19
   

How do you feel about congress cutting unemployment benefits?

 
 
Foofie
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 12:30 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

I have an idea. Perhaps the government should require those getting an extension of benefits to put in one-day of community service each week they are getting benefits.


Foolish idea, in my opinion. You are punishing the victim. Plus, as previously stated, prior employers paid for this unemployment. It is just an insurance policy paid for by one's prior employer.

In my opinion, you should focus on Israel, and anti-Semitism. That seems to be your strong suit, so to speak, in my opinion.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 05:17 pm
@Foofie,
Well he does if you are going to make supercilious comments about someone's "Christan" ethics.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 05:25 pm
@engineer,
I don't know anyone who advocates eliminating Unemployment benefits. The issue is whether or not they should be extended ad infinitum. At some point, the benefit to society becomes a detriment.
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 05:50 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
But it's hard to see where that point is. The idea that people will just live on the dole is what drives a lot of these discussions, but unemployment is no where near enough to live a carefree life and it generally comes with a lot of requirements like proving you are looking for work, etc. Even when the disincentive to work starts to weigh on the economy, you still have all the benefits so it's a matter of diminishing returns instead of negative returns. I've been sitting here trying to figure out in a macro sense what the negatives are to long term unemployment. Just to clarify, this is not the moral argument where people should contribute to the productivity of the whole to partake of the fruits of the whole. One argument would be that the workforce would not be driven as strongly to reinvent itself and acquire new skills since the driving force for change would be somewhat blunted. I don't know that I buy that since living off of unemployment is not a luxurious lifestyle, but I'd entertain it. From an employer point of view, driving formally higher paid workers down in the employment chain would help keep salaries down and make US workers more competitive with foreign economies (call this the Walmart effect). This probably works if you are talking US vs Europe where small differences in labor costs can impact competitiveness but salaries are so low in Asia it's hard to see US salaries dropping far enough to make a difference without a major economic disaster. Am I missing a big benefit of minimal benefits? This feels like the discussion about forced retirement in Europe. Are you willing to push workers out of the workplace to make room for younger workers? Assuming those retirees still want to work, you are essentially making them unemployed and paying them. Does the country as a whole benefit?

It sounds like a great PhD topic for some economics major, but my guess is that the break-even point is well past the two year point. There are just too many positives. People get into a lot of trouble when they don't have cash flow and unemployment provides a cushion for those trying to get out of the margins back into the mainstream.

As for no one advocating for eliminating unemployment benefits, NC has dramatically cut benefits and no longer qualifies for federal benefits because they have cut benefits so low. The new law went into effect with the new year.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 06:14 pm
@engineer,
Your attempts to identify the variables are okay, but not realistic. All we can do is to give it our best educated guess on the impact of unemployment insurance (at current levels). The two extremes are 1) people will take the dole as long as they can, because they have no skills or have become accustomed to living with minimum income plus food stamps, and 2) people will continue to find work that will pay decent wages for their skill level. Even these simplistic extremes leaves much to be desired, because there are constraints to receiving unemployment insurance, and in most developed economies, age has an impact on employment.

Having said that, I still personally believe our country has the responsibility to make sure all citizens have some level of minimum in food, shelter, and health care.

Many developed countries in Europe have been providing benefits to their citizens without one party voting against all benefits like in the US; they are happier, healthier, and live longer lives. The US spends money on defense over the benefit of our own citizens. Our government doesn't believe in efficiency or the best ways to spend on what is most important to our country.

That the GOP would not approve the extended unemployment insurance for our own people says it all! They went home to their families without any care about who's hurting, freezing, or not eating.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 06:41 pm
When someone exceeds the time limit for unemployment, how hard is it for him to get welfare or whatever you call it? I don't want people scrounging through garbage to find food unless it's established objectively and clearly that he can work but won't. I have no problem with carrying people who are merely unfortunate.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 07:05 pm
@IRFRANK,
I've never had unemployment insurance, at least that I know of.
The university didn't have that. I quit the next lab to go into another field, and then worked odd jobs in the next field, with sometimes little sleep what with work and homework.

And after all the next studying, I was an independent contractor, as were many others who worked together and separately. Plus, all health insurance on my own. I'm classically insurance poor, as the bills meant I couldn't save in a not very remunerative field. But, I loved, enjoyed the field, I wouldn't have missed it for the world.
Re money, I should have stayed at that lab longer for vesting. Or stayed and been a bot, in my view now.

This sort of choice sounds poignantly impossible now, maybe only for scions or scionas of the wealthy. I was the last thing from wealthy, but could get along - and many of us did that, get along.

Then.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 07:53 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
The two extremes are 1) people will take the dole as long as they can, because they have no skills or have become accustomed to living with minimum income plus food stamps, and 2) people will continue to find work that will pay decent wages for their skill level.


The system needs to designed to manage the mean of the distribution, not the end points. Yes there are people that exploit the system, but it's not predominate. Benefits were extended due to the recession of 2008. The better solution would be more training programs and more available education. We've gone the wrong way with education getting much more expensive. I think public works programs would be useful. Plenty of work to do on infrastructure, and people would come out with a skill.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 07:54 pm
@ossobuco,
I think we came into the workforce at about the same time. I think it's much harder now.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 08:02 pm
@IRFRANK,
True; Germany has good internship programs, and many work in factories at decent salaries. The US can learn much, but are too stubborn to take advantage of what works.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 08:08 pm
@IRFRANK,
Your right. I stood in line for several years off and on when laid off and while there I had to look for work and prove I was looking by submitting proof. No one I stood in line with ever complained about the things they had to do to receive benefits. But the attitude of most of the "public servents", not all sucked. Evidently they had never had to do the unemployment thing. Granted "some" of the unemployed had an attitude.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 08:12 pm
@Jack of Hearts,
Jack of Hearts said:
Quote:
By what logic or reason do some people think that, when a man loses his job and takes a large cut in income - now living with a diminished quality of life - that he is suddenly lazy and slothful, and becomes happier and satisfied in being poorer?


It makes them feel superior. Which usually shows their level of intellect.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 08:19 pm
@IRFRANK,
Yes too the training programs!!!
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 09:16 pm
@RABEL222,
I had medicaid for a while and then gave up re the renewal process, which I shouldn't have.. long story, they didn't call when they said they would, and I was plotzed.

So, for the next years I accumulated med bills, making me worse off, always paying but slowly. I shaped up again to pay attention to all letters and I'll never avoid some envelope again.

Now I have food stamps. I get $85.00 a month, and I am used to that and can do it, but it's' slim. My ssc is circa $700., but I owe all of it.

I'm trying to figure out if I can sell some of my stuff and not have it count as income. I need to, as I am far behind on prop taxes. I pay off and on, but they are apt to come get me.

If they say no, that's a difficulty as I can't sell stuff easily to make more money than the years worth of food stamps, mostly for lack of mobility. That is, I'd need to grab more money by sales. But sales are problematic for me, re rushing to a post office.

I've dialed into not only a recitation of choices, but, after short musical interludes, something like five repeats of all that, after which they shut it off and tell you to call back later. I did that many times today. Meantime, even I want to zap the place. Why do they not just play music while you wait?

I read cookbooks while I endured the recitation again and again x 17.

Maybe I'll try at 4 a.m.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 11:39 am
@engineer,
I don't mean to suggest that the majority of people who are receiving unemployment benefits are freeloaders, but clearly the promise of a life of luxury is not required to incentivize people to work, and the absence of same is not enough to prevent able bodied people from staying home and collecting a check from the government (irrespective of the program from which it is issued).

As for the effort required to remain on Unemployment, it isn't even a tiny fraction of what is expended in the normal 40 hour work week.

It may be hard for you to see the point when it becomes a detriment because you are looking at it in isolation, and you are disinclined (if not opposed) to the notion that widescale wealth redistribution is not only harmful to a capitalist economy, but to a society that has developed with such an economy as a foundation.

In and of itself, Unemployment is not an outrageous burden on the economy, nor is any given program which swallows tax dollars, but of course none of them truly stand alone. Each increase in spending is justified by its supporters as being "nothing compared to..."

Limited unemployment benefits is, at least to me, a worthwhile expenditure of taxes. Unlimited benefits are not, and there is nothing to suggest that this last attempt to extend benefits beyond 99 weeks was going to be the last.

I have no way of defining what the perfect cut off date for benefits maybe; the point before which benefits are a plus and after which they are a minus, but it does seem to me that 99 weeks must be close.
Miller
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 11:50 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

... there is nothing to suggest that this last attempt to extend benefits beyond 99 weeks was going to be the last.


The last? Never. Just consider the numberous American families, who 've never received a salary based on employment and instead have for generations upon generations received welfare payments in the form of food stamps, free housing and $1000/month per dependent child .

With those "gifts" who can blame the welfare recipients for never working and forever having one child after the other, without ever marrying, and for many still, having a different "father" for each and every infant produced.

Why hustle at a job when the "STATE" and the taxpayer suckers will take care of you?
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 11:56 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I thought unemployment was an insurance program that employers paid into for each employee, and premiums would go up, if a threshold was reached for layoffs? If so, the premiums would go up with extended benefits. That would benefit corporate America, since the cost of higher unemployment premiums would drive many mom and pop business into bankruptcy. Corporate America wins again, by having less competition.

You should look ahead to understand why the script may be for a plot many do not realize.
Miller
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 12:01 pm
@Foofie,
When did you leave Russian, Foofie? When did you become an American citizen, if in fact you are a US citizen?

Your knowledge about American history leaves much to be desired. Obtain a library card and become enlightened about American and World History.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 12:31 pm
@Foofie,
You don't understand the first thing about unemployment insurance.
Advocate
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 12:38 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Advocate wrote:

I have an idea. Perhaps the government should require those getting an extension of benefits to put in one-day of community service each week they are getting benefits.


Foolish idea, in my opinion. You are punishing the victim. Plus, as previously stated, prior employers paid for this unemployment. It is just an insurance policy paid for by one's prior employer.

In my opinion, you should focus on Israel, and anti-Semitism. That seems to be your strong suit, so to speak, in my opinion.


That is a stupid comment. I am certain that the requisite actuaries figuring what to charge employers for providing UE didn't factor in an extension of benefits. Thus, employers didn't pay for extended payments.

I suggest you stick to matters concerning Israel.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/12/2020 at 03:00:12