3 ms·

And there is a legitimate discussion to be had about the impact of enhanced unemployment benefits on the labor market - especially since those benefits are temp

And there is a legitimate discussion to be had about the impact of enhanced unemployment benefits on the labor market - especially since those benefits are temporary. When they run out, it could leave employers that hired people at the wages they can demand today with a workforce that is being compensated more than what comparable workforce would demand in a few months. The fact remains, if employers wanted to hire people, they could. It just costs more today - either via a higher base salary or offering something like a signing bonus. People didn't vanish into thin air - they just want more money to do the work. But it's not a shortage - it's a failed negotiation.

SilasX 5y ago
Yes, for a high enough salary, someone will do the job. But it makes a huge difference whether a third party is artificially disincentivizing one of the parties to the extent that a good deal before the artificial disincentive is now woefully insufficient. To ignore that effect and just focus on the negotiation dynamics is to miss the bigger picture (and unforced error).
- dagenix 5y ago
  You're arguing that the labor market is distorted by unemployment benefits - that may very well be true. But that doesn't mean there is a "shortage" of people able to do that job.
  - SilasX 5y ago
    Yes, it means there might be a technically inaccuracy in the use of that term [1]. But the substantive point is still sound, and it would be a mistake to miss that point merely because of such a technicality. [1] But even that would be dubious. It’s actually closer to the technical economic meaning of “shortage” when artificial effects prevent exchanges that would otherwise happen.
- whoaisme 5y ago
  When the government hands out money that is artificial but when the government says it you make more money you will net less total because you benefits will be cut that is natural. It's hilarious to me how simpletons are coopted into parroting rich people propaganda and think they are so wise.

SilasX 5y ago

Yes, for a high enough salary, someone will do the job. But it makes a huge difference whether a third party is artificially disincentivizing one of the parties to the extent that a good deal before the artificial disincentive is now woefully insufficient. To ignore that effect and just focus on the negotiation dynamics is to miss the bigger picture (and unforced error).

dagenix 5y ago
You're arguing that the labor market is distorted by unemployment benefits - that may very well be true. But that doesn't mean there is a "shortage" of people able to do that job.
- SilasX 5y ago
  Yes, it means there might be a technically inaccuracy in the use of that term [1]. But the substantive point is still sound, and it would be a mistake to miss that point merely because of such a technicality. [1] But even that would be dubious. It’s actually closer to the technical economic meaning of “shortage” when artificial effects prevent exchanges that would otherwise happen.
whoaisme 5y ago
When the government hands out money that is artificial but when the government says it you make more money you will net less total because you benefits will be cut that is natural. It's hilarious to me how simpletons are coopted into parroting rich people propaganda and think they are so wise.