Unemployment Benefit Extension. Really?

[cargau]

Congress is scheduled to consider adding another 43 weeks to the 99 they have already approved.

I own a small business. I pay for my unemployment insurance for the benefit of my employees. They pay nothing. When the bill comes due to pay for the expected increases to cover 2.5 years of sitting home all day, guess who pays? And, in reality, we all pay because I have less money to provide other benefits and or raises.

Look, I understand that there are needs. But, Unemployment insurance is supposed to be a bridge, not a way of life. And, extending the benefits perpetuates the unemployment rate because many are comfortable collecting the check that the business owner and the working stiff is providing.

Our country is too soft. Hardship builds character. I heard one politician comment that extending benefits will keep families together. Really? What happened during the depression? Families buckled down and came together and they survived. Then they prospered. I know the social justice proponents will be aghast reading this post. While I acknowledge that as Catholics, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our brothers and sisters, at the same time too many entitlements allow folks to drift into a sort of productive coma. Is that good?

Actually, I am 100% behind the idea that we have to look out for the sufferings of others. I just don’t think that the government taking money from the producers and giving it to the leaches is real social justice. Again, I realize that there are exceptions. But, the way this government thinks scares me. We are creating a whole social group of dependents.

OK, fire away…

 

[puzzleannie]

If I recall from the days when we operated small businesses, the unemployment tax the employer pays is a actually type of insurance premium in case he lays off employees, so the state will not have to cover the full cost of their benefits. If the employer does not re-hire or add those jobs back, he is taxed, or required to pay the premium to cover those employees (although he is actually paying only a small portion of the benefit they receive, the insurance pays the rest). Some states self-insure, some buy actual policies. I suppose the law varies from state to state, but in general I think their view is that if you, the employer, laid people off you have to help support them until you rehire them.

 

[Darkbloom]

I don’t at all see a conflict between being compassionate and being against big government. In fact, the two dovetail very nicely together to my estimation.

As is almost always the case, Shakespeare said it best: I must be cruel only to be kind.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Congress is scheduled to consider adding another 43 weeks to the 99 they have already approved.

I own a small business. I pay for my unemployment insurance for the benefit of my employees. They pay nothing. When the bill comes due to pay for the expected increases to cover 2.5 years of sitting home all day, guess who pays? And, in reality, we all pay because I have less money to provide other benefits and or raises.

Look, I understand that there are needs. But, Unemployment insurance is supposed to be a bridge, not a way of life. And, extending the benefits perpetuates the unemployment rate because many are comfortable collecting the check that the business owner and the working stiff is providing.

Our country is too soft. Hardship builds character. I heard one politician comment that extending benefits will keep families together. Really? What happened during the depression? Families buckled down and came together and they survived. Then they prospered. I know the social justice proponents will be aghast reading this post. While I acknowledge that as Catholics, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our brothers and sisters, at the same time too many entitlements allow folks to drift into a sort of productive coma. Is that good?

Actually, I am 100% behind the idea that we have to look out for the sufferings of others. I just don’t think that the government taking money from the producers and giving it to the leaches is real social justice. Again, I realize that there are exceptions. But, the way this government thinks scares me. We are creating a whole social group of dependents.

OK, fire away…

Oh really? Guess what! Extended benifits helped me and my DISABLED wife when I couldnt find a job. I kept looking and applying for jobs. I go to a trasining day for a probable new job in about a week. If I didn’t have the extened unemployemnt benefits to pay to put gas in my car’s tank I’d not being starting to job, because I would not have been able to apply for it, it’s 25 miles away. Hardship doesn’t always guarentee the kind of character built up that is desireble. Ive encountered lots of hardship, and it has made me more ornery, anitsocial, along with caring less whmeans I use to an end.

 

[kage_ar]

During the Depression, families did pull together because we lived as extended families. People had parents and grandparents and sibs and cousins, they belonged to Churches, groups of people can pull together.

After two generations of telling people they are freaks if they live in extended families, that it is kewl to “church hop” to find one with the best coffee bar and you only go twice each year… telling people to buy bigger houses cause kids can’t share a room, get a new car every 2.5 years, spend buckets of money on sports and don’t save a penny… heck, there is no community to pull together anymore.

Have you LOOKED for a job lately? I was laid off for the first time in my life after decades as a respected professional. I’m working 2 part time jobs (and trying to start a small business on the side), DH works full time, and combined we bring home less than half of what I made before.

When on unemployment, you lose it if you sit home all day. You are required to hunt HARD for work.

 

[Darkbloom]

During the Depression, families did pull together because we lived as extended families. People had parents and grandparents and sibs and cousins, they belonged to Churches, groups of people can pull together.

After two generations of telling people they are freaks if they live in extended families, that it is kewl to “church hop” to find one with the best coffee bar and you only go twice each year… telling people to buy bigger houses cause kids can’t share a room, get a new car every 2.5 years, spend buckets of money on sports and don’t save a penny… heck, there is no community to pull together anymore.

Have you LOOKED for a job lately? I was laid off for the first time in my life after decades as a respected professional. I’m working 2 part time jobs (and trying to start a small business on the side), DH works full time, and combined we bring home less than half of what I made before.

When on unemployment, you lose it if you sit home all day. You are required to hunt HARD for work.

If society was better able to handle depression in the 1930s than today the sensible thing to do would be to emulate that society instead of furthering the incursion of government that has helped to destroy that society.

 

[lufty]

…Have you LOOKED for a job lately? I was laid off for the first time in my life after decades as a respected professional. I’m working 2 part time jobs (and trying to start a small business on the side), DH works full time, and combined we bring home less than half of what I made before.

When on unemployment, you lose it if you sit home all day. You are required to hunt HARD for work.

Nice comment. Unemployment is not a free ride cargau, and yes, folks receiving unemployment insurance are required to look for work, attend EDD classes on resume building, join “EDD Job Club” groups, and report their findings.
Sure, some industries and areas of the country take much longer to find work, take the San Francisco Bay Area and the IT Industry. It took me 13 months to land a full-time IT Job, and I applied to THOUSANDS of adds. Sure was it nice to be not working? Sure, but the overwhelming sense of dread, meager living conditions living off unemployment, and dealing with folks with attitudes like yours sure doe’s not make living on unemployment some kind of vacation like you are stating.
I wonder, if you are one of those employeers who wouldn’t hire someone who was currently unemployeed, as they must be “slackers living off the system”. I bet you are.

 

[HyeDetroit]

Let’s be honest…
Unemployment checks are not gonna cover the bills…
You make it out to seem like people are living lavishly and sitting on their butts on the couch, just collecting unemployment checks.
Do some people abuse the system? - of course
But for the most part people are not. Americans are desperately searching for jobs that are gone.

I guarantee that most people on unemployment benefits are dying to get off of it and get a real job.

If you really want to return to the 1930’s: shanty towns, food lines down the block, rampant crime, by all means be my guest.

 

[jmcrae]

Congress is scheduled to consider adding another 43 weeks to the 99 they have already approved.

I own a small business. I pay for my unemployment insurance for the benefit of my employees. They pay nothing. When the bill comes due to pay for the expected increases to cover 2.5 years of sitting home all day, guess who pays? And, in reality, we all pay because I have less money to provide other benefits and or raises.

The unemployed are not “sitting at home.” It’s actually harder work to be unemployed than it is to have a job, because you have to apply for at least two jobs in your skill area every day, and you have to go to every interview that you are given to go to. This involves doing research on all of the employers in your area to make sure that you sound like you know what you’re talking about at all of your interviews, and finding all of the unadvertised job openings, as well.

Our country is too soft. Hardship builds character. I heard one politician comment that extending benefits will keep families together. Really? What happened during the depression?

Gangs took over the streets and crime went straight through the roof. Bonnie and Clyde, Jesse James, Baby-face Nelson, and Al Capone, just to name a few, were considered by the public to be heroic figures, rather than despicable criminals, because they were able to make a profit during those hard times, and take care of others, as well (at the price of their souls, of course.) Those who tried to stay honest had to split up their families in order for the man to get whatever work he could, while the wife and children tried to find cheap housing.

Families buckled down and came together and they survived.

Often, by getting involved in criminal activity. Yes, in hard times when there is no help, people will find ways to survive. The rest of society might not actually like those ways, though, which is why we now have a support network for them.

 

[Darkbloom]

I don’t think anyone has said that unemployment is high living, but it is a disincentive to work. What’s more, it is an act in which the coercive power of government is used to forcefully take from one group of people and give to another that they deem worthy.

There were no less that three full scale depressions in the 19th century and people made it though with little or no form of government assistance.

The Great Depression differs because it was the first time in American history government tried to forcefully counter economic conditions, and we all know how successful that was. Only the greatest concentration of manpower and resources in human history, WW2, brought us out of the depression.

 

[Darkbloom]

Gangs took over the streets and crime went straight through the roof. Bonnie and Clyde, Jesse James, Baby-face Nelson, and Al Capone, just to name a few, were considered by the public to be heroic figures, rather than despicable criminals, because they were able to make a profit during those hard times, and take care of others, as well (at the price of their souls, of course.) Those who tried to stay honest had to split up their families in order for the man to get whatever work he could, while the wife and children tried to find cheap housing. .

Organized crime of the 1930s was a result of prohibition, not the depression.

In the 1990s the American economy was superb AND criminal activity related to crack was rampant. Make a product illegal and you practically ask for a black market to spring up, and black markets are always ugly.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think anyone has said that unemployment is high living, but it is a disincentive to work.

I don’t see how. There is nothing taken away when you do actually find a job.

There were no less that three full scale depressions in the 19th century and people made it though with little or no form of government assistance.

You would not have wanted to live in those days. People often starved to death, or died of preventable diseases due to the lack of sanitary facilities. (If half the population is using the water supply as a bathroom because they have no homes to go to, it causes a lot of diseases, not just for the poor, but for everyone.) If they borrowed money and failed to pay it back, they went to prison, and usually died in prison. The children of the poor were sent to work and live in factories, which was the end of any education they might have received. A lot of those kids died before reaching adulthood.

 

[jmcrae]

Organized crime of the 1930s was a result of prohibition, not the depression.

The depression didn’t hurt them, though. It was easy for them to find desperate men to do their dirty work for them, for the promise of a few dollars to get them through.

In the 1990s the American economy was superb AND criminal activity related to crack was rampant. Make a product illegal and you practically ask for a black market to spring up, and black markets are always ugly.

Right - but the 90s weren’t actually characterized by those activities, and it wasn’t romanticized. I don’t remember the names of any of the 90s gangsters; do you?

 

[SpaceNeedle]

I am glad for the extension. There are hardworking people in my parish who are struggling to stay afloat. Their unemployment benefit is not a luxury…it is keeping the “bare minimums” covered for some; others have still had to sell homes but at least can keep a roof over their children’s heads. Many still need the help of a food box to eat. While I appreciate that “move in with extended family” works for some, it does not work/is not an option for all…we are much more “spread out” than we were 70+ years ago.

 

[Khrystyne]

This is obnoxious. Do not believe what the media tells you about people who are unemployed. We are not sitting on our arses all day watching television.

I am a professional, laid off, it’s been a year.
I’ve had three interviews with retailers and each one of them offered me a positon, BUT as they said " we cannot guarantee you more than 5 to 15 hours a week" AND "we aren’t able to work around another pt job, ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. Goodbye…
Hey, ya if I were 16 and living at home this would be great, BUT I’m not!

Turn your anger in on the corporations and businesses in this country, MAYBE, just maybe you aren’t one of those businesses, BUT it’s all about you, right? Well, ditto!
In my opinion I’m GRATEFUL that the government is helping “U.S.” out, the streets look pretty bleak, thanks.

I think people were just a bit more compassionate back in the depression, a lot of loving, honest networking going on to help eachother out. Now, it’s sink or swim.
Good Luck! Have a nice day.

Hey, ya, thanks…:takethat:

 

[vz71]

When on unemployment, you lose it if you sit home all day. You are required to hunt HARD for work.

I must take exception to this.

When I collected unemployment benefits, the only requirement was proof that I had searched for a job. They did not care how hard I looked, only that there was a signature from some prospective employer saying they had my application on file.

 

[vz71]

Basic economics teaches us that you get more of what you subsidize.

Harsh as it may seem, subsidizing more unemployment is simply going to give us more unemployment.

The real answer here is not to extend unemployment further, but to extend the job market further.

 

[kage_ar]

I must take exception to this.

When I collected unemployment benefits, the only requirement was proof that I had searched for a job. They did not care how hard I looked, only that there was a signature from some prospective employer saying they had my application on file.

Well, when I was on unemployment, I had to turn in a set number of apps per week, I had to go to every interview and I could not turn down a job that was offered.

Maybe if I lived in humongoville big city that would be easy, in a small town it was difficult to find places to apply!

 

[cargau]

Basic economics teaches us that you get more of what you subsidize.

Harsh as it may seem, subsidizing more unemployment is simply going to give us more unemployment.

The real answer here is not to extend unemployment further, but to extend the job market further.

Bingo! You get a star!

Government shoud be about creating an environment for opportunity, not a subsidy that is a veiled form of transfer of wealth.

All of you that described your hardships being unemployed, my heart goes out to you. Honestly, I’ve never been unemployed.

But I got my bill for the cost of unemployment insurance this morning and practically fell over. It might be a nice feature, but remember, someone is paying for it. Maybe, if I didn’t have burdens like this I could hire more people.

Hey Government, are you listening???

 

[Darkbloom]

I don’t see how. There is nothing taken away when you do actually find a job.

The ability to draw a check without working is taken away.

You would not have wanted to live in those days. People often starved to death, or died of preventable diseases due to the lack of sanitary facilities. (If half the population is using the water supply as a bathroom because they have no homes to go to, it causes a lot of diseases, not just for the poor, but for everyone.) If they borrowed money and failed to pay it back, they went to prison, and usually died in prison. The children of the poor were sent to work and live in factories, which was the end of any education they might have received. A lot of those kids died before reaching adulthood.

1. The US had one of the highest standards of living the world over in the 19th century.
2. I’ve never seen anything suggesting that half the US population of the 1800s were using the water supply as a toilet.
3. The increase in life expectancy was due to research fueled by a profit motive.
4. Even brushing aside the above points, most of us wouldn’t want to live in the 1930s during the Great Depression either.

But all that aside, the fact remains that the US had a history of economic turmoil at least as grave as what broke out in 1929 and got out of it in less time with no real governmental action to speak of.