home to take care of kids than, in the case of reduced UI, have an idle youth with no assistance and a parent juggle a job and parenting.<br /><br />Finally, consider that only a fraction of all unemployed workers have this disincentive to work. If the gov't was to reduce UI to increase incentive to work (which, as mentioned above, is a goal of dubious value anyway), it would be hurting ALL recipients. Taking away that income would have a serious hit on aggregate demand, which would result in layoffs and thus do the opposite of what was intended.Minthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13349524337438755948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post-2233315219893740742012-10-31T17:34:55.051-05:002012-10-31T17:34:55.051-05:00Oh please. You're so proud of yourself that y...Oh please. You're so proud of yourself that you created a situation where unemployment insurance might temporarily work out better than employment.<br /><br />Three questions:<br /><br />1. Do you have any significant number of examples of people who take advantage of this type of situation? My guess is that it's around 10% of unemployed. Name me a government program more efficient than that.<br /><br />2. You're forgetting 'opportunity costs'. If you remain unemployed, you're going to probably have a harder time getting a job later. And if you take the job, you might get a raise within six months, making the job worth taking.<br /><br />3. The fact that there are still something like 4 applicants out there for every job opening suggests that your idea is more applicable in theory than in practice.<br /><br />But hey, I'm no economist, so what do I know.<br /><br />NOTE: I'm a computer programmer, and the only time I was unemployed and checked on UI, it was so little I didn't even bother to collect it.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03511429662094566264noreply@blogger.com