I have been laid-off for over a year and because of what my former employer did and me not understanding the game early enough do not get unemployment.

I have heard a lot of discussion on such topics and really I would say we don't know what would happen. Every side has presented a plausible scenario.

At this point, it appears like there is more workers than work. My former job is partially no longer done, partially done by former co-workers who have to work longer hours for no more pay and part is done in India. I could get a job delivering pizzas, but then the person currently doing the job would be out of work. Who needs works? Around here, nobody. The last job I applied for I got turned down because they decided not to fill it after all. The place before that asked me to volunteer my time for six months and then maybe they would hire me - yes, it is a for profit company.

The most likely scenario to me looks like if people didn't get unemployment, they would spend a lot less, which would cause more people to lose their jobs and the death spiral would be on.

The one rule that needs to be changed is if you take a job for lessor pay, the unemployment rate would get refigured. If I had gotton unemployeement it would be about $500/wk, now if a contract job came up for say two months that paid a lot less than I made before (even a lot more than the $500) it would not make sense for me to take it because after the two months my rate would be re-calc'ed and I might only get $100/wk.

It is late, hopefully that all makes sense.

"Because the family doesn't have to pay for daycare anymore, they come out ahead with the benefit."

There are more of these than you might think.

Often, when there are two "incomes" in the house, the second one doesn't pay for the added transportation costs, much less daycare.

And that's aside from the spectre of having strangers raise your children.

A former business partner of mine is losing his main business. Partly due to the economy, partly the increased regulation over the past decade and new taxes. But one of the worst things was the unemployment. He is paying unemployment for people he "hasn't seen in years." He can't get out from the burden of paying for people who don't work for him.

He is diehard socialist and democrat, and does not see the connection between his statist ideas and his party, and what is happening to him. He is rich, but in his mind if only people richer than him paid their fair share this wouldn't be happening to him.

I am reminded of a gung-ho Democrat in the union where I worked, in a factory. He hated Republicans, and he knew I was one.

In the late 80's, he and his wife both worked at the factory. We did not make the big pay people assume for all unions. When I retired, in 1997, I made $16.25 an hour, and I was one of the few in the highest labor grade in the union.

But, he worked a lot of over-time, and in the late 80's, he and his wife cleared around $70,000 a year.

Every time the Democrat legislators raised taxes on the rich, as he wanted, his taxes would go up, because he and his wife were well above average income, for both our community and the nation.

He would rave at us evil, vicious Republicans who raised the taxes on "the little guys."

We are products of our cultures. In his Democrat, union culture, even when he made $70,000 family income, he was still the little guy because he was a factory worker, and shouldn't have to pay many taxes.

Blechhh!!!

I was laid off in December of '08 and still haven't found another job. The thing is, I make the maximum on unemployment, and have yet to be offered a job that will be at least that! It doesn't make sense for me to work for less than I make on unemployment, in fact, the financial hit I'll take will make it harder to pay the bills. I'm stuck in a catch-22; damned if I don't, damned if I do.

This article is in the Daily Mail today and is a vision of our future if we don't stop the spending now. I feel for people who have been unemployed for a long time, but the answer is less government and less taxes...not more handouts. It's called "free enterprise" for a reason.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265508/Peter-Davey-gets-42-000-benefits-year-drives-Mercedes.html

I've got resumes out all over the place - I can't stand not working, but I can't very well make people hire me! I've got a second interview for a job tomorrow, but it's for a non-profit organization, and doesn't pay as well as I'm used to. But I'll take it, if they offer it, and I'll keep looking for something better.

I am doing the same work I was doing three years ago, for half the pay. That's just the way the economy is. I am still doing okay because I don't have any kids or debts, but people are going to have to realize that maybe spending three years' worth of discretionary income on a car was never a good idea. And that yes, a mortgage is still a debt. It may have a decent interest rate and some tax advantages, but that is cold comfort when your income drops and you still have to write that check every month.

My cousin got laid off from his job more than a year ago. He was offered another one, but didn't take it because he used to make $18 per hour but was only offered $15. This is nonsense.

When I graduated from college in the early 90s, we were having a pretty bad recession back then, too. Minimum wage was $5.15 an hour, and even with my "practical" accounting degree, the only full-time job I could find paid $7.00 an hour. So I took that job, and got a part-time job on top of that for minimum wage. I'd do it again if I had to. If all I could find was minimum wage, well I'd take it, and get a second job making donuts at Caseys at 3:00 in the morning. People are letting their egos get in the way. The dole is making that possible.

From an Libertarian/Anarchist
Any sophisticated person can find examples of fraud & abuse in any social program. If you work for an employer, your wage/salary is reduced to pay the unemployment insurance premiums.
Re-distribution is not going away. It is the source of the political power of the very people elected. A two-party system doesn't produce a choice, only a lack of options. For every dollar collected in taxes, less than 10% is spent on social services. The real fraud and abuse is what our politicians are doing with the other 90%.

Sheepmommy, the attitude on display in that article was frightening. The couple is on welfare and has eight children. With another on the way.

'It doesn't bother me that taxpayers are paying for me to have a large family,' added Mrs Davey.

'Most of the parents at our kids' school are on benefits.'

'I don't feel bad about being subsidised by people who are working. I'm just working with the system that's there.'

'If the government wants to give me money, I'm happy to take it. We get what we're entitled to.'

Entitled to?

It's true, Conan. Reading that story made me want to force both parents to undergo irreversible sterilization surgery, send them to work in a hard-labor prison camp, and then sell all those ugly kids for scientific experiments.

Check out the comments on that Daily Mail story. They are almost uniformly outraged.

There's nearly 1350 comments. I'm gobsmacked. They

I know somebody who's married, lives in a $600-800k house, has a few hundred thousand in the bank, no kids to support, and her husband is still employed.

They owned their own businesses. The sold her business recently, and now she's, um... out of work, so to speak.

She's collecting unemployment.

She lounges around most of her day, unless she's out shopping for stuff she doesn't need, or directing a contractor to do remodeling work on her house.

If the government is handing out, of course people are going to be on the take and of course it's going to reduce the incentive to get another job. Duh! Handouts always result in enabling of bad behavior like dealing with personal responsibility.