Unemployment in the Gamma Quadrant

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

A “friend” emails to inform me that “you’ve got to weigh in on Arthur Laffer’s op-ed today in the WSJ.” Thanks, pal. That’s five minutes of my life that I’ll never get back.

So why am I caving in to him? Most of Laffer’s op-ed is just the usual conservative griping about unemployment insurance: it makes people lazy, it doesn’t stimulate demand since “for everyone who is given something there is someone who has that something taken away,” and stimulus doesn’t work anyway. Plus there’s some musing about $150,000 unemployment benefits and two people selling apples to each other. Hardly worth bothering with. But then there’s a chart. And that makes the whole thing a must-read. Here’s what Laffer says about it:

Common sense and personal experience indicate higher unemployment benefits will make unemployment less unattractive and thereby increase unemployment even in the Great Recession. As the chart nearby clearly shows, since the 1970s there’s been a close correlation between increased unemployment benefits and an increase in the unemployment rate. Those who argue that things are different today don’t have the data to back up their claims.

Yep: Laffer is seriously suggesting that unemployment benefits, which, according to his own chart, begin rising after unemployment rises, are what cause unemployment to rise. It’s groundbreaking stuff, but as an exercise for the reader, can you think of an alternate mechanism to explain why total unemployment benefits paid out might go up when the unemployment rate goes up? Anyone? Take your time. I know it’s a chin scratcher.

Even by Laffer/WSJ standards this whole thing is pretty surreal. Are business executives who read the Journal really so gullible that they buy this stuff?

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate