[Stylo]

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.

Oh trust me, this woman was unskilled. Her last job she was talking about was medial too and she didn't exactly come across with any class at all. It was clear she was collecting until the end and had no desire to be aggressive about finding a job.

People like that actually keep the economy from growing, y'know...

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

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..

I'm not advocating instantly; 99 weeks though became 2 years of "quasi welfare" for many (I knew some who sat out 1 year with little effort), and Malloy wants MORE years. I'd like to see 26 weeks at the present ui check rate, with perhaps 2 10 week tiers each at 20% less thaan prior check, and there should be a lifetime limit on extended weeks one can collect Perhaps 40 weeks total-2 cycles).

[JayCT]

Do you REALLY think that there are a lot of people out there living it up on unemployment? I doubt it. It is not that much money and to think that people can live long term on it is really unrealistic. Jay

[JViello]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Do you REALLY think that there are a lot of people out there living it up on unemployment? I doubt it. It is not that much money and to think that people can live long term on it is really unrealistic. Jay

Yes, actually there are.

Many "moms" getting unemployment, while ditching daycare costs are actually coming out ahead. So, why not stay home for a couple years and raise the kids while taking home more money.

I also know a loooooooooooooooooooooooooot of tradesmen who are collecting and doing cash jobs on the side making a pile of cash.

It's more common than you think.

There is also a segment of the population that lost their 80K job, burn through their savings, investments without having a second thought about adjusting their reality and lifestyle and then expect "someone" to bail them out.

[JayCT]

I am not saying there are none. I said do you really think there are a lot of them? I would say most are people really looking for a job and having issues. It is a problem with our economy. Hopefully it will get better. We are just not there yet. Jay

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I am not saying there are none. I said do you really think there are a lot of them? I would say most are people really looking for a job and having issues. It is a problem with our economy. Hopefully it will get better. We are just not there yet. Jay

I've seen it mostly amongst people who cannot accept the fact a haircut is coming. If one is a clerk in an office, the cut to ui is not tremendous in states that cap out ui at high levels, especially when one factors in no gas expense, no outside lunch expense, nor office clothing expense, on a recurring basis.

Long-term unemployment levels have not fallen in sync with overall levels. That's indicative of a system not working.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I am not saying there are none. I said do you really think there are a lot of them? I would say most are people really looking for a job and having issues. It is a problem with our economy. Hopefully it will get better. We are just not there yet. Jay

Well, to answer your question, I don't think unemployment rates will ever drop much below 4% here as there is just that amount of people who have no desire to work. So that IMO leaves an additional 4% right now that really are laid off against their will. Out of them, I'd say 1% is riding the wave in some way...combine that with the lower 4% who are just mouth breathers and you have a significant amount of people.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by bobtn

I'm not advocating instantly; 99 weeks though became 2 years of "quasi welfare" for many (I knew some who sat out 1 year with little effort), and Malloy wants MORE years. I'd like to see 26 weeks at the present ui check rate, with perhaps 2 10 week tiers each at 20% less thaan prior check, and there should be a lifetime limit on extended weeks one can collect Perhaps 40 weeks total-2 cycles).

Actually, the "lower checks as you go further into unemployment past 26 weeks" is an interesting idea, as is the "lifetime limit" (something that was done with welfare starting in the Clinton era, I think it's a 5 year limit), but I think 40-50 weeks over your entire lifetime is way too little, especially in this age of potentially losing jobs every few years. I was thinking more on the lines of the 5 year welfare limit, or at least something like 3 years.........but I do agree the economy may have improved enough that dropping it down to about a year limit vs. the 99 (soon to be 73) week limit makes sense.

Originally Posted by bobtn

I've seen it mostly amongst people who cannot accept the fact a haircut is coming. If one is a clerk in an office, the cut to ui is not tremendous in states that cap out ui at high levels, especially when one factors in no gas expense, no outside lunch expense, nor office clothing expense, on a recurring basis.

But wouldn't THEIR unemployment pay still be just half of their old pay? So it's not like they are making their old low "clerk in an office salary", and I think that's exactly the reason why UI is half your old pay with a cap to boot, to try and prevent that sort of thing. I think the moms staying home instead of paying day care (since that can usually be quite expensive) JViello gave is a more valid argument in support of what I think you're saying......

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

But wouldn't THEIR unemployment pay still be just half of their old pay? So it's not like they are making their old low "clerk in an office salary", and I think that's exactly the reason why UI is half your old pay with a cap to boot, to try and prevent that sort of thing. I think the moms staying home instead of paying day care (since that can usually be quite expensive) JViello gave is a more valid argument in support of what I think you're saying......

At lower pay rates, its closer to 60%. Now gas , eating out lunch, and clothes can easily absorb 20-30% of net pay at lower pay rates, and volla you now are replacing 80-90% of net pay b/w actual ui check and costs not incurred. (those extras might only be 5% of net for managers). Conceptually, cost avoidance is the same, be it day care or gas, lunch, etc.

BTW, Caps do not affect most clerks.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

Actually, the "lower checks as you go further into unemployment past 26 weeks" is an interesting idea, as is the "lifetime limit" (something that was done with welfare starting in the Clinton era, I think it's a 5 year limit), but I think 40-50 weeks over your entire lifetime is way too little, especially in this age of potentially losing jobs every few years. I was thinking more on the lines of the 5 year welfare limit, or at least something like 3 years.........but I do agree the economy may have improved enough that dropping it down to about a year limit vs. the 99 (soon to be 73) week limit makes sense.



......

I was talking 40 weeks of extended time only (the tiers added by Congress) as the limit, not limiting the occurrences of the first 26 week cycle.