creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
David Sirota
David Sirota
25 May 2012
A Rare Admission That Money Trumps Everything Else

Headlines transmit information in its rawest form — and the best of headlines crystallize indelible truths.… Read More.

18 May 2012
Yes, We Can Walk and Chew Gum

One of the most overused metaphors in a writer's arsenal is the one about "walking and chewing gum at … Read More.

11 May 2012
Our Guns and Butter Economy

With the economy still struggling and the debates over how to fix the problem more intense than ever, one … Read More.

Why the "Lazy Jobless" Myth Persists

Share Comment

During the recent fight over extending unemployment benefits, conservatives trotted out the shibboleth that says the program fosters sloth. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., for instance, said added unemployment benefits mean people are "encouraged not to go look for work." Columnist Pat Buchanan said expanding these benefits mean "more people will hold off going back looking for a job." And Fox News' Charles Payne applauded the effort to deny future unemployment checks because he said it would compel layabouts "to get off the sofa."

The thesis undergirding all the rhetoric was summed up by conservative commentator Ben Stein, who insisted that "the people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities."

The idea is that unemployment has nothing to do with structural economic forces or rigged public policies and everything to do with individual motivation. Yes, we're asked to believe that the 15 million jobless Americans are all George Costanzas — parasitic loafers occasionally pretending to seek work as latex salesmen, but really just aiming to decompress on a refrigerator-equipped recliner during a lifelong Summer of George.

Of course, this storyline makes no sense. From liberal Paul Krugman to archconservative Alan Greenspan, economists agree that joblessness is not caused by unemployment benefits. With five applicants for every one job opening, the overarching problem is a lack of available positions — not a dearth of personal initiative.

Why, then, is the myth so resonant that polls now show more than a third of America opposes extending unemployment benefits? Part of it is the sheer ignorance that naturally festers in a country of cable-TV junkies. But three more subtle forces are also at work.

First, there's what psychologists call the Just-World Fallacy — the tendency to believe the world is inherently fair.

This delusion is embedded in our pervasive up-by-the-bootstraps, everyone-can-be-a-millionaire catechism. The myth of the lazy unemployed can seem to make sense because it connects those ancient fables to current news, effectively alleging that today's jobless deserve their plight.

Narcissism is also a factor. In a nation that typically dehumanizes the destitute Other with epithets like "welfare queen" and "white trash," our self-centered culture leads the slightly less destitute to ascribe their own relative success exclusively to superhuman greatness. The myth of the lazy unemployed plays to that conceit, helping the still-employed experience potentially scary unemployment news as a booster shot of self-aggrandizement. You remain in a job, says the myth, because you are better than the jobless.

Finally, there's raw fear — arguably more powerful than even arrogance. With the labor-market news downright frightening, the still-employed are understandably pining for a defense mechanism to cope with persistent layoff anxieties. The myth of the lazy unemployed provides exactly that — a calming sensation of control. If, as the myth suggests, the jobless are really out of work because they "are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities," then it stands to reason that the employed can avoid catastrophe by simply choosing better behavior.

The trouble, though, is that the whole narrative averts our focus from the job-killing trade, tax-cut and budget policies that are really responsible for destroying the economy. And this narrative, mind you, is not some run-of-the-mill distraction. The myth of the lazy unemployed is what duck-and-cover exercises and backyard nuclear shelters were to a past era — an alluring palliative that manufactures false comfort in the face of unthinkable disaster. Only now, our fate isn't being dictated to us by faraway Soviets — we could actually prevent a future apocalypse if more of us just accepted reality and demanded the right kind of change here at home.

David Sirota is a best-selling author whose upcoming book "Back to Our Future" will be released in March of 2011. He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

7 Comments | Post Comment
You've left out one factor--greed. If unfortunate people are to be saved from utter disaster, someone will have to pay taxes to finance helping them. And those who object to providing such help would simply rather spend their money on plastic junk from China than a civil society with a decent safety net.

Many adults today operate on more or less the level of teenagers. They want to spend their money on FUN things, not necessities, even for themselves. And they believe they're immortal and invincible, and that nothing bad could ever happen to them. So the roads and schools fall apart and the loss of a job is a major misfortune. And the temporarily lucky ones still don't get it, and won't, until it's too late. Until they're one of the destroyed powerless themselves, on the outside, looking in.

Comment: #1
Posted by:
Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:07 AM
"With five applicants for every one job opening, the overarching problem is a lack of available positions — not a dearth of personal initiative."

Hmmm...this is not wrong, but economist Thomas Sowell has mentioned something else.

There are many businesses in recession that are running on workers working overtime, and otherwise on temporarily hired workers, as per various reports. They are strained on running with few people. That's quite ironic, that in the middle of unemployment, there could be shortages of labour in various businesses. The reason businesses seem reluctant to hire anybody, as the economist says, is that they may feel certain about hiring somebody now, but not so certain about keeping him hired six months from now, or one year from now, because of frequently changing business and legal conditions that make it unlikely that a particular activity or project would continue.

Other than that, there is high school/college economics, which says this:

Workers are paid according to their value of marginal product, and if a business with strained financial resources can only keep a particular person hired at a wage above marginal product, it can either remove that person, or force more work from him for the same wage. Meaning that if people had not been fired, they'd have been working like horses right now and for 75-plus hours a week. At that level of mental, emotional, and physical exhaustion for far less rewarding pay, a man is no better off than being unemployed.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Prateek Sanjay
Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:29 AM

"... the sheer ignorance that naturally festers in a country of cable-TV junkies"

How can you tell you are reading a liberal columnist? Wait for them to say something awful about people. This guy starts right in. Geez, I'm glad our family doesn't have cable-TV.

We pay in so many ways for the sins of our welfare system; Food stamp recipients tend to be overweight and so we are all called "fat". Convenience stores post signs saying "We accept EBT bridge cards". Good nutrition there. Ever hear of a bridge card party? Don't forget free cell phones paid for by our taxes.

Strip a man of work and you strip him of dignity. Look at our culture, see Bozell today, and note what generations of free money has done to our national dignity. Dems want people to cash the check, sit on the couch, and vote democratic. Reps never know what they want.

Most people do not want to be mean. That would be the author's personal myth. Trade 25 hours of solid work for that unemployment or welfare check and everybody involved would be better citizens for it. All sides would profit and dignity would again creep into our culture.

The welfare authority demands the citizen be utterly helpless before writing a check. You may deny this, but it is true. Can you get a check to cover shortage if you have a part time job?

Those who would deny helping people in trouble are dastardly. Those who dehumanize in the name of charity are worse.

Comment: #3
Posted by: Tom
Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:32 AM
How can you tell you are reading a blog comment from a Republican? Wait for them to say something hypocritical. When do they EVER say ANYTHING that isn't awful about people? Their whole world-view is wrapped around the basic premise that the lower classes of people, the "rabble" as they used to call them, are evil and must be saved by the blessed (ie. rich and powerful).
Tom's post is nothing but a long screed which shows he is guilty of the same “crime” he accuses Mr. Sirota of.
Comment: #4
Posted by: A Smith
Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:07 PM

Another factor that your average right wing apologist serf never quite grasps is that "just get any job" doesnt work as employers do not hire feel are overqualified for a position. Somebody with a college degree or a specialized skill is not going to get hired to drive a bread truck.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Kool Earl
Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:08 PM
Sorry sport but John Stossel proved it long ago in one of his specials. Give folks the ability to leach off of another instead of working and that is exactly what they will do. I forget the city but Stossel found an homeless shelter around the corner from an employment agency with jobs they couldn't fill. He went to the shelter to find folks to fill these jobs. To a man none of them wanted to work. They only wanted a place to crash for free during a drinking or drug binge.

How many people will work for minimum wage when they can sit at home for just as much collecting unemployment for upwards of 2 or 3 years now once all of the extensions are done? Very few. The author speaks with forked tongue.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Mark
Sat Dec 25, 2010 6:57 AM
I will believe a liberal really believes his own drivel when he respects life, all life, because ultimately unless we all have the right to life and liberty that can't be taken away none of us do. See Nazis and Commies.

I will believe a liberal really believes his own drivel and cares about the common men when he points out that his standard of living has been adversely effected by the private for profit federal reserve banksters. What they have done for their own enrichment is criminal.

Yet Libs never seem to get around to these two most important issues.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Mark
Sat Dec 25, 2010 7:10 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
David Sirota
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Tom Rosshirt
Tom RosshirtUpdated 26 May 2012
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 25 May 2012

2 Apr 2010 These Devils Wear Privilege

30 Apr 2010 Past Statements Tell Present Truth About Immigration Law's Goals

4 Sep 2009 A Party Is Not a Movement