Do Unemployment Benefits Keep People Unemployed?
I think so, and so does Robert Barro, writing in the WSJ, "My calculations suggest the jobless rate could be as low as 6.8%, instead of 9.5%, if jobless benefits hadn't been extended to 99 weeks":
I want to focus here on another dimension of the Obama administration's policies: the expansion of unemployment-insurance eligibility to as much as 99 weeks from the standard 26 weeks.The unemployment-insurance program involves a balance between compassion--providing for persons temporarily without work--and efficiency. The loss in efficiency results partly because the program subsidizes unemployment, causing insufficient job-search, job-acceptance and levels of employment. A further inefficiency concerns the distortions from the increases in taxes required to pay for the program.
In a recession, it is more likely that individual unemployment reflects weak economic conditions, rather than individual decisions to choose leisure over work. Therefore, it is reasonable during a recession to adopt a more generous unemployment-insurance program. In the past, this change entailed extensions to perhaps 39 weeks of eligibility from 26 weeks, though sometimes a bit more and typically conditioned on the employment situation in a person's state of residence. However, we have never experienced anything close to the blanket extension of eligibility to nearly two years. We have shifted toward a welfare program that resembles those in many Western European countries.
The administration has argued that the more generous unemployment-insurance program could not have had much impact on the unemployment rate because the recession is so severe that jobs are unavailable for many people. This perspective is odd on its face because, even at the worst of the downturn, the U.S. labor market featured a tremendous amount of turnover in the form of large numbers of persons hired and separated every month.
99 weeks is TWO YEARS. If you have two years of unemployment, why take anything but the most plum job -- I mean, after you finish writing your novel?
Of course, that's only if you've worked for a company. If you're self-employed like me, go dig a ditch, sucka...you get zippo.
Smart comment from Thomas DePew at the WSJ:
It would seem that the question is whether there are jobs that are going unfilled because people find it more profitable to stay on unemployment rather than accept something that would be lower than unemployment benefits. For example, if unemployment payments are $1500/month, then the question arises whether that floor under wages is sufficient to keep people from looking for work. Assuming that $1500 unemployment compensation is equal to $2000 per month gross wages, that translates into roughly $11-$12/hr in a private sector job.So, should someone who is unwilling or unable to find work at that wage pass on a lower-paying job, then it would at least lower the unemployment rate but drive up the under-employment rate. Less would be subsidized with government revenue, which can only help the private economy. Further, the incentive-destroying effects of government transfer payments would be eliminated.
In short, while unemployment compensation is probably more "compassionate" in the short-term, the longer-term effects are devastating, both for the private economy, the size of government, and the affected individuals. The problem with liberalism (er, progressivism) in general is that it is a short-term political philosophy, more focused on making the giver of benefits feel better than it does focus on the affected individuals and their long-term benefit. Are there any rational individuals who actually believe that a government handout is better than a private sector job? Really?!?!?
My Dad got laid off in the 70s, and went on unemployment. I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think it was for three months or so. It allowed him to get back on his feet, and form a company. The company did very well, and he is now retired. The company ended up hiring about 50 people at any given time, and he worked there for about 30 or 35 years or so. So in his case, it ended up creating jobs for 50 people.
I'm not sure he would have been able to start up this company if he hadn't had that safety net.
The average length of official unemployment, according to this article at the Wall Street Journal, is 24.5 weeks, or slightly less than half a year. This is the longest it has been since the government has been tracking the data.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB124753066246235811.html
Given that unemployment is something you can only get if you've been previously employed, and your employer put in for you, I'd say it mostly affects people who are inclined to go to work.
NicoleK at August 30, 2010 12:54 AM
If you take work that pays less than unemployment benefits, I do believe you can still collect the difference in unemployment, for as long as that lasts.
I've been unemployed more than two years, and have depended on unemployment. As a freelancer now, some weeks you make the full amount and get no benefits. Others, you get some. If you get anything, it extends the benefit.
I now finally have three steady jobs that will pay more than unemployment, and thus can finally get off it. But it is damn hard right now. I have been looking.
Had I gotten zero, I'd have headed back to Virginia to live with my dad. In the long run, I do think I will be more productive for not having done that.
LYT at August 30, 2010 1:33 AM
I used to agree but now I don't think so. Of course their are some people milking the system but my guess is that it is relatively few, especially ones that would not be milking a different system. Programs vary a bit by state.
why take anything but the most plum job -- I mean, after you finish writing your novel?
Because they audit you and if they found out you turned down a reasonable job offer (at least 80% pay of your previous job, like work, reasonable commute) you loss your benefits and have to give any back that you got after that, may have to pay a fine and possible criminal fraud. Of the 17 or so people that got laid off with me that I still had contact with, all got audited at least once. I got audited in the few weeks I was on the program before they decided the night class I enrolled in meant was a student and ended my eligibility.
I was awarded the max benefit -- $500 and some change per week. Lets be generous and call it $28,000/yr gross (yes, you still have to pay taxes on it). That ain't much. For most people that is going to be a huge cut in income.
I have been out of work now 1.5 years or so with all but the first 2 months being on savings and lay-off payout. I have been taking some night classes to keep myself fresh. You think I have turned down any jobs? Nope. Closest was I didn't go after one that expect 80% travel (I had been doing 0% travel for work).
I think it also helps prevent some abuses. I read an online article where they interviewed a guy who said he was looking to expanded but couldn't seem to hire anyone of quality for these 20 positions and he was willing to pay good money - $13/hour. In the comments someone claimed to be from the neighboring town posted that the going rate for that position was 20-25$/hr - and that company had just laid-off people in that position who had been paid in that range. I can't verify any of that but I know a friend recently took a job for about 15% less and only 2 weeks of vacation.
If you take work that pays less than unemployment benefits, I do believe you can still collect the difference in unemployment, for as long as that lasts.
For me, only if you are working less then full time. If I worked 20 hours in a week then I would get that pay and potential half my unemployment benefit.
The Former Banker at August 30, 2010 2:03 AM
I forgot one other thing. After 52 weeks, if you have had any significant job (depends on the state) your benefits are re-calculated.
So for example, lets say I was making $25/hr I get laid off. I would exceed the cap and get 500/wk gross on unemployment. Lets say after six months I take a temporary job at $12/hr but then cannot find any more work. At week 52, my award is recalculated which I believe is 384/ wk (12*80%*40). Actually, if I only worked a month, I might not qualify for anything. I read about a couple that, that happened to.
Assuming that $1500 unemployment compensation is equal to $2000 per month gross wages
But that is known to be false. I mean there are a few more taxes you pay out of the gross wages (e.g. unemployment insurance tax) but it is not much. Really, 25% tax on $2000?
The Former Banker at August 30, 2010 2:26 AM
The question Amy asks is surely rhetorical. Of course unemployment benefits keep people unemployed. Economics 101: If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something tax it.
I consider unemployment benefits are an essential part of a functioning society. They provide an essential safety net, especially since people can be fired on as little at two weeks notice in the USA (that's nuts, by the way).
That said, of course unemployment benefits cause unemployment. Some people will stay out of work longer, looking for a better job, rather than taking the first one they can get. Others will deliberately abuse the system, perhaps by writing lousy applications so that they don't even get an offer.
The real question is: where do you find the balance between the benefits and the costs? The answer would be best found by individual States, which are often in very different economic situations. The Federal involvement in unemployment benefits should be completely abolished.
bradley13 at August 30, 2010 3:52 AM
OK, I've been out a little over 6 months. I get the max benefit of $400/wk. That is what I used to make in a DAY. Just approved for the first extension.
When I applied, I had to answer a questionaire. I had a small corporation that was idle, and stated so. Answered the question truthfully. Had to explain my situation, I did and was approved. Helped that the state I was collecting in (not my state of residence) was a BIG Obama supporter.
Yeah, there are audit requirements, but I have not been audited. Recently, I have gotten calls from headhunters for positions that would require relocation to the Gulf coast or outside the US (ain't gonna happen due to wife's job).
I think the lack of audits is that there are relatively few jobs out there and why do the breaucrats need to waste their time? Besides, no audits work to the Dem's advantage.
I am "working" to get the corporation off the ground, and it's starting to look good. Had to cash 2/3 of my IRAs (and pay the penalty due to age). If it goes, I will NOT draw a salary until January.
Anyone who thinks long-term unemployment benefits for people with professional degrees (science, engineering, law, business, etc) is an inducement to remain unemployed needs to have their head examined. The maximum benefit is far less than a "real salary", and for us older folks who have been working regularly for over 20 years, it is devastating.
An Interested Observer at August 30, 2010 4:58 AM
There may be a few people who abuse the system in this way, but only a few. Most people who find themselves unemployed find it very stressful, and are eager to recapture the sense of security and accomplishment that comes from having a job. They know the unemployment benefits will not last forever.
Conservatives/libertarians are barking up the wrong tree with this. There are plenty of other things to focus on, and attacking the unemployment benefits just makes us look cruel.
david foster at August 30, 2010 5:01 AM
I'm on this weird hybrid thing right now called "Attached Worker Status." Basically my company has told the state that "We're trying to stay afloat, we want to keep our people, but we don't have enough hours for the." We work less than 24 hours a week and that gets taken out of what we would have gotten from unemployment. (I'm actually only working 2. I figure because it's a (my) family business I should be the one taking the hit in that department)
It's helping keep our company afloat until we get a new contract or our lawsuit against the client that stiffed us goes through. And in the meantime I am using my "spare" time to write a book. For the company.
Elle at August 30, 2010 6:55 AM
I am losing my job on September 10. I do have 30 weeks severance pay coming, but I'll be damned if I can (or want to) live on unemployment after that.
I have permission to work part time while on severance (they're carrying my medical insurance so it's either that or find a full-time job, which I'd LOVE to to but it's tough out there) and the day that severance is over (they're paying it out bimonthly) I'll be going to the temp agencies and picking up whatever I can. I'll still be better off doing that than trying to make it on unemployment.
I think it should be there for the short term, but 99 weeks is absolutely insane.
Ann at August 30, 2010 7:53 AM
The point of extending benefits for this long is to avoid the political fallout that would result from the impact on the unemployment figure. Jobless benefits subsidize underemployment and allow people to move into the BLS's 'not in the labor force' classification more easily. Also having more active job seekers puts a downward pressure on wages and salaries, and can actually spur firings as employers realize that there are a lot of desperate people available to work cheap.
As for abuse, the system is designed to be abused. There are certain sectors and industries that rely on UI to maintain an available workforce - e.g. construction, manufacturing, film and television production, farming. UI enables people to work for part of the year, establish an income basis, and then receive benefits at a rate benchmarked to that income. Everybody does it, and UI is structured into estimates of workforce capacity for those industries.
So while I support UI, I think that we have to accept that it's a system rife with abuse, and it is intended to maintain unemployment.
Jammy Jammer at August 30, 2010 7:59 AM
Have to disagree that only "a few" absue unemployment, as I have seen first hand several people doing exactly that. A friend of a friend got laid off from a company in Colorado, and was very open about the fact that she was taking the year off to travel abroad - expenses paid by unemployment. Another friend's brother is on unemployment, and is working construction under the table. He makes far more now than he did before, and because he's "on" umemployment, his kids are eligible for all kinds of assistance programs in school.
I agree that there needs to be a safety net, but I don't believe in giving something for nothing. If you want a check from the government, than why not follow Roosevelt's CCC models from the Depression? Make those wanting welfare/unemployment checks clean up our city parks, even if it's for 10 hours a week.
UW Girl at August 30, 2010 8:04 AM
My sister is abusing the hell out of unemployment right now. She was laid off, and she has decided to be a SAHM to her boyfriend's daughter, who is 11.
My ex abused it on a slightly lesser scale. He really wanted a job, just not a job he considered beneath him. Like, being an admin was women's work, so he wouldn't apply for the dozens of admin jobs he came across every week.
I've been wondering what I would do if I got laid off, which is a big possibility. I would likely go back to school and retrain, since my field is dying, and there are fewer and fewer jobs all the time, so I guess I would be abusing it, too, if the goal is for people to get back to work as quickly as possible. But I don't see how getting another job that's going to disappear is going to help.
MonicaP at August 30, 2010 8:08 AM
When my husband was laid off last February, he drew unemployment for about a month, all the while working his ass off to find another job. It kept us afloat, bit just barely, as it was a small percentage of what he made (he's a highly trained professional, working in a very elite field). He was definitely motivated to find work, and as soon as he did he reported it and stopped getting benefits--which is what you're supposed to do, if you're an ethical person. Considering the length of time the hiring process takes once you apply for any high level job, I am definitely glad we had some assistance. It made the difference between disaster and scraping by once we ran through our savings. He pays a shitload in taxes, and the two months of benefits he drew wasn't even a fraction of what he makes as a full time employee. No motivation to slack whatsoever.
mse at August 30, 2010 9:06 AM
The company my husband works for is firing a lot of people so they can hire people in another state for about 1/3 to half the cost they are paying now. They will be jobs but not good jobs. He is a programmer so he is endangered from outsourcing and younger, less experienced, 20 somethings who will take his high 20something an hour job for 9-10.50 an hour. He says he may become a plumber or hvac specialist.. Can't unclog a toilet from india can you. Or make an airconditioner run...
But go on unemployment... We would lose our house on 400 a week. We pay 1080 a month. What would we eat.. Yes he would get severance pay but WTF good does that do if you can't find another job in 4 months. And you can't get statehelp and own a house or a car. You have to sell it all. Makes sense huh.. Sell the car that could help you get a job that gets you off the state teat.
And let's no even talk about how nobody would buy my house right now or how I would find an apartment for 7 kiddos.
Nah we will keep the job and they can stuff their "affordable" healthcare and job killing unemployment taxes you know where. And yes I am one of those people who thing every tax is a job killer
Josephinemo7 at August 30, 2010 9:29 AM
And sorry about the misspells iPod commenting is hard. Can't scroll down for some reason and the iPod says stuff I didn't mean it to. For instance I am one of those people who THINK every tax is a job killer.
Josephinemo7 at August 30, 2010 9:35 AM
This can only have been written by someone who's never actually tried to live on unemployment. I had nine months between jobs once, 40 years ago (!), and it was a miserable time. Unemployment got me through, and in the years since I've paid back into the system several times over whatever I collected, but it was a purely miserable time and I can't imagine anyone choosing that voluntarily.
Steve H at August 30, 2010 9:47 AM
I suggested my brother and his wife pay off their house about 5 years ago. As a result, he has been enjoying years of vacation on unemployment, and has told me he won't seriously look until it runs out.
Tophham Beauclerk at August 30, 2010 4:26 PM
In countries such as malaysia and asia, they don't have unemployment benefits and that make desperately poor unemployed people the target for unscrupulous employers to exploit. While unemployment benefits is a good thing to help unemployed people to stay temporarily afloat without having to depend on their families, it should not act as a bait to would be migrants.
WLIL at August 30, 2010 5:00 PM
I know somebody who was married, lived in a $500,000 home, and her and her husband both owned businesses. She sold off hers. Probably worth a few hundred thousand. He still had his... along with rental property, probably worth another $1/2M.
She somehow ended up collecting unemployment for whatever the maximum time allowed was. Despite having a college degree, she didn't bother looking for work.
This was a clear case of simply milking the system, because she could. Not because she needed it in the least. She actually shopped more when she didn't work than when she did work, simply because she was bored and had the time. Jewelry. $1000 pocketbooks. Shoes, whatever.
A few years later, she still doesn't have a job. Whatever.
@Steve H: I'm going to theorize that people who truly "need" the money are going to work to find a job that pays better than unemployment. The ones that are actually collecting it and not being motivated to find work are just taking the benefit because it's there, not that they actually need it to survive. People that are living at home with their parents, people that actually have some assets and some money put away...
Mark at August 30, 2010 5:37 PM
I met up with a road-worker (i.e. building highways). He was talking about how they got to the 17 mile mark by late October. Then the weather got bad until mid-November. But after that it was going to be mild until late January. They called him up if he wanted to go back to work.
He said no when they asked him if he wanted to go back to work.
Jim P. at August 30, 2010 6:42 PM
It is ridiculous to imply that having a college degree would guarantee a job in this age of instability and discrimination. Saying that, people who have college degree should not be entitle to unemployment benefit because they already have some socalled highly educatiounal benefit from their society. If they are smart enough to earn a college degree or free college degree, they should also be smart enough to survive without unemployment benefits.
All this rushing for degrees is just meaningless. Getting a job first and more life experience first and a degree later makes more sense.
WLIL at August 30, 2010 8:49 PM
Actually unemployment benefits is such an alien concept in backward asia. It seems that the socalled more advanced part of asia, there is only retirement benefit for people who worked but no unemployment benefit which is rather ridiculous seeing that unemployment tragedy may strike anyone at a young age or middle age people due to one reason or another before reaching various stage of retirement age.
I thnk most decent people would rather go without unemployment benefit. Anyway, what is work and what is not? So, who is to say who get paid and who don't get paid for doing job to society or self. At the end of the day it is up to the rich to help the poor(if they so wish) and the poor to get by with what little they have.
WLIL at August 30, 2010 9:23 PM
Very interesting that nobody addressed Amy's point about the self-employed getting zip.
They are expected to have the sense to set aside money for the lean times.
Why aren't salaried folks expected to plan for themselves in the same way? Why is the government getting involved?
Ben David at August 30, 2010 10:17 PM
A private sector job is certainly much better than any disgusting handout from any disgusting government.
WLIL at August 30, 2010 11:54 PM
Or better still, being successfully self employed and free from any disgusting government interference will be definitely one of the better option in this disgusting exploitive world.
WLIL at August 30, 2010 11:57 PM
Very interesting that nobody addressed Amy's point about the self-employed getting zip.
This actually depends on the job (and probably the state). If you are an LMP (lic. Massage Practitioner) running your own practice you decide to pay into the insurance or not.
Generally, being self employed is considered to basically be the same as a business. If anything, the person's job is considered owner. Business do not get unemployment - well, up until recently they didn't. If you stop being the boss, you are basically considered to have quit. People who quit their job do not generally get unemployment.
The Former Banker at August 31, 2010 12:56 AM
I don't think it's the professionals that are still collecting unemployment. Yes, there were a lot of people laid off in the banking and financial industries. A lot of white-collar college educated people lost their jobs, so I'm sure they used some of that unemployment. At least at Citibank, there were almost as many hired though as fired. These are the people though simply can't live off of unemployment. Large mortgages, car payments, student loans, utilities and repairs for that large house, and then mentioning all the extras like cable, phones, and Internet, that some people simply think they can not live without.
The ones that are milking the system are in their late forties to early fifties. They had been employed doing some sort of manual labor. Perhaps, they worked a drill press since they were twenty or so. Maybe at one of the many car manufacturing plants that laid off workers. Often, they worked at the same company for fifteen years or so. Just short of a pension. Just long enough they felt entitled to slack off...so much they were included in a lay-off. They know they can't go out and get a job that was paying the kind of money they were making, fifteen years of quarterly raises adds up, but unemployment pays a large percentage of their wage... especially subtracting taxes and commutes. So they let that house go into foreclosure with the plan to rent. (And it's letting that house go into foreclosure when you're still paying for telephones, cable, and Internet) They're too old to switch careers and they just have to survive a few more years until Social Security kicks in and takes over anyway.
Cat at August 31, 2010 6:55 AM
Former Banker:
Generally, being self employed is considered to basically be the same as a business.... If you stop being the boss, you are basically considered to have quit. People who quit their job do not generally get unemployment.
- - - - - - - - - -
People who are fired get severance pay because the decision to terminate them was not theirs.
Why should they also get unemployment?
Why shouldn't they have to plan ahead - like the business owners I know, who have to plan for slow seasons/downturns that are not of their choice or making?
Ben David at August 31, 2010 8:29 AM
Here's an idea - Rather than being a government program, why not have unemployment insurance be privately, voluntarily purchased?
I might buy myself an unemployment policy to shield myself from a layoff. On the other hand, I might just as quickly decide to stick the money in the bank and let my savings account be my "unemployment" policy.
It's rare for anyone to have a year's worth of living expenses in savings, because most people live beyond their means. But I'll bet Amy has a savings account, and she lives within her means.
I am amazed at seasonal workers who get unemployment benefits during the off-season. It seems to me that by choosing to be a seasonal worker, you know ahead of time that you won't have work in the off-season. That comes with the territory. Budget accordingly. This discussion really highlights how far we have come from the expectation of self-reliance.
Pirate Jo at August 31, 2010 9:46 AM
Why aren't salaried folks expected to plan for themselves in the same way? Why is the government getting involved?
Note that you should not equate salaried with management. I have been salaried for over eleven years in two different positions. I am not management. I have no desire to be management either. But I am expected to get my job done. I would love things to be slow enough I could do 32 hours a week for a while. The chances of that are somewhere between being hit by lightning, twice -- and winning the lottery.
As far as getting a second job -- my schedule is so erratic that I can't even pull off a part-time consulting job.
And to add insult to injury -- I'm going to have to do two twelve hour Sat/Sun upgrades with a co-worker who is hourly. I like the guy and don't resent it -- but he is going to be pulling down $700+ for his time. I may get 2 days comp time. That's on top of the 2+ weeks of vacation that I have accumulated that I can only carry a week over to next year.
I tried to take two days off last week. Remote access is great. I didn't have to burn up two vacation days -- because I freaking worked them.
The moral of the story: don't look at salaried as privileged, bulletproof or richer.
Jim P. at August 31, 2010 8:58 PM
Here's an idea - Rather than being a government program, why not have unemployment insurance be privately, voluntarily purchased?
Actually that's a brilliant idea. Just like you buy disability insurance.
Another idea would be to have a max amount on UI -- and then after the first 13 weeks, the amount drops 10% or 25% per 13 weeks.
You then have a choice to get a job or live on what is left. That would kill this 99 weeks crap.
Jim P. at August 31, 2010 9:11 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/30/do_unemployment.html#comment-1748990">comment from Pirate JoBut I'll bet Amy has a savings account, and she lives within her means.
In fact, I have a few savings accounts. And with the cuts in papers, I've cut back in major ways. I'm hoping to sell a book in the next month or so -- I've been working my ass off on it, and that's what the RUDE PEOPLE blog is helping me do in the left margin.
I've never expected anybody but me to pay for me. I like your idea of the unemployment insurance as a voluntary thing, but like you, I have savings as fallback.
Amy Alkon at September 1, 2010 12:50 AM
Here's an idea - Rather than being a government program, why not have unemployment insurance be privately, voluntarily purchased?
...
It's rare for anyone to have a year's worth of living expenses in savings
You answered your own question. Most people wouldn't do it. Then if they became unemployed they would use other government programs like welfare.
I am amazed at seasonal workers who get unemployment benefits during the off-season.
At least they have to pay a lot more for unemployment when they are employed.
The Former Banker at September 1, 2010 5:33 PM
People who are fired get severance pay because the decision to terminate them was not theirs.
Why should they also get unemployment? -- Ben David
I have never heard of a person being fired with cause getting severance pay. Usually temporary employees don't get severance pay. Usually severance pay is for a permanent employee when the company no longer needs/wants their services - down turn in business, offshore work, whatever. In essence, the employment contract is being broken.
Severance pay does count against unemployment -- though I am not sure exactly how it does.
The Former Banker at September 1, 2010 5:46 PM
I have been laid off since Dec. 2008. I have had two interviews since. It seems to me that the people that say that the unemployed are staying on their unemployment instead of searching for jobs have good jobs. It is so easy for those among us to say that we are taking advantage of our unemployment and not finding jobs. So let me ask you if you have a job? The ones that don't will not make that statement. Lose your good credit rating, that you have struggled to keep. Call all your creditors and tell them you can't pay them. Worry about trying to keep your home. Give up your job and walk a mile in our shoes, do without and see if you feel the same way....
The ones who make that statement have jobs....
Rosemarie at September 2, 2010 6:16 AM
I graduated from College during the dot bomb. From that, I've learned to live well beneath my means, because at any time my job can be sent overseas. (My last one was sent to Brazil).
I could easily live off of unemployment for the rest of my life. Comfortably.
The only reason I can do that though is because I don't have a wife/girlfriend or kids.
ErikZ at September 10, 2010 4:59 PM
Last year, after 6+ years, my employer decided to dump staff. Rather than give any warning, we got "hey, ya got a minute?", escorted to another floor, and then from there, treated like we smelled of dog poo. Days later, we got to come back and get what the company deemed to be "our stuff". The stuff that our former co-workers hadn't pilfered.
So, instead of gradually reducing staff, providing some sort of 'heads up', I'm now competing in a job market now flooded with other people with my skill set, all desperate to make house payments, and in some cases, deal with a child support system that doesn't really care that you and 4,250 other people just lost their jobs.
It is what it is. The management at my former employer is only concerned with their bonuses and options, and has no interest in the aftermath of the problems it creates when it acts. Since it funds a children's hospital and "save the boobies" research, there's little fallout. I also find it odd that they get huge tax breaks from the city, which makes it up on homeowner property taxes. Oh well. Now, when I'm in a position to consider this companies products and services, I remember their business model is to shove all responsibility and expense onto someone else, valuing marketing and style over function.
I checked into unemployment. The cap in my state is just barely above 300 a week. Considering a house payment is more than 4 weeks of unemployment, you can figure out, quickly, that this is going to be a disaster. Two weeks later, I was certified in a different but related field, working full time a month later as a contractor, and a year later, back to a regular W-2 status.
Unemployment is great if you're only making minimum wage to %200 of minimum wage, likely living with your parents or in a cheap apartment, and have no benefits from your employer, and, likely, pay very little in taxes. In otherwords, the people who think that the government owes them, anyway. Last year, I paid in taxes almost half of what I would have earned in unemployment, and that's considering that I was off for a month.
Yeah, and I'm a single parent with two kids. I receive no child support (long story, but a lack of a Y chromosome makes you exempt from paying), and don't qualify for any assistance programs (nor would I take it). I don't have a college degree, and I'm a veteran (if that sort of thing matters to you).
IMHO, however well meaning the unemployment program is, it needs an overhaul so that it helps people who are motivated to get off of it, not continue to subsidize people who can barely manage a minimum wage job, if only out of sheer boredom. It's an insult to people who work their butts off, both in how it punishes people who make something of themselves, and how it undermines the low end of the spectrum.
Gretz at September 15, 2010 8:21 PM
I am sure there must be some that take advantage of unemployment compensation, but I have faith that most, like myself, consider it a lifeline. I was laid off from my job in Dec. 09 when the company I worked for filed bankruptcy. Since that time, I have applied for at least the minimum of 3 jobs per week and many times more. I have had only 3 face to face interviews since that time and 1 phone interview. The competition is fierce - 500 applicants per position. I'm 56 years old and have been working since I was 15. Do the math. Would a company rather pay me what I was making previously or a less experienced person far less? I am single. I have no spouse or significant other to rely upon. This is probably the most terrifying time I have had in my life and is certainly not where I expected to be at my age. Unemployment is not keeping me unemployed. The dismal job situation is keeping me unemployed.
PamF at October 5, 2010 8:47 PM
The availability of employment in the US is over
stated and over calculated. Even in a so called hot job market such as New York City. Always has been. Even with degrees and credentials. My advice to the Goddess is to search for work and look as millions of others are doing. Gather some first hand information before you start to give advice. Attempt to find out how many idle and under employed college degrees are out there. Not in the unemployment statistics since these are constrained and unrealistic. Of course, by your calculations, you mean the technical equations utilized by the sampling process of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Go to unemployment offices and talk to people. Talk to your friends and family. The BLS did this. My guess is you haven't done any of these things. It's called model validation. Going your way will throw the US deeper in recession. What you advocate is your politics, personal views and/or your desires not calculations. The mind of a child.
George Rhombus at February 28, 2011 3:14 PM
I have a relative whom has been collecting for over a year. He spends all summer at the Cape, drives his kids to school everyday, despite bus service. Gets to sleep in to 10 or 11 every damn day.
Accountability in the unemployment assistance is seriously lacking. I work my butt off in an office for LESS than he takes home per week OF MY TAX MONEY!!! not fair and I am sick of the abuse. It is everywhere....did I mention he gets free health care for a family of your from Mass Health???
WRONG. ABUSE IS RAMPANT AND I AM SICK OF IT!!!!
Amy louise at May 19, 2011 5:45 PM
Leave a comment