Digging Holes in Oregon

brokenmoney.serendipityThumb Digging Holes in Oregon…The Governor’s plan for the unemployed will deepen the pit.

Governor Kulongoski has a plan to save Oregon’s sorry economy: raid the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund of a total of $90 million. Forty million dollars would further extend unemployment benefits “for 11,000 unemployed Oregonians who face the loss of benefits in that time period, provided no additional benefits are made available by the federal government.” He would use the other $50 million to pay thousands of Oregonians to work at unknown community projects or to go into training programs.

His plan (House Bill 3500) aims to create 7,100 jobs for individuals who are receiving unemployment insurance (UI) benefits, paying between $8.40 and $10 per hour (which is more than average benefits) and providing transportation and childcare for up to 2,500 low-income individuals in the program. Each participant in the job creation program could get an additional $2 per hour placed into an Individual Education Account if participants jump through a few hoops.

While this expensive feel-good project is slightly more thoughtful than some previous “stimulus” legislation and other UI extensions passed in Oregon earlier this year, it is, nonetheless misguided. The program will not help Oregon’s astronomical unemployment rate (topping 12%, the second highest in the nation, after Michigan). Instead, it will cost employers, and ultimately employees, in addition to Oregon as a whole.

The plan would bleed the UI Trust Fund of another $90 million in a matter of months. While the fund is currently at a hefty $1.5 billion, employers will still pay for the $90 million with inflated payroll tax rates because the UI Trust Fund is fashioned to maintain a certain girth. Oregon’s UI Trust Fund is on an automatic schedule, set by statute, to increase or decrease enough to keep the fund large enough to pay benefits for 18 months at levels of high unemployment.

Employers may write the check for payroll taxes, but typically it is the worker who pays by taking home lower wages. Taxing wages lowers the demand for work. In some cases, that may mean employers cannot afford to pay for more help. But typically, employees pay through lower wages because the supply of work responds much less to a slight decrease in pay. This trend has been confirmed repeatedly.

In other words, the higher the payroll tax, the more that an employee loses in wages (except to the extent that an employer’s payroll tax rate is higher than other employers in his industry because of his higher rate of layoffs). Accordingly, when the state increases or expands UI coverage, ultimately workers foot the bill.

Likewise, expanded UI coverage has bad overall effects on the state, too. Increasing unemployment benefits (either the duration or the size of payments) consistently leads to longer terms of unemployment because they discourage workers from conducting a higher intensity job search. Unemployed workers who receive benefits take more than twice the time to find a job than those who are not eligible to receive benefits. Since this bill increases the duration of benefits for thousands of workers, and it increases the size of benefits for many by creating jobs that presumably will pay more than ordinary UI benefits, it will further delay many workers’ reentry into the market and their leaving the government dole. If employees would search harder, employers could fill positions faster and total unemployment would shrink, causing national productivity and wealth for everyone (including workers) to increase. While unemployment still would remain higher than usual because of the recession, economists have demonstrated time and time again that generous UI increases unemployment in times of recession.

Nor can Kulongoski’s HB 3500 hide behind the guise of stimulus. Contrary to rumors, UI provides little stimulus to the economy. It increases consumption, but it also increases unemployment and decreases private investment. Spending money to sustain a person who is not working is not an investment in economic growth. In fact, for every dollar that the federal government spends on UI, GDP expands only around 25 cents. Likewise, spending more in Oregon on UI benefits is a poor use of limited resources. There are many other ways to stimulate the economy that would give a considerably higher return.

The best aspects of the bill can be better applied elsewhere. For example, Oregon should resuscitate its JOBS Plus program which put UI workers back to work, at a subsidized rate for employers who agreed to train workers with valuable skills, approved of by the proper government entities. JOBS Plus was very successful at teaching workers skills, helping them find long-term employment, and helping many people out of poverty. Likewise, the JOBS Plus jobs met a real need in the market.

The real monetary value of the community project jobs that Kulongoski wants to create cannot be known, at this point. But the plan, however well-intentioned, is misguided. Increasing benefits’ duration and pay will ultimately increase unemployment and the burden on businesses throughout the state. In the meantime, our Governor assures us that the jobs would be needed and valuable. But basic reason shows that many of these jobs likely will not even be worth minimum wage, because the work would be free for the organizations purchasing it. Perhaps the unemployed will find themselves digging holes and refilling them, the sort of useless thing that only a government would buy.


To access sources used for this commentary, click here.


Christina Martin is Director of the Asset Ownership Project and a policy analyst for the School Choice Project at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

tt twitter big4 Digging Holes in Oregon tt digg big4 Digging Holes in Oregon tt facebook big4 Digging Holes in Oregon tt reddit big4 Digging Holes in Oregon

Posted by at 05:30 | Posted in Measure 37 | 1 Comment |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Wow – Leave it to good old Ted to find yet another outrageous notion that is just plain offensive.

    You know when your friend Roy gets laid off at the rubber plant and collects unemployment? You know how everyone stands around and says – “oh hey Roy, you know its totally cool, I mean you paid into that program so I mean there is nothing wrong with collecting unemployment”

    Well, that’s a bunch of BS. Roy didn’t pay into that program, I paid into that program, I’m Roy’s former employer. As an employer I am assessed unemployment insurance, which I am forced to buy from one provider, the state, at gunpoint. If I lay someone off, my rates go up, if I don’t, my rates go down. If Ted decides to buy votes, say by extending benefits, my rates go up. In essence its a combination insurance program and political slush fund. Politicians can raid it any time they want to, pretty much like Bernie Made-Off, and use it to extend benefits to buy votes or like Ted wants to do and provide make work jobs. It’s outrageous.

    In the end though, it certainly makes some other things pretty clear. Unemployment insurance has a good side, it does provide a cushion for those laid off. However the fact that it also provides a political slush fund, as Teds attempts demonstrate, should give one pause and think of the ramifications of government running other forms of insurance, such as health care.

    Hmmmmmmm, I wonder if we have national health care if gun owners would have to maybe……oh I don’t know… say have to pay some additional tax….you know….because of all the ER visits from accidents with guns……hmmmm….I wonder. Or maybe there would be the safe homes tax credit, like if you didn’t own guns. I mean of course it all makes sense, best of intentions you know.

    *Acknowledgment* – I firmly do acknowledge that my criticism of Teds expansion of unemployment means that I am criticizing a government program, as such that should be taken as a criticism of the existence of government in any form whatsoever even as far as the shell on a snails back could be taken as an excessive form of control over the individual snail and thus would be something I am thoroughly against with every fiber of my body.

    I also acknowledge that since I made a reference to a guy named Roy who worked for an employer, that should be taken to mean that I hate anyone who is an employee and also hate anyone who is not a filthy rich business owner. In short, my criticism of unemployment insurance being used for other than its originally understood purpose should be taken, by extension, to mean that the only thing Bush 2′s presidency could be faulted for is it failure to bring back Saddams infamous plastic grinders so that they could have been used on all “working people” thus eliminating them, eliminating my need to pay unemployment insurance, and feed my cats at the same time.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)