De-mythifying the Heritage Foundation's 10 Jobs Myths
Published April 05, 2004
Government policies can protect and improve the job-creation environment in the U. S. and nobody has suggested that international trade be shut down.
# Heritage Myth #10: Unemployment benefits should be extended beyond 26 weeks.
Fact: Jobless benefits are already working
Once again, their "fact" does not address their "myth."
Benefits are indeed working - for 26 weeks. But we already knew that, so how exactly does it help us decide whether benefits should be extended or not? The "fact" neither supports nor refutes the "myth."
It is a fact that at midnight December 31, 2003 another 500,000 unemployed ran out of unemployment benefits. At midnight March 31, 20004, the number grew to 1,100,000 long-term unemployed American workers who had lost their benefits. The Foundation claims that extending benefits "would have little impact." Any guesses as to what this 1.1 million would say?
That's my take on the Heritage Foundation's myths.
My experience has been that claims and conclusions from the Heritage Foundation are not to be taken at face value. This whole exercise illustrates why.
But I do agree with their conclusion:
"America's workers deserve a more informative, less partisan debate on outsourcing." [Heritage Foundation]
It's just that the Heritage Foundation is not the place to find it.
(Printable version on my site - click on the printer icon on the right)
- De-mythifying the Heritage Foundation's 10 Jobs Myths
- Published: April 05, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Hal Pawluk
- Hal Pawluk's BC Writer page
- Hal Pawluk's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Does anyone know if someone whose unemployment benefits have run out, but who is still looking for work, is counted in the unemployment rate?
Generally speaking, who is and isn't counted as unemployed for this computation?
Uh, oh. This entry has been researched and contains empirical information, not some clueless clown's personal opinion. Don't be surprised if you are accused of "making up facts," Hal-:).
I am unclear on why the Heritage Foundation would come up with these myths. Is it their position that outsourcing is good because whatever American business does is good? Or, do they believe outsourcing is good in and of itself?
Unemployment doesn't matter to the Dude here. I live in California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had promised every citizen a fantastic job. So my future is looking bright! Oh, I hope he didn't mean a fantastic hand-job.
"Does anyone know if someone whose unemployment benefits have run out, but who is still looking for work, is counted in the unemployment rate"
There's really no way of knowing.
The unemployment numbers are derived from a sample of 60,000 households. If the people whose benefits ran out aren't in any of those households, they have no effect on the unemployment numbers one way or the other.
For a person to count as "unemployed" they have to be out of work, and available and looking for work (and in one of the surveyed households). Some of those whose benefits ran out will look for work, some won't.
The unemployment stat is derived as part of the government's monthly Current Population Survey, so it is not all that accurate.
The employment part of this survey, for instance, indicates that gobs of jobs have been created in the last few years. The equivalent "Establishment" survey tells us something closer to the truth. The difference is because while the "Population" survey covers a sample of about 70,000 workers then makes projections, the "Establishment" survey covers businesses with 40,000,000 employees and produces much more accurate projections.
It's not a science.
"I am unclear on why the Heritage Foundation would come up with these myths."
To protect George W. Bush, and their reputation (smirk, smirk).
They brag about Bush's economic and foreign policies being "from the Heritage Foundation's playbook" so everything that's happening has to be for the best.
The deeper reason is big business and rich, direct investors in the stock market. This includes a lot of very rich politicians (most of the 535 on the Hill) and members of the think tanks and political organizations we keep hearing from.
The neocons claim they came up with the concept of "the investor class" (or at least for pushing it to the fore, link not handy at the moment but available if subpoenaed :-). The claim is that around 60% of the US population is in this class, and that things like tax cuts for the rich are "good for the investor class" (my House Rep David Dreier told me exactly that).
What they don't tell you is that while 60% may be peripherally involved in the stock market through IRAs and mutual funds, the benefits largely go to direct investors in the stock market. That's only about 20% of the population, a number that has hardly changed over the last 50 years, when it was about 18%.
It's a con. (I'll probably blog something more on this at some point.)
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/14360)
the heritage list is definitely a case of statistics smoodging and bad logic.
another symptom of the sad state of our political discourse.