I have had a long and varied career, including times early on when I was unemployed but didn't qualify for UEC, times when I lost my job but couldn't get it because I was a student, and unfortunately times when I lost my job and had to collect unemployment for a few months at a time. There were also times when I was employed full-time, but didn't make as much money as some friends and relatives of mine who were unemployed and drawing Unemployment.
We are now engaged in a couple of very public, very vociferous debates about (a) raising the minimum wage, and (2) extending unemployment benefits beyond the statutory 26 weeks. As usual, Democrats are on the "wrong" side of both debates, but that's not the point I want to make.
The argument for continuing unemployment benefits cannot possibly be founded on the point that the long-term unemployed "need" the money. Hell, there are lots of people who need the money just as much, if not more, than the long-term unemployed. What about people who are just starting out and have never had a job? Even college grads. They get NOTHING, because they don't qualify for UEC. What about the poor elderly, poor kids, people who are at the bottom of the totem pole making minimum wage (or less, if they are eligible for tips). Why are the long-term unemployed more deserving of this "welfare" than these other folks.
And let's be clear, once your 26 weeks runs out, you are on welfare. Different name, but the same thing. Your insurance payout ends at 26 weeks; beyond that and it's just a free handout.
No, the "economic" argument for continuing UEC beyond 26 weeks is that "it's good for the economy," because people on long-term UEC SPEND THE MONEY immediately, thus priming he pump of the Economy. If you have a tax cut, on the other hand, the people saving the money (in government revenue terms, "getting" the money) might just put it into the bank or buy stocks with it, which doesn't generate squat, economically speaking.
But one should at least be willing to juxtapose long-term UEC with the minimum wage. To wit, the average beneficiary of long-term UEC is making $306 per week, while the average full-time Minimum Wage earner makes - I don't know - LESS THAN THAT!
Hmmmmm.
So how much sympathy do you think the F/T workers at your local Fast Food joint have when some politician says that it is "cruel and heartless" to cut off the long-term unemployed after ONLY 26 weeks?
Not much, I suspect. hell's fire, man, they are making more for sitting on their asses than Ernesto, "Ya Want Fries Wid Dat?" Gomez is making, working FULL TIME!
How's that "fairness" paradigm workin' for ya now? Fair to WHOM?
I wouldn't wish evil on anyone, but knowing human nature one cannot help but suspect that the search for new employment is significantly catalyzed when the UEC checks run out.
History proves it.
We are now engaged in a couple of very public, very vociferous debates about (a) raising the minimum wage, and (2) extending unemployment benefits beyond the statutory 26 weeks. As usual, Democrats are on the "wrong" side of both debates, but that's not the point I want to make.
The argument for continuing unemployment benefits cannot possibly be founded on the point that the long-term unemployed "need" the money. Hell, there are lots of people who need the money just as much, if not more, than the long-term unemployed. What about people who are just starting out and have never had a job? Even college grads. They get NOTHING, because they don't qualify for UEC. What about the poor elderly, poor kids, people who are at the bottom of the totem pole making minimum wage (or less, if they are eligible for tips). Why are the long-term unemployed more deserving of this "welfare" than these other folks.
And let's be clear, once your 26 weeks runs out, you are on welfare. Different name, but the same thing. Your insurance payout ends at 26 weeks; beyond that and it's just a free handout.
No, the "economic" argument for continuing UEC beyond 26 weeks is that "it's good for the economy," because people on long-term UEC SPEND THE MONEY immediately, thus priming he pump of the Economy. If you have a tax cut, on the other hand, the people saving the money (in government revenue terms, "getting" the money) might just put it into the bank or buy stocks with it, which doesn't generate squat, economically speaking.
But one should at least be willing to juxtapose long-term UEC with the minimum wage. To wit, the average beneficiary of long-term UEC is making $306 per week, while the average full-time Minimum Wage earner makes - I don't know - LESS THAN THAT!
Hmmmmm.
So how much sympathy do you think the F/T workers at your local Fast Food joint have when some politician says that it is "cruel and heartless" to cut off the long-term unemployed after ONLY 26 weeks?
Not much, I suspect. hell's fire, man, they are making more for sitting on their asses than Ernesto, "Ya Want Fries Wid Dat?" Gomez is making, working FULL TIME!
How's that "fairness" paradigm workin' for ya now? Fair to WHOM?
I wouldn't wish evil on anyone, but knowing human nature one cannot help but suspect that the search for new employment is significantly catalyzed when the UEC checks run out.
History proves it.
