Unemployment insurance is not a unicorn. It’s something that our government has chosen to make unavailable (after a certain time) as a matter of public policy. That policy can be changed in a week, if they chose to do so. What kicked this OP off is the comments of one of the policy makers, who is purposefully choosing to make unemployment insurance unavailable to many Americans.
Your statements also highlight a fundamental problem with Conservative public policy. You can’t fix a MacroEconomic problem with MicroEconomic solutions.
One person’s unemployment problem can be fixed by getting retrained.
The country’s unemployment problem can’t be fixed by having 40 million people get retrained.
I was in the same boat as the Op many years ago. Wound up losing everything. When I was going through it I loved the helpful suggestions at the time “why don’t you move where there are more jobs”. Well, it costs a lot of money to move to a new place, especially out of state. By the time come to the conclusion that you should move it’s too late to do so. Maybe a good step would be to have some kind of relocation service for high unemployment areas. I don’t know.
And when unemployment ran out and I realized I wasn’t getting a job in my field I applied for retail and food service jobs. They took one look at my work history figured something must be wrong with me to be going from what I was doing to wanting to work a McJob. Unemployment was gone, and nobody would hire me because I was overqualified to flip burgers (and there were lots of people who weren’t wanting the job).
So without unemployment coming in, and without a job I sold off everything I had that anyone would buy, then lost my house. I didn’t need motivation to find a job, being unemployed sucks and really doesn’t pay much.
The last time my husband was unemployed, we tried opening a business to give him work. That didn’t work out so well. We burned through a lot of our savings and the deli closed after a year.
It’s also good evidence for the theory that republicans are afraid of others doing what they themselves would do if given the chance or circumstances. Just like the GOP politician who rails against homosexuality getting caught with a callboy, they are against the terrible things that they themselves would do or are doing, because they assume everyone else must be just as morally corrupt as they are.
It really bothered me, and when 2012 came around I made an impassioned plea to him to vote for Obama and cited the positive things that he had argued for and passed that directly helped my father. He wouldn’t have any of it. He wanted to vote for Ron Paul or Rick Santorum. Living proof that people will vote against their own best interests because of how indoctrinated they are.
Yes, at some point I do. What 90% of the country is arguing about is exactly when that point is. The idea that some are advocating here (that there be no limit) is a fringe view, and while it’s certainly can be a logically consistent one, it is frankly a non-starter in the US.
It hurts them in the sense that they can make more in the marketplace. Maybe not this very minute, but at some point. Unemployment insurance is never going to give you a comfortable lifestyle, and depending on it forever is not good for the individual nor society as a whole. Assuming, that is, the person we are talking about is healthy and able to work.
The choice is for the guy to be seeking work while getting $X per week or for him to be seeking work while getting Zero.
To say the latter is “doing a favor” or “better” for the jobseeker is to say that he is irresponsible and must be offered sticks as well as carrots. This is counter to the self-reliance principles of Libertarianism, no?
Please note the question on the table is NOT whether extending unemployment benefits is good or bad for society. The question is() whether it is good or bad for the person who receives (or doesn’t receive) the benefits.*
ETA: * - i.e., the question raised by Paul’s peculiar comment, and which you claim to respond to above.
No, they are not. 90% of the country is not arguing about when cutting off the checks becomes a net benefit to the unemployed person who is cashing the checks. If they were, Paul’s quote would not even be noteworthy, it would simply be statement #13572 about Unemployment Insurance. It is getting talked about because it represents such a departure from the normal, suggesting that the person who is now staring down the barrel of destitution is reaping the benefits of having their UI end.
I think people on unemployment know how much they can make in the marketplace, given that they once worked in the marketplace making a lot more than their unemployment income.
The problem with ending unemployment is that it doesn’t create jobs, it simply increases competition for crappy jobs.
If they can make more than unemployment benefits in the marketplace, then why would removing unemployment benefits make them more likely to choose that extra money? I mean, they’d make more money anyway.
And drives down wages for those jobs. A surplus of labor means downward pressure on wages. Ending unemployment worsens the problem by increasing the labor surplus. It’s better for all of us if we pay some people not to work, just like we keep corn prices higher (and keeping farmers in business) by paying some farmers not to grow corn.
Well, if you want to simply say that our society doesn’t want to pay unemployment benefits indefinitely, that’s fine. We can forget about what people’s motives are, since the result is the same. Few Americans think unemployment benefits should have no end. That is not departure from the normal, that is the normal. And, as noted, they have already been extended once. Perhaps it’s time to extend them again-- I’m not an economist, and I don’t know exactly where the “right” cut-off is.
And yet that’s the way it’s always been in the US. Are you proposing that we have indefinite unemployment benefits-- that is, no end? I’m seeing a lot of bemoaning about what happens when the benefits end, but what is your proposal?
Should we say that unemployment benefits stay in place until the unemployment rate = X and set X at the historical average? Or set it at something else?
Yee haw … I’m back on the gravy train. I got my claims squared away so they’re getting me three-weeks of back checks and I’m good to go going forward, as long as I can wind my way through the byzantine bull-shit that is the Maine Department of Labor.
I think I’ll go out and get myself a Caddy, just to rub the Republican’s noses in it. Or I could pay my bills and be broke again … either way.
Historically, it HAS been set something like that. The unemployment rate has to be above a certain level before an extension is made. The baseline is 26 weeks of benefits from the state of employment. The Feds can extend that IF certain conditions are met, usually a certain rate of unemployment or above. Note that this applies at a state level, so if, for example, Montana has an extremely low unemployment rate it would not provide extensions but if at the same time Iowa has an extremely high rate people there would get extensions.
If the unemployment rate remains above that point why discontinue benefits? If that rate was high enough to start extensions shouldn’t it be enough to continue extensions?
I don’t have time to do a lot of digging at the moment but my recollection is that the extensions tend to kick in at around 5% unemployment. Currently, our rate is at least 7%. Since it remains above the level extensions kick in I’m comfortable with saying the need is still there and extended benefits should continue.
Keep in mind that “extended benefits” DOES NOT mean indefinite - no matter what, you’re cut off after 99 weeks. All it means is that instead of 6 months worth you can get a year, 18 months, maybe 99 weeks in total.
Or, perhaps I could be trusted to know how to look at a P&L, Balance Sheet, be able to job cost, keep a cash flow forecast and be able to figure out my actual income/ hours. If I say I’ve made much less than minimum wage at times, that’s what I mean.
Last year I lost money. So I worked for free the entire year-even took my personal money and put it into the business to keep the company going. That sucked. I still paid all my employees, didn’t lay anyone off, paid all of my bills.
As far as equity or physical assets, there are none. I die, company kaput. And I’m not sure if you’ve seen the resale value of remodeling companies, but I am pretty sure it’s…not much, if anything.
No government grants or handouts, sorry it doesn’t happen as much as you think it does.
Now you may ask, why the hell would I work for free, jeopardize my assets for the company? Because it’s been named as one of the best remodeling companies out there, I’ve got a hell of a team, and we do a damn fine job. It’s worth it.
I also have 5 kids, over a dozen employees, and a whole bunch of other people who are counting on me. There is no “I can’t.” When you don’t have options, you get shit done.
So, you recommend I close down the business, then putting over a dozen employees on UI as well?
Disability insurance is NOT unemployment insurance, not sure why you would bring it up. Did you know that an employee can opt for long term disability insurance as well?
OP is not disabled.
Actually, you passed a whole heck of a lot of judgement on me, and attributed a lot of thoughts and positions to me that I’ve never made, but thanks.
Actually, sorry to say but yes you do stop the gymnastics, it is a hobby until he can say for certain he will be perfect fit for Cirque du Soleil … if it is not something that will immediately put food on the table or money in the bank it is a luxury. I am not saying pimp him out or put him to work picking tomatoes, but unless it comes free it is a luxury.
And mrAru’s mom retrained from librarian with 2 degrees to nurse when she divorced his dad, because librarian did not pay enough to raise 2 kids on a seriously craptastic alimony [1966, dad was a school teacher, and he didn’t make shit either.] She would have loved to have been able to afford all sorts of nice stuff, but she ended up in a small camping trailer with no electricity or running water on a farm owned by relatives with a 4 and a 6 year old so she didn’t have to pay rent.
The length of time one allows UI is not the point. The point is that cutting off UI is not intended to directly benefit the unemployed worker, except in the fevered mind of Rand Paul. Again, this is not news because he doesn’t want to extend UI, it’s news because he thinks extending it will do a “disservice” to those workers.
Cutting off UI does not “encourage employment”. Our unemployment problem is not caused by people refusing to look for work, and is not going to be fixed by making the unemployed more desperate.
I don’t recall who first said this, but I think it is very insightful take on Job Creators. “Companies do not hire people because they have money that needs spending. Companies hire people because they have work that needs doing.”
Unemployment requires a corollary - “Companies do not hire people because there are workers that need hiring. Companies hire people because they have customers that need something.”
Cutting the income of 1.4 million people will not result in more hiring, because you’re getting rid of 1.4 million customers, who no longer buy anything but absolute essentials.
It’s clear to me that you just don’t understand the irrefutable logic of Republinomics. There are NO consequences for removing any sort of benefit or allowance. Just move to where the jobs are! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps (hey, is my limo here yet?)! You should have to work in order to collect public assistance (whaddya mean most of them are children!?)!