In order to buy into Prof. Robert Barro's "calculations" ("The Folly of Subsidizing Unemployment,"
op-ed, Aug. 30), a reader must assume that the majority of the
unemployed (1) enjoy daily hours of boredom while sitting around
watching Oprah and sitcom reruns, (2) are happy receiving far less money
than they were earning prior to being let go, (3) look forward to
depleting their savings and children's college funds, (4) find paying
Cobra rates for medical insurance a wonderful experience, (5) gleefully
turn down employment offers in order to remain unemployed, (6) are
excitedly anticipating endless hours of negotiations with faceless
financial firms bent on foreclosing the house, (7) are proud to tell the
kids that daddy (or mommy) just wants to sit around all day—you get the
point.
One assumes that Prof.
Barro enjoys tenure. From that secure and well-paying vantage point, he
has apparently managed to calculate his way to a completely nonsensical
thesis.
Bob Porter
Lincoln, Calif.
Prof. Barro might have
found an even more elegant model proving the folly of subsidizing
unemployment had he looked at President Bill Clinton's cutting the
welfare subsidy. Predictably, a year later those on welfare had found
work to replace their subsidy, and the standard of living went up for us
all.
Averaging the standard of living through redistribution eventually results in lower GDP.
Thom Young
Charlotte, N.C.
Prof. Barro's piece on
unemployment benefits overlooks the politics of these benefits.
Recipients are fearful of the cliff when the benefits end. Their
representatives hear their fear and extend the benefits. But what if the
benefits were phased out gradually?
Suppose a recipient,
entitled to $400 per week in unemployment benefits, were to receive $400
in the first week, $396 in the second, $392 in the third and so forth.
Benefits would go to zero in 100 weeks. But the recipient gets a weekly
find-a-job-and-soon reminder every single week.
Thomas Jefferson
predicted that democracy will cease to exist should the government take
away from those who are willing to work and give to those who will not.
The provision of unending benefits for the unemployed is one of several roads to ruin for our nation.
Robert D. Arnott
Newport Beach, Calif.
I believe we all agree
that a needy, unemployed individual should receive unemployment
benefits. What if the unemployed individual has a nonsalary income of
$25,000 and a working spouse making $100,000; should the unemployed
person receive benefits?
Most, if not all states,
do not use means-testing to determine if unemployment benefits are paid.
As a CPA I see situations in which one spouse has lost a job and is
collecting unemployment benefits while the other spouse is working and
receiving income. Their combined income is less than when both are
working but not so much less as to require a significant lifestyle
change. The IRS can easily determine the data on income of those
collecting unemployment benefits and provide statistics on the potential
benefits to means testing the benefit.
Dennis A. Quinn
Lemont, Ill.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 