Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, MaryPoppins, I know many who did not put much effort into finding a job for the first year collecting. It seems no matter how long one can collect, that group will treat the first half of it as a vacation. Some even took vacations collecting ui.
The ones who look immediately are the ones who were not saving a penny working.
Who in his or her right mind wants to accept a small amount of money instead of a full paycheck?
In my case I'd break even since the only jobs I might get hired to do pay about the same as UI. Besides, not everyone lives from hand to mouth when they are gainfully employed.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,016,954 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by w99w
In my case I'd break even since the only jobs I'd get hired to do pay about the same as UI. And they may or may not come with health insurance.
UI only pays a percentage of what a person earned in their previous position. Are you saying that you are no longer qualified to be hired in the same line of work? This statement would only be true if you were only looking for work that pays way less than what you previously earned.
Actually, MaryPoppins, I know many who did not put much effort into finding a job for the first year collecting. It seems no matter how long one can collect, that group will treat the first half of it as a vacation. Some even took vacations collecting ui.
The ones who look immediately are the ones who were not saving a penny working.
I don't understand this statement in bold.
In our case--we saved as much as we could but my husband still wants a job asap...it makes sense to get back to work but at the right job.
UI only pays a percentage of what a person earned in their previous position.
Right. But I edited my post. Re-read it.
Quote:
Are you saying that you are no longer qualified to be hired in the same line of work?
Pretty much. It is true that I probably picked up some sort of general, transferable skill while I was employed, but with so many people looking for work right now most employers have little incentive to hire someone who pretty much needs to start from zero acquiring specific skills instead of someone who already has those skills.
Quote:
This statement would only be true if you were only looking for work that pays way less than what you previously earned.
If I have spent months applying for jobs relatively similar to the one that I was doing, that pay about the same amount of money I was earning (not a lot of money by middle class standards), and almost nobody gets back to me even in spite of the fact that more than one "expert" has helped me polish my resume, the hint that I get is that I need to lower my expectations and seek a job that requires less skills: data entry, cashier, McDonald's, etc.
But you know what the tough part is about finding one of those jobs that pay about the same amount of money as UI? Convincing employers that I am not trying to move backward instead of forward with my "career".
So would I be employed by now if I were eager to jump into another "frying pan," as someone else put it? maybe. maybe not.
I'm saying those who did not save much cannot take the haircut ui represents, as they have no margin for error. Those who did save can afford that luxury, and like the OP, they truthfully do not put forth the proper effort until they see the end of benefits approaching.
The reality is few unemployed beyond just the first 6 months will end up avoiding a large haircut in pay anyway, which is why IMO, we need benefits to start closer to actual pay in the first 26 weeks, but reduced at each change in tier. That would make haircuts more attractive to the long-term unemployed, and structured properly, result in the same total benefit payment. I'd like to see first 26 paid at 80% of old wages, with each tier thereafter dropping a double digit percentage of the benefit check. There is no reason to pay week 99 at the same level as week 1, as in many cases, recipients are simply unwilling to accept Fair Market Wages, which often are far lower than their last pay.
UI only pays a percentage of what a person earned in their previous position. Are you saying that you are no longer qualified to be hired in the same line of work? This statement would only be true if you were only looking for work that pays way less than what you previously earned.
In a lot of cases, that's true. I didn't make great money before, but I had a salary and was in management. My company couldn't afford to pay me anymore. I eventually, after quite a lot of applying got another job in an industry I like, but the pay is astronomically smaller than what I made before and quite a bit less than UI paid.
Haven't found anything else that pays what I made before. All the jobs I'm looking at now are like $10 an hour.
It’s easier to find a job once you have a job. Trying to have a full go on extended unemployment might be the modern equivalent of leprosy. I don’t think a lot of people realize how badly it will hurt them in the long run.
I've been on unemployment three or four times...I NEVER looked for a job until my benefits ran out completely. It always seemed to work out all right.
That's not what working people want to hear.
And I'm sure the unemployed who are doing everything in their might to find a job are cringing at your statements.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.