Should people on unemployment be paid closer to their last wage? (report, company)

[plenewken]

Originally Posted by NYChistorygal

It's not half-pay. UI is based on your last quarter income, up to a maximum which varies by state. My UI is less than half of my former salary. I'm only surviving because I am fortunate enough that I could move in with my parents.

I've also alway wondered why employees never had the option of buying additional insurance if they so chose. I guess it would be something like an AFLAC policy. You buy an insurance that would supply you $X.00 for a period of time that you declared when initially buying the insurance. I would absolutely go for that. The additional funds would have helped me greatly and perhaps many other people would not be losing their houses now.

I pay enough insurance already. If our Gvt didn't spend trillions of our taxes in 2 useless wars we'd be in a much better shape.

My UI is 20% of my former salary and my medical insurance eats 25% of what I receive. My 401K is barely at the level it was 10 years ago. If I touch it, I'll lose money, but pretty soon I'll have no choice.

[C.C]

Originally Posted by plenewken

My 401K is barely at the level it was 10 years ago. If I touch it, I'll lose money, but pretty soon I'll have no choice.

You're not alone:
More Americans Raiding 401(k)s For Cash - CBS News

[Ariadne22]

My unemployment benefit is 31% of what I had earned. Maximum benefit in Wisconsin is $363. I have said before, I am astonished at benefits paid in MA and elsewhere. I agree with the idea of means testing. Unemployment compensation at up to $1000/week is excessive, imo, and a disincentive to work. And, if one has a highly paid working spouse, doubly so.

Unemployment Benefits Comparison by State | File Unemployment

Unlike Social Security which is paid 50/50 employer/worker, unemployment insurance is 100% paid by the employer. I do not understand why people continually say "they" have been paying into the system. They have not. Unless, their rationale is the few cents their employer has paid on their salaries over the years is a cost to them. See this table:

Employer Costs for Employee Compensation for the Regions

Or this, for another example:

How much does Unemployment Insurance coverage cost employers?
Most employers are liable to pay premiums into the trust fund on the first $7,000 paid to each employee during a calendar year. Premium rates for new non-governmental employers are based on the experience of their industry grouping, if the industry grouping has an exceptionally high benefit payout. All other new employers are assigned a 2.7% new employer premium rate. Historically, construction and mining are the only industries with new employer rates greater than 2.7%.

Employers liable for premiums for three consecutive calendar years as of December 31 have rates based on their experience. Premium rates range from 0.0% to 10% for non-governmental employers and from 0.3% to 3% for governmental employers. State and local governments and certain nonprofit employers have the option of paying premiums or reimbursing the trust fund for their proportion of benefits paid to former employees.

Unemployment Insurance (http://www.scoreknox.org/library/unemployment.htm - broken link)

Or, this:

Where does the money come from?
Benefits are paid by the state from a special fund. The fund gets its money from employers, who pay a tax specifically for this program. The funding mechanism is very different from a system such as workers' compensation, in which an employee receives payments directly from an employer through the employer's insurance company. It is also different from benefit programs that use state general fund money. The fund that pays unemployment insurance benefits is not available for other purposes.

Unemployment Insurance - House Research

All that said, unemployment compensation is essential in these times and will be a safety net for millions for years. It should be tweaked so that those truly in need are not left without because the funds have been distributed to those who would suffer no hardship without them. And there are plenty of those, I think. CC's neighbor, for one. And, employers are going to start digging in their heels and objecting, as well, as their percentage of contributions going forward is bound to increase with this massive entrenched unemployment depleting the funds at an unprecedented rate.

Lastly, some of the minuscule amounts paid in some of the states is shameful. There should be some kind unilateral minimum imposed to compensate for that.

[myrc60]

My husband just got fired from his sales job of 5+ years because his sales are not where the company expects them to be and of course, they are not making any adjustments because of the double recession/depression that we are in. So all of those people on unemployment that can barely afford to pay their bills cost this household the only job we had. This is going to start happening more often as less people can afford to buy goods and you are going to see more closings because of it.

[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by myrc60

My husband just got fired from his sales job of 5+ years because his sales are not where the company expects them to be and of course, they are not making any adjustments because of the double recession/depression that we are in. So all of those people on unemployment that can barely afford to pay their bills cost this household the only job we had. This is going to start happening more often as less people can afford to buy goods and you are going to see more closings because of it.

The Wall Street bankers who destroyed the economy and bankrupted businesses with their overnight inability to lend money to keep the economy humming are the people responsible for the unemployment, your husband's lack of customers and resulting loss of job. Unfortunately, he is now joining the ranks of the 16 million without a job. It's the trickle down effect - from those who have to those who can least afford it. Hopefully, his employer paid into the system for his type of work. Some sales people are considered independent contractors and receive nothing.

We are going to be hearing more of this. Article I read last night states 1% of the population earned over 23% of the income in 2007. Bet it is a substantially higher percentage in 2010. Unheard of, when previously it had been 9%. More dollars at the top, fewer at the bottom. The ranks of the unemployed continue to grow.

Where have all the economic gains gone? Mostly to the top. The economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty examined tax returns from 1913 to 2008. They discovered an interesting pattern. In the late 1970s, the richest 1 percent of American families took in about 9 percent of the nation’s total income; by 2007, the top 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of total income.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/op...q=Reich&st=cse

Good luck to you.

[plenewken]

Originally Posted by Ariadne22

My unemployment benefit is 31% of what I had earned. Maximum benefit in Wisconsin is $363. I have said before, I am astonished at benefits paid in MA and elsewhere. I agree with the idea of means testing. Unemployment compensation at up to $1000/week is excessive, imo, and a disincentive to work. And, if one has a highly paid working spouse, doubly so.

Unemployment Benefits Comparison by State | File Unemployment

Unlike Social Security which is paid 50/50 employer/worker, unemployment insurance is 100% paid by the employer. I do not understand why people continually say "they" have been paying into the system. They have not. Unless, their rationale is the few cents their employer has paid on their salaries over the years is a cost to them. See this table:

Employer Costs for Employee Compensation for the Regions

Or this, for another example:

Unemployment Insurance (http://www.scoreknox.org/library/unemployment.htm - broken link)

Or, this:

Unemployment Insurance - House Research

All that said, unemployment compensation is essential in these times and will be a safety net for millions for years. It should be tweaked so that those truly in need are not left without because the funds have been distributed to those who would suffer no hardship without them. And there are plenty of those, I think. CC's neighbor, for one. And, employers are going to start digging in their heels and objecting, as well, as their percentage of contributions going forward is bound to increase with this massive entrenched unemployment depleting the funds at an unprecedented rate.

Lastly, some of the minuscule amounts paid in some of the states is shameful. There should be some kind unilateral minimum imposed to compensate for that.

Unemployment benefit of $1,000 week may appear excessive for you making $361:31 x100 = $1200/week when working but not for me making $2,800/week when I was working. It's all relative.

As for the employers, I'd hit the ones laying off employees much more than the others. After all, they're the one creating the problem. See FedEx laying off 1,700 workers today after announcing a $300 million profit for the quarter.

[TruckDriver33]

Originally Posted by plenewken

Unemployment benefit of $1,000 week may appear excessive for you making $361:31 x100 = $1200/week when working but not for me making $2,800/week when I was working. It's all relative.

As for the employers, I'd hit the ones laying off employees much more than the others. After all, they're the one creating the problem. See FedEx laying off 1,700 workers today after announcing a $300 million profit for the quarter.

Companies that are private are so for a reason. The investment to start a business was not given by those who say "penalize the companies because they are not hiring people". That investment that one chooses to make gives that person a right to hire who and when they want to. Its their risk and they could lose it all, if one makes mistakes in this economy. So don't blame the mainstreet, blame wallstreet because they are directly responsible for their part of this mess. Now no one will loan these companies money to buy new equipment which leads to hiring because if the company wasn't expanding and orders weren't good they would not be in need of new equipment.

[myrc60]

Originally Posted by Ariadne22

The Wall Street bankers who destroyed the economy and bankrupted businesses with their overnight inability to lend money to keep the economy humming are the people responsible for the unemployment, your husband's lack of customers and resulting loss of job. Unfortunately, he is now joining the ranks of the 16 million without a job. It's the trickle down effect - from those who have to those who can least afford it. Hopefully, his employer paid into the system for his type of work. Some sales people are considered independent contractors and receive nothing.

We are going to be hearing more of this. Article I read last night states 1% of the population earned over 23% of the income in 2007. Bet it is a substantially higher percentage in 2010. Unheard of, when previously it had been 9%. More dollars at the top, fewer at the bottom. The ranks of the unemployed continue to grow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/op...q=Reich&st=cse

Good luck to you.

Thanks.

Oh, I know where the blame lies...but if people on unemployment were bringing home closer to what they had made it would not be as bad. Of course, we'd be adding more trillions of debt over what there already is but it would help protect more jobs than are now protected. God help us all!

Still not seeing anything to apply for here; better start milking that home business 20 hours a day.

[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by plenewken

Unemployment benefit of $1,000 week may appear excessive for you making $361:31 x100 = $1200/week when working but not for me making $2,800/week when I was working. It's all relative.

As for the employers, I'd hit the ones laying off employees much more than the others. After all, they're the one creating the problem. See FedEx laying off 1,700 workers today after announcing a $300 million profit for the quarter.

Oh, yeah. Highly profitable employers these days are using this economy as an excuse to wring out even more profit. Add Harley-Davidson to that mix, crying poor and threatening to move jobs from WI, cutting their workforce, hiring casual workers at 1/2 pay with no benefits, getting tons of state incentives not to move. They say their sales are off, but the dealers say they can't get product and haven't been able to for some time. Who is playing games? And their so-called loss last year was write-off due to a plant closing, not a loss because of reduced sales. It's all BS.

And, yes, if your standard of living is based on your $146K salary, then living on $1K week is probably a challenge. Indeed, it is relative. But if this economy doesn't turn around soon, our previous standards of living will become a thing of the past.

[TruckDriver33]

Originally Posted by Ariadne22

Oh, yeah. Highly profitable employers these days are using this economy as an excuse to wring out even more profit. Add Harley-Davidson to that mix, crying poor and threatening to move jobs from WI, cutting their workforce, hiring casual workers at 1/2 pay with no benefits, getting tons of state incentives not to move. They say their sales are off, but the dealers say they can't get product and haven't been able to for some time. Who is playing games? And their so-called loss last year was write-off due to a plant closing, not a loss because of reduced sales. It's all BS.

And, yes, if your standard of living is based on your $146K salary, then living on $1K week is probably a challenge. Indeed, it is relative. But if this economy doesn't turn around soon, our previous standards of living will become a thing of the past.

Lets not forget that Harley is a publicly held company and the board and shareholders run that company. They vote on everything from expansion to hiring. The shareholders are the one's who have given their money to be used to produce profit and thats what is important to them. Obviously they have chosen not to spend money on capitol equipment which would give them the ability to produce more and hire more. But its their money, its their choice. They have 54% of the US market so they must be doing something right.