Unemployment Benefits Extended

[keggerz]

I disagree. Both partners paid in out of their wage when working, why should one not get it because the other is still working?

I would be curious as to your view about the self employed

[BeeR]

I disagree. Both partners paid in out of their wage when working, why should one not get it because the other is still working?

You misunderstand. The unemployed person should get it. They just shouldn't get extra.

[Ursa Majoris]

You misunderstand. The unemployed person should get it. They just shouldn't get extra.

Oh. Yes, I agree with that completely. That's a logical nonsense. I suppose it's administratively easier to just make it the same for everyone.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Grant That I May Not Criticize My Neighbor Until I Have walked a Mile in His Moccasins."

 

You forgot the rest of it: "... That way - when you do criticize, you're a mile away and you have his shoes."

 

Seriously, good luck to you. I recently stared unemployment in the face and it scared the hell out of me. I wish you and your family the best.

[Perchoutofwater]

Since you've already said they paid in, why should they also work for it? I don't see the logic. If it was welfare, then sure.....but it isn't. Like I said, no-one in their right mind wants to try to survive on $20k

 

What was the duration of unemployment payments a year ago? Wasn't the guy laid off on January 20, 2009 paying for that length of unemployment and not the 99 weeks the federal government has now mandated?

 

Also the longer someone is on unemployment the more the cost to the employer for future unemployment insurance payments. That will result in one of three things, 1) lower wages for workers, 2) less workers due to additional overhead, 3) the employer eats it, but has less money to spend whether it be on capital improvements or in the community. More than likely it will be a little bit of each.

 

I fully support limited unemployment assistance. I just don't think it should be nearly as long as it is. At some point people may have to take a job that they are over qualified for, or that there is a fundamental change in the economy, and they need to make a change. It not a pretty thought, and I hope that none here are forced to do that.

[keggerz]

What was the duration of unemployment payments a year ago? Wasn't the guy laid off on January 20, 2009 paying for that length of unemployment and not the 99 weeks the federal government has now mandated?

 

Also the longer someone is on unemployment the more the cost to the employer for future unemployment insurance payments. That will result in one of three things, 1) lower wages for workers, 2) less workers due to additional overhead, 3) the employer eats it, but has less money to spend whether it be on capital improvements or in the community. More than likely it will be a little bit of each.

 

I fully support limited unemployment assistance. I just don't think it should be nearly as long as it is. At some point people may have to take a job that they are over qualified for, or that there is a fundamental change in the economy, and they need to make a change. It not a pretty thought, and I hope that none here are forced to do that.

again, that is much easier said than done...most if not all employers know or expect that a person taking a position they are over qualified for will jump ship as soon as possible so why should the employer "waste" their time and resources on a person like that.

Edited March 11, 2010 by keggerz

[Ursa Majoris]

What was the duration of unemployment payments a year ago? Wasn't the guy laid off on January 20, 2009 paying for that length of unemployment and not the 99 weeks the federal government has now mandated?

 

Also the longer someone is on unemployment the more the cost to the employer for future unemployment insurance payments. That will result in one of three things, 1) lower wages for workers, 2) less workers due to additional overhead, 3) the employer eats it, but has less money to spend whether it be on capital improvements or in the community. More than likely it will be a little bit of each.

 

I fully support limited unemployment assistance. I just don't think it should be nearly as long as it is. At some point people may have to take a job that they are over qualified for, or that there is a fundamental change in the economy, and they need to make a change. It not a pretty thought, and I hope that none here are forced to do that.

So you're saying that they'd work after 26 weeks or whatever the usual time was? If so, OK, but given that there's all this work for them to do, wouldn't it be easier (and less expensive assuming the work was going to be done / built / maintained / whatever at some point anyway) to just pull an FDR and fund a bunch of public works?

[Perchoutofwater]

again, that is much easier said than done...most if not all employers know or expect that a person taking a position they are over qualified for will jump ship as soon as possible so why should the employer "waste" their time and resources on a person like that.

 

Good point, and under normal economic conditions I would agree with you. This recession is a little different in that I think it will last long enough to make it worth an employers time.

[gbpfan1231]

again, that is much easier said than done...most if not all employers know or expect that a person taking a position they are over qualified for will jump ship as soon as possible so why should the employer "waste" their time and resources on a person like that.

spot on!!

[Perchoutofwater]

So you're saying that they'd work after 26 weeks or whatever the usual time was? If so, OK, but given that there's all this work for them to do, wouldn't it be easier (and less expensive assuming the work was going to be done / built / maintained / whatever at some point anyway) to just pull an FDR and fund a bunch of public works?

 

I have no problem with public works projects as long as they are bid out to private firms, and they are needed. Lord knows we have a lot of roads and bridges in need of repair. I don't want to be paying for a planetarium, or a super duper airport that services 30 people a day.

[BeeR]

At this point I would take a job repairing fn bridges n roads. Frankly being out of the freakin house would be great, the walls start to close in after awhile. Hell some of those guys don't make too bad of money anyway.

Edited March 11, 2010 by BeeR

[bpwallace49]

yes but not DOUBLE

 

edit:and it looks like it doesnt go up for EACH child

 

You are correct . . however you also qualify for food stamps that has a theoretical value that brings it up around that number . . . Just sayin'

 

It sure isnt a living by any means, but if your alternative is taking the first McJob that falls in your lap that has zero long term potential versus pounding the pavemnet every day to meet with head hunters, do research on companies and actually look for jobs that are reflective of your skills it is a bridge . . just like it was intended to be.

[keggerz]

Good point, and under normal economic conditions I would agree with you. This recession is a little different in that I think it will last long enough to make it worth an employers time.

 

That is also just it there are so many people that are unemployed that employers have a hugh pool to hire from and with all levels of experience (read: salary cost) to hire from you can bet that employers are taking the best route for their company...and that is most likely not going to be a person that will be overqualified and looking to bolt at first opportunity...it might help kids just out of school or those will little experience to get their foot in the door due to what would be perceived lower salary expectations and retention time....would you hire an out of work project manager to do day labor hoping he will stick around long enough for the economy to turnaround and move up the ranks with your company?...that might be a bad analogy with how easy day labor is to replace but I think you get my point.

[keggerz]

You are correct . . however you also qualify for food stamps that has a theoretical value that brings it up around that number . . . Just sayin'

 

It sure isnt a living by any means, but if your alternative is taking the first McJob that falls in your lap that has zero long term potential versus pounding the pavemnet every day to meet with head hunters, do research on companies and actually look for jobs that are reflective of your skills it is a bridge . . just like it was intended to be.

Are you still going to be one of the non-homer owners in Hardcore Homers?

[Perchoutofwater]

That is also just it there are so many people that are unemployed that employers have a hugh pool to hire from and with all levels of experience (read: salary cost) to hire from you can bet that employers are taking the best route for their company...and that is most likely not going to be a person that will be overqualified and looking to bolt at first opportunity...it might help kids just out of school or those will little experience to get their foot in the door due to what would be perceived lower salary expectations and retention time....would you hire an out of work project manager to do day labor hoping he will stick around long enough for the economy to turnaround and move up the ranks with your company?...that might be a bad analogy with how easy day labor is to replace but I think you get my point.

 

I look at it a little different I guess, probably because I don't think we are anywhere near out of the woods. I think that employers see the chance to get a bargain, and that bargain is enough to offset the cost of hiring someone.

[yo mama]

That is also just it there are so many people that are unemployed that employers have a hugh pool to hire from and with all levels of experience (read: salary cost) to hire from you can bet that employers are taking the best route for their company...and that is most likely not going to be a person that will be overqualified and looking to bolt at first opportunity...it might help kids just out of school or those will little experience to get their foot in the door due to what would be perceived lower salary expectations and retention time....would you hire an out of work project manager to do day labor hoping he will stick around long enough for the economy to turnaround and move up the ranks with your company?...that might be a bad analogy with how easy day labor is to replace but I think you get my point.

There is some truth to that. We're hiring, but we're hiring kids who are still in law school. They're cheap, work ridiculously hard, we train them, they're work-ready by graduation. We tried hiring out-of-work lateral attorneys thinking they'd hit the ground running, but most turned out to be lazy (in comparison), had bad work habits, and were over-priced relative to what their added experience contributed. My point being, I'm not hiring the younger people because they cheaper, I'm hiring them because they're harder workers who provide better value. While it's a lot of work training them, when I'm done I've got exactly the employee I want.

 

The talent pool is very rich right now, and smart employers are snapping up value left and right. This is a fantastic time for businesses to be investing in bright, eager workers. But unless business is booming, you can't blame employers (especially small businesses) for mitigating against downside salary risks. It's expensive to hire and fire people.

[TimC]

Are you still going to be one of the non-homer owners in Hardcore Homers?

 

Ummm, could you keep your football talk out of our politics talk? Puh-leaze. We have other forums for that.

[keggerz]

There is some truth to that. We're hiring, but we're hiring kids who are still in law school. They're cheap, work ridiculously hard, we train them, they're work-ready by graduation. We tried hiring out-of-work lateral attorneys thinking they'd hit the ground running, but most turned out to be lazy (in comparison), had bad work habits, and were over-priced relative to what their added experience contributed. My point being, I'm not hiring the younger people because they cheaper, I'm hiring them because they're harder workers who provide better value. While it's a lot of work training them, when I'm done I've got exactly the employee I want.

 

The talent pool is very rich right now, and smart employers are snapping up value left and right. This is a fantastic time for businesses to be investing in bright, eager workers. But unless business is booming, you can't blame employers (especially small businesses) for mitigating against downside salary risks. It's expensive to hire and fire people.

you did a much better job stating what I was trying to convey.

[WaterMan]

The fast food and grocery store companies are the only jobs around in South Carolina.

[bpwallace49]

Fears grow as millions lose jobless benefits

 

CINCINNATI (Reuters) – Deborah Coleman lost her unemployment benefits in April, and now fears for millions of others if the Senate does not extend aid for the jobless.

 

"It's too late for me now," she said, fighting back tears at the Freestore Foodbank in the low-income Over-the-Rhine district near downtown Cincinnati. "But it will be terrible for the people who'll lose their benefits if Congress does nothing."

 

For nearly two years, Coleman says she has filed an average of 30 job applications a day, but remains jobless.

 

"People keep telling me there are jobs out there, but I haven't been able to find them."

 

Coleman, 58, a former manager at a telecommunications firm, said the only jobs she found were over the Ohio state line in Kentucky, but she cannot reach them because her car has been repossessed and there is no bus service to those areas.

 

After her $300 a week benefits ran out, Freestore Foodbank brokered emergency 90-day support in June for rent. Once that runs out, her future is uncertain.

 

"I've lost everything and I don't know what will happen to me," she said.

 

The recession -- the worst U.S. downturn since the 1930s -- has left some 8 million people like Coleman out of work.

 

Unemployment has remained stubbornly high at around 9.5 percent. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in June 6.8 million people or 45.5 percent of the total are long-term unemployed, or jobless for 27 weeks or more.

 

Before the recession began in late 2007, the unemployed received benefits, usually a few hundred dollars a week, for 26 weeks or around six months after losing their jobs.

 

Under the federal/state programs, which are administered by state governments and partly funded by taxes on business, only full-time workers are eligible for benefits. Within federal guidelines, benefits and eligibility vary from state to state.

 

As the downturn left more Americans out of work for longer periods, Congress voted to provide funding to extend benefits to as long as 99 weeks in some areas.

 

Some critics say this adds to the country's large fiscal deficit, and may even discourage job-seeking.

 

An attempt to pass another extension has become bogged down in partisan political bickering in the Senate. Relief agencies fear that failure to extend benefits will strain their resources and may worsen the U.S. housing crisis.

 

"This will put a great deal of stress and strain on our organization, which has already been working hard," said Vicki Escarra, chief executive of Feeding America, which has a network of more than 200 food banks. In the year ended June 30, Feeding America distributed 3 billion pounds (1.36 billion kg) of food, a 50 percent increase over the past two years.

 

The benefits debate has pitted the majority of Democrats against most Republicans and some conservative Democrats.

 

When the House of Representatives passed a $34 billion benefit extension on July 1, 11 fiscally conservative Democrats voted against it. The Senate may take up the issue again in mid-July, but Republicans like Senator Tom Coburn have argued any extension must be paid for with cuts elsewhere.

 

"Even then he (Coburn) is not sure if that's a good idea," said John Hart, a spokesman for the Oklahoma senator. "The longer the unemployed have benefits, the less incentive there is to find a job."

 

Most economists argue that cutting benefits could slow recovery, describing benefits as direct economic stimulus because almost every penny of it gets spent. In a June 28 client note, Goldman Sachs said if all additional U.S. stimulus spending expires, it could slow the economy up to 1.5 percentage points from the fourth quarter 2010 to the second quarter of 2011.

 

The note added that extending unemployment benefits and a $400 tax credit would "substantially mitigate" that impact.

 

During the Senate impasse, from the week ended June 5 to the week ended July 10, more than 2.1 million Americans lost their benefits. Another million will join them by July 31.

 

In Ohio alone, where unemployment stood at 10.7 percent in May, more than 83,000 people lost their benefits in June.

 

Sister Barbara Busch, executive director of non-profit housing group Working in Neighborhoods in Cincinnati, 65 percent of the people who come seeking help with their mortgages are unemployed or underemployed.

 

"I fear once the benefits run out, I suspect we'll see a new wave of foreclosures," she said. "I just hope I'm wrong."

 

Ohio is a bellwether U.S. state in elections. The state's Democratic attorney general Richard Cordray said blocking extending jobless benefits was politically motivated ahead of the midterm elections in November.

 

"If people lose their benefits they will blame the congressional majority and the administration," he said. "As unappetizing as it is, that would appear to be the strategy."

 

Senator Coburn's spokesman Hart said suggestions the Republicans were playing partisan politics were "ludicrous."

 

"The Democrats say that because they want to avoid making the hard decisions," he said.

 

Alonzo Allen, 55, a former aid agency worker in Cincinnati whose benefits will run out in September, spends two days a week volunteering at the food bank in Over-the-Rhine and the other three looking for work. He said he worries about the one-bedroom apartment he rents and how he will feed his dog Ginger, who is the "only family I have."

 

"If the benefits stop, I'll be out on the street and I'll lose all my furniture," he said. "That's going to be tough."

 

Thank God I am gainfully employed. God help all those whose last lifeline is getting cut off and about to be homeless.

[Ursa Majoris]

Thank God I am gainfully employed. God help all those whose last lifeline is getting cut off and about to be homeless.

On the bright side, Perch will be able to test his theory about charities being able to replace the federal government.

[Scooby's Hubby]

Ummm, could you keep your football talk out of our politics talk? Puh-leaze. We have other forums for that.

 

 

I love it!

 

dammed I can't wait for training camp to start

[Jimmy Neutron]

An end of benefits to large numbers will start a new wave of foreclosures and further weaken an already teetering housing market. While I think the market needs to be truly corrected, but that many people losing their homes would be tragic and cause more problems than anyone is ready to deal with. Tough situation all the way around.

[WaterMan]

As the downturn left more Americans out of work for longer periods, Congress voted to provide funding to extend benefits to as long as 99 weeks in some areas.

 

Some critics say this adds to the country's large fiscal deficit, and may even discourage job-seeking

 

Explain to me how they are going to find work without gas?

Edited July 15, 2010 by WaterMan

[yo mama]

Explain to me how they are going to find work without gas?

If enterprising foreigners can figure out how to illegally immigrate here for work from south and central America - on a shoe string budget - then an enterprising American should be able to figure out how to kill them and take their job.