Unemployment benefits fading away

[Vi-Jay 218]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Even though the nation's jobless rate is on the rise, millions of people could see their unemployment checks stop coming at the end of the year.

Nearly all Americans who find themselves out of work starting next month will likely receive only 26 weeks of state unemployment checks -- at most.

Why? Because the deadline to file for extended federal benefits expires at the end of the year.

"Most people who lose their jobs after July 1... won't be eligible for federal unemployment benefits," said George Wentworth, senior staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project.

And as Washington prepares to pull back, a growing number of states are cutting their share of benefits. South Carolina is poised to become the fourth state this year to reduce state benefits to 20 weeks, while Arkansas and Illinois have shorn one week off their unemployment insurance coverage.

Earlier this week, President Obama broached the idea of extending the federal safety net in detailing steps Congress has taken to help unemployed Americans and the overall economy. His comments came just a few days after the government reported surprisingly weak employment growth for May, when the jobless rate rose again to 9.1%.

"One of the things that I'm going to be interested in exploring with the members of both parties in Congress is how do we continue some of these policies to make sure that we get this recovery up and running in a robust way," Obama said Tuesday.

Source

______________________________________________________________

Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, "there's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession." (June 25, 2010)

Source

Some people will not take a job. Afterall, they are being paid by the gov to stay home.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[rika60607 215]

As long as those jobs are taken by someone, I do not see a problem

In the end, the ones who choose to work will have stronger resumes and better future.

Some people will not take a job. Afterall, they are being paid by the gov to stay home.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you lost a salaried job, it's quite a financial adjustment to then try and live off unemployment. Those who've been on unemployment for an extended period of time, aren't just holding out for the same line of work, but for a job that will at least replace their unemployment benefits. The bills don't simply go away with the loss of job.

[ScottThuy 140]

If you lost a salaried job, it's quite a financial adjustment to then try and live off unemployment. Those who've been on unemployment for an extended period of time, aren't just holding out for the same line of work, but for a job that will at least replace their unemployment benefits. The bills don't simply go away with the loss of job.

My Red Dog barber and I had a conversation about this weeks ago... it started with a comment about the 99ers... and what the 99 meant... his attitude was that he paid into the system and he deserved the benfit... no problem there, but there needs to be some realistic cap on the benefit.. a coworker of his said "at some point you stop holding out for the same job you had before to reopen and you take a lesser job for now to support your family McD's or whatever".... barbers response "Why should I have to change my standard of living? Just because I lost my job? McD's.. never, I am better than that" My interjection.." A Sean Connery film quote... "What are you prepared to do?" yeah.. what are you prepared to do to support your family? You do what you ethically have to do to survive... you are a self proclaimed republican and you would rather the government support you for an extended period than to change your standard of living to match your reduced income...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My Red Dog barber and I had a conversation about this weeks ago... it started with a comment about the 99ers... and what the 99 meant... his attitude was that he paid into the system and he deserved the benfit... no problem there, but there needs to be some realistic cap on the benefit.. a coworker of his said "at some point you stop holding out for the same job you had before to reopen and you take a lesser job for now to support your family McD's or whatever".... barbers response "Why should I have to change my standard of living? Just because I lost my job? McD's.. never, I am better than that" My interjection.." A Sean Connery film quote... "What are you prepared to do?" yeah.. what are you prepared to do to support your family? You do what you ethically have to do to survive... you are a self proclaimed republican and you would rather the government support you for an extended period than to change your standard of living to match your reduced income...

Yeah, I don't agree with your barber. I think UI should be a safety net for certain period of time, and the recipient should be well aware that in the event that they cannot find similar work as before, that they just may have to accept a much lower paying position. It sucks, but unfortunately I don't think the job market will be back to what it was for a long time and even then, the market itself has shifted, making some jobs less relevant.

[ScottThuy 140]

Yeah, I don't agree with your barber. I think UI should be a safety net for certain period of time, and the recipient should be well aware that in the event that they cannot find similar work as before, that they just may have to accept a much lower paying position. It sucks, but unfortunately I don't think the job market will be back to what it was for a long time and even then, the market itself has shifted, making some jobs less relevant.

They are tightening the enforcement of those collecting UI in Florida regarding the requirement to actively seek new employment... In FL they have increased the number of officers checking the job search document required of each UI beneficiary.... in other words.. they are not just saying go find a job.. they are making sure that the benficiary is actually looking for work as required by law.. They are checking the log and calling potential employers to verify the application. I remeber a time when I used to get resume's all of the time at a previous position... it was common for applicants to put desired salary as 100k for a job that pays 18k... no chance they would get a call back...

if one of the investigators calls the potential employer and the applicant is noted as having sabotaged the hiring then there should be some penalty...

[The Dude 206]

My Red Dog barber and I had a conversation about this weeks ago... it started with a comment about the 99ers... and what the 99 meant... his attitude was that he paid into the system and he deserved the benfit... no problem there, but there needs to be some realistic cap on the benefit.. a coworker of his said "at some point you stop holding out for the same job you had before to reopen and you take a lesser job for now to support your family McD's or whatever".... barbers response "Why should I have to change my standard of living? Just because I lost my job? McD's.. never, I am better than that" My interjection.." A Sean Connery film quote... "What are you prepared to do?" yeah.. what are you prepared to do to support your family? You do what you ethically have to do to survive... you are a self proclaimed republican and you would rather the government support you for an extended period than to change your standard of living to match your reduced income...

This is why the Canadian UI system is far superior to that in the U.S. In Canada, if you get a job that is below what you made before, you don't lose your benefits, they are reduced to supplement the difference between what you are currently making and what you made before.

[Zero Sum 305]

Yeah, I don't agree with your barber. I think UI should be a safety net for certain period of time, and the recipient should be well aware that in the event that they cannot find similar work as before, that they just may have to accept a much lower paying position. It sucks, but unfortunately I don't think the job market will be back to what it was for a long time and even then, the market itself has shifted, making some jobs less relevant.

Some kind of index correlating each worker's input into the UI system vs the output they get on UI... as is the current case more susceptible to funding levels- although the output should be standardized for everyone across the board receiving benefits. Real proof of job searching should be conditioned at a certain point (or throughout the entire period) in order to receive benefits (that could be tiered according to job search effort).

I am bothered by this logic that the money for jobs is not there while those supposed job creators are reaping (still) record profits and/or no loss of net income gain. Something is wrong and people don't want to acknowledge this.

This is why the Canadian UI system is far superior to that in the U.S. In Canada, if you get a job that is below what you made before, you don't lose your benefits, they are reduced to supplement the difference between what you are currently making and what you made before.

Imagine that.

[Vi-Jay 218]

I think UI should be a safety net for certain period of time, and the recipient should be well aware that in the event that they cannot find similar work as before, that they just may have to accept a much lower paying position.

You and I sorta kinda agree?

I need to rethink my core values.

Well, "they" won't accept a lower paying position if the gov extends the benefits.., again. Time to let the extended benefits expire so "they" have no choice. Sink or swim.

Hmmmm, Do you hmmmm, agree with that too?

[ScottThuy 140]

The sink or swim thing is when there needs to be a drastic adjustment in lifestyle... The catch is that this is when people make decisions on impulse, without regard to ethics or others, and violate crimes/ get arrested/ got to jail/ and cost us 40k per year to warhouse until the sentence is up...

hmmm which costs us more? they extended the benefits to keep people from doing stupid things... flawed logic IMO.. the govt is affraid to put people in a sink or swim scenario because they know how they will react..

[Vi-Jay 218]

The sink or swim thing is when there needs to be a drastic adjustment in lifestyle... The catch is that this is when people make decisions on impulse, without regard to ethics or others, and violate crimes/ get arrested/ got to jail/ and cost us 40k per year to warhouse until the sentence is up...

hmmm which costs us more? they extended the benefits to keep people from doing stupid things... flawed logic IMO.. the govt is affraid to put people in a sink or swim scenario because they know how they will react..

You think the gov is being held hostage by the unemployed?

[ScottThuy 140]

You think the gov is being held hostage by the unemployed?

Hostage? No... its more like extortion.. keep paying us or we will commit crimes...

[Vi-Jay 218]

Hostage? No... its more like extortion.. keep paying us or we will commit crimes...

OK.., Extortion.

You think the gov provided extended Fed UI benefits to prevent crime?

Edited June 9, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[ScottThuy 140]

OK.., Extortion.

You think the gov provided extended Fed UI benefits to prevent crime?

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Post removed at the OP's request