[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by Stylo

I remember in ~October 2009 I overheard a, ahem, unsophisticated woman in a gas station saying she was out of a job. The guy working the counter said "you should try Walmart, they're hiring a lot of holiday help right now".

So she said "yeah, but that's only part time. I'm probably better off just collecting unemployment until May and then looking for something full time."

That's actually not so terrible to say. One purpose of unemployment is to avoid a "race to the bottom" where all these people who made upper five and low six figure incomes are taking jobs like this right after they become unemployed to simply avoid a total loss of income. If you think the "social services" situation is overly "dependent" now, just imagine if nobody on the "lower end" of society was working p/t at Wal-Mart and totally collecting benefits because former teachers, mid-level managers and tech people took all those jobs.

Originally Posted by JViello

As for corporate greed etc, no sh*t...guess who has their administration FULL of these cronies? It aint George Bush. I hate crony capitalism as much as I can't stand nanny state socialism. They both have the same end result...unproductive outcomes.

As for my personal situation, with a wife facing a pink slip, you have no idea what we did to prepare.

Regarding the first paragraph above, really, both Bush and Obama had/have a good deal of them in their administrations and Bush had slightly more of them. You do realize a lot of people on the far left actually resent Obama for this and more or less simply see him as "better than the alternative".

Regarding the 2nd paragraph above, not everyone has the luxury to "prepare". While some people do "waste" and not "save" enough, you'd also be surprised how many don't make a "living wage" either.

Overall, I'm closer to mlassoff's view on this than yours, but I do grant that there is a significant (but still not the majority) of people getting these benefits who do "abuse the system" and give it a bad rep.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

That's actually not so terrible to say. One purpose of unemployment is to avoid a "race to the bottom" where all these people who made upper five and low six figure incomes are taking jobs like this right after they become unemployed to simply avoid a total loss of income. If you think the "social services" situation is overly "dependent" now, just imagine if nobody on the "lower end" of society was working p/t at Wal-Mart and totally collecting benefits because former teachers, mid-level managers and tech people took all those jobs.

How do you propose to accomlpish that, since 7 of top 10 jobs projected to grow long-term (both in Ct and the US overall)by BLS are race to the bottom jobs? That would mean a large chunk of those you describe must join the race to the bottom. Some ex teachers, mid level professionals, etc will by definition, assuming BLS is correct, be doing far more menial jobs. So what purpose does letting them avoid the inevitable serve?

During the recession, nationally 280,000 teaching positions have been cut, with analysts expecting an equal number to be cut in years to come. We will have a surplus of teachers.

http://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/employ...yJobcount.aspx

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by bobtn

How do you propose to accomlpish that, since 7 of top 10 jobs projected to grow long-term (both in Ct and the US overall)by BLS are race to the bottom jobs? That would mean a large chunk of those you describe must join the race to the bottom. Some ex teachers, mid level professionals, etc will by definition, assuming BLS is correct, be doing far more menial jobs. So what purpose does letting them avoid the inevitable serve?

During the recession, nationally 280,000 teaching positions have been cut, with analysts expecting an equal number to be cut in years to come. We will have a surplus of teachers.

Workforce Employment Dynamics - Job Count Data By Industry

Guess it's time to learn computer programming

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Guess it's time to learn computer programming

It's not a pretty future anyway. Looking at BLS projections, and remembering median income implies 50% earn more, 50% less, if one views the percentage as the group ones income is above, my hunch is those at the 40% position (60% make more) will be further away from the median 10,20, and 50 years than now.

That is why it is not rational for the long-term unemployed to view returning to their prior income levels as anything beyond a true longshot.

That makes "feel good" programs to sustain them where they were an imprudent investment, in aggregate.

Right-sizing lifestyles to ones new income, as JViello showed they are doing awaiting a wifes pink slip, is the mature thing to do.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by MikefromCT

JayCT, can you please move this to the politics board?

Thanks,

Sorry but this thread is related to Connecticut so it has to stay here. JayCT, Moderator

[JViello]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Right-sizing lifestyles to ones new income, as JViello showed they are doing awaiting a wifes pink slip, is the mature thing to do.

Bingo, you got it. That's the preparing we are doing. Refinanced to a lower interest rate, looking at what assets we can sell and pay debt down, my "newer" work truck is probably going by by, my wife's car may be traded in for a $5K car we own outright etc.

The issue is people living for years like their old salary exists and denying the reality that they may have to make a lifestyle change. And when they can't afford it and run out of reserves...it's "Big Daddy government should do 'something'"

Thanks for the kind words...

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by JViello

Bingo, you got it. That's the preparing we are doing. Refinanced to a lower interest rate, looking at what assets we can sell and pay debt down, my "newer" work truck is probably going by by, my wife's car may be traded in for a $5K car we own outright etc.

The issue is people living for years like their old salary exists and denying the reality that they may have to make a lifestyle change. And when they can't afford it and run out of reserves...it's "Big Daddy government should do 'something'"

Thanks for the kind words...

Your welcome. What will help is no doubt, starting 1/1/13, the 73 week ui max -formerly a luny 99-will be trimmed more. 2 years was outrageous; I knew several unemployed who put forth little effort looking for work for the entire first year. Than they were surprised their market value had dropped even more, as being long-term unemployed is a red flag to a new employer.

8 million jobs were axed between both administrations, and the reality is based on future job growth projections, most "new jobs" will be a downgrade from what was permanently eliminated. We need to erase the word "layoff"; its a 1956 word used in 2012. It leads to false hopes of jobs being restored as they were "pre layoff". HP is about to formally announce 25-30,000 cuts,,watch they will call them "layoffs". Yish!

[Bridgeport Rising]

Originally Posted by JViello

Bingo, you got it. That's the preparing we are doing. Refinanced to a lower interest rate, looking at what assets we can sell and pay debt down, my "newer" work truck is probably going by by, my wife's car may be traded in for a $5K car we own outright etc.

The issue is people living for years like their old salary exists and denying the reality that they may have to make a lifestyle change. And when they can't afford it and run out of reserves...it's "Big Daddy government should do 'something'"

Thanks for the kind words...

JV, is your industry really that bad. I have a very good friend that owns a small construction co in Mass. He was slow for a while, but has really picked up. He is having a hard time finding competent employees. He is fully insured and pays a good wage too.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by Bridgeport Rising

JV, is your industry really that bad. I have a very good friend that owns a small construction co in Mass. He was slow for a while, but has really picked up. He is having a hard time finding competent employees. He is fully insured and pays a good wage too.

That's just one piece of my work, but no, that's not the case. We may be losing 40% of our HH income and health insurance - that's the issue. Besides, after this "wake up" I want to be debt free in 5-7 years as I have no interest in being a slave to financial institutions any longer.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by bobtn

It's not a pretty future anyway. Looking at BLS projections, and remembering median income implies 50% earn more, 50% less, if one views the percentage as the group ones income is above, my hunch is those at the 40% position (60% make more) will be further away from the median 10,20, and 50 years than now.

That is why it is not rational for the long-term unemployed to view returning to their prior income levels as anything beyond a true longshot.

That makes "feel good" programs to sustain them where they were an imprudent investment, in aggregate.

Right-sizing lifestyles to ones new income, as JViello showed they are doing awaiting a wifes pink slip, is the mature thing to do.

And one purpose of unemployment at least in this day and age is to help "bridge" to that and at least give a newly-unemployed professional a chance to try and get something similar to their old position without being forced to instantly drop to a "menial job" career due to sudden loss of income. This is one reason why U/E pay is limited to half of your old income (and less if you were a "professional", CT is one of the more generous states capping it off close to $600/week, in NY it is $405/week, really not much more if around a "menial job" pay). Now I do think the economy has improved enough that 99 weeks is overkill in that purpose (in normal times the standard 26 weeks is sufficient, right now I would say perhaps a year), but still. I don't disagree about the importance of "saving for a rainy day", nor about potentially adjusting to a new reality, but there is no need to instantly "fall off a cliff" either. In fact, JViello, I do think that it is unfair that independent contractors and small businesspeople like yourself don't get at least some kind of reasonable "bridge" to help retrain, etc. That wouldn't be "dependency" or "government waste" (assuming it's done in a way where gov't doesn't bungle it), but "investment".

I understand the realities of today's marketplace, but I don't get why we're so eager to accept essentially "emulating China and India". One reason historically people almost "kill themselves" to come to the US is that we are supposed to be the exact opposite of them. And before you blame "Democratic policies" for this, I'll say that "Republican policies" have promoted that kind of lifestyle/economy just as much as "Democratic policies" promote dependency to some extent.

My problem with all this is that yes, government often wastes and "messes it up", but the private sector, while in theory the 'efficient' way, often morphs it into something that exploits.

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Guess it's time to learn computer programming

Too much of that has been shipped off to China and India too......also, allowing too many H1B visas on the grounds of "shortages" when often (not always, but often) it's an excuse to pay an almost unliving wage to computer professionals is a joke too.