Unemnployment insurance increased to 99 weeks. Socialist Amerika :(

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
You just admitted you are silver spooner which negates every single post you make as 110% bullshit.

Silver spooner in 40 years maybe. I had a free ride through college and I pay my own everything. :rolleyes:

I will be silverspooning my kids though. My parents weren't well-off enough when I was a kid. I think that's one of the best goals someone can have in life, to make enough so as to live reasonably but to give their children the *best* money can afford as everything you do for them will be building them in one way or another. Would I buy my kid a Porsche for getting into Harvard? Probably.
 
Last edited:

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Silver spooner in 40 years maybe. I had a free ride through college and I pay my own everything.

That "free ride" cost somebody...if you took Government grants, can we have them back now please? Average cost these days for a University Education is about $40k/yr...since you earn everything yourself, you should hand back any scholarships and grant money with interest. THAT would be doing it yourself...

I will be silverspooning my kids though. My parents weren't well-off enough when I was a kid. I think that's one of the best goals someone can have in life, to make enough so as to live reasonably but to give their children the *best* money can afford as everything you do for them will be building them in one way or another. Would I buy my kid a Porsche for getting into Harvard? Probably.

Except that you have said you will not have kids because it's irresponsible...but of course nothing unexpected will ever happen to YOU, so why not. No tornadoes or car accidents or market crashes or fires or diseases...and even then, you plan on spending an exhorbitant amount on insurance to protect yourself from any or all contigencies. I'm sure that with the insurance and the kids, you'll be able to send them to college when your parents die and leave you their money...as long as nothing goes wrong with them that is.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
That's what all insurance is.... People who happen to be taxpayers paying for other people who actually need the insurance payouts.

Only some taxpayers, the same ones who are covered by the insurance. And everyone who gets unemployment payouts paid the insurance premiums before they got any benefit.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,612
3,834
126
I am a dual citizen of Australia and the US...
In Oz, they have both socialized medicine and unlimited unemployment benefit duration.
There is also rental assistance and we have a "work for the dole" scheme which requires that people on benefits for 6 months or longer work voluntarily for a community organization to increase their skills and job prospects, though they can attend school instead if they wish.

Do you know how much they spend on their unemployment program? (I tried looking but couldn't find anything). With the US program you barely have to look for a job - let alone better yourself or actually do work
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
688
126
4-24-2010

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100424/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sandwich_board_job_hunter

Sandwich-board job hunter finds work after 2 years


NEW YORK – When laid-off toy company executive Paul Nawrocki hit the streets of Manhattan wearing a sandwich board and handing out his resume, he became the face of the recession.

--snip--

=================================================
This guy literally punded the pavement of New York City for 99 weeks.


I know none of you silver spoon rich Republicans would ever do that or survive.


Congrats Mr Nawrocki for surviving despite the disgusting posters of P&N against you.


Dave, allow me to take a moment to congratulate you for your exemplary display of hypocrisy and double-talk. You have spent years on this very forum bashing executives, calling them "rich Republicans" and accusing them of hating America. You've advocated that many of them lose their jobs. And now, when it fits your political purposes, you highlight an article talking about an unemployed executive.

I know others have already pointed out this obvious inconsistency in this thread, but I just had to take the opportunity to personally thank you for once again displaying your incredible hypocrisy and lack of critical thinking skills for the whole forum to see. Bravo, sir.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
688
126
At this point it's not unemployment insurance it's middle class welfare where you get to keep your dignity while being a drain on society. I am a liberal and a big proponent of a good safety net so no one is left destitute, but we need to call things by their real names. If you are on unemployment for almost 2 years, you are getting way more coverage than your unemployment insurance premiums paid for, you are on welfare, not unemployment.

Wow, we agree on something. Is it December of 2012 already? ;)
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
688
126
Here's the thing - being in America does not guarantee a good job, nice house and the ability to support children. Maybe thats harsh but life can be harsh. If people are having issues providing for their families that should not be my problem for 2 years. To me it sounds like they did not plan well enough for adverse things to happen in life. I am 27 and own a house and if my wife and I lost our jobs we could survive for 2 years on our savings without unemployment. How? Its not because my parents are rich or some hand out its because we worked hard. We didn't buy things we couldn't afford and then expect to be taken care of by the government if things went south.

My wife and I are in the same position as you and your wife, it seems. We don't buy the latest and greatest things. For example, I drive a 2001 car. Why? I could definitely afford a new one, but this one runs and I'd rather save money. We don't go on exciting vacations every year. Why? We'd rather save money and go on exciting vacations every 2 or 3 years and pocket the savings.

Being responsible with your money just means that in today's age, you get to burden more responsibility. It sucks, but that's the way it is and it isn't going to change. I don't want or expect the government to give me any special treatment or anything like that, but I do expect people to be held accountable. And I like some of the suggestions here -- after the first year of unemployment, maybe the second year should be a loan? Or, perhaps those guys should be asked to perform community services to "earn" the money?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
This.

About a decade ago, I lost a 65k/yr job, collected unemployment for just two months, but then started waiting tables and helping out at my friend's landscaping company instead -- all while I looked for a new engineering job. Perhaps it's just the way I was raised, but being on the govn't dime, even for just two months, actually made me feel guilty.

99 months is just plain fucking ridiculous.
Oops. You now probably realize that the unemployment came from an actual pool that your employer paid in on your behalf.

Being on it at 99 weeks, though, yes, anybody should feel guilty.
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,234
2,554
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
unemployment payments are funded by unemployment insurance, collected by employers but ultimately paid by employees.

It isn't charity and you don't pay taxes on the premiums you pay, assuming you are an employee somewhere.

As far as the issue of how long the benefits should last, I think after 6 months there ought to be some restrictions, such as mandatory retraining, possibly relocation, some sort of evaluation of what the problem is. All of that would cost money though, and some of it might already be happening.


I am 53 yrs old, if I lost my job tomorrow I undoubtedly would have a great deal of difficulty in finding another in the same field even with being willing to accept a cut in wages. I'd have my resume out there right away but would also opt immediately to sign up for any retraining in a viable field that I could get myself into.

A huge part of this problem is that people in my age group are being laid off in large numbers, I'm too young to retire but not young enough
to go dig ditches or work for 80 hours a week on my feet flipping burgers . I would immediately retrain and would have no problem with either a community service clause or some sort of loan agreement in exchange for extended benefits that would allow me enough time to cross train to a more viable field.
 
Last edited:

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
I am 53 yrs old, if I lost my job tomorrow I undoubtedly would have a great deal of difficulty in finding another in the same field even with being willing to accept a cut in wages. I'd have my resume out there right away but would also opt immediately to sign up for any retraining in a viable field that I could get myself into.

A huge part of this problem is that people in my age group are being laid off in large numbers, I'm too young to retire but not young enough
to go dig ditches or work for 80 hours a week on my feet flipping burgers . I would immediately retrain and would have no problem with either a community service clause or some sort of loan agreement in exchange for extended benefits that would allow me enough time to cross train to a more viable field.

Hey brother, I'm 53 too. Never drawn a dime of unemployment and hope not too.

I agree with all your points.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Hey brother, I'm 53 too. Never drawn a dime of unemployment and hope not too.

I agree with all your points.

LOL! From the highly attractive avatar photo and the poster's name, I would hazard to guess the "brother" is a "sister."

But, I echo your sentiments!
 
Last edited:
Feb 16, 2005
14,080
5,453
136
until the jobs start returning en masse, this kind of thing is to be expected. The whole argument of 'those who are receiving unemployment benefits will not even try to find work' is complete bs. Unemployment benefits are so little that to say 'being on the dole is preferential to having a real paying job' is ludicrous. It is right up there with saying that being in poverty is ideal because of all the tax benefits and welfare.


qfmft
 

Trianon

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2000
1,789
0
71
www.conkurent.com
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/labor-force-polarized-as-middle-skill-jobs-vanish-2010-04-30

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Middle-skills jobs have lost share in the employment pool in the last three decades, a trend of labor-market "polarization" reinforced by the recession, according to a report released Friday.

"Employment losses during the recent recession were far more severe in middle-skill white- and blue-collar jobs than in either high-skill, white-collar jobs or in low-skill service occupations," according to the report by economist David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that was presented at a Washington symposium from Hamilton Project and the Center for American Progress about the future of American jobs.


A 24-room apartment in 344 square feetHong Kong architect Gary Chang, has managed to turn his tiny apartment into a mansion of sorts, comprising more than 20 rooms. The innovation he says could improve the lives of low income people around the world.
The four middle-skill occupations -- sales, office and administrative workers, production workers and operators -- accounted for 57.3% employment in 1979. That portion fell to 48.6% in 2007, and declined to 45.7% in 2009, according to the report.

Male workers have been particularly hard hit, as their educational attainment has slowed and labor force participation declined, according to Autor.

"Perhaps most alarmingly, males as a group have adapted comparatively poorly to the changing labor market," Autor wrote. "For males without a four-year college degree, wages have stagnated or fallen over three decades. And as these males have moved out of middle-skill blue-collar jobs, they have generally moved downward in the occupational skill and earnings distribution."

The employment and earnings of less-educated males have been particularly harmed by fewer middle-skill, blue-collar jobs in manufacturing, according to the report.

"The job opportunities available to males displaced from manufacturing jobs, particularly those displaced at midcareer, are likely to be primarily found in lower-paying service occupations," Autor wrote.

Why have middle-skilled jobs declined? Changes in technology, international trade, and the off-shoring of jobs all play a part.

The report also noted a historic high for the return to skills. In 2009 the hourly wage of the typical college graduate was 1.95 times the hourly wage of the typical high school graduate, up from 1.5 times in 1963. All of the gain took place after 1980.

"This simple comparison of the wage gap between college and high school graduates probably understates significantly the real growth in compensation for college graduates relative to high school graduates in recent decades," according to the report. "College graduates work more hours per week and more weeks per year than high school graduates, spend less time unemployed, and receive a disproportionate share of nonwage fringe benefits, including sick and vacation pay, employer-paid health insurance, pension contributions, and safe and pleasant working conditions."

The Census Bureau recently reported average earnings of more than $83,000 in 2008 for those with an advanced degree, compared with almost $59,000 for those with a bachelor's degree, and more than $31,000 for those whose highest degree was a high school diploma.

Last year 87% of adults 25 and older had at least a high school diploma, and 30% held at least a bachelor's degree, according to Census data. Read the Census press release.

Importance of education
The importance of education and skills training was emphasized at Friday's event about the future of American jobs.

Cecilia Rouse, a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, said education and training are needed to better prepare the work force for the demands of employers. A good system will start early, as far back as preschool. And while many institutions of higher learning are set up for 18- to 22-year-olds, the national education system should also be flexible enough for the needs of older adults.

"I don't think it's realistic for them to become full-time, four-year students," Rouse said.

She added that it's also important for adults to be to learn in an occupationally relevant way.

Larry Summers, director of the National Economic Council, said finding a way to develop the skills and potential of all Americans is a priority.

"You can't put enough emphasis on [education]," Summers said.

Dog eat dog world, prospects for middle class are not good at all...
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
I am 53 yrs old, if I lost my job tomorrow I undoubtedly would have a great deal of difficulty in finding another in the same field even with being willing to accept a cut in wages. I'd have my resume out there right away but would also opt immediately to sign up for any retraining in a viable field that I could get myself into.

A huge part of this problem is that people in my age group are being laid off in large numbers, I'm too young to retire but not young enough
to go dig ditches or work for 80 hours a week on my feet flipping burgers . I would immediately retrain and would have no problem with either a community service clause or some sort of loan agreement in exchange for extended benefits that would allow me enough time to cross train to a more viable field.

Hey brother, I'm 53 too. Never drawn a dime of unemployment and hope not too.

I agree with all your points.

I got a few years on you youngsters :D

As a product of the fifties myself, I have adopted a new credo: Better Living Through Chemistry

i.e., Lortab

When there is hard work to be done ... I never leave home without it :eek: Booboo's Little Helper

C'mon ... sing along with me




--
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
Uh, when you're looking for an $100K/ year job, how many offers are expecting in this economy?

I have a subscription for The Economist and every single issue has ads for CEO/regional coordinator-level jobs. Granted, many of these jobs demand a Ph.D and/or many years of experience, but they're out there.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I'm divided in response to this. On the one hand, government is definitely spending too much money. On the other, many states and areas have double digit unemployment. Not everyone in those areas can find a job, even at McDonald's. There simply aren't that many jobs available. Without unemployment extensions, the rate of foreclosures and bankruptcies will likely accelerate, leading to more job losses. Although my libertarian side says no one should be allowed to ride on the taxpayers' coattails for two years, I don't know that stopping it isn't going to make things worse.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I'll tell you guys a secret. Almost every guy I met in the union I was a part of got unemployment on their vacation. They'd just tell the contractor they're working for they were going to take a week off, they'd call the hall tell them they're laid off for the week and to put their name at the bottom of the list. They'd then sign up for unemployment, go on vacation, come back get their check and go back to work doing what they were doing before. Hell I knew guys who would take months off at a time because they made a bit and worked a lot of hours who would claim unemployment even though they could be working making 35+ an hour.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
I'll tell you guys a secret. Almost every guy I met in the union I was a part of got unemployment on their vacation. They'd just tell the contractor they're working for they were going to take a week off, they'd call the hall tell them they're laid off for the week and to put their name at the bottom of the list. They'd then sign up for unemployment, go on vacation, come back get their check and go back to work doing what they were doing before. Hell I knew guys who would take months off at a time because they made a bit and worked a lot of hours who would claim unemployment even though they could be working making 35+ an hour.

Hate to break it to you but you're full of shit. It's unlikely in the extreme they'd get any money whatsoever right off the bat applying for unemployment if they pay any state/federal taxes (payroll), and worst case they'd be forced to give up their money a year after they file (they can go right into your checking account in fact). A social security number and name is all you need to deny someone unemployment unless they're someone who works under the table. Union workers all pay taxes like anyone else.
 
Last edited:

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,296
2,392
136
I got a few years on you youngsters :D

As a product of the fifties myself, I have adopted a new credo: Better Living Through Chemistry

i.e., Lortab

When there is hard work to be done ... I never leave home without it :eek: Booboo's Little Helper

C'mon ... sing along with me




--

If the gov gave us old folks Lortab then we could go work all those landscape jobs that are available.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Hate to break it to you but you're full of shit. It's unlikely in the extreme they'd get any money whatsoever right off the bat applying for unemployment if they pay any state/federal taxes (payroll), and worst case they'd be forced to give up their money a year after they file (they can go right into your checking account in fact). A social security number and name is all you need to deny someone unemployment unless they're someone who works under the table. Union workers all pay taxes like anyone else.

... you're kidding me right? I have actually done it so if you're looking for some sort of argument here you fucking lose ok? I'll walk you through it step by step on how it works.

Step One: Tell employer you're taking time off, but you'll call them when you're back. (Get laid off)

Step Two: Call the hall and tell the nice pretty receptionist what your name is, that you need to get on the out of work list and that you'll be filing for unemployment.

Step Three: Go to the unemployment website(this is California so we would go to edd.ca.gov) and sign up give them your termination date, how much you were making weekly, blah blah blah, fill out the part that tells them you're part of a union, which, and who they can call to confirm.

Step Four: take your vacation and get paid.

That's how it works bud.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,296
2,392
136
I have a subscription for The Economist and every single issue has ads for CEO/regional coordinator-level jobs. Granted, many of these jobs demand a Ph.D and/or many years of experience, but they're out there.


LOL, are you serious or is my sarcasm meter broken? In case you're serious, lots of regular people make $100/k these days, or used to before they got laid off. CEO and high level management make way more than $100k.