HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Should there be a limit o...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:55 PM

Should there be a limit on how long one can receive unemployment benefits?

How many years should one receive these benefits?

Some people can make as much with unemployment compensation as they can working a job. Where is the incentive to work? And why would someone work a menial job if they can receive the same amount with an unemployment check?

What is your opinion on this?

134 replies, 8143 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 134 replies Author Time Post
Reply Should there be a limit on how long one can receive unemployment benefits? (Original post)
kentuck Dec 2012 OP
bemildred Dec 2012 #1
lunasun Dec 2012 #47
bemildred Jan 2013 #110
Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #2
annabanana Dec 2012 #17
Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #31
mercuryblues Dec 2012 #66
Kennah Jan 2013 #107
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #32
DearHeart Jan 2013 #96
Le Taz Hot Jan 2013 #106
Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #112
Le Taz Hot Jan 2013 #114
Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #116
kentuck Jan 2013 #117
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #120
kentuck Jan 2013 #122
Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #125
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #127
arcane1 Jan 2013 #126
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #3
Glassunion Dec 2012 #6
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #12
Glassunion Dec 2012 #23
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #26
MADem Dec 2012 #57
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #80
Kennah Jan 2013 #108
Occulus Jan 2013 #98
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #109
kentuck Dec 2012 #7
Walk away Dec 2012 #15
jberryhill Dec 2012 #4
bigbrother05 Dec 2012 #5
kentuck Dec 2012 #10
bigbrother05 Dec 2012 #34
Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #8
peacebird Dec 2012 #9
kentuck Dec 2012 #14
peacebird Dec 2012 #22
duffyduff Dec 2012 #73
kentuck Dec 2012 #76
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #16
Walk away Dec 2012 #28
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #11
baldguy Dec 2012 #13
Omaha Steve Dec 2012 #37
juajen Dec 2012 #18
SheilaT Dec 2012 #19
One of the 99 Dec 2012 #29
Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #42
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #43
Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #44
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #67
Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #74
tabasco Jan 2013 #134
Skittles Dec 2012 #58
One of the 99 Dec 2012 #60
SheilaT Jan 2013 #88
One of the 99 Jan 2013 #91
tama Jan 2013 #129
NewJeffCT Dec 2012 #68
Occulus Jan 2013 #99
daleanime Jan 2013 #111
tama Jan 2013 #130
SheilaT Jan 2013 #132
NewJeffCT Jan 2013 #133
limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #20
kentuck Dec 2012 #24
rzemanfl Dec 2012 #35
julian09 Dec 2012 #52
riverbendviewgal Dec 2012 #62
Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2012 #21
kentuck Dec 2012 #25
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #27
Igel Dec 2012 #30
krawhitham Dec 2012 #33
doc03 Dec 2012 #36
One of the 99 Dec 2012 #39
doc03 Dec 2012 #45
One of the 99 Dec 2012 #59
doc03 Dec 2012 #63
One of the 99 Jan 2013 #89
Occulus Jan 2013 #101
doc03 Jan 2013 #113
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #40
doc03 Dec 2012 #46
duffyduff Dec 2012 #72
duffyduff Dec 2012 #71
MrSlayer Dec 2012 #38
TexasBushwhacker Jan 2013 #94
One of the 99 Dec 2012 #41
doc03 Dec 2012 #54
One of the 99 Dec 2012 #61
doc03 Dec 2012 #64
ret5hd Dec 2012 #79
doc03 Dec 2012 #85
One of the 99 Jan 2013 #90
jeff47 Dec 2012 #81
ret5hd Jan 2013 #86
duffyduff Dec 2012 #77
Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #48
kentuck Dec 2012 #50
handmade34 Dec 2012 #56
Octafish Dec 2012 #49
handmade34 Dec 2012 #51
Occulus Jan 2013 #103
Purveyor Dec 2012 #53
MADem Dec 2012 #55
taught_me_patience Dec 2012 #65
jim1945tnnc Dec 2012 #69
duffyduff Dec 2012 #70
Lars39 Dec 2012 #75
Scruffy Rumbler Dec 2012 #84
Omaha Steve Dec 2012 #78
kentuck Dec 2012 #82
Rosa Luxemburg Dec 2012 #83
TexasBushwhacker Jan 2013 #118
haele Jan 2013 #87
Laochtine Jan 2013 #92
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #93
Laochtine Jan 2013 #115
Spirochete Jan 2013 #95
DearHeart Jan 2013 #97
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jan 2013 #100
cbrer Jan 2013 #102
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #104
Recursion Jan 2013 #105
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #119
kentuck Jan 2013 #121
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #123
tama Jan 2013 #124
mzmolly Jan 2013 #128
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2013 #131

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:57 PM

1. We should turn it into a permanent dole, make it better.

Why should everybody have to work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:00 PM

47. Right now there is a limit even with state and fed extension it can be exhaustd

I am not sure what the extensions allow for currently, but there is a limited amount of weeks you can claim it and then you are done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunasun (Reply #47)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:18 AM

110. That's because employers pay for it, it needs to be a publicly funded program. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:57 PM

2. 3-6 months I think...

 

Long enough to cover the gap, short enough not to be a permanent solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:11 PM

17. It has never been enough to be a "permanent solution"..

I never knew anyone who wouldn't rather have been employed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:29 PM

31. I've known several...

 

YMMV....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:39 PM

66. sure

my hubby recieved less than 50% of his pay on UE. Yet we had an infant that required formula and baby food. So the rest of us in the family had to survive on $10.00 a day for 3 meals, because we had a mortgage and light bill to pay. We carry ZERO credit card debt and used our Skip a payment on our mortgage with no penalty option.

Thankfully we could borrow money from family. Or else we would have lost our home with less than 10,000 balance. Yup. We paid our loan faithfully for decades and almost lost it because UE benefits paid us so fucking much money we were living the high life.

So please elaborate on how someone lives high off the hog on UE. Because I want to know for future reference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 05:51 AM

107. Please do share

I was out for 7 months, took the first job I was offered, at a 36% pay cut. I've continued to look, for part time or full time, and nothing else has materialized after a year in the new gig. I talked to LOTS of people who'd been out for 2-5 years. There were plenty who were living at the edge, some who'd lost their homes, their apartments, one was getting ready to run out of benefits and live in her car with her kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:29 PM

32. Have you ever been unemployed in an economic downturn?

In a recession lasting 36 to 48 months when no one is hiring, anywhere?

Six months is a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:48 AM

96. Exactly! It's still sucks out there and there are very, very, very few companies hiring!

At least in my state!! I don't know anyone who's making enough on UI to live off it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 05:49 AM

106. Really?

And when you live in an area with a 21% unemployment rate and can't find a job after 3-6 months after an exhaustive search, then what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #106)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:36 AM

112. Move...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #112)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:28 PM

114. Spoken like a Republican.

Buh bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #114)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:59 PM

116. It's a global economy...

 

It's not realistic anymore that "the" job is going to be where you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #116)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:01 PM

117. Correct, and we will now have to accept a minimum wage of $3.75 per hour...

because we are in a global economy. There is nothing we can do. We are helpless tools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #112)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:37 PM

120. How? You've been unemployed for 6 months or more, where are you going to get the money to pick up

 

and move?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #120)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:40 PM

122. Reality!

What a concept!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #120)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:11 PM

125. I wouldn't have limited my search in the first place ...

 

... So I would have found something before my 12 month living expense buffer ran out.

That's just me though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #125)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:19 PM

127. You haven't answered the question. You assume some whole new 12 month living expense

 

buffer that very few Americans could ever hope to build, and throw in some non-sequitur about limiting your search.

One can only conclude that your answer to the OP is based on nothing but the fantasy in your head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #112)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:16 PM

126. Because moving is so easy for someone with no job or money

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:58 PM

3. Drawing unemployment after you are dead should be discouraged

Somewhat less flippantly, we are heading into an era of not enough jobs to gainfully employ everyone with the trend being ever fewer jobs for an increasing population.

The societal question is how to deal with this in a reasonably equitable manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:02 PM

6. Stop shipping our jobs overseas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:06 PM

12. If only it were so simple

Even driving jobs are going to be disappearing in the foreseeable future, autonomous cars that can drive on today's roads already exist and are only going to get better and more capable, probably faster than most of us imagine.

AI and automation are enabling a lot higher productivity per worker so fewer workers are needed overall, this trend is going to hammer the job market no matter what else happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:16 PM

23. If I were king for a day it would be that simple.

In the meantime my company (me in particular) signed a contract with a tech company that moved 11,000 jobs back to the US from China. About 2,000 jobs filled so far.

Their thinking was if they sold a product in the country, it should be made and supported in that country. I have to respect that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:21 PM

26. What are all the professional drivers going to do when trucks, buses and cars drive themselves?

And I'm really using drivers as a shorthand, there are going to be far more job losses from technology than that. Admittedly there will be jobs installing/maintaining/repairing the technology but the persons replaced by technology are unlikely to be getting those sorts of jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:10 PM

57. Buggy whip manufacturers out, mechanics and gas pump jockeys in.

People don't stay in the same job all their lives anymore. They often retrain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:41 PM

80. The point being that there are fewer overall jobs each time

With more people competing for the fewer jobs.

That is the entire point of automation and artificial intelligence, to replace people with computers and sensors/effectors of one sort or another.

The AI gets smarter and the effectors more capable on a continual basis, very few jobs are going to be safe from the inroads made by automation as it moves out of the factory floor and into more and more workplaces and doing ever higher level jobs.

Schooling is getting ever more expensive and the retraining cycle is getting ever shorter, at some point people simply don't have the money or the time to retrain once again, particularly given that wages in America have been flat since the early 1970's.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #80)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 06:01 AM

108. While on unemployment, I was trying to retrain

Wasn't asking for money, just wanted to be able to focus on the school for those weeks I was in class. Paperwork went nowhere, so I just had to go to class and job hunt at the same time.

It proved an impossible task to try to explain to people who are not application programmers that all application programming gigs are not the same.

"Apply for this job."
"That requires X. I do Y."
"But it's still computer programming. It's the same thing."

I don't blame Employment Security. They are just following the rules. Still it was challenging, but I think it also pointed to a weakness in the system that believes, "Professionals can find work on their own. We don't need to bother with them."

As such, retraining was often the training of someone with few skills, rather than retraining someone with one skillset into another skillset.

I would and have been willing to retrain, but the reality is one can take all the classes you want and it don't matter shit unless and until a company is willing to give a person a chance. Companies don't need to give anyone a chance in a tight economy, and they can just pick and choose and be as demanding as they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 04:49 AM

98. They will remain behind the wheel, to ensure a human can always take control if needed.

California law already addresses this, as you really ought to know already IF you really know enough about the topic to be making the analogy in the first place.

In fact, if you knew what is already being done from a legal standpoint regarding self-driving vehicles, you wouldn't have made the analogy to begin with, because you would already know the laws already passed require a human be present in all self-driving vehicles, behind the wheel, ready to take over.

Your example won't happen. The law already requires a human presence behind the wheel of all self-driving vehicles where such have been accepted as "street legal".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #98)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 06:39 AM

109. Evidently you missed this part of my post, the first line after the title

And I'm really using drivers as a shorthand, there are going to be far more job losses from technology than that.


And the law you cite sounds a lot like the Locomotive Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Act

The Locomotive Act 1865 (Red Flag Act):
Set speed limits of 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns.
Stipulated that self-propelled vehicles should be accompanied by a crew of three: the driver, a stoker and a man with a red flag walking 60 yards (55 m) ahead of each vehicle. The man with a red flag or lantern enforced a walking pace, and warned horse riders and horse drawn traffic of the approach of a self propelled machine.


I think a human driver is going to be all but useless in the event of computer failure in a moving self driving vehicle anyway, that would require constant vigilance in the absence of doing anything else, humans are absolutely miserable at that. The first few drives in the vehicle sure the driver is going to be vigilant, after say six or seven thousand hours behind the unused controls though it's going to be a different story, the computer will probably have to wake the driver up in order to take control.

Laws change, once it becomes common knowledge that computers do a much better and safer job of driving than even a skilled human the requirements will become relaxed, just like a man with a red flag or lantern is not required to walk in front of moving self propelled vehicles any more.










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:03 PM

7. Perhaps we will have to re-visit the "guaranteed income" idea of a few decades ago?

At that time, it was about $6000 per year. Just enough to survive on but no new cars or computers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:09 PM

15. And because of that the Federal extension of UI is a form of stimulus.

In most cases UI is going to people who cannot find a job. That money is going directly to people who need to spend it right away in order to live. This extension has been a boon to the needy (especially people in their 50s who may never find a job with a living wage again) and to the sluggish economy.

If people know of someone cheating and collecting when they shouldn't, maybe they should report them instead of risking the people who need it to stay alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:00 PM

4. Depends on the unemployment rate


But, in some proportion to the unemployment rate itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:01 PM

5. Haven't used it in a while, but have always been time limited

Think they were extended to last longer because of the recession, the argument is over reauthorizing the extended benefits. People can still run out, just takes longer.

Edit to add info looked it up:

Up to 26 weeks for state benefits, extended federal benefits of 13 - 20 weeks depending on the state's economy/employment situation.

Not an overly generous system considering that all workers pay into the system when they are working. An earned benefit not an entitlement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigbrother05 (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:04 PM

10. What do they do when they run out?

What would be different if they ran out 6 months earlier or 6 months later? Wouldn't they still be in the same boat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:30 PM

34. Six extra months of paid benefits could mean keeping your house

Either way, long term unemployed, a year or longer, have to rely on welfare programs, charity, or holding a sign by the side of the highway.

Often, there is a spouse or SO that is holding down a job or two to keep food on the table.

Not too sure I don't agree with the idea of a permanent dole that is coupled with training and public service work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:03 PM

8. No. I do think that UI should be abolished and a system of guaranteed income

Last edited Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)

established. Nixon like the idea and it is a remarkably efficient one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:04 PM

9. For the first time in 33 years of work I rcvd unemployment benefits. ~$400 a week. Or 9k for 6 mos

I do not know how anyone could keep a roof over their head and eat on that. By the way, prior to my very unexpected job loss I made $80k a year, so I qualifiedfor the max uneloyment benefit.
I was stunned at how little the benefit was. Those with lower salary rcv less.

If I got less than 1600 a MONTH at the MAX allowable.... Well, I find your premise nauseating, to say the least.

On edit - i return to wok next week, after 3 months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:07 PM

14. So, no limit on UI?

Is that what you are saying? By the way, everyone unemployed does not make $80K per year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:15 PM

22. Really? THAT is what you took from my message? That I made 80k?

Did you notice that at the max rate I got less than $ 400 a week inUIpay?

If that is what I rcvd, imagine how low the payments most folk rcv are. In the current environment I think payments should be extended.

Satisfied?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:12 PM

73. I guess the OP doesn't understand there is a MAXIMUM weekly benefit.

Mine was the same as yours, and I made slightly less than 50k a year.

I went from about 50k to 21k to zero to 3600 a year in a pension plus whatever work I can get as a sub. It is impossible to support myself.

Retraining is idiotic at age 58 and "going into business" is out of the question when there is no money and no demand for anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:26 PM

76. I think this is a good conversation.

For the record, I agree with most of the posters who talk about several factors or reasons for prolonged unemployment and why there should be a limit on it at all? I tend to lean to job-training for the long-term unemployed (6 mos to a yr) and education and a guaranteed income. No one is going to get wealthy off of unemployment. I have been on unemployment for a couple of times in my life and I know how difficult it is to make it with that as your only income. My intent was to create a lively and controversial discussion that might by chance be educational or enlightening for someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:09 PM

16. The 405 Club was established in NYC a few years ago

Hints and tricks on surviving on our $405/week max in NY State. People shared "free Tuesday afternoon at the Met from 12-4" or "BOGO if you mention 405Club at Gionarddis on Wednesday" tips on a daily basis.

$405 in Manhattan barely gets you parking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:24 PM

28. You would get that same $1600 a month if you had been making $25,000 per yr.

I'm not sure the exact amount starts the max pay out. I never have collected but I have had friends who have. Here in NJ there is usually a 3 month limit. When unemployment it high you can apply for an extra 3 months from the Feds. This 2 year extension is because the job market is so bad right now. It's only temporary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:04 PM

11. Given that companies are still tax-incented to move jobs overseas

(overseas costs like moving and operations are deductible) and UI is limited to those who lost their job due to no fault of their own (didn't quit, showed up but there was no work, etc) AND the fact that UI is our second greatest multiplier on the economy (just under food stamps), I think the RWNJ's need to STFU, quit listening to the career teahadist politicians and let the economists speak.

No - not unlimited, but hard times require temporary "bootstraps". When we get through this wave, realign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:06 PM

13. The higher the unemployment rate, the longer unemployment insurance should last.

Of course, the GOP wants to do the exact opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:34 PM

37. I agree


The one and only time I would have qualified for extended unemployment benefits was the first week Raygun was in office. He ended it that week. Look it up. Don't forget there was a Raygun recession too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:12 PM

18. My opinion, is that this is not true. My Dad used to call it "collecting his pennies".

He was a union man, and when they went on strike, after a certain amt. of time without an agreement, they collected unemployment. Gee, I miss those days when unions actually had clout.

The amount you get is based on what you were making, so your premise is silly, and hardly anybody would rather draw unemployment than work. I should know, as I have two children who are unemployed and have been for some time. However, neither are collecting unemployment now. You can't draw past a certain number of weeks, unless your benefits are extended and, because of the depression, this is never for as long as you are unemployed. Our numbers indicate that many jobs are not coming back because of the transfer of our jobs mainly to China and India. What do you suppose we should do? Line the unemployed up in front of a big ditch and mow them down with an AK-47.

This country has been robbed of its jobs and money by the affluent and powerful. Unless something is done, our cities will lie in ruins and be mostly deserted. Does this per chance make you happy? We all have to row this boat; but very few of the rich would bother picking up a paddle, as they think they are too good to row.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:13 PM

19. It does seem as though some people

are gaming the system, and collecting unemployment instead of seriously looking for work. I said some people. By no means all of them.

Perhaps length of time UE can be collected should be somehow linked to the unemployment rate itself. But that rate can vary enormously from job to job. For instance, I doubt that outside of very small towns, there isn't an ongoing strong demand for nurses everywhere, so maybe they shouldn't be able to collect UE. I am almost positive that there was a time when they couldn't.

But a lot of other fields, like manufacturing and your company has completely relocated its manufacturing overseas, that's a different story.

It also brings up the issue of retraining, and who should pay for it.

In short, there needs to be some kind of a limit. I don't feel as if I know enough to make a sensible comment on how long that should be. I also know that there will inevitably be some people who are caught in the terrible time-trap of being old enough that getting another job is difficult, and still much too young to want to retire, and too young to collect social security.

We live in a very imperfect world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:26 PM

29. Is that you Mitt?

No one is gaming the system. That is just a right wing myth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:46 PM

42. Really? No one?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:50 PM

43. Abso. Lutely. No. One.

Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:54 PM

44. Bull. Shit.

 

If you think there isn't one lazy person in America you are crazy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:50 PM

67. You thought I was serious...

Um... no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #67)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:14 PM

74. Being around here...

 

... Has dulled my ability to differentiate between sarcasm and stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyote_Tan (Reply #74)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:19 PM

134. Dull is an accurate description

of your contribution here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:14 PM

58. there are always people gaming the system

what repukes do is try to base their policy on those people rather than the majority

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:24 PM

60. Maybe 1 or 2%

or even less. But not enough to base policy on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:00 AM

88. Well, I actually know one or two people who have

gamed the system, collecting unemployment while working and being paid "under the table".

It does not happen in large numbers, but it does happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #88)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:10 AM

91. That's different that what the OP is talking about

He's talking about people who don't work and just collect benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:25 PM

129. I'm on strike :)

 

I take my pennies from state, but I'm not looking for a wage slave job. I see no point of contributing to suicidal environmental destruction and violent oppression.

Lot's of young people here refusing to work for the system, in fact of the young people I know (mostly hippy, punk, anarchist etc. "alternative" types), very few are in wage slave jobs. Some do nothing, others do small coops, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:54 PM

68. Is a person gaming the system to get unemployment benefits

which top out somewhere around, what, $500 per week, or $13,000 for six months, worse than a CEO cheating his employees and shareholders out of hundreds of millions of dollars, or a corporation like Halliburton not be able to account for billions in Iraq?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #68)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 04:57 AM

99. The deafening silence in response to your post has NOT gone unnoticed.

Flabbergasted by it, aren't you? Knocked over with a fucking feather, I'm sure...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #68)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:13 AM

111. Well, one is responsible for the waste of one single life...

while the other wastes thousands of lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #111)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:26 PM

130. Waste?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #68)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 07:16 PM

132. Except the topic isn't CEO cheating, but

unemployment benefits. Whenever an argument moves around to, "Well this other thing is even worse!" then nothing is gained.

Every time someone here wants to talk about how smoking is so bad for your health, you can count of posts saying that obesity is at least as work. Or vice versa. It makes much more sense to stick to one topic at a time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #132)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:14 PM

133. I was responding to the above post about people gaming the unemployment system

And, if the issue is people using unemployment benefits fraudulently and CEOs and/or corporations using fraud by gaming the system, they are similar issues in that you can stop fraud with unemployment and maybe save millions of dollars, or you can stop corporate fraud and save tens of billions, if not more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:13 PM

20. No.

It should be unlimited as long as somebody is looking for a job.

The government should give jobs to people who want to work but can't make it in the private job market.

People who lose their jobs, instead of going to an unemployment office, they should go to an employment office, where they can be matched and placed into a job without a bunch of hassle.

If we tighten the rules for who can get unemployment benefits, without doing something to put people to work, it will be mean.

Unemployment shouldn't exist as a social problem at all. It's within our ability to end it permanently if we just create jobs for the unemployed people. If the private market doesn't provide the correct number or type of jobs, the government should function as employer of last resort, with a WPA-style program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:18 PM

24. I like your idea...

Go to the "employment office", not the unemployment office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:32 PM

35. In Florida they changed the name to "Remployment Assistance."

I still don't have a job though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:05 PM

52. That is why Obama wants stimulous money

 

for infrastructure and other jobs; but the repugs wanted him to fail and did everything to obstruct job creation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:30 PM

62. in canada we changed the name

From unemployment insurance to employment insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:15 PM

21. That is B.S. they should pay for what they have wrought

 

Meaning we should pay for what we have wrought.

Grotesque profits should be coupled with high taxes and associated job retraining programs.

Additionally, there are plenty of high school grads trapped in low skill/low wage jobs who would jump at the chance to get a 4 year education.

There should be no limits on unemployment, but the longer someone is on, the more effort should be put in by the state and individual to find a career path.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:19 PM

25. Good ideas!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:23 PM

27. The limit should flex with economic conditions. The economy now is still weak enough that

benefits should be continued as long as people are out looking for jobs in a weak economy. I have never been on unemployment, but from what I understand, the amount that a person gets doesn't induce a desire to sit around and collect except in the case where the person collecting is a complete loser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:28 PM

30. Mixed.

I've known people who couldn't find a job. They had no skills for a decent job, and all the scut jobs were taken. It was down to dumb luck--did they show up at the right time or happen to impress the job-granter at just the right moment?

On the other hand, some of the people who couldn't find a job were young folk who I wouldn't hire if they were 10 times more qualified. Didn't know how to comport themselves and I wouldn't let them around customers. Too full of themselves to actually serve a client, they demanded that everybody--the customers, the boss, their coworkers--serve them. They want income, they don't want a job.

But I've also known people that wouldn't take less than a certain amount. They had their dignity, and collecting unemployment for a year was less injurious to their self-esteem than taking a scut job that was beneath them. I learned quickly when I was unemployed that "nobody would rather be unemployed" isn't quite true. There are those who would rather be unemployed than take jobs they don't like or feel is worth their unique gifts. Sometimes the reason *was* that they made more in unemployment than they would working and needed to make their house payments. To take a low-paid job would mean recasting their lifestyle.

Solution: Yeah, kept long-term unemployment. But make it diminish by a certain amount every 6 months until it's down to 90% of full-time minimum wage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:30 PM

33. Many do not understand, most maxed out at 79 weeks

The extension for unemployment in this deal is not more weeks, it extends the window those 79 weeks can be claimed in. But after those weeks are gone you are done.


Some states have and extra 20 weeks if their state's unemployment rate is high enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:32 PM

36. (6 months) I will get flamed for this but there are people that stay on unemployment

when they could take a job. I will give an example the company I worked for shut down permanently in April 2009. The former employees could draw SUB (Supplemental Unemployment
Benefits) and TRA when added to un-employment gave them for 2 years of 80% of their former wages. Most everyone I know stayed on un-employment TRA and SUB until everything ran out. The reason was the benefits paid more than the jobs that are available and they figured someone would start the plant up again. Well they ran out their benefits before looking for a job, one of my friends finally got a another job starting next month after being off nearly 4 years. Myself I was lucky I turned 62 and after one year I retired. I know a lot of them that stayed on layoff collected SS and un-employment for another year until their benefits ran out.
I guess I was stupid, they got an another year of company pension benifits than I did. I just didn't want to lie week after week saying I was looking for work when I had no intensions of working.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:41 PM

39. That sounds like a special circumstance

federal and state unemployment benefits are not 80% of former wages. They are much less, about $400-500 per week. For someone making $50-60K that is less than half of what they were earning. What you're describing sounds like a severance program is completely different from government unemployment benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:57 PM

45. Apparently you haven't heard of SUB. Our union contract gave us Suplimental

Un-employment Benifits (SUB) for two years, that gave us 80% of our wages. When you consider payroll tax doesn't come out of it, you don't have to buy gas to get to work you are making as much as working. The USW gets SUB and I think the UAW and some other unions do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:23 PM

59. So it is not government benefits

it is part of a union contract. Not the same thing as what the OP is talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:32 PM

63. No they are not government benefits I never said they were but it does support

the OP that there are (some) that get as much being unemployed as working.
I don't know how many union contracts have that kind of benefit, probably Omaha
Steve would know something about that. If you had a high paying job you can get more on un-employment than a job at McDonald's, not saying a person should take that kind of job though.
In Ohio you don't have to accept that kind of a job..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #63)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:07 AM

89. No it doesn't

because the government benefits are no where near 80% of full time pay. They are at most 50% and for most it is a lot lower so the comparison is just not valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #63)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 05:03 AM

101. No it does not support the OP, neither in part nor in general

Yours was a negotiated benefit. We are speaking of law and government policy.

These. Are. Not. Synonyms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #101)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:07 AM

113. Have it your way but if you worked a good paying job

and get the maximum UE benifit it is more than some jobs pay. I have my Ohio un-employment statements from 2009 when I was last getting unemployment right in front of me. Here are the facts "WEEKLY BENIFIT $372". That comes out to ($9.30 an hour for a 40 hour week). If you don't beleive it check it out, the benifits may even be higher now. Now you add my (SUB of $250 to that and you get $622 a week or $15.55 for 40 hours). Now you figure there are no union dues or payroll taxes coming out, your income taxes are also lower and you don't have to buy gas to go to work it doesn't make sense to take a job for less than $20 an hour.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:41 PM

40. Unemployment benefits aren't that generous so those must have been some shitty paying jobs

And it sounds like you would have done exactly the same thing if you hadn't had the opportunity to retire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:59 PM

46. You are right I probably would have done the same thing. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:09 PM

72. They are also taxable. You get socked royal if you defer the taxes, and

if you do have the money taken out, you can't afford to pay the bills.

Most people do not receive anywhere NEAR the maximum. I received $400 a week when I was collecting it, but I found nothing and had to move in with family. Not fun, let me tell you, after a lifetime of being self-supporting.

What is "out there" are "jobs" with lots of turnover and little pay but there are nowhere near the jobs for all of the people who are unemployed.

The problem is especially acute if you are over 50. Nobody wants you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:03 PM

71. You are NOT required to take just any job out there if you collect UI.

It has to be in your skill set. It has to be "suitable work." That does NOT equal "any kind of job."

Do you really think we enjoy it out here being unemployable after four or five years? I am living on practically nothing after being wrongfully fired. I am sole support and am doing substituting and collecting a small pension. I cannot get hired for any kind of full-time work at my age.

There are MILLIONS like me.

Besides, there are nowhere near the jobs for all of the people who are out of work. I can't believe some of these posts. They are just unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:39 PM

38. My industry has been decimated.

 

I've been out of work for 18 months straight. Before that I worked four months after being out for six. Construction has been dead for four years. What am I supposed to do? Go work at McDonald's getting paid an eighth of what I'm worth in job that a teenager should have? Fuck that. I paid into the system without collecting for twenty years. I should be able to get UC benefits, which amount to just under half of what I bring home, for as long as it takes for the next boom cycle to come around.

I'm a highly skilled, highly trained technician not a burger flipper or dish washer. I'd rather panhandle than sell myself short.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:00 AM

94. Construction is going strong in Texas, especially in Houston

It's a right to work state though so it may not pay as much as you were used to. The cost of living is low down here though so it kind of evens out. No state income tax!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:44 PM

41. No one can make as much with unemployment

You're entire post is based on discredited right wing talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:06 PM

54. You are wrong, I took home as much money as when I was working and

that is not a right wing talking point. I received 80% of my gross wages, no payroll tax, no union dues, no gas to get to work and no wear and tear on the car. Those are the facts, call me a liar if you want but I know better. Un-employment + SUB=80%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:26 PM

61. But you're not talking about government benefits.

You're talking about union benefits. I don't think you're a liar. You're just uninformed or confused about the difference between the two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #61)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:34 PM

64. Please read #63 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #64)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:36 PM

79. Which supports exactly what "One of the 99" contended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ret5hd (Reply #79)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:52 PM

85. No it doesn't, the OP said some people can get

as much on unemployment as working and that is true in some cases. If you were laid off from a high paying job you can make more money than you can on a lower paying menial job. I just added that there are some people that receive un-employment and also receive SUB from their employer and that is an incentive not to accept even a good paying job. Like I said I don't expect people to take such a job but the OP is correct in some circumstances. I don't know about other states but in Ohio you are supposed to seek (suitable employment) so I don't think even the state would force anyone to take a job that pays less than unemployment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #85)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:08 AM

90. No it is not true.

Government benefits do not pay more than some can get working full time. You're making a totally false analogy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #64)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:42 PM

81. You're still wrong in post 63

You are not talking about unemployment insurance. You're talking about union benefits with a similar name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #81)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:14 AM

86. He refuses to acknowledge that except in passing...

It's all those lazy _____people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #61)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:30 PM

77. +1

Nobody makes the same as when they are working. It's typically around half up to the maximum weekly benefit. If you make a substantial amount of money, it's a HUGE a pay cut.

I probably wound up with about 1/3 of what I made as a teacher when I was on UI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:02 PM

48. I think there should be a guaranteed minimum income for everyone.

And universal health care.

No special unemployment insurance, disability insurance, or AFDC-type plans.

One of the problems with the world today is that too much work is being done. We're making too much junk, wasting too many resources. We all ought to move to about a 30-hour week or whatever, with no loss in pay, sharing in the fruits of our own productivity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:03 PM

50. I like the way you think Jackpine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:09 PM

56. mostly agree

though, much work is needed in the way of infrastructure and alternative food production (over production and consumption of unnecessary stuff is big problem)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:03 PM

49. Until there are jobs for everyone who wants one, no.

The global economy has become a financial, speculative, non-job creating thing thay serves to cough up wealth from the those with jobs to the ownership class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:04 PM

51. a new WPA

and limits on unemployment benefits... "an honest job for every idle man"

along with honest discussions about minimum and maximum incomes... and disabilities

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to handmade34 (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 05:13 AM

103. Fiberoptics to every home would be the rural electricity access of the modern era

and would create a LOT of jobs..

IF we had the will.

But now, watch- a whole shitpile of motherFUCKERS will troll on in on my idea, prattling on some nonsense about geographic impossibility, mocking internet access as a "first world necessity", and in general pissing all over anything that might "give" The People something We "don't need", except in our own "entitled" pointy little heads.

Watch. They're the same motherFUCKERS who say the same damned things about establishing high-speed rail in the US, and their only real goal is to lie to all of us about how awesome we can't be. You know, because. Duh.

Note to jury: not sarcasm, I'm being as serious as a heart attack. And yes, people who say such things about why we can't or why it couldn't possibly work ARE A RAVING PACK OF DROOLING MOTHERFUCKERS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:05 PM

53. Yes. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:07 PM

55. Well, there is--what states allow people to collect forever? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:35 PM

65. Six months. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:56 PM

69. 5 months should suffice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jim1945tnnc (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:01 PM

70. You've got to be kidding.

It'll be FIVE years this spring, and I have STILL not found full-time work and probably never will again.

Two years is nothing when we have a shithole of an economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jim1945tnnc (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:26 PM

75. Well, jim, if you were born in 1945,

you should get up to speed on the lack of jobs...worse than Reagan years. Of course, if you were born in '45 you are probably retired by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jim1945tnnc (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:52 PM

84. I hope you never have to test out that limit.

The stress of trying to find 3 new places to apply to every week, for the work you are trained to do is unbelievable. When NO ONE is hiring it is depressing as all hell. Try searching for TWO f*cking years until something in your line of work comes along. And then it's per diem only. No f*cking health benefits, no guarantied hours.... 5 months my ass!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:32 PM

78. The only time I ever quailified for extended unemployment...


Was Raygun's first week in office. Guess what he cut first thing. And when unemployment went up in his recession, he didn't reinstate them. Look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:46 PM

82. Me too Steve...

I was unemployed during Ford's severe recession after Watergate also, for a good while.

The Reagan recession was the toughest I remember up to the present one.

Also, he started taxing unemployment benefits! Remember that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:51 PM

83. There doesn't seem to be much help for people who are unemployed

Not much help with finding a job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #83)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:33 PM

118. Some cities have better employment offices than others

The ones in Austin, TX have several weekly workshops and employers coming in to conduct mini job fairs. In Houston, even though the city is much bigger, they have a lot less going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:31 AM

87. I think any "limits" should be based on both age and "career"

Forcing a 50+ year old lower- level professional (a specific technical skill analyst or some other technical office manager, project manager, etc) who was laid off to "retrain" and take entry wage/lower level jobs from the new college grads just to "have a job" further strangles an already small job market in that particular field.
I would posit it is most probably better for the US economy in the long run to let that person "retire" at age 52 or 55 because the chances he or she would be able to just walk right into a job that is comparable (+ or - $10K or benefits or more) to the job that they were laid off from is perhaps 10% or less, instead of forcing them to sink through the job market churn until they end up working at Radio Shack or Best Buy on minimum-wage commission because they don't have the social network to get a job somewhere else; or because not being snapped up within the first six months of unemployment washes them out of consideration by most HR filters.

The chances of finding a comparable job within the standard three to six months after losing your job depends on three things - if you were able to line up a job before you were let go(or how good is your network), how old you are, and how specialized the field you were working in was. Some fields have flexible requirements; a marketing or HR manager can usually find work across several different fields and types of businesses, but a FAA Transponder Development Engineer has a very small field that those skills on a resume means anything, and will have a much harder time finding a job that pays the mortgage and the kid's college loans that were taken out before the owner got tired and sold the business to a venture capital consortium that decided to close it down and sell off the assets to a partner in Malaysia.

I don't want the Best Buy, Target, and other low wage/entry level jobs (Analyst level 1, Journeyman Technician, etc) to be going to 55 year old engineers desperate to keep the roof over their heads, I want those jobs to go to high school grads and college grads starting out, as they were meant to. I would be willing to put up with the 2% or so chronic unemployed (be they just unemployable due to attitude and aptitude, scammers or just plain unlucky) if people who were in positions that they had a higher chance of not finding another "career" job were basically able to retire and free up the jobs that were left to folks who need them to make a career start on.

Haele

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:53 AM

92. IMO, they should

stop when the person gets a job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laochtine (Reply #92)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:58 AM

93. They do stop when a person gets a job. You can't collect UI if you have a job. At least on the books

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #93)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:57 PM

115. I may have been a little weak on delivery

If it takes a week or 2 years a person should be covered. People scamming the system are few and the scam so little that in the end means so little I just can't see caring about it. It's serves the masters to feed the serfs hate of each other so they don't realize the
shit they're living in, divide and conquer is not a cliche.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:25 AM

95. Yes

They stop when you die. No later.

Hell, if there are no jobs, there are no jobs. And the longer one is unable to find a job, the harder it gets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 05:01 AM

100. In my state

one is required yo prove they have been looking for work to receive unemployment. I'm collecting it right now. Believe me it's not that much n

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 05:12 AM

102. Would a better solution be to put benefits in State hands?

 

Would being required to refuse work face to face with an administrator cut down on possible long term abuse?

Would a reduction in federal bureaucracy be of possible benefit to the program? Possibly reduced to a "clearinghouse" of jobs, upcoming opportunities, and technical trends?

A set time for benefits suggests ignorance of individual needs and realities to me. Possibly chop off payments in the face of sincere best efforts, or a timing issue, such as re-education...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 05:29 AM

104. Limit should be tied to UI rate. 26wks minimum to 52wks maximum depending on UI.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 05:44 AM

105. I'd prefer an actual minimum guaranteed income

But given the system we have, I don't think there should be a limit on unemployment benefits when unemployment is high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:35 PM

119. As long as it takes to get a job that pays better than UI. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:39 PM

121. Also, it is my understanding...

that many unemployed do not "qualify" for benefits. If they quit their job or voluntarily left their job to look for another, then they do not qualify for any benefits. They have to be fired or involuntarily left their job in order to qualify. Is that the way it is in most of the states?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #121)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:49 PM

123. All that I know of. Also, if you were self employed you don't get it.

 

In many states the system is so skewed in favor of the employers that they can simply lie and the former employee is DQ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:07 PM

124. Here in Finland

 

we have two layer system:

1. Unemployment benefits, which is a percentage of previous salary, for limited period.
2. "Labor Market Benefit", which is of unlimited duration (until national pension). It's currently very discriminatory against young people.

Local mainstream labor movement has been alas very unsolidaric against minimum income benefits and most basic social security of the latter case and so called "precarious jobs" and concentrated conservatively just on fully employed members.

"Progressives" from most parties support various forms of "Citizen salary" or negative taxation to clean up the bureaucratic jungle of social security benefits and needless humiliation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:24 PM

128. Not if one is seeking work.

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 03:33 PM

131. It shouldn't have to be this way at all. Not to change your question or argue


in a different direction, but if our esteemed lawmakers actually cared for this country, beyond what they can take from it, then they would not let corporations hemorrhage jobs overseas. They would realize that America is a family of sorts, and if you take care of the family the family takes care of you.

If you regularly beat your family members and laugh it up then the family sooner or later falls apart.

So if our shortsighted lawmakers actually took care of America we wouldn't need to keep citizens on unemployment forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread