Living off of unemployment "living the dream"?

[David Atlee]

From my blog at http://theatleeappeal.com

As most of you who have been following this site now for at least the last couple of weeks know, I moved into a new apartment complex on the outskirts of downtown Buckhead a couple weeks ago. I got back to my apartment last night after a great weekend being home in Jacksonville, FL. One of my buds said, "Atlee, I've got something to tell you that I heard at the pool today." I'm hoping to hear something along the lines of free tickets to the the college football game of our choice. Instead I was told something that made my blood boil. My friend told me he was talking to a kid who was roughly around the same age as us, 24, about work. This kid, who we shall name Mooch, explained that he had been laid off from his job a while ago and was living off of unemployment benefits. Mooch explained to my friend that he was getting just enough money to pay the bills and provide himself with beer on the weekends. Then Mooch said, "I'm just livin' the dream." Fortunately, I was not there when this waste of taxpayer dollars explained how living off of other people's income was "living the dream" or an unpleasant scene might have erupted.

Now, let me be clear about one thing before I get attacked by the super-sensitive in the crowd. I do believe that extraordinary times call for extraordinary actions. In a time as say, the mid 2000s or 90s when unemployment was extremely low, there really was no need to have large unemployment checks available to people. Now, in today's current economic condition, I believe some help is necessary. However, there must be a way to keep a low life like Moocher from obtaining someone else's hard earned money. For instance, mandatory drug tests for anyone applying for unemployment would be a good place to start. A credit check in order to ensure the federal government isn't handing out cash to dead-beats. Employment history - has this person had a stable work history? If someone has a criminal record, they should not be eligible for unemployment benefits. Another possibility would be to issue benefits through some type of debit card which can be canceled the second an unnecessary purchase is made (such as booze). Then, once people do start receiving unemployment, they can receive unemployment for no more than 4 months. If you bust your butt hard enough, you can find a job within 4 months - even if that means waiting tables. This is the real world. The real world does not have time to feel sorry for you. Successful people make life happen. The unsuccessful sit and complain that life happens to them.

Over 2 weeks ago, the new jobless claims report was released. Reuters reported that unemployment insurance claims rose by 2,000 to a total of nearly 500,000 people filing for unemployment benefits. The market was trading at around 10,675 around the time the news broke, according to Yahoo! historical charts. Today, the market closed at 10,174.41. The New York Times reported that "nearly half the 14.6 million unemployed have been out of work for more than six months, a level not seen since the Depression." Back in July, Obama signed an extension for the "long-term" unemployed of another 6 months of free money at the sound of $34 Billion according to the Washington Post - extending unemployment benefits to a staggering 99 weeks (or nearly 2 years). What incentive does someone with the mindset like Moocher have to work hard and find a job if he knows that he can "live the dream" for 99 weeks? This is unbelievable.

But, liberals and weak-kneed Republicans like Olympia Snow and Scott Brown believe this is a good thing. "Yeah, if those people have money, they will spend it! That will keep the economy from collapsing!" This all goes back to the broken window parable illustrated by the great Frederic Bastiat in his epic book "What is Seen and What is Not Seen". Bastiat's short parable explained that there was a kid who broke a window pane in his father's shop. The rest is from Bastiat himself:

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

This is the basis for Keynesian thought which is the underlying assumption in these unemployment benefits. Politicians in Washington think, "If we keep giving these people money, then they will spend it which will cause money to circulate throughout the economy which will be a great thing!" And, on the outside, it does look like a good thing. However, that money has to come from somewhere. The government does not create wealth. The extra $38 Billion used for unemployment benefits had to be extracted from people who actually have jobs and are paying taxes on their income. As with the case for the man with the broken window, the money that he could have used on another item or to re-invest in his business had to be used to fix the window. The money that a business owner could have used to re-invest in his business or spend on his own has now been taken from him in hopes of someone else spending that money in the name of unemployment benefits. Something tells me Mooch is not at all familiar with these principles. Because certainly, there is nothing "dreamy" or incredible about supporting your lazy lifestyle with the forcefully-taken-capital of us employed taxpayers.