<p>I would "advise" to wait... a few more years! From the figure you provided, there is a perhaps slow but visible rising trend (with business-cycles-like "seasonality") for both the long-term and the mid-term unemployment rate, a fairly stable trend in terms of steepness over 60 years. The sudden peak of long term unemployment in 2009 is impressive but it also fell sharply in the next three years. To me, it appears <em>critical</em> to know the unemployment rates for the next four-five years, in order to decide whether we have a structural break with the historical rising trend becoming more steep, or just a few-years-incident due to the crisis.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-20T13:03:09.830Z
Well, but independently of whether it's a structural break, or a "few-years-incident", it would be interesting to know *why* it happened, which is what this question is after - as opposed to the question "is this going to be an ongoing phenomenon or not".
FooBar
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-19T14:41:15.527Z
2015-04-19T14:41:15.527Z
Alecos Papadopoulos
<p><a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w20273" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kroft et al</a> document the raise of long-term unemployed in the US during the recent crises. This is an impressive figure from their paper:</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/5YUmk.png" alt="Time Series: unemployment rates"></p>

<p>They show that the raise does not come from compositional effects. However, they cannot find <em>the</em> reason for this phenomenon. For some reason, apparently, long-term unemployed are less likely to find a job, and hence their stock accumulates.</p>

<p>Potential reasons I could think of are</p>

<ul>
<li>Human capital deterioration </li>
<li>Discrimination of employers</li>
<li>Shrinking motivation of searching </li>
</ul>

<p>What other reasons does the <strong>literature</strong> find? Is there <strong>empirical support</strong> for any of this?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-05T14:59:56.027Z
I'd go with your reason number three; see the last paragraph at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#Eligibility_and_amount.  Note the 99 weeks for `some workers`.
RobEconomix
<macroeconomics><reference-request><labor-economics><unemployment><empirical-evidence>
Reasons for the recent rise in long-term unemployment
FooBar
# Reasons for the recent rise in long-term unemployment

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-04-19)

[Kroft et al](http://www.nber.org/papers/w20273) document the raise of long-term unemployed in the US during the recent crises. This is an impressive figure from their paper:

![Time Series: unemployment rates](https://i.sstatic.net/5YUmk.png)

They show that the raise does not come from compositional effects. However, they cannot find *the* reason for this phenomenon. For some reason, apparently, long-term unemployed are less likely to find a job, and hence their stock accumulates.

Potential reasons I could think of are

* Human capital deterioration
* Discrimination of employers
* Shrinking motivation of searching

What other reasons does the **literature** find? Is there **empirical support** for any of this?

**Tags:** macroeconomics, reference-request, labor-economics, unemployment, empirical-evidence
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I'd go with your reason number three; see the last paragraph at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#Eligibility_and_amount.  Note the 99 weeks for `some workers`.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-04-19. Score: 1

I would "advise" to wait... a few more years! From the figure you provided, there is a perhaps slow but visible rising trend (with business-cycles-like "seasonality") for both the long-term and the mid-term unemployment rate, a fairly stable trend in terms of steepness over 60 years. The sudden peak of long term unemployment in 2009 is impressive but it also fell sharply in the next three years. To me, it appears *critical* to know the unemployment rates for the next four-five years, in order to decide whether we have a structural break with the historical rising trend becoming more steep, or just a few-years-incident due to the crisis.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Well, but independently of whether it's a structural break, or a "few-years-incident", it would be interesting to know *why* it happened, which is what this question is after - as opposed to the question "is this going to be an ongoing phenomenon or not".  

---

