Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
BeShirtHappy
13460 Followers
Lauren Elder
3046 Followers
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12951 Followers
Financial Highway
1566 Followers
rufiohoJul 21, 2010
Does the shark live on land?
batonryeJul 21, 2010
Does a kid become lazy and entitled when living off their parent's money?
joculatorJul 21, 2010
Oh yeah, $400/wk....whooohoooo!
zacharytelschowJul 21, 2010
That's a $10/hour "job." That sure as hell creates a great incentive to not bother looking for work, particularly if you can provide for your basic needs without dipping into your savings.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
affectJul 21, 2010
Not when one was making a salary equivalent to 45$/hour. Who can live off a 10$/hour paycheck?
birch25Jul 22, 2010
My wife and I have been living for the past 6 months at 9.75/hr (40 hours a week) and we've been able to get by, but not easily. Every single unnecessary expense is eliminated and we've had to accumulate a bit of credit card debt just to get by. We bought generic everything from WalMart, despite our mutual distaste for the company. We learned to maximize our enjoyment of board games and simple dinners since going out to eat or paying for entertainment were expenses we simply couldn't bear.
Basically, you can sometimes get by on $10/hr but the quality of life that goes along with that is not something most people would put up with for longer than needed (save for a few who are freeloaders and would take advantage of any system in place).
P.S. I was just recently promoted and am making twice as much money and life is so much better :)
doctechnicalJul 21, 2010
There are a couple billion people on this planet that could live very happily off a $10/hour paycheck and would give their eye teeth for it.
Just because you don't want to do it don't assume it can't be done.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Let's see, spend all my time working a $10/hr job.... or spend my time working towards getting a $45/hr job while collecting unemployment.
norman619Jul 21, 2010
Really?
LOL!!! No way in hell can I survive on a $10/hr job.
pjhorrexJul 21, 2010
@doctechnical
Those couple billion people on the planet that could live on $10 an hour don't live in the United States. In many areas of the country living on $10 an hour is impossible.
What do you do when the area you live has been gutted for decent jobs and your mortgage is under water? You certainly can't sit around lazily living the rich life on $400 a week; a situation that isn't exactly a unique one in the country right now.
gerz1219Jul 21, 2010
That's not the point. There are five applicants for every job in America. Even if *everyone* who was making $45/hour was willing to accept a 78% paycut, it would quite literally be impossible for them all to do so. The jobs don't exist. There's no s**tty job for the mythical unemployed welfare queen to settle for.
If there were five jobs for every applicant in America and we were paying people to sit around making the equivalent of $10/hour, then those who oppose unemployment benefits might have a point.
kornbred79Jul 21, 2010
Yes, because it perfectly reasonable to assume that I can afford my mortgage, kids tuition, insurance, utilities, food, and other necessary expenses after my income has been cut by 75%.
Of course, I guess it is my fault for not living like I was expecting to suddenly lose my job....
mrjohoJul 21, 2010
good luck living off a 10/hr paycheck in an outlying NY burrough, paying for Cobra and supporting a family of 3. Oh, and don't forget to take the taxes out of that before you cash those checks. Now assume you need to keep a cellphone up and running as well as a website/printed resumes. Good luck with that.
Now if you live in your parents basement and use their insurance and have a s**t car and commute to the grocery store I'm sure you can stretch your 10/hr paycheck, oh except when they tell you you are now parttime, cause they don't want to have to pay payroll taxes for a full time employee, and now you have to beg your folks for money to go to work where you eat s**t food and die!
shadusJul 21, 2010
Fast food jobs in many major metropolitan areas pay better than that... so no, 400$/wk isn't really enough to live on for most people in the US.
There is nothing less than 1200$/mo in the north santa cruz area in california... $1200/mo is my mortgage payment on my house in ohio... where you can rent for ~$600/mo with 5x the sq ft of the santa cruz appt. Lets also not forget you don't get $400 after tax... you get $400 before. You'll lose nearly ~70-120$ in tax.
I've been on unemployment, it sucks. If it paid 75% of your wage or something, yes people would milk it... as it is, it's not an option for the vast majority and in many cases where both spouses are employed that $10/hr lets them slowly bleed money or barely break even with the other spouses income and keep their home, cars, etc.
thelakeshowJul 21, 2010
I am completely lost with these comments.
I live in San Diego, one of the most expensive cities in the US, and I could DEFINITELY live off $10/hour. In fact, I do.
If you can't afford shelter/food/clothes for 400 a week, you are not spending your money correctly. Minimum wage is barely $8!
If you chose to have kids, you should have already had a job to cover them. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pjhorrexJul 21, 2010
@theLakeshow
"If you chose to have kids, you should have already had a job to cover them. "
Clearly those on unemployment with children had a job to cover the costs of raising them... Because they're on unemployment.
norman619Jul 21, 2010
theLakeshow:
Funny thing that. I am from San Diego. Recently left cuz the cost of living was getting to be too much. A KID can survive on $10/hr with roomies or living with parents. Adults with responsibilities like a family to support and a car payment, mortgage, and other stuff on the other hand not so much. It's called perspective. I suggest you get some.
ericccJul 21, 2010
I currently know several people who are admittingly choosing not to actively search for employment because because they are enjoying getting money for doing nothing. I can't possibly be the only one.
I don't think it's right, but it obviously does happen.
gguillornJul 21, 2010
I live in NYC which is another one of those insanely expensive cities. If you have a $10 an hour job and you work a 9-5 five days a week, that's $1600 a month. After rent (and we're talking about really cheap), you're left with $1000 dollars. Now factor in utilities, groceries, transportation, and other necessities. This leaves you with practically nothing. And I'm looking at this from the perspective of a college kid who has no dependents and is grudgingly willing to have one or more roommates in a s**tty, far away, and dangerous neighborhood.
jrackowJul 21, 2010
Wow, I'm overwhelmed with how many people disagree with you. I make about 16 an hour and my wife and I try to live frugally. We don't have everything, but we're certainly not struggling. Part of that is due to the fact that we don't spend when we don't have (anymore, that is) 10 an hour for not doing anything is pretty nice. It's more than minimum wage.
mrjohoJul 21, 2010
@jrackow:
where do you live? do you own your home? what are the local property taxes like? Do you maintain any credit cards or student loan debt? Do you have an inheritance, investment portfolio? does your business provide medical? dental? do you have insurance?
of course you can't understand if the answers are:
midwest, own, moderate, modest investments and some savings accruing interest, insurance provided by employer.
Until you answer these questions you can't equate your experience to those posted above.
beratebirthersJul 21, 2010
And yet people are against a living wage. $10 an hour is pathetic for a minimum wage. $25 an hour would be a start.
norman619Jul 21, 2010
Berate:
Nope. Minimum wage is what you see in jobs traditionally help by kids. No company should be forced to pay someone $25/hr to bad groceries or flip burgers. Sorry but no. You clearly have no idea how bad that would be. PLUS unemployment is not your salary. It's basically a hand out from the government. It is not meant for you to live on. It's meant to give you a little extra cash while you get off your ass and find a real job.
greevarJul 22, 2010
Who has savings? Not me.
orlandogeekJul 22, 2010
@norman619 - No, unemployment is *not* just a handout from the government. Maybe you're confusing this with Welfare? Unemployment comes from your wages while you are working and is paid back to you if you lose your job.
beratebirthersJul 22, 2010
"Minimum wage is what you see in jobs traditionally help by kids"
So kids shouldn't be allowed to live on their own? Be independent? What happened to personal responsibility? Why not treat them like everybody else?
Besides, I'll ask again, why is unemployment LESS than what you made before. You're not only having to live the same lifestyle but you HAVE TO LOOK FOR A JOB. That costs money too.
http://digg.com/business_finance/355_A_Week_Is_Tough_But_It_s_Even_Harder_Without_It?t=33763794#c33763794
themazzterJul 21, 2010
I only make slightly more than that after taxes with a real job!
norman619Jul 21, 2010
Where do you live and what's your job?
solkreJul 21, 2010
and who is your daddy and what does he do?
norman619Jul 21, 2010
Solkre:
LOL!!!!
mrjohoJul 21, 2010
like i asked jackrow:
@TheMAZZTer
where do you live? do you own your home? what are the local property taxes like? Do you maintain any credit cards or student loan debt? Do you have an inheritance, investment portfolio? does your business provide medical? dental? do you have insurance?
of course you can't understand if the answers are:
midwest, own, moderate, modest investments and some savings accruing interest, insurance provided by employer.
Until you answer these questions you can't equate your experience to those posted above.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atarioJul 24, 2010
How much you get per week depends on how much you made normally. It's always a tiny fraction of what you're used to, trust me.
apocadallJul 21, 2010
I get $208/week... :(
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
still better than some places. $135/week (7,020/year) for social assistance in some places. Or put another way $3.38/hour in an area with a minimum wage of $10.25/hour. These people aren't lazy - they're just doing their best to stay afloat.
jackparadiseJul 21, 2010
Minimum wage is $7.50 per hour, not $10.25.
gguillornJul 21, 2010
I honestly don't understand how people survive on $7.50 an hour. I guess it depends on where you live, but I don't get how people in expensive cities manage.
Closed AccountJul 22, 2010
@jackparadise http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/info/minimumwage/
You're info is about 2 years out of date.
twinklyjesusJul 21, 2010
It's $400 every TWO weeks.
diuleiJul 21, 2010
Nope, when I was on unemployment it maxed out around $400 per week in CA. Is that why we're broke?
nidstylesJul 21, 2010
That and the councilman worth 800K a year apparently.
bryanscott85Jul 22, 2010
it varies state to state
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
yes, I'm sure you'll head right out and get a job at McDonalds or Burgerking for 8 or 9 bucks an hour working in french fry greece for 40 hours rather than sit on your ass for a government check.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gerz1219Jul 21, 2010
McDonald's is hiring 7 million new workers?
They must be planning quite an expansion, seeing as how they only employ about 500,000 people in the U.S. right now.
kornbred79Jul 21, 2010
And fast food places are hiring full-time employees all the time, amirite?
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Every fast food restaurant close to my home in georgia is hiring, as well as many bars and finer dining establishments. Georgia was hit pretty hard by this financial crisis.
Many of which I worked at to pay my way through school.
These jobs aren't beneath me and if you think they are beneath you then it probably explains why you don't have a job.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gerz1219Jul 21, 2010
I love how conservatives think there's an infinite amount of s**t work to be done.
The fast food restaurants by *you* may be hiring, but nationwide McDonald's employs 500,000 people, and they expand their workforce at a rate of about 4% per year. There are 6.8 million long-term unemployed people in this country right now, and the number is probably closer to 8 million because of the people who have stopped looking. This country has enough fast food locations. We don't need thousands more, which would be necessary to create enough jobs to put the unemployed back to work. There's no demand there.
You know how they announce employment figures every month? Those include fast food jobs. Liberals don't have some separate fantasy job creation numbers that exclude fast food labor just to make it look like there's no work. There really is no work. There are not enough fast food job openings every month to employ 6.8 million people.
imricJul 21, 2010
Gerz1219 - don't worry. I'm from Georgia myself and Codeandoptics is full of it. Hell, you can tell especially because he thinks that times of financial crisis stimulate demand for luxury items.
I can tell you that here in Atlanta fast food places are _closing_, not hiring 24x7. And the only way a FF job could pay for living is if you had free shelter and probably board. Explains his perspective, as that's he way he 'worked to pay his way through school'.
It's far more likely that that's the way he came up with beer money.
gguillornJul 21, 2010
McDonald's doesn't pay nearly enough to cover my beer budget.
kornbred79Jul 21, 2010
Even if they are hiring, are they hiring full time employees?
Making $10/hr and working 20 hrs/wk with absolutely no benefits is not helping my family get our feet back on the ground.
specimen7Jul 21, 2010
$400 a week and you can also work a part time job and possible a second part time job if you get paid cash.
kornbred79Jul 21, 2010
Your weekly unemployment payment, at least in Ohio, is reduced by any part-time payments you receive.
So if I was getting $400/wk in unemployment and I took a part time job that pays me on average $200/wk, my unemployment payment would adjust to $200/wk/.
skubiszmJul 21, 2010
He said if you get paid cash. He is implying under the table part time work that wouldn't be on the books. Like waiting tables and only getting paid tips and not reporting them.
norman619Jul 21, 2010
So in other words hiding your other income. LOL!!!
bustaballsJul 21, 2010
That's more than twice of what I make.
raskaliJul 21, 2010
I think employment encourages laziness. I can't tell you how many people I see at work sitting on their fat ass reading the paper, or surfing the net. How many hours a day do most people actually put in of real work, three maybe four hours?
smackydoodleJul 21, 2010
You could not get anything.
s0nicfreakJul 21, 2010
Sure, you won't be able to pay your iphone and xbox live bills, but that is WAY more than enough to live on.
mrjohoJul 21, 2010
unless of course you need your phone to get a new job. sure you might lose your data plan, and other amenities of the plan, but honestly that's not nearly enough to maintain a baseline existence and allow the pursuit of a new job and keep your insurance.
s0nicfreakJul 22, 2010
I have gotten a job with no phone and no house. I went back and talked to people after I put in my application. You could always give them a friend or family member's number.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Yeah... I'm living the high life on 250 a week. Unemployment keeps a roof over my head, my phone turned on, electricity, and gas for my vehicle. It gives me just enough to continue looking for work. It sure as hell isn't the high life. And while there might be a few bad apples who game the system, I believe that the vast majority (95%+) of claimants are using it for the purpose it was intended for.
It's easy to bash the unemployed when you have a job yourself. Living on unemployment is not fun. Especially when it becomes a partisan issue in Congress. We already have to deal with letters and phone calls telling us we "didn't get the job". We don't need to be freaking out on whether we'll be homeless on the first of the month or not.
joculatorJul 21, 2010
I'm amazed you can do all that on $250/wk.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
I live on a "best bang for the buck" philosophy. My apartment is good, clean, and 100 bucks cheaper than other complexes with the same amenities. My entire entertainment budget consists of 40 bucks for the net (which gets used heavily for job searching and resume emailing) I've simplified my life to include the least amount of risk and expense as possible.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
this is also the best business plan
solkreJul 21, 2010
You un-Americana bastard!
gguillornJul 21, 2010
Hell, you should get a job managing irresponsible people's money.
murxJul 21, 2010
Talking about the 'bad apples'.
Those people blaming them are complete tools.
Even if ONE MILLION unemployed don't want to work and take unemployment benefits it won't change the fact that more then TEN MILLION jobs are missing. If they can provide nine million jobs for the willing THEN we can start on talking about the 'lazy folks'.
Talking about lazy folks... WHO creates jobs?
The 'jobless'? Without means of production or capital to acquire them?
How many 'jobs' has Wallstreet created given the massive bailout? Given all the tax breaks and holes and safe tax havens?
Or Walmart and co giving all production to overseas?
There could be a law like - if you own 2 million in private property - you have to employ one person. And if you're Bill Gates or Steve Jobs with property - they would be forced to have several thousands - one for every 2 million. If they have property like kings and queens - they should have a court like kings and queens - and pay for them.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Why? I dugg you up, but I was on the low end of the barrel, and solely myself that brought myself up the past year, why should I help others when no one helped me? sound socialist? I was born in a communist country, and voted Obama... Why should i responsible for joe the plumber when i worked smart, and he doesn't want to self improve (ie supporting palin)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jnismeJul 21, 2010
I was with you right until the last paragraph. In a "free" society, you can't force someone to have an employee just because they are rich.
yenixJul 21, 2010
@khail250 While I agree with you, I would like to add a little bit of food for thought. There are some who work very hard and don't get very far. Here in NYC the schools do not provide youth with the skills they will need as adults, so when they grow up and get a job, they tend to get the best they can get and a lot of times that isn't enough (especially with our cost of living here). so it is helpful for others to help provide services for them. precisely because no one helped you get where you got is why you should help. because from the sound of it, you would've appreciated it. It can become a vicious cycle of "every man for themselves" if we operate on the mentality of "i didn't get help, so why should i help [those who have nothing to do with those who didn't help me]". I'm a social worker and my theory is to try and provide to others skills that I have that they have been deprived of because of my schooling background versus theirs.
@ jnisme I also agree that we cannot force someone who is wealthy to employ people, however, a lot of those people have gotten rich off of those who will work long hours for low pay who don't have many other options, so why not give a little back, since in some ways some wealthy people have used the little guy.
I enjoy the exchange of knowledge :)
overdrivenJul 21, 2010
Are you f**king kidding me? Please shut your socialist pie hole. This country was founded on capitalism. It's not my job to give underachievers like yourself a way to make money unless I choose to. It's eat or be eaten. There are so many ways to make money. If you don't have a job, get off your lazy ass and find a way to make money. There is simply no excuse for ANYONE to be on unemployment for more than 1 year. Seriously...you're truly pathetic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
imricJul 21, 2010
@ Overdriven - Shut up, f**khole. When the jobs don't f**king exist, it doesn't matter how f**king hard you look, you f**k.
And if you don't give at least baseline support, you know what's gonna happen, Mr. 'eat or be eaten'? The starving, angry hordes of people are gonna beat your flabby ass into a fine paste and then take all your stuff.
Seriously. f**k you. You and the s**ts like you are what's WRONG with the country. Your parents should be ashamed of the crappy job they did raising you.
gguillornJul 21, 2010
"There are so many ways to make money. If you don't have a job, get off your lazy ass and find a way to make money."
Like what? When people are no longer hiring and when everyone is looking for work, what are you supposed to do? Sell drugs? Rob people?
yenixJul 21, 2010
thanks imric :) couldn't have said it better myself...
overdrivenJul 21, 2010
@imric
Should I feel sorry for you because you aren't creative enough to make money on your own? See...the thing is you probably think I've never been on the other end. I was laid off from my job a few years ago. I didn't cry for handouts. I analyzed my strengths and started working for myself. I was successful because of hard work.
And as for my parents, they earned everything they have as well. They taught me that when you are in a tight spot, you work your ass off to get out of it. Are you really telling me that there is NOTHING you can do to make money? That's a lame excuse, and you would rather sit on your ass and let someone else do the work for you than really put some effort in. The truth sucks, but there it is. I take great pride in what I've accomplished, and I also take great pride in others that get up and make things happen for themselves.
Great example: there is a local guy who has a family and was laid off. He couldn't find a job. So what did he do? He went to all the local auto shops and made deals with them to get rid of their scrap metal. He collects it in the back of his truck every day and recycles it. The result? He's making $50,000/year and feeding his family. THAT is what I'm talking about. You want to sit on your hands and complain that there is no way to make money? Fine. Don't expect me to give the results of my hard work to you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
imricJul 22, 2010
@overdriven - is that all you've got? I'm working right now, moron. Been working for years. I'm a professional with 30 years of experience.
So - the your answer to there NOT BEING ANY WORK is to make up jobs from nowhere and you'll be making 50k a year? I'm glad you told your little fairy-story. You just pissed away any credability you THOUGHT you had.
But no, you think unemployment insurance that hard working people have paid into - from working - is 'welfare' and 'charity' for lazy folk.
assh**e.
overdrivenJul 23, 2010
@imric...
Let's get down to the heart of the matter...you're a loser who will never rise to anything more than mediocrity, and you hate people who are driven and successful.
And yep...it's welfare when you are on it for 2 years. I feel sorry for you. I really do.
imricJul 24, 2010
Boy OD you are a moron. Ive owned my own business, I've already made it in this world. I won my own house, free and clear, I'm an expert in my field and in demand.
But then, you've already shown that you don't read, and can't handle simple addition and subtraction. (you cannot comprehend that there are fewer opportunities than people) You hate the very idea of folk feeding their children and keeping shelter ofver the heads of people who's lives YOU'VE ruined through your (and those righties like you) deregulation of commonsense things and your consistent favoring the extremely wealthy over the poor.
You are a poor excuse for a human being; your parents should be ashamed.
Why do you hate Americans, and America?
ammundsenJul 21, 2010
So you get the necessities of life in exchange for no work? That seems like a pretty good deal. It might not be the 'high life' but you aren't having to work to sustain yourself. Most people throughout history would consider that privileged. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
outlawsundownJul 21, 2010
Seriously you want a country without any form of assistance for it's citizens move to f**king Somolia.
rattusrattusJul 21, 2010
I was unemployed for about 9 months in 2001 and it sucked. They used my average income over a year to calculate my benefits, and prior to my first real job, I was working for 6.25 an hour at some TacoHut, which effected the amount I got. I ended up having to shell out $600 for a lawyer (my boss did little to nothing to train me at my job--had I not decided to quit, so it looked better on my resume, I wouldn't have needed a lawyer) to even get my benefits. It was the only time in my life that I was carried a $2,000 balance on my credit card and made minimum payments. I had to get a forbearance for my student loans.
People also forget the absolute monotony of sitting at home (because you don't have money to do anything), punctuated by occasionally getting dressed up for a job interview. Then there's the flood of rejection letters you keep getting in the mail. I was absolutely miserable when I was unemployed.
omgscienceJul 21, 2010
@shulkman
Looking at your profile it sure seems you are spending allot of time on the internet... I'm glad our $250 is keeping you connected.
treehugger87Jul 21, 2010
Can I point out that 100% of your unemployment income is going directly back into the economy? You are living frugally, but helping support dozens of taxpaying individuals while you are at it.
Good luck finding work. I hope your search is short!
quarterbrewJul 21, 2010
Can I point out that 100% of that unemployment income is going directly toward our growing national debt, and without cutting costs somewhere else in the federal budget, it is more of a hindrance on our economy than a benefit.
Republican congressmen didn't want to flat out CANCEL the benefits, they just wanted them to be debt neutral, the same thing Democrats argued for with Health Care.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kornbred79Jul 21, 2010
You honestly think it is more a hindrance on our economy then having millions of jobless Americans becoming homeless?
treehugger87Jul 21, 2010
@quarter. If there is a way to reduce the deficit, then it surely does not involve putting Americans out on the street during the worst financial crisis in nearly 100 years.
orlandogeekJul 22, 2010
Here's a great idea to reduce the deficit. Let those unfunded Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans come to an end.
imricJul 24, 2010
orlandogeek - yeah what do they cost? 1.2 trillion?
wateryouthJul 21, 2010
I recently was forced to resign, and I am on unemployment at around 400 bucks a week.
I could go out tomorrow and get a job working 40 hours a week at bestbuy or walmart making 10 bucks an hour.....for about 400 bucks a week.
Take out gas I would spend getting there and the fact I. Would actually have to work....what's the point.
If my unemployment ran out tomorrow I would be employed tomorrow.....but its not.....so why should I?
Unemployment is great for the people on it personally but is absolute s**t for the country and us as a people looking at the macro level.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jul 21, 2010
Good luck getting 40 hours out of one job at a retailer. You would probably have to get jobs at 2 separate retailers in order to get up to 40 hours. That could double your travel expenses.
Besides, it doesn't benefit anyone for you to be taking jobs away from high school and college kids. I don't think having a bunch of people go to work for $10/hour in a job that they have no specialization for helps the economy. We are better served having people like you re-train or wait until the job you are qualified for comes available.
s73v3rJul 21, 2010
Around here that's not going to work. Why pay some old guy $25 to mow your lawn when I could get the Mexican dudes to mow it for $10?
raskaliJul 21, 2010
I think employment encourages laziness. I can't tell you how many people I see at work sitting on their fat ass reading the paper, or surfing the net. How many hours a day do most people actually put in of real work, three maybe four hours?
acidtonicJul 21, 2010
That comes from their mentality of time worked vs work done.
I could be completing the same amount of work if I just did my s**t and went home early.
I find the problem is people aren't paid to do a job, they are paid to sit for at least 8hrs before leaving every day.
If I were paid to do a job I would massively increase my productivity in order to minimize the time waste. But when I get done 3hrs early and no new work is ready, I'm going to sit and relax watching the clock until it's time to go.
s73v3rJul 21, 2010
True that. I've actually gotten yelled at because I'm not staying the long hours that the others are. Nevermind that my work is actually done, and I don't have anything else to do. They apparently just want a warm body in the seat playing Farmville all day.
jjason1985Jul 21, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
ripple123Jul 21, 2010
2.5 to 4 million people with no way to not starve. riots anyone?
Closed AccountJul 22, 2010
People don't disappear they get a lot more motivated. Most people look for work now, you'd actually be desperate enough to be CREATING work. If you fail, it's not like you were doing any better looking for jobs each day, and you keep trying until you meet some modecrum of success. Maybe 1 in 100 are successful enough to need to hire another person. You actually create a job for someone else. A fraction of those are incredibly successful and create really large companies.
People tend to adjust to their circumstances. Just dropping EI would hurt like hell for people at first but they would also start saving their pennies out of fear that they could be laid off.
Strangely those people that save money. The smarter ones invest as well and earn interest, as opposed to paying interest on truckloads of debt.
So yes, ghastly enough, NOT having EI forces people into the same habits you read about in all those books on how to get rich. Moreover it does actually create jobs for others. Read success stories of businessmen pre welfare.
imricJul 24, 2010
sirellyn - the REASON there is unemployment is that your measures are not enough. Like it or not, the invisible hand that corrects the market is the voter. EI, SS, Medicare - all of these are direct results of free market policies and depending on self-reliance alone when everything comes apart.
bobosmitorJul 21, 2010
Well, maybe unlimited with no cut off.
But we should "Do Onto Others", as it says.
If it is not your fault you lost your job, wouldn't you like a bit of a helping hand from society?
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
That is if you paid into the insurance. It is supposed to be insurance and not a permanent welfare benefit.
bemenakerJul 21, 2010
It's not permanent, as the economy turns around, (eventually it will), people will be going back to work. You can't get a job when there isn't one to be had.
tenarethJul 21, 2010
The economy will never require the same levels of unskilled labor as it did in the past. What will come back (and only partially retracted) will be highly skilled jobs. This will still leave a segment of the country with no place to go.
s73v3rJul 21, 2010
So what are those people gonna do? Get shipped over to India and China?
mrjohoJul 21, 2010
I was hoping they'd go to factories and be made into food chips, green flat tiles of food stuff. MMMmmm that's what I can giving back to society
aufteJul 21, 2010
"It is not your fault you lost your job, wouldn't you like a bit of a helping hand from society."
Now that's crazy socialist talk, we'd best stick to our work.
kamtsaJul 21, 2010
Yes, we always want help but it does not mean that other *have* to help. It is their money and their choice.
rmxzJul 21, 2010
Instead of unemployment benefits I think there should be "get paid for doing something useful" programs. Like a subsidy for people to get together and start a small business that competes with their former employer.
"But we should "Do Onto Others", as it says."
Yeah - I kinda am doing that - started a company and getting paid ~$0 most months; but not collecting unemployment. Perhaps if I were it would have been easier to just wait for the economy to improve.
emmidiggerJul 21, 2010
Hmm...Person should by genuinely lazy....The person believing on his own Arm Power...never rely on the Unemployment Insurance...
But
300-400$ per week can make you Lazy indeed.....lolzzzzzComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shadusJul 21, 2010
Wow, apparently you should rely on your brain a bit less than your arm. I can feel my IQ falling reading this drivel.
bemenakerJul 21, 2010
Can you make a coherent sentence please?
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Somewhere, an english teacher is weeping.
justemagineJul 21, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
maheshnayakJul 21, 2010
It will not encourage laziness, because the amount given only covers basic needs.
And nobody wants to lead a life without spending money on weekends.
sanchomandovalJul 21, 2010
Some people will live on SSI which can be as low as $700/month if it means they don't have to work. So some people will milk that unemployment check as long as possible, sure. But not everyone, obviously. One thing economists actually agree on is that unemployment benefits do increase the amount of time it takes people - on average - to find new jobs, but that's not inherently a bad thing.
gusterbearJul 21, 2010
Well, yeah, because people look at the paper and see nothing but part time 15-20 hour a week jobs at a fast food joint, then they look at their last paystub from the job they got let off and see that they were making $45k a year, then look back at the paper, and then finally to their UI benefit page showing their meager $220 a week that pays for the bare minimum and determine that the 15-20 hour week job hustling burgers with no guarantee of full time work, or adequate hours, or anything is just not worth it.
solitaireroseJul 21, 2010
I don't know about anywhere else, but in MN, you CAN Take the Part-time crap job and keep your unemployment, they just offset the amount you make. I have TWO crap part-time jobs and STILL don't make enough to offset my meager unemployment.
There are current 5 job seekers for EVERY job out there (including s**t jobs that give 5 - 15 hours a week at minimum wage).
Also, since UI was started, they have always extended it when unemployment is over 7%. The fact that Rethugs have decided they are going to take on the least well off of our society shouldn't be news to anyone. They practice crisis capitalism, and the poor and unemployed are great fodder for their buddies in the banking industry, payday loans and the Wal-Marts of the world.
s73v3rJul 21, 2010
If you had a skilled position before getting laid off, having a stint at McDonalds or something can actually hurt you in looking for another skilled job. Its pretty f**ked up, but it can actually be better for your long term job prospects to not work fast food or anything like that.
zenmojoJul 21, 2010
People working 15 hour a week jobs are wasting 15 hours they could be looking for real jobs. One thing that often gets overlooked. And yes, one thing economists agree on is that unemployment benefits boost the economy.
Which brings up a point.
If economists agree that unemployment both makes people take longer to look for jobs and boosts the economy at the same time, you would think that unemployment is agreed to have a net bonus effect for those factors alone. Economists shouldn't really care how long it takes people to get back to work if the economy overall is boosted. Unless they're not really concerned with either and have a completely separate personal interest.
fenririiiJul 21, 2010
The problem is a lack of jobs instead of an abundance of unemployed people. If we had some sort of recourse for people to do work that they would get paid for instead of just handing them free money you could fix this. Now all the conservatives will scream "Socialism!", but how about some public works? Eisenhower built interstates. FDR built dams. Why not build some border fences? Clean up garbage? Why can't we put these people to work in government-sponsored "pay for work" programs and eliminate unemployment completely? There's plenty of work out there if you make it so that people have no choice but to work.
It's a utopian ideal, I know, but it's something to shoot for.
enterenceJul 21, 2010
its not utopian mate... its common sense...
But the problem is people do not want to move to find work... you have to be willing to move out of your city/village if you cant find work...
Ive moved countries many times in the last 10 years just to move to the place with the more interesting/challenging job... but I have friends who will rather live a miserable life just so they get to hang out with familiar folks at familiar places than move to the next state and work and live a better life... they some how think its their right to stay where they are (which I think it is) and also their right and the governments duty to ensure they find work (not any kinda work but something that pays for all the good things in life..) which I call BS....
s73v3rJul 21, 2010
Moving to a new city or even a new state isn't always that easy, especially if you have a family, and don't really have the money to move.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
do you have any idea how expensive it is to move? I'm living paycheck to paycheck. I can't afford the gas money+uhaul expense+deposit+1st (and sometimes) last months rent to move to a new city and new home, plus you have to pay for a credit check at every place you apply. Do you think money falls off trees?
founderofporkJul 21, 2010
Yeah, even if I wanted to move to another state it would be financially impossible. I wouldn't even be able to fly myself to a job interview across the country, much less the 20 or 30 interviews I'd need to take before I even got a job offer.
But I guess it's just as easy as enterence says! I never f**king knew.
shadusJul 21, 2010
I agree, unemployment should come with some mandatory volunteer work, say 20-25h a week. That leaves you 15-20 hours a week to look for a job and still have time to get the other necessities in life taken care of... and the industries and care programs in your area get a boost from the increase in volunteers.
marx2kJul 21, 2010
Should claims on medical or auto insurance come with drivers ed or dietary classes?
turstJul 21, 2010
@marx there's a big difference between unemployment and medical/auto insurance. they function because you never stop paying into them. if you do then you lose your coverage. with unemployment on a large scale then the people withdrawing from the pot aren't putting anything in. by doing some type of service work they are at least contributing something.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
There's a difference, medical and auto insurance are provided by private companies, and actually, auto insurers do provide discounts if you take a safe driving class. Unemployment is government assistance that's currently deficit funded. We should be getting our monies worth from people who are on unemployment.
marx2kJul 21, 2010
Turst, Nickolassc: You both do realize that unemployment insurance starts out employee/employer funded, right? The fact that the extensions are currently government funded doesn't change that base fact.
piieerrrreeJul 22, 2010
Err, if you constantly crash your car then yeah.
smemilyJul 21, 2010
Our state allows you to consider full time college as "looking for work" so my husband is "working" on a degree 40ish hrs/week between classes, homework, and studying.
It is too bad this is not an option in all states. If there aren't jobs available, it's disheartening to keep applying for jobs you won't get, that wouldn't support your family even if you got one. Going to school on the other hand is more constructive in the long term.
bustaballsJul 21, 2010
You know what? I'm a hardcore libertarian who believes in free markets more than anything and even I think that is a better idea than what we are doing right now, so long as the cut off date remains the same.
diggerlaterJul 21, 2010
I can promise you that if you support unemployment checks being paid by the government, you are not a "hardcore libertarian".
nidstylesJul 21, 2010
You don't know anything about Libertarian's then. You see there's this thing about Libertarian's that no one seem's to realize. The whole party is about freedom of choice. There is no tow the line, and don't say anything against the party master's, like some of our more well known authoritative parties.
I've been a member of the Libertarian party since '98, and I have yet to see any one of the party leader's denounce some of the more odd ball idea's. Then again some of the more oddball idea's the main parties have are worse, and actually get made into law. Obamacare anyone?
bustaballsJul 21, 2010
I don't support it at all. However, this idea would be a step in the right direction. I don't support the FED, medicare, medicaid, social security, the FBI, the CIA, etc either but I don't think any of them should just go away over night. A slow, step-by-step process is the way to go.
h8f8kesJul 21, 2010
@Diggerlater:Nidstyles is right - that you obviously do not know of that which you speak.
theodenkingJul 21, 2010
From a budgetary point of view such a scheme would be far more expensive to administer such a scheme than simply giving people the money. Which of course is not an issue when you have public works projects like dams and roads that need doing that will benefit the economy for years to come. But there's only so many dams to be built, and only so much you can do with just unskilled labour. In the Depression Roosevelt also had lot of people doing useless jobs that there was no demand for. In that case the country is better off if Joe Unemployed just gets the "free money" (quotes because he's probably paid taxes in the past just like everybody else). Because then the government doesn't have to pay the (much higher) salary of his manager, and he can spend his time looking for work that the economy actually does require.
s73v3rJul 21, 2010
There is quite a bit of infrastructure upgrades that still need to be done in this country. If the recession keeps going, we may get to the point of those "make work" things, but in a lot of places, a workforce improvement program would definitely help.
And its not like they couldn't try to incorporate some kind of training into the program, so that the people that go through it get some new skills.
theodenkingJul 21, 2010
I'm sure there are, but enough to provide work for 14.6 million people, the vast majority of which probably have no relevant skills for construction?
kornbred79Jul 21, 2010
"Now all the conservatives will scream "Socialism!", but how about some public works? Eisenhower built interstates. FDR built dams. Why not build some border fences? Clean up garbage? Why can't we put these people to work in government-sponsored "pay for work" programs and eliminate unemployment completely?"
ARRA did this to some extent. How many times have you approached a construction site on your local interstate and see on of those "Project Funded by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act"?
What Conservatives do not want to mention is that investing more public works branches out into private industry. The state takes the Federal money and pays a private firm to improve the roads. That private firm in turn takes that money and purchases supplies and hires resources. The company that produces the supplies in turn needs take that money and procures its own resources.
The funny thing is this is EXACTLY what the private sector does when it looks to expand; just switch the federal gov't with banks.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Obama's administration proposed and implemented various public works programs. Here's his goal from 2008:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16258.html
Some of this was started in the stimulus package Obama signed shortly after he came into office.
Problems of course:
1) The startup time on many of these large projects are years, not months.
2) Many of the projects required skilled labor: Out of work office folks aren't going to be much help on a construction site.
3) Many economists disagree on whether these stimulus packages actually help or hurt the overal recovery.
All that said, regardless of immediate effects, America ignores its infrastructure at its own peril. Ignore the highways and interstate-commerce will collapse like that Minneapolis bridge. Ignore electrical grid and rolling blackouts will become more frequent. Ignore the telecom grid and watch as internet traffic bottlenecks business.
cfuseJul 22, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_the_dole
I was involved in a pilot program for Work for the Dole, and let me tell you, there was a vast difference between the lofty goals (which make perfect intuitive sense) and the reality of execution (people who ended up there had barriers to employment that went totally unaddressed by the scheme. Mostly lack of training and experience, but we had several with serious issues (ie. one lady had schizophrenia)).
There were all sorts of issues with conflict of interest with private enterprise (ie. are you competing with private enterprise for the jobs that you actually want the participants to get?), concerns about vocational value of the activities, etc. basically, lots of problems. This isn't a trivial to get right as it first appears.
zacharytelschowJul 21, 2010
It's not laziness to not get a job when you're being paid to sit around, particularly if the difference is small - its entirely rational. And yes, unemployment does encourage this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
affectJul 21, 2010
Unemployment pays less than half of what one was making previously when employed. If anyone can truly live off of half of what they were taking in, good for them. The large majority have one goal of getting a job similar to their last.
You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, jerk.
ammundsenJul 21, 2010
I bet you spent a good bit of money on entertainment and luxuries. You probably also live in a home much larger than what is necessary. Most people think they need things that are really only wants.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
affectJul 21, 2010
Hardly. House, cars, food, and supplies. Unemployment would cover half of my bills.
colecoman1982Jul 21, 2010
@Affect: Notice that you used the words "I bet" and "probably". Those two words should let you know that you don't, actually, have a clue what you're talking about and are talking out your ass.
colecoman1982Jul 21, 2010
Oops, that last comment should have been directed to ammundsen.
ammundsenJul 21, 2010
@Affect So you dont live in a home larger than what you truly need? And you dont spend money on entertainment and fun? Most Americans live in a home far bigger than what they need. The average home size has substantially increased over the last 30 years while family size has actually decreased. Making half of what you did before your taxes would be significantly less. If living on half of what you made was tough you probably aren't saving enough.
@Colecoman1982 Oh I see, cause most Americans dont spend money on entertainment. Entertainment is the only product America still actually produces. I said 'I bet' and 'probably' because I dont know the anonymous poster. But I know the average American. A 2,000 sq ft house is a need just like a cable TV.
murrdpirateJul 21, 2010
@Affect
The entire purpose of unemployment insurance is to allow people to continue living without having a job. How can you claim that people aren't able to live off unemployment insurance?
affectJul 22, 2010
It's scraping by at best. I support it fully.
rattusrattusJul 21, 2010
I'm guessing you've not been unemployed, or your parents didn't bother to instill any type of work ethic in you. Mine did, so being unable to work made me miserable. I applied to every job I could find, took the bus to interviews, and tried my best not to show up looking like a sweaty pig while trying to navigate a sprawling university, where I had the majority of my interviews. The only type of entertainment I had (besides the stations I got on my bunny ears) was going out shopping with my friends, whose absolutely loaded. I sat there watching her spend $500 at JoAnn's on a sewing machine that she probably hasn't even taken out of the box, meanwhile I'm subsisting on Ramen. In the end what killed me the most was how boring it was, the monotony. It was at that time I learned that as the day progresses, my rats would move from sleeping in the high points of their cage, to the mid-points, and by evening they were curled up in the bedding.
zacharytelschowJul 21, 2010
"I'm guessing you've not been unemployed, or your parents didn't bother to instill any type of work ethic in you."
Nice assumption. I've been out of work a grand total of 3 days since graduating college 2 years ago. While I've been working my full-time salaried job with benefits, I've taken grad classes at night, putting me on track to finish my master's next spring.
Oh, and you also make the assumption that people who aren't actively working aren't doing anything. I'm not advocating sloth - I couldn't do it either. But I could easily work on side projects (I do programming), volunteer, read more, and spend time getting back to shape to keep my mind and body engaged until a new job was found. Unemployment makes finding that new work less urgent.
6502samJul 21, 2010
The stigma of being unemployed is so great, specially here in the US, that even if I were to make more on unemployment I still would want to work just because I wouldn't want to be considered an unemployed bum.
Think about this, what's does everyone ask you when they first meet? "So, what do you do?"
Do you know how f**king embarrassing it is to say "I'm in between jobs." or "I'm searching for opportunities." or "I'm out of work." ? Do you?
People think you're a drunk, drug addict, sex offender, or some other horrible thing because most people , at least those still working, can't believe how hard it is to get work when you don't have a job.
rattusrattusJul 21, 2010
@ zacharytelschow-- So, you've never been unemployed, yet you assume to know exactly how it feels to be unemployed. When people get depressed, they tend to be slothful. It's the way of things. Not having a job, worrying about money, getting rejection letters all the time, and not having anywhere to go or anything to do wears on you after a while. Also, not everyone has a job that they can just set up shop at home. As a scientist, I'm sure there would have been several government agencies who would have taken issue with me setting up a home laboratory. It should be noted though, my mental state was anything but good at the time--a lot of miscellaneous s**t. Regardless, as much as I wouldn't presume to know how difficult it is to work full time while acquiring a degree, I don't understand why you would presume to understand the mental state of someone who lost their job, and is desperately seeking a new one with little luck. Yes, there are lazy people out there who take advantage of the situation, but I suspect they're the exception rather than the norm. The majority of Americans take pride in their ability to work.
wiseoracleJul 21, 2010
I would say it's 50/50. Half the people who do it become or already lazy. The other half it benefits them enough that they will find a job.
stormwernJul 21, 2010
People that lazy still live with their parents.
seantubridyJul 21, 2010
Maybe in some but there are always exceptions to everything. That doesn't mean cut off the nose to spite the face.
fujogustoJul 21, 2010
Exactly, it'd be like saying we can no longer give anyone pain medication because some people have a tendency to abuse it.
beratebirthersJul 22, 2010
No, we must all believe in Supply Side Jesus.
"Shouldn't you feed the lepers, Supply Side Jesus?
No, Thomas, that would just make them lazy.
Then shouldn't you at least heal them, Supply Side Jesus?
No, James. Leprosy is a matter of personal responsibility. If people knew I was healing lepers, there would be no incentive to avoid leprosy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M&feature=player_embedded#!
giancarlo1003Jul 21, 2010
As a guy who loved his job and got laid off over a year ago, I can honestly say it does both. I didn't get laid off from my performance, the company just couldn't afford to keep me and 1/3 of it's employees.
Depends solely on the the type of person. If you get depressive and lose hope and whatnot, you get lethargic and just feel sorry for yourself.
It's only until you decide to get up and brush off the dust that unemployment is nothing and you want more for yourself.
As far as I'm concerned, if you are against it lasting, that's your opinion. But playing devils advocate here, it's a necessary evil.
Personally speaking, without it, I would have become homeless and starved to death. I have debt on my credit cards and my tax return blew cause I owed money, but in the end, I am grateful for it. I didn't take advantage of it, I just needed the help to get back on my feet. Which I did. I'm a few months from being an Art Director, and I'll be making double from the time I got laid off.
nidstylesJul 21, 2010
It's not that they couldn't afford to keep you, it's that they couldn't afford to keep you and have the higher up's continue to give themselves pay raises.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kolop1Jul 21, 2010
It took me 8 months to find a job when I was laid off. The only time I didn't look for a job was when I had a high fever of 102 for 2 days. I don't think unemployment because so high because people are lazy, otherwise it would have always been this high.
korvan504521Jul 21, 2010
It'd be something else if the economy was booming and the only people who were unemployed were those who weren't looking. It's not like that right now.
drekorJul 21, 2010
If you're receiving unemployment benefits, it's because your last employer was paying into the system for it. It also means that you were laid off for reasons beyond your control. The people getting these benefits aren't chronic deadbeats, these are responsible employable people. Give them time to find a job, making them homeless doesn't help anybody.
colecoman1982Jul 21, 2010
Also, acknowledge the fact that we're in the middle of a recession and there are far more people unemployed than available jobs (Yes, even the low paying ones). That's the only reason why unemployment benefits are being, artificially extended in the first place.
giterdun456Jul 21, 2010
I agree that most who are on unemployment probably are looking for jobs. But where I live currently I see more deadbeats on welfare than people who are actively looking for jobs, on a daily basis where I work I see people who are paying with food stamps and wic checks that smell of weed and smoke. Both of which were probably paid for with the unemployment checks they get from the taxes I pay, and I see that as an enormous problem.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drekorJul 21, 2010
We aren't talking about Welfare and Food Stamps. We're talking about Unemployment benefits. But, because I'm curious, what's a "wic chick"?
s73v3rJul 21, 2010
"Women, Infants and Children." Its a food stamp program.
murrdpirateJul 21, 2010
If you paid into the system, you certainly deserve to use the benefits. But the issue isn't whether or not you should get unemployment benefits, it's whether those benefits should be increased. The increased benefits were not paid for by the unemployed. It's like your car insurance company not only replacing your car, but giving you a second car.
I can't believe anyone actually thinks we should have two years to find a f**king job. Why not 4 years? Or how about we just make it indefinite?
nidstylesJul 21, 2010
If I worked at a job for 15 year's, they better give me the time it take's to find an apropiate replacement for my skillset and experience. Otherwise I might as well wait in line for McDonald's to hire me.
murrdpirateJul 21, 2010
Why should they? You paid a certain amount so that you could get six months of insurance benefits if you became unemployed. If you wanted more than 6 months, you should have paid more.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
h8f8kesJul 21, 2010
@murr: You do realize that the the employer and not the individual pays into the unemployment insurance pool right?
murrdpirateJul 21, 2010
@h8f8kes: Yes, but they simply pay you that much less, so it's as if you're paying. It doesn't matter anyway; the point is that no one deserves more unemployment benefits than they were insured for.
moulin1Jul 22, 2010
Just like any insurance, if payouts exceed premiums the insurer just raises rates to make up the difference. It varies from state to state but most simply charge the deficit to employers and employees next quarter's charge.
murrdpirateJul 22, 2010
@moulin1
That's only if payouts increase due to more people getting insurance claims. Insurance companies don't arbitrarily increase benefits for those filing claims and *then* raise rates.
rberriosJul 21, 2010
Nope...I would say a small percentage will take advantage and get lazy, but I think that in reality, people want to work. I also want to remind everyone that to be in unemployment, you must pay in to the system with your taxes.. it's not a free service, is something that you pay insurance for.
gigi52Jul 21, 2010
Employers pay for unemployment insurance, not employees except in about 3 states - cannot recall which states they are right now, but YOU did not pay for the insurance in almost every state.
beratebirthersJul 21, 2010
Next thing we'll hear: Does giving people food to eat encourage them to be hungry?
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
I love how some people are so hard they want to deny a benefit that could save a family from losing their home or causing them to go hungry over the small number of people that will abuse the system. There will always be people that take advantage of the system, just as there will always be corrupt politicians, dirty cops, or people that illegally park in a handicap parking space. *Most* people though will try to do the right thing though and only use unemployment benefits when they absolutely need it. Not because the money sucks, but because they want to do what they've been taught to do and earn their own paycheck.
tokkioJul 21, 2010
Baby with the bath water argument. I completely agree with you. It's blind ideology talking from these people and downvoters.
smemilyJul 21, 2010
And you know, when cutting unemployment means more foreclosed homes, they'll blame us for that too.
turstJul 21, 2010
this is the way capitalism works though. if you run out of money you have to move into a smaller home to offset some of your expenses. why does everyone think people deserve to be in the house they currently live? i can understand giving the unemployment benefits but don't use the home argument.
smemilyJul 21, 2010
How are you supposed to magically sell your home when it has depreciated in value by 100,000?
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
You realize it generally costs way more money to move into a new (smaller) place than to just stay put, right?
turstJul 21, 2010
@smemily that's the point you made a bad investment so you need to sell it for less. If you lose money then let the bank foreclose.
@awesomebox how does it cost more to move into a smaller place? maybe if the rent is only like $50 less, but otherwise you already have the stuff to fill it, a UHaul is like $40, and the deposits for utilities transfer.
werfwerJul 21, 2010
so when is enough? 99 weeks isn't a reasonable amount? how long is? 3 years? 5 ?
how long after being out of the market altogether before you are unemployable ? skills deteriorate and technology changes. maybe that lower paying job that was beneath you is worth looking at, 2 years later.
k1n6Jul 21, 2010
Your a fool if you say otherwise. Obviously if these people weren't getting the meager weekly amount they would working some 10$ an hour job for the same amount.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rattusrattusJul 21, 2010
I couldn't get a $10/hr. job for the life of me. Nobody wants to deal with a goddamn scientist at Wendy's. There have been times I've considered leaving off my degree when I was desperate for work. Being over qualified is just as bad as being under qualified, if not worse.
k1n6Jul 21, 2010
So you agree that the unemployment provides a motivation to not work at wendys?
rattusrattusJul 21, 2010
No, genius. Did you read what I wrote? I said that I couldn't get a job at Wendy's if I wanted to. The managers at Wendy's probably don't want to deal with an intellectual when they can just hire some kid from high school. People can get touchy about things like education/intelligence, and you don't have to be a show off to make others feel stupid, you just need to be chock full of information. Trust me, I have a friend who's not the brightest crayon in the box, and she gets pissy at me all the time. Personally, I know a lot about science, literature, and food. Do you really want to listen to me explain was a MALDI-TOF mass spec is? There's also the fact that they know you're going to leave as soon as you find a real job, so they're going to train you, only to have you possibly disappear the next day.
captininsanityJul 21, 2010
Not to mention not all jobs give unemployment benefits. Unemployment insurance is paid into by your previous employer. You can't get fired from a min wage job then magically start collecting the same or more per week in benefits. Your not getting anything for free.
k1n6Jul 21, 2010
@rattusrattus: IMO, you lack job hunting skills. You don't include your degree in academia when applying at mcdonalds. My advice is to custom tailor your resume for each position you apply to highlighting the strengths that appeal most to each employer.
Sorry to hear about the hard times, but if you weren't getting your 250 a week I bet you'd be better motivated to find whatever you can get.
It's not the tax payer's fault you have an unmarketable degree.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
6502samJul 21, 2010
Um excuse me, but with background checks today, if you leave off anything on your resume it's considered lying and you won't be hired because of it.
Don't forget, EVERYONE does background checks and they'll find out if you've left anything out.
I found out that one the hard way.
rattusrattusJul 21, 2010
k1n6--That's odd that you're disparaging my job hunting skills. Expect for a period of about 9 months (although it was a while ago, I don't remember that well) when I was just out of college, I've been employed. So...that's about 5 years of having a job. I just have time to kill today because I'm trouble shooting a process and I have down time while stuff's on the thermocycler, and running s**t on the mass spec., which doesn't take much time or supervision. It's funny you think I have an unmarketable degree, as the tech. industry is generally somewhat sheltered in these times of economic hardship. I thought you'd be able to figure out what I do, what with reference to my mass spec. (they use them on CSI, although I can tell you that's not how they work) and saying that I know a lot about science. Your reading comprehension skills are less than stellar.
6502samJul 21, 2010
There aren't any $10 hour jobs. My McDonald's isn't hiring.
Many places won't even look at you if you're currently unemployed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/disturbing-job-ads-the-un_n_600665.html
Also, if you take a lower job to make ends meet, it destroys your career. That's what happened to me. I have a MBA and no one will hire me because I did work that was "beneath" me.
k1n6Jul 21, 2010
Because employers generally recognize that people who have been unemployed for months dont need jobs, or have unrealistic pay expectations.
The truth is never popular.
6502samJul 21, 2010
"Because employers generally recognize that people who have been unemployed for months dont need jobs, or have unrealistic pay expectations."
What?!?
Don't need jobs? How are THEY supposed to know this?! And it's not for them to say. Anyway, who cares if they don't need a job? What does that have anything to do with hiring?
No one has unrealistic pay expectation in this economy.
"The truth is never popular."
We'll see when I hear the truth.
werfwerJul 21, 2010
that's as bad as them checking your credit score before they hire you. it's like "hey jackass, i've been on employment for a year and a half, of course my credit score is low."
basalcellbosskJul 21, 2010
Well, in most sane countries with unemployment benefits or such like, there are stringent tests to make sure the people are looking for work, applying for jobs that are suitable for them, and so on. Obviously, unless you are plainly stupid, you don't just set and forget.
"..at its core it fails in the same way that most welfare systems do."
- this must have been written by someone who has never lived outside the US and is completely brainwashed by right wing delusion-speak. Most countries with welfare systems in the West have extremely high standards of living and do very well economically. Try taking the blinkers off for a while. The welfare systems keep their populace healthy and educated during economic downturns. You can't have an economically viable work force if they are all sick and ignorant. This is part of America's problem, a critical lack of foresight.
rudegarJul 21, 2010
yeah I live in a such country where the unemployment benefits are higher then in USA, and the past years
lots of people who got laid off are beginning to get depression-like symptoms, from not being able to get a new job
find it unlikely that the mentality of my country, is sooo far removed from that of USA
shadusJul 21, 2010
It's no fun being unemployed, your self worth drops with every denial. Depression is an easy trap to fall into and an inevitable one eventually.
stormwernJul 21, 2010
"Try taking the blinkers off for a while."
..or blinds.
Shalini1490Jul 22, 2010
I totally agree...there should be a system to ensure that it reaches the correct people, otherwise its just a wastage. And if people are taking advantage, then its the government's fault to allow that kind of a loophole. I mean if you keep a bucket full of ice-cream in front of a kid and think that he'll not eat it, then you are sadly mistaken.
sangjmoonJul 21, 2010
The real question is how is congress going to pay for this. That's how we basically got into our current economic mess by congress passing laws that pushed handing out loans and rates that people normally didn't qualify them like an endless cornucopia with no thought of the long term consequences. When the bulk of the baby boomers retire driving Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid spending through the roof on top of the current inability of congress to control spending, we will be on course for another economic crisis that will make our current one look mild by comparison.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
There is plenty of money in the military budget if they'd just stop wasting it.
sangjmoonJul 21, 2010
If you want to point fingers, the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid boondoggles take up half our federal taxes making the military budget look puny by comparison. If you want to blame what takes the biggest inefficient piece of the pie, those two programs would be the winners.
smemilyJul 21, 2010
No, because the military budget by and large gets blown up, whereas SS and Medicare / Medicaid are spent back into the economy, creating jobs.
nygenxerJul 21, 2010
@sangjmoon:
No, the administrative costs for the social security administration is just a few percentage points. It is recognized as as being one of the most efficient in the world. Universal health care would solve your second concern, as for-profit medical insurance companies cherry-pick healthiest (least costly) individuals to cover while the government picks up the costs for everyone else.
You CANNOT seriously call our military budget "puny"!
Your ignorance is truly breathtaking. Please stop posting before you embarrass yourself further.
sangjmoonJul 21, 2010
@smemily, military budget goes back into the economy. Who do you think makes the military equipment. In fact, this was the problem with the Vietnam War where the government spending was so high and our debt wasn't being bought by foreign countries in significant amounts to keep inflation low which caused inflation to skyrocket because of all the money being pumped artificially into our economy through military spending.
@nygenxer, crunch the numbers yourself at Obama's budget at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ if you don't believe me. You will find that the combiined Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid expenditures are about 50% of total federal inlays.
shadusJul 21, 2010
No we got in this mess by excessive military spending and research and development spending and government contracts going to 'buddies' of senators for nice kick backs. Unemployment, SS, medicare/medicaid didn't get us here. Nor did the loan fiasco although it helped accelerate things.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
6502samJul 21, 2010
You forgot the house flippers who are now walking away from their homes because "it doesn't make business sense".
You forgot that we have to pay for TWO wars.
And as far as loaning to people who didn't qualify, there is actually little evidence that the CRA caused it: (scroll to bottom)
http://www.clevelandfed.org/Forefront/2010/04/ff_20100401_1.cfm
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJul 21, 2010
@sangjmoon:
The amount that being borrowed is .0034% of the deficit. That's like you buying a $100,000 corvette and worrying about paying for a few tanks of gas.
sangjmoonJul 21, 2010
They said something similar about the effect of the giving out loans without end to people who normally didn't qualify for them. The cumulative effect builds up out of sight in the complexity created by congress because they don't want to know what the consequences are. That would force them to cut back on all the giving away of money and favors which people keep them in office for. And the fault effectively comes down to us the voters because we vote in people who are clever enough to get in office but foolish about the long term welfare of the country. Until we ourselves choose to view government spending first in terms of real economic long term consequences rather than emotions of the day, we will never choose the leaders who will do what is right for the survival of our country.
nygenxerJul 21, 2010
Oh I see: you're just reading talking points. Are you getting paid to do this?
sangjmoonJul 21, 2010
I wish these were talking points which would mean people already understand these points. I get paid as much as you do to post messages I think unless you are getting paid to do this. Do you always resort to accusations when you can't refute with content?
nygenxerJul 21, 2010
Your remarks are off-topic and boilerplate. I asked if you were getting paid to post such things because I am looking for a job and I am very, very good at stomping arguments from people like you, and I might as well get paid to do it.
Post worthy content and I may refute or support it. Arguing with parrots who just repeat boilerplate holds little interest to me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sangjmoonJul 21, 2010
My topics are actually quite relevant to the topic. What you mean is that what I am saying isn't what you want to hear. If so, you are free to not read them.
nygenxerJul 21, 2010
This
"They said something similar about the effect of the giving out loans without end to people who normally didn't qualify for them. The cumulative effect builds up out of sight in the complexity created by congress because they don't want to know what the consequences are. That would force them to cut back on all the giving away of money and favors which people keep them in office for. And the fault effectively comes down to us the voters because we vote in people who are clever enough to get in office but foolish about the long term welfare of the country. Until we ourselves choose to view government spending first in terms of real economic long term consequences rather than emotions of the day, we will never choose the leaders who will do what is right for the survival of our country."
in response to this
"The amount that being borrowed [for extended unemployment insurance] is .0034% of the deficit. That's like you buying a $100,000 corvette and worrying about paying for a few tanks of gas."
is your definition of relevant and on-topic?
sangjmoonJul 21, 2010
Yes, and it is obvious that you didn't understand my main point about how what you point out is only part of the whole picture. Just as how congress thought giving out home loans to people who wouldn't normally qualify for them didn't have any significant impact to the economy, you too are making the same mistake. You and congress don't think about the consequences farther than your nose. Because of the complexities introduced by the myriad of laws congress passed to both "help" and punish us, amplifies the effect. One major effect I can think of off the top of my head is that the money needed to pay for the extended jobless benefits most likely will have to come from selling even more debt to foreign countries. This in turn will keep inflation artificially low masking the growth in the money supply just as what happened before our current economic crisis making congress think they can spend even more as if the current congress had any restraint otherwise. This will again grow the money supply abnormally out of sight building the foundation for an even larger economic crisis in the future. Please tell me if this still is too complicated for you.
nygenxerJul 21, 2010
I withdraw my original question even if it was in jest: no one would would pay for your thoughts.
Best of luck to you.
nygenxerJul 21, 2010
@sangjmoon:
Hey, I'm sorry. That was a dickish post. I didn't delete it in time. Allow me to apologize.
nygenxerJul 21, 2010
@sangjmoon:
I don't think you are an idiot. You are weaving together a coherent big picture, which this is all that any intelligent person can do. But I think the big picture you're getting at is like a Monet painting: you talk of many different big agencies/complicated subjects that you've woven together lacks context and has only a superficial cohesion, perhaps only because you lack the time that I have to devote to such studies.
Best of luck to you (sincerely this time.) Namaste.
moulin1Jul 22, 2010
Then you should be pushing for a balanced budget amendment (including social security). Not trying to screw your neighbors over just because wou were a little luckier than them and kept your job in rough times.
chadsexingtimeJul 21, 2010
Here's a good situation for you budget minded people to think about. I'll play the part of the government.
There are two people, one is someone who is wealthy; well off, business owner, whatever.
The other is unemployed.
Lets say I have $100 I'm going to give it to one of these people.
I give it to the wealthy person - where does it go? Most likely in the bank with the rest of their cash.
I give it to the unemployed person - where does it go? It goes back into the economy because its the only income their getting.
ousthouseJul 21, 2010
Why not give every poor person 1 million dollars?
lord1lokiJul 21, 2010
That would cost over 5 trillion dollars, but it would have been better spent than the bank bailouts.
shadusJul 21, 2010
@ousthouse - Inflation.
We've got ~15m unemployed in the US as of June which would make 1m / person about $15,000,000,000,000 (15 Trillion) in benefit alone. It makes poor economic sense the inflation from such an act would devalue the currency so much no one would have anything no matter how much money they previously had or currently have.
The OP is correct however, to stimulate the economy the money needs to goto the lower income families and those who are living a borderline existence, because they ~have~ to spend it. The wealthy just bank it and remove it from the economy again which leaves you in the same states as prior to distributing the $100.
Trickle down economics do not work, the only way to get money to be used is either use it directly or give it to people who have no choice but to use it.
ousthouseJul 21, 2010
Give money to the poor because they need it to survive... but don't do it because it will 'stimulate the economy'... our economic problems come from spending money we don't have. Doing more of the same won't fix that particular problem. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
robestylesJul 21, 2010
How bout this situation. The business owner takes the money and puts it back into his company to make it larger and more successful thus necessitating more employees so he hires the unemployed person. The unemployed person now was a job at the wealthy persons company and the wealthy person makes more money.
smemilyJul 21, 2010
His company didn't get more successful because nobody out there can afford to buy his s**t because they don't have jobs, and the ones WITH jobs are trying to be frugal for a rainy day.
shadusJul 21, 2010
The problem is this-- That doesn't occur. The businesses are having slumping profit margins so they get extra money and they bank it incase they need it in the future, which is a wise choice, but not an economically beneficial choice for increasing spending in a bunk economy.
stanleyfordJul 21, 2010
chadsexingtime, here are just a few things wrong with your example:
1. Where does the $100 the government so charitably "gives" come from? It comes from taxation. The person who loses that money cannot spend it or invest it. The economy hasn't been "stimulated" at all by the unemployed person receiving $100, because he is just spending money someone else would have spent otherwise.
2. What happens to money that goes in the bank? Does the bank hide it under a mattress, or is that money invested, going "back into the economy" as you put it.
3. If the unemployed person didn't get that $100, what would he have done instead? Perhaps he would have gone out and mowed someone's lawn or hired himself out as a day laborer at a construction site or played music in the subway for tips. But now he is doing nothing. The economy is poorer by every lawn that doesn't get mowed, every nail that doesn't get hammered, every note of music that doesn't get played.
overdrivenJul 21, 2010
And?
murrdpirateJul 21, 2010
Spending money does not improve the economy. It's amazing how many people think that is true. If I promise to spend it, should the government give me $100?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yurmutha412Jul 21, 2010
I'm for the unemployment extension, but using the stimulus money which has done nothing at all for the economy of America. Most of it is going overseas.http://abcnews.go.com/WN/wind-power-equal-job-power/story?id=9759949. This isn't just wind power, it's happening with a good share of it since the things we are buying are made in other countries. It's better used in safety net items for the disadvantaged. However, the unsound part of your reasoning is that, if it is put in a bank, it doesn't do anything. The bank uses it to make a loan. The loan is often for business expansion, or keeping a business going, or many things like that. That's why tax breaks for capital gains can be effective. People who make capital gains are generally investors or businessmen. The money they earn goes back into the investment side of the economy where it creates more jobs unlike the stimulus money which is targeted and isn't based on supply and demand, so it does no lasting improvement to the economy.
boner11Jul 21, 2010
It's not your money to give.
notigJul 22, 2010
Honestly I think that the government has so overextended their expenses.... that most of the programs that are going on are not actually taken from taxes. They simply get the Federal reserve to create the money for them... in other words it is a tax but through inflation not direct. There is no way we can finance our bloated government with just taxation.
How about this............ instead of having the government meddle in our lives... and take for instance... Social security. You leave it up to the person. ALl of that money that has been saved in social security could easily keep one afloat if they got unemployed. Or it could have been spent and lead to new growth which means someone else might not have lost their job.
fotomanJul 21, 2010
Yea sure $2000/week -> $450/week. Makes you REAL lazy!!! BTW, you are taxed on Unemployment benefits! Although I think now the first $3500 isn't taxed.
The only people who would say this have never been unemployed for a long period of time.
We survived during my 13 month unemployment on depleting all of savings, and cutting way back on expenditures: travel, entertainment, childcare, food, etc. Plus we took in a boarder to help offset some of the income disparity.
You only get 26 weeks of unemployment, and then need to apply for 20 week special extensions.
dushJul 21, 2010
That would definitely be tough. I applaud you for actually having savings though. Many people weren't that forward thinking.
rheaumeJul 21, 2010
Sounds like he was making 2000$ a week, quite easy to save when you make that kind of bank
rodneyws1977Jul 21, 2010
Some people abuse the system. Some people desperately need the system. It's the same as any government program.
beratebirthersJul 21, 2010
That's why Obama said he's going after waste, fraud and abuse.
tokkioJul 21, 2010
Think of unemployment insurance as a save point. It's much easier to beat a game if you have a save point to continue from. Not having that buffer to maintain your basic needs, housing and well being means starting over with nothing, from the beginning. No phone number or physical address means no job. Instead of a bunch of homeless people we have a few people taking a week or two extra time off but then eventually getting a job.
Aside from this point, most economists agree that unemployment insurance is the single best use of government funds during a recession. It keeps people afloat, the money goes straight back into the economy and it helps people get jobs when the market gets better. Government recovery of this spending is quick as well. This article is oversimplifying the point.
murrdpirateJul 21, 2010
"most economists agree that unemployment insurance is the single best use of government funds during a recession"
No they don't. In fact there is evidence that unemployment benefits correlate with higher levels of unemployment.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/do-jobless-benefits-discourage-people-from-finding-jobs/
tokkioJul 21, 2010
Again, it's not how well it works but that out of the choices we have, it's the best way. What are the chances that a upper level tax cut or lowered interest rate would trickle down to struggling local economies? That's the other side of the argument. But yet, some people do become lazier and artificially extend their benefits. This number was tagged at about 0.4 percentage points. Would you choose the option of doing nothing?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/research_desk_responds_is_unem.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/the-case-for-and-against-unemployment-insurance/60046/
murrdpirateJul 21, 2010
Yes, I would choose the option of doing nothing. Doing nothing doesn't mean you've given up, it just means allowing individuals to choose how money is spent instead of the government. Unemployment benefits may be the least bad way for the government to spend money, but it's not better than spending no money.
werfwerJul 21, 2010
funny, when i play games without the save option, i'm alot more careful. I don't take crazy risks because if i get killed it's hard work getting back where I was. I wonder if people care for their jobs as much as they would if there was no safety net?
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
s**t story, by s**t power users. this is my new angst against digg. fix your system!
thatsmyaiboJul 21, 2010
I am so sick of the power user influence on digg.
methdwman3Jul 21, 2010
There's always abusers of the system, and I wish there was a way to key in on those people. Seems like in any economy, if you cannot get a job after a year + of searching, you need to do something different. Extending unemployment benefits for this group does not seem like a good idea; instead, the government should be paying for retraining. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smemilyJul 21, 2010
There are 5 people on unemployment for every 1 available job. All the retraining in the world won't fix that.
BTW my husband is getting his degree on unemployment right now. Don't assume there's no retraining going on.
6502samJul 21, 2010
It doesn't work. I've tried that. Employers look at your TOTAL work experience and if they see you've been out of work, for ANY reason, they'll disqualify you.
I went back to school full time to retrain to do something different and the only feedback I got was that I went back to school because I couldn't find a job. Which was true and why I went back to school: to retrain for a new career.
We can't win! The system sucks!
doctechnicalJul 21, 2010
From the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720504575377381727739058.html):
In a 1990 study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, labor economist Lawrence Katz found that "The results indicate that a one week increase in potential benefit duration increases the average duration of the unemployment spells of UI recipients by 0.16 to 0.20 weeks."
A March 2010 economic report by Michael Feroli of J.P. Morgan Chase examined several studies and concluded that "lengthened availability of jobless benefits has raised the unemployment rate by 1.5% points."
-----
So the answer would seem to be "yes".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
colecoman1982Jul 21, 2010
And, those studies were, specifically, done in depressed economic conditions such as the ones we're in right now? I didn't think so.
mdisibioJul 21, 2010
Wow the digg morons are out today. You are posting links to ACTUAL STUDIES with REAL NUMBERS and getting dugg down.
s73v3rJul 21, 2010
Because numbers are bulls**t without context.
doctechnicalJul 21, 2010
Because the Digg hivemind is smarter than any study done by anybody ever.
nygenxerJul 21, 2010
@doctechnical:
The article from 20 years ago is irrelevant since there are (at least) 5 to 6 times as many applicants as there are available jobs.
moulin1Jul 22, 2010
@doctechnical
The Wall street journal article doesn't exist.
The NBER study compared the value of raising unemployment benefits against increasing duration. Did you even read what you quoted 0.16 to 0.20 weeks is less than a day. So you feel that people should go hungry an be put out on the streets because they will get a job 21.6 hours sooner? Guess you are entitled to your opinion.
Ad for Mr Feroli, why don't you check his 06/15/10 article claiming that the BP gulf oil spill was a boon to the economy. Do you agree with that one too?
dushJul 21, 2010
I thought receiving unemployment benefits require proof that you are applying for a certain amount of jobs per week and searching for work. You can't just sit there and do nothing right? At least that's better than welfare.
rudegarJul 21, 2010
within reason imho
where I live at one point unemployed people had to write 5 applications each week
but that just resulted in tons of companys getting somewhat not that serious applications
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
I would be much more willing to support it if there was drug testing.
Anyone who yells "That's an invasion of my privacy!" is probably on drugs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
lawl, druggies be diggin me down.
shadusJul 21, 2010
@Bryan3086- That's an invasion of my privacy and I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs and haven't done any of those mentioned in >15 years. Drug testing of any kind not related to an on the job accident with a drug they can measure 'current system levels' of, is bulls**t. It says nothing other than that you have done the drug inside the time it leaves detectable levels of something in your systems... sometimes months after the fact.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
@Shadus- Employers also drug test because it makes a huge statement on that employee's level of personal responsiblity and their life style, even if they are never intoxicated at work.
Drug testing for unemployment benefits would help to stem abuse of the system. I'm willing to sacrafice a small amount of your privacy to do that.
Also, what exactly about drug testing violates your privacy? Is it the physical process the tests? Or is it that you just don't want to be checked on?
s73v3rJul 21, 2010
@Bryan: I'm willing to sacrifice your privacy to make you take a drug test every week. Get to it.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
@s73v3r- I'll get right on that when I start taking government handouts.
s73v3rJul 21, 2010
In that case, I need proof that you are not, nor have ever been on any form of government assistance. And I need an updated report every week. I'm willing to sacrifice your privacy to do this.
jbcseeJul 21, 2010
Drug testing at work? Where the f**k do you work? Remind me never to get into that field. The last job I had which required drug testing was at a restaurant, since I've moved to more white collar jobs no testing is required.
Mainly because they wouldn't be able to hire or keep good people if they did drug tests.
rhawk187Jul 21, 2010
My cousin just had to go online and press a button saying that he was actively looking for a job, he didn't have to provide forms or anything.
irvman21Jul 21, 2010
Not when there was a 26 week limit. Now that it's 99 weeks. Hell yea it does.
shadusJul 21, 2010
I spent >100 weeks looking for a job, when this whole fiasco with the economy started and there were no extensions yet. I ended up having to put house payments on my credit card just to survive, had I had the benefits continue I wouldn't have exhausted my entire savings, maxed every credit card I own, etc... just to keep a house for my family. I was quite a ways into the black and was very responsible with my money and means... but you can't save enough or prepare enough for an economic mess like we're in.
More than ~15m/300m~ people unemployed or massively underemployed. It's staggering.
turstJul 21, 2010
you should have sold/foreclosed on you house.
beratebirthersJul 21, 2010
99 weeks isn't even two years. That's not even 1/4 of Bush's disastrous term. The country can't bounce back from GOP disasters that quickly.
veriixJul 21, 2010
As long as there is a system, there will be people that abuse the system.
thetxiJul 21, 2010
That shouldn't be an excuse to scrap the system when the vast majority are not abusing it.
veriixJul 21, 2010
Sorry if thats how it came off, I didn't mean it that way.
sndreamJul 21, 2010
If the govt spend all those money on additional R&D program, it can create a lot of jobs plus a better future for all of us.
And yes, reduce the military spending too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
XLPatJul 21, 2010
Not sure, does pay anywhere from 25-75K for an education and only being able to work retail or telemarketing due to a s**tty economy cause depression, which can look somewhat like laziness?
nullcodesJul 21, 2010
Why not couple unemployment/welfare with work. I mean, before you yell "there is no work!" .. there is ALWAYS unskilled work .. it's just not been profitable or high value. It's like this, wouldn't you like a free maid, or someone to mow your lawn, or do your plumbing work .. for free?
So, why not incorporate the unemployed to build public parks, educational or after school recreation centers (not just the manual labor aspect but for example an unemployed architect can design it, and an unemployed IT person can setup the IT stuff). Or to work in homeless kitchens, or to work for the local university/public school. To work in some factory. To assist in construction, to assist in roadside cleanups. To do farm work, to shuffle papers city hall. It doesn't even need to be work for the government on public projects. They could even do work for high end taxpayers. What I mean is, let's say the local grocery store or even rich individual produced a revenue of $100K in taxes, since that amount of unemployment has to be paid by the state, why not give that company a few part time workers (they would need to apply for it ..if they can show that it would be of public benefit)?
We can argue whether private companies should get "free" (though their taxes are paying for it) workers .. but at least there are public projects that people could be working on.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
colecoman1982Jul 21, 2010
"there is ALWAYS unskilled/skilled work"
Prove it. All of the jobs numbers that have come out have pointed to the fact that there are far, far more people unemployed that available job openings (ALL available job openings, including low payed ones.). If your going to shoot your mouth off in direct opposition to that then you'd better be ready to either put up or shut up with respectable data that refutes that. Otherwise, you full of crap and not worth listening to.
nullcodesJul 21, 2010
I mean there is work which people want done, but wouldn't want to pay for. For example, would you not like your car oil changed for free, at no cost to you? Or maybe a meal cooked for you? OK, well that means there is stuff you want done for you .. you just don't think it's worth paying for. But now what if you are paying somebody anyway (whenever you pay taxes, you are).
Well instead of paying a welfare payment to somebody for nothing why not have your oil changed by that person? Think about it .. you are paying that welfare payment anyway .. why not get something in return. That's what I mean.
So what I mean is why not get unemployed workers to build s**t or to repair minor stuff for the state. Seriously when I drive for like 5 miles I can come up with a list of s**t that the state could have unemployed workers do. And that's excluding little things I need done around the house or at my business.
captainprotonJul 21, 2010
@nullcodes: "If you are going to pay someone _anyway_ why not get some work out of them? It will help them get experience and it will help you get minor s**t done."
But wouldn't you then be screwing up the free market in a major way by providing free services that compete with private-sector paid services?
"would you not like your car oil changed for free..." - *I* might, but I doubt the employees of the local service station would like it
"Or maybe a meal cooked for you?" - Not if I were a caterer/chef/restaurant owner trying to compete with these "free" services that have just cropped up...
Last thing you want to do is create more unemployed.
nullcodesJul 21, 2010
@captainproton
No it won't compete with the employed, because it will be doing things that wouldn't have got done otherwise. For example, if an extra lane wouldn't have been added to the highway under normal circumstances .. use the unemployed for that. I just gave the free oil change as an example. The free oil change would only be offered to people who would not have paid for an oil change in the first place.
captainprotonJul 22, 2010
@nullcodes: "The free oil change would only be offered to people who would not have paid for an oil change in the first place."
Things like the oil change and the meal preparation were, I think, not great examples b/c they really would affect the market for such things. You make a better point w.r.t the highway construction -- really large infrastructure projects (ones for which the available labour pool would be insufficient) can work, and have done so in the past.
The point I was making is that Workfare-like programs have to be really carefully considered. The unintended consequences of well-meaning but not carefully implemented programs can exacerbate underemployment.
hakamanakusJul 21, 2010
Free maids.
I'm running for president next election. That is my platform.
That is all.
6502samJul 21, 2010
Construction is dead, dude.
If you actually look at the unemployment figures, folks at the lower end of the job market are being hit the hardest. Meaning, they're ALL going after those unskilled jobs.
Your post has no bearing on reality.
contentpigJul 21, 2010
Actually you're describing "The New Deal" which was carried out by Congress and Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930's. It works. The unemployment rate was 25%, so the Government just started hiring everyone for public works projects like Hoover Dam, the interstate highway system, and the like. It worked. But in a lot of ways was basically Socialism. A lot of New Deal programs were later found unconstitutional (after we pulled out of the depression). But a lot of the program's results are still around like the S.E.C., and minimum wage laws. Ever walk into a post office or library built in the 1930's - 1950's and notice the marble floors, big stone columns and patina statues? That place was built out of the New Deal. Ever walk into a post office that while perfectly functional looks like a s**t-box made of stucco, linoleum, and formica? That's a more recent establishment.
skubiszmJul 21, 2010
The problem is, now that they are working, they cannot look for a job. Once a bridge, road or park is built, they are no closer to finding a job than before.
Plus, public unions would never allow regular citizens to take their inflated jobs.
paidhimaJul 21, 2010
I may just be nitpicking one part of your post, but are you suggesting... indentured servitude for the unemployed? Some kind of revolving servant class?
sealinkJul 21, 2010
Requiring that someone work without compensation and no limit on their time to serve is slavery.
You can add beatings, brandings and sexual abuse later, of course.
ripple123Jul 21, 2010
in australia, we have a concept like that, called "work for the dole" brought in in the 90s by a conservative government. its pretty much been a failure. firstly, it erodes away at real jobs, secondly, when you have what is essentially slave labor that the government can direct to what it wants, you get profiteering and corruption, and erosion of workers rights, and corporate welfare. think shawshank redemption. if your gonna enjoin someone to labor, at least do it through giving them a proper job, and not some 'community service' type bulls**t. there not f**king criminals.
i mean, who wants to employ people in actual jobs when they can just get some on-call government slave labor to do the work instead? that they dont even have to pay for?
jbcseeJul 21, 2010
Fundamental problem with your idea, if they are paying me $400/wk for un-employment I'm not doing IT work, I'm not going to do any sort of work that would pay more then $10/hr. If I did so then I would be putting effectively lowering the market rate for that type of work.
Would I pick up trash on the side of the road for 20hrs/wk if it was part of un-employment, sure, but I wouldn't do any real skilled labor.
LosAlamosLabsJul 21, 2010
Two people I know have told me straight-up, they're going to have to start looking for a job as soon as the benefits run out.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Out of curiosity, can you tell us those two people's life style's and previous incomes?
What I'm really wondering is if the unemployment matches their previous incomes.
LosAlamosLabsJul 21, 2010
I haven't asked either one on dollar amounts, but they seem to be living just the same as they were before.
rhawk187Jul 21, 2010
I know my cousin made more working for DHL, but he said he was enjoying himself a lot more on unemployment.
werfwerJul 21, 2010
the one person i know in this situation is make 20% of what she did previously. but since she's lost everything, she's scaled down. now she's just "screw it"
captininsanityJul 21, 2010
And your cousin still lives in his moms basement.
jbcseeJul 21, 2010
Personally un-employment wouldn't cover all my bills. But it would help enough that I would consider using my benefits as an extended vacation. I've wanted to take some time off for awhile, but in this economy it makes no sense to leave a good paying job, however if I was let go the benefits would let me stretch my savings enough to consider the option of a couple month vacation.
werfwerJul 21, 2010
i've heard it too.
smemilyJul 21, 2010
And those two people are living with their parents, right? And don't represent the unemployed who are living independently, paying a mortgage, and trying to support a family, right?
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
LosAlamosLabs is 41 years old, the people he associates with are probably supporting themselves by now.
LosAlamosLabsJul 21, 2010
Yes, both of them live on their own.
elliotcJul 21, 2010
My brother and his fiancee are planning wedding next week, just bought a new house, and they have two cars. One of those is a Prius. No kids.
There are jobs available. I run a small business, and we had more people walking in off the street during the dotcom days than we do now. These people are not looking for jobs to "support their family". They are delusional. They think people deserve to make $45/h without that level of value to a company.
This was a necessary correction in the market. Our entire country is fat and lazy.
Unemployment is inter-generational theft. Our country is broke. Our states are mostly broke. Where do you suppose this money is coming from?
Sell your house, suck it up, and get over yourself. If you are so valuable, sell your services independently. Start your own business. Sell your services to a business! If you are valuable, you will have a job - in any economy.
6502samJul 21, 2010
Do you know what's going to happen when their benefits run out?
They WON'T be able to get work. They probably can't get work now either and are just saying that to save face.
You better tell them not to squander their money.
skubiszmJul 21, 2010
Wow, 2 guys you know? It must be an epidemic.
LosAlamosLabsJul 21, 2010
Didn't say it was an epidemic, just relating what I've seen and heard, although I imagine these two friends of mine aren't some small exception, either.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
One thing I don't understand. Why doesn't the government just stop taxing income to fund the unemployment insurance and let people keep that money? That way people can just save for themselves and be prepared for times of financial hardship with the extra money they would be earning.
Is it that most people don't plan ahead even if given the opportunity? I really do want someone's input on this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rhawk187Jul 21, 2010
Yes, people have lost the ability to be responsible with their money and so the only form of safety net the government can provide is taking it from them and keeping it in a safe place that way they can give it back to them if something bad happens.
If nothing bad happens, then the government ends up ahead, so they see it as a win/win. That and they tend to borrow from these "trusts" to fund other projects. A large portion of our debt we actually owe to ourselves in the form of these trusts.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
That's what I was thinking was happening. People really need to stand up and take more personal responsibility.
I would not have such a problem with unemployment insurance if people really only got back what they paid into it. I don't think that is what happens though. I think unemployment is in part a form of wealth redistribution. In that the rich pay this tax and never see it returned to them but instead it is sent to low income people on unemployment for an extended period of time.
Is this a valid assessment?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gigi52Jul 21, 2010
But "people" do not pay into unemployment insurance, your employer does.
rhawk187Jul 22, 2010
The point stands. The money the employers are paying into it could be passed on the employees themselves if it weren't for this system.
korvan504521Jul 21, 2010
Low income people are statistically worse with their money than higher income folks. Not to mention they often times are living paycheck to paycheck.
sealinkJul 21, 2010
This is because there is no education given in public schools on how to manage your money unless an intrepid teacher incorporates it. If they don't HAVE money (being from a lower socio-economic class), figuring out how to teach them to manage it seems like a waste of resources if the kids aren't meeting the standardized test requirements.
Also, consider that it's more expensive to be poor. You can't afford to drive anywhere (in terms of time or money) to get cheap food; you're buying a gallon of milk at a gas station for 150% more than it costs at a grocery store. More of your money is tied up in deposits with power companies and telephone companies. You probably don't have health insurance. If something happens where someone breaks an arm, you have to take out payday loans to pay for it, which can have APRs of 400-700%. Finding a higher paying job is more difficult for you than it would be for someone with more money, because you're working more jobs with more demands on your time that could otherwise be spent looking for a job.
kornbred79Jul 21, 2010
People who make claims like this have quite obviously never been forced to collect unemployment.
It is not an incentive.
It is not an entitlement.
It is not a free ride.
It is not "fun times".
rhawk187Jul 21, 2010
It was for my cousin. I'm sure it's difficult if you have a family your trying to provide for, but there are a lot of people out there collecting that it is, "fun times" for.
shadusJul 21, 2010
You don't punish the majority because the minority is retarded.
kornbred79Jul 21, 2010
"A lot"? How many is "a lot"?
rhawk187Jul 21, 2010
My opinion might be skewed because I live in a college town, and am surrounded by mostly people without families that can "get by" on the unemployment benefits alone, but I'd say a full 20% of the people I observe would say they would rather get small checks for doing nothing, than big checks for doing something.
generalobviousJul 21, 2010
It IS welfare.
captininsanityJul 21, 2010
Is that supposed to make a point?
s73v3rJul 21, 2010
And the alternative is having most of these people turn to crime to support themselves.
xenuxenutsJul 21, 2010
so is living in most red states:
http://scatter.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/red-state-blue-state-welfare-state-subsidizing-state/
stanleyfordJul 21, 2010
"It is not an incentive." -- Then you don't know the meaning of incentive. Of course unemployment benefits give people incentive not to find work. If I give you the choice between making $400 a week working a crappy job and $400 a week doing nothing, which are you going to choose? Don't you call that incentive not to work?
"It is not an entitlement." -- You don't know the meaning of entitlement either. An entitlement is any benefit you may claim at the expense of others, regardless of whether those people agree to it. Every dollar the government pays in unemployment is a dollar that must be paid for (eventually) by the taxpayers, regardless of whether they want to pay it or not. That is the textbook definition of an entitlement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fredfredricksonJul 21, 2010
It is an incentive, because you know it's going to run out at some point. And frankly, the low amount of money it is should also be an incentive to try to find something better.
stanleyfordJul 21, 2010
"the low amount of money it is should also be an incentive to try to find something better." -- Zero unemployment insurance is an even greater incentive to find something better. The fact is, no matter how you cut it, no matter how you try to rationalize it, giving someone any amount money for being unemployed creates an incentive not to find work. Giving someone a small amount of money creates a small incentive not to find work, and giving someone a large amount of money creates a large incentive, but the incentive is there regardless of the amount of money involved.
I only think we're debating this because there is a lack of understanding of the meaning of the word incentive. Here is the definition of incentive: "In economics and sociology, an incentive is any factor (financial or non-financial) that enables or motivates a particular course of action." Giving someone money for being unemployed will _never_ provide a greater motivation to find work than not giving that person any money at all. Do any of you really disagree? Can any of you honestly say that a person who receives any amount of money from the government is more inclined to find work than if he had received no money at all?
s0nicfreakJul 21, 2010
You're right. I have been homeless, hungry and completely broke, but I have never been "forced" to collect unemployment.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
You are wrong about the 'fun times'. And i have a level 80 Night Elf Druid to prove it.
ammundsenJul 21, 2010
Of course it does. You cant say that only capitalist business owners are greedy. All men are greedy. If you can get paid for doing nothing then you will do nothing. Admittedly we have a middle class that still has some pride that keeps them from being completely lazy. Let's just hope the middle class suckers never realize they are paying for the lifestyles of both the rich and the poor.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kornbred79Jul 21, 2010
Have you ever had to collect unemployment?
ammundsenJul 21, 2010
Yes I have as a matter of fact. What does that have to do with my comment? Do you expect that everyone who collects unemployment is of one mind? I fully realize that I paid money into the system and rightfully deserved it. But I enjoyed having the day to myself and getting money for nothing. I was glad to make more money once I got a job but did miss the freedom I had.
nygenxerJul 21, 2010
But when an unemployed person is greedy they do not destroy the Gulf of Mexico (because they were too cheap to have a backup for the BOP.)
When an unemployed person is greedy, thousands of people don't die from contaminated food because it was cheaper to spend money on lobbyists than to implement cleaner work conditions.
When an unemployed person is greedy, airplanes don't crash because they skimped on training, salary, maintenance or fuel.
When an unemployed person is greedy, the stock market does not crash because they defrauded their customers, 40,000 Americans do not die while fighting for the health insurance coverage they pay for, and US soldiers are not fed rotten food and contaminated water, Trillions of dollars of wealth aren't stolen.
When an unemployed person is greedy, tires do not blow out because they were made by unqualified people, gasoline tank liners that prevent fires [Ford Pinto] are not eliminated to save $10, toys are not painted with lead, critical parts are made out of metal (instead of plastic) and drugs are not stored in unsafe conditions.
ammundsenJul 21, 2010
A single greedy/bad person cant do much. It takes organizing many such people into a corporation, government, or other enterprise for them to get away with such things. The point is human nature is what it is. Greed is a condition man suffers from in all walks of life. Poor people or the unemployed can act just as greedily but due to the smaller scale of what they do it does not attract our attention. I see frequently see poor or unemployed people with very nice material goods. I count that as greed just as much as the executive in his mansion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJul 21, 2010
"I see frequently see poor or unemployed people with very nice material goods. I count that as greed just as much as the executive in his mansion."
Wow.
ammundsenJul 21, 2010
@nygenxer drive through the ghetto you'll see nice cars and expensive clothes. Poor people can afford lots of things the question is how do they spend their money.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Irrelevant question.
What matters more is that it takes capital out of the private market that would otherwise be used to create jobs or increase efficiency of production (this lower prices for everyone).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJul 21, 2010
You are apparently unaware that private industry is sitting on more capital now than two years ago and are refusing to spend. You are also evidently unaware that worker efficiency (the largest part of production costs) is up these last two years as those who still have jobs are working longer for less money.
There. Cleared that up nicely.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Non sequiturs. You haven't answered how more taxes for better unemployment benefits would be better than companies having more capital -- because it doesn't.
You haven't cleared anything up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerJul 21, 2010
Putting money into the hands of those who will spend it instead of sitting on it increases demand.
If that's not clear enough, you'll have to seek answers elsewhere. Peace.
turstJul 21, 2010
@foucaultsvac I keep hearing this but what do you mean by "more taxes for better unemployment benefits"? The government is borrowing that money.
Closed AccountJul 22, 2010
Left to themselves, business would be using capital to expand, unless there's an outside force (government, via expensive regulations) that would decrease the return on the use of that capital.
Regulation is causing the issue in the first place, why tack more on?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11998&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+%28Cato+Recent+Op-eds%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
maxxellJul 21, 2010
It encourages people to live paycheck to paycheck. Because if the safety net is there, why not? Spend right at the limits of your income. Saving for rainy days? Seems dumb when the gov't will guarantee you another 2 years of income.
No go ahead an bury me, cuz it's business hours and digg is chock full of unemployed people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shadusJul 21, 2010
Except that the benefit is so low that you can't survive on it. 32% after tax I believe was the ammount I got last time I was on unemployment. It just about met my car payment and enough of my house payment to let the other half cover it.
turstJul 21, 2010
1) sell your car and buy a cheap used one
2) sell/foreclose on you house and move into a cheap apartment
problem solved.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
"Now go ahead an bury me, cuz it's business hours and digg is chock full of unemployed people."
I'm burying for making a stupid point. Also, I'm at work, not unemployed. I'm stuck working in a call center because there's no real jobs around here, so I just sit on digg all day. I'm sure there's lots of people like this on here.
iamdiggnifiedJul 21, 2010
There are usually hundreds of people applying for every open job. The question is am I being lazy for not taking a lesser job now that I'm unemployed. I think the answer is that the system is set up so that its more beneificial for me to stay on unemployment than take a lesser paying job that is not suited to my career. Also am I being lazy for not spending every waking minute applying to every job I see? i think at some point one would agree that that is an unproductive strategy.
megadan76Jul 21, 2010
It's utterly necessary. Of course some people are going to abuse the systems. That's just simple statistics. With millions of people in the system, someone is going to exploit it. That doesn't mean that the people who genuinely need it shouldn't get it.
meorJul 21, 2010
Unemployment benefits are paid for through T-bills. T-bills are bought by rich people and make them richer. Government programs like this just make rich people richer through compounding interest.
boner11Jul 21, 2010
That's how those "rich people" get rich. They get rich by buying investments that pay 2-3% annually. Huge f**king money.
rhawk187Jul 21, 2010
I know my step-father said he purposely worked 6 months on, 6 months off because with the unemployment benefits it maximized his income/quality of life ratio.
My cousin used to laugh that he made more on unemployment than his girlfriend did working, he said it gave me absolutely no incentive to go back.
kornbred79Jul 21, 2010
I am calling 100% BS on your "story".
You cannot collect unemployment if you voluntarily leave your job, or are terminated due to negligence.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
The government probably validates the terms of your termination based on the check box you fill out on the unemployment insurance form.
I wouldn't actually know, I've never been on it and don't think I ever will be.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rhawk187Jul 21, 2010
He was a carpenter/scaffolder and apparently it was pretty easy for him to find jobs that only lasted 6 months at a time.
There are a lot of professions that you can work 1 job at a time on, and then take some time off. I've personally done some aeronautics r&d and they pay you really well for the 6 months the project lasts, and then you are off for a while. It's not that uncommon.
contentpigJul 21, 2010
Actually all they care about for benefits in my state is identifying the "moving party". There's a lot of ways an employee can force the employer to be the "moving party" terminating the employment.
captininsanityJul 21, 2010
And if you get terminated intentionally that many times youre probably not going to be able to get a new job.
rhawk187Jul 21, 2010
He was a carpenter/scaffolder and apparently it was pretty easy for him to find jobs that only lasted 6 months at a time.
captininsanityJul 21, 2010
Then who paid his unemployment insurance? I don't think you can apply for temp work then claim unemployment like that. Are you sure no fraud was involved?
6502samJul 21, 2010
Is he in construction? Construction folks live like that because they have to. Construction used to be very cyclical. Now, it seems to be completely down.
A lot of folks say they're doing things like that on purpose to save face.
rhawk187Jul 21, 2010
He was a carpenter/scaffolder, so that's sort of like construction I guess.
fredfredricksonJul 21, 2010
Your step father must have had a pretty low quality of life to be able to support it on unemployment checks.
rhawk187Jul 21, 2010
We live in Appalachia, so the cost of living is pretty cheap around here. That and I have a suspicion he was probably cultivating marijuana on the side to raise funds.
s73v3rJul 21, 2010
I remember hearing a similar story from a graphic design contractor. She was good, but the company refused to outright hire her. Instead, they would have her pull that crap: 6 months on, then 6 months off. Its complete bulls**t.
thetruthbringerJul 21, 2010
It's certainly an enabler.
I know three people who are on unemployment and have been for as long as the extensions have been granted. One is a gay guy with a partner who brings in good money; since gay people can't get married, they aren't considered a married household. As a result the unemployed member of the couple can still collect unemployment. His job search is only for jobs that are way over his experience level because he knows 1) they'll never call someone with such limited experience or 2) if they do call and he gets the job, he'll be making at least 4 times what he had been making (that's his threshold for applying)..
He's not starving or at risk of losing anything, and he's technically meeting all the legal requirements for collecting unemployment.
Of the two others I know, one moved in with and is supported by her parents. The other is making enough to meet his needs for the time being and is enjoying what he calls his "sabbatical."
The latter two have expressed that they would find a job if their unemployment ran out and the former individual would easily be able to make do if his ended.
Makes me wonder how many legally married couples out there have one spouse collecting unemployment even if they have an adequate lifestyle and don't need the "safety net" unemployment insurance provides.
rudegarJul 21, 2010
the real problem is that if a company got 3 applications for a job
1 from a guy who been unemployed for 2 years
1 from a guy with a job already
1 from a guy who just was laid off
the first will rarely be picked, most jobs develop constantly and being outside of the field for 2 years is devastating.
also people who passionately claim it does make you lazy yes seem to see all unemployed people as deadbeat losers,
wonder if ending in the same situation would change their view?
shadusJul 21, 2010
The perception that someone on unemployment is lazy is part of what keeps very employable people from getting jobs unfortunately.
I mean, but with 15m people unemployed, it's not a big deal right?
neelshivJul 21, 2010
It lowers the cost of not trying harder. You can interpret that as encouraging laziness or not, but it definitely makes it easier to not get a job, which will in turn result in a marginal number of people not trying as hard to get job.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kornbred79Jul 21, 2010
Have you ever had to collect unemployment after being laid off?
yzbotJul 21, 2010
Maybe not lazy, but unemployment insurance will change peoples behavior. There is a moral hazard that comes into play when there is a safety net that people expect to be there. This is generally reflected in the savings rate. People just don't save anymore.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shadusJul 21, 2010
That's much less to do with unemployment insurance and a lot more to do with economic conditions.
Save ~what~? Most people if they have jobs have taken such huge pay cuts and what not that they're barely living paycheck to paycheck let alone having enough left to save.
yzbotJul 21, 2010
Times were better at one point. Obviously not everyone can save. But many could, should have, but didn't.
ligersharkJul 21, 2010
here's my current problem with the unemployed:
Sometimes people's jobs do go under, but you need to get new skills. Maybe you were a carpenter, and things were going well, but maybe now people aren't building stuff anymore. There are new industries which the people demand and we need people to fulfill those positions. Do you know what some useful industries are now? Maybe computer programming (we can always use new, better programs) or any kind of technological development. Even playgrounds for kids, or how about organizing events for students right out of college that are trying to adjust to the real world??
Bottom line: just because your job as a financial analyst was cut, doesn't mean that there is nothing for you to do. Maybe we don't need as many financial analysts anymore. Society always needs something. Find out what that is, and try to make a living off of it.
Granted this is easier said than done, and family stuff etc makes it very hard. I guess my major point is to be open to adaptation.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Computer Programming? The programming jobs were outsourced a long time ago. You say I should adapt? I've got 8 years in Pharmacy and I'm applying for jobs to mop floors. How much more should I adapt?
gusterbearJul 21, 2010
Maybe he's thinking the UI'd should start to suck c**k for money.
6502samJul 21, 2010
Jesus Christ.
DON'T YOU THINK PEOPLE HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT?!
I WAS a computer programmer and my company sent ALL of the programming jobs overseas. I had a job lead for a company a while ago and ALL THEIR PROGRAMMING JOBS WERE IN INDIA.
Dude, I've been there. I went back to school full time to get new skills and you know what I was told by one employer?
"Gee, it looks like you went back to school because you couldn't get a job."
Well, d'uh!
Other employers never even called me back.
And older people are having an even harder time.
Your post has absolutely nothing to do with reality. What do you do? Do you have some sort of government job? I mean, how can you be so clueless as to what's going on out there?
protodonJul 21, 2010
Yes it does because here's a very common phrase:
'Why would I take that job if pays the same as my unemployment?'
So someone that could be working in a real job just falls back on the unemployment. This happens especially when someone can't find something in their field. No one is going to work for minimum wage or whatever, when they can get paid the same amount just making a phone call every 2 weeks.
So extending unemployment benefits really keeps the unemployment rate artificially high.
for20Jul 21, 2010
I mirror your opinion. I know my aunt in law does this. She just milking the system. I don't blame her fully though, only because its easy to be unemployed. I think they should ad some sort of verification that you actually went to the job/interview and are trying to find work.
noyb1Jul 21, 2010
@protodon and @for20
your logic is faulty. if you are barely making ends meet with unemployment why would you take a minimum wage job? if you take a very low paid job not only are you still broke but you do not have the time to search for a good job because youre working 40+ hours a week.
s0nicfreakJul 21, 2010
You have the other 128 hours of the week, + breaks and lunch hours.
zenmojoJul 21, 2010
40 of those are spent sleeping. 10+ of those are spent driving. If your break IS your lunch hour, then you don't even get those.
sealinkJul 21, 2010
And you wouldn't need to spend 56 of that sleeping or anything. Also, all your childcare expenses miraculously disappear and the kids are taken care of by babysitter fairies.
s0nicfreakJul 21, 2010
@sealink That still leaves 72 hours where the other parent of your kids can take care of the kids while you look for a job (crazy idea, I know).