Federal Extensions of unemployment insurance has become a welfare program (NAFTA, unemployment rate)

[Brainy Intellectual Type]

I am getting frustrated with the long term unemployed just sitting at home, sending a few resumes out a day for jobs they must know they are not going to be called for, and complaining. Just get a job, any job, even if it involves two minimum wage positions.

I know many people who have been collecting $450 a week in unemployment insurance for over 60 weeks. The first 26 weeks were traditional unemployment paid through a tax on employers. When they still did not have a job they went on state and federal extensions that last as long as 72 weeks. Now they are coming close to running out of these benefits and are pushing their member of Congress to give another 14 week extension.

If that extension is passed, what happens to them in 14 weeks? Why would we expect these people to be any closer to getting a job in 14 more weeks than today after 72 weeks of unemployment?

When do we say enough and force to people to depend on family and friends or work at McDonalds or Walmart?

Please, lets debate when we should cut off long term federal benefits for the long term unemployed.

[Memphis1979]

I don't believe that the largest amounts of people are milking the system.

I was unemployed, and on UI. I got into a program offered by the federal government where they paid me unemployment benefits while I was going to school. That lasted almost 2 years, and allowed me to finish my degree.

Without that program, I would have never finished school, I wouldn't have the job I have today, and I wouldn't have already paid back in taxes the money they paid me for all of that time.

I do know there are some people out there abusing the benefits, God knows I know some. However, the vast majority of people are taking this time to go back to school, or are holding out for a job that meets their expectations.

That to me seems to be the problem. People either don't want to move for a job they want, or they are unwilling to fill the position where they are at for the money being offered.

My opinion, is that we should federalize unemployment resources. Then you have the entire country to look at, and not just the area you are in. Pay for the move if needed, its only going to run about 5000 dollars, which is a lot less that unemployment benefits over the entire time.

Then you are putting people into jobs, in areas with less competition, where they would seemingly have a better chance of staying employed.

[Pandamonium]

7,000 people a day lose those benefits.

7,000 unemployed Americans lose their lifeline every day - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7000-unemployed-Americans-cnnm-1829229455.html?x=0 - broken link)


I would think that would be pleasing.

[dspguy]

Just get a job, any job, even if it involves two minimum wage positions.

What if John Smith was making $50/hr at his previous job - enough to pay the bills and mortgage - and lost his job. He goes and cuts out as many expenses as he can. He finds that he could get by this lull for less... but not two minimum wage jobs that will ultimately lead to foreclosure and/or default on other debts.

So he accepts these minimum wage jobs. When exactly does he try to get a job that might pay him $30/hr? I don't see there being much time to do that.

I think the broader issue is that we might never get back to unemployment below 7%. We had a lot of jobs being funded by phantom money. Money that US citizens were borrowing on their credit cards and their HELOCs and money that the government was borrowing from foreign nations. I simply don't see employment recovering that much. I think this was an adjustment to reality.

[markg91359]

I am getting frustrated with the long term unemployed just sitting at home, sending a few resumes out a day for jobs they must know they are not going to be called for, and complaining. Just get a job, any job, even if it involves two minimum wage positions.

I know many people who have been collecting $450 a week in unemployment insurance for over 60 weeks. The first 26 weeks were traditional unemployment paid through a tax on employers. When they still did not have a job they went on state and federal extensions that last as long as 72 weeks. Now they are coming close to running out of these benefits and are pushing their member of Congress to give another 14 week extension.

If that extension is passed, what happens to them in 14 weeks? Why would we expect these people to be any closer to getting a job in 14 more weeks than today after 72 weeks of unemployment?

When do we say enough and force to people to depend on family and friends or work at McDonalds or Walmart?

Please, lets debate when we should cut off long term federal benefits for the long term unemployed.

.................................................. ...............................................

I think right now if you tried to find work at McDonald's or Walmart you might be surprised. You'd learn they aren't hiring in most locations. At others the best you could find might be part time work at a $1 above minimum wage.

Unemployment benefits serve a dual purpose. One purpose is assistance to the employee who is without a job. The other purpose is a general purpose that helps prevent a country or region from experiencing further economic decline. The notion is that spending helps create jobs. So, if we take an out-of-work employee and give him unemployment benefits he'll still be able to go out and purchase food, clothing, rent, and other necessities. This helps keep the grocery store, the clothing store, and the landlord in business.

I believe there should be a limit on unemployment benefits, but that limit ought to relate to the economy generally. If the overall unemployment rate is 10% that tells me that job prospects are bleak and jobs are hard to find. When this is the case the period for benefits should be relatively long. On the other hand, when the unemployment rate is 6% it tells me that jobs are easier to come by. When this happens its time to cut the length of benefits.

[Brainy Intellectual Type]

OK fine, we all agree that the job market is terrible and the money that comes from a regular unemployment check gives the person a safety net and brings some money into a local community that is suffering financially.

But my real question is when should the federal and state government cut off the checks? In some cases people are collecting for 78 weeks and still have not found a job. Legislation is pending that would give another 14 weeks. So that extension passes and the people collecting long term federal extention unemployment benefits are given a life line for another 14 weeks. Move ahead to Spring 2010 and the job market still is terrible and the person still has no job. What then? How long should they continue to keep sending out checks?

Experts say that we could face high unemployment until 2014. Should they keep sending out checks to these long term unemployed until 2014 with borrowed money from China? What if we are still suffering in 2014? What then?

Lets not discuss the pros and cons of unemployment insurance as a concept, but the logic of continuing support of the long term unemployed.

[SCGranny]

I have never understood unemployment benefits. Whenever I lost a job, I went out and got another. Usually I was working two jobs (as was my spouse) so losing one job merely meant cutting back until one of us found another. The only time DH hasn't worked (since he was 14) was when he was injured at work and went on disability. We saved and didn't buy new cars, didn't buy into the 'upgrade your house!' craze, and just kept plugging along, driving the same old cars and living in the same old house, living on the cheap, raising three frugal children who worked from their teens on before they went to college or into the military, and not caring what people thought of us.

What I saw around me was people who bought into this new field or that one, making extravagant hourly wages, and blowing every penny on the newest and latest. Their cars were bigger and fancier, their clothes were expensive and their houses were not only cheap brannew shells but cost thousands more than ours to maintain. Then when those jobs inevitably ended, most of them had to declare bankruptcy and start over owing more than they could ever possibly pay back. They went on unemployment, went back to school, got newer, 'better' jobs - and started the same cycle over again! People, building their lives and rebuilding them, over and over again, at taxpayer's expense, because they 'deserved' better cars, better houses, better food, better clothes, than the poor dumb working stiffs who just kept their same jobs and kept plugging away. What are they going to do when no one will hire them because they are too old to work or become disabled? What will they do when their unemployment benefits run out? What will happen when the taxpayers can't afford them any more?

Sorry if I can't scrape up any sympathy for folks who think that they 'deserve' high paying jobs, that their world is destroyed if they haven't got their new cars or new houses or new clothes any more. This country has declined into nothing but service jobs, while everyone said that NAFTA and CAFTA are GOOD things and would improve the living of everyone. And they did - for awhile. Now we are paying the price and passing the same tired service-job dollars around, and folks are scrambling because each wave of recession leaves them poorer than before. If after 18 months someone can't find a job, it's time for them to change their attitude, not demand that their benefits be extended until they can find a job that suits them. Life is tough. Suck it up and work any way, anywhere you can, and make it work for you. Stop insisting that taxpaying people who have worked all their lives owe you a living ad infinitum... or at least til you can find another nice no-more-than-40-hour a week job with benefits and nice employers and a comfortable work environment, that keeps you in the manner to which you have allowed yourself to become accustomed.

[aveojohn]

Originally Posted by Brainy Intellectual Type

I am getting frustrated with the long term unemployed just sitting at home, sending a few resumes out a day for jobs they must know they are not going to be called for, and complaining. Just get a job, any job, even if it involves two minimum wage positions.

I know many people who have been collecting $450 a week in unemployment insurance for over 60 weeks. The first 26 weeks were traditional unemployment paid through a tax on employers. When they still did not have a job they went on state and federal extensions that last as long as 72 weeks. Now they are coming close to running out of these benefits and are pushing their member of Congress to give another 14 week extension.

If that extension is passed, what happens to them in 14 weeks? Why would we expect these people to be any closer to getting a job in 14 more weeks than today after 72 weeks of unemployment?

When do we say enough and force to people to depend on family and friends or work at McDonalds or Walmart?

Please, lets debate when we should cut off long term federal benefits for the long term unemployed.

I don't know what state you live in, but here in Pa, employees pay into unemployment insurance and I believe are entitled to get some or all of that money back. You might feel differently if you were unemployed.

[Brainy Intellectual Type]

Originally Posted by aveojohn

I don't know what state you live in, but here in Pa, employees pay into unemployment insurance and I believe are entitled to get some or all of that money back. You might feel differently if you were unemployed.

I live in Washington DC and am collecting unemployment insurance myself but the regular type of benefits paid out of business taxes.

What I am talking about is state and federal extensions paid for by borrowing money from China. Not the regular benefits. I am asking what should be done with the long term unemployed who have been collecting for over a year and are finishing up their last federal extension and still have no job and are lobbying for another 14 weeks to pass Congress to continue their life line.

[cpg35223]

It's only fair, since government policy created this financial mess in the first place, from the Federal Reserve's creation of a credit bubble, the FHA/FMA's elbow twisting of lenders to underwrite mortgages for people with suspect credit, the suspension of long-held ratios of debts to assets, etc. etc.