Should unemployment be extended beyond 99 weeks?

[Dulanic]

I have personally seen people abuse this system. No I don't think it should be extended.

 

[Anarchist420]

Each week countless Americans are running out of their 99 week unemployment benefit, and going into extreme poverty. They have no more income, and no more savings. They are unable to pay for their mortgage or rent, so they end up on the streets, in a ditch, under a bridge, or in a back alley. Something needs to be done to help these people. They want jobs, and want to work, but their just aren't jobs available to most of the unemployed. I wonder how many people die each week who recently ran out of unemployment benefits.

They should cut unemployment benefits to 60% of what they currently are, at most. Something like the first 2 weeks you get 80% of your original pay, then the next two weeks 64%, then the two weeks after that, 51.2%, and then 40.96% after that.

What people need to do is underconsume when they're employed and underconsume when they're unemployed and the government needs to make the busts bigger, rather than keeping the boom bust cycle going.

 

[classy]

I don't think so. 99 weeks is a very long time. After 6 months a person needs to get a job and if need be take job in a different career field. You can't just pay people to sit around and not work.

 

[Mursilis]

The point isn't that people are dying. The point is countless people are ending up in a ditch, under a bridge, or in some back alley because they cannot afford to pay rent or their mortgage. This includes children too. We have a steep rise in children who are on the streets (not by choice) because their parents lost their jobs. I am seeing more people begging with children each day.

And what are you doing about it, besides trolling on the internet? Why haven't you started the DCal430 soup kitchen and homeless shelter yet? Why are poor people everyone else's responsibility, but not yours?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And you would not allow anyone other than the rich to get the "Luxury food"?

Not even close. Here is how it should work. If you make money then it's up to you to use it wisely. If you are a fool and spend it on "luxury food", then don't cry to anyone because you ran out of money.

Of course that doesn't apply to what the person you quoted said. It has more to do with things like the Toys for Tots program where disadvantaged children get to bitch because they didn't get free PSPs. Oh the Marines are soooo unfair about this.

Here is what ought to happen. If you are a social charity case then there should be card that allows the holder to buy some meat, veggies and other needs. Not a cart full of Sweetie Honey Bunches of Diabetes cereal. Only a nut would expect that someone who does not earn their wages should be able to have whatever they want.

 

[piasabird]

My unemployment always ran out in the past so no. Instead come up with some work programs where they have to do some work like chop down weeds, demolishing buildings or cleaning up areas in cities. Might need some people for flood cleanup also. If you make people work for their money, they will not be out committing crimes and sitting around doing drugs.

 

[rudder]

Each week countless Americans are running out of their 99 week unemployment benefit, and going into extreme poverty. They have no more income, and no more savings. They are unable to pay for their mortgage or rent, so they end up on the streets, in a ditch, under a bridge, or in a back alley. Something needs to be done to help these people. They want jobs, and want to work, but their just aren't jobs available to most of the unemployed. I wonder how many people die each week who recently ran out of unemployment benefits.

I wonder also. I wonder how many of these people spend those 99 weeks making changes. Changes can include drastically cutting expenses, re-training, developing supplemental income opportunities, etc.

No doubt the situation sucks, but people can just not sit on their ass for 99 weeks surfing the internet for jobs.

If illegal immigrants can grab a hammer and get a job building a house... why can't someone on unemployment do this also?

I would gather a lot of people feel it is beneath them to take a $300/week job when that same person was commanding $1000/week. Especially when they can sit home and make the same amount. But shit is changing. By not being proactive and adjusting they are delaying the inevitable.

 

[Atreus21]

I also have anecdotal evidence of people abusing it. Namely a guy trying to finance a BMW with his unemployment income.

Shrug.

Having recently been unemployed for 5 months, I can relate to the practical difficulty of unemployment. If I had remained unemployed for one more month than I did, I would've had to collect unemployment benefits.

There are those like DCal who say think of the children, and those like most republicans who say that handing out money is a recipe for abuse, complacency, and dependence. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

How do you weed out those who intend to use unemployment benefits as their primary source of free income from those who really need this as a temporary reprieve? The Republican answer: You can't. The Democrat answer: You're a heartless asshole if you try.

 

[brandonb]

I remember it being 6 months back when I was a kid...

It's nearly 2 years now? Wow. Lolz.

 

[rudder]

So food should be labeled "Luxury food" for the rich and "Lowlife food" for all others?

And you would not allow anyone other than the rich to get the "Luxury food"?

It is called a fixed income. If you are on a fixed income (especially a low government handout one) and choose the 9.99/pound beef over the $2.99/pound stuff and can't feed your family for the whole week.. then tough shit.

Some people receiving government assistance are too ignorant to realize this.

 

[Cerb]

They should cut unemployment benefits to 60% of what they currently are, at most. Something like the first 2 weeks you get 80% of your original pay, then the next two weeks 64%, then the two weeks after that, 51.2%, and then 40.96% after that.

What people need to do is underconsume when they're employed and underconsume when they're unemployed and the government needs to make the busts bigger, rather than keeping the boom bust cycle going.

Wait, there are states where they don't do that? I didn't get near 80%, and the first bit lasted longer than two weeks, but I went down through three tiers, before benefits ran out, each time with the money per week decreasing.

I want to get a job. Well, one that might last more than a few weeks or months as a part-time gig. Being on unemployment and trying to find one is not fun, and often wastes potentially useful time. After enough weeks, it gets hard just to find enough openings to apply to to keep the unemployment, which begins putting off serious job searching. Half the job openings I've gotten anywhere for have ended up drying up, on top of that (some people are now working longer hours, with more job responsibilities, so as not to hire somebody).

Our economic system needs a top to bottom overhaul. Extending unemployment is a bandaid, and I don't think it would do much good. That long-term unemployed exist in significant numbers is what needs fixing, even if it has to be done with a TVA type program.

 

[1prophet]

Each week countless Americans are running out of their 99 week unemployment benefit, and going into extreme poverty. They have no more income, and no more savings. They are unable to pay for their mortgage or rent, so they end up on the streets, in a ditch, under a bridge, or in a back alley. Something needs to be done to help these people. They want jobs, and want to work, but their just aren't jobs available to most of the unemployed. I wonder how many people die each week who recently ran out of unemployment benefits.

Here is your answer put in place by a famous democrat last time the country was facing a job crisis ,

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

but I'm sure someone would find something wrong with it too and complain that people should not be forced to work even if they mentally and physically sound for their handout:sneaky:

 

[QuantumPion]

So food should be labeled "Luxury food" for the rich and "Lowlife food" for all others?

And you would not allow anyone other than the rich to get the "Luxury food"?

If I am forced to pay for it, then yes. You don't have a right to filet mignon at my expense.

The current welfare system is flawed and creates a permanent welfare class. All food stamps and public housing should be eliminated, and replaced with soup kitchens and dormitories. Also, mandatory drug testing or else you're out on your ass. Nobody should starve or be homeless, but living off the government should suck enough so that there is a strong disincentive to get a job asap.

 

[child of wonder]

Unemployment should be structured so someone only gets full benefits for the first 6 months, then it begins to slowly taper off after that.

It should also provide temporary benefits for those that choose to work a crappy job rather than sit on their ass. Maybe 1/3 benefits for 3 months while you work a job making no more than 150% minimum wage, 1/5 up to 200% minimum wage, and 1/8 making 250% minimum wage. Sadly, something needs to be done to provide incentive to work.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Two years of unemployment? Seriously? Here in Canada we only have 9 months... and to think that *you* guys call *us* socialists... LOL!

 

[Cerb]

Sadly, something needs to be done to provide incentive to work.

Not having any money coming in except unemployment, and counting off the weeks until that's gone: totally not incentive. OTOH, a minimum wage full time job would have paid a bit more than my initial benefits, so maybe I'm a wee bit biased, there.

Still, how will making unemployment worse create jobs? More willing workers diminishes the quality of each job, but will do nothing to help make more of them.

 

[ShawnD1]

Still, how will making unemployment worse create jobs? More willing workers diminishes the quality of each job, but will do nothing to help make more of them.

You're right that it won't help the unemployment situation. That's not the point.

UI for that long is bullshit because it discriminates against poor people. Suppose you have two people who are both sitting on their asses doing nothing because they were both canned when the recession hit. One of them is a former corporate exec and the other is a former janitor. For the first 6 or 9 months, the former executive will have better UI benefits because that's what he paid into it. He's just getting back money that he put in, so it's completely fair that his UI benefits are better for that period of time. After 9 months, that's it, UI should end for both of them. Both should now be on welfare if the situation is that dire. Instead of treating them both equal at that point because they are both doing equal amounts of nothing, the government decided to increase UI so now the person with MORE MONEY and MORE ASSETS is able to collect MORE WELFARE. What the god damn fuck!?!? Seriously. Who comes up with these ideas??

Amerika - the only country in the world where poor people get less and fewer government handouts than not-poor people.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Try to quality for assistance if you are getting the max unemployment. You can't - your income is above the required level.

Your janitor can get food stamps; medical coverage for the family and probably qualifies for housing assistance.

Your executive is now living on 1/10 his salary and still have the expenses of a mortgage; college and car payments. Burns through savings fairly quickly at that level. And plus has to pony up $400 for medical coverage for the kids. There goes one weeks unemployment.

 

[theevilsharpie]

I wonder also. I wonder how many of these people spend those 99 weeks making changes. Changes can include drastically cutting expenses, re-training, developing supplemental income opportunities, etc.

The problem with unemployment insurance is that it's set up to assist people with riding out phases of frictional unemployment. It's absolutely not designed for the type of structural unemployment that we're seeing today, and extending it beyond 99 weeks is absolutely the wrong thing to do. In fact, I'd argue that anything beyond 26 weeks is counterproductive.

As of April 2011, nearly half of those unemployed have been unemployed for longer than 27 weeks. If someone is unable to find a job within 6 months of (really) actively looking, then they need to think about retraining for skills that are more in demand. However, if a person returns to school, they lose their remaining unemployment benefits, and funds received from grants and other types of financial aid are certainly going to be much lower than what the person would receive on unemployment.

The situation is the same if the person decides to go into business for himself. Becoming self-employed? Well, according to the government, being self employed is being "employed," so the unemployment money goes away. Of course, going the self-employment router carries the very real risk of long stretches of no work and/or outright failure, so most rational people would stay on unemployment unless they know their business would generate a consistent income.

So yes, someone that is facing 2+ years of unemployment needs to make serious changes in his life. However, the system that funds their existence during their period of unemployment punishes them for making those kinds of changes.

Is it any wonder why people stay on unemployment so long?

 

[Attic]

And what are you doing about it, besides trolling on the internet? Why haven't you started the DCal430 soup kitchen and homeless shelter yet? Why are poor people everyone else's responsibility, but not yours?

That would not be the progressive way. They demand that others show the sacrifice needed to acheive their vision while esteeming themselves being exempt from any of the discomfort of sacrifice.

It's a great stance..., they get to say and propose whatever they want and if it fails it's because others were not willing to sacrifice enough.. it's never their own fault. Obviously responsiblity is not these folks strong suit as evidenced by the OP.

 

[Cerb]

You're right that it won't help the unemployment situation. That's not the point.

UI for that long is bullshit because it discriminates against poor people. (...) Both should now be on welfare if the situation is that dire. Instead of treating them both equal at that point because they are both doing equal amounts of nothing, the government decided to increase UI so now the person with MORE MONEY and MORE ASSETS is able to collect MORE WELFARE. What the god damn fuck!?!? Seriously. Who comes up with these ideas??

Amerika - the only country in the world where poor people get less and fewer government handouts than not-poor people.

That I agree with, though it's not generally practical. That is, it is very often an exclusive choice between hoping for a job that will get you back on your feet, and choosing to stay on the dole after UI runs out (FI, if you have lost a 100k/yr job, and think you have useful skills, how bad will it have to get before you get rid of most of your assets, to qualify for welfare program X? Once you do, wouldn't you feel like a complete dipshit if you got a good job six months later?). Most people used to working are going to hope for something to come along. Also, you will need to be sufficiently poor (UI is wages, so being jobless doesn't necessarily let you qualify) for at least one tax year to qualify for programs that have income requirements.

It's important to realize that we do not have one welfare system, but dozens, all working differently. Long-term UI is politically easier to do, than streamlining the rest of welfare, and getting "working people" to use more of it.

Normalizing relative benefits to minimum wage (CoW's option) would hardly make the system more fair, and would offer incentive for those making plenty of money not to work, which is considered a problem, now.

 

[theeedude]

No, it should be called welfare if it's government and not unemployment insurance premium funded. We have a lot of people who are on welfare and don't even know it, so they whine about the welfare state.

 

[ShawnD1]

Your janitor can get food stamps; medical coverage for the family and probably qualifies for housing assistance.

Your executive is now living on 1/10 his salary and still have the expenses of a mortgage; college and car payments. Burns through savings fairly quickly at that level. And plus has to pony up $400 for medical coverage for the kids. There goes one weeks unemployment.

Just because at one time you made $100k per year doesn't mean the rest of your life should always be $100k quality no matter what. If you have the same job as the janitor you would get paid the same as the janitor. If you are as unemployed as the janitor, you should get the same unemployment as the janitor (after the 9 months of UI expires).
Something is seriously wrong with American culture if people cannot understand this.

Most countries in the world:
When your family hits hard times, you sell the mercedes and the house and live within your means. My girlfriend's family of 5 lived in a 2 bedroom apartment with 1 compact car for half a year because of this.

Modern USA:
When your family hits hard times, you insist that it's the government's responsibility to keep paying for your mercedes and your house. It's your god given right to own both of them and they should never be sold. One should never need to dip into their savings or sell assets.


If you don't qualify for government assistance, that's because you're probably not poor. Stop bullshitting us by saying you are!

 

[DrPizza]

After 8 weeks, a minimum wage type of job should be found for you. You can continue earning the difference in unemployment while underemployed as a burger flipper for up to 3 years. There are plenty of jobs that could be paid for by the public that would benefit the public - picking up trash along the highway, cleaning city parks, mowing the grass at city parks... That would eliminate the problem of people "retiring" for nearly 2 years while collecting unemployment insurance.

 

[Fern]

Inevitably this argument about should we or should we not continue benefits is going to be moot.

At the time of stimulous, many were warning that if we did not get it right big problems would (re)appear. We had one bullet and missed the target.

It's simply not possible to infinitely continue such spending and borrowing. Either we stop it or lenders stop it for us. And no matter how you cut it, someone is going to feel the pain.

Fern