Poll: Do You Support Extending Unemployment Beyond 99 Weeks?

[Barb]

Not really. Do employers hold jobs open thinking, "aha! A few more months on unemployment and they will be begging for jobs at pitiable wages"? No, I really don't think so.
Actually what happens is companies go out of business or massively scale down. If they start up or staff up in an expansion they will pay market wages. As they earn more money, they will need to pay out more money in wages to retain talented employees.
You would have to show that wages as a percentage of revenue are lower in the beginning of a recovery than at the height of the business cycle. I doubt you can. Actually I doubt you understand the point I'm making.

Cloward and Schorr tied cuts in social safety net funding to the intent of making it harder for working people to effectively bargain with capital. Cloward argued that social safety net programs such as welfare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance give the working poor and the currently unemployed a little control over what type of work, wage, and benefits they accept by allowing them to prolong their job search. Slashing funding for social safety net programs reduced the bargaining power of labor by reinstating the horrors of joblessness. Schorr concurred with that assessment, adding that government and corporations rely on competition for existing jobs to force wages down as well.

Schorr, Alvin L. Common Decency, 17-18
Ibid, 16-18. See also Cloward, Francis Fox Priven and Richard A. "Keeping Labor Lean and Hungry." 466.

Indeed. That is a very good point. Also, it seems to me that unemployed tent people are more of a detriment to society than people receiving an unemployment check so it makes more sense in my opinion that these people be subsized with strings attached of course for as long as possible. It should not, however, be a free ride.

Well, it is not a free ride. There are rules, and UI pays for spit when you consider the max one can collect. This recession rains on low paid and high paid labor. Poverty isn't just for the kitchen help anymore (and yes I can, I've been the kitchen help, so I'm family). Its taken professionals out of higher paid jobs and careers, and the financial commitments (kids college, mortgage, etc...) based on years of service at their chosen (trained and/or invested in education for) professions are shot to shit. UI is subsistence. Sadly, by and large, so are the available replacement jobs.

 

[txlonghorn]

Food for thought....

How many people currently receiving unemployment compensation that had to go out and pickup trash or cut grass at 10.00 per hour for 30 hours a week to be able to receive that unemployment check of 300.00 every week, would say forget that and find a job? 5%, 20%, 50% ........


.

Ummm...that wouldn't be unemployment....that would be working for 30 hours a week at 10 bucks an hour...to be paid 300 a week. Which as we all know would be employment.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Food for thought....

How many people currently receiving unemployment compensation that had to go out and pickup trash or cut grass at 10.00 per hour for 30 hours a week to be able to receive that unemployment check of 300.00 every week, would say forget that and find a job? 5%, 20%, 50% ........


.

Ummm...that wouldn't be unemployment....that would be working for 30 hours a week at 10 bucks an hour...to be paid 300 a week. Which as we all know would be employment.

There are so many things that need to be done in this country, instead of paying compensation to sit at home and eat bon bons, why not actually have someone do some kind of work for the compensation?

.

 

[hortysir]

Food for thought....

How many people currently receiving unemployment compensation that had to go out and pickup trash or cut grass at 10.00 per hour for 30 hours a week to be able to receive that unemployment check of 300.00 every week, would say forget that and find a job? 5%, 20%, 50% ........


.

I don't know what state you're in, Grem, but in FL $275/wk is the high end if you're downsized from making $30k+/yr.

 

[Barb]

Food for thought....

How many people currently receiving unemployment compensation that had to go out and pickup trash or cut grass at 10.00 per hour for 30 hours a week to be able to receive that unemployment check of 300.00 every week, would say forget that and find a job? 5%, 20%, 50% ........


.

Ummm...that wouldn't be unemployment....that would be working for 30 hours a week at 10 bucks an hour...to be paid 300 a week. Which as we all know would be employment.

There are so many things that need to be done in this country, instead of paying compensation to sit at home and eat bon bons, why not actually have someone do some kind of work for the compensation?

.

If someone was to "do some sort of work" for the "compensation," the comp should be a pay check for services rendered, not subsistence "benefits."

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Food for thought....

How many people currently receiving unemployment compensation that had to go out and pickup trash or cut grass at 10.00 per hour for 30 hours a week to be able to receive that unemployment check of 300.00 every week, would say forget that and find a job? 5%, 20%, 50% ........


.

I don't know what state you're in, Grem, but in FL $275/wk is the high end if you're downsized from making $30k+/yr.

Actually I have no clue to what they pay, it was just a for instance.

It is just the fact I have had people tell me they have passed up jobs that payed 50 to 100 dollars a week more than UC, because the were holding out for more money and they still had a year left of UC benefits.

.

 

[hortysir]

Food for thought....

How many people currently receiving unemployment compensation that had to go out and pickup trash or cut grass at 10.00 per hour for 30 hours a week to be able to receive that unemployment check of 300.00 every week, would say forget that and find a job? 5%, 20%, 50% ........


.

I don't know what state you're in, Grem, but in FL $275/wk is the high end if you're downsized from making $30k+/yr.

Actually I have no clue to what they pay, it was just a for instance.

It is just the fact I have had people tell me they have passed up jobs that payed 50 to 100 dollars a week more than UC, because the were holding out for more money and they still had a year left of UC benefits.

.

BTW, I better understood your point after reading your next post.
It'd be a great idea for recipients to help their respective county with maintenance, etc. given the budget problems local governments are going through.
{Or is that socialist thinking?}

To pass on a job in lieu of UEC is goofy, to say the least.
Most people, regardless of income level, income vs outflow is pretty tight (the more you make, the more you spend).
Bills still need paid....

 

[rikules]

It is everyone's right to have an above average income!

I would say

any country that has no problem allowing for the unemployment of a large percentage of the population

a % that could, with automation and computers and robotics, combined with a dwindling demand (due to unemployment?), grow even larger
and larger


in fact, what with ever greater development of and reliance upon automation, computers, robotics, a % that could, theoretically, reach....up into the 20's
30's
40's
60's
80's

and just allow those people to become jobless
homeless
hopeless

is NOT the greatest country in the world

and when one considers that we are STILL one of (if not THE) wealthiest nations in the world

and see that more and more of that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the population

while ever more Americans suffer in poverty
due to low paying jobs
or no jobs at all......

it becomes even more appalling....

let's face it

the future will be see ever more jobs disappearing due to automation, computers, robotics

more and more people unemployed

more and more people NOT ABLE to "invest" in the economy

causing even more unemployment

seems to me
that
in the so-called "greatest nation" in the world

vast unemployment
barely livable wages
suffering
poverty

would NOT be allowed....

 

[rikules]

It is everyone's right to have an above average income!

I would say

any country that has no problem allowing for the unemployment of a large percentage of the population

a % that could, with automation and computers and robotics, combined with a dwindling demand (due to unemployment?), grow even larger
and larger


in fact, what with ever greater development of and reliance upon automation, computers, robotics, a % that could, theoretically, reach....up into the 20's
30's
40's
60's
80's

and just allow those people to become jobless
homeless
hopeless

is NOT the greatest country in the world

and when one considers that we are STILL one of (if not THE) wealthiest nations in the world

and see that more and more of that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the population

while ever more Americans suffer in poverty
due to low paying jobs
or no jobs at all......

it becomes even more appalling....

let's face it

the future will be see ever more jobs disappearing due to automation, computers, robotics

more and more people unemployed

more and more people NOT ABLE to "invest" in the economy

causing even more unemployment

seems to me
that
in the so-called "greatest nation" in the world

vast unemployment
barely livable wages
suffering
poverty

would NOT be allowed....

however
I don't think I would indulge in "unemploment compensation"

I would take that SAME MONEY and use it as PAY for WORK

when you lose your job
you wouldn't go to "unemployment" for money to do nothing

you would go to "employment" for money to DO SOMETHING;

fix roads
fix parks
become border patrol agents to keep out those pesky illegal aliens


I imagine there are LOTS of things these people could do

 

[The Rabbi]

After a familys' gotten used to living on less than half of what they used to, chances are the breadwinner(s) will take a job in their former occupation at far less than what they had been making.

Sure employers have to pay into the system, but they make it back in spades later on with lower labor costs.

Not really. Do employers hold jobs open thinking, "aha! A few more months on unemployment and they will be begging for jobs at pitiable wages"? No, I really don't think so.
Actually what happens is companies go out of business or massively scale down. If they start up or staff up in an expansion they will pay market wages. As they earn more money, they will need to pay out more money in wages to retain talented employees.
You would have to show that wages as a percentage of revenue are lower in the beginning of a recovery than at the height of the business cycle. I doubt you can. Actually I doubt you understand the point I'm making.

Cloward and Schorr tied cuts in social safety net funding to the intent of making it harder for working people to effectively bargain with capital. Cloward argued that social safety net programs such as welfare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance give the working poor and the currently unemployed a little control over what type of work, wage, and benefits they accept by allowing them to prolong their job search. Slashing funding for social safety net programs reduced the bargaining power of labor by reinstating the horrors of joblessness. Schorr concurred with that assessment, adding that government and corporations rely on competition for existing jobs to force wages down as well.

Schorr, Alvin L. Common Decency, 17-18
Ibid, 16-18. See also Cloward, Francis Fox Priven and Richard A. "Keeping Labor Lean and Hungry." 466.

Indeed. That is no surprise. If you make it possible for people to stay on gov't assistance while they "hold out" for the job they want then they will stay on government assistance longer. The higher the rate of assistance, the longer they will stay on it. Imagine the unemployment rate if unemployment insurance paid $150k a year.
But the downside of keeping people on unemployment is the erosion in job skills. Technology changes. Process changes. The longer people are out of the workforce, the less employable they become.
So gov't assistance does nothing really to help people, in fact the opposite.

 

[Barb]

Not really. Do employers hold jobs open thinking, "aha! A few more months on unemployment and they will be begging for jobs at pitiable wages"? No, I really don't think so.
Actually what happens is companies go out of business or massively scale down. If they start up or staff up in an expansion they will pay market wages. As they earn more money, they will need to pay out more money in wages to retain talented employees.
You would have to show that wages as a percentage of revenue are lower in the beginning of a recovery than at the height of the business cycle. I doubt you can. Actually I doubt you understand the point I'm making.

Cloward and Schorr tied cuts in social safety net funding to the intent of making it harder for working people to effectively bargain with capital. Cloward argued that social safety net programs such as welfare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance give the working poor and the currently unemployed a little control over what type of work, wage, and benefits they accept by allowing them to prolong their job search. Slashing funding for social safety net programs reduced the bargaining power of labor by reinstating the horrors of joblessness. Schorr concurred with that assessment, adding that government and corporations rely on competition for existing jobs to force wages down as well.

Schorr, Alvin L. Common Decency, 17-18
Ibid, 16-18. See also Cloward, Francis Fox Priven and Richard A. "Keeping Labor Lean and Hungry." 466.

Indeed. That is no surprise. If you make it possible for people to stay on gov't assistance while they "hold out" for the job they want then they will stay on government assistance longer. The higher the rate of assistance, the longer they will stay on it. Imagine the unemployment rate if unemployment insurance paid $150k a year.
But the downside of keeping people on unemployment is the erosion in job skills. Technology changes. Process changes. The longer people are out of the workforce, the less employable they become.
So gov't assistance does nothing really to help people, in fact the opposite.

Jesus H Christ on a pop-sickle stick, but you do work overtime to miss the fucking point, don't you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cloward and Schorr tied cuts in social safety net funding to the intent of making it harder for working people to effectively bargain with capital. Cloward argued that social safety net programs such as welfare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance give the working poor and the currently unemployed a little control over what type of work, wage, and benefits they accept by allowing them to prolong their job search. Slashing funding for social safety net programs reduced the bargaining power of labor by reinstating the horrors of joblessness. Schorr concurred with that assessment, adding that government and corporations rely on competition for existing jobs to force wages down as well.

Schorr, Alvin L. Common Decency, 17-18
Ibid, 16-18. See also Cloward, Francis Fox Priven and Richard A. "Keeping Labor Lean and Hungry." 466.

Indeed. That is no surprise. If you make it possible for people to stay on gov't assistance while they "hold out" for the job they want then they will stay on government assistance longer. The higher the rate of assistance, the longer they will stay on it. Imagine the unemployment rate if unemployment insurance paid $150k a year.
But the downside of keeping people on unemployment is the erosion in job skills. Technology changes. Process changes. The longer people are out of the workforce, the less employable they become.
So gov't assistance does nothing really to help people, in fact the opposite.

Jesus H Christ on a pop-sickle stick, but you do work overtime to miss the fucking point, don't you.

What fucking point is that? That gov't assistance hurts those it is supposed to be helping? Because that is the real point, not that gov't is taking the side of the working man. That is populist bullshit a drunk 5 yr old could see through.

 

[Barb]

Indeed. That is no surprise. If you make it possible for people to stay on gov't assistance while they "hold out" for the job they want then they will stay on government assistance longer. The higher the rate of assistance, the longer they will stay on it. Imagine the unemployment rate if unemployment insurance paid $150k a year.
But the downside of keeping people on unemployment is the erosion in job skills. Technology changes. Process changes. The longer people are out of the workforce, the less employable they become.
So gov't assistance does nothing really to help people, in fact the opposite.

Jesus H Christ on a pop-sickle stick, but you do work overtime to miss the fucking point, don't you.

What fucking point is that? That gov't assistance hurts those it is supposed to be helping? Because that is the real point, not that gov't is taking the side of the working man. That is populist bullshit a drunk 5 yr old could see through.

The point was that YOU claimed that business does not use high unemployment to drive down wages.

 

[The Rabbi]

Jesus H Christ on a pop-sickle stick, but you do work overtime to miss the fucking point, don't you.

What fucking point is that? That gov't assistance hurts those it is supposed to be helping? Because that is the real point, not that gov't is taking the side of the working man. That is populist bullshit a drunk 5 yr old could see through.

The point was that YOU claimed that business does not use high unemployment to drive down wages.

And I still say that and your citation doesn't prove anything different.

 

[New Paradigm]

Unemployment insurance prolongs unemployment. This is proven.

So, the fact that there are 20% of the jobs necessary to employ those currently seeking work doesn't enter the equation?

 

[The Rabbi]

Unemployment insurance prolongs unemployment. This is proven.

So, the fact that there are 20% of the jobs necessary to employ those currently seeking work doesn't enter the equation?

No, not at all. If thsoe 20% were filled, there would be more opening up until eventually most people would find employment.
Liberals act like jobs are a scarce commodity that needs to be rationed. That is just plain wrong.