Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Unemployment
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-07-2011, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Ocean County, NJ
621 posts, read 2,327,388 times
Reputation: 200

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by diorgirl View Post
Once again, incorrect. You are confusing the state's eligibility for EB -- with the federal government's commitment to pay 100% of the cost of EB. The three-year look back may extend eligibility for the benefits into 2012 -- but the three-year look back does not extend 100% federal funding into 2012.

Please take the time to read the full explanation here before continuing to argue a position that is factually without substance.

The source of the funding
is legislated separately from a state's eligibility for EB benefits. The 110% eligibility being discussed in this thread DOES NOT affect the coming expiration of the 100% federal funding for EB. Source of funding and eligibility are
TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.


FYI, this is how EB funding works:
(1) EB is 100% federally funded through the end of December 2011.

(2) Beginning in January 2012, EB funding now reverts to 50% federal/50% state funding.

(3) Without 100% federal funding, most states will cancel EB -- whether or not the states meet the longer and/or shorter term requirements.

(3) Unlike many states, New Jersey cannot cancel EB when 100% federal funding ceases. New Jersey is required by state law to provide EB whenever the state meets the two requirements for EB (longer and shorter term). That means the state must -- by state law -- provide EB even if it is only funded 50% by the federal government.

(4) If New Jersey amends the criteria for longer term eligibility to three years, it will continue to be eligible for EB into 2012 -- meaning it MUST then provide EB after 100% federal funding ceases to exit. That, in turn, means the state MUST pay then 50% of the funding.

I cannot explain this any more simply.
You're completely overlooking the fact that 110% requirement will not be met even with the 3 year look back in 2012, therefore no longer in EB eligibility. The 110% trigger with 3 year look back is only good through 2011 as of now. If they keep the 3 year look back in 2012 it now goes back to 2009. With the way the unemployment rates have steadily fallen, it's all but a certain by the end of 2011/beginning of 2012 that the rates will be low enough to not meet the 110% criteria.

I'll break it down like this, come 2012 unless the states unemployment rate shoots up, NJ drops out of EB eligibility, therefore gets no federal funding, whether it's 50% or 100%. I may be wrong but during normal times, it's actually 120% not 110%.

If I were to follow what you're saying. NJ would be on the hook for EB no matter what if the three year look back isn't met. We know thats not the case. Even when it's passed, go into 2012, everything reverts back anyway. They would only be able to go back to 2009 for the corresponding months and the 110 or 120% trigger can't be met. It's that simple. That's why some states that have passed teh fix are only good until the end of the year.

Last edited by Tuck91NYG; 04-07-2011 at 03:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-07-2011, 03:43 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
3,814 posts, read 11,980,158 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck91NYG View Post
You're completely overlooking the fact that 110% requirement will not be met even with the 3 year look back in 2012. The 110% trigger with 3 year look back is only good through 2011. The 3 year look back in 2012 now goes back to 2009. With the way the unemployment rates have steadily fallen, it's all but a certain by the end of 2011/beginning of 2012 that the rates will be low enough to not meet the 110% criteria.
The monthly unemployment rate in New Jersey has not "steadily fallen" -- it has hovered at the 9.2%-9.1% level for more than six months. And no state programs have boosted employment as Christie projected.

Once again, you can rationalize and speculate all you like -- but there has been no downward trend in unemployment in New Jersey on which to base your predictions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2011, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Ocean County, NJ
621 posts, read 2,327,388 times
Reputation: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by diorgirl View Post
The monthly unemployment rate in New Jersey has not "steadily fallen" -- it has hovered at the 9.2%-9.1% level for more than six months. And no state programs have boosted employment as Christie projected.

Once again, you can rationalize and speculate all you like -- but there has been no downward trend in unemployment in New Jersey on which to base your predictions.
Do you really think NJ is going to stay at 9.2...9.1 all year long? No. Look at the national rate, it's steadily fallen and other states in our region are doing the same. NJ is not some anomaly, where every state around us, lowers their rate and we shoot sky high.

And it has steadily fallen, except for the month of February when NJ's labor force had an influx of people seeking work

2010 Jun9.5(B)
2010 Jul 9.4(B)
2010 Aug 9.3(B)
2010 Sep 9.3(B)
2010 Oct 9.2(B)
2010 Nov 9.2(B)
2010 Dec 9.1(B)
2011 Jan 9.1
2011 Feb 9.2(P)

Last edited by Tuck91NYG; 04-07-2011 at 04:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2011, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Ocean County, NJ
621 posts, read 2,327,388 times
Reputation: 200
To the rest of the people in this thread, i apologize for this turning into a debate thread. I am in the same position as most of you.

here is what he know so far:

  1. The three states so far that provided no legislation to fix the 110% 3 year look back are: Wisconsin, Utah and Tennessee
  2. Missouri and North Carolina have legislation in progress for the fix.
  3. NJ has legislation waiting to be signed before it triggers off EB after May 20th (BLS State Unemployment report for April)
Check with your state to see if your state has Implemented the fix. Off the top of my head, I know NY, Maine, Colorado, California, Nevada have implemented the changes. There are more but I dont have the time to actively research who did and who didnt so far.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2011, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
25,574 posts, read 56,520,405 times
Reputation: 23394
This 110/120% look back is a significant and unhappy development for anyone expecting to collect what is left of their 99 weeks - particularly later this year. The NELP chart indicates over 30 states could very likely trigger off EB in the next few months.

Serious stuff. The job market is not improving enough to pick up the slack for the millions who will lose EB.

Going off the numbers posted above, it would appear NJ needs an unemployment rate of well over 10% at least to continue EB unless they write that 110/120% out of the legislation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2011, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Ocean County, NJ
621 posts, read 2,327,388 times
Reputation: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
This 110/120% look back is a significant and unhappy development for anyone expecting to collect what is left of their 99 weeks - particularly later this year. The NELP chart indicates over 30 states could very likely trigger off EB in the next few months.

Serious stuff. The job market is not improving enough to pick up the slack for the millions who will lose EB over the next few months.

Anyone anticipating EB had better not count their chickens until they are fried. Wisconsin's drop in unemployment has been so dramatic over the past year it is unlikely a three year look back would help (haven't checked the nos). That, together with our fractious political environment and a GOP gov and majority in both houses, won't happen here.

Going off the numbers posted above, it would appear NJ needs an unemployment rate of well over 10% at least to continue EB unless they write that 110/120% out of the legislation.
Not if but when Christie signs the bill, NJ will be able to look back until 2008, which will pretty much get us through the year. Once 2012 hits though, unless a 4 year look back is enabled by a new federal unemployment extension bill, NJ will only be able to back to 2 years. The 3 year fix passed by the feds only lets states look back 3 years for 2011. Once the EUC programs end at the end of the year so does that 3 year look back legislation. So that would render most if not all states out of EB eligibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2011, 04:43 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
25,574 posts, read 56,520,405 times
Reputation: 23394
Well, I'm going to send an email to DWD and our state legislators asking if anyone is doing anything about getting WI to do a 3-year look back. Our unemployment rate in March 2008 was 5.6% and February 2008 5.8% v. 7.4% today. We, too, might be able to make it through 2011. Cutting off EB like this so suddenly is not good.

Last edited by JMT; 04-07-2011 at 04:56 PM.. Reason: Keep political editorializing out of this forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2011, 04:55 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
3,814 posts, read 11,980,158 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck91NYG View Post
Not if but when Christie signs the bill, NJ will be able to look back until 2008, which will pretty much get us through the year. Once 2012 hits though, unless a 4 year look back is enabled by a new federal unemployment extension bill, NJ will only be able to back to 2 years. The 3 year fix passed by the feds only lets states look back 3 years for 2011. Once the EUC programs end at the end of the year so does that 3 year look back legislation. So that would render most if not all states out of EB eligibility.
Do you have a source for these statements about the law? I see no reference posted any time you make such statements about the extent of the law governing this issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2011, 04:59 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
3,814 posts, read 11,980,158 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck91NYG View Post
Do you really think NJ is going to stay at 9.2...9.1 all year long? No. Look at the national rate, it's steadily fallen and other states in our region are doing the same. NJ is not some anomaly, where every state around us, lowers their rate and we shoot sky high.
Facts: the movement of the New Jersey unemployment has not tracked with the movement of the national rate, nor has the New Jersey rate fallen below that of other states in the region -- such as New York.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2011, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Ocean County, NJ
621 posts, read 2,327,388 times
Reputation: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by diorgirl View Post
Facts: the movement of the New Jersey unemployment has not tracked with the movement of the national rate, nor has the New Jersey rate fallen below that of other states in the region -- such as New York.
Ok, point to me where I said NJ's rate is based off of the national rate? I simply put the federal rate is going down and so are the rates of states in the region. Most states are on a downward trend and so was NJ until last month when it had an influx of people added to the looking for work category.

Last edited by JMT; 04-07-2011 at 07:21 PM.. Reason: Removed the diatribe aimed at one poster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Unemployment
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top