Unemployment benefits story (sympathy or sob)

[Stitch]

I listened to this story on NPR and wondered how the woman getting extended benefits could keep doing so when she had no intention of looking for work – she was attending school. BTW, there is a mention of the woman and her husband having a 26-year-old son. The kid is either a deadbeat or disabled, but I'm guessing deadbeat since no mention is made of the parents needing to care for him.

http://www.nhpr.org/bad-timing-unemployment-story

 

[Point of Order]

My uncle was laid off as a night time security guard a long time ago (at least a year and a half). I asked him last Christmas if he was working. He said, "No." I asked him if he was looking for a job. He said, "No." He was just living off the unemployment. He has been looking for work more recently but at his age, education level, physical unfitness and lack of any special skills, I don't know what kind of work he will be able to find. His unemployment runs out this week and he has no idea how he is going to be able to stay in his trailer. I'm not overly sympathetic to his situation, but his unemployment was purely subsistence living. It has kept him from moving in with my parents or grandparents. So, if it's between extending unemployment to avoid the fate of being homeless and making sure rich people get all of their tax cuts extended rather than just some, then I'm for the unemployment.

 

[RickStain]

I don't like when unemployment is used as a proxy for welfare. If people need government assistance to live a basically acceptable lifestyle, then by all means give it to them.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Speaking as someone who was unemployed, except for freelance, for a very long time (more than a year), unemployment benefits were an essential part of my then-dire financial situation. So I support them. It would be better if the government could somehow find work for unemployed persons at least temporarily, as it would mean some production was being added to the economy, but apparently that's socialism.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

There are two very different sides to this.

On one side is the person who spends every day unemployed doing everything they can to find a job and can't find one.

On the other side are the people who are living off unemployment, who are not looking for work.

I don't have an answer to this one.

 

[Pancamo]

How much does unemployment pay? Can someone pay a mortgage and a car payment?

 

[Ace]

There are two very different sides to this.

On one side is the person who spends every day unemployed doing everything they can to find a job and can't find one.

On the other side are the people who are living off unemployment, who are not looking for work.

I don't have an answer to this one.

One problem with the system, though, is it discourages you to find something to bolster your unemployment. If you are getting about $400 a week in benefits, you might be able to find a full-time job paying $10 an hour, which would pay $400 a week.

But if you take it, you don't get any unemployment benefits. You work 40 hours a week to take home what you'd get by doing nothing.

I'd rather see a system where you have the incentive to get back in the work force in some capacity without being penalized for it.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

How much does unemployment pay? Can someone pay a mortgage and a car payment?

It can really vary. In certain parts of the country it can be as much as $600 a week. In other places, it's half that.

 

[RickStain]

How much does unemployment pay? Can someone pay a mortgage and a car payment?

How much they get is partially determined by how much they made. And whether that pays for their mortgage and car payment depends on their mortgage and their car payment.

There's a couple different issues at stake. One is that this country is still rich enough that nobody should be worrying about whether they are going to get kicked out of their trailer. Another is that this country is in bad enough financial straits that it can't afford to bankroll people forever beyond that basic standard of living.

Many of them will never be able to find jobs that let them maintain the lifestyle they are used to, and the permanent unemployment they are pushing for is just letting them delay the inevitable.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

There are two very different sides to this.

On one side is the person who spends every day unemployed doing everything they can to find a job and can't find one.

On the other side are the people who are living off unemployment, who are not looking for work.

I don't have an answer to this one.

One problem with the system, though, is it discourages you to find something to bolster your unemployment. If you are getting about $400 a week in benefits, you might be able to find a full-time job paying $10 an hour, which would pay $400 a week.

But if you take it, you don't get any unemployment benefits. You work 40 hours a week to take home what you'd get by doing nothing.

I'd rather see a system where you have the incentive to get back in the work force in some capacity without being penalized for it.

Exactly. When I was in between jobs and freelancing. I would make $250 freelancing and then would be docked $220 or so by unemployment. I was actually told by the unemployment office that I would be better off not working on the side.

 

[LongTimeListener]

A person who can deny unemployment benefits while advocating the extension of the plus-$250,000 tax cuts is a sight to behold indeed. I suppose I'll never quite get used to seeing someone take so much glee in the suffering of others.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

There are two very different sides to this.

On one side is the person who spends every day unemployed doing everything they can to find a job and can't find one.

On the other side are the people who are living off unemployment, who are not looking for work.

I don't have an answer to this one.

Doesn't unemployment only last so long - like six months?

 

[RickStain]

A person who can deny unemployment benefits while advocating the extension of the plus-$250,000 tax cuts is a sight to behold indeed. I suppose I'll never quite get used to seeing someone take so much glee in the suffering of others.

Count me as a liberal recently converted into a deficit hawk. We can't afford indefinite unemployment benefits *or* tax cuts at the moment.

There are two very different sides to this.

On one side is the person who spends every day unemployed doing everything they can to find a job and can't find one.

On the other side are the people who are living off unemployment, who are not looking for work.

I don't have an answer to this one.

Doesn't unemployment only last so long - like six months?

We're up to 99 weeks in some parts of the country, and there's a big fight looming over whether that should be extended. The people whose 99 weeks are about up are trying to start a grassroots movement.

 

[LongTimeListener]

A person who can deny unemployment benefits while advocating the extension of the plus-$250,000 tax cuts is a sight to behold indeed. I suppose I'll never quite get used to seeing someone take so much glee in the suffering of others.

Count me as a liberal recently converted into a deficit hawk. We can't afford indefinite unemployment benefits *or* tax cuts at the moment.

I agree with you on that. Just pointing out the logical inconsistency of Congress acting as Robin Hood in reverse, cutting off the most desperate to feed the wealthy.

 

[cjericho]

A person who can deny unemployment benefits while advocating the extension of the plus-$250,000 tax cuts is a sight to behold indeed. I suppose I'll never quite get used to seeing someone take so much glee in the suffering of others.

so if the taxes were raised on those who got the $250,000 cut (nobody i know) then the unemployment could be cut or would it get extended more?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

It's really screwed up. If you went on it at a certain time, you might be eligible for 99 weeks. If you went on it at a different time, it might be significantly less than that.

 

[LongTimeListener]

A person who can deny unemployment benefits while advocating the extension of the plus-$250,000 tax cuts is a sight to behold indeed. I suppose I'll never quite get used to seeing someone take so much glee in the suffering of others.

so if the taxes were raised on those who got the $250,000 cut (nobody i know) then the unemployment could be cut or would it get extended more?

Whatever happens on either score, the tradeoff is adding to the deficit. If the prevailing mood is "let's get the deficit under control," I can buy that. As of now, however, the party in power seems hellbent on adding to the deficit by giving a few thousand extra dollars to the people who need it the least.

 

[cjericho]

A person who can deny unemployment benefits while advocating the extension of the plus-$250,000 tax cuts is a sight to behold indeed. I suppose I'll never quite get used to seeing someone take so much glee in the suffering of others.

Count me as a liberal recently converted into a deficit hawk. We can't afford indefinite unemployment benefits *or* tax cuts at the moment.

I agree with you on that. Just pointing out the logical inconsistency of Congress acting as Robin Hood in reverse, cutting off the most desperate to feed the wealthy.

one problem with your Robin Hood in reverse theory is that there is a huge disparity among the so-called "rich." someone as head of household in the $190,201 - $372,950 range pays 33%. some people will scream and deny it but in some parts of the country $190k for a family of 4 is not rich. in some parts of the country it is mega-rich.

 

[LongTimeListener]

A person who can deny unemployment benefits while advocating the extension of the plus-$250,000 tax cuts is a sight to behold indeed. I suppose I'll never quite get used to seeing someone take so much glee in the suffering of others.

Count me as a liberal recently converted into a deficit hawk. We can't afford indefinite unemployment benefits *or* tax cuts at the moment.

I agree with you on that. Just pointing out the logical inconsistency of Congress acting as Robin Hood in reverse, cutting off the most desperate to feed the wealthy.

one problem with your Robin Hood in reverse theory is that there is a huge disparity among the so-called "rich." someone as head of household in the $190,201 - $372,950 range pays 33%. some people will scream and deny it but in some parts of the country $190k for a family of 4 is not rich. in some parts of the country it is mega-rich.

There is no scenario anywhere in this country whereby $190,000 is not enough to live on. It may not be rich. But anyone who cannot make it on that amount should draw zero sympathy.

And anyway I don't know if that $190K range is a neat Fox News talking point to skew the stats in favor of their argument, but we are talking about $250K as the cutoff point. In which case my previous statement goes triple.

 

[cjericho]

A person who can deny unemployment benefits while advocating the extension of the plus-$250,000 tax cuts is a sight to behold indeed. I suppose I'll never quite get used to seeing someone take so much glee in the suffering of others.

so if the taxes were raised on those who got the $250,000 cut (nobody i know) then the unemployment could be cut or would it get extended more?

Whatever happens on either score, the tradeoff is adding to the deficit. If the prevailing mood is "let's get the deficit under control," I can buy that. As of now, however, the party in power seems hellbent on adding to the deficit by giving a few thousand extra dollars to the people who need it the least.

well the rich don't have to take the few thousand extra dollars from the party in power. maybe some of these guys will pay some people's unemployment or hire some people.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1110/Buffett_Rich_dont_sacrifice.html