McArdle on Drug Addiction, Sequestration, and Unemployment

A few of the postings by Megan McArdle this week. She always has interesting things to say.

There's a Reason That Addicts Say Yes to Drugs

But from talking to friends who developed more-than-recreational habits, and observing the behavior of addicts worldwide, it seems obvious that they do find the drugs even better than jobs, wives, friends, and health. It isn't that they don't want those other things, too, but at the moment of choice, they prefer the drugs. [snip]

From the point of view of the addict, drugs are great. He doesn't have a drug problem: he has a reality problem.

Comment: Drug addiction, although much worse, has this in common with over-eating--short-term pleasure too often overwhelms the long-term gain of abstinence.

The Administration's Thin Complaints About the Sequester

[re proven-to-be-false claims about teacher layoffs and janitor pay cuts]: these aren't matters of opinion where the administration can simply argue assumptions; these are easily checkable statements with hard numbers attached. From this I infer that the administration is having a hard time finding concrete examples of bad things that the sequester is going to do. Nor is that a huge surprise. Whether you're for or against the sequester, we are talking about relatively small sums, in the scope of the federal deficit. They're simply not going to show up in much measurable way as devastating hardship.

Comment: we've said as much, along with thousands of commentators and politicians from both sides of the aisle. Why does an Administration with smart people (whether you agree with them or not) make such dumb claims that can quickly be disproved? They're dissipating their capital needlessly.

The Federal Government Should Hire the Long-Term Unemployed [bold added]

No, I'm not talking about WPA jobs (though I also think that those sorts of jobs would make a fine alternative to unemployment insurance). [snip]

But even now, with governments cutting back, there are government vacancies being filled. Why not institute a special preference for people who experienced long-term unemployment between 2009 and 2013? We already have preferences for veterans and the disabled. It would be easy enough to make long-term unemployment a similar "plus factor". Unless you believe that the employer bias against the long-term unemployed is entirely rational--and I am pretty skeptical about this--then this sort of preference should be an all-around win. It wouldn't, by itself, be enough to solve the problem. But even a small start is worthwhile.

Comment: one may think that there's too much public-sector spending and employment. However, as long as there are government vacancies, why not give a preference to the long-term unemployed? Of course, they still must be qualified to do the job.