How Long Should Unemployment Benefits Last?

[Boogers 0]

Lotta talk in the news lately over unemployment benefits. They can certainly be helpful to people during lay-offs and hard times. But it can be awful easy to just sit and watch TV while collecting that free check every month. The democrats seem to want to pamper people forever, and the republicans are called heartless and cruel for trying to wean them off free government money. But at some point, you've got to give 'em a kick in the butt to motivate them to get out and really find another job. Even if it's something lesser than what they had before. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for them to be lazy forever. Should they?

[rushmc 18]

the Dems are creating the next election cycle issue

Since they can not run on Obamacare they need to change the topic

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

This question has some parallels with the question of should we drug test welfare recipients? The should part says that people shouldn't be getting high on our dime, but reality is that it costs us more money, so it's hard to say this is a fiscal policy rather than a punitive morality one.

For unemployment benefits - 99 weeks *should* be more than enough. Two whole fucking years! (Though in the dot bust + 9/11), I was out well over a year.) There certainly are people that played the funemployment game, though it baffles me. Unemployment before taxes will only pay my rent at my prior apartment. No money left to have fun. And being unemployed killed my finances. During the 2008 fun when I was untouched, I made out gloriously as I kept dumping money into the market at low prices. In 2001 I had to sell at those low prices.

But going past 'should,' is the question of the macro impact. Unemployment money will be spent and spent immediately. It's a more effective primer than tax rebates or credits. You really have to focus more on this question than the moral one of 'why should these slackers get money while I'm stuck in this god damn traffic jam.'

Sadly, getting a consensus opinion from economists is a fools errand, and it's a harder economics question than I can answer. So I struggle to make a conclusion on it.

[freethefly 6]

Possibly, the employers who sent the jobs oversea should foot the bill. Possibly, the republican administrations that caused the economic collapse should foot the bill.

The Great Depression started under Hoover and the current down turn started under Bush. History shows this to be true. History shows that times are better under Democrats. It took FDR ten years to clean up the mess that he inherited from Hoover. It took far less for Clinton to clean up the mess that Reagan and Bush number one left. The economy is far better now since Bush number two left the White House.

Of course, the republicans will always deny statistical proof. Surely, there are a number of folks right here in this forum who will always deny the facts. They will always bow down to the party that has, as history has shown, caused the economic down turns. They will always cringe when, as history has shown, the economy swings up under Democratic rule. They will always turn away from the facts. Go figure.

How long should benefits last? Hard to say. Maybe, depending on the region a person resides in. What is available? How many are hoping for those few jobs available. A person cannot just up and move to another area in hope of landing a job. That is easier said than done. There are to many variables for an easy answer to this question.

I would venture to say, for every job an employer moved from the USA to another country, a percentage of the money saved using cheap labor should go towards providing for those they put out of work.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kelpdiver 2]

freethefly

Of course, the republicans will always deny statistical proof. Surely, there are a number of folks right here in this forum who will always deny the facts. They will always bow down to the party that has, as history has shown, caused the economic down turns. They will always cringe when, as history has shown, the economy swings up under Democratic rule. They will always turn away from the facts. Go figure.

The numbers are pretty, and make a strong argument. But is a valid one?

Take your two examples - Reagan/Bush and Clinton. You see your guy fixing the shit of the prior two. But I see two economic boom cycles that each ended, one during Bush's term and the other right as Clinton left office, leaving the mess for little Bush.

Yet historically, people remember both Reagan and Clinton fondly in this regard. And they remember Carter and Bush(es) much the other way.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[FlyingRhenquest 1]

As soon as you can't pay your obamacare-mandated insurance premium you should be "harvested" for "organs". I think that's something both the Republicans AND the Democrats can agree upon!

I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here?

[jimmytavino 16]

Regarding... " free government money "

Not sure about ALL the states,,,
but In New York,
Employers, ( of which I AM one. ) PAY Quarterly Unemployment Insurance (tax) Into a system from which Claims are made...

Maybe the Govt. Adds to it or authorizes supplements to that fund...I'm not sure..

but in all the decades of Paying into this system.. I have never Once collected ANYTHING... from it.. ( except for cancelled checks )


Yes... if things go bad and employees HAVE to be laid Off.. they should collect something.....but only to a certain level...
there should be NO such thing as "perpetual care unemployment " and especially for those who also earn $$$$$ "under the table " or from within todays "street economy "
Like it's been said...people need to be motivated to FIND Work...
good luck to everybody out there....sure hope things get better.. before they get worse.

jmy..

[sfzombie13 307]

i think it is all like that, hence the federal unemployment. this is what a lot of people are so easily forgetting to mention, it's not a government funded program. it's funded by employers paying into a fund, the govt just administers (read: steals from) the fund. sure, there are some negligible costs, but hey, it's a government program.

i don't agree that it should be permanent, but it can take a year to find a job sometimes, if you hold out for what you are used to. i have taken jobs working at a car wash and at convenience stores to pay the bills, never fast food though. i think 9 months is plenty for unemployment.

now, i don't have the statistics, nor do i know where you would find them, but common sense will help out a little here. with around 7 - 12 % unemployment (depending on who you hear) this leaves a bunch of people paying into a fund with a few drawing on it. sounds to me like it should be not only self sustaining, but profitable as well, at least enough to cover administrative costs. if it doesn't, hell let me administer it, i could have it fixed in two years.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[kelpdiver 2]

sfzombie13

i think it is all like that, hence the federal unemployment. this is what a lot of people are so easily forgetting to mention, it's not a government funded program. it's funded by employers paying into a fund, the govt just administers (read: steals from) the fund. sure, there are some negligible costs, but hey, it's a government program.

Employers pay into state funded programs, but the Federal extended benefits are a different beast.

In CA employers only pay in for the first 7000 (iirc) of each employers salary. It has borrowed substantially from the Feds to maintain it the past few years.

[sfzombie13 307]

i did not know that. well, then, that changes everything, not. you still have around 85% not unemployed, on a very conservative estimate, that could be used to cover the small percentage of unemployment which goes past the norm to the "emergency" level. again i ask, what is the problem with this system? administration. how much thinking did it take for me to come up with a viable solution? about 30 seconds worth, i can assure you. and this is the reason i advocate putting the government back in the hands of the people.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[kelpdiver 2]

sfzombie13

i did not know that. well, then, that changes everything, not. you still have around 85% not unemployed, on a very conservative estimate, that could be used to cover the small percentage of unemployment which goes past the norm to the "emergency" level. again i ask, what is the problem with this system? administration. how much thinking did it take for me to come up with a viable solution? about 30 seconds worth, i can assure you. and this is the reason i advocate putting the government back in the hands of the people.

it's easy to say you came up with a viable solution. But with so few specifics, I doubt it. Ross Perot liked to suggest there are easy solutions to tough problems, and hell, Obama did the same in 2008, but reality quickly sets in.

[sfzombie13 307]

reality is the article i read one time about 6 former congressmen, 3 of each party. they threw out party ideology, and pork, and came up with a balanced budget in 3 days. in 3 fucking days. you can say it's harder than that, and it may well be. but i could do it, have no doubts about that, and it would be completely self funded and fair. but then, so could almost anyone here if there was enough effort put into it.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[mpohl 1]

We are investing trillions upon trillions of dollars to streamline production, and basically make less and less use of human labor.

Be it manufacturing, service, etc. etc. Unemployment will not be the exception, it will be the new normal!

Boogers

Lotta talk in the news lately over unemployment benefits. They can certainly be helpful to people during lay-offs and hard times. But it can be awful easy to just sit and watch TV while collecting that free check every month. The democrats seem to want to pamper people forever, and the republicans are called heartless and cruel for trying to wean them off free government money. But at some point, you've got to give 'em a kick in the butt to motivate them to get out and really find another job. Even if it's something lesser than what they had before. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for them to be lazy forever. Should they?

[kelpdiver 2]

sfzombie13

reality is the article i read one time

"The article I read one time...." Was it from the Onion?

There's really no way to evaluate something that vague and uncited. It is of course much easier for 6 retired legislators with no constituents to represent, and of course no accountability for the near or long term consequences.

[kallend 1,623]

shropshire

Quote

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

OK, but what about women?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

kallend

***

Quote

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

OK, but what about women?

Unfortunately (or not), we get the women that we deserve!!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[sfzombie13 307]

it was in the rolling stone, couple of years ago, way too vague for me to find a citation, i don't care enough to look it up. that should be enough for you to find it if you choose. i don't care because you summed it up right nicely: you said "It is of course much easier for 6 retired legislators with no constituents to represent, and of course no accountability for the near or long term consequences. "

that is the point i was trying to make. these asshats need to put everything aside and do their job. so some of them won't get elected next year, and some people may get their feelings hurt, big deal. and it's hard to remember the details, but they didn't touch unemployment, welfare, or social security.

lesson here, it can be done. same thing with unemployment benefits. the real world solution is here, right in front of their faces, but they won't do what they are paid to do. they should be fired and banned from politics forever, after having their benefits stripped. and that is a lot nicer than the real penalties i support, those all involve coffins after the penalties. for all of them.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[kelpdiver 2]

sfzombie13

it was in the rolling stone, couple of years ago, way too vague for me to find a citation, i don't care enough to look it up. that should be enough for you to find it if you choose. i don't care because you summed it up right nicely: you said "It is of course much easier for 6 retired legislators with no constituents to represent, and of course no accountability for the near or long term consequences. "

that is the point i was trying to make. these asshats need to put everything aside and do their job. so some of them won't get elected next year, and some people may get their feelings hurt, big deal. and it's hard to remember the details, but they didn't touch unemployment, welfare, or social security.

Their job is to represent their constituents. Which doesn't mean "keep my job" though many may translate it that way. But if those 6 people were all from farm states, or all from big cities, their end result is not a suitable one for all the people.

2 realities that belie the notion of a simple solution
1) unless you dramatically kill the defense budget, there's not a lot of discretionary spending to cut against. Even if you killed all of defense, you don't balance the budget. You have to raise income
2) dramatically slashing the defense budget or spending in general in one swoop will blow up the economy, further depressing tax receipts. The EU proved this over the past few years, and we saw a bit of it during the Peace Dividend in the early 90s. You have to roll in the change more gradually. And it helps if you can do it during a boom cycle, late in the late 90s.

But even the nearly balanced budget in 2000 relied on a boom cycle with the stock market generating huge capital gains, and a personal suspicion of mine is that it benefited from the first round of Roth Ira conversions. When the WH predicted 7 or 8 trillion in surpluses coming up, that relied on ridiculously nice patterns that became false as soon as the dotbomb occurred.

[sfzombie13 307]

all i know is that it happened and was explained in great detail, you should look it up to see how close you were. it is possible and it does not matter which kind of state you are from. in certain cases, this being one of them, the benefit of the whole far, far outweighs the few. either stay on course to go out in a blaze of glory, or change just a tad now, give up just a little, and fix this thing while we can.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes