Just how broken is Unemployment Insurance? Consider this: During every recession since the 1950s, the federal government has had to step in and prop it up. Of people looking for work, only half qualify for Unemployment Insurance. And just half of those actually receive benefits. That’s what you get from a system designed mostly for factory workers nearly a century ago and then left to the heedless care of states. Benefits vary wildly by state — $235 a week in some, over $800 in others. Most states have — understandably — taken the lesson that they don’t have to fix anything because Washington will step in if the economy gets really bad. This is a scrap-it-and-start-over situation. Many solutions would be better, including a system focused on re-employment that keeps workerbots attached to the labor market, helping businesses prevent layoffs during downturns, and making job-hunting less awful.

The economic pain that Americans experienced in 2022-23 was dubbed the “vibesession,” suggesting that negative public sentiment was out of sync with a healthy economy. But what we were truly experiencing was more like a “ghost recession.” As the Fed squeezed the economy by raising interest rates from zero to above 5% to get inflation under control, only the extraordinary circumstances of the post-pandemic economy kept unemployment low and the economy growing. But if we had a ghost recession, that also means that the nascent 2024 “ghost recovery” screeched to a halt with the radical changes to economic policy this year. Also in this episode: What it means that 911,000 fewer jobs were created from spring 2024-2025, and many metaphor try-outs.

Revenge of the Vibecession | The New Yorker Birth-Death Model FAQ

THE THIN END OF THE WEDGE definition in American English | Collins English Dictionary

Economists’ models of inflation are letting them down [The Economist 2019]

You might have heard recently that a years-long poverty study “found” that giving $333 monthly to kids with poor parents didn’t make a difference. But here's why that’s the wrong takeaway: The "Baby's First Years" study wasn't designed to test cash payments. It is multi-year, ongoing scientific research into how poverty affects child development. Researchers found "selective impacts on preschoolers' brain activity with possibly different impacts across brain frequency bands" — which roughly translates to "this is incredibly complicated and we're still figuring it out," not "money is useless." And yet this rigorous research got reduced to a talking point amid an ongoing policy debate on child tax credits and what it means to lift kids out of poverty.