Why should everybody have to work?

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.

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

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

YMMV....

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.

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.

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

Six months is a joke.

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

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?

Buh bye.

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

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

and move?

What a concept!

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

That's just me though.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Last edited Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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

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.

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.

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

Yup.

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

Um... no.

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

of your contribution here.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

while the other wastes thousands of lives.

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.

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.

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.

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

I still don't have a job though.

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

From unemployment insurance to employment insurance.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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..

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.

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

These. Are. Not. Synonyms.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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%

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.

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.

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

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

It's all those lazy _____people.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

Not much help with finding a job.

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.

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

stop when the person gets a job.

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.

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.

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

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...

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

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?

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

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.

eom