Unemployment benefits might be extended AGAIN :(

[Mursilis]

Nice attempt at a diversion, but you clearly said it came from public funds and it doesn't. The money comes from the employers, and I guess if that runs out there are going to be much bigger things to worrry about.

he shoots again.... aww so close.. not really

Even the link you provided says it's funded by a "tax", which by definition is public funds. Maybe you should spend less time thinking up "witty" (or not) insults, and more time thinking about your responses.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The accepted economic theory is that the longer you give unemployment benefits, the less incentive for the unemployed to look for employment.

Or the longer you go unemployed, the longer you need the benefits. Or the longer you give unemployment benefits, the less incentive to take a low paying job. Or etc., etc. Hay you think jobs are out there growing on bushes?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Even the link you provided says it's funded by a "tax", which by definition is public funds. Maybe you should spend less time thinking up "witty" (or not) insults, and more time thinking about your responses.

EMPLOYERS PAY THE TAX... You're right it said tax, Employers tax, but you're right it definitely said tax. You win..

 

[Fern]

There possibly is another good reason to do this. When People's Unemployment Insurance coverage ends and if they can't find Work, then they have to apply for Welfare/Social Assistance. That in turn, afaik, transfers responsibility from the Feds to the State. Most States are already struggling with Fiscal short falls and are being propped up by the Feds. So, the idea is, if the Feds extend UI, it relieves States from further Fiscal pressures.

Good point, the money is gonna be spent one way or another (or by one program or another).

BTW: this is the expected consequence of a rather unsuccessful stimulous plan.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

EMPLOYERS PAY THE TAX... You're right it said tax, Employers tax, but you're right it definitely said tax. You win..

Employees effectively pay the tax as it is part of the cost to employ them. Increase the tax and the employee must receive less pay or it becomes more attractive to lay them off. Decrease the tax and either the employee can receive more pay OR it becomes cheaper for the employer to employ them and therefore less attractive to lay them off.

Mass layoffs were also up last month, although overall net job loss was less. That suggests that larger and better funded companies are now feeling the pain that they could ignore for the last year or two, and perhaps also that small businesses have largely laid off all non-essential personnel. This last also suggests that unemployment benefits probably should be extended, as there is little chance of finding another job for most people and therefore relatively severe consequences may occur were they not extended. For instance, banks don't want any more houses, so if you can promptly pay at least a portion of your mortgage you can probably keep your house. If you have no income, you'll probably lose your house, possibly causing a ripple effect as your bank or mortgage company will file on the GSE (if insured) and cost the federal government more than partially supporting you.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Nice attempt at a diversion, but you clearly said it came from public funds and it doesn't. The money comes from the employers, and I guess if that runs out there are going to be much bigger things to worrry about.

he shoots again.... aww so close.. not really

Even the link you provided says it's funded by a "tax", which by definition is public funds. Maybe you should spend less time thinking up "witty" (or not) insults, and more time thinking about your responses.

It is a tax on the employer.

You will not see a line item on your paystub, nor as an employee, will you receive a bill from the state.

These are funds placed into a holding tank to pay on employment claims.
The funds are not placed into a common pot for the general budget of a state.

while some may argue that if the employer was not paying the tax, the additional amount would be passed onto the employee as additional income.

Think of it as an additional benefit. When your benefits are decreased, the additional money is not causing a salary adjustment.

To the employer, it is a cost of doing business. Employees will never get every loose penney that the employer does not spend. You also do not hear employees complaining about the employeer sponsored XMass party or summer picnics provided by the employer. Those are funds that in theory would be distributed to the employee.

 

[Slew Foot]

Paying people not to work is the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. At least make people clean up garbage or plant trees or cover up graffiti or something.

 

[VashHT]

Paying people not to work is the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. At least make people clean up garbage or plant trees or cover up graffiti or something.

Yes, that would be a much better use of their time as opposed to looking for a new job.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Well said werepossum, I don't agree with all of your posts, but you really nailed this one. Our company laid off a lot of people almost exactly a year ago, we lost 50% of our little group, but IT and HR are usually hit the hardest.

We're a mid sized company, but saw growth in 2009, not only to the reduction in employees, but better sales for the year. Making the outlook for 2010 more (cautiously) optimistic. Even so, the company was sold to a foreign parent company, which has yet to play out either good or bad. I've lived through enough buyouts to know you don't know a damn thing unless your the buyer.

I wish to hell my wife didn't have to collect UI, and she wishes that a million times more than I do. It's depressing and dehumanizing to feel like you're not wanted, when the actuality is the job market is extremely lean. Knowing the benefits are there, and we'll be able to struggle through this takes a huge weight off our shoulders. Why do people who aren't affected in the least actually give a shit? If you're an owner of a company, I could see some reasoning for the anger, but if you're just a working stiff, it has zero effect on you, your wife/husband/life partner, kids, dog, goldfish, etc.
The real impact would be if people didn't have the money and were kicked to the curb. There'd be a large societal impact that I doubt we can even fathom the endgame. Thank you again for your post WP.

 

[Mursilis]

These are funds placed into a holding tank to pay on employment claims.
The funds are not placed into a common pot for the general budget of a state.

Understood, but these "holding tank" accounts occasionally run down to $0, especially during times like these. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read that when that happens, $$ to make up the shortfalls then comes out of state and federal general funds.

 

[StageLeft]

Why do people who aren't affected in the least actually give a shit? If you're an owner of a company, I could see some reasoning for the anger, but if you're just a working stiff, it has zero effect on you, your wife/husband/life partner, kids, dog, goldfish, etc.

But these benefits are above whatever is being received by employers and gov is footing the bill.

Anyway I was out of work for 6 months some years ago and used my benefits up to the day before I finally got a job. They were nice to have there but if they weren't there I won't lie I would have tried looking for work harder, but as it was I was already a bit desperate and almost agreed to do a job frankly below me (and that has a long term impact on resume and future productivity).

Only a cretin thinks a professional should be doing anything he can to make money including cleaning poo off the floor in mcdonalds, it's a total waste of his skills.

 

[werepossum]

Well said werepossum, I don't agree with all of your posts, but you really nailed this one. Our company laid off a lot of people almost exactly a year ago, we lost 50% of our little group, but IT and HR are usually hit the hardest.

We're a mid sized company, but saw growth in 2009, not only to the reduction in employees, but better sales for the year. Making the outlook for 2010 more (cautiously) optimistic. Even so, the company was sold to a foreign parent company, which has yet to play out either good or bad. I've lived through enough buyouts to know you don't know a damn thing unless your the buyer.

I wish to hell my wife didn't have to collect UI, and she wishes that a million times more than I do. It's depressing and dehumanizing to feel like you're not wanted, when the actuality is the job market is extremely lean. Knowing the benefits are there, and we'll be able to struggle through this takes a huge weight off our shoulders. Why do people who aren't affected in the least actually give a shit? If you're an owner of a company, I could see some reasoning for the anger, but if you're just a working stiff, it has zero effect on you, your wife/husband/life partner, kids, dog, goldfish, etc.
The real impact would be if people didn't have the money and were kicked to the curb. There'd be a large societal impact that I doubt we can even fathom the endgame. Thank you again for your post WP.

LOL Even I don't agree with all my posts - I can argue or at least see both sides on many issues. I don't see any problem though with accepting UI; it's a benefit just like health care; part of your overall compensation package is UI. If a company hires you, it considers you to be worth the total cost of your employment, including health insurance and unemployment insurance and the matching payroll taxes. Therefore UI is just another insurance product that is part of your compensation package. Some of these costs are hidden (i.e. taxes on the employer rather than the employee) only for political reasons. To be sure, the government requires it or most of us wouldn't have it, but UI is still part of your compensation and one of the few government programs that really pulls its weight.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I had to take a gig at walmart as the 'shop manager' of their auto repair center when my ui ran out, the pay sucked, the job sucked and I was falling behind in all my bills AND no health insurance.
Luckily about a month in I got an offer for a tech job. I've been poor, working poor, middle class, upper middle class and working poor was about the worst. I felt completely trapped, helpless and scared shitless. I NEED health insurance, I was born with a congenital heart defect and had heart surgery at 10 days old, and again at 5, and again at 30. Pre-existing conditions, me? No, nope, no idea what you're talking about.
The surgery I had in 94 when I was 30 was close to 250K, and I needed public aid for it. But some folks would think I am just suckling the teat and abusing the system. In fact I got denied even though there was a hole the size of a quarter between my ventricles. My doctor wrote the state telling them in no uncertain terms she would hold them responsible when I die from this. Not IF, but when.
Shockingly, I got the aid. But I was working at a job w/o benefits, so my month off from work along with my surgery was all on my shoulders.
So when I see these people talking shit about how public aid is abused and pre-existing conditions shouldn't be covered it pisses me off and makes me wonder if these people are inept, stupid, cruel, or just flat out assholes. And then when you talk about extending help that is sorely needed, they flap their hands and say they've had enough, go work 60 hours a week to make up for it and look for a better job.

 

[woolfe9999]

I had to take a gig at walmart as the 'shop manager' of their auto repair center when my ui ran out, the pay sucked, the job sucked and I was falling behind in all my bills AND no health insurance.

You may find this illuminating:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/wal_mart_cuts_over_13_000_of_what

- wolf

 

[EagleKeeper]

These are funds placed into a holding tank to pay on employment claims.
The funds are not placed into a common pot for the general budget of a state.

Understood, but these "holding tank" accounts occasionally run down to $0, especially during times like these. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read that when that happens, $$ to make up the shortfalls then comes out of state and federal general funds.

I do not know how the states handle it when the funds are depleted.
Do they float bonds based on the taxes coming in, borrow from the general fund, get funds from the Feds?

One could get fancy and state that if money comes from a general fund it is taxes on the people.
The intent of unemployment tax is a tax on the employer and the intent was that the employer would pay it; not the taxpayer or the employee.

All I know is that the unemployment is based on a TAX on the employer based. The amount is based on each employee; the # of employees and the history of claims against that employer. The more claims; the higher the tax on the employer.

 

[werepossum]

I do not know how the states handle it when the funds are depleted.
Do they float bonds based on the taxes coming in, borrow from the general fund, get funds from the Feds?

One could get fancy and state that if money comes from a general fund it is taxes on the people.
The intent of unemployment tax is a tax on the employer and the intent was that the employer would pay it; not the taxpayer or the employee.

All I know is that the unemployment is based on a TAX on the employer based. The amount is based on each employee; the # of employees and the history of claims against that employer. The more claims; the higher the tax on the employer.

That is what politicians want you to believe. The "matching contribution" of payroll tax is the same. However these things are part of your cost of employment, the overall cost that an employer must weigh against the benefit of having you as an employee. Look at it this way - if there were no required health insurance, unemployment insurance, or matching payroll tax, employers would have more employees because each would be cheaper and employee wages would tend to increase because of increased demand for a finite resource (labor.) Conversely, if health insurance, unemployment insurance, and matching payroll tax doubled, employers would have fewer employees because the cost of each would go up substantially, making some not worth the cost of employing them. Almost every employer would like to have more employees, but cost of employment must be balanced against the perceived value of each additional employee.

Politicians love to apply taxes to the employer, but employers are by nature fairly tax neutral. Every additional cost a company incurs must be passed on in either reduced wages, increased prices, or reduced compensation to owners (shareholders if incorporated) - only a minority of income is actually held by employers, to grow the company or protect against a rainy day. If a company is unable to pass on increased costs, it must go bankrupt eventually. Any increase in costs must either come out of profits or the available money to pay wages if it cannot be directly passed on.

 

[soulcougher73]

your thoughts?

It's either unemployment or welfare. Take your pick. Both paid for by you.

 

[PrinceofWands]

There are exactly 3 options for the government to take:

1) Guarantee living wage jobs for all. This will cost tons of money, will never be fully successful, but will make the situation better (at least in the short run).

2) Guarantee unemployment and health benefits for all. This will cost tons of money, will never be fully successful, but will make the situation better (at least in the short run).

3) NOT provide any avenue of direct relief to individuals. This will result in an uprising of starving, hopeless citizens (most of whom armed and many trained) as they do whatever they have to do to feed their families (or, as said previously in the thread, they'll manage to get welfare for a net loss in tax dollars). The event would certainly call for increased protection, more jails, etc. The end result would be total social collapse, rampant crime, total loss of government respect/efficacy, more government spending than ever conceived of before, millions dead, etc.


Feel free to pick any option you like.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Ok, but when someone can get a job that pays as much or more than unemployment, but decide not too because they want free money, that is wrong.

If I were unemployed right now collecting $200 a week, then a job came along where I made $250 a week but had to work instead of sit on my ass, I would take it as it would be money that is EARNED.

A lot of people say fuck it, I get $200 for free without doing almost anything and dont work.

My mom is actually like that, she sits in her trailer all day and collects unemployment when she could have had several jobs by now.

Now let's looks at the other thing that currently happens (and far more often in my opinion). Your absolute rock bottom bills are $200/wk. You're getting $200/wk on unemployment, but the only job you can find has no security, may require a move, is in opposition to their ideology, requires a big commute, etc and pays $175-225/wk. They stay on unemployment.

It's not laziness or an aversion to work if you refuse to take a job that causes you a net loss; it's intelligence. If you want people to get off unemployment there HAVE to be jobs available to them (ie that they can do) that are at least equivalent (and hopefully better).

 

[PrinceofWands]

The accepted economic theory is that the longer you give unemployment benefits, the less incentive for the unemployed to look for employment.

Yes, but since 99% of economic theory is complete and utter bs when applied to the real world, it means nothing.

 

[child of wonder]

Having been laid off and essentially dropped on my ass (I am contractually bound not to specify exactly how many weeks of severance I received) I've applied for unemployment. In SD it's only $309 per week (minimum wage x 40 hours).

I'm trying like hell to get a new job. Even though we've cut back expenses and started to penny pinch, the unemployment money plus my wife's income still isn't enough to get us by forever. I'm more accustomed to making nearly $1,100 per week, not $300.

Not only that but, being an IT guy, how well can I perform my next job if I've been sitting on my ass for 12+ months on unemployment? The technology world is going to keep on cruising along whether I work or not.

I can see how some who may only make $8 an hour might not bother to get off unemployment but that's why there were limits in the first place. I think SD was originally only 6 months before the national extensions.

 

[werepossum]

Having been laid off and essentially dropped on my ass (I am contractually bound not to specify exactly how many weeks of severance I received) I've applied for unemployment. In SD it's only $309 per week (minimum wage x 40 hours).

I'm trying like hell to get a new job. Even though we've cut back expenses and started to penny pinch, the unemployment money plus my wife's income still isn't enough to get us by forever. I'm more accustomed to making nearly $1,100 per week, not $300.

Not only that but, being an IT guy, how well can I perform my next job if I've been sitting on my ass for 12+ months on unemployment? The technology world is going to keep on cruising along whether I work or not.

I can see how some who may only make $8 an hour might not bother to get off unemployment but that's why there were limits in the first place. I think SD was originally only 6 months before the national extensions.

Very true. I suggest volunteer work, perhaps tutoring. That might make some useful contacts and will allow you to keep your hand in the game. The flip side may be commuting, which in most places isn't free.

Good luck to you and to all those laid off (or suffering spousal lay-off syndrome) during these hard times.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Oh wait I thought the economy was on the rebound and the stim plan was working???

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2052926

 

[rudder]

Yes, luckily I was not laid off, or company shut down, we did live within our means, and I don't need to be lectured by a keyboard economist professor wannabe. Why should it be extended? Really? Are you mentally challenged? Unemployment is at ~10%, there is a slight upturn in available jobs but not nearly enough to go back to 'normal' duration for unemployment. You want to see mass poverty that would make the great depression look like a weekend spending spree, cut back benefits.
The housing crisis would get much worse, people wouldn't have money for cars, bills, houses, food, etc. Why shouldn't people get an extension of benefits in a time of an economic crisis few of us have ever been unlucky enough to witness (both of my parents lived through the great depression, so I have 1st hand knowledge of what life was like, I asked my father several times what he did, how he survived, etc).
The fact that you and people like you can shut the door so easily on people who truly need help astonishes me. While at the same time giving a break to big corps by tax cuts. f'ing idiots, truly.

But do you truly need help? Are you going to bed hungry every night? Do you have a roof over your head? You sound like someone who has less disposable income to spend not someone who needs 12 more months of unemployment checks. Are you just a greedy asshole? I mean if I am to be called a f'ing idiot... is it not appropriate to call you that?

Despite what you hear, there is a finite amount of currency that can flow within our system. How about letting the people that truly need benefits during this recession get them.

 

[soccerballtux]

The accepted economic theory is that the longer you give unemployment benefits, the less incentive for the unemployed to look for employment.

Yes, but since 99% of economic theory is complete and utter bs when applied to the real world, it means nothing.

this would explain why more government always leads to good things for us.
OH WAIT. According to economics, it's NOT good for the economy.