"Larry Katz" vs Larry Katz - (alternative title - "Michelle Malkin is a Moron!")

This morning Michelle Malkin was on This Week. "Why?" is a question I'll leave to those who think that the integrity of Sunday Bobbleheads is a matter of urgent inquiry. I'm way past that. Not to put too fine a point on it, Malkin made a fool of herself. Most notably, she suggested that unemployment benefits - which are likely to be extended because of worse unemployment than most of us had hoped we'd be seeing at this point - aren't alleviating the pain of unemployment but are, in fact, driving it. To ease the transition from reality to MalkinWorld, the hard-Right pit bull cited "Clinton economist" Larry Katz.

In fact, in 1990 Katz did a piece for some economics quarterly that looked at how things like people expecting to be recalled to work or how close they were to the end of unemployment benefits affected the intensity of their job searches. Not earth-shattering research, nor was the statistical evidence Katz came up with anything I'd regard even close to a case against unemployment insurance. But Malkin cited this 19-year old study, without actually citing any evidence or context or the fact that it was done nearly two decades ago, as evidence that extending unemployment benefits in the current climate is a terrible idea - sort of like giving out "government cheese" (which largesse has, unfortunately, done nothing to lower the price of Manchego, but that's my petty peeve.)

Cynthia Tucker - and the rest of the panel - countered Malkin with the obvious fact that right now, at least, there are far fewer jobs than job-seekers. You can watch the entire exchange here. But more to the point, Larry Katz - that "Clinton economist" cited by Malkin - turns up in todays New York Times and takes the opposite view of...Larry Katz. At least the "Larry Katz" of Malkin's often-fevered imagination.

Unemployment aid running out for many

By ERIK ECKHOLM, The New York Times

...

Traditionally, many economists have been leery of prolonged unemployment benefits because they can reduce the incentive to seek work. But that should not be a concern now because jobs remain so scarce, said Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. For every job that becomes available, about six people are looking, Katz said. "Unemployment insurance gives income to families who are really suffering and can't find work even if they are hustling to look," he said. With the economy still listing, he added, a temporary extension can provide a quick fiscal stimulus. And, Katz said, when people exhaust unemployment and health insurance, many end up applying for disability benefits, which become a large, unending drain on the Treasury.

"Larry Katz" will be mortified when he finds out what Larry Katz is saying about that "no more unemployment extensions" thesis of his that Michelle Malkin was propagating on my TeeVee this morning.

Comments

[Jamie]

She is way over her head in even this kiddie-pool of analysis; MM talking about a two-part idea is like a deaf person talking about music. When her opponent points out the obvious flaw in her logic she makes the completely obtuse, irrelevant point, "I'm not making a moral judgement...". Aside from the fact that she obviously thrives on moral judgements, she also has noting else to say.

[Dan Dipert]

I'm pissed at ABC and Stephanopoulus for letting that crackpot on the show.

[reg]

Dan, they've got an email window and a comments thread at the "This Week" site. Already tons of outrage from viewers for adding Malkin to the show, but every little bit helps.

[Robert F]

Blame the Seattle Times for Michelle Malkin. They gave her a start, fresh out of college, if I remember correctly. As far as I know, her only work experience is offering her commentary.

[mike in va]

Actually, if you watch the video, she does state when the study was done. Also, what Katz is saying now, somewhat refutes the study she cites. So did he change his mind? Or his politics?

[reg]

I'm sorry I missed the date. I saw the show and I watched a replay, so it must fly by. I should pay better attention. On your other point, the data he comes up with is a factor of a few days and the difference - why he hasn't had to change either his mind or his politics - is the flamingly obvious factor of what the actual labor market looks like in real time. The assertion, by Malkin, that unemployment insurance increases unemployment is marginal in the best of times and completely, patently and OBVIOUSLY loony when unemployment statistics are in double digits.

[Jamie]

She may mention a date, but she doesn't make the obvious connection that staying on unemployment vs. accepting a job offer is only attractive if the job market is very strong. Everyone else on the show attempts to straighten out her thinking by mentioning the obvious: it is currently very difficult to find a job so increasing the length of unemployment would have minimal effect on the value of a current job offer. That is why Katz didn't "change his mind", he did this crazy thing called thinking rather than cherry-picking evidence out of context to suit an ideological bias.

[Reg]

Sorry Mike, but I just looked at that video again and at no point does she date the original Katz study.

[Bri]

Katz wrote a paper in 1997 with the following result.

"The results indicate that a one week increase in potential benefit duration increases the average duration of the unemployment spells of UI recipients by 0.16 to 0.20 weeks."

Malkin was correct to cite Katz. Maybe Katz is now saying his research is crap.

[Reg]

Without bothering to compare his 1990 research with whatever he did in 1997, I'll just note that the unemployment rate today is nearly twice what it was in 1997, when it was relatively low and headed even lower.

What is crap is applying research done in a radically different labor market to the current one.

This is pretty elementary stuff...I'm kind of stunned you'd make your "argument."