Unemployment Benefit Extension. Really?

[fulbert4605]

I agree with some of this. I think that there are some people who are “loafing” while on umemployment benefits.

However… I am currently drawing unemployment. My professional field has been decimated in this area. The leading employment field in this area (metro Detroit) has also been decimated. In many fields, there are simply no jobs to get. So the idea that there are good jobs out there, just waiting for people, and I’m sitting at home eating bon-bons watching cable on the government’s dime, is not accurate. (I’m not meaning to pick on you; there were several people alluding to this point, and I just wanted to say that it is not black and white).

I’ve applied at several local Costco’s. I would LOVE a job at Costco. Too many college degrees, I guess, but they’ve never called me. Does this make me lazy…?

Actually, I cannot have it both ways, so I would like to reword:
What better motivation to seek a job if you have to subsist, in the mean time, off of your own money rather than someone else’s? to What better motivation to seek a job if you have to subsist, in the mean time, off of completely your own money rather than the money that’s only partially yours (since presumably those on unemployment have paid at least some of it in the form of that which had been set aside from their payroll). However, my point still stands.

No, this does not make you lazy, Major Tom. There are people on unemployment insurance that are looking for a job just as hard as if there were no such thing as unemployment insurance and they had to subsist off of personal savings. But the abuse of unemployment insurance couldn’t happen if people had to subsist off of their own savings. It’s a “nothing to gain, much to lose” scenario, this unemployment insurance. Boils down to personal responsibility.

 

[Major_Tom]

No, this does not make you lazy, Major Tom. There are people on unemployment insurance that are looking for a job just as hard as if there were no such thing as unemployment insurance and they had to subsist off of personal savings. But the abuse of unemployment insurance couldn’t happen if people had to subsist off of their own savings. It’s a “nothing to gain, much to lose” scenario, this unemployment insurance. Boils down to personal responsibility.

I wouldn’t disagree with the intent there. Part of the contributing problem has been an abysmally low personal savings rate. Now let’s concentrate on some good news. Personal savings is on the rise! It’s now 3%, I believe. Good. People are learning a lesson from this.

However, I also think a point needs making. Many people did not HAVE much personal savings when this downturn began. Perhaps too many XBOX’s and cell phones, sure… but a contributing factor is a wage system and, frankly, classism, that did not allow many people to save much.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Cash is the fuel that drives most businesses. Without it, the business goes no where, as it is stifled. Every time the government takes another dollar, there is less gas in the tank to grow the business. When businesses grow, people get jobs.

I realize that many of the services governments provide are not done so in a vacuum. They cost money and benefit the organization. Taxes must be paid and fees must be collected to provide these vital and necessary services.

My concern as it relates to UI insurance is not so much the existance of UI as the expansion of UI and the effect it has on the greater good for everyone.

If you are a recipient of UI, it sounds like a good thing to be collecting for more than two years. But, someone is paying the freight and that does tend to choke the business growth engine.

Well then the examples you have scene are goodie 2 shoes compared to most business management I have ever scene… Most business owners just pocket the extra money.

 

[tjm190]

Well then the examples you have scene are goodie 2 shoes compared to most business management I have ever scene… Most business owners just pocket the extra money.

Businesses will hire and expand so long as it is profitable- if you raise the cost per worker without increasing the productivity per worker, fewer workers will be hired. That works in reverse- lowering the cost per worker means more workers will be hired.

 

[vz71]

You don’t have to be looking for work to get unemployment; you have to give the appearance of looking for work. That’s a very important distinction.

That’s not entirely true. If you exhaust all of your state-provided benefits, you can qualify for an extended period of Federal benefits ( I think this happens about one year, or eighteen months, into your unemployment cycle). Once you begin that period, you are required to keep a log of companies where you inquired for employment, a minimum of two per week.

Right, but the logbook requirement is always there. It does not make a difference if you are on an extension or not the law requires this.

However, there is no oversight. Without some means of checking up on this book, it is simply lip service to the requirement.
And all that is necessary to maintain unemployment benefits is the appearance of looking for work.

I do not know how (or if) the government confirms compliance, but nonetheless, the requirement is there.

Right.
But a requirement does not necessarily translate into actual work.
It simply translates into an appearance of work.

 

[cargau]

Well then the examples you have scene are goodie 2 shoes compared to most business management I have ever scene… Most business owners just pocket the extra money.

There is a method to the way both consumers and producers behave in a capitalist economy. People tend to act in their own best interests. In reality, that is what makes it all work. In a competitive environment, quality is enhanced and prices are kept in check.

Businesses will approach opportunities that serve the businesses’ best interest as it relates to growth and profits. Workers do exactly the same thing. They will chose to work for an organization that best serves their own needs, salary, benefits, hours, etc…

So this is not about anyone being a “goodie 2 shoes” since businesses are not charities. When the opportunities are good for financial strength and growth, businesses add workers not for the good of society (although that becomes a secondary benefit) but because it properly serves the ambitions and goals of the business.

Funny thing is, when businesses do well, workers are employed and have the opportunity to do well, also. When businesses are in a mood to hire, workers are in demand and their value rises.

So, if everyone reacts in their own best interest, everyone can win.

 

[jmcrae]

And all that is necessary to maintain unemployment benefits is the appearance of looking for work.

If employers were required to reply to applications for employment (including those who have no chance of being hired), the job seeker could keep a file of rejection letters that show that he or she has actually been submitting job applications, and being rejected.

The employment counsellor could then evaluate the rejections, and suggest ways to improve one’s chances of getting a job. Plus, those not actually doing anything would not be able to pretend they were doing something, or say, “I received no response from the applications I sent out.”

Plus, the feedback (including negative feedback) would let the job seeker know that their application had actually reached the hiring manager’s desk, and not been lost en route.

 

[aspawloski4th]

If employers were required to reply to applications for employment (including those who have no chance of being hired), the job seeker could keep a file of rejection letters that show that he or she has actually been submitting job applications, and being rejected.

The employment counsellor could then evaluate the rejections, and suggest ways to improve one’s chances of getting a job. Plus, those not actually doing anything would not be able to pretend they were doing something, or say, “I received no response from the applications I sent out.”

Plus, the feedback (including negative feedback) would let the job seeker know that their application had actually reached the hiring manager’s desk, and not been lost en route.

I like that idea. Then one can find out if they are being black balled or whatever. This isnt the 1950’s where all managers were looking fr the same thing when hiring. Too many hiring managers think outside the box even for the most mundane of jobs.

 

[aspawloski4th]

There is a method to the way both consumers and producers behave in a capitalist economy. People tend to act in their own best interests. In reality, that is what makes it all work. In a competitive environment, quality is enhanced and prices are kept in check.

Businesses will approach opportunities that serve the businesses’ best interest as it relates to growth and profits. Workers do exactly the same thing. They will chose to work for an organization that best serves their own needs, salary, benefits, hours, etc…

So this is not about anyone being a “goodie 2 shoes” since businesses are not charities. When the opportunities are good for financial strength and growth, businesses add workers not for the good of society (although that becomes a secondary benefit) but because it properly serves the ambitions and goals of the business.

Funny thing is, when businesses do well, workers are employed and have the opportunity to do well, also. When businesses are in a mood to hire, workers are in demand and their value rises.

So, if everyone reacts in their own best interest, everyone can win.

You are taling the ideal situation, not the real world. I have worked at plenty of job where the increased business just meant more money to pocket by the owner. I would love for the scenario you bring up to exist, but I have never seen it happen in my life ever.

 

[cargau]

You are taling the ideal situation, not the real world. I have worked at plenty of job where the increased business just meant more money to pocket by the owner. I would love for the scenario you bring up to exist, but I have never seen it happen in my life ever.

This really is not pie in the sky. If the business can do he same amount of work at the same quality level with fewer people, it has increased it’s efficiency. Job security for the workers. If quality falls off due to overstraining of existing or downsized staff, the business suffers (clearly not in its best interests). If volume exceeds capacity, then the business will need to expand. Often, this may include plant size or number of locations, increased machinery, increased hours of operation and/or increased staffing.

But, it does this by increasing volume and thus, increasing profits.

 

[vz71]

If employers were required to reply to applications for employment (including those who have no chance of being hired), the job seeker could keep a file of rejection letters that show that he or she has actually been submitting job applications, and being rejected.

Why should we place this undue burden upon the employer?

It is the governnment that came up with this, it should be the government’s burden.

If the concept to to burdensome for the government to handle by itself, perhaps the whole idea should be tossed.

 

[vz71]

You are taling the ideal situation, not the real world. I have worked at plenty of job where the increased business just meant more money to pocket by the owner.

What exactly do you think this extra money does?
Just sit gathering dust?

Just because the additional profits do not go directly into the business does not mean the increased profits do not benefit the economy.

This is not a pie in the sky concept. It was demonstrated in the 80’s.

 

[jmcrae]

What exactly do you think this extra money does?
Just sit gathering dust?

Well, hopefully it’s gathering interest, or dividends, or something - it is, after all, what the independent businessman is going to retire on.

 

[vz71]

Well, hopefully it’s gathering interest, or dividends, or something - it is, after all, what the independent businessman is going to retire on.

Which would mean the money is pulling double duty as it makes more money for the person that deposited for the interest as well as providing the bank with money to lend out to others that need it.

 

[jmcrae]

Which would mean the money is pulling double duty as it makes more money for the person that deposited for the interest as well as providing the bank with money to lend out to others that need it.

Right, exactly. But don’t kid yourself that it’s going to be used to hire more workers.

 

[vz71]

Right, exactly. But don’t kid yourself that it’s going to be used to hire more workers.

Don’t have to.
I know it does.

Borrowed money for home improvement? You just put a contractor to work.
Borrowed for a car? You just paid the salary of the dealer, and the manufacturer.
Borrow for a boat? same thing.

Face it, you are arguing a losing side here. The facts as well as practical experience show that money provided to businesses provides more money for everyone else as well.

 

[jmcrae]

Don’t have to.
I know it does.

Borrowed money for home improvement? You just put a contractor to work.
Borrowed for a car? You just paid the salary of the dealer, and the manufacturer.
Borrow for a boat? same thing.

Face it, you are arguing a losing side here. The facts as well as practical experience show that money provided to businesses provides more money for everyone else as well.

Right - so they provide temporary jobs that unemployed people can take while in between real jobs. Sales earnings are not exactly pensionable, and construction work is only seasonal.

Your original thesis was that the employer was going to use his new-found profits to provide real employment for more workers. Ain’t gonna happen.

 

[vz71]

Your original thesis was that the employer was going to use his new-found profits to provide real employment for more workers. Ain’t gonna happen.

My original idea is supported by facts as well as anecdotal evidence and practical experience.

You keep saying ‘no’ but you offer no evidence whatsoever to back your claim.

 

[jmcrae]

My original idea is supported by facts as well as anecdotal evidence and practical experience.

You keep saying ‘no’ but you offer no evidence whatsoever to back your claim.

I have 35 years of experience in the workforce, in a wide variety of jobs and industries. So far I have never met an employer who created new jobs when there was a boom on - everyone just worked overtime - and since we were only allowed to claim a certain number of hours of overtime, there was also a lot of work being done for free.

During recessions, of course, a lot of people get laid off, but then when the boom comes again, employers make do with the smaller work force - hence the term “jobless recovery.”

 

[vz71]

So far I have never met an employer who created new jobs when there was a boom on -

The very fact of a ‘boom on’ tells us everything we need to know.

There is more business, there is more money being spent.
Production somewhere must be going up to meet it, and more people are being employed to keep up with the increase.

I can remember my first clear lesson in this fact.
Everyone at the McDonalds looked forward to high school football.
Every Friday the stadium next door would fill up and then empty into the store.
Business was great during those Fridays, and there were always more employees scheduled to keep up with demand. Everyone on the night shift felt this directly in their paychecks.
And those that were paying attention noticed that there were more people hired to keep up the other shifts during this season since the management did not want to pay overtime.
During one especially good season, the employment of the store nearly doubled and stayed that way for 9 months.

Of course, this is not actually a ‘boom’ as you are referring, it is simply a ball game and a fortuitous location for the store. But the principle is exactly the same…more customers with more money paying for more people to do more work.

I have witnessed this first hand.
I have also seen it put on the chalkboard in economics 101 and heard the same stories from the other people around me.

As said before, you keep crying ‘no’ but the evidence is against you at every turn.