The Employment and Social Insurance Bill. II. A Comment From the Point of View of American Opinion
Authors: Couper W. J. 
Published: October 2022

Canada and the United States seem to have accepted the principle of unemployment insurance almost simultaneously and to have recognized that a successful scheme must be substantially national in scope. The differences in the official plans, now under consideration in each country, make it of interest to trace briefly the development of American opinion, to note the different methods selected to achieve national uniformity despite the constitutional limitations on the competence of the federal governments, and to comment on certain major provisions of the Canadian Bill in the light of current American opinion.The American attitude to unemployment and unemployment insurance or relief has developed through a series of distinct stages, which may be briefly summarized. The first Unemployment Insurance Bill introduced into any American Legislature was the Huber Bill of 1921 in Wisconsin. It was patterned after the usual Workmen's Compensation Act and laid the foundation for a distinctively American belief that the primary purpose of unemployment insurance should be to promote the stabilization of employment by giving employers an incentive to avoid the small but known costs of unemployment compensation. The wide acceptance of this thesis has definitely conditioned American developments in this field. From 1923 to 1929 there developed a unanimous conviction, that there was no unemployment, and that there could be no unemployment because the United States had sloughed off the shackles of European political economy and had entered a new economic era, in which a serious recession of business was inconceivable and from which competent management would eliminate possible fluctuations in production and employment. To suggest otherwise was heresy. During this same period skilful propaganda succeeded in stigmatizing unemployment insurance as a demoralizing “dole”, destructive alike of individual character and national prosperity. So strong were the emotions associated with this belief that the discussion of unemployment insurance was hardly tolerated; it verged on sedition. After 1929 the undeniable growth in the volume of unemployment compelled the successive abandonment of three cherished principles with respect to unemployment relief: that relief was unnecessary because prosperity was just around the corner, that necessary relief should and could be provided by private charity, that necessary public relief should come from local authorities. And by 1933 the federal government was forced to assume the major burden of unemployment relief on an unprecedented scale. The propaganda of the dole came home to roost. With one-sixth of the total population on public relief, unemployment insurance again entered the realm of possible discussion. But it was necessary to effect a transition by persuading American citizens that it could, should, and would be provided voluntarily by private employers. This was faith—the testimony of things hoped for, evidenced by very, few seen experiments—and was intimately associated with the doctrine of stabilization.