Monday , June 14 2021
Home / David Henderson /Despite or Because of?

Despite or Because of?

Summary:
The unemployment [rate] was expected to fall to 5.8% and the economy was predicted to add 978,000 jobs, but that didn’t happen despite mass vaccinations and government stimulus…. not by a long shot. So writes Matt Margolis in “Biden Bust: Unemployment Rate Up, Numbers ‘Way Worse Than Expected,” Inflation May Be Coming,” PJ Media, May 7, 2021. No, no, no! The increase did not happen despite the Biden “stimulus” bill; it happened in large part because of the bill, which was not mainly about stimulus. When the federal government pays people an extra 0 a week to be unemployed, a few million people who would have take the many jobs available will instead take a summer holiday. Here’s what I wrote in “An Unnecessary ‘Stimulus’“, Defining Ideas, March 5, 2021: Of

Topics:
David Henderson considers the following as important: , , , ,

This could be interesting, too:

David Henderson writes A Warm Memory about State Farm’s Good Will

David Henderson writes How the Profit Motive Makes Discrimination Less than Otherwise

David Henderson writes Failure to Launch and UBI

Walter Block writes Do Labor Unions Really Raise Wages?

Despite or Because of?

The unemployment [rate] was expected to fall to 5.8% and the economy was predicted to add 978,000 jobs, but that didn’t happen despite mass vaccinations and government stimulus…. not by a long shot.

So writes Matt Margolis in “Biden Bust: Unemployment Rate Up, Numbers ‘Way Worse Than Expected,” Inflation May Be Coming,” PJ Media, May 7, 2021.

No, no, no!

The increase did not happen despite the Biden “stimulus” bill; it happened in large part because of the bill, which was not mainly about stimulus. When the federal government pays people an extra $300 a week to be unemployed, a few million people who would have take the many jobs available will instead take a summer holiday.

Here’s what I wrote in “An Unnecessary ‘Stimulus’“, Defining Ideas, March 5, 2021:

Of course, what we would really like to know is the effect of the double whammy of extending unemployment benefits through August and increasing them by $400 per week. The latter measure would cause millions of unemployed people to make more money by being unemployed than by being employed. My own admittedly intuitive guess is that if the bill passes with those benefits, at least two million workers who would have been working will be out of work. That one provision of the “stimulus” bill, in short, would create a drag on the economy.

(By the way, I got the $400 wrong; it’s “only” $300.) Later, co-blogger Scott Sumner made the same point here and cited the same study here that I had cited in my March article.

There shouldn’t have been much a surprise at all. And remember that the reason was Biden’s $1.9 trillion bill.

So no, not despite but because of.

UPDATE: The governors of Montana and South Carolina have stated that because the $300 per week extra federal unemployment benefit is discouraging people from working, they will end the benefit next month.

David Henderson
David R. Henderson (born November 21, 1950) is a Canadian-born American economist and author who moved to the United States in 1972 and became a U.S. citizen in 1986, serving on President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984.[1] A research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution[2] since 1990, he took a teaching position with the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California in 1984, and is now a full professor of economics.[3]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *