U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 11-30-2010, 11:36 AM
 
372 posts, read 236,018 times
Reputation: 398
Default Unemployment checks late this week!

I know that unemployment checks will be delayed this week due to some computer related changes with the State and due to the Thanksgiving Holiday, but I wondered if any of you have received your's yet?

My status still says as of November 26th....
I am on my EUC benefits for perhaps the last time if Congress doesn't realize how good it would be for the economy to continue the extensions at least until unemployment drops to 7%.... not passing another extension is fiscally irresponsible in my opinion, what do you think?

 
Old 11-30-2010, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Washington State
130 posts, read 174,318 times
Reputation: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazertrek50 View Post
I am on my EUC benefits for perhaps the last time if Congress doesn't realize how good it would be for the economy to continue the extensions at least until unemployment drops to 7%.... not passing another extension is fiscally irresponsible in my opinion, what do you think?
I think that 99 weeks is enough time to go back to school and get trained in a field where employees are in high demand.
 
Old 11-30-2010, 01:33 PM
 
372 posts, read 236,018 times
Reputation: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkcurran View Post
I think that 99 weeks is enough time to go back to school and get trained in a field where employees are in high demand.
You are entitled to your opinion as narrow minded as it seems, but from surveys taken and the data gathered you would be incorrect in that assumption.
 
Old 11-30-2010, 01:54 PM
 
2,528 posts, read 1,980,056 times
Reputation: 1222
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkcurran View Post
I think that 99 weeks is enough time to go back to school and get trained in a field where employees are in high demand.
Naw, the general sentiment is that displaced workers shouldn't be forced to re-train for something else. A job should be created for them, whether there's a demand for it or not. Or so the populace says.

The whole concept that a 99'er could have gone to school and received an Associates Degree in any field of their choosing by now is apparently something that should only be thought by the masses, never actually spoken aloud (that being, those of us who are still paying into the system for the most part agree with you, but can't voice it). It's easier to say "it's good for the economy" to just keep handing people money to not work - you know, because it's worked out so well for Greece, where the populace expects to be paid to not show up.

Eventually the populace will realize most of those jobs aren't coming back, because companies have realized that they can pay a 12 year old Chinese kid to do the exact same thing with the exact same competence level for 8 cents an hour as opposed to $20+ an hour and all the hassles with unions that come with it. At that point, you'll probably see college enrollment explode.

For the record, the 2 friends I have that did choose to go back to school when the economy collapsed in 08 (one for Health Information Technology and the other for nursing school) have both already found jobs in their new fields. Funny how that works.
 
Old 11-30-2010, 02:27 PM
 
372 posts, read 236,018 times
Reputation: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathos View Post
Naw, the general sentiment is that displaced workers shouldn't be forced to re-train for something else. A job should be created for them, whether there's a demand for it or not. Or so the populace says.

The whole concept that a 99'er could have gone to school and received an Associates Degree in any field of their choosing by now is apparently something that should only be thought by the masses, never actually spoken aloud (that being, those of us who are still paying into the system for the most part agree with you, but can't voice it). It's easier to say "it's good for the economy" to just keep handing people money to not work - you know, because it's worked out so well for Greece, where the populace expects to be paid to not show up.

Eventually the populace will realize most of those jobs aren't coming back, because companies have realized that they can pay a 12 year old Chinese kid to do the exact same thing with the exact same competence level for 8 cents an hour as opposed to $20+ an hour and all the hassles with unions that come with it. At that point, you'll probably see college enrollment explode.

For the record, the 2 friends I have that did choose to go back to school when the economy collapsed in 08 (one for Health Information Technology and the other for nursing school) have both already found jobs in their new fields. Funny how that works.
Wow this thread has really gotten off track. For the record I never said that people should get more than 99 weeks, I am just talking about those who are still on unemployment and that extensions are good for the economy. I also have gone back to school to retrain for HR and get my masters after my BA in management. I believe that we all should do what we can to better ourselves to become more employable. That being said this wrecked economy can be fixed by simply reducing our full time overpaid politicians to part timers as we really do not need them to do more than approve bills/laws and for oversight on government employees upper management. Possibly a 20 hour a month job. Can you imagine how much money that would save!
 
Old 11-30-2010, 03:13 PM
 
2,528 posts, read 1,980,056 times
Reputation: 1222
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazertrek50 View Post
Wow this thread has really gotten off track. For the record I never said that people should get more than 99 weeks, I am just talking about those who are still on unemployment and that extensions are good for the economy. I also have gone back to school to retrain for HR and get my masters after my BA in management. I believe that we all should do what we can to better ourselves to become more employable. That being said this wrecked economy can be fixed by simply reducing our full time overpaid politicians to part timers as we really do not need them to do more than approve bills/laws and for oversight on government employees upper management. Possibly a 20 hour a month job. Can you imagine how much money that would save!
You said, and I quote:

Quote:
not passing another extension is fiscally irresponsible in my opinion, what do you think?
Don't ask for an answer if you aren't ready to get an honest response. The views of a lot of people (myself included) is that it was irresponsible of people to sit around so long that they're now in a position to where their UI benefits are going to run out, and they are absolutely no more better off in terms of skillset or employability than they were 2 years ago. Sorry, but if you spend 2 years on a couch eating Bon Bon's, playing Halo, and sending out a few resumes a week, you lose the right to say that you aren't getting a fair shake or that it's irresponsible of the rest of us to not let you continue your ride. I don't think it's fiscally irresponsible to not pass another extension. I think we as a government spend more than we can afford, and at some point we've got to cut the cord to the perpetually unemployed (as well as those who are really retired but are simply milking the system) and let them either swim or sink.

As to the meat of the above post, politicians account for a miniscule amount of government spending. A government looking to save money by looking inwards needs look no further than the pension plans and benefits packages they provide. That's where the real expenditure is.
 
Old 11-30-2010, 04:18 PM
 
372 posts, read 236,018 times
Reputation: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathos View Post
You said, and I quote:



Don't ask for an answer if you aren't ready to get an honest response.

As to the meat of the above post, politicians account for a miniscule amount of government spending. A government looking to save money by looking inwards needs look no further than the pension plans and benefits packages they provide. That's where the real expenditure is.
Actually I was really hoping for an educated response
You really are that oblivious to how much politicians are costing our country. I find that somewhat naive. As to the rest of your response I find it quite judgmental of you to lump all people that are unemployed into one category. Do you know them all, over 14 million? You have no data to support your opinions. Whereas there is plenty of data that shows how if unemployment is not extended that the money will be spent in other areas to support unemployed people such as in food stamps and other support. In other words no savings to the national debt. However if the Bush Tax Cuts were repealed then a huge gain would be recognized (over $260 billion)! Maybe you have read that for every job available there are 5-6 unemployed people. Simple math tells us there is a problem that needs to be seriously examined. That is why I would support gutting our political system (which favors the ultra wealthy) and restructuring it to represent the people not the rich! Oh and I do not even like bon-bons
 
Old 11-30-2010, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
809 posts, read 1,494,276 times
Reputation: 719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathos View Post
You said, and I quote:



Don't ask for an answer if you aren't ready to get an honest response. The views of a lot of people (myself included) is that it was irresponsible of people to sit around so long that they're now in a position to where their UI benefits are going to run out, and they are absolutely no more better off in terms of skillset or employability than they were 2 years ago. Sorry, but if you spend 2 years on a couch eating Bon Bon's, playing Halo, and sending out a few resumes a week, you lose the right to say that you aren't getting a fair shake or that it's irresponsible of the rest of us to not let you continue your ride. I don't think it's fiscally irresponsible to not pass another extension. I think we as a government spend more than we can afford, and at some point we've got to cut the cord to the perpetually unemployed (as well as those who are really retired but are simply milking the system) and let them either swim or sink.

As to the meat of the above post, politicians account for a miniscule amount of government spending. A government looking to save money by looking inwards needs look no further than the pension plans and benefits packages they provide. That's where the real expenditure is.

Amen to that. I really do feel for the people who have been very diligent in finding work but haven't found anything, but I think those people are very few and far between. I think one of the biggest problems is that people made a substantial amount of money before, and they're not willing to take work that pays less, so they decide to stay on unemployment instead.

I think it's time that we force the people to take work, and if that means living a more simplistic lifestyle and downsizing, so be it.
 
Old 11-30-2010, 04:42 PM
 
2,528 posts, read 1,980,056 times
Reputation: 1222
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazertrek50 View Post
Actually I was really hoping for an educated response
You really are that oblivious to how much politicians are costing our country. I find that somewhat naive. As to the rest of your response I find it quite judgmental of you to lump all people that are unemployed into one category. Do you know them all, over 14 million? You have no data to support your opinions. Whereas there is plenty of data that shows how if unemployment is not extended that the money will be spent in other areas to support unemployed people such as in food stamps and other support. In other words no savings to the national debt. However if the Bush Tax Cuts were repealed then a huge gain would be recognized (over $260 billion)! Maybe you have read that for every job available there are 5-6 unemployed people. Simple math tells us there is a problem that needs to be seriously examined. That is why I would support gutting our political system (which favors the ultra wealthy) and restructuring it to represent the people not the rich! Oh and I do not even like bon-bons
And my counterargument: I would rather the money be spent on welfare programs for these people which will hopefully shame them into being more amenable to finding work under less than ideal conditions (lower pay, forced relocation, etc.) than I am to simply extending their benefits until their dream job comes along. The issue with the W tax cuts is that the majority of this country (the middle class) wants to extend them....but only for them. It's real easy to sit in the catbird seat and claim that you should keep your tax cuts (not you, per se, since you aren't working), but that those who worked the hardest and became the most successful should now be forced to wholly subsidize those at the bottom. Again, it's not unreasonable to take a stance of "if you're going to eliminate the cuts for some, eliminate the cuts for all".

You state for every job, there are 5 applicants. If you're unemployed for 99 weeks, and you do the minimum 3 resume submissions a week, that means over the span of that 99 weeks you have sent out 297 resumes, and have not been able to beat out 4 other applicants for a job even *one* time. And really, that's all you need to do - convince ONE employer that you are better than the other 4 people. At what point do you look in the mirror and decide that the problem is what's staring back at you? It's not like you need to hit 10 in a row. You need 1 out of 300. I get that for every person at the top, there has to be another person equally close to the bottom, but after 99 weeks, you should have done enough to pull yourself up out of the bottom to become one of those at the top.

And again, while politicians make plenty of money, if you were to add up the salaries of every member of Congress, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to other ancillary expenses. You wouldn't even dent anything by cutting their pay in half.

Lastly, you can claim that the system favors "the rich", but as a member of "the rich", I've got a couple of little facts for you:

1) 35% of my paycheck goes to my dear old Uncle Sammy right off the top. Most of that tax money goes to services I don't utilize. Then you add in my max-level contributions to Medicaid and Social Security (of which I'll never see a dime back on), etc.
2) The top 5% of earners in this country account for almost 65% of all tax revenue that's brought in. The middle 45% account for 35%, and the bottom 50% not only contribute nothing, but get paid to be there. That's not structured "in my favor". Just because "I can afford it" (a tax increase reducing the money I earn for working to pay for you to not work) doesn't mean I should "have to pay it". I can afford to buy a boat and sail to Antarctica while wearing a diamond-studded speedo. Doesn't mean I should.

Like I said, it's real easy to sit in your recliner playing Halo telling me I should be on board with giving you another 6 months of unemployment benefits. But the reality is while I would rather be at home playing a game, I'm sitting in an office right now to keep my own lifestyle going, and a decent chunk of what I'm earning is being funneled away for those not contributing to the system to be able to play Halo and enjoy the other services provided. It's always easier to reach into someone else's pocket than to go into one's own. It's also real easy to claim that the system should be restructured so that you get what you want, at the expense of poking someone like me in the eye with a stick because there are less people like me than there are people like you.

And that's the reality. Enjoy that next check coming your way.
 
Old 11-30-2010, 05:12 PM
 
5,601 posts, read 12,189,576 times
Reputation: 4482
mod interpose: *sigh* ...okay, we're going to close this thread later tonight so get your comments in now. Again, our local forums are not really focused on arguing about such controversies. More often than not, they degenerate into attacking and flaming. Our local forums primarily exist to discuss relocation issues, visitor information, and helping/answering inquiries from those newly relocated to an area. Please take the debate pertaining to unemployment benefits in general to our P&OC forum.
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.


 

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top