52 Week Unemployment

[cannon_fodder]

The house passed a measure today that Federally funds an extension of unemployment up to 52 weeks. You can now officially get paid by the government for "looking for a job" for a full year.  They doubled it with one vote.  And the extra money only counts for states with "high unemployment."  So if you lose your job in Oklahoma, you "only" get 39 weeks now (up from 26).  

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110sNvqQd::

What's next, lifelong guaranteed employment?  If you lose your job don't worry about changing careers, going back to school, or moving (or if fired learning from your lesson) - the government will take care of you.  I understand unemployment is supposed to provide a transition period (ignoring the fact that a person could save their own money for this purpose), but a full year?

Is that the cut off?  If the economy in parts of the country continues to slack do we raise it to 18 months, 2 years?  We are now borrowing money to give to unemployed persons as cash payments for a full year - in addition to all the other government benefits they may be eligible for (food stamps, section 8, Medicaid, transit, daycare).  

This will be abused by too many people.  Still other's it will dissuade from either getting new training or moving to find a job when they should.  I believe the percentage of people who will be helped by this provision as it is intended are in the minority.

/rant

[Conan71]

You are just mean Cannon.  I bet you really bristled at Obama's suggestion that employers should grant more sick days for fathers who chose to be a part of the family unit and/or pay their child support.

Just what we need folks, a Federal Government that rewards and protects unproductive behavior.

[Gaspar]

Come on guys!  It's mean to make people work!  

[Double A]

If this is such a giveaway, then may you all find yourselves gainfully unemployed very soon. I doubt you'll be able to enjoy it long, though. I mean highly skilled professionals like yourselves should have no problem getting back to work if you are in that position. Hell, I bet you all are just so good that you all land better jobs with better pay in no time at all. There, but for the grace of God go I, Mutha ****as.

Social safety nets to catch us in times of unstable extended economic crisis are really such a burden on our communities, after all. Shielding society from the full effect of the fallout of working families suddenly finding themselves with no source of income or employment despite their efforts to find work is just too expensive. That money could be better spent on tax breaks for Big Oil, the wealthiest 2%, or on golden parachutes for C.E.O's. Nevermind the fact that unemployment recipients have to have been working steadily with a stable work history to even draw unemployment in the first place. Nah, they are just a bunch of lazy deadbeats out to milk the system like cereal. Grace of God, A-Holes.

[Conan71]

Wow, who pissed in your Post Toasties AA?

I agree there is a purpose for unemployment benefits.  However, for every single government program which is designed to help those in need, there's plenty of people who take advantage of it and cheat the system who simply don't want to work.  

Call me jaded or cynical, but until you've had people stumble into your office drunk or looking a shambles "looking for work", don't jump on a high horse and lecture me about I don't know **** about U/E benefit abuse.

52 weeks and 39 weeks U/E is nothing more than our Congress using your tax dollars to keep them in office come November.  

Anyone who doesn't vote for a bill like that in this horrible "recession" is a walking dead man come November.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

If this is such a giveaway, then may you all find yourselves gainfully unemployed very soon.

You didn't address the merits at all.  You just ranted with your "the poor poor people" crap.  Have you ever gone a year in your life without being able to find a job?  I'd be happy to collect 60% of my wages and not work for a year while having the government pick up my food, housing and health care.   When the system is set up that not-working is a more attractive option, something is wrong and ripe for abuse.

Please go back and re-read my post.  What part don't you agree with?  What are your answers to my questions posed?  

Or just ramble some more, either way...

 

[we vs us]

Well, the link's borked, so I'll admit straight up I haven't read the bill.  But on the face of it, if the state of the economy warrants it, there's no good reason other than Friedmanist knee jerking to not do this. I see the disincentive you're talking about, CF, but I think you're overweighting it, and underweighting other incentives to get back to work.  I'd include social incentives (how many of your friends do you know who'd take the dole, and sit out for the full 52?  I can't tell you that any of mine would.), cultural incentives (Americans, by and large -- and especially middle class ones -- tend to be hard workers, and value work as an end, not a means.), economic incentives (UI just isn't a whole lot of money) and administrative incentive
(check out some of the eligibility requirements).

I can admit there will always be cheaters and coasters -- doesn't every system have its fair share? -- but there's no proof that coasters and cheaters are the majority of the system.  

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us


I can admit there will always be cheaters and coasters -- doesn't every system have its fair share? -- but there's no proof that coasters and cheaters are the majority of the system.  

No, but coasters and cheaters are one of the reasons why our government needs so much money to operate.

[cannon_fodder]

You'd be dead wrong on most lawyers making 342 a day.  The mean in Oklahoma is just over $100,000 -  so "most" do not making $342 a day.  Throw in a few Brewster's, Garrets (laugh at him if you want, but he makes bank), and big firm partners making tons of money and the average is certainly skewed upwards.

Not that we starve (well, with loan payments some do), but most in Oklahoma don't make $100K either.
- - -

BUT, I admit to overstating the case.  $342 a week is not living rich and most people would not be satisfied with that.  HOWEVER, consider that your food ($426, allotment for 3), housing ($800, section 8 Tulsa home) and health insurance ($300) could be covered by the government.  Essentially $3,000 a month in government benefits.

If the choice was to go back to work 40 hours a week and pay your own way, or do nothing and "make" $36,000 - it would be better for some people to just take the year off.  I don't think I know anyone that would, and I would not be willing to do so.  But I also don't know anyone that has been looking for work for 52 weeks...  do you?

It just seems a knee jerk "we care" reaction to buy votes.  Handing out checks, especially long term, generally does not solve any problems. Again, people need help and it is in our interest to help them.. but handouts are not always *really* help.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by we vs us


I can admit there will always be cheaters and coasters -- doesn't every system have its fair share? -- but there's no proof that coasters and cheaters are the majority of the system.  

No, but coasters and cheaters are one of the reasons why our government needs so much money to operate.

You're exactly right.  But in almost every case, the perfect is the enemy of the good.  Waiting for this -- or any -- system to work exactly right (ie. rid itself completely of the coasters and cheaters) would kill all the good it could do for everyone else.

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

I make $360 a day, I'm not a lawyer, and that is NOT 100K per year (it's a tad under).

360 x 5 = $1800/wk x 52 = 90K per year.

BTW, I do not want to survive on unemployment and wouldn't abuse it.

[cannon_fodder]

I based my math on 300 working days.  That's 52 weekends and a week off and comes to $108,000 at $360 a day.  So take 3 weeks off and you're STILL over $100K if you make $360 a day.

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

Oh, and I am NOT bragging. I don't make that all of the time. I'm a consultant.

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I based my math on 300 working days.  That's 52 weekends and a week off and comes to $108,000 at $360 a day.  So take 3 weeks off and you're STILL over $100K if you make $360 a day.

I respect you and your math CF, but I base my math on my take home pay. []

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by we vs us


I can admit there will always be cheaters and coasters -- doesn't every system have its fair share? -- but there's no proof that coasters and cheaters are the majority of the system.  

No, but coasters and cheaters are one of the reasons why our government needs so much money to operate.

You're exactly right.  But in almost every case, the perfect is the enemy of the good.  Waiting for this -- or any -- system to work exactly right (ie. rid itself completely of the coasters and cheaters) would kill all the good it could do for everyone else.

You are right, you shouldn't penalize the people who use benefits as a stop-gap, not as a permanent entitlement.  Areas like Michigan where there undoubtedly will be some long-term layoffs and some jobs will be cut forever from the automotive industry, I can see a use for 52 weeks of U/E benefits.  

Here's the thing though:  Other areas of the country are suffering from not enough workers, that alone should be incentive for people to move away from depressed areas to find work.  Sure it sucks they need to up-root and go elsewhere, but it's part of being self-sufficient and self-reliant.  I consider myself fortunate I've always been able to find suitable work in the Tulsa area.  If that ever changes, I wouldn't hesitate moving away.

I guess that's the rub for me.  We could use four or five more welders/fitters/fabricator types right now where I work.  I'm sure there are at least four or five sitting in a bar somewhere else in the U.S. right now sucking down a U/E check.

Inititatives like this would not ring so hollow with me if it weren't such an obvious vote ploy.  As slowly as things happen in Congress, this has "re-election marketing" written all over it.  If this were an odd year, I doubt we'd see something like this.  I'm really fed up with Congress taking a look at a problem and thinking "What the ****, it's not my money anyway...but it'll sure get me re-elected."

Here's what I'm waiting for to buy my vote: I want a $2.00/gallon fuel subsidy from the government.  Not that I really need it to get by, I just want my share of voter insurance passed my way.  I'm middle class and white, no one is throwing me any bones. []