When we gave government money targeted at single women with kids we got, incredibly, more single women with kids. And when we give people money only when they are unemployed, we are going to get more unemployed. The economics of this are pretty bullet-proof. We may choose to do so because we have a humanitarian desire to cushion hardship, but we should accept that when we reduce the hardship of being unemployed, and actually give people money for not working, we are going to get more people unemployed for longer periods.
Apparently, Nancy Pelosi lives in a different world (no surprise there) there supply and demand curves slope the opposite direction.
Talking to reporters, the House speaker was defending a jobless benefits extension against those who say it gives recipients little incentive to work. By her reasoning, those checks are helping give somebody a job. "It injects demand into the economy," Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."
Pelosi said the aid has the "double benefit" of helping those who lost their jobs and acting as a "job creator" on the side.
I am rapidly approaching the point where I am ready to throw out the whole of macroeconomics as unprovable and unproductive, serving the purpose of allowing statists to do whatever they hell they want to do with some fig leaf from some goofball macro-economics theory (and if the necessary theory is not on the books, Paul Krugman, formerly a real economist, will be more than happy to whomp one up for his buddies on the Left.)