This week politicians in Canada proposed tying support for unemployed workers in crises to economic conditions. It's a great approach, and one that the United States should embrace too.
Federal governments come and go and often change our UI (or EI) benefits but we have had them for some time. I don't understand why the authors think this discussion is of such great importance.
I first came across the Sahm Rule via one of your Bloomberg articles from last year and am reacquainting myself after forgetting the specifics. Yes all the way to automatic stabilizers!
I found it interesting that the Canadian conservatives would make this law trigger at the provincial level, which would be like our states. It seems more fiscally efficient, especially if the economic fallout is hyper-localized.
All of this makes me wonder how such a discussion would go over in the U.S. if states had the same stabilizer but could “opt out.” That is what we essentially saw this year with cuts to extended benefits in some states. To prevent political or partisan interventions, it would seem automatic stabilizers would preclude provincial opt-outs.
The Conservatives must be offering these increased EI benefits as a platform for winning the next election. They have to win the election before they can implement their program for unemployment. We have had unemployment benefits for some time, since about 1940 (See https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/employment-insurance/a-short-history-of-ei-and-a-look-at-the-road-ahead/ .
Federal governments come and go and often change our UI (or EI) benefits but we have had them for some time. I don't understand why the authors think this discussion is of such great importance.
https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/employment-insurance/a-short-history-of-ei-and-a-look-at-the-road-ahead/ We have had UI (or EI) since about 1940. What is all the big fuss?
I first came across the Sahm Rule via one of your Bloomberg articles from last year and am reacquainting myself after forgetting the specifics. Yes all the way to automatic stabilizers!
I found it interesting that the Canadian conservatives would make this law trigger at the provincial level, which would be like our states. It seems more fiscally efficient, especially if the economic fallout is hyper-localized.
All of this makes me wonder how such a discussion would go over in the U.S. if states had the same stabilizer but could “opt out.” That is what we essentially saw this year with cuts to extended benefits in some states. To prevent political or partisan interventions, it would seem automatic stabilizers would preclude provincial opt-outs.
Awesome read! Sorry that I didn’t know about the Sahm Rule earlier. So cool! Thanks for explaining it clearly. I learned a lot from this piece!
Everybody has ben saying this since 2009. Don't tie relief to an amount or a calendar, but to need.