13 ms·

Rethinking 99 weeks of unemployment

86 points by tjr 16y ago

jhamburger 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      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 16y ago
        I live in a country with no such guarantee and people have managed to live.
        jarek 16y ago
        And there's no social unrest and the well-off aren't barricading themselves in gated neighbourhoods.
        jhamburger 16y ago
        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 16y ago
        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>
    - ebiester 16y ago
      Here's the problem. So, you've gone a year looking for that marketing job at a high level. Then, you start looking at mid-level. You have more experience, but people think you're "overqualified." So, you even try low-level, and you don't even get interviews. Then, you start on jobs that use similar skills. But then, you're competing against people who have the same exact experience. You try call centers, but most of them won't take you if you haven't had a job in 6 months. If you're lucky, eventually somebody takes a chance on you. Sometimes, that means that the labor supply has to tighten some. Oh, and there's a perverse disincentive to start a business - if you do, you lose all of your benefits.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    If you were in exactly the right circumstances, it's possible you pieced together 99 weeks through temporary extensions, but it's not the normal period, or something you can count on. During the recession, a sequence of stimulus bills authorized temporary extensions for people who were nearing the benefits expiration (normally 26 weeks) and still hadn't found jobs, basically as a way of propping up demand. If a bunch of people lose their jobs at approximately the same time, and the economy stays weak such that many of them fail to find jobs within 26 weeks, then 26 weeks after the onset of the downturn there's a second downturn as a bunch of people lose a source of income. There are alternative ways to cushion that, like just handing out $n to everyone (or everyone below some level of income), but a temporary extension to unemployment benefits was the form of stimulus that managed to get political consensus. There was never anyone at any time who had 99 weeks of guaranteed unemployment benefits, though. The only way you could've planned on that is if you lost your job near the beginning of the recession, and then correctly bet that Congress would pass a series of temporary benefits extensions.
  - Nobido 16y ago
    I'm not American and could be mistaken but I was under the impression that this 99 weeks plan was a temporary extension because of the recession. The idea being that while many, many fields may not be hiring now, whe. The economy is up to speed enough to start showing sizable changes in unemployment rates, those jobs will come back. But they are thinking one year may not be enough time. Am I mistaken? Is the 99 weeks permanent? not that that would be bad - Ive known many on welfare... It's hardly a fun times free ride. And I have known many who have needed more than two years, after honestly trying many different avenues.
- nkassis 16y ago
  I don't think getting training will help those people automagically become employable. But those programs already exists and I'm pretty sure many states have programs where they will pay for you to take training.
- johngalt 16y ago
  It's not as bad as you would think. A smart motivated person can succeed anywhere. I spent a year in sales during the dotcom bust. Despite being an introverted geek, I managed to break all kinds of sales records and get fast tracked for advancement. If I had stayed I could easily have reached similar compensation/status within three years. On the other hand, I'd also agree with Zed Shaw about technology people being rockstars in any industry besides technology. Inside of 2 months I had better tools built for myself than anyone else had and it was a marked advantage. So it's possible it was just easy for me due to my background.
  - gwern 16y ago
    > Inside of 2 months I had better tools built for myself than anyone else had and it was a marked advantage. So it's possible it was just easy for me due to my background. I'd be interested in reading about that.
  - jhamburger 16y ago
    The problem is that not everyone is awesome.
russnewcomer 16y ago
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.
WillyF 16y ago
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-ui.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-agnosticism-about-... 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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
billjings 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    "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 16y ago
      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?
roc 16y ago
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.
- jswinghammer 16y ago
  Well I have family who are basically using it to supplement their retirement. They are about to get to 99 weeks and will get no more. I think back to when I was out of school and the only real skill I had was "I'm good at learning things." I couldn't program very well and I didn't know much about databases. I had some connections and found a job and fixed those problems (mostly). Unemployment sucks but there's no doubt many people aren't really using the time well.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  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.
OpieCunningham 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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.
davidw 16y ago
This looks like it's an article about politics, essentially:-/ That's generally something best left to other sites.
kenjackson 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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.
  - gwern 16y ago
    'at best' is an incomplete picture. Redistributing wealth is zero or negative-sum, yes, but utility is not linear in wealth. It's logarithmic or less (wealth diminishing marginal utility). To be opposed to redistribution despite the obvious fact that it would create utility, one has to bring in additional concepts. For example, one might take some sort of ethical stand on redistribution being Pareto-inefficient. Or one might argue that the additional growth from inequality will eventually outweigh the disutility of respecting wealth inequality. (Either of these might not apply during depressed economic periods.)
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    But the money taken from working people's paychecks are more likely to not be as stimulative (although you could argue that it effects morale which then indirectly has impact). Giving money to people in unemployment is probably 90% of the way to giving money right to small business. Which in turn will pay their employees. There seems to be very little reason not to do it except for the two psychological effects we alluded to earlier: 1) My paycheck is now lower by .2%... I'm going to spend less. 2) Unemployment isn't so bad. I can slack off, because I wouldn't mind a 99 week vacation. (or other similar sentiments). I'm not sure either is happening in measurable numbers to offset the gain had by the extra money pumped into the economy.
antidaily 16y ago
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?
z0r 16y ago
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 16y ago
  It looks like you're trying to be sarcastic, but the most basic principle of economics is "incentives matter".
jellicle 16y ago
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 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/lucky-ducky-day.html http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2010/07/luc...
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  And to take the class, you still need to pay the rent, feed the kids, bus fare. Still, why not encourage training for the unemployed? But if you don't pay 100% for it, the unemployed are in no position to take you up on it.
  - cosgroveb 16y ago
    I was unemployed for awhile in 2008 and I can confirm that Illinois at least has work training programs for the unemployed. I can't attest to whether or not they are any good as I had marketable skills at the time.
holdenc 16y ago
It takes more than two weeks to become skilled at PhotoShop. I've been using it 10 years and still have lots to learn.
lukeschlather 16y ago
>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 16y ago
  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.
- ZachPruckowski 16y ago
  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.
3am 16y ago
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.
Symmetry 16y ago
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.
jleyank 16y ago
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.
rdouble 16y ago
He's managed to come up with a list of job skills for which no employer is hiring.
tallpapab 16y ago
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.
100k 16y ago
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!
mcasaje 16y ago
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.
allwein 16y ago
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.
tallpapab 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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.
angdis 16y ago
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.
pauljonas 16y ago
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 http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
- gwern 16y ago
  > 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.
pgreenspun 16y ago
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-prediction-obama-wins-by-5-percent-we-will-all-be-dep/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2007/12/12/election-2008-... 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-to-maintain-the-worlds-highest-housing-prices/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/04/05/why-do-we-want... on the question of whether high housing prices are good for our economy overall.

86 points by tjr 16y ago

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 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      I live in a country with no such guarantee and people have managed to live.
      - jarek 16y ago
        And there's no social unrest and the well-off aren't barricading themselves in gated neighbourhoods.
      - jhamburger 16y ago
        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 16y ago
        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>
  - ebiester 16y ago
    Here's the problem. So, you've gone a year looking for that marketing job at a high level. Then, you start looking at mid-level. You have more experience, but people think you're "overqualified." So, you even try low-level, and you don't even get interviews. Then, you start on jobs that use similar skills. But then, you're competing against people who have the same exact experience. You try call centers, but most of them won't take you if you haven't had a job in 6 months. If you're lucky, eventually somebody takes a chance on you. Sometimes, that means that the labor supply has to tighten some. Oh, and there's a perverse disincentive to start a business - if you do, you lose all of your benefits.
- _delirium 16y ago
  If you were in exactly the right circumstances, it's possible you pieced together 99 weeks through temporary extensions, but it's not the normal period, or something you can count on. During the recession, a sequence of stimulus bills authorized temporary extensions for people who were nearing the benefits expiration (normally 26 weeks) and still hadn't found jobs, basically as a way of propping up demand. If a bunch of people lose their jobs at approximately the same time, and the economy stays weak such that many of them fail to find jobs within 26 weeks, then 26 weeks after the onset of the downturn there's a second downturn as a bunch of people lose a source of income. There are alternative ways to cushion that, like just handing out $n to everyone (or everyone below some level of income), but a temporary extension to unemployment benefits was the form of stimulus that managed to get political consensus. There was never anyone at any time who had 99 weeks of guaranteed unemployment benefits, though. The only way you could've planned on that is if you lost your job near the beginning of the recession, and then correctly bet that Congress would pass a series of temporary benefits extensions.
- Nobido 16y ago
  I'm not American and could be mistaken but I was under the impression that this 99 weeks plan was a temporary extension because of the recession. The idea being that while many, many fields may not be hiring now, whe. The economy is up to speed enough to start showing sizable changes in unemployment rates, those jobs will come back. But they are thinking one year may not be enough time. Am I mistaken? Is the 99 weeks permanent? not that that would be bad - Ive known many on welfare... It's hardly a fun times free ride. And I have known many who have needed more than two years, after honestly trying many different avenues.
nkassis 16y ago
I don't think getting training will help those people automagically become employable. But those programs already exists and I'm pretty sure many states have programs where they will pay for you to take training.
johngalt 16y ago
It's not as bad as you would think. A smart motivated person can succeed anywhere. I spent a year in sales during the dotcom bust. Despite being an introverted geek, I managed to break all kinds of sales records and get fast tracked for advancement. If I had stayed I could easily have reached similar compensation/status within three years. On the other hand, I'd also agree with Zed Shaw about technology people being rockstars in any industry besides technology. Inside of 2 months I had better tools built for myself than anyone else had and it was a marked advantage. So it's possible it was just easy for me due to my background.
- gwern 16y ago
  > Inside of 2 months I had better tools built for myself than anyone else had and it was a marked advantage. So it's possible it was just easy for me due to my background. I'd be interested in reading about that.
- jhamburger 16y ago
  The problem is that not everyone is awesome.

russnewcomer 16y ago

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.

WillyF 16y ago

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-ui.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-agnosticism-about-... 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 16y ago
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 16y ago

billjings 16y ago

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 16y ago
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 16y ago
  "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 16y ago
    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?

roc 16y ago

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.

jswinghammer 16y ago
Well I have family who are basically using it to supplement their retirement. They are about to get to 99 weeks and will get no more. I think back to when I was out of school and the only real skill I had was "I'm good at learning things." I couldn't program very well and I didn't know much about databases. I had some connections and found a job and fixed those problems (mostly). Unemployment sucks but there's no doubt many people aren't really using the time well.
jessriedel 16y ago
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.

OpieCunningham 16y ago

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 16y ago
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.

davidw 16y ago

This looks like it's an article about politics, essentially:-/ That's generally something best left to other sites.

kenjackson 16y ago

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 16y ago
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.
- gwern 16y ago
  'at best' is an incomplete picture. Redistributing wealth is zero or negative-sum, yes, but utility is not linear in wealth. It's logarithmic or less (wealth diminishing marginal utility). To be opposed to redistribution despite the obvious fact that it would create utility, one has to bring in additional concepts. For example, one might take some sort of ethical stand on redistribution being Pareto-inefficient. Or one might argue that the additional growth from inequality will eventually outweigh the disutility of respecting wealth inequality. (Either of these might not apply during depressed economic periods.)
- kenjackson 16y ago
  But the money taken from working people's paychecks are more likely to not be as stimulative (although you could argue that it effects morale which then indirectly has impact). Giving money to people in unemployment is probably 90% of the way to giving money right to small business. Which in turn will pay their employees. There seems to be very little reason not to do it except for the two psychological effects we alluded to earlier: 1) My paycheck is now lower by .2%... I'm going to spend less. 2) Unemployment isn't so bad. I can slack off, because I wouldn't mind a 99 week vacation. (or other similar sentiments). I'm not sure either is happening in measurable numbers to offset the gain had by the extra money pumped into the economy.

antidaily 16y ago

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?

z0r 16y ago

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 16y ago
It looks like you're trying to be sarcastic, but the most basic principle of economics is "incentives matter".

jellicle 16y ago

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

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
And to take the class, you still need to pay the rent, feed the kids, bus fare. Still, why not encourage training for the unemployed? But if you don't pay 100% for it, the unemployed are in no position to take you up on it.
- cosgroveb 16y ago
  I was unemployed for awhile in 2008 and I can confirm that Illinois at least has work training programs for the unemployed. I can't attest to whether or not they are any good as I had marketable skills at the time.

holdenc 16y ago

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

lukeschlather 16y ago

>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 16y ago
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.
ZachPruckowski 16y ago
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.

3am 16y ago

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.

Symmetry 16y ago

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.

jleyank 16y ago

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.

rdouble 16y ago

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

tallpapab 16y ago

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.

100k 16y ago

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!

mcasaje 16y ago

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.

allwein 16y ago

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.

tallpapab 16y ago

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 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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.

angdis 16y ago

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.

pauljonas 16y ago

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

gwern 16y ago
> 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.

pgreenspun 16y ago

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-prediction-obama-wins-by-5-percent-we-will-all-be-dep/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2007/12/12/election-2008-... 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-to-maintain-the-worlds-highest-housing-prices/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/04/05/why-do-we-want... on the question of whether high housing prices are good for our economy overall.