by David Bass | Sep 29, 2020
The unintended consequences of generous unemployment benefits
By David Bass
This year has seen some of the most generous unemployment benefit checks since the Great Recession in 2007-2009—and with good reason. As the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic has put 20 million Americans out of work, and over half-a-million right here in Georgia, the need for robust help is pressing.
Currently, the maximum weekly unemployment benefit available in Georgia is $665, a combination of $365 in state compensation and $300 in federal dollars (due to a recent executive order from President Trump). Earlier this year, the total package was even more generous at $965 due to $600 in federal unemployment checks (a benefit amount that expired on July 31).
This means that an unemployed individual could qualify for the equivalent of a $16.63 per-hour job right now. Not every worker will qualify for this maximum amount because unemployment insurance payments are based on recent earnings over a 52-week period. According to U.S. Department of Labor data, Georgia’s average unemployment is closer to $225 a week, for a combined value of $525 per week when mixed with federal dollars.
What’s more, the federal $300 per-week payments are only guaranteed for three weeks, although it is likely unemployed individuals will receive them for a longer period of time. Also, workers who are receiving less than $100 per week in state unemployment payments are ineligible for the $300 federal payments, meaning that many low-income, part-time, or seasonal workers will likely not qualify.
Do higher unemployment payments have unintended impacts?
These more generous unemployment payments raise an important question: Are there unintended consequences? The answer is clearly yes.
As scholars with the American Enterprise Institute have documented, generous unemployment checks contribute to both delays in workers re-entering the economy and ultimately the economic rebound itself. Workers are not to blame—if your only job options pay less than unemployment compensation, it makes sense to delay joining the workforce again. In many situations, this is the case: One analysis from the University of Chicago concluded that two-thirds of workers eligible for unemployment benefits would receive a benefit amount that exceeds their previous pay.
These unintended impacts are another example of a welfare cliff, the idea that welfare programs often punish efforts to work—due to dramatic drops or “cliffs” in benefits as a recipient’s income increases, even by just cents per hour. For more information on welfare cliffs, visit WelfareCliff.org.
Georgia employers are feeling the crunch
If our goal with unemployment insurance is to serve as a bridge for workers during hard times to propel them back into employment, then our current response is not working properly.
Buffalo Rock Pepsi in Columbus, Georgia, shared with the Georgia Center for Opportunity team that it has had a challenging time this year filling positions for warehouse workers and warehouse coordinators. The resulting shortage of workers has put a strain on existing staff.
Ankerpak—a third-party packaging, fulfillment, and storage facility also based in Columbus—is experiencing similar roadblocks. The company has struggled to fill assembly line positions, and it identifies the high value of unemployment benefits as a primary reason. “Due to challenges presented by lack of staffing, we are nearly 20 people short on a regular basis. We are unable to meet our customers’ demands and/or deadlines, putting us at risk of losing business during these trying times,” the Ankerpak team shared with us.
A way forward
We are not advocating against unemployment insurance or proposing cuts, but it’s clear the existing system has unintended negative impacts. Ultimately, the right question to ask is this: What is the purpose of a public service like unemployment insurance? If it is to truly be a safety net, we must address the problem of when a safety net becomes a snare to keep hard-hit populations trapped in cycles of poverty.
Any true solution to this problem must be local and homegrown. This is where Hiring Well, Doing Good (HWDG) comes in. HWDG connects local job seekers with the training and support needed to not just find a job, but a job that leads to a sustainable wage and a meaningful career. Cooperating on a local level, HWDG brings together individuals, companies, nonprofits, and other service providers to solve unemployment and help people achieve a flourishing life.
Ultimately, the goal of unemployment insurance should be as a bridge to return to the workforce. Local initiatives like HWDG are a catalyst for that return reentry into the labor force in a better job with an upward trajectory.
DISINCENTIVES FOR WORK AND MARRIAGE IN GEORGIA’S WELFARE SYSTEM
Based on the most recent 2015 data, this report provides an in-depth look at the welfare cliffs across the state of Georgia. A computer model was created to demonstrate how welfare programs, alone or in combination with other programs, create multiple welfare cliffs for recipients that punish work. In addition to covering a dozen programs – more than any previous model – the tool used to produce the following report allows users to see how the welfare cliff affects individuals and families with very specific characteristics, including the age and sex of the parent, number of children, age of children, income, and other variables. Welfare reform conversations often lack a complete understanding of just how means-tested programs actually inflict harm on some of the neediest within our state’s communities.
by Corey Burres | Sep 22, 2020
Welfare Without Dignity Doesn’t Work
By Corey Burres
I drove through my neighborhood and saw dozens of tents lining the wooded area near my home. I realized there were families and single mothers living in these tents. My heart broke. How did we get here? When did we start to accept this for those in our communities?
I know from our work at Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO) there are local and governmental services available. I know there are many community groups and philanthropic organizations working to address the basic needs of shelter, food, and health. But I question if these systems address the issue of dignity.
Dignity is a word we throw around a lot at GCO. It’s a core value for our team, but it is also a core component of how we choose to view others. It is a driver, yes, but more importantly, it is a goal. We can address needs and make some headway, but until we restore dignity to individuals we will continue to fight an endless battle. Government safety-net programs are not designed to restore dignity. That is a problem.
Without finding self-worth and dignity in what we do, we continue to seek “just enough.” If we truly want those around us to thrive, we must create systems that seek to do more than simply appease a need. We must create systems that see the value of peoples’ humanity and desire for them to move into a vibrant and thriving future.
The fact of the matter is that systems like Medicaid, food stamps, and other programs are not designed to move people into a better life. Instead, they are a stop-gap that simply meets an immediate or temporary need.
If we truly want those around us to thrive, we must create systems that seek to do more than simply appease a need. We must create systems that see the value of peoples’ humanity and desire for them to move into a vibrant and thriving future.
In the case of temporary unemployment or hard times, this is sufficient and works as intended. It’s why many people tout the effectiveness of these programs. They do work—for some.
However, in the case of intergenerational or long-term poverty, the result is marginalized groups systemically stuck—trapped in dependency and without hope.
And that is what I see when I pass these tent cities. These are our neighbors who have surrendered to a way of life, one that we desperately hope our own loved ones will never experience. The tragedy is that our political leaders have done just enough to appease them.
True compassion says we should hope for them to move off government assistance programs and feel the sense of dignity and belonging we want for everyone.
Over the next month, we are going to highlight changes to assistance programs that will remove the traps in our safety-net systems. We will highlight local support networks that view the individual through the lens of the dignity that they deserve. And we will bring together the business and community leaders leading the charge at Breakthrough.
Will you join us?
by Buzz Brockway | Jun 9, 2020
The Georgia Department of Education (DOE) last week released guidance for local Boards of Education to consider as they develop plans for the 2020-2021 school year. “Georgia’s Path to Recovery for K-12 Schools” (www.georgiainsights.com/recovery.html) does not issue mandates to local school systems, but rather guidance, expecting that situations on the ground will be different in different parts of Georgia. This requires locally elected School Board members to take the lead and chart a clear reopening plan for their schools. Additionally, leaders of Georgia’s private schools could refer to this document when considering how best to bring students back to campus.
Parents need to see clear, easy to understand plans to give them comfort that their children will be safe, and in an environment where they can learn. Teachers need guidance on how best to prepare for the upcoming school year. Teachers also need to know what gaps developed in their student’s education during the shutdown. Students and teachers were forced to adjust to remote learning on the fly as the COVID19 pandemic swept across the country. Some thrived in the online environment. Others did not. A lot is riding on the 2020-2021 school year. School leaders and local Boards of Education have an important task in front of them.
The DOE document contains two main items. First schools and school systems should determine if their community has substantial, minimal/moderate, or low/no spread of COVID19.
What constitutes substantial, minimal/moderate, or low/no spread is not explained. Admittedly, defining these terms is difficult, however, the lack of definition creates the possibility that what one local school system considers substantial spread, another considers low. School Leaders and Local Boards of Education need clarity on what these levels of spread mean.
Once a school or school system determines which level of spread exists in their community, DOE provides guidance on what the school day might look like for schools in the various spread levels.
Areas of the state with substantial spread are encouraged to exclusively use a distance/remote learning model. Education could be delivered by the school or via the Georgia Virtual Academy (www.gavirtuallearning.org), or a combination of both. Clearly internet access will be very important in delivering distance/remote learning. Schools will need to tackle this issue head-on for students with limited internet access.
In areas with minimal/moderate spread, a student’s school day could consist of the distance/remote model, the traditional model, where a student is in the classroom with live lectures by their Educator, or a hybrid model with distance/remote learning at certain times, and traditional classroom learning at other times.
For students in a school where the spread is considered low, their school day would be largely as it was in the days before COVID19. Except perhaps with certain precautions like social distancing, facemasks, and extra cleaning of the school facilities.
Additional detail on these two main items, including suggestions for dealing with a new COVID19 infection, can be found in the complete guidance document (link above).
An additional challenge for schools and school systems reopening plans is understanding the mood of parents. Will parents feel safe sending their children back to school? Crafting detailed plans for what the school day will look like, what precautions will be taken to reduce the chance of infection, and what protocols are in place should a student or adult become infected, will be of paramount importance.
A glimpse into what parents in one part of Georgia are thinking can be found in a survey conducted by Forsyth County Schools. 12,350 people (approximately 75% of whom were parents not employed by Forsyth County Schools) responded to the question “What is your comfort level with students returning physically to school in August?”
42 percent were either extremely or very comfortable with students physically returning to school in August, while 39% were slightly or not at all comfortable. Another 19% were moderately comfortable. Forsyth County Schools has not issued a definitive date for reopening. It would seem parents need to feel more confidence in the school environment before schools reopen in Forsyth.
Giving the rapid pace of change in regard to the COVID19 pandemic, schools and school systems would be wise to prepare for many different scenarios and develop many trusted sources of information to make decisions. Clear and regular communication with parents will be crucial to increasing parent’s comfort level in sending their child off to school.
https://www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/cms/lib/GA01000373/Centricity/Domain/28/4th%20Quarter%20Online%20Learning%20Survey%20-%20Final%20Results.pdf
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Oct 26, 2016
In the dust-up of this election year, education settled near the bottom of the heap of news headlines. Before the final presidential debate, a Politico banner read, “Will Trump and Clinton Ever Debate Education?” Both candidates have education policy proposals, but these ideas have been buried under column inches devoted to hacked emails and sordid trysts.
Education may not be in the headlines now, but learning is front and center for parents and families across the country every day. And no matter who is elected, states and the federal government stand to ask taxpayers for another $600 billion or more next year to cover the educations of some 50 million students.
So, what could Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s education proposals mean for taxpayers and parents?
In September, Donald Trump announced that he is in favor of school choice. Before we celebrate, know that Trump volunteered taxpayers to pay $20 billion to provide more choices in education for low income students. The money will purportedly be repurposed federal funds—not requiring new money—yet this proposal is a stretch.
The largest portion of federal money for K-12 is directed by Title I of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Washington’s education law, and totals approximately $15 billion, a figure close to the amount Trump plans to redirect. Last year, Congress fought for months over whether Title I could be repurposed as a school choice option for families. The proposal eventually failed.
Thus, Trump says he can do what Congress couldn’t with a significant sum of federal education money. Herein lies the problem with federal officials trying to meddle in issues best left to states, like education: It’s easy for a Washington lawmaker to overestimate his ability to build consensus around ideas he may like and underestimate the drudgery of the deliberative process.
Such drudgery has a purpose, namely to protect individuals and their interests by requiring lawmakers to engage in intentional, consensus-building efforts first. Even if he can build a consensus in Congress, Trump would have to convince state leaders that his idea would not interfere with states’ school choice programs, like Georgia’s tax credit scholarships or Special Needs Scholarship Program.
Furthermore, regulations inevitably follow money from Washington. President Obama signed ESSA in December 2015, and education officials around the country are still deciphering what the law means for states. We may not see the full litany of regulations until November, nearly a year after Congress voted on the law and the president made ESSA official.
Hillary Clinton has designs on more taxpayer money at the pre-kindergarten, K-12, and postsecondary levels. She plans to require taxpayers to pay for preschool for all 4-year-olds, regardless of a child’s learning needs at that age; spend more taxpayer money on computer science and school facilities; and allow taxpayers to pay tuition for college students coming from families making $125,000 or less.
While Trump’s promises are too broad to help states’ different needs (and expensive), Clinton’s are too specific (and also expensive). The job market changes too fast and Washington moves too slowly to adequately forecast future needs. Meanwhile, ideas like more money for school buildings are hardly innovative but surely expensive. The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henniger wrote recently that Clinton’s campaign promises amount to “pouring more federal money down the public-schools mine shaft.”
Regardless of what happens November 8, parents and state lawmakers should not expect the White House to solve the problems presented by only 37 percent of high school seniors being prepared for college work. Parents need quality opportunities to prepare their child for the future, whatever it may hold. State lawmakers should continue to broaden students’ horizons with education savings accounts and individual course choice options and protect existing learning opportunities like charter schools and private school scholarships.
Lawmakers’ responsibilities—especially state lawmakers’ responsibilities with respect to Washington—are to protect individual liberties and restore them as needed, no matter who sits in the Oval Office. Or perhaps because of who sits there.
Jonathan Butcher is a contributing scholar for the Georgia Center for Opportunity and Education Director at the Goldwater Institute.
The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Georgia Center for Opportunity and are not intended to aid or hinder any political campaign or the passage of legislation before the US Congress or the Georgia General Assembly.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Mar 21, 2016
Like many observers, I was surprised and appalled by the events in Chicago a week ago, when Donald Trump’s campaign cancelled a rally in the face of concerted, well-organized protests both inside and outside the venue. Well, perhaps I shouldn’t have been all that surprised. It was a college campus, after all, and our students have become all too proficient and shutting down and shouting down speakers they don’t like. Donald Trump just received the same treatment campus social justice warriors have been meting out to a long and distinguished list of speakers. There’s nothing special about Trump in this regard.
But this isn’t another essay about the intolerance of campus activists or about the violence associated with Trump rallies, or even about the perfect storm that can be created when those two forces collide.
It’s about the First Amendment, which Trump invoked in responding on Twitter (apparently his favorite medium) to the events at and around the cancelled rally. Here’s his tweet: “The organized group of people, many of them thugs, who shut down our First Amendment rights in Chicago, have totally energized America!”
Some observers have been quick to point out that the First Amendment only protects speech against (some) government restrictions, not against private individuals or groups that interfere with your ability to speak your piece. Stated another way, neither side in a cacophonous shouting match is depriving the other of any First Amendment right, however both might in certain circumstances have a claim against government agents who sought to silence them.
So Donald Trump was speaking loosely on Twitter, which is par for the course, both for him and for his chosen medium of expression. But he actually was onto something that lawyers or pedants like me who sometimes try to sound lawyerly in front of a classroom all too frequently forget: a bill of rights, of which ours is an outstanding example, isn’t only the basis of an actionable legal claim. It is also meant to teach us which of rights are most important, which we should be most jealous of, and which we should respect in our daily lives as neighbors and citizens. In other words, a bill of rights can teach us what to cherish, both for ourselves and for others.
Let me explain by recurring to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. In the first chapter, Mill writes of a number of developments in “the struggle between Liberty and Authority,” the first of which was “obtaining a recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights, which it was to be regarded as a breach of duty in the ruler to infringe.” Such a bill of rights—think of the Magna Carta as a prime example—historically preceded other measures to protect individual liberty, like institutional checks and balances and representative government. Indeed, even at the time of the American Founding there was no necessary connection between arguments insisting on the necessity of a Bill of Rights for the new constitution and those suggesting the advisability or necessity of judicial review. The former wasn’t thought necessarily to imply the latter as the principal vehicle of enforcement.
So what was, then, a Bill of Rights? It was an attempt to list the rights that the people regarded as most important to protect, by one means or another, from government encroachment. It was certainly addressed to those who exercised political power, warning them that such encroachments would evoke a response. But it was also addressed to the people, reminding them of the rights they should cherish and defend, so that any government attempt on them would indeed evoke an appropriately vigorous response. We’re not just supposed to wait for someone else to protect our rights, but, knowing what they are, we’re supposed to take it upon ourselves jealously and zealously to guard them.
The almost inevitable consequence of this jealous and zealous defense of rights is that it might be invoked in “technically” inappropriate contexts, against other citizens rather than against government. But this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, if it prompts, not litigation (all too often Trump’s first recourse), but a little self-reflection. Perhaps we can remind ourselves, or perhaps we can be reminded, that the rights we cherish for ourselves we ought properly to cherish for everyone. When I claim freedom of speech for myself, I should remember that my freedom is not mine alone, but everyone’s. As I demand that my rights be respected (in the first instance by government, but ultimately by everyone), so I should respect the rights of others.
One possible result of loose rights talk, corrected not by lawyers, but by (say) political theorists or historians, is an appreciation of the roles that mutual respect and civility play in facilitating the speech that makes self-government possible. Here both Donald Trump and his detractors have a thing or two to learn. For Trump, while it’s entirely appropriate to be indignant when someone interrupts you, it’s altogether inappropriate to threaten or encourage a violent response. (In fact, if you want to get technical or legalistic here, the kind of speech in which Trump engages in response to hecklers approaches incitement to violence, which is potentially actionable and is not protected by the First Amendment.) For the protesters and hecklers, a decent respect for one’s fellow citizen requires that you let the man speak. If you disagree with him, find your own forum, don’t try to hijack his.
Courts in any event should be our last resort, especially if we cherish our rights and demand that others respect them. Above all, we should make ourselves worthy of respect, or, if you will respectable. That ought to be the first lesson of all our rights talk: with rights come responsibilities.
by Kimberly Sawatka | Feb 22, 2016
As a military brat sacrifice was my middle name. My siblings and I spent many family events, recitals, school plays, family dinners and holidays without my dad. We became exceptionally good at packing up our lives every couple of years and starting over in a new place, including a new school. This often meant in the middle of the school year too.
In each duty station we faced new challenges such as making new friends, finding someone to eat lunch with in the school cafeteria, and most of all worrying if we would be ahead or behind in our studies as part of a new class.
My parents would spend hours discussing our education with new teachers in order to figure out what learning track or reading group we needed to be added to.
Today, Georgia legislators are considering a bill that would ease the burden on military families as they are often required to move to multiple areas and schools.
Sen. Hunter Hill has introduced Senate Bill 395, the “Junior G.I.” bill, to allow the children of veterans, active duty military, national guardsman, and reservists to attend the school of their parents’ choice – using the money the state is already spending on their education in their current public school.
Students would not have to attend public school in order to be eligible, allowing those just moving to military bases around the state of Georgia to also participate in the scholarship program.
As a now military wife and mom, I see the benefits a program would have had on my education over the years, but also the positive impact that this could have for my child.
The military does not just enlist the service member, but the whole family – including the children. Let’s show our support for our service members and their families by contacting state legislators in support of the Junior G.I. scholarship program.
