Quoting from the same source:
The ‘´conservative´s data says:
[the] end of extended unemployment benefits at the start of 2014 explains much of the pick up in employment growth in 2014 compared with 2013. The story would be that the end of benefits gave people an incentive to find work. Their method is to compare the change in employment in states that previously had lengthy periods of benefit duration with states where benefit duration was already short prior to January of 2014.
The argument is that in the states that previously had long benefit duration we should expect the cut in duration to have a large effect. By contrast, in the states where benefit duration was relatively short, we would expect to see little effect. This means that we should see a bigger uptick in job growth in 2014 relative to 2013 in the states that previously had long periods of benefit duration than in states that had short periods.
The ‘´liberal´s’ data says:
An unweighted average of the long duration states showed their rate of job growth increasing from 1.31 percent in 2013 to 1.41 percent in 2014. By comparison, job growth in the short duration states increased from 1.43 percent in 2013 to 1.82 percent in 2014. (The calculations run from November to November in both cases, since data are not yet available for December.)
This runs completely counter to the claim that shortening benefit duration provided a boost to employment growth. The states in which HMM expected the cuts in duration to have the greatest effect on growth actually saw less of an uptick than the states where they expected a small effect. This is consistent with prior research showing that the main impact of cuts in benefit duration is that more people leave the workforce, not that more people get jobs.
Bottom line for the ‘agnostic’:
The incentive effects ofthe elimination of extended benefits increases labor supply and contributes to keep wages ‘in line’.
Those that have a hard time finding employment drop out of the labor force and so the unemployment rate falls.