Article published Tuesday, July 20, 2010, at Fox News.

Our Unemployment Insurance Addiction

By John R. Lott, Jr.

The extension of unemployment insurance benefits is expected to pass the Senate today. Despite President Obama's attack on Republicans for delaying the bill, it could easily have passed a month ago if Democrats hadn't added so many other unrelated radical measures to it -- from higher taxes to changes in the Medicare reimbursement formula.

The bill President Obama has been hammering Republicans over in the last couple of days has been puzzling since he already knew that he had enough Republican votes to overcome any filibuster and pass the extended benefits.

The problem, though, isn't that there is insufficient Republican support to pass it. The problem is that the bill will ultimately increase long term unemployment and it will reduce our GDP.

Ironically, if some of Obama's attacks are correct, Republicans can only be accused of trying to help Obama's presidency.

Suppose, as the president said on Monday, that Republicans really believe that emergency relief somehow discourages people from looking for a job If that were true, those Republicans who are opposing the added extension of benefits would believe that defeating it would lower the unemployment rate.

Wouldn't a lower unemployment rate before the November elections help the Democrats? Isn't that a sign of true bipartisanship?

It doesn't take much of a stretch to see that cutting extended unemployment benefits from at least 95 weeks to around 26 weeks will cause the unemployment rate to decline.

The length of these benefits is unprecedented, they are already over three times longer than the longest previous extension of benefits. The benefits are also larger, with health insurance also being subsidized for the first time.

This is almost like a drug addiction where the moment of truth keeps getting pushed off, with the unemployed having to accept a less desirable job than they held before keeps getting put off.

Yet, going for two-and-a-half years without a job does real damage to a worker's skills and productivity.People only get these unemployment benefits as long as they are unemployed.

Larger benefits encourage some people, who may be unhappy with their jobs, to become unemployed while they look for something better.

Others will be a little more reluctant to take a new job when they are offered it.

What is clear is that the percentage of the unemployed who are unemployed for more than six months has only increased during this recession after the length of the unemployment benefits was increased (see here).

Of course, every worker would like to hold out for a higher wage.

Unemployment benefits just let people hold out longer in hope of a better offer.

If you don't believe it, with the extended benefits temporarily eliminated over the July Fourth Congressional vacation, look at how the number of new filing for unemployment benefits has plummeted from 472,000 in the week ending June 26th to 429,000 in the week ending July 10th. That's the lowest rate in almost two years.

If unemployed Americans were solely motivated because they were having trouble finding a job, why didn't those eligible still file for benefits? You would think that they would apply for benefits whether or not it was 26 weeks long or 99 weeks.

My guess is that with the new extended benefits the number of new filings will immediately rise.

Unfortunately, despite President Obama's claims to the contrary, Republicans never really opposed extending unemployment insurance benefits.

Republicans have only asked that these benefits be paid for, and they've argued that in a $3.7 trillion budget there is surely $34 billion in there to cover the cost of these benefits.

Here is another simple prediction: as the unemployment benefits keep stretching out, the length of time that people are unemployed will go up.

John R. Lott Jr. is a contributor. He is an economist and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010), the third edition of which was published in May.".

Home (description of book, downloadable data sets, and discussions of previous controversies)

Academic papers:

Social Science Research Network

Book Reviews:

For a list of book reviews on The Bias Against Guns, click here.

List of my Op-eds

Posts by topic

Appalachian law school attack

Baghdad murder rate

Arming Pilots

Fraudulent website pretending to be run by me

The Merced Pitchfork Killings and Vin Suprynowicz's quote

Ayres and Donohue

Stanford Law Review

Mother Jones article


Craig Newmark

Eric Rasmusen

William Sjostrom

Dr. T's

Interview with National Review Online

Lyonette Louis-Jacques's page on Firearms Regulation Worldwide

The End of Myth: An Interview with Dr. John Lott

Cold Comfort, Economist John Lott discusses the benefits of guns--and the hazards of pointing them out.

An interview with John R. Lott, Jr. author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

Some data not found at

Updated Media Analysis of Appalachian Law School Attack

Since the first news search was done additional news stories have been added to Nexis:

There are thus now 218 unique stories, and a total of 294 stories counting duplicates (the stories in yellow were duplicates): Excel file for general overview and specific stories. Explicit mentions of defensive gun use increase from 2 to 3 now.

Journal of Legal Studies paper on spoiled ballots during the 2000 Presidential Election

Data set from USA Today, STATA 7.0 data set

"Do" File for some of the basic regressions from the paper