Unemployment benefits story (sympathy or sob)

I've been trying to say this for several posts now, but I haven't been able to write it without sounding like a snob. Thank you.

I'm getting $400/week on unemployment now. It's all well and good to feel proud and work for $7.25/hour. But that ain't going to pay all my bills. That extra $110 a week that I'm getting on unemployment as opposed to the minimum wage job is going to make sure my lights stay on and my home is semi-warm for this winter, not buying a large flatscreen TV.

It's all great and all to talk about intangibles such as pride and responsibility. Those intangibles don't put food on the table.

And as far as living off the government goes, as far as I'm concerned, it's pigs at the trough. You have billionaire sports team owners wanting multimillion dollar taxpayer funded stadiums in order for them to make money.

They use the argument that giving them money helps the economy. Well, giving me $400 a week so I can live while searching for work helps the economy too. That $400 goes towards food, gas for my car and other bills. And, as someone pointed out earlier, prevents me from stealing a loaf of bread to feed my family.

 

Baron, no disrespect towards you. I get it and I've been there.

But problem with this is that it makes people rely on their benefits. They make no progress and then when the benefits run out, they're really screwed.

The longer you've been out of work, the harder it is to get hired. It sucks, but employers look down on it.

So, now, after 99 weeks, if your benefits end, what are people going to do? This is why there's been such a push to extend benefits further and further.

If you take a low paying job, sure, it's going to suck.

When I did it, my expenses were higher than my income. I had a nice apartment based on my previous salary and a long commute.

But, if you're smart -- and surely, most of the people here are -- and you work hard, you'll be in a far better place after working for 99 weeks.

Your salary is bound to be higher or you'll have likely landed a better job.

Smart people are valuable to any good company. You'll spot a way to improve efficiencies. You'll find a way to save money. You'll see an opportunity to increase revenues.

And either your boss will recognize this, implement your ideas, and reward you, or you can take what you've learned to a competitor, or start your own business.

People spend money to go back to school. Taking a job -- even a low paying job -- can be a way to learn a lot. And it doesn't cost a thing -- in fact, they pay you.

 

This is insane, the majority of people don't reach the end of their unemployment. You'd be wasting 100's of millions of dollars.

If you can get a job in the same field at about what you are making on UI you should damn well take it. who knows where it might lead. taking the job does not stop you from looking for other work.

 

You're right, but there should be a way that could encourage work that would save money.

Maybe it's providing reduced benefits for people who take a job earning far less than their previous job.

Maybe it's some kind of bonus for taking a job.

Unfortunately, the current system all too often does serve as a disincentive to too many people.

Sure, you can't raise a family of four on unemployment, but not everyone is in that situation.

Lot's of people who live with their parents or their boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse don't need a job to support themselves and would prefer to receive UI than to work.

 

"I work at Subway for minimum wage, but now that I know how to make a sandwich I'm gonna open my own sandwich shop."

 

This is an unjoined debate. As I read through the posts, I think it's safe to say that no one on either side would disagree with the following:

a) For the vast majority of recipients of unemployment benefits, the benefits themselves simply keep the wheels greased until another job is found.

b) During especially challenging economic times, the proportion of well-intended people who exhaust these benefits without finding suitable work grows.

c) In ANY economic climate, there is a subset of the beneficiaries who simply ride the train with no intention of looking for work until absolutely forced to do so.

d) Extending the benefits for those characterized in "b" often is a wise course of action, even though it has the unfortunate side effect of rewarding those characterized in "c".

I must disagree with those who suggest that it would be better for a highly-skilled worker to take the minimum-/low-wage job rather than continue on unemployment. From a macro-economic perspective, one powerful selling point of unemployment is that it helps ensure that human capital -- valuable skills, knowledge and experience -- isn't misallocated because of short-term downturns in labor markets. That is, an economy is better off when the $50,000-a-year person ISN'T incentivized to take the first minimum-wage job that comes along.

 

You don't get it.

I've seen tons of people open restaurants & coffee shops without knowing enough about the business. Many of the will go with a franchise because they think they're partnering with folks that know how to do it.

What the learn is that they end up over paying for equipment and supplies. They eventually learn how to do it, but they've often run out of money by that point.

There's a lot more to owning/running a sandwich shop than making a sandwich.

You learn how to find, identify, train & manage employees.

You lear how to use specific software that helps you track your money, your vendors, your labor costs.

You get to know your vendors. You can learn who the best vendors are for meat, cheese, produce.

You learn where to buy your equipment -- refrigerators, ovens, bread slicers -- at the best possible costs.

You learn how the contracts with Coke and/or Pepsi work. Will they give you equipment if you go with their product.

You learn about how your company chooses their real estate and you can identify similar properties.

You learn how to properly price you product, how to increase sales with pairings -- add a cookie for 99 cents?

See, there's a lot that goes into it. And, if you're smart, you'll use all of this knowledge to your benefit.

 

This is a false argument too.

Saying that some people need to lower their expectations is not the same thing as saying that you should take a minimum wage job.

There are lots of jobs in between and people are turning them down too -- or not considering them.

When I took my low paying job, it wasn't minimum wage, but it was less than half -- closer to a third -- of what I had been accustomed to making.

 

Junkie, on a percentage basis, how many people do you think are on 99-week unemployment voluntarily? From your posts it sounds like you think this is the vast majority. I just don't see how someone who was making $80,000 is content to kick his feet up for $20,000 when he has a family to feed. And as has been previously noted, there are more people looking for jobs than there are jobs.

Also, I would love to see the numbers on how many of those 99-weekers are 45 years old or older, because in many sectors -- especially technology -- those people are considered simply unhireable. They and their benefits cost too much.

 

If you take away unemployment benefits because some people abuse the system, may I suggest that the government also take over all businesses where the CEOs are convicted of fraud or where there is a pattern of not following federal laws and guidelines?

That way we can really cut into this debt.

 

That's a good point. There has to be an adjustment when skills' value changes. When unemployment insurance forestalls that process, it can have negative consequences for the broad economy. Now, is that the main thing going on in this economy? I don't know, but I have my doubts. Is there some of that going on? Of course. I was mainly pointing to the extreme scenario that is being bandied about on this thread.

 

Cut it ALL off. Right now.