
Rethinking 99 weeks of unemployment - tjr
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2011/01/26/rethinking-99-weeks-of-unemployment/
======
jellicle
Should be titled: "Wanker Libertarian Rich Guy Complains About Poor People
Getting $100-$400 Per Week In Taxable Income".

I would guess the mortgage interest subsidy the government gives to Phil
Greenspun for his house(s) rather significantly exceeds the payments made to
anyone receiving unemployment insurance. Which of course is INSURANCE in the
first place - the employee pays for it while working, and then receives it,
when not working.

MIT receives something close to a billion dollars per year in government
funding. Phil Greenspun is eating a lot more of that government cheese than
anyone receiving unemployment insurance. But self-awareness is not a common
trait among the libertarian programmer mindset.

So, everyone on unemployment should just take a MIT course to learn SQL for
web apps. No problem, except it costs $50K to attend MIT. Hmmm. Well, you
could just take one course. How much would it cost to take a three-day course
with five skilled teachers ( <http://philip.greenspun.com/teaching/rdbms-
iap-2011> )? Maybe $2000? How many weeks of unemployment payments at $100-$400
per week would I have to save up to pay for that course? What precisely will I
eat during those weeks?

There's quote attributed to Marie Antoinette where she advised the poor,
lacking bread, to simply consume cake instead. The modern version is the Wall
Street Journal's criticism of Lucky Duckies - those folks so "lucky" in their
income levels that the government declines to tax said income directly (of
course they pay more in taxes relative to their income than any millionaire,
but that fact is conveniently omitted). Such statements display a total lack
of knowledge - not only does Greenspun not know what he's talking about, but
he doesn't know that he doesn't know.

[http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2010/07/luc...](http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2010/07/lucky-
ducky-day.html)

~~~
yummyfajitas
_How much would it cost to take a three-day course with five skilled teachers
(<http://philip.greenspun.com/teaching/rdbms-iap-2011> )? Maybe $2000?_

If only Greenspun had thought this through - then he might have suggested
something like this:

 _for people who’ve been unemployed for 12 weeks, simply pay for a year of
education in programs with proven records of skills-building (I guess you
measure by how many finished and were able to get jobs)_

I guess ad-hominem attacks are a lot easier than addressing Greenspun's simple
economic question: "Is the 99-weeks-of-Xbox system that Congress created more
sensible than it seems?"

~~~
notahacker
If Greenspun had thought it through he might not have suggested such ludicrous
examples:

Subsidising the high costs of aerospace engineering training and certification
to add a few people to the back of that unemployment queue (behind the people
with a decade's experience and two decades' aviation enthusiasm) doesn't sound
like a better use of funds than buying X-boxes. Maybe the existing unemployed
engineers should revitalise their resume with study at efficient modern
universities like the University of Phoenix?

If I wanted to contract non-nerd programmers to cut costs, the ex-clerk with
the six month boondoggle programming course isn't going to get a look-in ahead
of the cheaper outsourcing company staffed by smart graduates motivated enough
to endure a CompSci degree in the hope they might one day impress the boss
enough to make manager.

If Greenspun had thought it through he probably wouldn't be implying a
shortage of demand could readily be addressed by investing in increasing the
oversupply of mediocre job candidates. Or, working at the high end of the
state-subsidised education market, maybe he still would...

I'm all in favour of state sponsored training, but he couldn't have made a
much worse case for it.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_If Greenspun had thought it through he probably wouldn't be implying a
shortage of demand..._

There is no longer a shortage of demand. Sales, consumption and production
have more or less recovered to their pre-recession levels.

<http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO>

<http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PCE>

<http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/RSAFS>

<http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP>

This would not have occurred if we had a shortage of demand. The only thing
that hasn't recovered is employment - firms are meeting the same demand with
fewer workers. This is why profits are up:

<http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP>

This also suggests that it will be very difficult to solve the unemployment
problem - it appears that most of the laid off workers were completely
dispensable (perhaps with some changes to business processes). If they
provided little of value to their former employers, it will be hard to
convince a new employer that they will provide value for him/her.

~~~
notahacker
To clarify, I meant _labour market_ demand. Either way, it appears that the
employment problem isn't simply skill mismatch or geographical immobility;
firms have effectively substituted for [US-based] labour and overall demand
needs to continue to pick up to restore the health of the labour market.

If growth of the economy overall is needed to solve problems of structural
adjustment reducing labour market demand levels, I'm not sure that churning
out more mediocre database programmers through subsidised courses can be
presented as an optimal solution. As I said earlier, I'm not remotely opposed
to govt-funded training when advocated in less crass terms than Greenspun's,
but _if implemented badly_ the end results can make employees even more
dispensable by commoditising skillsets that were previously an edge for those
investing in their own education and dissuading newly-profitable employers
from investing in training in areas where demand is picking up.

------
roc
If unemployment was a matter of marketable skills, fresh grads probably
wouldn't be at the top of the list of groups with high unemployment.

I'm all for training and educating instead of just handing people money. Or as
a condition of handing people money. Or just making it available to the
unemployed at no cost.

But 99 weeks was an exception and AFAIK no-one is getting 99 weeks ever again.
So bringing that into the discussion makes the whole thing seem like a
disingenuous class war against the unemployment-is-spring-break strawman.

Frankly, I have a hard time believing that anyone who conflates 'unemployment'
with party time has never been on unemployment or known anyone close who has.
You don't make what you used to make on unemployment. You won't be paying your
bills with it. You'll tap your savings, and those will dwindle away. You may
well still lose your house. Your stress level is through the roof and your
personal relationships will suffer as well.

I can understand people whose moral hackles get raised, when they hear of an
unemployed person who partakes in leisure activities. But if you've ever been
in the situation, or seen it up close, you know it's not at all what it looks
like.

~~~
jessriedel
I don't disagree except with this:

> But if you've ever been in the situation, or seen it up close, you know it's
> not at all what it looks like.

I've personally known a guy on unemployment for over a year, able-bodied with
a college degree. He snowboarded 5 days a week, but admitted that when his
unemployment ran out he was probably going to have to start looking for a job.
It really was "party time" for him, though I don't claim he was the norm. I'm
just giving this anecdotal evidence to say that if we want to discuss the
usefulness of long-term unemployment benefits, we're going to need hard data.
Your descriptions of what unemployment is _really_ like aren't any more
convincing evidence than the OP's.

~~~
roc
It's not evidence. It's an anecdotal counter-point to an unfounded and all-to-
common lazy characterization.

Feel free to look up any number of sociological and economic studies about
what happens to people who are on unemployment. Suicide rises, separation
rises (divorce itself tends not to, as divorce is expensive), domestic abuse
rises, savings plummet, bankruptcy rises, foreclosure rises, future earnings
drop.

The studies have shown that it looks nothing like party time in the aggregate.
But somehow that doesn't stop people moralizing from a privileged vantage.

Edit: Frankly, it's just the same damn Welfare Queen argument all over again
and I keep hoping that nonsense was long since disproved and buried, back with
Trickle Down and the rest of Reagan's 'conservative' fiscal bonafides.

~~~
yummyfajitas
It would be useful if, rather than offering vague assertions that statistics
exist, you actually presented some.

The simplest way to determine whether unemployment induces people to consume
leisure: measure whether changes in the duration of unemployment benefits
affect the duration of unemployment. Do you know of any such measurements, or
are you simply assuming that reality supports your views?

Edit: The classic paper on this topic is Meyer, but it's a bit old.
[http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:xdATBYGtHBcJ:w...](http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:xdATBYGtHBcJ:www.econ.upenn.edu/~hfang/teaching/socialinsurance/readings/Meyer90\(4.12\).pdf+%22unemployment+insurance+and+unemployment+spells%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESijVugfxTMH8N17GpSU_u2JvA9mKUnU2-0yEbjnU4nwsZzfb6xylzJiPCE7EUAmsWycAgt74ZcB3dWYw4wZ-
JRBbT5DLbajcMt_A0VhvZTgz74ppJlG27NwAeZXcun3IjfAtx70&sig=AHIEtbRr14Z-jKd0rYrZD25qNSBSVWlWEg)

This paper strongly supports the theory that unemployment benefits create
moral hazard.

Here is a more recent paper showing the same thing in Europe, after a natural
experiment: <http://ftp.iza.org/dp2171.pdf>

~~~
roc
It would be more useful if Greenspun had, as he's the one who should carry the
burden of proof in this case. He's made the implied claim that
unemployment==party-time. You really shouldn't be asking me to refute his
assertion. Feel free to disagree or use Google to sate your own curiosity if
you don't believe me.

I think it's notable that people are more willing to give his careless
characterization a pass, simply because it aligns with our moral sense that
economic outcomes have some sort of parallel to our sense of justice.
(economic losers _must_ be social losers who deserved and/or inadvertently
caused their unemployment/foreclosure/bankruptcy with bad planning/habits/use
of time, etc.)

Speaking of Google: Moral Hazard has nothing to do with whether unemployment
is party time. I agree that it exists and 99 weeks is far too long for a
standard policy. I don't see how that has any bearing on my disagreement with
the article.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Greenspun doesn't bear the burden of proof because he isn't trying to prove
anything. He is asking a question and admitting his uncertainty: "The standard
26 weeks of unemployment makes sense to me...But the subsequent 1.5 years
don’t make sense...What’s wrong with my thinking?"

Jessriedel did the same thing: "I don't claim he was the norm. I'm just giving
this anecdotal evidence to say that...we...need hard data."

You asserted the existence of evidence without providing it (potentially
misleading), and then attacked the people who disagreed with you (harmful). If
you have your own theory, argue it and acknowledge uncertainty (just as
Greenspun and Jessriedel did). If you have facts to support your position,
present them (if you do, awesome). Ad hominem attacks provide no value.

~~~
roc
Let's take a step back.

I didn't (intend to) take issue with any part of jessriedel's post. Clearly I
misspoke in my reply and people were confused. My intent was to _concede_ his
point: I was not providing evidence about what unemployment looks like. I
provided nothing more than my own opinion. We all agree on that.

And I'm truly not interested in trying to solve political problems on the
internet, so I invited him to sate his own curiosity as to what unemployment
looks like. You're either interested in the issue and thus _need_ to do your
own research or you're not. If I'd used Google to scare up a link or two, that
should _not_ be sufficient for any critical and skeptical thinker.

Feel free to disagree with my characterization of unemployment all you like. I
invite you to. But please note that you only disagree with me, because I
didn't provide any more evidence than Greenspun did.

And then hopefully you'll take a moment to wonder why you're complaining about
my lack of evidence, but not Greenspun's.

------
billjings
Allow me to play the contrarian (if that's okay):

1) Supply of training is probably limited.

2) Not all of these folks need training. There are a lot of people who are
older, but not of retirement age yet.

3) Just because those people are trained doesn't necessarily mean that there
will be jobs for them. There is a flat out lack of work out there for people -
people with college educations, even.

To elaborate on that last point, lots of people (most notably Paul Krugman)
contend that the recession is fundamentally caused by a lack of demand. So
keeping folks on unemployment, paying rent and playing XBox instead of
homeless and dumpster diving helps to prop up a segment of the economy that
would otherwise have to completely drop out.

Having said that, there has to be a better way - being unemployed is
miserable, even if you're receiving unemployment checks and playing XBox with
your free time. It just happens that unemployment benefits are easier to
defend politically than government works programs of all kinds.

~~~
jhamburger
The older workers are the biggest issue. When they show up at interviews they
are basicallly saying "hi, i have 25 years of experience in a completely
unrelated field, probably making 2.5x the salary you're offering for this
entry level position. I have no real interest in this industry, but i did just
get a certification from university of phoenix online during the year i was
unemployed. So will it be me or the recent grad?"

~~~
e40
"I have no real interest in this industry" just doesn't fit with the other
items in your argument. It's unfair and it plays to emotions not facts. And,
even without that facetious addition, you'd probably convince me.

~~~
Nobido
It does, though. Faced with two options, one employee who is passionate about
computers and has been playing with Photoshop since he was a kid, and one
employee who took a "two week" course and obviously is just looking for a
paycheck anywhere... Who would you chose?

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Insufficient data to draw conclusion.

Passion is nice, but it's not all it's cracked up to be. People who are "just
looking for a paycheck" tend to be _very_ interested in staying employed and
are highly motivated to learn. We all like to talk about the person who only
wants a job so they can survive while looking for other work, but we ignore
that many of them realize they won't get another job, and their best bet is to
do well in whatever position they can find and move up.

I'll take a steady, reliable, hard worker over a "passionate" precious and
unique snowflake any day.

------
WillyF
As someone whose startup is focused on helping new grads land jobs, I've
learned that most job seekers focus on the job search process. They try to
find better jobs, improve their resume, network, and do other things that will
help them sell the existing product. Very few commit to actually improving the
product. Instead of admitting that they may not be good enough, they focus on
trying to convince other people why they are good enough. I think a lot of
startup founders have this same problem with their products.

On another note, here's an interesting blog post from Greg Mankiw (another
Harvard academic) on the economic rationale behind setting a time limit for
unemployment insurance: [http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-
agnosticism-about-...](http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-agnosticism-
about-ui.html)

The basic gist of it is that there is an optimal time limit for unemployment
insurance benefits, and that that time limit should probably increase during a
weak economy to help reduce income uncertainty and prop up aggregate demand.
The question is how did we end up with 99 weeks? Why not 199 weeks? Or 13
weeks?

~~~
knowtheory
Very few people commit to improving a product, because very few people
understand what their role should be when joining organizations. It's not that
they don't understand what their work might consist of, the real question is
whether they understand how they will contribute, and why a business should
justify hiring them.

Beyond the fact that roles & contributions that you have in your work place,
this is still a difficult task, because it requires you to understand the
organization you work within, not just the market/business.

And lets be honest, there is no perfect organization where tasks and
opportunities come up, and the requirements flow smoothly into design,
implementation and roll-out.

In short, people don't get what role they should play in the workforce,
because nobody ever talks about participating in the workforce from an
individual perspective. You have to cobble together knowledge from the domain
of personal productivity/product management, being actively involved tracking
the business you work in and the structure of your organization, and lastly be
capable of measured critical review of your performance.

If you can do these things, congratulations, you are amongst the few. :P

~~~
WillyF
You hit on the second biggest flaw that I spot in job seekers (and startup
founders). They focus too much on their own wants/needs and not enough on the
needs of the people they're trying to sell to.

~~~
knowtheory
What's the biggest flaw? :)

~~~
WillyF
Unwillingness to invest in themselves or work towards improving themselves (or
a lack of realization that they need to do these things). Most job seekers
have a "take me as I am" attitude. Even new grads who should be all pumped up
about learning new things seem to think that their degree alone will guarantee
a job.

Even the grads (and other job seekers) who are eager to learn expect to have a
company invest in training them. Why would I invest in training you if you
spent 6 months job searching without once doing something that actually made
you a better candidate for the job?

------
OpieCunningham
How did 99 weeks of unemployment become "99 weeks of Xbox"?

Sure, if that's reality then it doesn't make much sense. But saying it's so
doesn't make it so. The Cadillac driving welfare queen is a hyperbolic Reagan
talking point.

But let's pretend for a second that nonsense is real and most of those on long
term unemployment are spending most of their time playing Xbox - the
suggestion is that instead of paying those people the marginally sustainable
monthly pittance, we should pay to train them ... and then they pay
rent/mortgage, purchase food, pay for children's needs, etc. with what,
exactly?

~~~
neild
And why should I be so passionately concerned about whether someone collecting
unemployment plays with an XBox?

Being unemployed _sucks_. It's a horrible situation. While there are, of
course, some slackers out there, it's almost always involuntary. (As can be
clearly seen from the job statistics out there: The reason we have 10%
unemployment in the US right now is because there _aren't enough jobs_.
Telling the unemployed to "just get a job" is as productive as telling a sick
man to "just get better".)

If someone who can't find a job chooses to pass some of their time playing
video games, who am I to complain? If it makes their life a bit better, then
I'm all for it.

------
tallpapab
Phil suggest that I should have bettered myself whilst unemployed. I have a
masters degree in Mathematics, professional programming experience in 13
languages including Java, JavaScript, and Python, more if I include things
like SQL, HTML, etc. in which I also have professional experience. I speak
four human languages (and bits of three others). Perhaps a vocational school
will make me more marketable.

So how did I waste my time during my 83 weeks of unemployment? Mostly looked
for work. I read and did a few exploratory things. I went on quite a few
interviews as my resume is pretty good, but one look at me told the tale of my
age. I coached a high school basketball team (and wrote a Java GUI for game
stats and management). I did work around the house, repairs etc. I paid bills
and figured out ways to stay afloat. Sorry, I don't have a gaming console. I
exercised to try to stave off depression. I visited my failing parents weekly
and took over their financial chores. I took up singing. (No one would pay me
for that either.)

To be fair, Phil was probably not talking about me, but about younger workers
like my son. He hasn't been in the work force and is not eligible for
unemployment benefits. His generation is having a harder time than mine. Maybe
he should study SQL at U of Poenix. He doesn't have a gaming console either.

~~~
klbarry
I don't understand how someone like you wouldn't find work. Where do you live?
Did you have extremely high expectations? I don't mean to be rude, I ask
because the qualifications you have are outstanding, and I am curious.

~~~
tallpapab
After 83 weeks I did find work. The reason it was difficult was my age plus
few openings. The age thing is interesting. Some places where I applied I got
past phone screens that gave fairly little programming quizzes. When I got to
the in person interviews there were no questions about me experience,
education, or publications. It seemed the whole process was geared to finding
folks fresh out of college. Things are picking up here. The recruiters are
calling and there seem to be more openings. The unemployment insurance was
helpful. Keep in mind though that I have paid more into it over the years than
I have gotten out of it. That's fine and fits with the general pattern of
insurance. That's why insurance companies make money. I guess I have two
point. One is that it is insurance, as opposed to a direct handout from the
government. The other is that age discrimination is a big factor that Phil's
agenda does not address. OK, there's a third point in that market conditions
also make Phil's agenda impractical although I agree that folks should try to
"retool" during hard times. It's just not ass easy and effective as Phil
suggests.

About the high expectations, perhaps I do. I don't think that's so bad though.
I hope you do too. A difficulty though is that so do prospective employers.
They are often reluctant to offer lower pay to people that they feel might
flee when times improve and they can find a better job.

~~~
klbarry
Thanks for the answer, it makes a lot of sense.

------
lukeschlather
>Many of the students had very limited programming experience and many were
not MIT-affiliated, so it is not as though we took MIT computer nerds and made
them slightly more nerdy.

There seems to be some deliberate dishonesty here. First of all, you're
posting this on the Harvard blog, so this sounds like a group of undergrads
from the Ivy League and top 20 schools. So this little anecdote has almost no
relevance to those who have been on unemployment for over a year. The
deliberate omission of where these students come from makes it difficult for
me to take this article seriously, especially with the explicit assumption
that only MIT students are nerds of a serious caliber, and furthermore that
basic SQL is something difficult for non-nerds to pick up.

Furthermore, the article doesn't recognize that retraining and job-hunting are
separate tasks, and not only are they difficult to do at the same time, but
it's actually counterproductive.

Finally, the assumption that people are sitting around playing XBox with this
money is slander. I doubt the author has spent more than 10 minutes in a
social setting with anyone on unemployment. Unemployment checks in most cases
probably won't even pay rent.

~~~
ZachPruckowski
Either some of those training times are unrealistic, or there are broadly
different definitions of competence. I'm extremely skeptical that ANYONE can
learn enough about video editing in 2 weeks to become a professional editor.
Or "go from zero computer knowledge to being a Microsoft Certified Systems
Engineer or a Cisco network engineer" - I'm not sure we have the same
understanding of the general public's computer knowledge. There's a bit
difference between "Harvard non-nerd" and the average unemployed person in
terms of learning aptitude and in terms of computer familiarity.

Not to mention that with lots of people from Tier 1 schools having a hard time
finding jobs, it's not like the recession is a result of not enough people
having college degrees. I mean, training never hurts, but the issue we're
facing isn't a skills-to-opportunities mismatch, it's just a total lack of
available jobs in all sectors.

------
kenjackson
One thing I didn't hear noted is that unemployment is also considered a low
friction way of getting money back into th economy. Those people on
unemployment usually spend the money (not save), and there tends to be less
protest in doing this than other forms of welfare.

Additionally, I think there is a belief that to really move the needle we're
going to need to really get business back to hiring. I don't think the deamnd
in the job market is low end programming -- you can find tons of students
graduating from Phoenix U and Devry for that. It's the "hit the ground
running" expert talent. Someone who can come in and immediately start building
iPhone and Android apps (even web talent seems to have much more supply than
demand).

For some of these people 99 weeks may be sufficient to get them up to speed
for such a task, but I do think it will be difficult. First they have to find
good training, which in itself will be tough if they aren't web or tech savvy.
I just don't think someone who can edit a picture is going to be hired in this
market climate.

~~~
ams6110
Except the money for unemployment is confiscated from working people's
paychecks, so it's a net wash on the economy at best, less the sizable
bureaucratic overhead.

~~~
encoderer
If I got an extra $100 or so on my paycheck, it would have very little
economic utility. It would just be added to my pile of savings.

But if you take that $100 from me and give it to an unemployed person, they
are going to spend 100% of that, guaranteed.

Moreover, I'm not following you on the "less the sizable bureaucratic
overhead" comment. You make it seem as if the gov't takes $100 from me, burns
$10 in the White House Furnace, and gives $90 to the unemployed person.

On the contrary, every dollar of "bureaucratic overhead" is income for
somebody -- a government contractor, supplier or employee. I've never
understood why people act like the money the government spends just vanishes
from the economy. Yes, a small, small fraction of it goes overseas. But it's
so small it cannot be described as "sizable."

~~~
d2viant
_If I got an extra $100 or so on my paycheck, it would have very little
economic utility. It would just be added to my pile of savings._

Nonsense. That's great that you'd save the $100, but even if you do that it
still has economic utility, presuming you're putting it into a bank account.
It then gets lent out to businesses or reinvested into the economy. The bank
isn't sitting on a giant pile of money.

~~~
kenjackson
_The bank isn't sitting on a giant pile of money._

I thought banks were sitting on giant piles of money (thanks to the Fed),
hence the low interest rates?

~~~
d2viant
In a sense, yes, but that's mainly on the books and it depends on which
interest rate you're referring to. You're right, much of the bailout money was
used to cushion the capital accounts of these institutions. However, banks are
businesses too and at the moment happen to be making tremendous profits, much
of it due to the spreads they're getting on the low lending rate from the
Feds.

------
jhamburger
I don't think its realistic to expect someone who has been a marketing manager
for 20 years to get laid off and then tell them to go learn SQL or get a
plumber certification. Most people don't think that way- their career is a
huge part of their identity. They need to exhaust all options and go through
the whole 7 stages of grief, they can't just switch careers on a dime.

~~~
ams6110
True, that's why we have unemployment, and other entitlements for job
retraining, to help people through that transition period. But 99 weeks?

~~~
rick_2047
Really, 99 weeks is just too much. If you cannot get rehired in a year or so,
do you really think you will get hired at all? If you were good enough or
lucky enough you would get a job in 1 year or else you seriously need to
rethink your "career"

~~~
locopati
That's pretty easy to say. What happens when jobs are not available? Or when
people cannot relocate to where jobs are? Do we cast off a large body of
people to sink on their own? And when they are sinking, will that be good for
society?

~~~
rick_2047
I live in a country with no such guarantee and people have managed to live.

~~~
jhamburger
Which country, out of curiousity? I'm only asking because I'm not aware of any
countries without some form of social safety net where life isn't absolutely
miserable for the underclass.

~~~
philiphodgen
Sherlock says: India.

1\. Look at HN profile. See manky website listed there: lifeasparesh.co.cc.

2\. That website doesn't load for me.

3\. Go to Mr. Google and type in lifeasparesh.

4\. Find blog.lifesasparesh.in.

5\. Notice that in the search results the owner of this site reports a HN
username of rick_2047.

Economic/political analysis may now continue based on this piece of
information.

<detour>

(And yeah I'm receptive to ideas the original article. "99 weeks of xbox" is
hyperbole but after pruning away the hyperbole from the article -- and the
opposing comments in this thread -- there are some hard questions remaining.
It's worth talking about these questions in an adult manner while attempting
to avoiding Godwin-lite debate tactics. Which, I confess, I frequently find
myself using because it's fun to go "Ha! Score!)

</detour>

------
pgreenspun
philg here...

A reader pointed me to this response to my Weblog article.

To answer Jellicle's question about "how much would it cost to take the three-
day course?" ... $0. The course was free, open to the public (no unemployed
people chose to attend), and all of the teachers volunteered their time over a
three-day holiday weekend. We did use an MIT classroom and wireless network,
but no capital equipment other than a video projector.

Let's look at the rest of Jellicle's assertions...

Wanker? Perhaps.

Libertarian? I voted for King Obama, though it might have been simply to make
my December 2007 prediction come true...
[http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2007/12/12/election-2008-...](http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2007/12/12/election-2008-prediction-
obama-wins-by-5-percent-we-will-all-be-dep/)

Rich? Since I don't work on Wall Street, by definition I am not rich. I have
some money saved up, but the total is about what a successful hedge fund
manager earns in a week.

Home mortgage subsidy? I've never had a mortgage. I worked from 1978 until
1996 as a programmer, saving money each year, until I could afford to buy a
two-bedroom condo with cash. I certainly do not advocate a continued tax
deduction for home mortgages. I think the events of the last decade should
have proven the folly of the government subsidizing an oversized housing
sector. Prior to the Collapse of 2008, I wrote
[http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/04/05/why-do-we-
want...](http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/04/05/why-do-we-want-to-
maintain-the-worlds-highest-housing-prices/) on the question of whether high
housing prices are good for our economy overall.

------
russnewcomer
Some of Greenspun's ideas are great in theory, harder in practice. Part of the
problem is that you put people through a training course, now they have to try
to find jobs in that area, and that may be just as difficult or more difficult
than before. So your unemployed person (who yes, did get through a training
course but had no money to pay for their or their family's needs during that
course) now has more skills, but possibly more debt accumulated due to living
expenses. And there's still no guarantee they will find a job.

Or you take a mid-thirties woman, out of work, who has developed a reasonable
competency in some mid-level A/P job for a medium sized business. Put her
through a language course and now you have a mid-thirties woman with a
reasonable competency in German and mid-level accounting. Does that really
make her more employable than she was before the training course?

Not saying that a WPA-style project instead of extending unemployment would be
bad, just that there are a number of repercussions to it that would have to be
considered.

------
100k
Great idea! Now we just need to find some excellent teachers to train the
unemployed. Perhaps we can find a few more retired millionaire MIT graduates
willing to volunteer their time?

In seriousness, I do think more people should consider programming as a
vocation. It's good work if you can get it. Even our "crappy" jobs pay as much
as the US median family income (seriously, look it up). But I don't think you
can learn it in 3 days. It takes years, and not everyone is going to be good
at it -- look at the people who are _already_ programmers!

------
holdenc
It takes more than two weeks to become skilled at PhotoShop. I've been using
it 10 years and still have _lots_ to learn.

------
jleyank
I've spend time on unemployment twice, and each time I got what I think was
the max payment (in MA)... The first time didn't cover half of my rent, and
the second didn't cover half of my mortgage. We were able to move for
employment, but we took a nice loss on the house.

Those in industries that are contracting (manufacturing, pink-collar, STEM)
probably have to move to find work. If one has a working spouse or school-age
kids, this might be a no-win situation.

The partiers might be living solo and/or at home.

------
pauljonas
When I read these types of pieces by Philip, I am uncertain of whether it is a
legitimate take or he is just playing a troll.

"Let them eat cake!"

I believe I posted a comment on his site to that effect in response to one of
his earlier "cadillac driving welfare queen" missives, and it was quickly
deleted (Mr. Greenspun is quite adept in deleting comments that do not agree
with his sentiment).

I collected unemployment once, for a couple of weeks -- it was ~$200 per week,
not even sufficient to cover the mortgage payment, let alone health insurance,
food and utilities. It was shocking to me, as I remember my father
experiencing bouts of unemployment back in the 1970s/1980s (tough times for
steelworkers then, who saw their ranks dwindle), and he received ~$350 per
week and we were able to meet living expenses (along with gracious helpings of
government cheese).

Not sure training is the panacea -- put simply, as we become productive in the
aggregate, it requires less workers. Corporate employment, even before the
"great recession" has been trending downwards.

Sadly, nobody is addressing this structural realignment.

<http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm>

~~~
gwern
> Mr. Greenspun is quite adept in deleting comments that do not agree with his
> sentiment.

Happened to me a number of times. A major reason I unsubscribed - if I'm going
to read economic and technological musings, I'd rather read something like
_Marginal Revolution_ where the posters will give the same glib economist
answers but will also consider how they fail.

------
Symmetry
I'm not going to complain about long unemployment benefits because in the long
run its a lot less expensive than measures the government might take to
artificially prevent unemployment. Governments are much better at
redistributing wealth than at running economies - lets let them do what
they're good at.

------
allwein
I haven't seen anyone here address his proposed modificaitons.

"for people who live in states with an unemployment rate higher than average,
offer a lump sum at the end of 12 weeks to assist the person in moving to a
state with a lower-than-average rate"

This solution ignores several factors that make this a hideously bad idea in
general. Factor 1 is that the unemployed person may be married and their
spouse is still gainfully employed. So either he expects to trade one
unemployed spouse for another after the move, or he expects the couple (and
possible children) to split up for the sake of maintaining two households
several states apart, just to expedite getting the unemployed person off the
rolls. Factor 2 is that the unemployed person is undoubtably living somewhere
and either has a rental lease or a mortgage. So I'm supposing he's going to
break his lease, and thus screw over his landlord, or try and sell his house
quickly in a down market, or if not, simply walk away, thus screwing his bank
and possibly tens of thousands of equity that he's built up.

------
antidaily
Most states won't pay you unemployment if you go to school full-time. And
while the suggestion of paying for a year of school sounds great, how do all
the other bills get paid?

------
angdis
I think Greenspun would be less optimistic if he did not extrapolate wildly
from his experience in teaching an RDMS course to a bunch of "bright" students
(some of whom aren't even from MIT --- OMFG, are you kidding me!).

Instead, he should go find a bunch of middle-aged 99'ers, teach them his RDMS
course and report back.

------
3am
I wouldn't pay much attention to a public policy expert lecturing me on
programming. I don't begrudge a guy his opinion, but let's not pretend it's an
informed one just because of confirmation bias.

------
davidw
This looks like it's an article about politics, essentially:-/

That's generally something best left to other sites.

------
rdouble
He's managed to come up with a list of job skills for which no employer is
hiring.

------
tallpapab
Inflation adjusted money I paid for unemployment and disability insurance over
a 30 some year career (roughly): $40,000.

Money paid to me by said insurance over 83 unemployed weeks $38,475.

------
z0r
99 weeks of publicly subsidized unemployment for a non productive commodity? I
agree, this is outrageous. These commodities need to transport themselves to a
more favorable market and increase their utility through intelligent
investment of the resources being generously showered upon them. A shorter
period of unemployment should adequately incentivize these recalcitrant
products.

~~~
othermaciej
It looks like you're trying to be sarcastic, but the most basic principle of
economics is "incentives matter".

------
mcasaje
Just throwing it out there, but what if we threw some of this 'X-Box' money
into non-profit organizations that specialize in finding a suitable job,
matching the credentials of these desperately unemployed? This way, we can
weed out those who simply want to live off the two year no-effort, money-
making program playing X-Box. I think that Microsoft makes enough with X-Box
Live.

