Ursa Majoris Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 $20k is not a living wage. Well, I guess it is if you get your food from restaurant dumpsters and sleep under a bridge. Anyone saying they can live on that in preference to working is a fool. They can EXIST on it.....maybe See below believe me the $24k per year in UE benefits doesn't come close to paying the bills or putting food on the table Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I agree with Yo Mamma on this one, though I don't think the federal government should have anything to do with unemployment benefits. It should be done by the states and not mandated by Washington. I have no problem with people collecting unemployment like others have said, they've paid for it (in reduced salary) over the years. My problem is making it what seems almost permanent. I'd also point out that unemployment insurance rates are going to have to rise to keep up with this. This will make companies overhead go up which isn't likely to help the employment market. I'd like to see the people collecting unemployment forced to work at least 20 hours a week for charity or something productive, rather than sitting on their asses watching TV or playing on the internet. I wouldn't mid seeing an incentive to get a paying job, rather than the disincentive. Maybe like if you get a minimum wage job rather then getting benefits taken away, you get them cut in half for 6 months or until you find a better job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 The deal in Pa. is that you get ( I believe $8, yes $8 a week added if you're below the max for the first child you claim as dependant and I believe $5, yes $5 for each addition up to 3. Don't quote me exactly on that. $13 smackaroos for 2 kids per week. In Pa. say you're laid off today which is in the first quarter of 2010. They skip the quarter you open in and the quarter before that, then take the highest earning quarter you had of the previous 4. ie: if you open a claim today, they take your highest quarter from the first 3 of '09 and the last of '08. Whatever that total is for your highest quarter, there is a chart that shows your weekly unemployment benefit that you're eligible to recieve.They then add the couple bucks a week for a kid unless you are drawing max. I was laid off 5 weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I'd like to see the people collecting unemployment forced to work at least 20 hours a week for charity or something productive, rather than sitting on their asses watching TV or playing on the internet. I wouldn't mid seeing an incentive to get a paying job, rather than the disincentive. Maybe like if you get a minimum wage job rather then getting benefits taken away, you get them cut in half for 6 months or until you find a better job. You are an a s s hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauders11 Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I agree with Yo Mamma on this one, though I don't think the federal government should have anything to do with unemployment benefits. It should be done by the states and not mandated by Washington. I have no problem with people collecting unemployment like others have said, they've paid for it (in reduced salary) over the years. My problem is making it what seems almost permanent. I'd also point out that unemployment insurance rates are going to have to rise to keep up with this. This will make companies overhead go up which isn't likely to help the employment market. I'd like to see the people collecting unemployment forced to work at least 20 hours a week for charity or something productive, rather than sitting on their asses watching TV or playing on the internet. I wouldn't mid seeing an incentive to get a paying job, rather than the disincentive. Maybe like if you get a minimum wage job rather then getting benefits taken away, you get them cut in half for 6 months or until you find a better job. I got a pair of moccasins for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 (edited) I was laid off 5 weeks ago. Sorry Edited March 11, 2010 by Big John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 $20k is not a living wage. Well, I guess it is if you get your food from restaurant dumpsters and sleep under a bridge. Anyone saying they can live on that in preference to working is a fool. They can EXIST on it.....maybe My wife and I lived on 19,300 for 18 months in 1996 and 1997, which when you adjust for inflation that comes out to $25,686 in today's dollars. We did it for the last 18 months of my college education. We did not incur any debt with the exception of a loan for the last semester that just paid the tuition. I was also commuting about 120 miles round trip to school, and my wife was commuting about 40 miles round trip. We still had money to pay $125 a month for membership to a 9 hole golf course and pay for my golf balls (a significant cost I might add). We had to make some concessions like cooking every meal at home, downgrading from my sweet Bronco to a more fuel efficient Pontiac sedan. I had to go to the public library to do internet research as we didn't want to pay for internet access. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 11, 2010 Author Share Posted March 11, 2010 (edited) I agree with Yo Mamma on this one You secretly agree with me on everything. You are the Willie Nelson to my Julio Iglesias. Edited March 11, 2010 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 fwiw, I have a job...easily would be considered underemployed but I am employed...been with the County for 1 week shy of 2 yrs...over that time I have continued to look for a job in my area (retail multi unit management)...I have not been able to generate 1 single interview...of course I have limited my options some by not being willing to relocate...I have managed as many as 200 stores nationwide, managed over $44 million in sales and just under 20 years in the industry...not saying it is impossible but it is far from easy...i have even found companies that I liked and wanted to get my foot in the door with and applied for jobs I was easily qualified for (over qualified actually) and was willing to prove myself... yet I didnt even get a response from many of them...it can be very dejecting...but i am sure that there are also many out there that don't look all that hard either Have you ever thought it was your attitude? Who would want to hire someone that can't see how great it would be if we all had hovercraft that could fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Unlike some members of this board, my STRONG expectation is that the VAST majority of people drawing unemployment insurance are a lot more like Mauraders and HbtC than they are free-riders who are riding the unemployment-benefits gravy-train. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 You are an a s s hole. Why because I'd like to see the long-term unemployed actually work to receive money? I got a pair of moccasins for you I have see above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 11, 2010 Author Share Posted March 11, 2010 Unlike some members of this board, my STRONG expectation is that the VAST majority of people drawing unemployment insurance are a lot more like Mauraders and HbtC than they are free-riders who are riding the unemployment-benefits gravy-train. I don't think anyone is really casting "gravy train" aspersions. It's more an issue of how long a "temporary" benefit should last. At least that's my quip. Can't speak for anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I don't think anyone is really casting "gravy train" aspersions. It's more an issue of how long a "temporary" benefit should last. At least that's my quip. Can't speak for anyone else. I wasn't talking about you. From a different thread: There are still a number of jobs out there, if people want them. There are still help wanted signs in windows all over town. The problem is you have people that feel they are too good to make minimum wage or in many cases 1.5-2X minimum wage, or too good to work at certain types of jobs. You also have people that due to their own irresponsible actions can no longer be hired for certain jobs. I know it is anecdotal but remember me complaining a few weeks back about trying to find laborers that didn't have a violent history or serious drug histories in their backgrounds. Also, wouldn't enforcing our immigration laws be cheaper and do a lot more to get Americans working again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Why because I'd like to see the long-term unemployed actually work to receive money? No, because you can't seem to understand that not everyone's Dad owns a company and can afford to pay his son to piss and moan about Obama at the Huddle all day long 5 days a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 11, 2010 Author Share Posted March 11, 2010 I wasn't talking about you. Ah. Well that's your mistake right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I agree with Yo Mamma on this one, though I don't think the federal government should have anything to do with unemployment benefits. It should be done by the states and not mandated by Washington. I have no problem with people collecting unemployment like others have said, they've paid for it (in reduced salary) over the years. My problem is making it what seems almost permanent. I'd also point out that unemployment insurance rates are going to have to rise to keep up with this. This will make companies overhead go up which isn't likely to help the employment market. I'd like to see the people collecting unemployment forced to work at least 20 hours a week for charity or something productive, rather than sitting on their asses watching TV or playing on the internet. I wouldn't mid seeing an incentive to get a paying job, rather than the disincentive. Maybe like if you get a minimum wage job rather then getting benefits taken away, you get them cut in half for 6 months or until you find a better job. that is my problem with self employed people being unable to claim...I owned my own biz from 2003-2008 but I worked FT every year prior to that from the age of like 18 and the 5 previous years to 2003 my average salary was around $70K but I still wasn't able to collect unemployment...I was lucky to find my job when I did because the little money I had left for a rainy day was all but gone. My wife and I lived on 19,300 for 18 months in 1996 and 1997, which when you adjust for inflation that comes out to $25,686 in today's dollars. We did it for the last 18 months of my college education. We did not incur any debt with the exception of a loan for the last semester that just paid the tuition. I was also commuting about 120 miles round trip to school, and my wife was commuting about 40 miles round trip. We still had money to pay $125 a month for membership to a 9 hole golf course and pay for my golf balls (a significant cost I might add). We had to make some concessions like cooking every meal at home, downgrading from my sweet Bronco to a more fuel efficient Pontiac sedan. I had to go to the public library to do internet research as we didn't want to pay for internet access. you didn't incur any debt...you also probably knew what you were going to be doing...many, heck I bet 99.9999% of all these people on UE have their fair share of debt and that has to make a HUGH difference. Have you ever thought it was your attitude? Who would want to hire someone that can't see how great it would be if we all had hovercraft that could fly. I can't believe I didn't realize that was the reason. Unlike some members of this board, my STRONG expectation is that the VAST majority of people drawing unemployment insurance are a lot more like Mauraders and HbtC than they are free-riders who are riding the unemployment-benefits gravy-train. agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Perch, I was going to quote you and say that compassion can go a long way...glad to see you deleted it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I was laid off 5 weeks ago. sorry to hear same as with Marauders...PM your field etc and maybe I can help you out with some contacts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Perch, I was going to quote you and say that compassion can go a long way...glad to see you deleted it Thought I'd try to take the high road. I haven't completely turned into H8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Was'nt meant to hurt, just points out (one of the reasons) that you tend to post like an elitist you know what at times. And I apologize for calling you names. That was'nt cool on my part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Was'nt meant to hurt, just points out (one of the reasons) that you tend to post like an elitist you know what at times. And I apologize for calling you names. That was'nt cool on my part. No problem. Just a pet peeve of mine. I've had to work twice as hard to try to overcome the nepotism comments and have with anyone that knows at thing about my business, but it took about about 7 or 8 years to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Why because I'd like to see the long-term unemployed actually work to receive money? 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 (edited) 1.) Illinois is pretty flucked up as it is . . . 2.) What if the spouse doesnt work? 1 - Not surprised 2 - Then it's time they start (or learn to live on less). PS what if the spouse is employed? They STILL get the extra. They could be making millions and you get extra. So basically if someone is single tough but if you're married - ie another person who can make $ and help get you by - you get more. That is insanely f-ed up, even for this screwball country. And really how many married couples have a spouse that doesn't work nowdays? This isn't 1950. I'd like to see the people collecting unemployment forced to work at least 20 hours a week for charity or something productive, rather than sitting on their asses watching TV or playing on the internet. Excuse you but looking for a job is a full-time job. Between scouring job sites for jobs, applying, working the resumes etc (and almost constantly re-working them ie tailoring to the specific job), contacting headhunters, following up, etc etc...you'd be surprised. I take little mental breaks for a few mins here and there (to do useful stuff like post here ) but all told up it aint much. I get up about the same as I used to and make a point to keep it up till 5ish. If for some reason I don't, I make it up that evening, even weekends sometimes. Not all of us are sitting around waiting for a job to fall in our laps, because we know that's not exactly enhancing our chances. Edited March 11, 2010 by BeeR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 PS what if the spouse is employed? They STILL get the extra. They could be making millions and you get extra. So basically if someone is single tough but if you're married - ie another person who can make $ and help get you by - you get more. That is insanely f-ed up, even for this screwball country. I disagree. Both partners paid in out of their wage when working, why should one not get it because the other is still working? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 PS what if the spouse is employed? They STILL get the extra. I think that answer is in the link to the Ill benefits I posted (i don't think they get extra if the spouse is working or making x% or something) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.