4

Unemployment begets unemployment

Last June we reported, along with Pro Publica, on the cracks starting to show in the unemployment benefits system. Today we have a follow up. Those cracks have ripped the whole thing wide open.

Take a look at the map. In 25 states, the unemployment trust funds have run out of money. Those states are borrowing from the federal government to pay benefits. Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York and California are currently borrowing more than $2 billion each. More from Pro Publica:

According to our projections Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Massachussetts, New Hampshire, Tennesse, and Vermont will find themselves in the red within six months.

How did it come to this? For starters, the unemployment system established in the 1930's gave states a wide latitude. They each came up with their own way of doing things. But the federal government encouraged states to keep a certain amount in reserve for a rainy day. The states didn't listen particularly well, and in the 1970's, many state trust funds went bust. They had to borrow from the feds then, too.

Some states learned their lesson. Others did not. From our story last year:

As a result of the experience, some states, such as Oregon, changed their laws to ensure that money would be available for unemployment insurance when they needed it...

Other states did not plan as well. Many have been maintaining close to zero reserves for years, well before the economy headed south. California, for example, got into trouble by raising benefits without increasing taxes. Other states, like Michigan, lowered taxes to unsustainable levels and watched their reserves dwindle.

On the map, notice what color Oregon is and what color Michigan and California are.

Guess what the "in the red" states are doing now? They're raising unemployment taxes -- in some cases, big time. Indiana jacked up its tax on employers 35% last year. Businesses in 36 states face tax increases this year. They range from a few dollars per employee to more than $1,000. From Pro Publica/USA Today:

In 2009, the average business owner paid $95 per employee. This year, the tax will be $171, according to estimates by the state workforce agency. "It's another added expense to hiring somebody," Miller says. "Everything's going up, and business is going down."

Similar tax increases are hitting employers nationwide this year as states struggle to pay the 5.5 million Americans currently collecting state jobless benefits.

Some states are already at or near the highest payroll tax rate allowed by law. In addition to taxing businesses, states are cutting or restricting benefits. For example, Pennsylvania unemployment checks will be 2.4% smaller starting this month.

To sum up:

  • States have to borrow more money from a tapped-out federal government.
  • People without jobs are seeing their benefits shrink.
  • Employers are getting soaked with new taxes, which deters them from creating jobs. It might even mean they have to cut more jobs.

I don't hear many solutions to this problem. A couple come to mind. One -- if they aren't going to do it on their own, states must be forced to maintain a level of reserve. Two -- the whole system needs an overhaul with federal consistency and a rethinking of the level/duration of jobless benefits. There may be other solutions.

What do you think?

About the author

Russ R's picture
Russ R - Jan 20, 2010

Scott,

Tbe link you have for the map doesn't go anywhere. This is the correct link:

http://www.propublica.org/special/is-your-states-unemployment-system-in-...

The biggest question I have at this point is:

Would the new unemployment taxes be less or more than current payroll taxes?

Several reasons of why jobs haven't bounced back are because of outsourcing and employers who want to squeeze more productivity out of thier remaining workforce. It also doesn't help that there's no real "upward" trend right now that encourages people to invest and expand.

Given the latest problems with Healthcare, Education, and now Unemployment wouldn't a reevaluation of the obligations of the State and Federal governments to the people be a good idea? I realize that the States would be giving up some autonomy in exchange for financial security, which some States would find abhorrent. If we can make Unemployment, Healthcare, or Education work better by running it at the Federal level as opposed to the State or Local level, wouldn’t that be worth trying?

Scott Jagow's picture
Scott Jagow - Jan 20, 2010

Thanks for your thoughts, Russ. I just checked all the links and they work fine. Might've been a weird hiccup. But they are all working on this end.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous - Jan 20, 2010

I think the benefits of federal consistency are far outweighed by the negatives resultant from the inability of the federal government to enact necessary legislation unless it contains huge subsidies to industry. At least if we leave it to the states we won't be stuck with another unsustainable federal mandate.

xu jiang's picture
xu jiang - Jan 20, 2010

According to the law,government should pay unemployments benifits.But now more and more people lose their jobs and put a heavy burden to the gocernment.And our government only think about increasing taxes,which makes business goes down.
I think it's right to pay benifits to unemployments.But it's more important to creat more jobs to decrease the number of jobless.If everyone can get money without working,nobody will work.So encouraging people to work can help government pay less.And rising taxes will only damage business and at last,government will lose a lot taxes.