Extending Unemployment Benefits

antagon

The Man
Dec 6, 2009
3,572
295
48
Now that the issue of extending unemployment benefits is one which the Republicans have finally decided to definitively oppose, some of USMB's party-aligned pundits have solidly followed suit with criticism of the policy. I have always thought that this is the single most effective method of stimulus which we have employed in a recovery characterized by job losses and deflation. Am I missing something?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Jos
Hey, pal,

HOW THE FUCK is PAYING folks to NOT WORK

an effective stimulus?!?

You know what an Effective Stimulus is?

You don't have money for FOOD, so you WORK ~ at WHATEVER job is offered.
 
Last edited:
The most recent extension will keep benefits going until November 27. And then what? Another extension? Are they going to continue with the extensions indefinitely? Yes, there will still be folks who have been out of work for over a year. And? Where does it end? At what point is enough, enough?

2010-07-21-13-33-31-1.png
 
Hey, pal,

HOW THE FUCK is PAYING folks to NOT WORK

an effective stimulus?!?

You know what an Effective Stimulus is?

You don't have money for FOOD, so you WORK ~ at WHATEVER job is offered.

this is a simple answer to understand, even for someone as obnoxious as yourself:

rather than doling money out to hardly any other source, replacing gaps in earnings caused by unemployment will buoy demand that would otherwise vanish.

despite what you've implied, there isn't a surplus of jobs with few people making themselves available to work them. instead, there is a surplus of people available and seeking employment and a dramatic shortage of jobs. up until quite recently the job market was still aggressively shrinking, rather than the expansion which would result in hiring more workers.

the issue is that if folks who cant pay rent due to unemployment don't pay rent or buy the basics at the grocery like they used to, the economy will continue to slide and the grocery and might lay more people off. the housing market, perhaps the hardest hit in the recession, will have more forces dragging homes into default and spreading this defacto lack of demand deeper into the home finance and construction industry by way of deflation.

are you still ignorant?
 
Last edited:
Several teachers in my district were laid off due to budget cuts. They are getting almost $600 a week. Many of them would like to start substitute teaching in the fall because they love teaching and could possibly get a foot in the door in other districts. But once they do that, they will have to forfeit their unemployment and if the subbing jobs dry up they are shit out of luck.

This is the lunacy of paying people NOT to work. I wouldn't even know how to advise them.
 
Several teachers in my district were laid off due to budget cuts. They are getting almost $600 a week. Many of them would like to start substitute teaching in the fall because they love teaching and could possibly get a foot in the door in other districts. But once they do that, they will have to forfeit their unemployment and if the subbing jobs dry up they are shit out of luck.

This is the lunacy of paying people NOT to work. I wouldn't even know how to advise them.
i dont know too much about unemployment, however, it is my understanding that if they begin to teach as substitutes and work dries up that they could get another job or claim unemployment insurance.

i dont think your buddies face any real conundrum. if they're too dense to understand that $600/week from a temporary benefit is not something they can rely on, i don't think they should be teaching anyone anyhow.

i think there is more lunacy in letting the economic downturn and the public and private sector budget cuts that go with it toss a sizable portion of the population on the street and out of range of employment and the economy altogether.
 
Hey, pal,

HOW THE FUCK is PAYING folks to NOT WORK

an effective stimulus?!?

You know what an Effective Stimulus is?

You don't have money for FOOD, so you WORK ~ at WHATEVER job is offered.

this is a simple answer to understand, even for someone as obnoxious as yourself:

rather than doling money out to hardly any other source, replacing gaps in earnings caused by unemployment will buoy demand that would otherwise vanish.

despite what you've implied, there isn't a surplus of jobs with few people making themselves available to work them. instead, there is a surplus of people available and seeking employment and a dramatic shortage of jobs. up until quite recently the job market was still aggressively shrinking, rather than the expansion which would result in hiring more workers.

the issue is that if folks who cant pay rent due to unemployment don't pay rent or buy the basics at the grocery like they used to, the economy will continue to slide and the grocery and might lay more people off. the housing market, perhaps the hardest hit in the recession, will have more forces dragging homes into default and spreading this defacto lack of demand deeper into the home finance and construction industry by way of deflation.

are you still ignorant?

There are other entitlement progrmas that are out there to ensure the demand for the essentials suchas groceries does not dry up...such as foodsatmps.
Those that receive unemployment benefits do not add to the "demand" for goods and services. They do not spend money on extras that are not covered by other programs...so increwasing unemployment benefits does nothing for the economy.

To the contrary, it does two things to the job market.

First, it increases the burden on the two last employers of record. Many are not aware of this as the media refuses to explain it, but the last two employers of record pay a generous amount into each unemployment check an individual receives. Originally, employers forecasted the unemployment burden for each employee laid off as a 6 month burden. Now that the empoloyers are seeing these extensions, they do not know how or what to forecast for next year; and are unable to determine next years operating costs...so they are unable to expand and hire.

Secondly, it prevents people from taking jobs at a lower salary. Here in NY, unemployment is maxed out at $405 a week....anyone who was making 30K or more, gets $405 a week....so someone making 30K will turn dowwn a 20K job as they get more with unemployment....and as a result, I see many "help wanted" signs in stores but few takers....afterall, why work for 10 an hour when you can get $405 doing nothing...and make cash working for your brother in law putting up sheetrock?

You need to open your mind to see the issue, I agree....but it is not rhetoric...it is human nature to do what is most cost effective for your wallet...and it is foolish to rely on the people in general to "do the right thing".....especially when those people know there are plenty that are gaming the system.
 
Now that the issue of extending unemployment benefits is one which the Republicans have finally decided to definitively oppose, some of USMB's party-aligned pundits have solidly followed suit with criticism of the policy. I have always thought that this is the single most effective method of stimulus which we have employed in a recovery characterized by job losses and deflation. Am I missing something?

Yes, yes you are Nancy. $300 unemployment checks don't stimulate the economy.
 
Republicans wanted to use the unused portion of the stimulus money. I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately that pork has already been promised to their Democratic supporters.
 
Hey, pal,

HOW THE FUCK is PAYING folks to NOT WORK

an effective stimulus?!?

You know what an Effective Stimulus is?

You don't have money for FOOD, so you WORK ~ at WHATEVER job is offered.

this is a simple answer to understand, even for someone as obnoxious as yourself:

rather than doling money out to hardly any other source, replacing gaps in earnings caused by unemployment will buoy demand that would otherwise vanish.

despite what you've implied, there isn't a surplus of jobs with few people making themselves available to work them. instead, there is a surplus of people available and seeking employment and a dramatic shortage of jobs. up until quite recently the job market was still aggressively shrinking, rather than the expansion which would result in hiring more workers.

the issue is that if folks who cant pay rent due to unemployment don't pay rent or buy the basics at the grocery like they used to, the economy will continue to slide and the grocery and might lay more people off. the housing market, perhaps the hardest hit in the recession, will have more forces dragging homes into default and spreading this defacto lack of demand deeper into the home finance and construction industry by way of deflation.

are you still ignorant?

You're an asshat.

Unemployment "wages" go for survival:

Food;

Rent or Mortgage;

Utility bills.

It puts NOTHING in anyone's hands.

It fucking pays bills.

Sort of like WORKING...
 
Several teachers in my district were laid off due to budget cuts. They are getting almost $600 a week. Many of them would like to start substitute teaching in the fall because they love teaching and could possibly get a foot in the door in other districts. But once they do that, they will have to forfeit their unemployment and if the subbing jobs dry up they are shit out of luck.

This is the lunacy of paying people NOT to work. I wouldn't even know how to advise them.
i dont know too much about unemployment, however, it is my understanding that if they begin to teach as substitutes and work dries up that they could get another job or claim unemployment insurance.

i dont think your buddies face any real conundrum. if they're too dense to understand that $600/week from a temporary benefit is not something they can rely on, i don't think they should be teaching anyone anyhow.

i think there is more lunacy in letting the economic downturn and the public and private sector budget cuts that go with it toss a sizable portion of the population on the street and out of range of employment and the economy altogether.

Making $350 a week to work or $600 not too? Yes, it's a conundrum.

Of course unemployed teachers can TRY to get another job, but substitute teachers may not collect UI in NJ. I believe CA is the only one.
 
Several teachers in my district were laid off due to budget cuts. They are getting almost $600 a week. Many of them would like to start substitute teaching in the fall because they love teaching and could possibly get a foot in the door in other districts. But once they do that, they will have to forfeit their unemployment and if the subbing jobs dry up they are shit out of luck.

This is the lunacy of paying people NOT to work. I wouldn't even know how to advise them.
i dont know too much about unemployment, however, it is my understanding that if they begin to teach as substitutes and work dries up that they could get another job or claim unemployment insurance.

i dont think your buddies face any real conundrum. if they're too dense to understand that $600/week from a temporary benefit is not something they can rely on, i don't think they should be teaching anyone anyhow.

i think there is more lunacy in letting the economic downturn and the public and private sector budget cuts that go with it toss a sizable portion of the population on the street and out of range of employment and the economy altogether.

Making $350 a week to work or $600 not too? Yes, it's a conundrum.

Of course unemployed teachers can TRY to get another job, but substitute teachers may not collect UI in NJ. I believe CA is the only one.

Actually, in most, if not all states, it is based on how many hours you work.
I believe here in NY, if you work part time 30 hours or more, you get nothing. If you work 29 hours or less, you get 405 less how much you made for the time you work.

Of course, if you work 30 hours or more, you do not get a check that week, but your ending UI benefit week is extended one more week down the road.
 
Chanel,

I am presuming you do not understand unemployment compensation because you have never had to collect it, (good for you!).

IF one on unemployment takes a part time job, unemployment still pays them, up to 25% more than the initial unemplyment amount.

So if these teachers, take a temp job as substitute teachers, and works two days a week, as example, and get paid $300 for the 2 days work, then Unemployment will give them a check for the difference between $750, ($600 payment for not working, times 25% more-is the $750) and $300, which is $450 dollars.

There is an incentive for those unemployed, to take what part time employment that they can....so tell your teacher friends that are unemployed to TAKE what temp jobs they can get, so to put a 'foot in the door'.

care
 
Thank you care. I've spoken to a couple and the union must be giving them misinformation. And of course the Unemployment office isn't so hot at answering questions either.

One teacher was told if he is rehired, he will have to pay the summer UI back. That didn't make sense to me either.
 
Last edited:
Chanel,

I am presuming you do not understand unemployment compensation because you have never had to collect it, (good for you!).

IF one on unemployment takes a part time job, unemployment still pays them, up to 25% more than the initial unemplyment amount.

So if these teachers, take a temp job as substitute teachers, and works two days a week, as example, and get paid $300 for the 2 days work, then Unemployment will give them a check for the difference between $750, ($600 payment for not working, times 25% more-is the $750) and $300, which is $450 dollars.

There is an incentive for those unemployed, to take what part time employment that they can....so tell your teacher friends that are unemployed to TAKE what temp jobs they can get, so to put a 'foot in the door'.

care

Here in NY it is not nearly as generous.

Many lose out if they work 30 hours or more in any given week....so there is incentive to NOT take that part time job working at the local retail store for 10 an hour...as you would only get 300 and you can not submit a claim...

Furthermore, here in NY, UI is maxed out at 405 a week.....and that is what you get whether your income was 30K or 300K.

Again, that is how I understand it as an employer and aslo as the husband to a wife that was laid off.....she ended up getting a new position at 40% of her original salary within 4 weeks and only ended up getting one week of UI....still waiting to hear why.....We know in NY you dont get anything for your first week....but not sure why she was denied 2 out of the 3 other weeks.

over 2 months later and they still have not responded to us with an answer.

Anyway, that is how I understand the system hgere in NY....but I may be wrong.
 
Thank you care. I've spoken to a couple and the union must be giving them misinformation. And of course the Unemployment office isn't so hot at answering questions either.

One teacher was told if he is rehired, he will have to pay the summer UI back. That didn't make sense to me either.

The only time you have to pay it back is if you worked during a week you received.
 
Now that the issue of extending unemployment benefits is one which the Republicans have finally decided to definitively oppose, some of USMB's party-aligned pundits have solidly followed suit with criticism of the policy. I have always thought that this is the single most effective method of stimulus which we have employed in a recovery characterized by job losses and deflation. Am I missing something?

The Republicans do not oppose extending unemployment benefits they oppose adding to the deficit to acheive it, they want it paid for as it has been in the past. Get your facts right dumbass.

Congress has extended unemployment benefits five times since the beginning of 2008, including under President Bush. During past recessions—2003, 1992, 1983—Congress extended benefits, albeit not nearly as long as the new 99-week cap. The difference this time, Republicans say, is that the extension isn't paid for. (In reality, it's a mixed bag: Some past extensions have been paid for; some haven't.) "I don't know anybody who's not in favor of extending unemployment," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday. He just wants it to be paid for—for example, by dipping into unspent stimulus funds. Democrats point out, however, that Republicans have not applied this pay-as-you-go standard to their own policies, particularly the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which added to the debt by a lot more than $34 billion.* Some Republicans also argue that extending unemployment benefits will make people less likely to look for jobs. But when there are five job seekers for every available job, that's a hard argument to support.

By opposing an extension of unemployment benefits, Republicans jockey to re-establish themselves as the party of fiscal sanity. - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine
 
Hey, pal,

HOW THE FUCK is PAYING folks to NOT WORK

an effective stimulus?!?

You know what an Effective Stimulus is?

You don't have money for FOOD, so you WORK ~ at WHATEVER job is offered.

this is a simple answer to understand, even for someone as obnoxious as yourself:

rather than doling money out to hardly any other source, replacing gaps in earnings caused by unemployment will buoy demand that would otherwise vanish.

despite what you've implied, there isn't a surplus of jobs with few people making themselves available to work them. instead, there is a surplus of people available and seeking employment and a dramatic shortage of jobs. up until quite recently the job market was still aggressively shrinking, rather than the expansion which would result in hiring more workers.

the issue is that if folks who cant pay rent due to unemployment don't pay rent or buy the basics at the grocery like they used to, the economy will continue to slide and the grocery and might lay more people off. the housing market, perhaps the hardest hit in the recession, will have more forces dragging homes into default and spreading this defacto lack of demand deeper into the home finance and construction industry by way of deflation.

are you still ignorant?

Yet another ignoramus who thinks "putting money in the hands of consumers" is what stimulates the ecomomy.
If that were so, we ought to fire everyone in America and put them on unemployment and watch the economy grow.
Unemployment idles productive resources (people), making them not only unproductive but increasingly so. As people do not work, their job skills deteriorate and they lose out on advances in knowledge.
Further, those benefits have to be paid for somehow. If the money is borrowed from the Chinese, then it leaves less of it to be borrowed for actual productive uses. Currently the bad policy of zero interest rates has been a boon only to banks and the government: Banks because they can borrow at zero and re-lend to the gov't at 2% risk free, and gov't because they can borrow money for ultra low rates to spend on social programs that get politiicans elected. It is a bad bargain for everyone else.

Eliminate unemployment after 6 months. If you can't find a job within that time you aren't trying. I know of people here unemployed from construction for 2 years who work side jobs under the table when they aren't drinking their unemployment checks.
 
Several teachers in my district were laid off due to budget cuts. They are getting almost $600 a week. Many of them would like to start substitute teaching in the fall because they love teaching and could possibly get a foot in the door in other districts. But once they do that, they will have to forfeit their unemployment and if the subbing jobs dry up they are shit out of luck.

This is the lunacy of paying people NOT to work. I wouldn't even know how to advise them.
NJ allows you to work while collecting UI, in fact, they encourage it.

If you work, NJ allows you to make 20% over your UI. Using your example, the first $120 earned is kept by the teacher and then each dollar earned over the $120 is subtracted from the 600, so working allows them to make up to $720. Working while collecting extends the time you can collect because you can collect until your $ benefit runs out so if after 26 weeks you still have a balance left due to working you can still collect until your benefit balance is zero $.

You should advise your teacher friends to substitute teach.
 
Chanel,

I am presuming you do not understand unemployment compensation because you have never had to collect it, (good for you!).

IF one on unemployment takes a part time job, unemployment still pays them, up to 25% more than the initial unemplyment amount.

So if these teachers, take a temp job as substitute teachers, and works two days a week, as example, and get paid $300 for the 2 days work, then Unemployment will give them a check for the difference between $750, ($600 payment for not working, times 25% more-is the $750) and $300, which is $450 dollars.

There is an incentive for those unemployed, to take what part time employment that they can....so tell your teacher friends that are unemployed to TAKE what temp jobs they can get, so to put a 'foot in the door'.

care

Here in NY it is not nearly as generous.

Many lose out if they work 30 hours or more in any given week....so there is incentive to NOT take that part time job working at the local retail store for 10 an hour...as you would only get 300 and you can not submit a claim...

Furthermore, here in NY, UI is maxed out at 405 a week.....and that is what you get whether your income was 30K or 300K.

Again, that is how I understand it as an employer and aslo as the husband to a wife that was laid off.....she ended up getting a new position at 40% of her original salary within 4 weeks and only ended up getting one week of UI....still waiting to hear why.....We know in NY you dont get anything for your first week....but not sure why she was denied 2 out of the 3 other weeks.

over 2 months later and they still have not responded to us with an answer.

Anyway, that is how I understand the system hgere in NY....but I may be wrong.

in the 25 years that i did work, i collected unemployment when i was 18, in new jersey, and from my last job, in massachusetts....in both states, this is how it worked...I am not certain if all states are the same, as you point out, each state controls how much the maximum unemployment compensation amount is paid, based on what they require employers to pay for their UC insurance. In massachusetts when i collected maximum unemployment, it was less than a third of what i was making at the time in salary...which was very difficult to survive on, until we took drastic measures in changing our lives....learning to live on less by cutting out the luxuries (we thought at one time...were necessities), was an exercise that truly humbled us and woke us up to how much we really wasted when we were ''in the money''.

Check your wife's Unemployment papers that she was issued when your state first approved her unemployment...in there, you will find how much she qualified for full compensation if not working, and ALSO the maximum amount she could be paid if working part time....(less than 30 hours a week).

Also, these initial papers should explain your state's rules in your wife's circumstance, and whether she was eligible for more weeks of UC than what they paid her....

care
 

Forum List

Back
Top