July 8, 2010 · 0 Comments
By Fire Tom Friedman:
Note: There have been no Tommy columns this week in the New York Times. So far, the only explanation for the NYT has been a note on Sunday’s and Wednesday’s editorial page that “Thomas L. Friedman is off today.” Speculation is rampant (in my house, anyway) that Tommy has been shitcanned, but Fire Tom Friedman is not ready to pop the champagne just yet. We’ll keep you posted on this rapidly developing story, but in the meantime:
To the Editor:
Paul Krugman is at a loss to explain why some people oppose extending unemployment benefits. One reason people hold such an opinion is that when government subsidizes something, there tends to be more of it.
The more government subsidizes unemployment, the more people will indulge in it for longer periods of time.
Washington, July 6, 2010
The writer is a journalism fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Ah yes. That’s right. We are suffering from an epidemic of unemployment indulgence. I mean, you can’t turn a corner with bumping into a job. But for so many Americans, the temptation to pamper themselves with $210 a week (Mississippi unemployment benefits) or $362 (Michigan) is just too great that they walk right past all those “We’re hiring!” signs on the newly erected factories and march into the unemployment office for their weekly splurge.
Some people indulge themselves with a glass of wine before dinner. Others chocolate or a nice spa treatment. Douchebags like Ryan Young indulge themselves with the fantasy that unemployment is a lifestyle choice, and has nothing to do with the fact that employers aren’t hiring.