The Nobel prize in economics was awarded to Diamond for at least partly explaining this ( the same economist that Shelby blocked from becoming a Federal Reserve governor because Shelby said he didn’t know anything about monetary policy and this was no time for on the job training). The more generous unemployment benefits are, the slower the return to employment; sounds like common sensew. Obviously, that’s in the aggregate and not intended as a slam aginst anyone and out of work Freepers in particular.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2010/press.html
“The Laureates’ models help us understand the ways in which unemployment, job vacancies, and wages are affected by regulation and economic policy. This may refer to benefit levels in unemployment insurance or rules in regard to hiring and firing. One conclusion is that more generous unemployment benefits give rise to higher unemployment and longer search times.”
Yea, that’s my first thought on the unemployment weeks...if you keep paying people not to work, their willingness to work will lessen. The basic question that they ask themselves is this: If I ‘make’ $12 an hour by not working, why should I take this job for $10 an hour...and I’ll only take that $15 an hour job if I REALLY need the money, since I will net only $3 an hour over not working.
(and all that assumes no under-the-table work too)
Thanx.