Unemployment benefits story (sympathy or sob)

Point of Order, aren't you self employed?

How did you determine your hourly rate?

 

YF, I gotta hand it to you. You took a subject I neither knew anything about, nor cared about, and made me interested enough to read about it. I am always interested in people who have initiative and learning how they make their businesses work.

 

Thanks.

I fell into it. I was looking into opening a coffee or tea shop.

Not in a million years would it have ever occurred to me that you could make a living doing this, let alone that I would do it.

There are a million ways to make money.

 

The weekly column by Thomas Heath in the Post every Monday is my #1 must read of all articles in the paper. I'm always captivated by Washington area entrepreneurs. It's always compelling reading.

 

You know, the real secret to wealth is being an NFL or upper level college basketball referee. Ed Hightower is a high school principal and probably grosses $300k on basketball on top of that. For the record that figure is just a guess.

 

Many thanks for the tip. I will check it out Monday.

 

You know way too little.

 

If YF extorts customers, which is not my opinion, what does that say for the people who sell coffee and espresso?

 

Oh, where to begin?

How about this?: Baron Scicluna and LongtimeListener have owned this thread, YankeeFan notwithstanding.

Anyone who doesn't support the extension of unemployment benefits is someone who, more than likely, has never been among the really long-term unemployed.

There's no "theoretical" about it: The vast, vast majority of long-term unemployed people are not in that position because they choose to be. And if they are, that state of mind is unlikely to last once they've been "on vacation" for not too long.

With 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, the intention is not to give people that long to just find a job, any job. It's intended to give them that time to find a self-supporting job, or one of at least equal income to what they had before.

And, you know what? It might take that long -- or longer -- to do that. In fact, that is even unlikely to happen at all these days, when there are enough desperate people that employers can pay bottom dollar and still get hundreds of applicants for any one job, and when companies have cut back, and are getting used to it, and have learned to go without, and to go short-staffed, to the extent that we will be lucky if many jobs ever return, no matter what anybody does.

And, grants available for education? Well, they're mostly available to people who do not have four-year degrees, not to those who have them. I know that from experience, too.

Another thing to be realized: The vast majority of long-term unemployed people are not using all 30, or all 99, or all whatever of their weeks in a row, and literally taking two years off from work. Usually, there are short-term jobs, freelance jobs, seasonal jobs, part-time jobs, etc., or several of them, breaking up any periods of unemployment. So it is wrong to paint people who end up using up all of their benefits as necessarily nothing but lazy, no-good citizens.

"Little" jobs, stop-gap jobs, and such, like, oh, Subway, retail, etc. are, for the vast majority of the middle-aged formerly working adults who I suspect are making up the very large majority of the most-impacted long-term unemployed people, are just that, and only that. It has nothing to do with people thinking the work is beneath them. It has to do with the fact that these are not typically self-supporting jobs.

I know this from experience, as well, because I currently have one. Believe me, I am thrilled, truly thrilled, to have it. Heck, I even kind of like it, and am actually beginning to hope it lasts awhile and that I might, somehow, be able to live on it long-term.

But, the reality is that that is unlikely. I make $9 an hour in an expensive area of the country, and I can only "live" on this part-time job because I am living with other family members, and have been, for 18 months -- and because I have no medical insurance, no cell phone, no wireless card, and because I have a 10-year-old, paid-off car with a driver's side door that only opens from the outside and renters who have taken over handling the mortgage payments on the condo that I own, and that I used to live in before being forced out.

I could go and look/see how many cover letters I've written in the past couple years (because, yes, they're all stored in My Documents), but I won't because I, frankly, don't even want to know.

And, I can only wonder how long it will be before I can ever move back into my own home -- if I ever do, and assuming, of course, that I don't eventually lose it first.

This is not a sob story. Thanks to my family, I am OK, or, at least, I will be. What it is is a non-theoretical reality check and a reminder that, for the vast majority of long-term unemployed people, the story more closely mirrors mine than any forever-freeloading losers.

The question should not be whether unemployment benefits should or should not be extended.

The question is how to create jobs, and bring jobs back, in this country so that such long-term benefits are not needed by so many people.

 

" The vast, vast majority of long-term unemployed people are not in that position because they choose to be."

Agreed. The idea of lazy unemployed is a nice conservative bugaboo, but it's a side issue that doesn't really matter all that much.

"With 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, the intention is not to give people that long to just find a job, any job. It's intended to give them that time to find a self-supporting job, or one of at least equal income to what they had before."

That's a pipe dream. Many of them will never find jobs like they had before. The idea behind unemployment insurance is that if someone is going to have a short period before they find similar work, they don't have to do anything drastic that would cost a lot to reverse once they do find a job. It'd be inefficient to expect someone to sell their house and move into a small apartment if they are going to be able to afford the house again in a few months. If they are going to be out of work significantly longer, then they are no longer in the timeframe that unemployment was designed for, and there's no reason not to expect them to make those drastic changes to the lifestyle they are no longer earning.

If people need those checks to keep any kind of a roof over their head and food on the table, then what we need is a solid welfare system for those people. But unemployment shouldn't be doubling as welfare. It's an inefficient use of resources.

"It has to do with the fact that these are not typically self-supporting jobs."

They can be if they have to be. It involves a significant reduction in lifestyle, but it is doable without kids. If you have kids, then we're back into the situation where we need a solid welfare system to make up the difference. But unemployment, again, isn't and shouldn't be welfare.

"I make $9 an hour in an expensive area of the country, and I can only "live" on this part-time job because I am living with other family members, and have been, for 18 months -- and because I have no medical insurance, no cell phone, no wireless card, and because I have a 10-year-old, paid-off car with a driver's side door that only opens from the outside and renters who have taken over handling the mortgage payments on the condo that I own, and that I used to live in before being forced out."

Exactly. You faced a bad situation and were forced to make efficient choices about what you could and could not afford. You made those decisions and now you are living a sustainable lifestyle for what you are earning. That's a good thing.

"The question is how to create jobs, and bring jobs back, in this country so that such long-term benefits are not needed by so many people."

Entrepreneurship creates jobs, so we need to create an environment in which that is encouraged and rewarded.

Borrowing money from the Chinese to give to people, which is what extending unemployment benefits is, is not only not a way to create jobs in the long term, it's a way to stifle future job growth, as the interest and eventual repayment of that debt becomes a drag on the economy. It's a way of pretending that we can prevent things from sucking, when in reality we are only delaying the sucking and making it worse when it does get here. We did that for a couple of decades and it got us to where we are now. Doing it for another decade will make it even more disastrous.

 

Write, my sympathies to you. I know how it is, although I'm lucky enough that I have some resources that hasn't caused as drastic a lifestyle change as you. Good luck.

Rick, there already is a welfare system in place. And its demonized by the same millionaires that are whining that their taxes are too high (i.e., Newt Gingrich). The difference is, people on unemployment usually have to show that they are looking for work (depending on the state, mine does). People on welfare don't.

If anything, I'd argue that unemployment is better, because people still have to look for work.

 

Rick pretty much nailed it.

I don't disagree with WriteThinking as much as he probably thinks I do.

I've been there. I get it. In '89, before I landed my $13,500 per year job, I remember having to go to the bank teller to withdraw my final $6.00. I had too little money in my account to even use the ATM.

What I do disagree with -- like Rick -- is this:

I'm not advocating that people rush out the first week that their out of work and try to get on at Subway.

But, people also need to be realistic. You (and I mean the greater you, not "you" WriteThinking) need to look at your skills and what the demand for them is in the current economy.

Our world is changing quickly. Some jobs and skills are not as valued as they previously were, and it's unlikely that will turn around.

People need to either acquire new skills and/or change their expectations about what kind of work they are going to do.

That's why I support unemployment. When used well, it can bridge a gap while you do what you need to do to get steady work.

99 weeks is a lot of time to do that.

if someone wants to make the case that it should be 110 weeks, fine. Make that case. But, all I keep hearing is that they need to be "extended." I haven't heard anyone say for how long.

I don't think it can be unending. That won't be productive.

And, while I agree with WriteThinking that many people do get temporary or seasonal work. But, I'm not sure how many of the current 99ers are in that situation.

The evidence might be anecdotal, but everyone I've seen profiled has been facing long term unemployment, not intermittent employment.