1.3 million people who are on ' enhanced unemployment" will see those benefits run out if congress does not extend. The average time for these 1.3 million is 54 weeks. GOP wants cuts from other places to offer extensions. Pelosi wants to add it to the deficit. 54 weeks isn't enough? How long should we pay people not to work? We should borrow from the Chinese to pay unemployment benefits longer than a year? if someone can't find another job in a year where they are MOVE TO WHERE THE JOBS ARE. I would be in favor of giving them a moving allowance to go to any of the states or areas where employment is low but I am not in favor of extending unemployment benefits longer than a year.
54 weeks? You have to be kidding. 6 months is more than enough time to find job. Maybe not the job you want, but a job can be found until the right one comes along.
IDH This should be imprinted on every unemployed persons forehead " Maybe not the job you want, but a job can be found until the right one comes along. " But as long as you are getting some money and SNAP etc perhaps the normal tendency is to think you should have the same job/ money you had before you lost a job. and that is ok for awhile. It isn't ok for the 99 weeks people got 2 years ago and not ok for 54 weeks now. Anyone who has gone through this knows sometimes you have to suck it up and take what you can get.
If they get unemployment benefits for 24 weeks, they will start looking at the 23rd week. Same as 54 weeks. They will start looking at the 53rd week. Or will they? They are now trained to not look at all because now they expect the extension. It's Obama's vision to have the majority of the population to depend of the Government. He wants to control every ones lives. He can't leave office fast enough.
The dems/libs have made unemployment insurance into a welfare entitlement. Once again, you can't beat Santa Claus.
Approximately 5 years ago it took me 8 weeks to find a different job, and the job paid about 2/3 of the salary I had previously earned. Yet I took it and haven't looked back since. I may have been luckier than some who are on unemployment to be living in the Austin metro area, but I do feel that a year is way, way more time than anybody who is seriously searching for work needs to find it. A year is needed for leeches who are satisfied just scraping by on government largesse, and perhaps the extremely unusual case or two where extraordinary circumstances conspire to prevent a true job seeker from obtaining one.
Cutting off the unemployed and characterizing them as lazy-asses who don't want to work doesn't seem very smart to me, whether we're talking about politics or policy. Besides, we're talking about people who were gainfully employed citizens two years ago and have to prove they're actively looking for work to keep their benefits. These aren't single moms sitting at home smoking dope, screwing a different guy every few days, and crapping out kids every nine months to get a bigger welfare check. Politically, a high unemployment rate should help the opposition party, but as we saw in 2012, if you alienate and insult the unemployed, it'll negate that. Not only will you lose the unemployed voters, you'll lose employed workers who relate to the unemployed. That's the ******* penalty I've previously discussed, and it's how you lose states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Furthermore, when you look down on the unemployed with a sense of moral condemnation when you supported bailing out the banking and insurance industries, you add the element of hypocrisy, and that just makes it worse. It's like a dad beating the hell out of his son for catching him with a SI swimsuit edition right before leaving the house to participate in an "Eyes Wide Shut"-style orgy. It's also bad policy. If an unemployed skilled worker who's accustomed to making $25/hour loses his unemployment benefits, stops looking for a job in his field, and gets a job at McDonald's or Wal-Mart for $9/hour but supplements it with thousands of dollars per year in welfare (food stamps, Medicaid, EITC, etc.), I don't consider that meaningful progress. Having said that, the system needs to be revamped. For the first 6 - 12 months, I'd leave things as they are - make benefits conditional on looking for work. However, if the unemployment lasts longer than that, then I think you have to look at other issues specific to the worker and his industry. Though I wouldn't blindly cut everybody off, I wouldn't blindly extend their benefits without any conditions either. Somebody mentioned authorizing a moving allowance. That's not a bad idea. I think we should also fund training for jobs in fields that are in high demand - computer work, healthcare, etc. If the workers are still young, I could see recruiting people for military service as needed. The point is that if a worker is unemployed long term, I would try to move his career forward, not backwards.
I agree it does no good to label these folks, but you cannot stick your head in the sand and ignore the issues with the program. Like all laws and programs, you must be smart in the enforcement. Key things that should be mandatory with enrollment in these benefits: - Drug testing. You must remain drug free. - You should work a minimum of 16 hours per week for the benefits through public works programs - If you earn money on the side, it should be reported and capped. If you are caught lying about your income, immediate termination of benefits for life. - 52 weeks capped time every three years.
Totally agree on cutting people off arbitrarily not being smarter. However, I think people need to know there is a limit on time to be on the program. People must understand that you sometimes have to change careers, accept less pay or have to relocate to find new employment, Without the time limit, I think people would hold out unnecessarily.
mrD I suggested offering a one time moving allowance for people in high unemployment areas. There are several states and areas that are begging for workers. many fields will hire inexperienced people and train them in exchange for a guarantee of a certain period of time. No moving isn't easy but it is sometimes necessary. Also most states work force commissions offer retraining and further help. There are counselors at every for office who will try to help IF the person will ask. There are also federal grants to help people with retraining depending on the reason for losing their job., some up to $10,000 for reeducation going into the military was ALWAYS an option for some of these people, why didn't they? One cold fact exists; long time unemployed move to the back of the line for a new job. In a series of interviews employers would give more credit to someone who took ANY job rather than accepted long term unemployment. here is a question for those who want to help ' move these folks forward". Really? If someone hasn't done anything to move themselves forward in 54-99 weeks it is OUR responsibility to move them forward? There are so many ways work force commissions and even private outreach programs offer to move people forward BUT it takes some initiative from the person. and this ? "and have to prove they're actively looking for work to keep their benefits." Please learn what is actually needed. In some states it only takes a phone , in others you send addresses of places you have ' applied' online. No this isn't the biggest problem but it is one we could start to solve instead of making it pretty convenient to exist at a reasonable level without doing any work. These are for the most part able bodied people I do not know the % of people 'long term' unemployed but it is enough to at least address the problem instead of just throwing money at it
Retraining and education programs available in MichiganThe Link IllinoisThe Link WisconsinThe Link PennsylvaniaThe Link Every state has this and has had it for YEARS These are web sites but the same information is offered by people for people at each center so a Puter is not needed. What IS needed is for the person to take responsibility.
Horn6721, Your post is full of assumptions and prejudgments. You assume these people haven't "done anything to move themselves forward in 54-99 weeks." How the hell do you know what efforts people are making to find work? I think you're just assuming that because they haven't found work yet that they're not really serious about trying. Well, if you live in a state that has unemployment in the 7.5 - 9.5 percent range, jobs are tough to come by, and when one does open up, competition is pretty fierce to get it. Furthermore, if you happen to live in California, Nevada, Arizona, or Texas (all of which have very high unemployment except Texas), you have illegal aliens undercutting you even more. In addition, have you looked at what the maximum unemployment benefits are? They're not particularly generous - certainly not too generous for people to choose them over even a fairly modest job. In some extremely high cost of living states (like New Jersey and Rhode Island), they're in the $500 - $600 per week range. In most states they're in the $300s or $400s. In Arizona, they're $240 per week. Even a minimum wage job would be a substantial raise over the benefits (especially if you throw in all the welfare we dole out for minimum wage employees), yet they still have a 7.8 percent unemployment rate. The point is that nobody's living high on the hog with unemployment benefits. And yes, states have workforce commissions, but their resources (especially for training) are limited. They can't retrain everybody, and even that process takes significant time. I'm all for retraining the long term unemployed and making the training mandatory, but if you cut them off during the training, they're not going to do it, because the bills still have to get paid.
Relocate and retrain. Not the government's job to go that far into the realm of personal responsibility. Business is required to provide unemployment insurance, after 26 weeks (more than ample time to find a job, retrain or relocate), if the person has not found work he needs to be cut off. What we have now is not unemployment insurance, it is welfare. These people are working and taking the money. They are working part time, and working for cash. I have a case in point. We hired part time truck drivers on a construction project to move dirt. We had one driver that was exceptionally good and we offered him full time and he turned the position down because it would conflict with his "federal unemployment" and then he did not show up for work for two weeks and filed on us for cut in hours. I turned him in and the work force commission did nothing. I won the employment claim, but the Workfiarce commission did nothing and would not pursue the person. There is no severe penalty, because there is no enforcement of rules and no investigation of fraud. Those of you that handle workfarce commission claims know what I am talking about. It is a sham. At least you can fight the bogus claims at the state level, but the Federal unemployment is welfare , plain and simple.
Ivan, you're citing to an anecdote. It's not smart to write policy based on anecdotes. If we want to toughen enforcement of TWC rules, that's great. I'm all for it, but we shouldn't treat everybody like they're lawbreakers. It isn't the fault of an unemployed person who's actually trying to find work that some jackass tried to hustle unemployment benefits from you.
I have enough experience in this realm ( and enough claims) to know policy just needs to be followed to 26 weeks. I could do a rant on the 5 quarter policy, but I would get off topic. I do believe there needs to be a much greater emphasis on enforcement.
In mid 2010, I was laid off from my job as an associate with a 10 attorney firm in a country of about 120k people. After unsuccessfully seeking employment at other firms, with the DA's office and other places, I accepted a job as a freight train conductor. My take home pay has increased some, but my schedule is about as bad it gets (I'm on call and work at any and every time, day or night) and the job satisfaction is non-existant. I was then and still am the sole provider of a family of four. I spent about 11 weeks on unemployment. My wife and I have seriously considered relocating or family, but if I'm honest, that scares the crap out of me. My wife has type 1 diabetes and having health insurance is crucial. My personal opinion is that their should be some hard limits on how long a person should be able to draw unemployment. Too many people will wallow in their own self pity unless motivated to do something. I know I was extremely depressed for a long time, even after taking a job. Without having a family dependent on me to eat and live, I probably wouldn't have accepted.
hornyhoosier who are you with? I just applied for two conductor jobs with BNSF-one in San Antonio and the other in Temple. I have an interview on Friday...wish me luck. I am ready to retire from the military after 21 and a half years of service.
