21 thoughts on “Economists’ Public Letter on Recovery Policy: State Aid, SNAP, UI”

1. macroduck July 20, 2020 at 12:38 pm

   That’s a pretty decent list of signatories. Unfortunately, your target audience may not recognize that fact. Or care.
   1. dilbert dogbert July 20, 2020 at 3:22 pm

      The only signatures they recognize are those at the bottom of the check.
   2. pgl July 20, 2020 at 3:28 pm

      Menzie put this letter up before with a few notable signatures. There are now a lot more including:

      Barkley Rosser
      Professor of Economics and Kirby L. Cramer, Jr. Professor of Business Administration
      James Madison University

      Not to pick on my Econospeak colleague but his name does add weight to this. Whose name was not on this? Kudlow, Luskin, Moore, and the other 3 stooges. Which means the logic of this letter must be sold.
2. Moses Herzog July 20, 2020 at 1:51 pm

   I want to make clear that this is not a criticism of economists or the profession. People cannot control how others react to their advice anymore than a semi truck driver can necessarily control a car wanting to drive into the blindside of his trailer. But I think these letters do nearly nothing in terms of changing or effecting policy. I think corporate lobbyists are the ones pulling the strings, and have been since at least 1981, and easily arguably before that. But I do applaud economists for getting their opinion out there and on the record, to make transparent the lie legislators often make that “economists say” or “economists tell us”, and then fill in lawmakers’ own selfish propaganda in the blanks. I hope no matter how “moot” these letters are in terms of effecting policy, economists of moral valor will keep making and writing and disseminating these letters like the ones above, to “call out” the legislators for the pathological liars they are.
   https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190805.922868/full/
3. sammy July 20, 2020 at 2:30 pm

   Unemployment currently pays about $1000 per week, or $25/hr,. for not working. When it was $400 per week, or $10 per hour, it was a kind of holy grail for restaurant workers. They would beg to be let go for reasons that would qualify for Unemployment. Even if they were fired for cause they would appeal and always won. I would place ads for workers and 50% would not show up for the interview. At first this confused me, until I learned that recipients were required to look for work and go to interviews. They were afraid they would be offered the job and be ineligible for Unemployment thereafter. If someone’s resume stated they were laid off from their previous job, I would count on a no show interview. I could only imagine the situation when their fallback is $1,000 per week or $25 per hour for sitting at home.
   1. Moses Herzog July 20, 2020 at 4:53 pm

      @ sammy
      Do you count this as “waffling” sammy?? Or simply cowardice and complete lack of a moral compass?? Should he wave his w**** [edited, MDC] daughter’s display Bible around at the nearby Church?? What do you advise your golden calf deity to do now sammy??
      https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1285306992857354245

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt9wNQd7LgY
   2. pgl July 21, 2020 at 12:59 am

      “At first this confused me”

      Among other things that confuse poor Sammy. Counting backwards from 100 by 7 and of course summing 2 plus 2.
   3. baffling July 21, 2020 at 9:00 am

      sammy, if you could not hire workers it is because the market is telling you something that you seemed to be too thick to understand. you were not paying enough money to work under current conditions at your establishment. many other restaurants easily employ people. so the only thing that comes to mind is that sammy was a lousy boss that most folks were reluctant to work for. time to face reality sammy, rather than find excuses for why people did not like to work for you. improve your personality, quit thinking of workers as disposable commodities, and you probably can hire a good workforce.
      1. Willie July 21, 2020 at 11:29 am

         Free markets only work when the peasants grovel for their gruel, doncha know? If the peasants’ labor suddenly is worth more, then the free market isn’t working properly as far as people like Sammy are concernet.
   4. macroduck July 21, 2020 at 11:54 am

      “If someone’s resume stated they were laid off from their previous job, I would count on a no show (sic) interview>” Well, among the many hundreds of resumes I reviewed, I’ve never seen one that explicitly indicated someone had been laid off. And when I hired, I never found much difference between people I hired away from another job and those I hired off the jobless roles. I think sammy does not have much real experience with resumes or hiring. But then, most of what sammy has written here is bunk.

      Many businesses which hire minimum wage workers don’t want resumes. They have an application form which includes former employment and job references.

      That $1000 figure sammy cited? How many states pay $1000 a week? New York, which is among the most generous, is right there. Alabama pays a maximum of $265 per week, so even with the federal supplement of $600, that’s only $865, and not all of that ends up in the recipient’s pocket. Alabama’s minimum is $45 – add that to $600 and you get…sammy?…sammy? OK, let me help. $45 + $600 = (sammy?…no?) $645. Not $1000. New Mexico’s minimum? $169. Indiana? $50. And so on.

      sammy, can you use the equation I provided to find the weekly benefit for those who receive the minimum state allotments for New Mexico and Indiana? sammy…?

      Finally, sammy seems unfamiliar with the limits on unemployment benefits. A job, even at minimum wage, can last a long time. Unemployment benefits typically last a few months, and don’t lead to eventual higher pay the way a job can. In most states, unemployment benefits are only available if one paid into the state unemployment fund a year ago. Going for long periods on unemployment, even with brief interruptions for work to re-establish the right to a benefit, is a practical impossibility.
      1. macroduck July 21, 2020 at 12:28 pm

         I’m sure everyone here except sammy knows this, but for sammy’s sake, I’ll just point out the obvious. The maximum benefit, which in some but far from all cases amounts to around $1000 per week, goes to those who earned well while employed. They will mostly be eager to get back to jobs which pay more than $1000 per week plus benefits. Minimum wage workers, on the other hand, earn the minimum benefit.

         sammy has asked us to believe that minimum wage workers are receiving $1000 per week in jobless benefits. There are two possible explanations for such an outrageous error – ignorance and dishonesty. sammy?…
         1. sammy July 21, 2020 at 5:59 pm

            macroduck,

            sammy has asked us to believe that minimum wage workers are receiving $1000 per week in jobless benefits.

            I agree that it is unbelievable that minimum wage workers are getting $1000 per week. Here is how it works:

            Your weekly benefit amount is 1.25% of your total base year wages. Oregon law sets the minimum and maximum amounts you can receive.

            https://www.oregon.gov/EMPLOY/Unemployment/Claimant_Handbook/Pages/Section-1-Filing-for-Benefits.aspx

            Oregon minimum wage for 2019 was $13.25. so $13.25 x 40 hours = $530 x 52 weeks = $27560 X 1.25% benefit rate =$344/ week unemployment benefits + $600 =$944. The market had driven the hourly rate over $13.25 anyway, here in Portland, which is why most are getting around $1000-$1040 per week
            1. baffling July 22, 2020 at 12:49 pm

               “Oregon minimum wage for 2019 was $13.25.”
               that is not the oregon minimum wage, that is specific to portland area only.

               by the way sammy, you never answered the question. did it ever occur to you that you could not hire people because you did not offer enough money for them to deal with a turd for a boss? its a free market. you are free to offer any legal wage you want. workers are free to tell you to go piss into the wind. a boss who continues to offer wages that are refuted by workers is not a very good manager. probably while you had so much turnover to begin with.
4. Moses Herzog July 20, 2020 at 7:07 pm

   People need to get ready, because this is on its way, and if people aren’t willing to take to the streets in mid-November, and possibly even consider the use of physical force if donald trump denies the legitimacy of democratic elections, people need to be willing to “go there”:
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBawFoC6jlY

   If he has federal agents in unmarked cars (similar to Putin in Crimea) willing to enact violence on regular citizens in Portland, and military generals are willing to escort him with the command of thugs to physically attack protesters in Washington DC, that physical force has to be matched “in kind”.
5. Moses Herzog July 20, 2020 at 7:37 pm

   These are the 4 women on Biden’s short list if I am understanding it correctly. I am happy to be corrected or set straight if this list is somehow incomplete:
   Susan Rice
   Stacey Abrams
   Val Demings
   and (puke) Kamala Harris.

   I see only two on the list of 4 that I consider qualified for the job. Susan Rice and Demings. And as I have stated before Susan Rice FAR outshines any of the others. I just don’t see how you choose anyone other than Rice, when you’re talking about filling in or substituting as “leader of the free world” and you have the oldest candidate to ever take office. I think Demings is sharp of mind and can handle the job, but outside of picking Susan Rice, the other three women are a total crapshoot on what your direction looks like when these women are heads of state, and anyone outside of Rice becomes President in a war situation—do you wanna see what equity markets look like on that day?? Because I sure as hell don’t. You can wave around all the “BLM” signs you want and markets are going to tank quicker than you can say “market panic” if Stacey Abrams is leading this nation in war time.
   1. Barkley Rosser July 21, 2020 at 10:52 am

      Those are the four black women on his list, Moses. I gather Warren is still on it and also maybe Duckworth. The pressure is strong to pick one of those four, but that remains not a done deal.
      1. pgl July 21, 2020 at 11:56 am

         MSNBC had a list of 12 women up for VP nomination. 12 is not a short list. We need a program to sort this out.
         1. Barkley Rosser July 22, 2020 at 1:52 pm

            Moulitsa over at Daily Kos claims that the shortlist is down to six, and no longer has Warren on it, no white women at all, which may not be accurate. I have long thought Warren would be good, but also Harris or Rice would be good. According to a recent poll on DK before the possible disappearance of Warren, those who answer polls at DK, whno long favored Warren and Bernie for the presidency, it was Harris on top for VP with 37%, followed by Warren with 25%, and then Rice with 15%, and the rest all trailing in low single digit.

            I think Biden wants somebody who has had serious national level experience or credibility, including some executive experience, which means that Abrams is also not on that DK short list. The list of six according to Moulitsas is Harris, Rice, Demings, Bottoms of Atlanta (the “four black women”), then Duckworth, and Lujan, the gov of New Mexico. So, if that is correct,. no Warren and no Abrans, with probably it getting down to Harris versus Rice as the ones with real serious experience.

            I note that both have “baggage.” Harris’s is both some bad decisions made in the past as DA and AG, as well as her sharp criticism of Biden during the first prez debate, although there is evidence that she has been forgiven for that. For Rice, aside from never having run for office, an issue for sure, there is, wait for it, the ultimate bs item, but the GOP will hammer it to death if she is the VP nominee, BENGHAZI!!!

            BTW, at one point the Biden people made noises about wanting somebody who had also actually run for prez and thus having faced that level of vetting. That means that if Warren is really gone, Harris is the only one left who has faced that, at least on that list of six Moulitsas is putting out. Rice is super competent, and I have met her and agree (and I am not saying that just to turn a certain person here off to her, I mean it). But she has never run for office, much less the presidency of the US. Harris has.
   2. macroduck July 21, 2020 at 12:47 pm

      I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do have a suspicion. Biden is polling well enough, and is enough of a Party guy, that he is probably looking beyond November in thinking about a running mate. Who helps his Party most after November?

      At his age, his VP’s electability is probably a big concern. The idea of electability is kind of fake – nobody knows much – but Biden is a politician and probably thinks he knows. Will he choose Rice when she has never run for office, much less won? Val Demings? Several election victories, police chief (bit of an excessive force problem), swing state. And so on.
   3. macroduck July 21, 2020 at 1:07 pm

      Oh, and Biden is apparently reaaly focused on down-ballot gains, so he might look favorably on a running mate from a state in which a Democrat might flip a Senate seat. Just a guess.
6. joseph July 20, 2020 at 7:55 pm

   Your audience might think pro-cyclical is good!

   Why use an inside baseball term when you could just stick with the simple explanation? Who do you think your audience is?

Comments are closed.