The presumption behind #2 is The presumption behind #2 is that there are jobs with less pay for everyone who wants to work. It is false.
jimmyle
July 2, 2010 @
10:15 PM
Theoretically after resisting Theoretically after resisting wage cut, a long recession will make workers accept lower pay or pay freezes and the economy goes back to full employment. It might take a few years.
Eugene
July 2, 2010 @
10:23 PM
We’re in a situation with We’re in a situation with insufficient consumer demand. There’s simply no work available for most of the people who are currently unemployed, not for “just pay”, not for “less pay”. Short of lowering the minimum wage, there’s not much you can do to get them back to work. (And lowering the minimum wage is a can of worms of its own.)
Keep in mind that a lot of the unemployed people are unskilled workers, with only a high school education or less. They weren’t making that much to begin with. The average unemployment benefit, which is set as a percentage of pre-unemployment income, is typically less than what the recipient would make working full-time on a minimum wage.
EconProf
July 3, 2010 @
6:54 AM
Economists are nearly Economists are nearly unanimous in agreeing that unemployment benefits increase unemployment in normal times. They make the job-seeker less willing to lower their asking price, move to a lower unemployment rate area, or change occupations. Studies show that when one’s unemployment benefits run out, these adjustments are made.
Of course, these are not normal times, and I suspect that most of the unemployed adjusted their goals long ago. But in most of our history, it can be quite rational to collect benefits while holding out for the ideal job. Keep in mind that there is usually another paycheck or two coming into the household. Also, not working saves money in countless ways: commuting, lunches, wardrobe, doing household fixup projects and making home-cooked meals in place of family trips to restaurants, etc. For some families the unemployed person can replace the lawn guy, day-care expenses, car washing & repair, etc.
Add to this that unemployment benefits for most are untaxable and that the family will now fall into a lower tax bracket–another benefit if one has a working spouse. Some unemployed also supplement family income in the underground economy, especially construction workers.
Of course all this mostly describes middle-income families in normal times when getting their next job is expected to be imminent. Single people, older workers, and poorer workers see things differently. And today’s environment has changed attitudes and expectations, so the old studies may not be as applicable.
But no less an economist than Larry Summers, President Obama’s guy, agreed with all of the above in his own research several years ago. Now, of course, he must sing a different tune.
Vod-Vil
July 3, 2010 @
7:04 AM
Extend the benefits,but make Extend the benefits,but make them clean up trash all day to get the checks.This would weed out the lazy scum and help those who deserve it.
moneymaker
July 3, 2010 @
9:01 AM
Vod-Vil wrote:Extend the [quote=Vod-Vil]Extend the benefits,but make them clean up trash all day to get the checks.This would weed out the lazy scum and help those who deserve it.[/quote]
I agree, I was shocked to see on TV recently that the latest extension is what 99 weeks? I think 2 years for single people without children and 3 years for people with children, then stop it before it becomes a way of life.
DataAgent
July 3, 2010 @
9:04 AM
Vod-Vil wrote:Extend the [quote=Vod-Vil]Extend the benefits,but make them clean up trash all day to get the checks.This would weed out the lazy scum and help those who deserve it.[/quote]
ditto
svelte
July 3, 2010 @
9:09 AM
Vod-Vil wrote:Extend the [quote=Vod-Vil]Extend the benefits,but make them clean up trash all day to get the checks.This would weed out the lazy scum and help those who deserve it.[/quote]
Love it. I’m on board.
SK in CV
July 3, 2010 @
12:49 PM
EconProf wrote:Add to this [quote=EconProf]Add to this that unemployment benefits for most are untaxable and that the family will now fall into a lower tax bracket–another benefit if one has a working spouse. Some unemployed also supplement family income in the underground economy, especially construction workers.
[/quote]
Hilarious. Seriously.
I believe your argument is that it SAVES money to be unemployed. Therefore the unemployed don’t really need benefits. If this “addition” is for some other reason, do share.
And as to the bolded “construction workers”. As an econ prof, you really should be following the news a bit more. Residential construction, which is where virtually all of the “cash” jobs have always been is at it’s lowest level in over 60 years. With only minor exception, as a practical matter, those jobs do not exist.
And even if they did, how is this material to the millions of unemployed who are not construction workers?
EconProf
July 3, 2010 @
8:15 PM
SK in CV:
You need to read SK in CV:
You need to read what I actually said a little more carefully.
People alter their behavior based on the incentives they face. U. Comp lessens the financial pain of unemployment and thus shapes behavior. When the other factors I listed for the family are taken into account, it can become a close call financially, such that total, after-tax househole “consumption” rises only 10 to 20% for taking that job. If it is a job you hate, and if you feel you can get a job readily (again, these studies were done in normal times) it is understandable for some people to raise their sights quite high at first and then lower them over time.
My brother is a union carpenter and has always made $30 to $35/hour, plus full fringe benefits, working a few months a year, booming around the country but usually only weeks or months at a time. Between jobs he got $350/week in U comp., worked for others for cash, plus put additions on his house–another form of “income”.
In the past nearly two years, however, he has only worked officially for a few weeks. At age 60, he’s giving up on carpentry and taking classes to become a school bus driver.
The variety of anecdotes presented in this thread show that everyone is different and it is folly to jump to a conclusion from one or a few examples. For my brother, U. Comp has enabled him to milk the system in a way unhealthy for society at large. For others it is a necessary safety net that is worthy and earned by the deserving.
SK in CV
July 4, 2010 @
10:38 AM
EconProf wrote:SK in CV:
You [quote=EconProf]SK in CV:
You need to read what I actually said a little more carefully.
[/quote]
I did read what you wrote. You promoted the theory that unemployment benefits increase unemployment in normal times, and provided mostly anectdotal evidentiary support for that theory. While acknowledging these are not normal times. And then provided more support for your thesis (and presumably, in support of not extending benefits) by arguing that Summers formerly subscribed to that theory, but no longer does for political reasons.
The problem is not that your theory is wrong, (though it may in fact, be wrong) it’s that these are not normal times. And your theory (and that held by Summers), is not applicable to the question.
In order for unemployment benefits to increase unemployment, there must be a presumption that employers are not filling job openings because of insufficient qualified applicants, and simultaneously there are qualified applicants that are remaining outside the job market solely as a result of unemployment benefits. If there is any empirical evidence supporting this theory in the current economy, I’ve missed it.
NotCranky
July 4, 2010 @
11:11 AM
Good reasoning on both sides. Good reasoning on both sides. I’m in the “bring it on crowd”,Not sure if any good would come of it or not.I would like to see families and friends and even strangers, converge to help each other sustain if necessary.Unplug and default on everything if necessary.Clear out excess, shatter the vanity and materialism priorities. I just have never liked the “system” or “culture” and wanted to see what we would do if it was somewhat intentionally cracked. Either way, extended unemployment benefits are interfering with that I am sure. I don’t blame more moderate thinkers for accepting the checks.
Hobie
July 5, 2010 @
2:53 PM
I would like to see mandatory I would like to see mandatory drug testing added as a condition to receive unemployment benefits. No pass, no check.
Arraya
July 5, 2010 @
2:57 PM
What a buzz kill. Its no fun What a buzz kill. Its no fun sitting around all day playing x-box if you’re not stoned.
jpinpb
July 3, 2010 @
9:32 AM
My cousin went to college. My cousin went to college. She lost her job. She has been collecting unemployment for a year and a half, having been extended 4 times. She cannot find a job that pays what she was earning before. All the jobs are low paying, lower than what she’s making in unemployment. She wants to get a good and decent job, but can’t. So I guess she’s just going to be on unemployment as long as they give it to her and as long as it’s more than what she would earn in the “open” market. They are saving money b/c they’re not putting the kids in day care.
Even though I often look at unemployment as the free ride for some people, I can see it is not a positive thing in her life, psychologically, feeling unproductive and not part of the work force, interaction w/people, earning her way, self-esteem, etc. etc. At the same time, if she’s going to earn less than what she makes in unemployment, another no-brainer, like those walking away. It becomes a financial move. I know her and she’s not happy about it. In her mind, she thinks she could and should be making more. But since our economy sucks, IMO she’s lucky to have unemployment.
Arraya
July 3, 2010 @
9:39 AM
Is not extending unemployment Is not extending unemployment going to create more jobs?
no_such_reality
July 3, 2010 @
5:40 PM
Arraya wrote:Is not extending [quote=Arraya]Is not extending unemployment going to create more jobs?[/quote]
Yes it will, just as soon as the unemployed realize they can’t depend on the Government or somebody else to get them a job and have to create a product or service to sell.
MANmom
July 3, 2010 @
9:51 AM
You mean being a stay at home You mean being a stay at home mom isn’t a positive thing? Ask her kids…
jpinpb
July 3, 2010 @
10:08 AM
Oh, I think it’s good for her Oh, I think it’s good for her kids. She thinks she’s losing her mind. Her kids are a little bit rambunctious. I guess she didn’t go to college to be a stay at home mom. She wants more. I told her she’s lucky. But she’s not finding it rewarding. Kids are not appreciating her. I can tell she’s getting sick of it. It’s getting to her.
sdrealtor
July 3, 2010 @
10:32 AM
Maybe she needs to think Maybe she needs to think outside the box and look for something in a different field. Perhaps its time to find her true passion if she hasnt already and build herself a nice lifestyle business where quality of life is more important than the dollars. Just a thought..
jpinpb
July 3, 2010 @
10:50 AM
That’s true. But most of her That’s true. But most of her interests would involve going back to school for further education and they’re not in a position financially to do that. Heck, they’re almost getting to the point where they have to worry about their own kids’ college. It’s tough out there. I don’t think she has it that bad, but that’s just me. I don’t have kids and easy for me to say.
afx114
July 3, 2010 @
11:27 AM
I also wonder what percentage I also wonder what percentage of the voters on this poll are currently unemployed.
GH
July 3, 2010 @
12:05 PM
jimmyle wrote:Theoretically [quote=jimmyle]Theoretically after resisting wage cut, a long recession will make workers accept lower pay or pay freezes and the economy goes back to full employment. It might take a few years.[/quote]
Not really. Automation and offshore labor really make US workers somewhat unnecessary. Further, without customers, who will need to make anything?
We are in a vicious downward spiral which if not dealt with soon could easily result in another “dark ages” lasting, not weeks, months or years, but decades or centuries.
ocrenter
July 3, 2010 @
8:47 AM
a study cited by a NPR piece a study cited by a NPR piece recently showed that people with unemployment benefits tend to take more time unemployed and are more selective with the jobs they take.
someone I know recently became unemployed, rather then take a similar job but with less pay that her brother painstakingly help find thru his connections, she scuffed at the job offer in hope of something better that would come along.
larrylujack
July 10, 2010 @
8:20 PM
study cited by a NPR piece
study cited by a NPR piece recently showed that people with unemployment benefits tend to take more time unemployed and are more selective with the jobs they take.
someone I know recently became unemployed, rather then take a similar job but with less pay that her brother painstakingly help find thru his connections, she scuffed at the job offer in hope of something better that would come along.
yes, starve the beast, starve people until they will work for pennies, that is the answer!!!
that you cite this NPR corporate piece is to truly admire at the society we have created, not necessarily number #1 but compete with the 3rd world starving nations at the bottom, like vietnam. what a disgrace…
FormerOwner
July 3, 2010 @
11:53 AM
I say don’t extend the I say don’t extend the benefits any longer that what they are now. I believe in the idea of a safety net for people but, from talking to a few people I know that have gotten laid off, they are in no rush to find another job unless it is at least as much as they were making at their previous job. Now, these are college educated people with experience though. On the other hand, I’ve got a younger relative that has just a HS diploma and is working two part-time jobs to make ends meet. Another thing that kind of gets me is that my wife was self-employed and is currently back in school and not working. She never collected 1 cent of unemployment. Maybe we should have rigged the system and gotten 3 years of free govt money?
jpinpb
July 3, 2010 @
12:18 PM
FormerOwner wrote:Another [quote=FormerOwner]Another thing that kind of gets me is that my wife was self-employed and is currently back in school and not working. She never collected 1 cent of unemployment. Maybe we should have rigged the system and gotten 3 years of free govt money?[/quote]
It is much more difficult for those who are self-employed. They have write-offs, but have to pay self-employment tax and when there’s no work, then they’re screwed. Sometimes I think when people talk about unemployment numbers, it is underestimated what it’s really like. There’s many self-employed struggling, but don’t get counted.
pencilneck
July 3, 2010 @
1:03 PM
I am against the extension of I am against the extension of unemployment benefits. I believe the purpose of unemployment is to bridge a temporary gap between jobs. How big this gap should be is arguable, but I think 6 months is about right.
The discussion should be, in my opinion, whether the next tier down on the public safety net is fair and adequate (welfare, food stamps, medicaid etc.).
I think these programs could use some improvements, and perhaps extensions. But I don’t know enough about them to make specific suggestions.
LA Reader
July 3, 2010 @
1:41 PM
Well they are saying there Well they are saying there are only 1 job opening per 5 un-employed worker. So I think it’s mis-guided to think that somehow un-employment benefit keep people from find a new job. It might be true during the boom times but since we’ve lost something like 8 million jobs..we should extend it.
Plus this is money that is going back to tax payers and then being spent almost immediately to add to the “Consumer Spending” that we need for economic recovery. I’d rather spend the money on that than on some insane pension benefit for government worker or elected officials.
And I really want to stress that things are different when you lose your job during a down turn where the job openings just aren’t there.
I was un-employed on and off for about a year and a half during the dot doom. If you’ve never experienced it, you can’t imagine the humiliation and worthlessness you feel. You almost don’t even want to talk to people after awhile because you dread that moment where you have to tell them that you STILL don’t have a job. And people do look at you like there’s something wrong with you. AND the longer you are un-employed, the harder it becomes to get the job because every employer thinks there’s something wrong with you for being un-employed for so long.
And I’ve been successful pretty much all my life except for that time in my life. I make well into 6 figures now and even at the time I was making a lot more than people in my peer group.
So I have to scoff at this notion that somehow giving people bear minimum money so they can keep a roof over their head and pay for gas to look for work is somehow making people lazy and not get a job. It’s crazy hard to get a job when you don’t have an address and no means to get to a job interview. How is taking that away help people get a job.
Just imagine being HR guy interviewing people. Would you hire a guy who says he’s been un-employed for 2 years, doesn’t have an address and come to the interview all sweaty because it took him 2 hours to get to the interview taking the bus? And now imagine being that guy who has to go into the interview and tell the interview you haven’t worked in two years, and don’t have a house or a car.
Ricechex
July 3, 2010 @
1:47 PM
A friend of mine has been A friend of mine has been unemployed for 2 years. He didn’t bother to look for a job. $1900 a month for sitting around at home was much more appealing for him.
LA Reader
July 3, 2010 @
2:05 PM
Ricechex wrote:A friend of [quote=Ricechex]A friend of mine has been unemployed for 2 years. He didn’t bother to look for a job. $1900 a month for sitting around at home was much more appealing for him.[/quote]
Yeah, and your friend is a lazy POS and we should decide everyone’s fate based on him. Right? Lowest common denominator FTW?
Ricechex
July 3, 2010 @
4:09 PM
LA Reader wrote:Ricechex [quote=LA Reader][quote=Ricechex]A friend of mine has been unemployed for 2 years. He didn’t bother to look for a job. $1900 a month for sitting around at home was much more appealing for him.[/quote]
Yeah, and your friend is a lazy POS and we should decide everyone’s fate based on him. Right? Lowest common denominator FTW?[/quote]
Yes, we should decide everyone’s fate based on him.
Arraya
July 3, 2010 @
2:17 PM
Ricechex wrote:A friend of [quote=Ricechex]A friend of mine has been unemployed for 2 years. He didn’t bother to look for a job. $1900 a month for sitting around at home was much more appealing for him.[/quote]
Well, the good thing is, he did not go out into the labor pool and compete against somebody that could not get by on just $1900. Actually, in the grand scheme of things he helped out more by not going out and looking for a job. Because, if it’s him or the person he beat out for a job, that 1900 is still getting doled out. So Kudos to him for being a team player.
Ricechex
July 3, 2010 @
4:04 PM
Arraya wrote:Ricechex wrote:A [quote=Arraya][quote=Ricechex]A friend of mine has been unemployed for 2 years. He didn’t bother to look for a job. $1900 a month for sitting around at home was much more appealing for him.[/quote]
Well, the good thing is, he did not go out into the labor pool and compete against somebody that could not get by on just $1900. Actually, in the grand scheme of things he helped out more by not going out and looking for a job. Because, if it’s him or the person he beat out for a job, that 1900 is still getting doled out. So Kudos to him for being a team player.[/quote]
LOL Arraya! Love that! Fortunately, he has a partner that is working, and a roommate, and so bills got paid. However, prior to his unemployed status, he was a grand contributor to the economy….traveling, excessive consumption of goods (running up CC debt). He says that without him and the husband spending money, they are seriously putting a dent in the economy!
He recently took a one way flight to Denmark, in a bed seat no less (he had the miles, and no more unemployment benes) to work for a lady he knows in her hotel, doing all kinds of odd jobs for shelter and food. I told him he was an illegal and taking away jobs from the Danish…(AND customs forgot to stamp his passport on the way in!)
joec
July 3, 2010 @
9:39 PM
LA Reader wrote:Well they are [quote=LA Reader]Well they are saying there are only 1 job opening per 5 un-employed worker. So I think it’s mis-guided to think that somehow un-employment benefit keep people from find a new job. It might be true during the boom times but since we’ve lost something like 8 million jobs..we should extend it.
Plus this is money that is going back to tax payers and then being spent almost immediately to add to the “Consumer Spending” that we need for economic recovery. I’d rather spend the money on that than on some insane pension benefit for government worker or elected officials.
And I really want to stress that things are different when you lose your job during a down turn where the job openings just aren’t there.
I was un-employed on and off for about a year and a half during the dot doom. If you’ve never experienced it, you can’t imagine the humiliation and worthlessness you feel. You almost don’t even want to talk to people after awhile because you dread that moment where you have to tell them that you STILL don’t have a job. And people do look at you like there’s something wrong with you. AND the longer you are un-employed, the harder it becomes to get the job because every employer thinks there’s something wrong with you for being un-employed for so long.
And I’ve been successful pretty much all my life except for that time in my life. I make well into 6 figures now and even at the time I was making a lot more than people in my peer group.
So I have to scoff at this notion that somehow giving people bear minimum money so they can keep a roof over their head and pay for gas to look for work is somehow making people lazy and not get a job. It’s crazy hard to get a job when you don’t have an address and no means to get to a job interview. How is taking that away help people get a job.
Just imagine being HR guy interviewing people. Would you hire a guy who says he’s been un-employed for 2 years, doesn’t have an address and come to the interview all sweaty because it took him 2 hours to get to the interview taking the bus? And now imagine being that guy who has to go into the interview and tell the interview you haven’t worked in two years, and don’t have a house or a car.[/quote]
I agree with LA Reader.
I think unless you have actually been unemployed and laid off, etc…you simply can’t understand what someone goes through after getting laid off through no fault of their own. Remember, you only get unemployment if you get laid off without cause. You can’t quit and expect to get unemployment so that eliminates all the lazy people who wants to quit and get free money. How many people here actually has gotten laid off without a ready waiting job without cause and are actually against this here?
Also, unemployment is a percentage of your working dollars and I think I’ve read the avg is about 350/month or so. It tops out at 450/week in CA. For anyone with a family/kids and an advanced degree and a 6 figure salary and a mortgage, I don’t think many people would choose or can survive very long on unemployment dropping from 8300/month in income to 1800/month.
AND, THE MAIN POINT THAT WILL SIMPLY KILL YOUR CAREER IF YOU’RE ON UNEMPLOYMENT TOO LONG, the negative stigma of being unemployed could PERMANENTLY damage your career so good luck trying to find another job in the same industry. If people are willing to sit around for 2 years and get unemployment, AND accept permanently damaging their career, then I say let them…
There are already reports that job postings from companies like Sony and a few others I’ve read will only consider people with jobs already. That makes the argument that the unemployed should take any job moot since many companies simply aren’t hiring them and there are too many other job seekers. Like news stories with 100 entry level positions opening up in a supermarket with 2000 applicants, good luck getting a job. Also, it’s very true that if you are overqualified, companies won’t hire you neither. I’ve known unemployed lawyers and masters/PhD engineers as well look to just do waitressing or simple retail jobs and were turned down.
The way unemployment works is also sorta strange. Depending on when you get laid off, someone who gets laid off 1 week earlier may get unemployment than someone else. They should just change it to max so many weeks or maybe after so many weeks, start auditing more, etc…
Also, unemployment benefits now is currently ONLY 6 months since they failed to pass the 99 week total extension. Like it was mentioned in a previous post, it normally is only 6 months in normal times and was only extended due to the situation we are in now.
Another downside is when people get desperate with no work/jobs, crime goes up since they don’t know where else to turn and I don’t think this would be good for anyone.
Sure, you have people who should probably look for work and aren’t, but only a certain segment of people fall into that category (single, young people without kids/family, dual income folks). I say let them take their “break” if they want to permanently damage their careers and possibly NEVER compete for a job again, but no need to hurt the other folks who are actively trying to find work…
CA renter
July 4, 2010 @
1:03 AM
Agree very much, Agree very much, joec.
Everyone I know who’s been collecting unemployment over the past couple of years has worked diligently at trying to find another job. Those who did find a job have taken a pay cut, and they were perfectly happy to do so.
These are very hard times, and there is no way we can call all these people who collect UE lazy. The vast majority of them are very hard workers.
gandalf
July 4, 2010 @
1:48 AM
I’m in favor of extending I’m in favor of extending unemployment benefits — but on a qualified basis. I think there should be NO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS for people who worked in Finance, Insurance or Real Estate businesses.
If anybody deserves to be turned out on the street, living from a car, pushing a shopping cart and picking through garbage, it’s the bankers, insurers, mortgage cheats and RE fraudsters who caused this mess.
As for the people who actually DO something for a living, but find themselves out of work in a terrible job market — I’m okay with extending unemployment benefits, keeps families off the street.
weberlin
July 4, 2010 @
8:16 AM
I don’t think unemployment I don’t think unemployment benefits should be extended.
Background: In late 2000, 2 months after 9/11, the start-up company I worked for folded. This was my first ‘real’ job out of college, and I was naively unprepared. Long story short, I didn’t find a ‘real’ job for 16 months. After 6 months of UE, I ended up working temp office jobs and at El Pollo Loco part time.
I mention this because I am sympathetic to the situation that many job-seekers are in. I understand how emotionally draining it is to deal with rejection for months on end feeling hopeless and worthless. It sucks…but that’s life.
Life sucks sometimes and I don’t think that we acknowledge that fact enough, as a society.
In spite of how difficult life is for the millions of unemployed, it is impractical for us as a nation to continue to borrow against our future to support today’s overextended lifestyle. Yes, there are hard working, diligent unemployed job seekers, and there are plenty of unqualified, incompetent morons collecting undeserved paychecks. But as an aggregate, our society spends too much and saves too little. It’s not possible to weed out the ‘good’ from the ‘bad’ collecting unemployment.
To me, the fact that so many Piggs want a policy that ‘magically’ distinguishes between those who deserve unemployment and those who don’t, is a sign. It’s a sign that too many citizens of the U.S. expect the Government to swoop in and fix life for them. Life’s ups and downs shouldn’t interfere with our inherent right to a comfortable life in the U.S.
Such wishful thinking, although grounded in benevolence, is ultimately impractical and flies in the face of the economic reality that we are dealing with. The military conflicts that we are engaged in are irresponsibly expensive. Unfortunately, they are so deeply embedded with the U.S.’s global political cache, that pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan now, would be like cutting of our legs. For better or worse, we need to ensure that we leave Iraq and Afghanistan better than when we entered. We cannot afford another stimulus package, that would elevate our financial disaster to Greek/Irish status. The only practical option is for us to roll up our sleeves and tough it out.
The crux of the issue is: how far should government extend itself to make life ‘fair’ for it’s citizens?
IMO, we’ve gone far enough.
LA Reader
July 4, 2010 @
9:09 AM
weberlin wrote:
In spite of [quote=weberlin]
In spite of how difficult life is for the millions of unemployed, it is impractical for us as a nation to continue to borrow against our future to support today’s overextended lifestyle….
To me, the fact that so many Piggs want a policy that ‘magically’ distinguishes between those who deserve unemployment and those who don’t, is a sign. It’s a sign that too many citizens of the U.S. expect the Government to swoop in and fix life for them. Life’s ups and downs shouldn’t interfere with our inherent right to a comfortable life in the U.S.
Such wishful thinking, although grounded in benevolence, is ultimately impractical and flies in the face of the economic reality that we are dealing with. The military conflicts that we are engaged in are irresponsibly expensive. Unfortunately, they are so deeply embedded with the U.S.’s global political cache, that pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan now, would be like cutting of our legs. For better or worse, we need to ensure that we leave Iraq and Afghanistan better than when we entered. We cannot afford another stimulus package, that would elevate our financial disaster to Greek/Irish status. The only practical option is for us to roll up our sleeves and tough it out.
The crux of the issue is: how far should government extend itself to make life ‘fair’ for it’s citizens?
IMO, we’ve gone far enough.[/quote]
I agree with you in principle about fiscal responsibility. But why is it always benefits that helps the little guy that gets “fiscal conservatives” up in the arms about the debt? Why do we allow our government to spend billions on bailing out financial institutions, corporate tax breaks, pork barrel projects, hand out to defense contractors, great benefits to government employees & elected officials for life but when it comes helping regular folks with healthcare & unemployment we scream bloody murder about how it would bankrupt the country?
And really? Now is the time to be fiscally responsible? Not when our economy is recovered and booming? Our economy is struggling and 1 in 10 workers are out of work and you think we should cut government spending so that there’s even less money out there to create jobs?
weberlin
July 4, 2010 @
9:20 AM
I, too, am angry about how I, too, am angry about how wealth from the stimulus package was distributed. The selfish, irresponsible pricks who are largely credited with causing the crash, benefited the most.
Fiscal responsibility should always be exercised, regardless of economic climate.
As for creating jobs, I think we, as a nation, should focus on creating value; businesses and people alike. Creating jobs is – philosophically – to closely aligned with printing money. Both actions create the appearance of increased wealth, without any added value to the economy.
jpinpb
July 4, 2010 @
9:39 AM
To a certain extent, I agree. To a certain extent, I agree. We are not just supporting people. We are supporting a lifestyle. My cousin has not cut back. Heck, she’s out here on vacation for a week. If I were unemployed, I’d be saving money in case my UE runs out and I haven’t found a job.
The self-employed are struggling and sacrificing the scrambling to find any job or jobs. I know my cousin is making an effort to find a job, but I also know she’s being picky. When UE runs out, I know she’ll quickly find a job, good or bad, liking it or not. She will have to basically start over, in a way.
So, yes, it seems we are just maintaining a lifestyle where people continue to spend and not cut back to some extent.
joec
July 4, 2010 @
8:22 AM
gandalf wrote:I’m in favor of [quote=gandalf]I’m in favor of extending unemployment benefits — but on a qualified basis. I think there should be NO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS for people who worked in Finance, Insurance or Real Estate businesses.
If anybody deserves to be turned out on the street, living from a car, pushing a shopping cart and picking through garbage, it’s the bankers, insurers, mortgage cheats and RE fraudsters who caused this mess.
As for the people who actually DO something for a living, but find themselves out of work in a terrible job market — I’m okay with extending unemployment benefits, keeps families off the street.[/quote]
The problem with this kind of thinking is that it’s too broad. Sure, the execs are crooks, but the individual insurance salesperson who worked for AIG (American General) trying to support his family and pay his mortgage selling term life insurance is in “insurance”.
What if this was extended to tech or your industry? Say when the dot com crash happened, everyone who worked for any tech company who got laid off got put out on the street with nothing?
There’s simply no way to exclude people effectively so you take the bad with the good and have a system where they “won’t” make a killing. No matter you cut it up, $450/week isn’t going to make anyone wealthy or let them get ahead financially. I suppose ask yourself this question, if you made 100k/year or 150k/year, would you really want to get 450/week even if you could and in the process, possibly never find another job in your industry?
Screwing over the guy who is barely getting by will simply create a society where said guy will commit crimes since they are so far out of luck already.
What they can do is possibly do more checks like how they do with people who abuse disability (going sky diving, mt climbing) when they should be in a wheelchair or can’t walk.
CA renter
July 4, 2010 @
2:41 PM
gandalf wrote:I’m in favor of [quote=gandalf]I’m in favor of extending unemployment benefits — but on a qualified basis. I think there should be NO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS for people who worked in Finance, Insurance or Real Estate businesses.
If anybody deserves to be turned out on the street, living from a car, pushing a shopping cart and picking through garbage, it’s the bankers, insurers, mortgage cheats and RE fraudsters who caused this mess.
As for the people who actually DO something for a living, but find themselves out of work in a terrible job market — I’m okay with extending unemployment benefits, keeps families off the street.[/quote]
I love this, gandalf! 🙂
patb
July 6, 2010 @
12:28 AM
gandalf wrote:I’m in favor of [quote=gandalf]I’m in favor of extending unemployment benefits — but on a qualified basis. I think there should be NO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS for people who worked in Finance, Insurance or Real Estate businesses.
If anybody deserves to be turned out on the street, living from a car, pushing a shopping cart and picking through garbage, it’s the bankers, insurers, mortgage cheats and RE fraudsters who caused this mess.
.[/quote]
many of them are commissioned,
they don’t get squat
barnaby33
July 4, 2010 @
11:44 AM
LAReader, its amazing how LAReader, its amazing how your post captured the essence of the dot com bust. In the group of IT professionals that I knew, I was unemployed for a very long period. It got to the point where sometimes I didn’t even want to go out and hang out with them. I couldn’t afford it and I felt ashamed.
I started lowering my expectations quite quickly though as I knew I was overpaid during the boom.
LA Reader
July 3, 2010 @
2:02 PM
Oh and let me tell you it’s Oh and let me tell you it’s actually really hard to “settle” for lesser paying job or lower position. Not because of pride but because employers don’t like to hire people who are “Over Qualified”.
You have no idea how many time I was told I was over qualified. I remember applying for a holiday time retail position at a big department store. It was one of those cattle call where there are like 100 people in one room interviewing for like 10 jobs. And they keep cutting people out on the spot. I would say everyone that was there that had any management experience was cut on the 1st round including me.
I remember being told by a TEMP agency they can’t find me a job because no one wants to hire someone with my level of experience to do their filing even as a temp.
stockstradr
July 3, 2010 @
3:52 PM
“Do you support extending “Do you support extending unemployment benefits?”
My reply may surprise, because it doesn’t jibe with my being politically a fiscal conservative.
This is not a typical recession. This of severity that’s only seen once or twice in a century. It is hurting families bad. And it appears to be heading into the second “dip”
Reliable studies show 20% of working-age men are out of work. For women it is about 17%. one in five.
Unemployment benefits are a form of needed economic stimulus. Government stimulus IS the only thing keeping the economy from slipping completely into a great depression. If you look at government stimulus (expended in this recession) as a percent of GDP, clearly without that stimulus GDP would already have fallen well over 10% – that’s an economic depression.
Of any time, this is the time for the government to help out.
It makes me so angry to see heartless Republicans vote against unemployment benefits, when those same Republicans have voted for and spent ONE TRILLION dollars on the Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Bastards. They should be kicked out of office. All of them.
One trillion dollars WASTED, which could have been used for SCHOOLS, or UNEMPLOYMENT
Unemployment benefits – you think that is for freeloaders? Bullshit. Those benefits are the only damn thing keeping many families OFF THE STREET.
I know HUNDREDS of great engineers who have lost their jobs, many of whom cannot find work. I’ve kept my job through this recession only by shear luck and my job-hopping away from FIVE separate divisions to avoid massive layoffs.
My last job hop was two months ago, and again the entire damn division I left was shut down (over five hundred good people)
I figure my current foxhole (job) is only safe for another six months. I have seen this job market up close and IT IS HELL. There are many families need our tax dollars in unemployment to keep them from being thrown into the streets.
patb
July 3, 2010 @
4:37 PM
if there were jobs and if if there were jobs and if people could declare bankruptcy.
i know a guy top notch industrial salesguy, used to make 200K, got beached a yearand a half ago, makes $14/hr singing in a choir.
my take is down 90%
why spend trilllions on wall street and nickels on main streeet?
zzz
July 4, 2010 @
9:48 AM
I agree that there are NO I agree that there are NO jobs to be found for many people out there diligently looking. If you have ever known of someone, particularly someone older who becomes unemployed, who is highly educated, but cannot find a job because their industry has very FEW job openings, it can be heartbreaking to see them become mentally tormented by worry about putting food on the table, about healthcare, about how to pay for utilities. Healthcare costs has put a huge financial strain on many older folks, and has forced many people to continue to work out of necessity. These same people face ageism when looking for jobs, are sometimes no longer in the health to work jobs that require hard physical labor, all while they cannot find a job in their said profession. Engineers, technicians, etc. These same people are WILLING to take any job, working at Target, dishwashing, temping, etc, but they are not hired for these jobs.
Ageism is very much a problem these folks face where employers are concerned they will not be as reliable as a younger worker, they will not be able to perform their job at the same level, and they will pay more in healthcare for these workers.
You might ask what happened to all those years they did work and what about the savings? Why can’t they fall back on it? I know several people who have been wiped out by illness financially. They never made a gripload of money, they were say mid level engineers and they raised families, etc, were frugal and savers, but due to illness wiping out their savings, they dont’ have a safety net. They count on unemployment to pay for food, to pay for utilities. They have already cut everything they can, they drive 10 year old cars.
I am personally fiscally conservative, but I do believe in extending unemployment benefits. I also echo the other statements that there has been HUGE spending on other conservative interests IE war, big business bailouts, etc.
While there is always abuse of any system, I truly believe those people on unemployment who could find a job and just choose not to are definitely the minority. As other’s have pointed out, there aren’t too many people I know who make six figures who willfully sit around on unemployment.
joec
July 4, 2010 @
2:33 PM
zzz wrote:I agree that there [quote=zzz]I agree that there are NO jobs to be found for many people out there diligently looking. If you have ever known of someone, particularly someone older who becomes unemployed, who is highly educated, but cannot find a job because their industry has very FEW job openings, it can be heartbreaking to see them become mentally tormented by worry about putting food on the table, about healthcare, about how to pay for utilities. [/quote]
That’s the thing. Older people with family, homes, kids are probably NOT the ones sitting on their butts enjoying their unemployment. I know someone who is 28 sitting on his butt and not looking for work at all for over a year and is living in a shared house with no g/f, kids, family, etc…Sure, he should probably take something, but I’m ok with him goofing off since the job choices out there are few to begin with and like most articles say, if you take a crappy job, you might be stuck doing it for too long and also permanently damange your longer term career. There’s a balancing act between any job and what’s best long term for people.
People should probably hold out for something that makes sense. I don’t think it’s that easy to just take anything. I have a family member who has been unemployed for over a year and was offered a job in CA, but they would have to uproot their whole family from another state or live on opposite sides of the coast. Good luck raising a family/kids, saving a marriage, etc with that living arraignment.
Her husband still works so she declined, but think about it from their perspective. Is it wise to throw everything away, move cross country and possibly face layoffs again? UE gives them time to make the best choice for their situation. I’ve heard way too many horror stories of people moving for work only to be canned after selling the home, moving, etc…
patientrenter
July 5, 2010 @
3:09 PM
joec wrote:….I have a [quote=joec]….I have a family member who has been unemployed for over a year and was offered a job in CA, but they would have to uproot their whole family from another state or live on opposite sides of the coast. Good luck raising a family/kids, saving a marriage, etc with that living arraignment….[/quote]
It’s a matter of personal judgment but I, for one, would not support extending UE benefits so that someone can avoid moving. I’ve moved several times for a job. It’s just something you have to do from time to time. Either that, or build a career and pay expectations around not moving.
joec
July 5, 2010 @
10:16 PM
patientrenter wrote:joec [quote=patientrenter][quote=joec]….I have a family member who has been unemployed for over a year and was offered a job in CA, but they would have to uproot their whole family from another state or live on opposite sides of the coast. Good luck raising a family/kids, saving a marriage, etc with that living arraignment….[/quote]
It’s a matter of personal judgment but I, for one, would not support extending UE benefits so that someone can avoid moving. I’ve moved several times for a job. It’s just something you have to do from time to time. Either that, or build a career and pay expectations around not moving.[/quote]
Out of curiosity, did you have a family/kids, mortgage or a spouse, working spouse at the time?
I don’t know, take a 100k+ job and move, survive on 20k UE. Most people will move, but I don’t fault people for not willing to take the risk in moving to a job if it’s not worth it in their situation.
DWCAP
July 6, 2010 @
9:00 AM
This is my problem, we need This is my problem, we need to get over the idea that there is a GOOD solution. Yah, it sucks, and it isnt fair, and it isnt right and it is gonna be REALLY really hard, but throughout our history Americans have had to make hard choices for economic success. Why is it suddenly we cant stand such a thought? Should we just make jobs where ever people want to be, cause they diserve it?
I would argue no.
Part of the issue to me is the idea of ‘extending’. Do you mean past 6 months? or Past 99 weeks? Cause I could buy an argument that in times of 10%+ unemployment, benifits could be extended to 52 weeks. But if we are talking about extending to 150 weeks, then we need to realize that this isnt working anymore and do something else.
meadandale
July 6, 2010 @
10:06 AM
To answer the poll question: To answer the poll question: No.
2 freaking years of UE? Are you kidding me? You telling me that all these people can’t find ANY job? Bullcrap.
Many of these people figure they can make as much on UE as they can taking a part time or slightly above MW job so rather than WORK they’d rather sit at home and play xbox and collect a check.
I think Franklin summed it up best with his quote on poverty:
I think the best way of doing good to the poor (unemployed), is not making them easy in poverty (unemployment), but leading or driving them out of it.
ha… That’s awesome. Good for them. We work a way too much anyway. At least that is what the free market is telling us and who are we to argue. If the government would just let the free market work we could easily double the numbers. Besides those 20 somethings are doing a favor to the older folks with more overhead by not competing for their jobs. Hopefully they pick up something productive for society like growing pot or playing an instrument.
ha… That’s awesome. Good for them. We work a way too much anyway. At least that is what the free market is telling us and who are we to argue. If the government would just let the free market work we could easily double the numbers. Besides those 20 somethings are doing a favor to the older folks with more overhead by not competing for their jobs. Hopefully they pick up something productive for society like growing pot or playing an instrument.
I think we at the point were wisdom no longer comes with age. We really should make the best out of this collapse, I think[/quote]
You know. I find it pretty sad actually. A lot of these “millenium” generations really have some work ethics issues (though the guy in the article is 33 and technically isn’t a millenium-er, or whatever they are called)…..
A lot of them I run into, with very little experience, all want to be “managers” managing people to do the actual work…Again, emphasis here is, these people have almost NO experience…Come on, get real….They’re reasoning…Well, shoot we can just outsource the work, and just manage the work…Well, gee, if you outsource the entire work overseas, why do we need a manager in the U.S. too? Go figure…
sdrealtor
July 6, 2010 @
10:42 AM
Just spoke with a friend that Just spoke with a friend that was out of work for close to 2 years and just got a job. He’s a bigger bear than anyone on this board by a magnitude of 2 or 3. He was an executive in a traditional industry. While unemployeed he opened a small recession-proof business as a hedge and hoped to expand it enough to make that his job. He never gave up looking for a job. His wife went to work last year. He has paid into the system for years and never needed it. I’m sure UE helped him and his family the last couple years though I know he had plenty of savings also. Speaking with him yesterday was like talking to a new man. Being long term unemployed takes you down to the core of who you are. If you have not experienced that helplessness you have no idea how much it can impact every inch of your being. UE is an important and necessary thing.
joec
July 6, 2010 @
2:37 PM
sdrealtor wrote:Just spoke [quote=sdrealtor]Just spoke with a friend that was out of work for close to 2 years and just got a job. He’s a bigger bear than anyone on this board by a magnitude of 2 or 3. He was an executive in a traditional industry. While unemployeed he opened a small recession-proof business as a hedge and hoped to expand it enough to make that his job. He never gave up looking for a job. His wife went to work last year. He has paid into the system for years and never needed it. I’m sure UE helped him and his family the last couple years though I know he had plenty of savings also. Speaking with him yesterday was like talking to a new man. Being long term unemployed takes you down to the core of who you are. If you have not experienced that helplessness you have no idea how much it can impact every inch of your being. UE is an important and necessary thing.[/quote]
I agree and like this post…Unless you’ve been there, it’s really hard to know what someone is going through when they were the king of their universe. Maybe sorta like getting old and not being able to walk, do the things you take for granted…It’s very painful mentally to be taken down a few notches. Good thing for your friend is hopefully, he had reserves during the good times to weather this storm…
Maybe great writers in literature tend to be older because they have a lot more life experience to share/reflect on.
fun4vnay2
July 7, 2010 @
12:49 PM
meadandale wrote:To answer [quote=meadandale]To answer the poll question: No.
2 freaking years of UE? Are you kidding me? You telling me that all these people can’t find ANY job? Bullcrap.
Many of these people figure they can make as much on UE as they can taking a part time or slightly above MW job so rather than WORK they’d rather sit at home and play xbox and collect a check.
I think Franklin summed it up best with his quote on poverty:
I think the best way of doing good to the poor (unemployed), is not making them easy in poverty (unemployment), but leading or driving them out of it.
[/quote]
I agree cent percent with you: 2 years of UE benefits: hell NO
barnaby33
July 4, 2010 @
11:24 AM
My biggest problem is that My biggest problem is that there are no other options than continued support and no let them starve.
I am and have been in favor of the idea of gradating the amount to taper off to zero after the first year. In conjunction with that the govt takes the money that it was using for unemployment to house and feed people on military bases, schools etc. That is much more efficient and satisfies most Americans desires to care for their fellow citizens, at a basic level.
Josh
jpinpb
July 4, 2010 @
11:34 AM
Perhaps gradating the amount Perhaps gradating the amount would be more of an incentive to get a job. But from what I’m understanding, the pay being offered out there is an obstacle, let alone if you can find a job. That just means lifestyle adjustments. Drive a less expensive and economical car. No vacations. No shopping for new clothes. No dinners out. I mean, we are in a recession and some people just don’t act like we are.
Arraya
July 4, 2010 @
11:55 AM
barnaby33 wrote:My biggest [quote=barnaby33]My biggest problem is that there are no other options than continued support and no let them starve.
I am and have been in favor of the idea of gradating the amount to taper off to zero after the first year. In conjunction with that the govt takes the money that it was using for unemployment to house and feed people on military bases, schools etc. That is much more efficient and satisfies most Americans desires to care for their fellow citizens, at a basic level.
yes, we don’t want them running around looking all poor and all. Ruining everybody’s good time. Studies have shown seeing abject poverty affects peoples consumption habits and can actually worsen economic conditions.
I wonder when Celebrities are going to start adopting babies from Detroit,
barnaby33
July 4, 2010 @
12:04 PM
Arraya, so the first part of Arraya, so the first part of your response was clear. The second part not so much. Are you attacking the idea of providing basic accommodations for fellow citizens as not enough? If so then please make a counter suggestion as to what you feel should be done.
A society should be judged by how it cares for people at times of weakness. Yet how we define that care is where the arguments arise. Unfortunately in recent times a society is judged mostly upon its ability to market itself as one thing, and behave as something completely different.
Arraya
July 4, 2010 @
1:21 PM
yes, it was a little bit of yes, it was a little bit of an attack and I apologize. Not the idea of providing basic necessities. But how to deal with it, which was a sweep-it-under-the-rug manner that I found distasteful. I agree, “what to do” is the killer.
What I think would be considered heretical and a very long conversation.
[quote=barnaby33]. Unfortunately in recent times a society is judged mostly upon its ability to market itself as one thing, and behave as something completely different.[/quote]
I agree 1000% and I think the chickens are going to come home to roost on that one. Meaning bullshit can only go so far when things start to break down. We’ve become way too good at bullshitting ourselves and each other.
barnaby33
July 4, 2010 @
2:06 PM
On the one hand I think our On the one hand I think our society is highly exploitive, not just of its own, which I’m ok with, but of other nations, which I’m not. That is a long discussion in itself.
I wouldn’t take the idea of our(American) hypocrisy too far however, as its all relative and compared to most places on the planet, we aren’t that bad. As a simple thought experiment do you really believe the Chinese will be better imperial masters than the US?
As to the original topic of the thread you are welcome to attack me if you so please, however I’m always reminded of the smartest thing anyone has said to me on this board, “It all comes down to who’s ox is being gored.”
In this case the structural deflation we are going through will play out in rapid or long term depending on whether we recognize where we are. I’m of the rip the bandage off at medium speed type.
Our society as a whole cannot repair until it recognizes and repudiates unsustainable debt. High levels of unemployment compensation help sustain that illusion. Ultimately the only way out is for a collective realization that debt is too high in all its forms, and income to little.
Then we can begin the process of re-building. I happen to feel that its better to do it in a voluntary fashion. However empirical evidence suggests govt and society as a whole disagree. You voted for em, they keep spending. That is of course the nature of a Democracy. Unemployment is an unfortunate but necessary part of whats happening. Is society to blame as a whole, sure. Was it preventable, probably not. So I feel that its as a whole in our interest to support our fellow citizens, and make sure they have basic safety, a cot and 2-3 meals a day. Other than that, its up to each individual. Without some real privation, nobody learns anything.
Lessons to be learned might include: college, maybe I should do a cost benefit analysis before chosing Liberal studies as a major. Career, what are societies needs over the course of my lifetime. Family, should I have children? (That is the least thought of question in my experience and the most important.) Retirement, what does it require and will I even be able to?
Josh
LA Reader
July 5, 2010 @
1:36 PM
barnaby33 wrote: Is society [quote=barnaby33] Is society to blame as a whole, sure. Was it preventable, probably not. So I feel that its as a whole in our interest to support our fellow citizens, and make sure they have basic safety, a cot and 2-3 meals a day. Other than that, its up to each individual. Without some real privation, nobody learns anything.
Lessons to be learned might include: college, maybe I should do a cost benefit analysis before chosing Liberal studies as a major. Career, what are societies needs over the course of my lifetime. Family, should I have children? (That is the least thought of question in my experience and the most important.) Retirement, what does it require and will I even be able to?
Josh[/quote]
I would say it was absolutely preventable. It was gutting of financial regulations & clonyism that placed industry insiders all over regulatory agency by George W. & GOP that created the Bubble and the catastrophic BUST. We took away regulations that were put in place after Depression to prevent another depression and guess what happened? The Great Recession.
I have to absolutely disagree that society at large (i.e regular joe’s) is responsible for the state we are in. We are in this situation because in the name of “de-regulating to create more jobs” we gutted the very things that protects the society as a whole against the Titans of the Industry.
bubba99
July 5, 2010 @
3:45 PM
i suspect that most piggs are i suspect that most piggs are too young to remember the late 50’s and early 60’s. A time when only one person from a household went to work at a “job” each day. The family could do quite well on one wage.
But then things changed, and today a family needs two paychecks to be comfortable. This may be the event that allows us to go back to one working parent and maybe even re-asses our consumer mentallity.
With 15 million people out of work, and no prospects for them finding meaningful jobs, it may be time to reduce the work force by that one person per household. I am not at all sure that we are better off needing both parents out of the house each day. Lord know that raising childred is at least a full time job.
But until we make the transition, keep the unemployment benefits going.
joec
July 5, 2010 @
10:13 PM
I think the problem with I think the problem with society now vs. the 50s/60s is that things are much more expensive now. The standard of living and quality of life for this and our kid’s generation will be lower than our parents and our generation for the first time (as reported).
This is due to mostly (probably more) 2 or 3 things.
1) Healthcare. Probably due to many other factors too, but all the folks who have insurance subsidize the many folks who don’t have insurance now so we pay insane prices when you have insurance for coverage. Say to see the doctor, the hospital bills you 2000. However, with your insurance, they have the negotiated rate of 500, and you pay $30 co-pay. This is to cover the 20 other people they bill, but can’t collect from when the bill should have really been 300 to the insurance instead.
2) Education/College. A public college degree was MUCH MUCH cheaper just 20 years ago. College costs has risen much faster than inflation. Maybe now with so many unemployed and useless degrees, college won’t be a must have for a lot of folks to get prices back down a bit and people will simply skip college since it doesn’t always help you in your career.
3) Longer lifespans. If people keeled over at age 65, a lot of the cost problems with healthcare, social security, medicare won’t be a problem since people are dead already. People also won’t have to save as much since retire at 60, living 5 more years is much cheaper than 30 more years. 🙂
These things force people to both work since 1 income isn’t enough.
4) Housing a little. I think in the old days, there were not as many “bad” areas and maybe with more common courtesy back then, people don’t feel as pressured to find good schools or safe areas since many areas were ok. Now, and this is IMO, it looks to me at least in CA, many areas are either good or bad. Not as many working/middle class areas compared to before…
CA renter
July 6, 2010 @
1:10 AM
joec wrote:I think the [quote=joec]I think the problem with society now vs. the 50s/60s is that things are much more expensive now. The standard of living and quality of life for this and our kid’s generation will be lower than our parents and our generation for the first time (as reported).
This is due to mostly (probably more) 2 or 3 things.
1) Healthcare. Probably due to many other factors too, but all the folks who have insurance subsidize the many folks who don’t have insurance now so we pay insane prices when you have insurance for coverage. Say to see the doctor, the hospital bills you 2000. However, with your insurance, they have the negotiated rate of 500, and you pay $30 co-pay. This is to cover the 20 other people they bill, but can’t collect from when the bill should have really been 300 to the insurance instead.
2) Education/College. A public college degree was MUCH MUCH cheaper just 20 years ago. College costs has risen much faster than inflation. Maybe now with so many unemployed and useless degrees, college won’t be a must have for a lot of folks to get prices back down a bit and people will simply skip college since it doesn’t always help you in your career.
3) Longer lifespans. If people keeled over at age 65, a lot of the cost problems with healthcare, social security, medicare won’t be a problem since people are dead already. People also won’t have to save as much since retire at 60, living 5 more years is much cheaper than 30 more years. 🙂
These things force people to both work since 1 income isn’t enough.
4) Housing a little. I think in the old days, there were not as many “bad” areas and maybe with more common courtesy back then, people don’t feel as pressured to find good schools or safe areas since many areas were ok. Now, and this is IMO, it looks to me at least in CA, many areas are either good or bad. Not as many working/middle class areas compared to before…[/quote]
All true, but some would suggest that things are so expensive — to the extent that they require two incomes — specifically BECAUSE women entered the workforce en masse. In other words, it’s the two incomes that forced prices (and living standards) up, so that most families can no longer live on one income.
It’s very similar to the credit bubble pushing prices (of housing and everything else) up so high that people were forced to get into more/more toxic debt in order to afford things.
Elizabeth Warren has an excellent book about this:
It seems to me that It seems to me that unemployment benefits stimulate much better than other means because the people receiving them actually spend the money. As opposed to say, tax cuts, which mostly go to the wealthy who end up stashing their savings away. If you’re a deficit hawk, compare the cost of Bush’s tax cuts to the cost of extending unemployment benefits and it is no contest. Biggest bang for the buck comes from expanding unemployment benefits and letting Bush’s tax cuts expire.
But let me guess… That would be redistributing the wealth? Can’t have none if that now, can we…
looking
July 6, 2010 @
2:13 PM
CA renter wrote:joec wrote:I [quote=CA renter][quote=joec]I think the problem with society now vs. the 50s/60s is that things are much more expensive now. The standard of living and quality of life for this and our kid’s generation will be lower than our parents and our generation for the first time (as reported).
This is due to mostly (probably more) 2 or 3 things.
1) Healthcare. Probably due to many other factors too, but all the folks who have insurance subsidize the many folks who don’t have insurance now so we pay insane prices when you have insurance for coverage. Say to see the doctor, the hospital bills you 2000. However, with your insurance, they have the negotiated rate of 500, and you pay $30 co-pay. This is to cover the 20 other people they bill, but can’t collect from when the bill should have really been 300 to the insurance instead.
2) Education/College. A public college degree was MUCH MUCH cheaper just 20 years ago. College costs has risen much faster than inflation. Maybe now with so many unemployed and useless degrees, college won’t be a must have for a lot of folks to get prices back down a bit and people will simply skip college since it doesn’t always help you in your career.
3) Longer lifespans. If people keeled over at age 65, a lot of the cost problems with healthcare, social security, medicare won’t be a problem since people are dead already. People also won’t have to save as much since retire at 60, living 5 more years is much cheaper than 30 more years. 🙂
These things force people to both work since 1 income isn’t enough.
4) Housing a little. I think in the old days, there were not as many “bad” areas and maybe with more common courtesy back then, people don’t feel as pressured to find good schools or safe areas since many areas were ok. Now, and this is IMO, it looks to me at least in CA, many areas are either good or bad. Not as many working/middle class areas compared to before…[/quote]
All true, but some would suggest that things are so expensive — to the extent that they require two incomes — specifically BECAUSE women entered the workforce en masse. In other words, it’s the two incomes that forced prices (and living standards) up, so that most families can no longer live on one income.
It’s very similar to the credit bubble pushing prices (of housing and everything else) up so high that people were forced to get into more/more toxic debt in order to afford things.
Elizabeth Warren has an excellent book about this:
Although I completely agree with you that the cost of living has increased partly due to dual-incomes, I don’t see any easy way out of it. Both men and women can have careers that they find enriching and rewarding. I think requiring that to change is not what most people want. However, due to the fact that there are a substantial number of households with dual-incomes, their is a household wage inflation of sorts. As to the comment that the recession will lead to more one income households – that is partially true but it seems that unfortunately there are some households where both spouses were affected and many others where both are still working. When both people are unemployed this is a major catastrophe in terms of regaining their previous financial position.
joec
July 6, 2010 @
3:00 PM
CA renter wrote:
All true, [quote=CA renter]
All true, but some would suggest that things are so expensive — to the extent that they require two incomes — specifically BECAUSE women entered the workforce en masse. In other words, it’s the two incomes that forced prices (and living standards) up, so that most families can no longer live on one income.
It’s very similar to the credit bubble pushing prices (of housing and everything else) up so high that people were forced to get into more/more toxic debt in order to afford things.
Elizabeth Warren has an excellent book about this:
Thanks for the book pointers…I’ll try to read it and from some of the comments, agree that housing and education is bankrupting a lot of people.
My dad said way way back we have a lot more luxuries now and I’d agree. How many little kids do you see now WITHOUT a Nintendo Wii at home, or without a Gameboy on the road?
Still, I don’t think everyone is pulling a June Reyno even with dual incomes. What happened to her in the end anyways?
edna_mode
July 7, 2010 @
7:26 PM
Today’s NYT has an Today’s NYT has an interesting chart comparing the percentage change in constant-dollar weekly wages for men and women across various educational levels:
There’s a few confounding factors at play here — namely that over the last generation (30 years), more women have been entering the workforce, employer expectations for minimum educational level required to do certain jobs has grown (especially with respect to credentialing), and finally the skillsets that are in demand, and sectors that are hiring, have changed (i.e. fewer manufacturing jobs, more service/healthcare/education sector jobs). Even in this recession, there’s a shortage of nurses, which historically has had a lower barrier of entry to women than other fields of employment (say, working on an oil rig).
So I think that it’s very difficult to tease apart the effect on inflation that this change of skillsets in demand vs. more women entering the workforce has had over the last 30 years. If someone has other data that can pull these issues apart, I’d love to see it.
Fundamentally, the only “real” way to grow an economy is through innovation — reward those people who figure out ways to make the pie bigger for everyone (and create new jobs no one could have foreseen in the past — as an example, we can generate more data than ever before, but who can figure out ways to make sense of it all? — those people will always be rare and in demand). So I’m concerned whenever I read anything that suggests that there is a fixed amount of work to be done, and that we should create policy incentives to minimize the number of people working per household — someone here suggested reducing the workforce by one person per household? Does that mean one person should not work multiple jobs either? I’m a bit confused how that perspective will lead to a sustainable economy…
It’s interesting to me that people seem to bemoan the loss of a lifelong career in a particular sector. The golden standard before used to be a lifelong job with a single employer (what the Japanese called “salaryman” — might be with a big company, might be with union, or government). Now for careers take so long to educate for (law, doctor, science, engineering) — it might be reasonable to hope to stay in that field career-long. But frankly, I know a lot of disappointed post-docs (I scare kids by telling them that if we count up all my years of school I finally stopped after Grade 21) unable to find tenure-track positions. People in biotech and IT usually turn over to a new company, what, every 2-5 years? Does it make more sense to teach people to EXPECT to radically change careers once or twice in their lifetimes? Say, bench scientist goes into patent law or somesuch? Would that lead to a more diversified, resilient, easily re-deployed workforce? And — maybe this forced cross-pollination of ideas and backgrounds would actually lead to faster innovation?
This would require radical change in mindset — in terms of employer behavior, policy, and employee incentives — to be constantly willing to try something completely novel every few years. Or maybe we have to teach people how to run their own businesses? Fail early and often, get up and try again?
How else can we break out of the expectation that even after decades of education, someone else “owes” you a career?
EDIT: I realized that I hadn’t expressed an opinion about unemployment benefits. If the government wants to prevent massive unrest before a midterm election, then short-term politics indicate UE extensions are wise. That also buys time for job creation strategies to take hold. Also, where were all these budget hawks when we were running surpluses (OK, not that CA ever was, but still)? That was the time to pay down debt and save against a rainy economy, not cutting off the water supply in the middle of wildfire season.
Also, if one’s employment strategies become more diversified, then what’s the incentive to own real estate? Renting permanently would allow one to a lot more career flexibility and avoid tying up a lot of capital that could instead go to education in one’s next career…is that really any more risky in this environment than overpaying for a house, getting laid off and then being geographically stuck?
jimmyle
July 6, 2010 @
8:15 PM
Back in the 50’s and 60’s we Back in the 50’s and 60’s we didn’t have three flat screen TVs, three cell phones, cable, internet, huge SUVs and 2400 sq ft homes either.
If we have a small house, one TV, one phone, no cable, and drive small economical cars I bet most of us could live on one salary.
[quote=bubba99]i suspect that most piggs are too young to remember the late 50’s and early 60’s. A time when only one person from a household went to work at a “job” each day. The family could do quite well on one wage.
But then things changed, and today a family needs two paychecks to be comfortable. This may be the event that allows us to go back to one working parent and maybe even re-asses our consumer mentallity.
[/quote]
sdrealtor
July 6, 2010 @
8:58 PM
You would get charged with You would get charged with child abuse if you only had a small house, one TV, one phone, no cable, and drove small economical cars
LesBaer45
August 8, 2010 @
6:08 PM
sdrealtor wrote:You would get [quote=sdrealtor]You would get charged with child abuse if you only had a small house, one TV, one phone, no cable, and drove small economical cars[/quote]
Please don’t report me to the “authoritahs”.
My kids have threatened to many a time…….
As a side addendum, I was in Construction during the 80-82 time period. I was laid off. It took me over two months to find another job. I worked maybe a year, got laid off again. After 6 months I had to go back to school, took a job in a 7-11 type store. (Another aside, I think anyone working towards a Psychology or Psychiatrist type degree should be REQUIRED to work in such a store for a minimum of 6 months as an internship. Really. That would expose them to all sorts of characters that might just be beneficial in their chosen “career”.)
I still have nightmares of the depression, the avoiding of friends and family, the having to take a cruddy ass job just to pay for school. BTDT the T-shirt self destructed in the wash a long time ago.
Nevertheless, I can’t help but wonder just how long we can extend the UE bennies before it becomes a problem. Like it or not we are setting a precedent for the future, when the next recession rolls around.
I have no pat answer, no precise example to demonstrate the correctness of my beliefs, no fast relief for the suffering.
I do think it would help, if they would at least step up the enforcement of the rules, a little crack down on the obvious and easily rooted out fraud would at least be a symbolic approach to showing you just can’t ride it for all it’s worth.
kev374
July 6, 2010 @
4:28 PM
this is a good thread because this is a good thread because it highlights how serious this situation is currently and YET people seem to claim there is demand for 3 bd homes here in Orange County that cost over half a million dollars… SERIOUSLY?
Home prices need to fall drastically here in OC to align with the economic reality.
no_such_reality
July 6, 2010 @
6:17 PM
kev374 wrote:this is a good [quote=kev374]this is a good thread because it highlights how serious this situation is currently and YET people seem to claim there is demand for 3 bd homes here in Orange County that cost over half a million dollars… SERIOUSLY?
Home prices need to fall drastically here in OC to align with the economic reality.[/quote]
Why? You do realize that only 1/3rd of the population works, right? A sizable percentage is Government, local, county, state, Federal employees.
Seriously, it seems like, 1/3rd are retired.
Another 25% are children.
Then there is the black market economy
and the cash based economy.
Not to mention the 1% of population in prison.
It’s only that first 33% reporting the 10% unemployment rate. LA Couny is has to give raises out to the government employees in order to lay off anybod, like an assistant librarian.
While it’s bad, at 99 weeks, it’s not working. The oddity is the friend of SDR who actually finds employment, but notice he started his own biz anyway so in effect, he was working, and that says a lot to employers. People need to be like SDR’s friend and start their own businesses.
This morning, Handel had one thought that was probably right, the kind of work many of the unemployed are capable of doing is NEVER coming back. He also talked to some bio-industry guy in Ohio with a hundred openings, 3600 applicants, 47 passed the 9th grade math skill test.
svelte
July 6, 2010 @
6:45 PM
EmilyHicks, are you the Emily EmilyHicks, are you the Emily Hicks that is a professor at SDSU and teaches postmodern theory, political art, and ethnic community-building in cyberspace?
UCGal
July 6, 2010 @
9:23 PM
My husband collecte UI for a My husband collecte UI for a period last year. Even now he’s underemployed (less than 1/2 time). That’s part of being an architect when the economy implodes… even the “bread and butter” business – hospitals and schools (he’s got a lot of experience in these.)
He’s likely to be fully unemployed again within a few weeks… there’s NO work and the office is likely to close down entirely. It’s already down to the owner, a drafter, and my husband (the one who does the work, seals the drawings, gets the permits.)
When he was on unemployment we pulled the kids from daycare and cut back a LOT. Even when he went back to work, partime, we minimized after school care (3-4 days/month) and kept up our austerity program. Because of this we only tapped our savings a little.
BUT – I feel/felt trapped. My income became more important than ever… I don’t love my job – and my employer continues to downsize bigtime, but I do what it takes to keep my job, keep the bosses happy, even as benefits get cut, salaries are frozen, etc… In a normal economy I’d be looking hard for a new job… now I’m grateful to have a job.
It is not unrealistic that we’ll both be unemployed this year. I’m hoping we’ll get UI if that happens. We’ve always figured out how to live with just one salary (if no daycare/after school care) – but like jpinpb’s cousin… I’m not sure I’d be happy as a SAHM (IMO the hardest job in the world… I’m not sure I’m strong enough for it.)
Seeing my husband look HARD for work and seeing him get told over and over that he was over qualified. He was told by a firm that he had the perfect experience – but to hire him at the budget they had (less experience, lower salary) it would cause internal strife because the other staff would know he was making less than them and had waaaay more experience. It’s not a matter of settling, it’s hard to get job if you have a lot of experience or some grey hair.
Anyone who’s middle/upper middle class who thinks unemployment insurance is a cakewalk – it’s not… not if you have a mortgage, kids, etc…
And if the laid off person is the person who provided insurance for the family – whoa nellie… that’s the biggest reason I jump through hoops to keep my job in this economy.
Coronita
July 6, 2010 @
10:08 PM
UCGal wrote:My husband [quote=UCGal]My husband collecte UI for a period last year. Even now he’s underemployed (less than 1/2 time). That’s part of being an architect when the economy implodes… even the “bread and butter” business – hospitals and schools (he’s got a lot of experience in these.)
He’s likely to be fully unemployed again within a few weeks… there’s NO work and the office is likely to close down entirely. It’s already down to the owner, a drafter, and my husband (the one who does the work, seals the drawings, gets the permits.)
When he was on unemployment we pulled the kids from daycare and cut back a LOT. Even when he went back to work, partime, we minimized after school care (3-4 days/month) and kept up our austerity program. Because of this we only tapped our savings a little.
BUT – I feel/felt trapped. My income became more important than ever… I don’t love my job – and my employer continues to downsize bigtime, but I do what it takes to keep my job, keep the bosses happy, even as benefits get cut, salaries are frozen, etc… In a normal economy I’d be looking hard for a new job… now I’m grateful to have a job.
It is not unrealistic that we’ll both be unemployed this year. I’m hoping we’ll get UI if that happens. We’ve always figured out how to live with just one salary (if no daycare/after school care) – but like jpinpb’s cousin… I’m not sure I’d be happy as a SAHM (IMO the hardest job in the world… I’m not sure I’m strong enough for it.)
Seeing my husband look HARD for work and seeing him get told over and over that he was over qualified. He was told by a firm that he had the perfect experience – but to hire him at the budget they had (less experience, lower salary) it would cause internal strife because the other staff would know he was making less than them and had waaaay more experience. It’s not a matter of settling, it’s hard to get job if you have a lot of experience or some grey hair.
Anyone who’s middle/upper middle class who thinks unemployment insurance is a cakewalk – it’s not… not if you have a mortgage, kids, etc…
And if the laid off person is the person who provided insurance for the family – whoa nellie… that’s the biggest reason I jump through hoops to keep my job in this economy.[/quote]
UCgal,
Frankly, I’m pretty frustrated with a lot of companies I deal with, because a lot of companies are going for “cheapest cost”, and as a result, experience is being tossed out for say entry positions, and well you know the results are less than stellar when that happens. It’s increasingly funny when all the sudden the project goes to hell and companies lose deals/contracts because frankly what they produced was..well. shit….
Side question. Has your husband considered a different profession? I mean, not to poke or prod, but how long has it been difficult as an architect in general, and how much longer do you folks expect it to be? Is there other things you think he might be interested in getting involved in? I know it’s easier said than done, but perhaps exploring other options at the same time as continuing to job hunt.
Second thing is, how open are you folks to relocating elsewhere? San Diego probably is extremely tough for his line of work right now, I’m guessing.
Just wondering if your husband has explored alternatives at the same time still looking within his main profession. I know that it’s easier said then done. Much easier said then done…..
CA renter
July 6, 2010 @
10:54 PM
UCGal,
I’m sorry to hear UCGal,
I’m sorry to hear about your husband’s job (again!), and hope that both you and he are able to find/remain in something that stabilizes.
You are so right, and I’ve heard this from many other people like yourselves: it is NOT easy (not even possible, in many cases) to find a job right now, even if you’re willing to take a significant pay cut. It’s disappointing to hear others claim that those on UE insurance are “lazy” and undeserving. In this economy, it is literally the difference between homelessness and starvation for many people — real homelessness, not just losing a purchased house and having to rent.
Best of luck to both you and your husband. I really hope the PTB start focusing on JOBS instead of asset prices. Their single-minded focus on asset prices is literally destroying the middle class in the U.S. We need to spend all our resources on jump-starting some R&D and other work programs, IMHO.
jeeman
July 7, 2010 @
12:13 AM
I say that the first 6 months I say that the first 6 months to a year falls under the insurance aspect. Everything else after that is of unlimited duration, but treated as a government loan with deferred interest until that person gets a job.
That eliminates the “lazy bum” aspect, and yet, prevents being heartless as a society and having families ending up on the streets.
UCGal
July 7, 2010 @
9:56 AM
flu wrote:UCGal wrote:My [quote=flu][quote=UCGal]My husband collecte UI for a period last year. Even now he’s underemployed (less than 1/2 time). That’s part of being an architect when the economy implodes… even the “bread and butter” business – hospitals and schools (he’s got a lot of experience in these.)
He’s likely to be fully unemployed again within a few weeks… there’s NO work and the office is likely to close down entirely. It’s already down to the owner, a drafter, and my husband (the one who does the work, seals the drawings, gets the permits.)
When he was on unemployment we pulled the kids from daycare and cut back a LOT. Even when he went back to work, partime, we minimized after school care (3-4 days/month) and kept up our austerity program. Because of this we only tapped our savings a little.
BUT – I feel/felt trapped. My income became more important than ever… I don’t love my job – and my employer continues to downsize bigtime, but I do what it takes to keep my job, keep the bosses happy, even as benefits get cut, salaries are frozen, etc… In a normal economy I’d be looking hard for a new job… now I’m grateful to have a job.
It is not unrealistic that we’ll both be unemployed this year. I’m hoping we’ll get UI if that happens. We’ve always figured out how to live with just one salary (if no daycare/after school care) – but like jpinpb’s cousin… I’m not sure I’d be happy as a SAHM (IMO the hardest job in the world… I’m not sure I’m strong enough for it.)
Seeing my husband look HARD for work and seeing him get told over and over that he was over qualified. He was told by a firm that he had the perfect experience – but to hire him at the budget they had (less experience, lower salary) it would cause internal strife because the other staff would know he was making less than them and had waaaay more experience. It’s not a matter of settling, it’s hard to get job if you have a lot of experience or some grey hair.
Anyone who’s middle/upper middle class who thinks unemployment insurance is a cakewalk – it’s not… not if you have a mortgage, kids, etc…
And if the laid off person is the person who provided insurance for the family – whoa nellie… that’s the biggest reason I jump through hoops to keep my job in this economy.[/quote]
UCgal,
Frankly, I’m pretty frustrated with a lot of companies I deal with, because a lot of companies are going for “cheapest cost”, and as a result, experience is being tossed out for say entry positions, and well you know the results are less than stellar when that happens. It’s increasingly funny when all the sudden the project goes to hell and companies lose deals/contracts because frankly what they produced was..well. shit….
Side question. Has your husband considered a different profession? I mean, not to poke or prod, but how long has it been difficult as an architect in general, and how much longer do you folks expect it to be? Is there other things you think he might be interested in getting involved in? I know it’s easier said than done, but perhaps exploring other options at the same time as continuing to job hunt.
Second thing is, how open are you folks to relocating elsewhere? San Diego probably is extremely tough for his line of work right now, I’m guessing.
Just wondering if your husband has explored alternatives at the same time still looking within his main profession. I know that it’s easier said then done. Much easier said then done…..[/quote]
He’s open to career changes – but he’s even older than me (and I’m old) – so a career change in your late 50’s is hard to manage. When he was off last summer he was studying for the LEED qualification – figuring it makes him even more attractive to potential employers. (Kind of like a programmer picking up a few extra languages/skills between gigs.) He’s talked about doing commercial appraisal, forensic architecture, construction management… but with the entire building industry depressed those aren’t really booming fields.
As far as relocation – we just spent a huge sum building a detached granny flat so we could have my disable father in law (and non-disabled mother in law) live with us. This was a pretty serious family need since at 83, my MIL is less able to manage a wheel chair bound husband. So we’re a little less mobile than some. That said – he interviewed and pursued jobs that require extensive travel – something that he wasn’t willing to do in better times.
UCGal
July 7, 2010 @
10:27 AM
Forgot to address one of Forgot to address one of flu’s questions…
He’s always been able to find work. He’s got some impressive stuff on his resume – worked in house for the Franklin Institute in Philly, worked for Venturi-Scott-Brown, was offered work by Disney on Euro Disney (but they didn’t pay well, expected him to work for half the going rate.) Locally he was part of the US Grant Hotel remodel, lots of school work under prop MM, and then in recent years hospital work (Kaiser, Scripps, UCSD… he knows the guts, roofs, elevators, imaging departments of all the local hospitals.) He’s never had a hard time finding a job… even in down economies… until now.
And svelte – you’re right about the money not being in architecture… when I first met the hubster I assumed architects made big bucks…. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha… I never would have thought that engineers had much higher salary potential. The system is totally bogus with what’s basically indentured servitude until an architect gets registered (mid 30’s typically).. and even then, if they’re an employee (vs a principal) there is very little money compared to other professional fields. An acquaintance from Philly figured it out and ended up getting his MBA and eventually being Rendell’s Controller and now Temple U’s VP of treasury… more money in accounting and budgets than in design and building. He’s never looked back.
SK in CV
July 7, 2010 @
12:16 PM
UCGal wrote: He’s talked [quote=UCGal] He’s talked about doing commercial appraisal, forensic architecture, construction management… but with the entire building industry depressed those aren’t really booming fields.
[/quote]
If his resume fits into that bolded field at all, I’d suggest he look there. That piece of the industry is not down, as it tends to lag all the rest by 3 to 12 years. I can’t say its booming, but it has been non-stop busy for at least the last 10 years, with no short term end in sight. It’s hard work, may involve a lot of travel, and would be learning a new way to deliver his (probable) existing skill set, but I think the money is decent, and I know there have been at least a few local firms (which amounts to 3 of the 5 local firms that I’m aware of that do this kind of work) looking for help over the last 6 months.
svelte
July 7, 2010 @
7:38 AM
No argument here that certain No argument here that certain fields are without job opportunities right now as they usually are in downturns (one of the reasons I left architecture). Also no argument that tech job salaries are being driven down.
I still like the idea of working for unemployment $. Maybe the first six months or a year are exempt from that so one can look for a job full time.
But after that, I think everyone wins if the unemployed works, say 20 hrs/week (so they still have time to look for work).
Everyone wins: the state gets something back. The unemployed gets out of the house (I get bunker mentality if I stay in my house all day) and is doing something constructive…I know it would brighten my day.
I have to say after about 6 months, I am pretty sure I would be starting to tinker around with starting my own business, even if it is in a field I have never worked in before. I can’t sit still for long.
joec
July 7, 2010 @
8:13 AM
Maybe other than healthcare Maybe other than healthcare (and I’ve read some nurses can’t find the position they want neither), almost all different fields are just as competitive if not more so, so trying something new or a new industry is no different. This recession is across the board across many fields.
Downsides of re-training also is that for folks with mortgage/kids, it’s hard to be able to spend 2 -3 years to learn a new trade. Does that mean unemployment should last 2-3 years till you get your new degree in fields that have work “now”?
Even if you are prudent and can afford to survive on 1 income, UI doesn’t provide enough time to last 2 years for most training programs.
I do like the idea of getting a loan from the IRS. Maybe you can just go negative for 2 years or defer all bills and just tack it on to your personal IRS record…
Course, some people will probably just leave the US after. 🙂
Coronita
July 7, 2010 @
9:06 AM
joec wrote:
Downsides of [quote=joec]
Downsides of re-training also is that for folks with mortgage/kids, it’s hard to be able to spend 2 -3 years to learn a new trade. Does that mean unemployment should last 2-3 years till you get your new degree in fields that have work “now”?
[/quote]
I think on the other hand, spending the next 2-3 years trying to find a job in a profession in a geographic location for which demand is low is riskier….One gambling that things will get better in the long run. If it doesn’t, you’re 2-3 years out and still at square 1, with the exception that now you are 2-3 years older, and so are your kids, presumably with larger bills. I’m not suggesting to abandon looking in one’s profession at all, but I do think in times like these, it seems like it would be beneficial to at least consider/look into a plan B, even if you end up not needing to use it…even if plan B doesn’t immediately yield any money, but just get some experience/exposure to something else that could lead to future opportunities…Possibly, a hobbie that could at least lead to something…Again, easier said then done
This sort of thing is happening right now in the software business with Oracle’s acquisition spree. Folks who have invested a lot of time/energy in enterprise software development in Java/J2EE better starting thinking/executing on plan B or end up getting a really rude awakening… Oracle has been going on a shopping spree and started buying out all it’s competitor, and much worse, some key technologies that are more development-centric from BEA and Sun….Oracle IS going to shutdown J2EE/Enterprise Java so it can push it’s own proprietary stack, and it’s going to shutdown MySql and other opensource things that it got from the Sun acquisition. If there’s any indication of this, just look at the latest J2EE or JSR activities…There isn’t any, because Oracle has put most of it on hold….And Oracle is doing this so it can push it’s own proprietary solutions.. This is going to be a nightmare for folks who have invested a good portion of their careers only doing J2EE/Enterprise Java, especially so in San Diego, where several local defense companies are also simultaneously letting folks go with these very same skillset…The supply of folks with this skillset drastically outnumbers the demand for this skillset right now…
I think there are probably several piggs here who have doubled up. I can think of SDR, for instance, who is(was?) enginerd by day and RE mogul the other times, and it probably has paid off to have doubled up in times like this. I don’t count, because while I made a switch, I’m still in the same line of business more/less.(I always said if things get bad, I could end up being a full time mechanic…Looks like Toyota needs the help these days :))
jpinpb
July 7, 2010 @
11:45 AM
flu wrote: I don’t count, [quote=flu] I don’t count, because while I made a switch, I’m still in the same line of business more/less.(I always said if things get bad, I could end up being a full time mechanic…Looks like Toyota needs the help these days :))[/quote]
I always kept thinking the only jobs we’ll have are those where you have to be present. That’s why I think construction was a big sector that did so well. I’m thinking mechanic, though not glamorous, is a safe job that won’t be outsourced. People drive cars and cars break. You have to take it in somewhere local to fix it.
I remember in high school (as I date myself) that they offered an auto shop class, welding, etc. No more. Computer classes for jobs that can be outsourced, yes. Any mechanical class, no.
I mentioned this in another thread one time. Couldn’t we somehow combine unemployment benefits w/at least training. If we have to pay unemployment to someone who is having difficulty finding a job in their field, wouldn’t it be a win-win to have that person trained in another profession?
I heard this morning on KPBS about bio-tech jobs in Grand Rapids and how it could help their depressed economy, but many people there have no experience or training b/c they’ve been in manufacturing their whole life.
It’s sort of like that one book, “Who moved my cheese.”
Coronita
July 7, 2010 @
12:17 PM
jpinpb wrote:flu wrote: I [quote=jpinpb][quote=flu] I don’t count, because while I made a switch, I’m still in the same line of business more/less.(I always said if things get bad, I could end up being a full time mechanic…Looks like Toyota needs the help these days :))[/quote]
I always kept thinking the only jobs we’ll have are those where you have to be present. That’s why I think construction was a big sector that did so well. I’m thinking mechanic, though not glamorous, is a safe job that won’t be outsourced. People drive cars and cars break. You have to take it in somewhere local to fix it.
I remember in high school (as I date myself) that they offered an auto shop class, welding, etc. No more. Computer classes for jobs that can be outsourced, yes. Any mechanical class, no.
I mentioned this in another thread one time. Couldn’t we somehow combine unemployment benefits w/at least training. If we have to pay unemployment to someone who is having difficulty finding a job in their field, wouldn’t it be a win-win to have that person trained in another profession?
I heard this morning on KPBS about bio-tech jobs in Grand Rapids and how it could help their depressed economy, but many people there have no experience or training b/c they’ve been in manufacturing their whole life.
It’s sort of like that one book, “Who moved my cheese.”[/quote]
I sort of see an issue with some of the employment in the high tech area. The issue is as follows
a)There are jobs for which for experienced people in the relevant area….still commanding a pretty hefty compensation
b)There are jobs for which are entry level, for folks who are starting out/no experience.
*The gap between (a) and (b) is huge.. Filling positions in (a), companies are resorting to poaching from each other.
*Companies don’t want to spend time/money on retraining anyone with experience (but not in the relevant areas) into (b).. companies rather hire new grads to do (b) and pay new-grad dollars. Also, given the difference between a new grad and someone retrained into the same position, some (not all ) employers view more favorably for the new grad, as the thought is you can throw a bunch of work and have that new grad finish (since he/she is new, and wants to conquer the world, versus someone that’s been in the industry for a long time that has since learned that deadlines slip, very rarely are things “urgent”, and a delay here/there isn’t going to kill anyone)….
*Realitiy is though that some new grads (millenium generation) tend to have some serious issues wrto expectations, in that they expect to be a manager from day 1 and not do the grunt work, and the once that are really good get poached among the employers.
Hence, why you still have some positions that are “open”, yet unfilled.
Frankly, I’m hoping to exit this industry 4-5 years from now, if things ever self-sustain at my own house…Because I can’t see myself keeping up with folks when I’m in my 40ies in this line of work.
NotCranky
July 7, 2010 @
9:33 AM
I don’t believe that many I don’t believe that many people collecting unemployment would be out on the streets eating from dumpsters if benefit extensions stop. They would have a place to stay and adequate nutrition with friends or family. I am sure that would motivate people who can’t make ends meet w/o benefits to find ways to be useful and resourceful, with or without organizational efforts towards such ends by the government. I think it could be beneficial to the soul of this country to take this path and get on with a reality reset, instead of blowing bubbles,enslaving future generations, invading another country or something like that.
The people who are truly unemployable and/or unwanted elsewhere are on different systems of welfare or already on the streets. The rest of us have a ton of potential to combine resources.Hundreds of thousands of people are getting by in California, without great jobs or unemployment benefits or turning to crime.I don’t now how to approximate the numbers nationally but of course there are millions.
I also wonder how much of that extended unemployment money is going towards mortgages and credit card debt to the banks that already get massive handouts,while people in real need are often ignored.
I don’t like the “solution” of offering more debt possibilities. Haven’t we had enough of the consequences for all this paying for the chickens before they hatch stuff?
I am not someone who has had an easy life. If I had, I would not dare make these comments.
I like Josh’s suggestion of support centers but I don’t think they would be heavily used because of the current situation.
Arraya
July 7, 2010 @
11:32 AM
Russell wrote:I don’t believe [quote=Russell]I don’t believe that many people collecting unemployment would be out on the streets eating from dumpsters if benefit extensions stop. They would have a place to stay and adequate nutrition with friends or family. I am sure that would motivate people who can’t make ends meet w/o benefits to find ways to be useful and resourceful, with or without organizational efforts towards such ends by the government. I think it could be beneficial to the soul of this country to take this path and get on with a reality reset, instead of blowing bubbles,enslaving future generations, invading another country or something like that.
The people who are truly unemployable and/or unwanted elsewhere are on different systems of welfare or already on the streets. The rest of us have a ton of potential to combine resources.Hundreds of thousands of people are getting by in California, without great jobs or unemployment benefits or turning to crime.I don’t now how to approximate the numbers nationally but of course there are millions.
I also wonder how much of that extended unemployment money is going towards mortgages and credit card debt to the banks that already get massive handouts,while people in real need are often ignored.
I don’t like the “solution” of offering more debt possibilities. Haven’t we had enough of the consequences for all this paying for the chickens before they hatch stuff?
I am not someone who has had an easy life. If I had, I would not dare make these comments.
I like Josh’s suggestion of support centers but I don’t think they would be heavily used because of the current situation.[/quote]
Russ, I understand what you are getting at, but severing the support of the weakest is not going to get rid of materialism, it’s going to create a massive underclass. Every study I’ve seen on wealth disparity(I mean real science not economics) for 1st and 3rd worlds alike, huge wealth disparity causes more crime for more psychological than survival reasons. Of course, factored together will absolutely cause more crime. The fact that we are “helping” employed homeowners with their mortgages while not helping the unemployed highlights our priorities. The structure as it is now for budget cuts is for the lowest of the wealth pyramid to get kicked out of the system. Like I said, I understand what you are getting at, but kicking the periphery out will not achieve your desired results.
Actually, during the depression there was a good bit of starvation with half the population living on family farms and farmers throwing away food because people did not have money. Today, with less than one percent living on farms the only option is for monetary support. Also as budget problems persist, the last thing they would do is divert more funds to the bottom for support centers. Actually the least money will be available for that type of thing and existing support structures will get overwhelmed at the same time as funding dries up for them. What we are creating is an underclass with diminishing support.
Arraya wrote:
Russ, I [quote=Arraya]
Russ, I understand what you are getting at, but severing the support of the weakest is not going to get rid of materialism, it’s going to create a massive underclass. [/quote]
This is where I disagree…I don’t think that the unemployed are the ‘weakest’. I think many of them could find work if they wanted to–they just don’t want to. Continuing to support them will not turn the economy around or encourage them to find jobs. The one thing that will encourage them to take jobs is to cut off the spigot or force them to actually work for their ‘benefits’. I think if we started forcing people to clean toilets, pick up trash and sweep streets for their UI benefits you’d find that a lot of them magically were able to find a job.
Hobie
July 7, 2010 @
11:41 AM
You know Mead this will never You know Mead this will never happen. They would be taking union jobs and we all know that is a no no. 😉
jpinpb
July 7, 2010 @
11:50 AM
meadandale wrote:
This is [quote=meadandale]
This is where I disagree…I don’t think that the unemployed are the ‘weakest’. I think many of them could find work if they wanted to–they just don’t want to. Continuing to support them will not turn the economy around or encourage them to find jobs. The one thing that will encourage them to take jobs is to cut off the spigot or force them to actually work for their ‘benefits’. I think if we started forcing people to clean toilets, pick up trash and sweep streets for their UI benefits you’d find that a lot of them magically were able to find a job.[/quote]
I do think that there must be some kind of job that can be offered for those on unemployment. Even if it is to provide day care for those working. It’ll get those not working out of the house, interacting w/people, give them some self-esteem and earning their pay.
Honestly, I don’t think that many educated people enjoy being on unemployment. I think it does have a psychological detriment. My brother has a master’s in business and his focus for the past 25 years was the automobile industry. He was in mid-upper management. Since he was laid off from Maserati/Ferrari in October, he has been on unemployment. He’s not happy. He is considering going to the Gulf to help clean up efforts just to do something productive.
joec
July 7, 2010 @
2:28 PM
Another reason they probably Another reason they probably don’t force people to do something else is liability. Think if unemployed people started to do day care. Talk about lack of training, or possible child molestation, kidnapping issues. For things like manual labor, there’s worker’s compensation and on the job injury…The legal mess is probably not worth the hassle to figure out what so and so can do while unemployed…
The comment about picking up trash and unions is no joke. I have read that union/employed people wouldn’t want employed people working for free since it will take their jobs away as well.
Why would business pay someone if they have someone else who will do the work for free? It’ll be a race to the bottom in terms of pay for any industry this is setup for.
It can probably apply to most careers as well actually…Biotech testing? I’m sure most engineering type can learn in 3 months how to run or do Q/A on the same testing environment if given the chance…
Another good point brought up is it’s all well and easy to tell a 21 year old to get off his butt, move for a job or start a new career by training, etc…but for someone in the mid/late 50s, have parents and inlaws who are not mobile and need constant care, it’s not that easy to kick them to the curb and say “tough”, I need to find work so I now have to pay someone else 2000-3000/month just to watch you so I can make 2000 after taxes to pay for your care.
In the end, this is a very complex problem with no easy solution and I still don’t think people who haven’t been there before know what it’s like (since I used to think that way too).
UCGal
July 7, 2010 @
4:14 PM
remember how I said hubby’s remember how I said hubby’s office was down to 3 people… as of next friday it’s down to 2. But hubby is one of the remaining 2. It’s down to him and the owner.
Hobie
July 7, 2010 @
5:17 PM
Good luck to your family UC. Good luck to your family UC.
This sadly points to a lingering down economy. The construction begins with the design of the buildings and if nothing is in the pipe, then nothing for construction trades to do. And look at the lead time when the design/engineering begin.
Shovel ready jobs??? right.
NotCranky
July 7, 2010 @
12:35 PM
Arraya wrote:Russell wrote:I [quote=Arraya][quote=Russell]I don’t believe that many people collecting unemployment would be out on the streets eating from dumpsters if benefit extensions stop. They would have a place to stay and adequate nutrition with friends or family. I am sure that would motivate people who can’t make ends meet w/o benefits to find ways to be useful and resourceful, with or without organizational efforts towards such ends by the government. I think it could be beneficial to the soul of this country to take this path and get on with a reality reset, instead of blowing bubbles,enslaving future generations, invading another country or something like that.
The people who are truly unemployable and/or unwanted elsewhere are on different systems of welfare or already on the streets. The rest of us have a ton of potential to combine resources.Hundreds of thousands of people are getting by in California, without great jobs or unemployment benefits or turning to crime.I don’t now how to approximate the numbers nationally but of course there are millions.
I also wonder how much of that extended unemployment money is going towards mortgages and credit card debt to the banks that already get massive handouts,while people in real need are often ignored.
I don’t like the “solution” of offering more debt possibilities. Haven’t we had enough of the consequences for all this paying for the chickens before they hatch stuff?
I am not someone who has had an easy life. If I had, I would not dare make these comments.
I like Josh’s suggestion of support centers but I don’t think they would be heavily used because of the current situation.[/quote]
Russ, I understand what you are getting at, but severing the support of the weakest is not going to get rid of materialism, it’s going to create a massive underclass. Every study I’ve seen on wealth disparity(I mean real science not economics) for 1st and 3rd worlds alike, huge wealth disparity causes more crime for more psychological than survival reasons. Of course, factored together will absolutely cause more crime. The fact that we are “helping” employed homeowners with their mortgages while not helping the unemployed highlights our priorities. The structure as it is now for budget cuts is for the lowest of the wealth pyramid to get kicked out of the system. Like I said, I understand what you are getting at, but kicking the periphery out will not achieve your desired results.
Actually, during the depression there was a good bit of starvation with half the population living on family farms and farmers throwing away food because people did not have money. Today, with less than one percent living on farms the only option is for monetary support. Also as budget problems persist, the last thing they would do is divert more funds to the bottom for support centers. Actually the least money will be available for that type of thing and existing support structures will get overwhelmed at the same time as funding dries up for them. What we are creating is an underclass with diminishing support.
What I am getting at I am also tip toeing around.
Everyone complains about corrupt Daddy big business or Corrupt Mommie big government or both but no one wants to be weaned from both soured milk teats at the same time.I don’t want to be held in check by the crime boogeyman anymore than the economic spiral boogey man or any of the other things that supposedly threaten us.I think we are a culture in need of bigger solutions and I have never seen a bunch of babies fighting to nurse solve anything beyond infantile appetites.
Arraya
July 7, 2010 @
1:14 PM
Russell wrote:Arraya [quote=Russell][quote=Arraya][quote=Russell]I don’t believe that many people collecting unemployment would be out on the streets eating from dumpsters if benefit extensions stop. They would have a place to stay and adequate nutrition with friends or family. I am sure that would motivate people who can’t make ends meet w/o benefits to find ways to be useful and resourceful, with or without organizational efforts towards such ends by the government. I think it could be beneficial to the soul of this country to take this path and get on with a reality reset, instead of blowing bubbles,enslaving future generations, invading another country or something like that.
The people who are truly unemployable and/or unwanted elsewhere are on different systems of welfare or already on the streets. The rest of us have a ton of potential to combine resources.Hundreds of thousands of people are getting by in California, without great jobs or unemployment benefits or turning to crime.I don’t now how to approximate the numbers nationally but of course there are millions.
I also wonder how much of that extended unemployment money is going towards mortgages and credit card debt to the banks that already get massive handouts,while people in real need are often ignored.
I don’t like the “solution” of offering more debt possibilities. Haven’t we had enough of the consequences for all this paying for the chickens before they hatch stuff?
I am not someone who has had an easy life. If I had, I would not dare make these comments.
I like Josh’s suggestion of support centers but I don’t think they would be heavily used because of the current situation.[/quote]
Russ, I understand what you are getting at, but severing the support of the weakest is not going to get rid of materialism, it’s going to create a massive underclass. Every study I’ve seen on wealth disparity(I mean real science not economics) for 1st and 3rd worlds alike, huge wealth disparity causes more crime for more psychological than survival reasons. Of course, factored together will absolutely cause more crime. The fact that we are “helping” employed homeowners with their mortgages while not helping the unemployed highlights our priorities. The structure as it is now for budget cuts is for the lowest of the wealth pyramid to get kicked out of the system. Like I said, I understand what you are getting at, but kicking the periphery out will not achieve your desired results.
Actually, during the depression there was a good bit of starvation with half the population living on family farms and farmers throwing away food because people did not have money. Today, with less than one percent living on farms the only option is for monetary support. Also as budget problems persist, the last thing they would do is divert more funds to the bottom for support centers. Actually the least money will be available for that type of thing and existing support structures will get overwhelmed at the same time as funding dries up for them. What we are creating is an underclass with diminishing support.
What I am getting at I am also tip toeing around.
Everyone complains about corrupt Daddy big business or Corrupt Mommie big government or both but no one wants to be weaned from both soured milk teats at the same time.I don’t want to be held in check by the crime boogeyman anymore than the economic spiral boogey man or any of the other things that supposedly threaten us.I think we are a culture in need of bigger solutions and I have never seen a bunch of babies fighting to nurse solve anything beyond infantile appetites.[/quote]
Well I hate to bust your bubble , Russ, but both of those boogey men lurk over your shoulder whether you like it or not. Denying their existence does not make them go away. Just as ignoring an infected wound does not make it go away. And this highly armed, infantilized nation will do all kinds of nasty things to each other if it drags on too long.
But you hit the nail on the head. Mommy and Daddy are severely perverted, abusive and cause 99% of the problems. The good thing is the both are completely human constructs that we can change any time we like. But recognizing and acknowledging the problems and threats posed is necessary to moving on.
Tinkering with the survival means of the weakest and potential psychological impacts of such tinkering is just an act of sadism, IMO.
NotCranky
July 7, 2010 @
5:17 PM
[quote=Arraya
Well I hate to [quote=Arraya
Well I hate to bust your bubble , Russ, but both of those boogey men lurk over your shoulder whether you like it or not. Denying their existence does not make them go away. Just as ignoring an infected wound does not make it go away. And this highly armed, infantilized nation will do all kinds of nasty things to each other if it drags on too long.
Tinkering with the survival means of the weakest and potential psychological impacts of such tinkering is just an act of sadism, IMO.[/quote]
I think the problem isn’t that the weakest are being affected the problem is that it is happening higher up. The weakest can’t travel around the world or catch up on hobbies or maintain and improve houses on the dole.They can’t complete a new degree on funemployment. The weakest can’t sell and move into a smaller house.The weakest are having bombs dropped on their houses. Not saying there would not be problems.But by continuing all these bailouts other people will pay for maintaining lives of luxury for people who for the most part have only ever tried to help themselves and I don’t think that is right.
Further more no matter how long the recession goes on you might not even get benefits, even if you were destitute, unless you are a card carrying “cog in the wheel”. Who in this situation thinks 3 years of unemployment for fee takers, warmachine workers,junk food maker/vendors and gadget builders is cool? How about if you are actually poor and have to go wash their fancy cars to make ends meet and get paid with their dole money knowing that they look down on you because you are one of those people who lives 6 adults to house, but off your own sweat?
How does throwing money at luxury not induce crime from the weakest?
sobmaz
July 7, 2010 @
6:49 PM
Unemployment benefits if Unemployment benefits if anything creates additional jobs. People who get the benefits spend that money, which creates some jobs.
Some argue unemployment benefits INCREASES the unemployment rate, which in effect is saying if the Government gives Joe Blow unemployment benefits, employers will lay other people off. How does that make sense?
What does happen is those who are more able to deal with unemployment withdraw from the work force while freeing up a potential job for someone who desperately needs a job.
An example…..
In 1986 my company was laying off. I had lots of seniority so didn’t have to worry but I actually wanted the time off so that I could go to school. Others with low seniority had families and needed every extra dime and the benefits so could not afford to be laid off and collect unemployment.
Rather than going down the seniority line my company asked for volunteers for lay off. It got all the volunteers it needed. No one suffered.
Extrapolate this to the larger economy. Unemployment benefits does not decrease the total number of jobs available but what it does do is cause a shift. The most desperate are able to find that job because a guy who can afford to live off of unemployment has stopped whole heartedly trying to find a job.
It will be argued by some that this means that some lazy Liberal Bum is not working and living off the public dime. But what I would argue is since there is a finite amount of jobs wouldn’t it be better to allow those who best afford unemployment insurance have it and wouldn’t it be better to allow those who most need a job and benefits have it? Or is it mandatory everyone suffer?
I think under normal times 6 months is long enough. During economic turmoil like now, extensions are prudent.
That said, I hope the extension is not approved because I want a complete and total economic collapse since it seems that will be the only thing that will over come our governments attempts to reflate the housing bubble.
DWCAP
July 8, 2010 @
10:46 AM
sobmaz wrote:Unemployment [quote=sobmaz]Unemployment benefits if anything creates additional jobs. People who get the benefits spend that money, which creates some jobs.
Some argue unemployment benefits INCREASES the unemployment rate, which in effect is saying if the Government gives Joe Blow unemployment benefits, employers will lay other people off. How does that make sense?[/quote]
I disagree.
Unemployment only reduces the number of jobs lost in the early stages of decline. By definition, these are people who had jobs, but lost them. Replacing their wages with unemployment insurance only insures that they dont immediatly stop spending, slowing the decline in total employment as the grocerie stores and gas stations and rent/mortages people still get paid. UE at best protects jobs in daily necessity industries. It doesnt create new jobs, with the possible exception of a few government workers to service the added people.
As for increasing the UE rate, it does, atleast in less hard times. Because people hold out for better jobs, or jobs in their area, with similar pay. Except, those are few and far between in down times, so they stay unemployeed longer looking for that ‘right’ job. If they had to work NOW, they would take most anything that they could reasonablly do, and get off the UE roles.
sobmaz
July 8, 2010 @
3:29 PM
DWCAP
So you are saying most DWCAP
So you are saying most of those on unemployment could find jobs if they wanted? You are saying the jobs are there, employers are desperately trying to find labor but the labor is unavailable because the labor has decided to stay home and collect unemployment?
If so many jobs are going unfilled, why are employers laying off? Why are help wanted adds at near all time lows? It doesn’t add up.
There are millions of unemployed and by your logic there are millions of jobs available but employers cant find the workers.
So when the economy contracted in the last couple of years it was actually just a statistical issue, real jobs were not involved?
When the economy collapsed two years ago, overall, the economy did not lose any jobs?
When the stock market crashed two years ago, overall the economy continued to produce enough jobs to deal with graduating college students?
When home building crashed from 1.5 million units to 300k units 2 years ago, the economy still had jobs available for all those laid off construction workers?
When you put money into the hands of people who are out of work, it does protect jobs, it does create economic activity, I don’t care what you think, facts prove otherwise.
How do you explain the hundreds of thousands of retirees in places like Sun City West and Sun City? None of them work, yet they spend money that is sent to them monthly. They spend at grocery stores, walmart, utilities, vets…and on and on. Each dollar spent has a multiplier effect.
Unemployment benefits mean some people will not lose their jobs because people still have money to spend. It is a waste of tiime to argue if that is creating or saving jobs. The political rhetoric is that it actually causes a loss of jobs and that is bunk.
I know to most it is like I am explaining why 1+1 =2, but it appears it is necessary in this case.
Some chose to believe fact, some chose to believe rhetoric.
Werewolf
July 8, 2010 @
5:07 PM
There is a fundamental issue There is a fundamental issue we gloss over. In the US, we pay for and value specialization. If you specialize, you get paid but what happens when you lose that job? What do you do if that industry is contracting (i.e. semiconductors, hardware)?
I always hear stories re: Silicon Valley workers who are unemployed for 1-2 years b/c they can’t find jobs relevant to their experience.
I don’t think (for example) an engineer making 100k a yr is going to take a Starbucks job (assuming he could actually get one) if he’s got a family, mortgage or meaningful debt b/c it doesn’t solve the problem.
Some jobs are useful across industries (book-keeper, accountant, back office) but some aren’t. I don’t think unemployment benefits should be free once you’ve exhausted what you’ve paid for in insurance premiums. Make extension recipients contribute back to society (charities, local govt works, whatever) for the additional $.
Coronita
July 8, 2010 @
5:17 PM
Werewolf wrote:There is a [quote=Werewolf]There is a fundamental issue we gloss over. In the US, we pay for and value specialization. If you specialize, you get paid but what happens when you lose that job? What do you do if that industry is contracting (i.e. semiconductors, hardware)?
I always hear stories re: Silicon Valley workers who are unemployed for 1-2 years b/c they can’t find jobs relevant to their experience.
I don’t think (for example) an engineer making 100k a yr is going to take a Starbucks job (assuming he could actually get one) if he’s got a family, mortgage or meaningful debt b/c it doesn’t solve the problem.
Some jobs are useful across industries (book-keeper, accountant, back office) but some aren’t. I don’t think unemployment benefits should be free once you’ve exhausted what you’ve paid for in insurance premiums. Make extension recipients contribute back to society (charities, local govt works, whatever) for the additional $.[/quote]
Plan B…It happens all the time…
afx114
July 9, 2010 @
9:08 AM
Here’s a possible solution: Here’s a possible solution: http://takeourjobs.org/. Dude was on Colbert Report last night and he said only 3 Americans have taken him up on his offer.
DWCAP
July 9, 2010 @
3:48 PM
sobmaz wrote:DWCAP
…….
I [quote=sobmaz]DWCAP
…….
I know to most it is like I am explaining why 1+1 =2, but it appears it is necessary in this case.
Some chose to believe fact, some chose to believe rhetoric.[/quote]
Wow, that was an emotional response to something I clearly didnt say. I can tell this is a very emotionally charged issue for you, so please read my next words carefully to really understand what I am saying.
1) Unemployment Benifits dont create NEW jobs, they protect the economy from LOSING MORE jobs. It stops someone from freezing all spending after losing their job, agrivating the bust cycle into steeper recessions or depressions. People dont go out and spend extra when they are laid off, they cut back. UE is what, max $1800/month? That keeps the lights on, the fridge half full, and the car going. Not much more. But none of that is NEW/extra spending, UE replaced regular spending from now missing wages. That isnt new jobs, it is protecting the spending supporting old ones.
Is that clear? You said it yourself:
“When you put money into the hands of people who are out of work, it does protect jobs, it does create economic activity.”
– Yes, it PROTECTS current jobs, not creates NEW ones as you argued.
2) Direct Quote from Larry Summers:
[Quote]Unemployment insurance also extends the time a person stays off the job. [Kim] Clark and I estimated that the existence of unemployment insurance almost doubles the number of unemployment spells lasting more than three months. If unemployment insurance were eliminated, the unemployment rate would drop by more than half a percentage point, which means that the number of unemployed people would fall by about 750,000. This is all the more significant in light of the fact that less than half of the unemployed receive insurance benefits, largely because many have not worked enough to qualify.[/Quote]
Obviously some people dispute your ‘facts’, and that is Obamas guy, so save the the political ploys. I argue that UE raises the number of people on UE, IN MORE NORMAL TIMES! That Summers piece was witten in 2005. I specifically said, “in less hard times”. Others in this thread posted about people milking the system, it happens, not everyone is SOL, just like not everyone is milking the system. There are jobs out there, and people may have to move or take less pay, but it isnt a 0 hiring economy.
I qualified my point, you didnt. The distinction is important, as our goal is to get back to ‘more normal times’.
If you had read earlier posts, I split increasing unemployemnt from 6 months to one year, and over 99 weeks. I support increasing benifits to 1 year in times like these, becuase jobs, ANY jobs, dont exist in enough numbers for the people who want them. But if we are talking over two years of benifits, then we need to start looking at other solutions, (education, career training, moving,) because it is obvious this isnt working and these people are damaging their ability to move back into the work force. Past two years UE, that is more harmful than helpful and it is time for other solutions, even if they are more painful than desired.
Now, I am not gonna argue with you about how much the economy has sucked or the fact that my generation is falling further and further behind as we graduate from HS or college and have little in the way of prospects. I am not gonna argue with you about the emotional devistation going on around the country as people loose jobs, houses and even self identities. All are true, and all too true.
But paying them to avoid the hard truths about their careers and job prospects isnt gonna help either. Employment isnt evenly spread around the country, currently South Dakota has a 4.5% unemployement rate (april 10). Detroit is something like 18%+ right now. To pay people to stay in detroit and not be able to work is not a long term viable solution when there is surly some kind of labor to be done in South Dakota. (Not everyone in Detroit can go, I am not saying that, but some can, and that movement to new opertunities is good for the economy).
And I firmly disagre with you here:
[Quote]It is a waste of tiime to argue if that is creating or saving jobs. The political rhetoric is that it actually causes a loss of jobs and that is bunk. [/Quote]
This seems to be our major point of contention. I think it most certainly does matter if we are creating new jobs or saving old ones. The only way out of this mess is to have solid paying long term jobs for people who need them. That requires putting people in new jobs, Just saving old ones doesnt do the trick.
And I dont know who is spouting the idea that this costs overall jobs in an economy like this. But I dont espout that idea, so please do not attribute it to me.
It said that unemployment benefits according to most economists would extend someones “out of workness” by about 1.6 weeks compared to someone without Unemployment Insurance.
Since we like quoting Larry Summers above, here is his response back in April to an editorial about his 1993 quote:
“In his scholarly past, Lawrence Summers, now Mr. Obama’s economic guru, wrote in 1993 that “government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment … by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work.” When an April Wall Street Journal editorial described his position, Mr. Summers fired back in a letter to the editor: “In the wake of the worst economic crisis in eight decades … there can be no doubt that the overwhelming cause of unemployment is economic distress, not the existence of unemployment insurance.”
I really liked the comment where the guy gets laid off from his 65k job, finds another after 2 months for 72k and quits hating it in a week and not being eligible for UI anymore…Maybe he should’ve just put up with it for the money, but like I mentioned earlier, it’s not that black and white whether to take another position if it will so drastically affect your or your family’s life in a negative way.
“Farm workers do the work that most Americans are not willing to do,” said union president Arturo Rodriguez in the announcement of the campaign.
This is the line that is so often quoted and so very full of B.S.
My dad grew up on a farm, as did all our relatives on his side of the family. I’ve never heard of a single one of them having to hire “illegal” immigrants (or any immigrant, for that matter) to work on the farm.
Americans have a long history as farmers, but they won’t do it for the same price that *illegal labor* is willing to slave for. Personally, I’m more than willing to pay more for produce that’s been planted/harvested by legal U.S. workers. I know there are many others who feel the same way I do about this.
The low wages are not necessarily passed down to the customer, either. It’s all about increasing the margins for the owners; yet the TRUE cost of illegal labor (low wages, overburdened physical and social infrastructure, high medical expenses/closed hospitals, higher housing prices, lower quality of life, etc.) is borne by the rest of us.
Hooray for globalism! [/sarcasm]
jpinpb
July 11, 2010 @
8:50 AM
CA renter wrote:Hooray for [quote=CA renter]Hooray for globalism! [/sarcasm][/quote]
And capitalism.
Some of these owner-farmers have a lucrative business w/the Mexcian cheap labor. If there were no Mexican cheap labor and no U.S. citizen would work for the slave wages, they would be force to pay higher wages for people to work the fields or they would have rotten fruits and vegetables w/no one getting their hands dirty. Our economy is not receptive to minimum wage for U.S. citizen farm workers and it’s ridiculous to suggest that. Meanwhile the profits are being made off the backs of Mexicans and no savings passed to consumers
(CAR – there you go again, stealing my thoughts)
P.S. My aunt and uncle in Italy had a small farm. Not glamorous and hard work. They were out there w/their workers and they enjoyed it. It’s a lifestyle for some people in Italy, believe it or not. My other uncle in Italy has a small winery w/fields of grapes they tend to. They find in rewarding in many ways, not just financial.
CA renter
July 12, 2010 @
12:23 AM
jpinpb wrote:CA renter [quote=jpinpb][quote=CA renter]Hooray for globalism! [/sarcasm][/quote]
And capitalism.
[/quote]
Exactly.
And you’re right about people farming for the love of it, as well as for the money. Most of the farmers I’ve known are farmers at heart. They couldn’t imagine doing anything else, and they love what they’re doing (even though it is very difficult, back-breaking work).
I’m tired of hearing about “lazy” Americans who “won’t do xx work.” I’m sure most of us over 40 all worked doing very menial labor when we were young. Today, our teenagers cannot find these same jobs because the illegal workers have filled all the positions. It’s no wonder today’s kids feel the need to get into management right away. We’ve eliminated most of the lower-end jobs that were the first steps to moving up the ladder.
BTW, by paying these people such low wages, we’ve really made it clear how much we value “productive” workers. We’ve denigrated real work/workers to such an extent that the only way for people to get any respect for the work they do is if they have a useless college degree (and we’re starting to disrespect that as well, BTW) and get involved with pushing paper or financial speculation.
“Most applicants quickly lose interest once the reality sinks in that these are back-breaking jobs in triple-digit temperatures that pay minimum wage, usually without benefits, according to the union. Some small farms are not required to pay minimum wage and in 15 states farms aren’t required to offer workers’ compensation.”
That’s what tolerance of employers utilizing illegal labor does. Takes jobs and drives the compensation to minimum wage or below with no benefits.
Here’s a simple question? Who wants to go pick produce in 100 degree plus field when you can look at the picture menu on McDonald’s for $10/hr in nice AC comfort?
joec
July 11, 2010 @
9:24 PM
The illegal labor is the The illegal labor is the issue since compared to their own country, minimum wage could be decent due to a lower cost of living there. It’s not a fair comparison what they are proposing since the money earned isn’t used to actually LIVE in the US, but somewhere else.
They make the US wage here and send it to another country where that buys a lot more in terms or food, clothing, rent, entertainment, etc…
Not true I don’t think, but say if Japan had a minimum wage with exchange rates of say 20 USD an hour (a music CD is 3000 yen after all) and it was a train’s ride away, I think a lot of people won’t mind sitting or working in a book shop or McDonalds for “minimum wage” and be quite happy doing it.
looking
July 12, 2010 @
10:03 AM
joec wrote:
Not true I don’t [quote=joec]
Not true I don’t think, but say if Japan had a minimum wage with exchange rates of say 20 USD an hour (a music CD is 3000 yen after all) and it was a train’s ride away, I think a lot of people won’t mind sitting or working in a book shop or McDonalds for “minimum wage” and be quite happy doing it.[/quote]
That just made me laugh. 20-25 years ago (wow I’m getting old) I believe the minimum wage in Japan was about 350-400 yen/hour although CDs still amazingly cost about 3000 yen. Now, the minimum wage in the Tokyo area is 790 yen/ hr but CDs are still about 3000 yen.
joec
July 12, 2010 @
12:39 PM
looking wrote:joec wrote:
Not [quote=looking][quote=joec]
Not true I don’t think, but say if Japan had a minimum wage with exchange rates of say 20 USD an hour (a music CD is 3000 yen after all) and it was a train’s ride away, I think a lot of people won’t mind sitting or working in a book shop or McDonalds for “minimum wage” and be quite happy doing it.[/quote]
That just made me laugh. 20-25 years ago (wow I’m getting old) I believe the minimum wage in Japan was about 350-400 yen/hour although CDs still amazingly cost about 3000 yen. Now, the minimum wage in the Tokyo area is 790 yen/ hr but CDs are still about 3000 yen.[/quote]
Thanks for the update on the Tokyo minimum wage (about $9 USD/hour).
Still, you get the idea, I don’t think the cost of living in the country south of us is anywhere near what it is in the US of A for locals/natives who aren’t in a tourist/vacation spot so minimum goes much further and I still believe that’s part of the problem…
Werewolf
July 12, 2010 @
4:26 PM
Re the Plan B comment, have Re the Plan B comment, have you done this yourself or are you commenting as an arm-chair quarterback?
Would love to hear stories about how people are able to retool in the recession but I have a hard time believing it…
Coronita
July 21, 2010 @
5:02 PM
Werewolf wrote:Re the Plan B [quote=Werewolf]Re the Plan B comment, have you done this yourself or are you commenting as an arm-chair quarterback?
Would love to hear stories about how people are able to retool in the recession but I have a hard time believing it…[/quote]
I’ve done it myself a few times ever since the dot.com imploded into the dot.bomb out of necessity. and more recently, like I said, as the enterprise SW market started drying up…(It’s probably easier in my case, since there is some related things from one tech track to the other)…
I think the thing that worked for me, frankly, was not waiting until the crap hits the fan before picking something else up. Usually, I start to try to pick something else up while things are going well otherwise (because the pessimist I am, I never think good things last a very long time).. In the past, things usually starts as a hobby that leads to something else. I got involved with what i’m doing now initially because I wanted to win some money from Google in their competitions they had…It lead to incubating a few startup ideas from friends that went nowhere… to what I’m doing now..which I guess is so so…
I think the other thing I just gotten use to, is just failing…Everyone only likes to think that every transition is smooth. I think for every 1 thing that worked I can think of 10+ efforts that were complete waste of time/drain/etc. It’s almost like getting dumped a couple of times by the women you liked and hopefully finding one that sticks. Lastly, hard lesson I learned (more recently) is, never get too comfortable with how well things are going, because that will change very quickly…like how recently one of my former partners whom I introduced to a few leads recently royally f’d me over and am now directly competing with over things. (axxhole)….Kinda like, if you end up getting the pretty girl on the block, make sure no one else on the block tries to steal her away.
Corollary to the last rule: never feel sorry for a friend and let him/her into something related to money that you normally wouldn’t give to anyone else out of a business context….
flu wrote:
Well, looks like [quote=flu]
Well, looks like it passed…[/quote]
I expected it would.
Aecetia
August 5, 2010 @
7:20 AM
“Altogether, 8.56 million “Altogether, 8.56 million people were collecting some type of unemployment benefit in the week ended July 17. That was up from 8.30 million in the prior week.Some 8.2 million Americans lost their jobs during the height of the recession in 2008 and 2009 and many remain out of work. The lack of job growth has become a central issue between Democrats and Republicans as the fall congressional elections approach. At the end of June, the U.S. unemployment rate stood at 9.5%. The government on Friday will report an updated jobless rate when it releases its monthly employment for July.”
She supports extending She supports extending unemployment benefits:”Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced a bill Wednesday that would provide extra weeks of benefits to people who’ve reached the end of their unemployment insurance lifelines. The measure would provide 20 extra weeks of unemployment benefits and extend a tax credit for businesses that hire workers who’ve been unemployed for 60 days or longer.”
Food Stamp Usage Hits 18 Sequential Record High At 40.8 Million
CA renter
August 5, 2010 @
11:01 PM
Good thing the middle class Good thing the middle class in the U.S. isn’t disappearing or anything. Apparently, all is well. Let’s keep up the good work!
Food Stamp Usage Hits 18 Sequential Record High At 40.8 Million[/quote]
A friend’s daughter recently applied for food stamps. They are living in a house in poway ($1700/month rent) and have two cars. Neither her daughter or her daughter’s husband are working. Although they qualified for the food stamps they were denied because they owned two cars.
Her daughter asked “Well what if one of us gets a job? We need to have a car to get to work!” Well, technically if ONE of you gets a job you only need ONE car to get to work. If both of you got jobs and you needed a second car…well then you’d probably be earning enough money that you wouldn’t need to be on food stamps, right?
It goes to show the mentality of people…when they got their income tax refund this year the first thing they went and spent the money on: sending their dog to the groomer.
joec
August 6, 2010 @
9:45 PM
Out of curiosity, are the 2 Out of curiosity, are the 2 cars even paid off? I suppose the downside of getting rid of the cars is if it’s not paid off, they won’t get anything (and may have to bring cash to the table) to sell it and if they can get food stamps, getting another car will be tough with no ready assets to buy even a low priced car…
July 2, 2010 @ 10:05 PM
The presumption behind #2 is
The presumption behind #2 is that there are jobs with less pay for everyone who wants to work. It is false.
July 2, 2010 @ 10:15 PM
Theoretically after resisting
Theoretically after resisting wage cut, a long recession will make workers accept lower pay or pay freezes and the economy goes back to full employment. It might take a few years.
July 2, 2010 @ 10:23 PM
We’re in a situation with
We’re in a situation with insufficient consumer demand. There’s simply no work available for most of the people who are currently unemployed, not for “just pay”, not for “less pay”. Short of lowering the minimum wage, there’s not much you can do to get them back to work. (And lowering the minimum wage is a can of worms of its own.)
Keep in mind that a lot of the unemployed people are unskilled workers, with only a high school education or less. They weren’t making that much to begin with. The average unemployment benefit, which is set as a percentage of pre-unemployment income, is typically less than what the recipient would make working full-time on a minimum wage.
July 3, 2010 @ 6:54 AM
Economists are nearly
Economists are nearly unanimous in agreeing that unemployment benefits increase unemployment in normal times. They make the job-seeker less willing to lower their asking price, move to a lower unemployment rate area, or change occupations. Studies show that when one’s unemployment benefits run out, these adjustments are made.
Of course, these are not normal times, and I suspect that most of the unemployed adjusted their goals long ago. But in most of our history, it can be quite rational to collect benefits while holding out for the ideal job. Keep in mind that there is usually another paycheck or two coming into the household. Also, not working saves money in countless ways: commuting, lunches, wardrobe, doing household fixup projects and making home-cooked meals in place of family trips to restaurants, etc. For some families the unemployed person can replace the lawn guy, day-care expenses, car washing & repair, etc.
Add to this that unemployment benefits for most are untaxable and that the family will now fall into a lower tax bracket–another benefit if one has a working spouse. Some unemployed also supplement family income in the underground economy, especially construction workers.
Of course all this mostly describes middle-income families in normal times when getting their next job is expected to be imminent. Single people, older workers, and poorer workers see things differently. And today’s environment has changed attitudes and expectations, so the old studies may not be as applicable.
But no less an economist than Larry Summers, President Obama’s guy, agreed with all of the above in his own research several years ago. Now, of course, he must sing a different tune.
July 3, 2010 @ 7:04 AM
Extend the benefits,but make
Extend the benefits,but make them clean up trash all day to get the checks.This would weed out the lazy scum and help those who deserve it.
July 3, 2010 @ 9:01 AM
Vod-Vil wrote:Extend the
[quote=Vod-Vil]Extend the benefits,but make them clean up trash all day to get the checks.This would weed out the lazy scum and help those who deserve it.[/quote]
I agree, I was shocked to see on TV recently that the latest extension is what 99 weeks? I think 2 years for single people without children and 3 years for people with children, then stop it before it becomes a way of life.
July 3, 2010 @ 9:04 AM
Vod-Vil wrote:Extend the
[quote=Vod-Vil]Extend the benefits,but make them clean up trash all day to get the checks.This would weed out the lazy scum and help those who deserve it.[/quote]
ditto
July 3, 2010 @ 9:09 AM
Vod-Vil wrote:Extend the
[quote=Vod-Vil]Extend the benefits,but make them clean up trash all day to get the checks.This would weed out the lazy scum and help those who deserve it.[/quote]
Love it. I’m on board.
July 3, 2010 @ 12:49 PM
EconProf wrote:Add to this
[quote=EconProf]Add to this that unemployment benefits for most are untaxable and that the family will now fall into a lower tax bracket–another benefit if one has a working spouse. Some unemployed also supplement family income in the underground economy, especially construction workers.
[/quote]
Hilarious. Seriously.
I believe your argument is that it SAVES money to be unemployed. Therefore the unemployed don’t really need benefits. If this “addition” is for some other reason, do share.
And as to the bolded “construction workers”. As an econ prof, you really should be following the news a bit more. Residential construction, which is where virtually all of the “cash” jobs have always been is at it’s lowest level in over 60 years. With only minor exception, as a practical matter, those jobs do not exist.
And even if they did, how is this material to the millions of unemployed who are not construction workers?
July 3, 2010 @ 8:15 PM
SK in CV:
You need to read
SK in CV:
You need to read what I actually said a little more carefully.
People alter their behavior based on the incentives they face. U. Comp lessens the financial pain of unemployment and thus shapes behavior. When the other factors I listed for the family are taken into account, it can become a close call financially, such that total, after-tax househole “consumption” rises only 10 to 20% for taking that job. If it is a job you hate, and if you feel you can get a job readily (again, these studies were done in normal times) it is understandable for some people to raise their sights quite high at first and then lower them over time.
My brother is a union carpenter and has always made $30 to $35/hour, plus full fringe benefits, working a few months a year, booming around the country but usually only weeks or months at a time. Between jobs he got $350/week in U comp., worked for others for cash, plus put additions on his house–another form of “income”.
In the past nearly two years, however, he has only worked officially for a few weeks. At age 60, he’s giving up on carpentry and taking classes to become a school bus driver.
The variety of anecdotes presented in this thread show that everyone is different and it is folly to jump to a conclusion from one or a few examples. For my brother, U. Comp has enabled him to milk the system in a way unhealthy for society at large. For others it is a necessary safety net that is worthy and earned by the deserving.
July 4, 2010 @ 10:38 AM
EconProf wrote:SK in CV:
You
[quote=EconProf]SK in CV:
You need to read what I actually said a little more carefully.
[/quote]
I did read what you wrote. You promoted the theory that unemployment benefits increase unemployment in normal times, and provided mostly anectdotal evidentiary support for that theory. While acknowledging these are not normal times. And then provided more support for your thesis (and presumably, in support of not extending benefits) by arguing that Summers formerly subscribed to that theory, but no longer does for political reasons.
The problem is not that your theory is wrong, (though it may in fact, be wrong) it’s that these are not normal times. And your theory (and that held by Summers), is not applicable to the question.
In order for unemployment benefits to increase unemployment, there must be a presumption that employers are not filling job openings because of insufficient qualified applicants, and simultaneously there are qualified applicants that are remaining outside the job market solely as a result of unemployment benefits. If there is any empirical evidence supporting this theory in the current economy, I’ve missed it.
July 4, 2010 @ 11:11 AM
Good reasoning on both sides.
Good reasoning on both sides. I’m in the “bring it on crowd”,Not sure if any good would come of it or not.I would like to see families and friends and even strangers, converge to help each other sustain if necessary.Unplug and default on everything if necessary.Clear out excess, shatter the vanity and materialism priorities. I just have never liked the “system” or “culture” and wanted to see what we would do if it was somewhat intentionally cracked. Either way, extended unemployment benefits are interfering with that I am sure. I don’t blame more moderate thinkers for accepting the checks.
July 5, 2010 @ 2:53 PM
I would like to see mandatory
I would like to see mandatory drug testing added as a condition to receive unemployment benefits. No pass, no check.
July 5, 2010 @ 2:57 PM
What a buzz kill. Its no fun
What a buzz kill. Its no fun sitting around all day playing x-box if you’re not stoned.
July 3, 2010 @ 9:32 AM
My cousin went to college.
My cousin went to college. She lost her job. She has been collecting unemployment for a year and a half, having been extended 4 times. She cannot find a job that pays what she was earning before. All the jobs are low paying, lower than what she’s making in unemployment. She wants to get a good and decent job, but can’t. So I guess she’s just going to be on unemployment as long as they give it to her and as long as it’s more than what she would earn in the “open” market. They are saving money b/c they’re not putting the kids in day care.
Even though I often look at unemployment as the free ride for some people, I can see it is not a positive thing in her life, psychologically, feeling unproductive and not part of the work force, interaction w/people, earning her way, self-esteem, etc. etc. At the same time, if she’s going to earn less than what she makes in unemployment, another no-brainer, like those walking away. It becomes a financial move. I know her and she’s not happy about it. In her mind, she thinks she could and should be making more. But since our economy sucks, IMO she’s lucky to have unemployment.
July 3, 2010 @ 9:39 AM
Is not extending unemployment
Is not extending unemployment going to create more jobs?
July 3, 2010 @ 5:40 PM
Arraya wrote:Is not extending
[quote=Arraya]Is not extending unemployment going to create more jobs?[/quote]
Yes it will, just as soon as the unemployed realize they can’t depend on the Government or somebody else to get them a job and have to create a product or service to sell.
July 3, 2010 @ 9:51 AM
You mean being a stay at home
You mean being a stay at home mom isn’t a positive thing? Ask her kids…
July 3, 2010 @ 10:08 AM
Oh, I think it’s good for her
Oh, I think it’s good for her kids. She thinks she’s losing her mind. Her kids are a little bit rambunctious. I guess she didn’t go to college to be a stay at home mom. She wants more. I told her she’s lucky. But she’s not finding it rewarding. Kids are not appreciating her. I can tell she’s getting sick of it. It’s getting to her.
July 3, 2010 @ 10:32 AM
Maybe she needs to think
Maybe she needs to think outside the box and look for something in a different field. Perhaps its time to find her true passion if she hasnt already and build herself a nice lifestyle business where quality of life is more important than the dollars. Just a thought..
July 3, 2010 @ 10:50 AM
That’s true. But most of her
That’s true. But most of her interests would involve going back to school for further education and they’re not in a position financially to do that. Heck, they’re almost getting to the point where they have to worry about their own kids’ college. It’s tough out there. I don’t think she has it that bad, but that’s just me. I don’t have kids and easy for me to say.
July 3, 2010 @ 11:27 AM
I also wonder what percentage
I also wonder what percentage of the voters on this poll are currently unemployed.
July 3, 2010 @ 12:05 PM
jimmyle wrote:Theoretically
[quote=jimmyle]Theoretically after resisting wage cut, a long recession will make workers accept lower pay or pay freezes and the economy goes back to full employment. It might take a few years.[/quote]
Not really. Automation and offshore labor really make US workers somewhat unnecessary. Further, without customers, who will need to make anything?
We are in a vicious downward spiral which if not dealt with soon could easily result in another “dark ages” lasting, not weeks, months or years, but decades or centuries.
July 3, 2010 @ 8:47 AM
a study cited by a NPR piece
a study cited by a NPR piece recently showed that people with unemployment benefits tend to take more time unemployed and are more selective with the jobs they take.
someone I know recently became unemployed, rather then take a similar job but with less pay that her brother painstakingly help find thru his connections, she scuffed at the job offer in hope of something better that would come along.
July 10, 2010 @ 8:20 PM
study cited by a NPR piece
study cited by a NPR piece recently showed that people with unemployment benefits tend to take more time unemployed and are more selective with the jobs they take.
someone I know recently became unemployed, rather then take a similar job but with less pay that her brother painstakingly help find thru his connections, she scuffed at the job offer in hope of something better that would come along.
yes, starve the beast, starve people until they will work for pennies, that is the answer!!!
that you cite this NPR corporate piece is to truly admire at the society we have created, not necessarily number #1 but compete with the 3rd world starving nations at the bottom, like vietnam. what a disgrace…
July 3, 2010 @ 11:53 AM
I say don’t extend the
I say don’t extend the benefits any longer that what they are now. I believe in the idea of a safety net for people but, from talking to a few people I know that have gotten laid off, they are in no rush to find another job unless it is at least as much as they were making at their previous job. Now, these are college educated people with experience though. On the other hand, I’ve got a younger relative that has just a HS diploma and is working two part-time jobs to make ends meet. Another thing that kind of gets me is that my wife was self-employed and is currently back in school and not working. She never collected 1 cent of unemployment. Maybe we should have rigged the system and gotten 3 years of free govt money?
July 3, 2010 @ 12:18 PM
FormerOwner wrote:Another
[quote=FormerOwner]Another thing that kind of gets me is that my wife was self-employed and is currently back in school and not working. She never collected 1 cent of unemployment. Maybe we should have rigged the system and gotten 3 years of free govt money?[/quote]
It is much more difficult for those who are self-employed. They have write-offs, but have to pay self-employment tax and when there’s no work, then they’re screwed. Sometimes I think when people talk about unemployment numbers, it is underestimated what it’s really like. There’s many self-employed struggling, but don’t get counted.
July 3, 2010 @ 1:03 PM
I am against the extension of
I am against the extension of unemployment benefits. I believe the purpose of unemployment is to bridge a temporary gap between jobs. How big this gap should be is arguable, but I think 6 months is about right.
The discussion should be, in my opinion, whether the next tier down on the public safety net is fair and adequate (welfare, food stamps, medicaid etc.).
I think these programs could use some improvements, and perhaps extensions. But I don’t know enough about them to make specific suggestions.
July 3, 2010 @ 1:41 PM
Well they are saying there
Well they are saying there are only 1 job opening per 5 un-employed worker. So I think it’s mis-guided to think that somehow un-employment benefit keep people from find a new job. It might be true during the boom times but since we’ve lost something like 8 million jobs..we should extend it.
Plus this is money that is going back to tax payers and then being spent almost immediately to add to the “Consumer Spending” that we need for economic recovery. I’d rather spend the money on that than on some insane pension benefit for government worker or elected officials.
And I really want to stress that things are different when you lose your job during a down turn where the job openings just aren’t there.
I was un-employed on and off for about a year and a half during the dot doom. If you’ve never experienced it, you can’t imagine the humiliation and worthlessness you feel. You almost don’t even want to talk to people after awhile because you dread that moment where you have to tell them that you STILL don’t have a job. And people do look at you like there’s something wrong with you. AND the longer you are un-employed, the harder it becomes to get the job because every employer thinks there’s something wrong with you for being un-employed for so long.
And I’ve been successful pretty much all my life except for that time in my life. I make well into 6 figures now and even at the time I was making a lot more than people in my peer group.
So I have to scoff at this notion that somehow giving people bear minimum money so they can keep a roof over their head and pay for gas to look for work is somehow making people lazy and not get a job. It’s crazy hard to get a job when you don’t have an address and no means to get to a job interview. How is taking that away help people get a job.
Just imagine being HR guy interviewing people. Would you hire a guy who says he’s been un-employed for 2 years, doesn’t have an address and come to the interview all sweaty because it took him 2 hours to get to the interview taking the bus? And now imagine being that guy who has to go into the interview and tell the interview you haven’t worked in two years, and don’t have a house or a car.
July 3, 2010 @ 1:47 PM
A friend of mine has been
A friend of mine has been unemployed for 2 years. He didn’t bother to look for a job. $1900 a month for sitting around at home was much more appealing for him.
July 3, 2010 @ 2:05 PM
Ricechex wrote:A friend of
[quote=Ricechex]A friend of mine has been unemployed for 2 years. He didn’t bother to look for a job. $1900 a month for sitting around at home was much more appealing for him.[/quote]
Yeah, and your friend is a lazy POS and we should decide everyone’s fate based on him. Right? Lowest common denominator FTW?
July 3, 2010 @ 4:09 PM
LA Reader wrote:Ricechex
[quote=LA Reader][quote=Ricechex]A friend of mine has been unemployed for 2 years. He didn’t bother to look for a job. $1900 a month for sitting around at home was much more appealing for him.[/quote]
Yeah, and your friend is a lazy POS and we should decide everyone’s fate based on him. Right? Lowest common denominator FTW?[/quote]
Yes, we should decide everyone’s fate based on him.
July 3, 2010 @ 2:17 PM
Ricechex wrote:A friend of
[quote=Ricechex]A friend of mine has been unemployed for 2 years. He didn’t bother to look for a job. $1900 a month for sitting around at home was much more appealing for him.[/quote]
Well, the good thing is, he did not go out into the labor pool and compete against somebody that could not get by on just $1900. Actually, in the grand scheme of things he helped out more by not going out and looking for a job. Because, if it’s him or the person he beat out for a job, that 1900 is still getting doled out. So Kudos to him for being a team player.
July 3, 2010 @ 4:04 PM
Arraya wrote:Ricechex wrote:A
[quote=Arraya][quote=Ricechex]A friend of mine has been unemployed for 2 years. He didn’t bother to look for a job. $1900 a month for sitting around at home was much more appealing for him.[/quote]
Well, the good thing is, he did not go out into the labor pool and compete against somebody that could not get by on just $1900. Actually, in the grand scheme of things he helped out more by not going out and looking for a job. Because, if it’s him or the person he beat out for a job, that 1900 is still getting doled out. So Kudos to him for being a team player.[/quote]
LOL Arraya! Love that! Fortunately, he has a partner that is working, and a roommate, and so bills got paid. However, prior to his unemployed status, he was a grand contributor to the economy….traveling, excessive consumption of goods (running up CC debt). He says that without him and the husband spending money, they are seriously putting a dent in the economy!
He recently took a one way flight to Denmark, in a bed seat no less (he had the miles, and no more unemployment benes) to work for a lady he knows in her hotel, doing all kinds of odd jobs for shelter and food. I told him he was an illegal and taking away jobs from the Danish…(AND customs forgot to stamp his passport on the way in!)
July 3, 2010 @ 9:39 PM
LA Reader wrote:Well they are
[quote=LA Reader]Well they are saying there are only 1 job opening per 5 un-employed worker. So I think it’s mis-guided to think that somehow un-employment benefit keep people from find a new job. It might be true during the boom times but since we’ve lost something like 8 million jobs..we should extend it.
Plus this is money that is going back to tax payers and then being spent almost immediately to add to the “Consumer Spending” that we need for economic recovery. I’d rather spend the money on that than on some insane pension benefit for government worker or elected officials.
And I really want to stress that things are different when you lose your job during a down turn where the job openings just aren’t there.
I was un-employed on and off for about a year and a half during the dot doom. If you’ve never experienced it, you can’t imagine the humiliation and worthlessness you feel. You almost don’t even want to talk to people after awhile because you dread that moment where you have to tell them that you STILL don’t have a job. And people do look at you like there’s something wrong with you. AND the longer you are un-employed, the harder it becomes to get the job because every employer thinks there’s something wrong with you for being un-employed for so long.
And I’ve been successful pretty much all my life except for that time in my life. I make well into 6 figures now and even at the time I was making a lot more than people in my peer group.
So I have to scoff at this notion that somehow giving people bear minimum money so they can keep a roof over their head and pay for gas to look for work is somehow making people lazy and not get a job. It’s crazy hard to get a job when you don’t have an address and no means to get to a job interview. How is taking that away help people get a job.
Just imagine being HR guy interviewing people. Would you hire a guy who says he’s been un-employed for 2 years, doesn’t have an address and come to the interview all sweaty because it took him 2 hours to get to the interview taking the bus? And now imagine being that guy who has to go into the interview and tell the interview you haven’t worked in two years, and don’t have a house or a car.[/quote]
I agree with LA Reader.
I think unless you have actually been unemployed and laid off, etc…you simply can’t understand what someone goes through after getting laid off through no fault of their own. Remember, you only get unemployment if you get laid off without cause. You can’t quit and expect to get unemployment so that eliminates all the lazy people who wants to quit and get free money. How many people here actually has gotten laid off without a ready waiting job without cause and are actually against this here?
Also, unemployment is a percentage of your working dollars and I think I’ve read the avg is about 350/month or so. It tops out at 450/week in CA. For anyone with a family/kids and an advanced degree and a 6 figure salary and a mortgage, I don’t think many people would choose or can survive very long on unemployment dropping from 8300/month in income to 1800/month.
AND, THE MAIN POINT THAT WILL SIMPLY KILL YOUR CAREER IF YOU’RE ON UNEMPLOYMENT TOO LONG, the negative stigma of being unemployed could PERMANENTLY damage your career so good luck trying to find another job in the same industry. If people are willing to sit around for 2 years and get unemployment, AND accept permanently damaging their career, then I say let them…
There are already reports that job postings from companies like Sony and a few others I’ve read will only consider people with jobs already. That makes the argument that the unemployed should take any job moot since many companies simply aren’t hiring them and there are too many other job seekers. Like news stories with 100 entry level positions opening up in a supermarket with 2000 applicants, good luck getting a job. Also, it’s very true that if you are overqualified, companies won’t hire you neither. I’ve known unemployed lawyers and masters/PhD engineers as well look to just do waitressing or simple retail jobs and were turned down.
The way unemployment works is also sorta strange. Depending on when you get laid off, someone who gets laid off 1 week earlier may get unemployment than someone else. They should just change it to max so many weeks or maybe after so many weeks, start auditing more, etc…
Also, unemployment benefits now is currently ONLY 6 months since they failed to pass the 99 week total extension. Like it was mentioned in a previous post, it normally is only 6 months in normal times and was only extended due to the situation we are in now.
Another downside is when people get desperate with no work/jobs, crime goes up since they don’t know where else to turn and I don’t think this would be good for anyone.
Sure, you have people who should probably look for work and aren’t, but only a certain segment of people fall into that category (single, young people without kids/family, dual income folks). I say let them take their “break” if they want to permanently damage their careers and possibly NEVER compete for a job again, but no need to hurt the other folks who are actively trying to find work…
July 4, 2010 @ 1:03 AM
Agree very much,
Agree very much, joec.
Everyone I know who’s been collecting unemployment over the past couple of years has worked diligently at trying to find another job. Those who did find a job have taken a pay cut, and they were perfectly happy to do so.
These are very hard times, and there is no way we can call all these people who collect UE lazy. The vast majority of them are very hard workers.
July 4, 2010 @ 1:48 AM
I’m in favor of extending
I’m in favor of extending unemployment benefits — but on a qualified basis. I think there should be NO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS for people who worked in Finance, Insurance or Real Estate businesses.
If anybody deserves to be turned out on the street, living from a car, pushing a shopping cart and picking through garbage, it’s the bankers, insurers, mortgage cheats and RE fraudsters who caused this mess.
As for the people who actually DO something for a living, but find themselves out of work in a terrible job market — I’m okay with extending unemployment benefits, keeps families off the street.
July 4, 2010 @ 8:16 AM
I don’t think unemployment
I don’t think unemployment benefits should be extended.
Background: In late 2000, 2 months after 9/11, the start-up company I worked for folded. This was my first ‘real’ job out of college, and I was naively unprepared. Long story short, I didn’t find a ‘real’ job for 16 months. After 6 months of UE, I ended up working temp office jobs and at El Pollo Loco part time.
I mention this because I am sympathetic to the situation that many job-seekers are in. I understand how emotionally draining it is to deal with rejection for months on end feeling hopeless and worthless. It sucks…but that’s life.
Life sucks sometimes and I don’t think that we acknowledge that fact enough, as a society.
In spite of how difficult life is for the millions of unemployed, it is impractical for us as a nation to continue to borrow against our future to support today’s overextended lifestyle. Yes, there are hard working, diligent unemployed job seekers, and there are plenty of unqualified, incompetent morons collecting undeserved paychecks. But as an aggregate, our society spends too much and saves too little. It’s not possible to weed out the ‘good’ from the ‘bad’ collecting unemployment.
To me, the fact that so many Piggs want a policy that ‘magically’ distinguishes between those who deserve unemployment and those who don’t, is a sign. It’s a sign that too many citizens of the U.S. expect the Government to swoop in and fix life for them. Life’s ups and downs shouldn’t interfere with our inherent right to a comfortable life in the U.S.
Such wishful thinking, although grounded in benevolence, is ultimately impractical and flies in the face of the economic reality that we are dealing with. The military conflicts that we are engaged in are irresponsibly expensive. Unfortunately, they are so deeply embedded with the U.S.’s global political cache, that pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan now, would be like cutting of our legs. For better or worse, we need to ensure that we leave Iraq and Afghanistan better than when we entered. We cannot afford another stimulus package, that would elevate our financial disaster to Greek/Irish status. The only practical option is for us to roll up our sleeves and tough it out.
The crux of the issue is: how far should government extend itself to make life ‘fair’ for it’s citizens?
IMO, we’ve gone far enough.
July 4, 2010 @ 9:09 AM
weberlin wrote:
In spite of
[quote=weberlin]
In spite of how difficult life is for the millions of unemployed, it is impractical for us as a nation to continue to borrow against our future to support today’s overextended lifestyle….
To me, the fact that so many Piggs want a policy that ‘magically’ distinguishes between those who deserve unemployment and those who don’t, is a sign. It’s a sign that too many citizens of the U.S. expect the Government to swoop in and fix life for them. Life’s ups and downs shouldn’t interfere with our inherent right to a comfortable life in the U.S.
Such wishful thinking, although grounded in benevolence, is ultimately impractical and flies in the face of the economic reality that we are dealing with. The military conflicts that we are engaged in are irresponsibly expensive. Unfortunately, they are so deeply embedded with the U.S.’s global political cache, that pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan now, would be like cutting of our legs. For better or worse, we need to ensure that we leave Iraq and Afghanistan better than when we entered. We cannot afford another stimulus package, that would elevate our financial disaster to Greek/Irish status. The only practical option is for us to roll up our sleeves and tough it out.
The crux of the issue is: how far should government extend itself to make life ‘fair’ for it’s citizens?
IMO, we’ve gone far enough.[/quote]
I agree with you in principle about fiscal responsibility. But why is it always benefits that helps the little guy that gets “fiscal conservatives” up in the arms about the debt? Why do we allow our government to spend billions on bailing out financial institutions, corporate tax breaks, pork barrel projects, hand out to defense contractors, great benefits to government employees & elected officials for life but when it comes helping regular folks with healthcare & unemployment we scream bloody murder about how it would bankrupt the country?
And really? Now is the time to be fiscally responsible? Not when our economy is recovered and booming? Our economy is struggling and 1 in 10 workers are out of work and you think we should cut government spending so that there’s even less money out there to create jobs?
July 4, 2010 @ 9:20 AM
I, too, am angry about how
I, too, am angry about how wealth from the stimulus package was distributed. The selfish, irresponsible pricks who are largely credited with causing the crash, benefited the most.
Fiscal responsibility should always be exercised, regardless of economic climate.
As for creating jobs, I think we, as a nation, should focus on creating value; businesses and people alike. Creating jobs is – philosophically – to closely aligned with printing money. Both actions create the appearance of increased wealth, without any added value to the economy.
July 4, 2010 @ 9:39 AM
To a certain extent, I agree.
To a certain extent, I agree. We are not just supporting people. We are supporting a lifestyle. My cousin has not cut back. Heck, she’s out here on vacation for a week. If I were unemployed, I’d be saving money in case my UE runs out and I haven’t found a job.
The self-employed are struggling and sacrificing the scrambling to find any job or jobs. I know my cousin is making an effort to find a job, but I also know she’s being picky. When UE runs out, I know she’ll quickly find a job, good or bad, liking it or not. She will have to basically start over, in a way.
So, yes, it seems we are just maintaining a lifestyle where people continue to spend and not cut back to some extent.
July 4, 2010 @ 8:22 AM
gandalf wrote:I’m in favor of
[quote=gandalf]I’m in favor of extending unemployment benefits — but on a qualified basis. I think there should be NO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS for people who worked in Finance, Insurance or Real Estate businesses.
If anybody deserves to be turned out on the street, living from a car, pushing a shopping cart and picking through garbage, it’s the bankers, insurers, mortgage cheats and RE fraudsters who caused this mess.
As for the people who actually DO something for a living, but find themselves out of work in a terrible job market — I’m okay with extending unemployment benefits, keeps families off the street.[/quote]
The problem with this kind of thinking is that it’s too broad. Sure, the execs are crooks, but the individual insurance salesperson who worked for AIG (American General) trying to support his family and pay his mortgage selling term life insurance is in “insurance”.
What if this was extended to tech or your industry? Say when the dot com crash happened, everyone who worked for any tech company who got laid off got put out on the street with nothing?
There’s simply no way to exclude people effectively so you take the bad with the good and have a system where they “won’t” make a killing. No matter you cut it up, $450/week isn’t going to make anyone wealthy or let them get ahead financially. I suppose ask yourself this question, if you made 100k/year or 150k/year, would you really want to get 450/week even if you could and in the process, possibly never find another job in your industry?
Screwing over the guy who is barely getting by will simply create a society where said guy will commit crimes since they are so far out of luck already.
What they can do is possibly do more checks like how they do with people who abuse disability (going sky diving, mt climbing) when they should be in a wheelchair or can’t walk.
July 4, 2010 @ 2:41 PM
gandalf wrote:I’m in favor of
[quote=gandalf]I’m in favor of extending unemployment benefits — but on a qualified basis. I think there should be NO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS for people who worked in Finance, Insurance or Real Estate businesses.
If anybody deserves to be turned out on the street, living from a car, pushing a shopping cart and picking through garbage, it’s the bankers, insurers, mortgage cheats and RE fraudsters who caused this mess.
As for the people who actually DO something for a living, but find themselves out of work in a terrible job market — I’m okay with extending unemployment benefits, keeps families off the street.[/quote]
I love this, gandalf! 🙂
July 6, 2010 @ 12:28 AM
gandalf wrote:I’m in favor of
[quote=gandalf]I’m in favor of extending unemployment benefits — but on a qualified basis. I think there should be NO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS for people who worked in Finance, Insurance or Real Estate businesses.
If anybody deserves to be turned out on the street, living from a car, pushing a shopping cart and picking through garbage, it’s the bankers, insurers, mortgage cheats and RE fraudsters who caused this mess.
.[/quote]
many of them are commissioned,
they don’t get squat
July 4, 2010 @ 11:44 AM
LAReader, its amazing how
LAReader, its amazing how your post captured the essence of the dot com bust. In the group of IT professionals that I knew, I was unemployed for a very long period. It got to the point where sometimes I didn’t even want to go out and hang out with them. I couldn’t afford it and I felt ashamed.
I started lowering my expectations quite quickly though as I knew I was overpaid during the boom.
July 3, 2010 @ 2:02 PM
Oh and let me tell you it’s
Oh and let me tell you it’s actually really hard to “settle” for lesser paying job or lower position. Not because of pride but because employers don’t like to hire people who are “Over Qualified”.
You have no idea how many time I was told I was over qualified. I remember applying for a holiday time retail position at a big department store. It was one of those cattle call where there are like 100 people in one room interviewing for like 10 jobs. And they keep cutting people out on the spot. I would say everyone that was there that had any management experience was cut on the 1st round including me.
I remember being told by a TEMP agency they can’t find me a job because no one wants to hire someone with my level of experience to do their filing even as a temp.
July 3, 2010 @ 3:52 PM
“Do you support extending
“Do you support extending unemployment benefits?”
My reply may surprise, because it doesn’t jibe with my being politically a fiscal conservative.
This is not a typical recession. This of severity that’s only seen once or twice in a century. It is hurting families bad. And it appears to be heading into the second “dip”
Reliable studies show 20% of working-age men are out of work. For women it is about 17%. one in five.
Unemployment benefits are a form of needed economic stimulus. Government stimulus IS the only thing keeping the economy from slipping completely into a great depression. If you look at government stimulus (expended in this recession) as a percent of GDP, clearly without that stimulus GDP would already have fallen well over 10% – that’s an economic depression.
Of any time, this is the time for the government to help out.
It makes me so angry to see heartless Republicans vote against unemployment benefits, when those same Republicans have voted for and spent ONE TRILLION dollars on the Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Bastards. They should be kicked out of office. All of them.
One trillion dollars WASTED, which could have been used for SCHOOLS, or UNEMPLOYMENT
http://costofwar.com/
Unemployment benefits – you think that is for freeloaders? Bullshit. Those benefits are the only damn thing keeping many families OFF THE STREET.
I know HUNDREDS of great engineers who have lost their jobs, many of whom cannot find work. I’ve kept my job through this recession only by shear luck and my job-hopping away from FIVE separate divisions to avoid massive layoffs.
My last job hop was two months ago, and again the entire damn division I left was shut down (over five hundred good people)
I figure my current foxhole (job) is only safe for another six months. I have seen this job market up close and IT IS HELL. There are many families need our tax dollars in unemployment to keep them from being thrown into the streets.
July 3, 2010 @ 4:37 PM
if there were jobs and if
if there were jobs and if people could declare bankruptcy.
i know a guy top notch industrial salesguy, used to make 200K, got beached a yearand a half ago, makes $14/hr singing in a choir.
my take is down 90%
why spend trilllions on wall street and nickels on main streeet?
July 4, 2010 @ 9:48 AM
I agree that there are NO
I agree that there are NO jobs to be found for many people out there diligently looking. If you have ever known of someone, particularly someone older who becomes unemployed, who is highly educated, but cannot find a job because their industry has very FEW job openings, it can be heartbreaking to see them become mentally tormented by worry about putting food on the table, about healthcare, about how to pay for utilities. Healthcare costs has put a huge financial strain on many older folks, and has forced many people to continue to work out of necessity. These same people face ageism when looking for jobs, are sometimes no longer in the health to work jobs that require hard physical labor, all while they cannot find a job in their said profession. Engineers, technicians, etc. These same people are WILLING to take any job, working at Target, dishwashing, temping, etc, but they are not hired for these jobs.
Ageism is very much a problem these folks face where employers are concerned they will not be as reliable as a younger worker, they will not be able to perform their job at the same level, and they will pay more in healthcare for these workers.
You might ask what happened to all those years they did work and what about the savings? Why can’t they fall back on it? I know several people who have been wiped out by illness financially. They never made a gripload of money, they were say mid level engineers and they raised families, etc, were frugal and savers, but due to illness wiping out their savings, they dont’ have a safety net. They count on unemployment to pay for food, to pay for utilities. They have already cut everything they can, they drive 10 year old cars.
I am personally fiscally conservative, but I do believe in extending unemployment benefits. I also echo the other statements that there has been HUGE spending on other conservative interests IE war, big business bailouts, etc.
While there is always abuse of any system, I truly believe those people on unemployment who could find a job and just choose not to are definitely the minority. As other’s have pointed out, there aren’t too many people I know who make six figures who willfully sit around on unemployment.
July 4, 2010 @ 2:33 PM
zzz wrote:I agree that there
[quote=zzz]I agree that there are NO jobs to be found for many people out there diligently looking. If you have ever known of someone, particularly someone older who becomes unemployed, who is highly educated, but cannot find a job because their industry has very FEW job openings, it can be heartbreaking to see them become mentally tormented by worry about putting food on the table, about healthcare, about how to pay for utilities. [/quote]
That’s the thing. Older people with family, homes, kids are probably NOT the ones sitting on their butts enjoying their unemployment. I know someone who is 28 sitting on his butt and not looking for work at all for over a year and is living in a shared house with no g/f, kids, family, etc…Sure, he should probably take something, but I’m ok with him goofing off since the job choices out there are few to begin with and like most articles say, if you take a crappy job, you might be stuck doing it for too long and also permanently damange your longer term career. There’s a balancing act between any job and what’s best long term for people.
People should probably hold out for something that makes sense. I don’t think it’s that easy to just take anything. I have a family member who has been unemployed for over a year and was offered a job in CA, but they would have to uproot their whole family from another state or live on opposite sides of the coast. Good luck raising a family/kids, saving a marriage, etc with that living arraignment.
Her husband still works so she declined, but think about it from their perspective. Is it wise to throw everything away, move cross country and possibly face layoffs again? UE gives them time to make the best choice for their situation. I’ve heard way too many horror stories of people moving for work only to be canned after selling the home, moving, etc…
July 5, 2010 @ 3:09 PM
joec wrote:….I have a
[quote=joec]….I have a family member who has been unemployed for over a year and was offered a job in CA, but they would have to uproot their whole family from another state or live on opposite sides of the coast. Good luck raising a family/kids, saving a marriage, etc with that living arraignment….[/quote]
It’s a matter of personal judgment but I, for one, would not support extending UE benefits so that someone can avoid moving. I’ve moved several times for a job. It’s just something you have to do from time to time. Either that, or build a career and pay expectations around not moving.
July 5, 2010 @ 10:16 PM
patientrenter wrote:joec
[quote=patientrenter][quote=joec]….I have a family member who has been unemployed for over a year and was offered a job in CA, but they would have to uproot their whole family from another state or live on opposite sides of the coast. Good luck raising a family/kids, saving a marriage, etc with that living arraignment….[/quote]
It’s a matter of personal judgment but I, for one, would not support extending UE benefits so that someone can avoid moving. I’ve moved several times for a job. It’s just something you have to do from time to time. Either that, or build a career and pay expectations around not moving.[/quote]
Out of curiosity, did you have a family/kids, mortgage or a spouse, working spouse at the time?
I don’t know, take a 100k+ job and move, survive on 20k UE. Most people will move, but I don’t fault people for not willing to take the risk in moving to a job if it’s not worth it in their situation.
July 6, 2010 @ 9:00 AM
This is my problem, we need
This is my problem, we need to get over the idea that there is a GOOD solution. Yah, it sucks, and it isnt fair, and it isnt right and it is gonna be REALLY really hard, but throughout our history Americans have had to make hard choices for economic success. Why is it suddenly we cant stand such a thought? Should we just make jobs where ever people want to be, cause they diserve it?
I would argue no.
Part of the issue to me is the idea of ‘extending’. Do you mean past 6 months? or Past 99 weeks? Cause I could buy an argument that in times of 10%+ unemployment, benifits could be extended to 52 weeks. But if we are talking about extending to 150 weeks, then we need to realize that this isnt working anymore and do something else.
July 6, 2010 @ 10:06 AM
To answer the poll question:
To answer the poll question: No.
2 freaking years of UE? Are you kidding me? You telling me that all these people can’t find ANY job? Bullcrap.
Many of these people figure they can make as much on UE as they can taking a part time or slightly above MW job so rather than WORK they’d rather sit at home and play xbox and collect a check.
I think Franklin summed it up best with his quote on poverty:
July 6, 2010 @ 10:37 AM
http://articles.latimes.com/2
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/04/local/me-funemployment4
July 6, 2010 @ 11:09 AM
meadandale
[quote=meadandale]http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/04/local/me-funemployment4[/quote]
ha… That’s awesome. Good for them. We work a way too much anyway. At least that is what the free market is telling us and who are we to argue. If the government would just let the free market work we could easily double the numbers. Besides those 20 somethings are doing a favor to the older folks with more overhead by not competing for their jobs. Hopefully they pick up something productive for society like growing pot or playing an instrument.
It’s going global too…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122548483530388957.html
“They’ll ruin Japan with their lax work ethic,” says labor consultant Yukiko Takita. “They’re supposed to be leaders of the next generation.”
I think we at the point were wisdom no longer comes with age. We really should make the best out of this collapse, I think
July 6, 2010 @ 7:39 PM
Arraya wrote:meadandale
[quote=Arraya][quote=meadandale]http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/04/local/me-funemployment4[/quote]
ha… That’s awesome. Good for them. We work a way too much anyway. At least that is what the free market is telling us and who are we to argue. If the government would just let the free market work we could easily double the numbers. Besides those 20 somethings are doing a favor to the older folks with more overhead by not competing for their jobs. Hopefully they pick up something productive for society like growing pot or playing an instrument.
It’s going global too…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122548483530388957.html
“They’ll ruin Japan with their lax work ethic,” says labor consultant Yukiko Takita. “They’re supposed to be leaders of the next generation.”
I think we at the point were wisdom no longer comes with age. We really should make the best out of this collapse, I think[/quote]
You know. I find it pretty sad actually. A lot of these “millenium” generations really have some work ethics issues (though the guy in the article is 33 and technically isn’t a millenium-er, or whatever they are called)…..
A lot of them I run into, with very little experience, all want to be “managers” managing people to do the actual work…Again, emphasis here is, these people have almost NO experience…Come on, get real….They’re reasoning…Well, shoot we can just outsource the work, and just manage the work…Well, gee, if you outsource the entire work overseas, why do we need a manager in the U.S. too? Go figure…
July 6, 2010 @ 10:42 AM
Just spoke with a friend that
Just spoke with a friend that was out of work for close to 2 years and just got a job. He’s a bigger bear than anyone on this board by a magnitude of 2 or 3. He was an executive in a traditional industry. While unemployeed he opened a small recession-proof business as a hedge and hoped to expand it enough to make that his job. He never gave up looking for a job. His wife went to work last year. He has paid into the system for years and never needed it. I’m sure UE helped him and his family the last couple years though I know he had plenty of savings also. Speaking with him yesterday was like talking to a new man. Being long term unemployed takes you down to the core of who you are. If you have not experienced that helplessness you have no idea how much it can impact every inch of your being. UE is an important and necessary thing.
July 6, 2010 @ 2:37 PM
sdrealtor wrote:Just spoke
[quote=sdrealtor]Just spoke with a friend that was out of work for close to 2 years and just got a job. He’s a bigger bear than anyone on this board by a magnitude of 2 or 3. He was an executive in a traditional industry. While unemployeed he opened a small recession-proof business as a hedge and hoped to expand it enough to make that his job. He never gave up looking for a job. His wife went to work last year. He has paid into the system for years and never needed it. I’m sure UE helped him and his family the last couple years though I know he had plenty of savings also. Speaking with him yesterday was like talking to a new man. Being long term unemployed takes you down to the core of who you are. If you have not experienced that helplessness you have no idea how much it can impact every inch of your being. UE is an important and necessary thing.[/quote]
I agree and like this post…Unless you’ve been there, it’s really hard to know what someone is going through when they were the king of their universe. Maybe sorta like getting old and not being able to walk, do the things you take for granted…It’s very painful mentally to be taken down a few notches. Good thing for your friend is hopefully, he had reserves during the good times to weather this storm…
Maybe great writers in literature tend to be older because they have a lot more life experience to share/reflect on.
July 7, 2010 @ 12:49 PM
meadandale wrote:To answer
[quote=meadandale]To answer the poll question: No.
2 freaking years of UE? Are you kidding me? You telling me that all these people can’t find ANY job? Bullcrap.
Many of these people figure they can make as much on UE as they can taking a part time or slightly above MW job so rather than WORK they’d rather sit at home and play xbox and collect a check.
I think Franklin summed it up best with his quote on poverty:
[/quote]
I agree cent percent with you: 2 years of UE benefits: hell NO
July 4, 2010 @ 11:24 AM
My biggest problem is that
My biggest problem is that there are no other options than continued support and no let them starve.
I am and have been in favor of the idea of gradating the amount to taper off to zero after the first year. In conjunction with that the govt takes the money that it was using for unemployment to house and feed people on military bases, schools etc. That is much more efficient and satisfies most Americans desires to care for their fellow citizens, at a basic level.
Josh
July 4, 2010 @ 11:34 AM
Perhaps gradating the amount
Perhaps gradating the amount would be more of an incentive to get a job. But from what I’m understanding, the pay being offered out there is an obstacle, let alone if you can find a job. That just means lifestyle adjustments. Drive a less expensive and economical car. No vacations. No shopping for new clothes. No dinners out. I mean, we are in a recession and some people just don’t act like we are.
July 4, 2010 @ 11:55 AM
barnaby33 wrote:My biggest
[quote=barnaby33]My biggest problem is that there are no other options than continued support and no let them starve.
I am and have been in favor of the idea of gradating the amount to taper off to zero after the first year. In conjunction with that the govt takes the money that it was using for unemployment to house and feed people on military bases, schools etc. That is much more efficient and satisfies most Americans desires to care for their fellow citizens, at a basic level.
Josh[/quote]
I think they are on top of it already.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645
yes, we don’t want them running around looking all poor and all. Ruining everybody’s good time. Studies have shown seeing abject poverty affects peoples consumption habits and can actually worsen economic conditions.
I wonder when Celebrities are going to start adopting babies from Detroit,
July 4, 2010 @ 12:04 PM
Arraya, so the first part of
Arraya, so the first part of your response was clear. The second part not so much. Are you attacking the idea of providing basic accommodations for fellow citizens as not enough? If so then please make a counter suggestion as to what you feel should be done.
A society should be judged by how it cares for people at times of weakness. Yet how we define that care is where the arguments arise. Unfortunately in recent times a society is judged mostly upon its ability to market itself as one thing, and behave as something completely different.
July 4, 2010 @ 1:21 PM
yes, it was a little bit of
yes, it was a little bit of an attack and I apologize. Not the idea of providing basic necessities. But how to deal with it, which was a sweep-it-under-the-rug manner that I found distasteful. I agree, “what to do” is the killer.
What I think would be considered heretical and a very long conversation.
[quote=barnaby33]. Unfortunately in recent times a society is judged mostly upon its ability to market itself as one thing, and behave as something completely different.[/quote]
I agree 1000% and I think the chickens are going to come home to roost on that one. Meaning bullshit can only go so far when things start to break down. We’ve become way too good at bullshitting ourselves and each other.
July 4, 2010 @ 2:06 PM
On the one hand I think our
On the one hand I think our society is highly exploitive, not just of its own, which I’m ok with, but of other nations, which I’m not. That is a long discussion in itself.
I wouldn’t take the idea of our(American) hypocrisy too far however, as its all relative and compared to most places on the planet, we aren’t that bad. As a simple thought experiment do you really believe the Chinese will be better imperial masters than the US?
As to the original topic of the thread you are welcome to attack me if you so please, however I’m always reminded of the smartest thing anyone has said to me on this board, “It all comes down to who’s ox is being gored.”
In this case the structural deflation we are going through will play out in rapid or long term depending on whether we recognize where we are. I’m of the rip the bandage off at medium speed type.
Our society as a whole cannot repair until it recognizes and repudiates unsustainable debt. High levels of unemployment compensation help sustain that illusion. Ultimately the only way out is for a collective realization that debt is too high in all its forms, and income to little.
Then we can begin the process of re-building. I happen to feel that its better to do it in a voluntary fashion. However empirical evidence suggests govt and society as a whole disagree. You voted for em, they keep spending. That is of course the nature of a Democracy. Unemployment is an unfortunate but necessary part of whats happening. Is society to blame as a whole, sure. Was it preventable, probably not. So I feel that its as a whole in our interest to support our fellow citizens, and make sure they have basic safety, a cot and 2-3 meals a day. Other than that, its up to each individual. Without some real privation, nobody learns anything.
Lessons to be learned might include: college, maybe I should do a cost benefit analysis before chosing Liberal studies as a major. Career, what are societies needs over the course of my lifetime. Family, should I have children? (That is the least thought of question in my experience and the most important.) Retirement, what does it require and will I even be able to?
Josh
July 5, 2010 @ 1:36 PM
barnaby33 wrote: Is society
[quote=barnaby33] Is society to blame as a whole, sure. Was it preventable, probably not. So I feel that its as a whole in our interest to support our fellow citizens, and make sure they have basic safety, a cot and 2-3 meals a day. Other than that, its up to each individual. Without some real privation, nobody learns anything.
Lessons to be learned might include: college, maybe I should do a cost benefit analysis before chosing Liberal studies as a major. Career, what are societies needs over the course of my lifetime. Family, should I have children? (That is the least thought of question in my experience and the most important.) Retirement, what does it require and will I even be able to?
Josh[/quote]
I would say it was absolutely preventable. It was gutting of financial regulations & clonyism that placed industry insiders all over regulatory agency by George W. & GOP that created the Bubble and the catastrophic BUST. We took away regulations that were put in place after Depression to prevent another depression and guess what happened? The Great Recession.
I have to absolutely disagree that society at large (i.e regular joe’s) is responsible for the state we are in. We are in this situation because in the name of “de-regulating to create more jobs” we gutted the very things that protects the society as a whole against the Titans of the Industry.
July 5, 2010 @ 3:45 PM
i suspect that most piggs are
i suspect that most piggs are too young to remember the late 50’s and early 60’s. A time when only one person from a household went to work at a “job” each day. The family could do quite well on one wage.
But then things changed, and today a family needs two paychecks to be comfortable. This may be the event that allows us to go back to one working parent and maybe even re-asses our consumer mentallity.
With 15 million people out of work, and no prospects for them finding meaningful jobs, it may be time to reduce the work force by that one person per household. I am not at all sure that we are better off needing both parents out of the house each day. Lord know that raising childred is at least a full time job.
But until we make the transition, keep the unemployment benefits going.
July 5, 2010 @ 10:13 PM
I think the problem with
I think the problem with society now vs. the 50s/60s is that things are much more expensive now. The standard of living and quality of life for this and our kid’s generation will be lower than our parents and our generation for the first time (as reported).
This is due to mostly (probably more) 2 or 3 things.
1) Healthcare. Probably due to many other factors too, but all the folks who have insurance subsidize the many folks who don’t have insurance now so we pay insane prices when you have insurance for coverage. Say to see the doctor, the hospital bills you 2000. However, with your insurance, they have the negotiated rate of 500, and you pay $30 co-pay. This is to cover the 20 other people they bill, but can’t collect from when the bill should have really been 300 to the insurance instead.
2) Education/College. A public college degree was MUCH MUCH cheaper just 20 years ago. College costs has risen much faster than inflation. Maybe now with so many unemployed and useless degrees, college won’t be a must have for a lot of folks to get prices back down a bit and people will simply skip college since it doesn’t always help you in your career.
3) Longer lifespans. If people keeled over at age 65, a lot of the cost problems with healthcare, social security, medicare won’t be a problem since people are dead already. People also won’t have to save as much since retire at 60, living 5 more years is much cheaper than 30 more years. 🙂
These things force people to both work since 1 income isn’t enough.
4) Housing a little. I think in the old days, there were not as many “bad” areas and maybe with more common courtesy back then, people don’t feel as pressured to find good schools or safe areas since many areas were ok. Now, and this is IMO, it looks to me at least in CA, many areas are either good or bad. Not as many working/middle class areas compared to before…
July 6, 2010 @ 1:10 AM
joec wrote:I think the
[quote=joec]I think the problem with society now vs. the 50s/60s is that things are much more expensive now. The standard of living and quality of life for this and our kid’s generation will be lower than our parents and our generation for the first time (as reported).
This is due to mostly (probably more) 2 or 3 things.
1) Healthcare. Probably due to many other factors too, but all the folks who have insurance subsidize the many folks who don’t have insurance now so we pay insane prices when you have insurance for coverage. Say to see the doctor, the hospital bills you 2000. However, with your insurance, they have the negotiated rate of 500, and you pay $30 co-pay. This is to cover the 20 other people they bill, but can’t collect from when the bill should have really been 300 to the insurance instead.
2) Education/College. A public college degree was MUCH MUCH cheaper just 20 years ago. College costs has risen much faster than inflation. Maybe now with so many unemployed and useless degrees, college won’t be a must have for a lot of folks to get prices back down a bit and people will simply skip college since it doesn’t always help you in your career.
3) Longer lifespans. If people keeled over at age 65, a lot of the cost problems with healthcare, social security, medicare won’t be a problem since people are dead already. People also won’t have to save as much since retire at 60, living 5 more years is much cheaper than 30 more years. 🙂
These things force people to both work since 1 income isn’t enough.
4) Housing a little. I think in the old days, there were not as many “bad” areas and maybe with more common courtesy back then, people don’t feel as pressured to find good schools or safe areas since many areas were ok. Now, and this is IMO, it looks to me at least in CA, many areas are either good or bad. Not as many working/middle class areas compared to before…[/quote]
All true, but some would suggest that things are so expensive — to the extent that they require two incomes — specifically BECAUSE women entered the workforce en masse. In other words, it’s the two incomes that forced prices (and living standards) up, so that most families can no longer live on one income.
It’s very similar to the credit bubble pushing prices (of housing and everything else) up so high that people were forced to get into more/more toxic debt in order to afford things.
Elizabeth Warren has an excellent book about this:
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Mothers/dp/0465090826
Here’s a really good lecture she’s given that touches on the subject:
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=12620
July 6, 2010 @ 8:08 AM
It seems to me that
It seems to me that unemployment benefits stimulate much better than other means because the people receiving them actually spend the money. As opposed to say, tax cuts, which mostly go to the wealthy who end up stashing their savings away. If you’re a deficit hawk, compare the cost of Bush’s tax cuts to the cost of extending unemployment benefits and it is no contest. Biggest bang for the buck comes from expanding unemployment benefits and letting Bush’s tax cuts expire.
But let me guess… That would be redistributing the wealth? Can’t have none if that now, can we…
July 6, 2010 @ 2:13 PM
CA renter wrote:joec wrote:I
[quote=CA renter][quote=joec]I think the problem with society now vs. the 50s/60s is that things are much more expensive now. The standard of living and quality of life for this and our kid’s generation will be lower than our parents and our generation for the first time (as reported).
This is due to mostly (probably more) 2 or 3 things.
1) Healthcare. Probably due to many other factors too, but all the folks who have insurance subsidize the many folks who don’t have insurance now so we pay insane prices when you have insurance for coverage. Say to see the doctor, the hospital bills you 2000. However, with your insurance, they have the negotiated rate of 500, and you pay $30 co-pay. This is to cover the 20 other people they bill, but can’t collect from when the bill should have really been 300 to the insurance instead.
2) Education/College. A public college degree was MUCH MUCH cheaper just 20 years ago. College costs has risen much faster than inflation. Maybe now with so many unemployed and useless degrees, college won’t be a must have for a lot of folks to get prices back down a bit and people will simply skip college since it doesn’t always help you in your career.
3) Longer lifespans. If people keeled over at age 65, a lot of the cost problems with healthcare, social security, medicare won’t be a problem since people are dead already. People also won’t have to save as much since retire at 60, living 5 more years is much cheaper than 30 more years. 🙂
These things force people to both work since 1 income isn’t enough.
4) Housing a little. I think in the old days, there were not as many “bad” areas and maybe with more common courtesy back then, people don’t feel as pressured to find good schools or safe areas since many areas were ok. Now, and this is IMO, it looks to me at least in CA, many areas are either good or bad. Not as many working/middle class areas compared to before…[/quote]
All true, but some would suggest that things are so expensive — to the extent that they require two incomes — specifically BECAUSE women entered the workforce en masse. In other words, it’s the two incomes that forced prices (and living standards) up, so that most families can no longer live on one income.
It’s very similar to the credit bubble pushing prices (of housing and everything else) up so high that people were forced to get into more/more toxic debt in order to afford things.
Elizabeth Warren has an excellent book about this:
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Mothers/dp/0465090826
Here’s a really good lecture she’s given that touches on the subject:
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=12620%5B/quote%5D
Although I completely agree with you that the cost of living has increased partly due to dual-incomes, I don’t see any easy way out of it. Both men and women can have careers that they find enriching and rewarding. I think requiring that to change is not what most people want. However, due to the fact that there are a substantial number of households with dual-incomes, their is a household wage inflation of sorts. As to the comment that the recession will lead to more one income households – that is partially true but it seems that unfortunately there are some households where both spouses were affected and many others where both are still working. When both people are unemployed this is a major catastrophe in terms of regaining their previous financial position.
July 6, 2010 @ 3:00 PM
CA renter wrote:
All true,
[quote=CA renter]
All true, but some would suggest that things are so expensive — to the extent that they require two incomes — specifically BECAUSE women entered the workforce en masse. In other words, it’s the two incomes that forced prices (and living standards) up, so that most families can no longer live on one income.
It’s very similar to the credit bubble pushing prices (of housing and everything else) up so high that people were forced to get into more/more toxic debt in order to afford things.
Elizabeth Warren has an excellent book about this:
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Mothers/dp/0465090826
Here’s a really good lecture she’s given that touches on the subject:
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=12620%5B/quote%5D
Thanks for the book pointers…I’ll try to read it and from some of the comments, agree that housing and education is bankrupting a lot of people.
My dad said way way back we have a lot more luxuries now and I’d agree. How many little kids do you see now WITHOUT a Nintendo Wii at home, or without a Gameboy on the road?
Still, I don’t think everyone is pulling a June Reyno even with dual incomes. What happened to her in the end anyways?
July 7, 2010 @ 7:26 PM
Today’s NYT has an
Today’s NYT has an interesting chart comparing the percentage change in constant-dollar weekly wages for men and women across various educational levels:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/do-you-earn-more-than-your-parents-did/
There’s a few confounding factors at play here — namely that over the last generation (30 years), more women have been entering the workforce, employer expectations for minimum educational level required to do certain jobs has grown (especially with respect to credentialing), and finally the skillsets that are in demand, and sectors that are hiring, have changed (i.e. fewer manufacturing jobs, more service/healthcare/education sector jobs). Even in this recession, there’s a shortage of nurses, which historically has had a lower barrier of entry to women than other fields of employment (say, working on an oil rig).
So I think that it’s very difficult to tease apart the effect on inflation that this change of skillsets in demand vs. more women entering the workforce has had over the last 30 years. If someone has other data that can pull these issues apart, I’d love to see it.
Fundamentally, the only “real” way to grow an economy is through innovation — reward those people who figure out ways to make the pie bigger for everyone (and create new jobs no one could have foreseen in the past — as an example, we can generate more data than ever before, but who can figure out ways to make sense of it all? — those people will always be rare and in demand). So I’m concerned whenever I read anything that suggests that there is a fixed amount of work to be done, and that we should create policy incentives to minimize the number of people working per household — someone here suggested reducing the workforce by one person per household? Does that mean one person should not work multiple jobs either? I’m a bit confused how that perspective will lead to a sustainable economy…
It’s interesting to me that people seem to bemoan the loss of a lifelong career in a particular sector. The golden standard before used to be a lifelong job with a single employer (what the Japanese called “salaryman” — might be with a big company, might be with union, or government). Now for careers take so long to educate for (law, doctor, science, engineering) — it might be reasonable to hope to stay in that field career-long. But frankly, I know a lot of disappointed post-docs (I scare kids by telling them that if we count up all my years of school I finally stopped after Grade 21) unable to find tenure-track positions. People in biotech and IT usually turn over to a new company, what, every 2-5 years? Does it make more sense to teach people to EXPECT to radically change careers once or twice in their lifetimes? Say, bench scientist goes into patent law or somesuch? Would that lead to a more diversified, resilient, easily re-deployed workforce? And — maybe this forced cross-pollination of ideas and backgrounds would actually lead to faster innovation?
This would require radical change in mindset — in terms of employer behavior, policy, and employee incentives — to be constantly willing to try something completely novel every few years. Or maybe we have to teach people how to run their own businesses? Fail early and often, get up and try again?
How else can we break out of the expectation that even after decades of education, someone else “owes” you a career?
EDIT: I realized that I hadn’t expressed an opinion about unemployment benefits. If the government wants to prevent massive unrest before a midterm election, then short-term politics indicate UE extensions are wise. That also buys time for job creation strategies to take hold. Also, where were all these budget hawks when we were running surpluses (OK, not that CA ever was, but still)? That was the time to pay down debt and save against a rainy economy, not cutting off the water supply in the middle of wildfire season.
Also, if one’s employment strategies become more diversified, then what’s the incentive to own real estate? Renting permanently would allow one to a lot more career flexibility and avoid tying up a lot of capital that could instead go to education in one’s next career…is that really any more risky in this environment than overpaying for a house, getting laid off and then being geographically stuck?
July 6, 2010 @ 8:15 PM
Back in the 50’s and 60’s we
Back in the 50’s and 60’s we didn’t have three flat screen TVs, three cell phones, cable, internet, huge SUVs and 2400 sq ft homes either.
If we have a small house, one TV, one phone, no cable, and drive small economical cars I bet most of us could live on one salary.
[quote=bubba99]i suspect that most piggs are too young to remember the late 50’s and early 60’s. A time when only one person from a household went to work at a “job” each day. The family could do quite well on one wage.
But then things changed, and today a family needs two paychecks to be comfortable. This may be the event that allows us to go back to one working parent and maybe even re-asses our consumer mentallity.
[/quote]
July 6, 2010 @ 8:58 PM
You would get charged with
You would get charged with child abuse if you only had a small house, one TV, one phone, no cable, and drove small economical cars
August 8, 2010 @ 6:08 PM
sdrealtor wrote:You would get
[quote=sdrealtor]You would get charged with child abuse if you only had a small house, one TV, one phone, no cable, and drove small economical cars[/quote]
Please don’t report me to the “authoritahs”.
My kids have threatened to many a time…….
As a side addendum, I was in Construction during the 80-82 time period. I was laid off. It took me over two months to find another job. I worked maybe a year, got laid off again. After 6 months I had to go back to school, took a job in a 7-11 type store. (Another aside, I think anyone working towards a Psychology or Psychiatrist type degree should be REQUIRED to work in such a store for a minimum of 6 months as an internship. Really. That would expose them to all sorts of characters that might just be beneficial in their chosen “career”.)
I still have nightmares of the depression, the avoiding of friends and family, the having to take a cruddy ass job just to pay for school. BTDT the T-shirt self destructed in the wash a long time ago.
Nevertheless, I can’t help but wonder just how long we can extend the UE bennies before it becomes a problem. Like it or not we are setting a precedent for the future, when the next recession rolls around.
I have no pat answer, no precise example to demonstrate the correctness of my beliefs, no fast relief for the suffering.
I do think it would help, if they would at least step up the enforcement of the rules, a little crack down on the obvious and easily rooted out fraud would at least be a symbolic approach to showing you just can’t ride it for all it’s worth.
July 6, 2010 @ 4:28 PM
this is a good thread because
this is a good thread because it highlights how serious this situation is currently and YET people seem to claim there is demand for 3 bd homes here in Orange County that cost over half a million dollars… SERIOUSLY?
Home prices need to fall drastically here in OC to align with the economic reality.
July 6, 2010 @ 6:17 PM
kev374 wrote:this is a good
[quote=kev374]this is a good thread because it highlights how serious this situation is currently and YET people seem to claim there is demand for 3 bd homes here in Orange County that cost over half a million dollars… SERIOUSLY?
Home prices need to fall drastically here in OC to align with the economic reality.[/quote]
Why? You do realize that only 1/3rd of the population works, right? A sizable percentage is Government, local, county, state, Federal employees.
Seriously, it seems like, 1/3rd are retired.
Another 25% are children.
Then there is the black market economy
and the cash based economy.
Not to mention the 1% of population in prison.
It’s only that first 33% reporting the 10% unemployment rate. LA Couny is has to give raises out to the government employees in order to lay off anybod, like an assistant librarian.
While it’s bad, at 99 weeks, it’s not working. The oddity is the friend of SDR who actually finds employment, but notice he started his own biz anyway so in effect, he was working, and that says a lot to employers. People need to be like SDR’s friend and start their own businesses.
This morning, Handel had one thought that was probably right, the kind of work many of the unemployed are capable of doing is NEVER coming back. He also talked to some bio-industry guy in Ohio with a hundred openings, 3600 applicants, 47 passed the 9th grade math skill test.
July 6, 2010 @ 6:45 PM
EmilyHicks, are you the Emily
EmilyHicks, are you the Emily Hicks that is a professor at SDSU and teaches postmodern theory, political art, and ethnic community-building in cyberspace?
July 6, 2010 @ 9:23 PM
My husband collecte UI for a
My husband collecte UI for a period last year. Even now he’s underemployed (less than 1/2 time). That’s part of being an architect when the economy implodes… even the “bread and butter” business – hospitals and schools (he’s got a lot of experience in these.)
He’s likely to be fully unemployed again within a few weeks… there’s NO work and the office is likely to close down entirely. It’s already down to the owner, a drafter, and my husband (the one who does the work, seals the drawings, gets the permits.)
When he was on unemployment we pulled the kids from daycare and cut back a LOT. Even when he went back to work, partime, we minimized after school care (3-4 days/month) and kept up our austerity program. Because of this we only tapped our savings a little.
BUT – I feel/felt trapped. My income became more important than ever… I don’t love my job – and my employer continues to downsize bigtime, but I do what it takes to keep my job, keep the bosses happy, even as benefits get cut, salaries are frozen, etc… In a normal economy I’d be looking hard for a new job… now I’m grateful to have a job.
It is not unrealistic that we’ll both be unemployed this year. I’m hoping we’ll get UI if that happens. We’ve always figured out how to live with just one salary (if no daycare/after school care) – but like jpinpb’s cousin… I’m not sure I’d be happy as a SAHM (IMO the hardest job in the world… I’m not sure I’m strong enough for it.)
Seeing my husband look HARD for work and seeing him get told over and over that he was over qualified. He was told by a firm that he had the perfect experience – but to hire him at the budget they had (less experience, lower salary) it would cause internal strife because the other staff would know he was making less than them and had waaaay more experience. It’s not a matter of settling, it’s hard to get job if you have a lot of experience or some grey hair.
Anyone who’s middle/upper middle class who thinks unemployment insurance is a cakewalk – it’s not… not if you have a mortgage, kids, etc…
And if the laid off person is the person who provided insurance for the family – whoa nellie… that’s the biggest reason I jump through hoops to keep my job in this economy.
July 6, 2010 @ 10:08 PM
UCGal wrote:My husband
[quote=UCGal]My husband collecte UI for a period last year. Even now he’s underemployed (less than 1/2 time). That’s part of being an architect when the economy implodes… even the “bread and butter” business – hospitals and schools (he’s got a lot of experience in these.)
He’s likely to be fully unemployed again within a few weeks… there’s NO work and the office is likely to close down entirely. It’s already down to the owner, a drafter, and my husband (the one who does the work, seals the drawings, gets the permits.)
When he was on unemployment we pulled the kids from daycare and cut back a LOT. Even when he went back to work, partime, we minimized after school care (3-4 days/month) and kept up our austerity program. Because of this we only tapped our savings a little.
BUT – I feel/felt trapped. My income became more important than ever… I don’t love my job – and my employer continues to downsize bigtime, but I do what it takes to keep my job, keep the bosses happy, even as benefits get cut, salaries are frozen, etc… In a normal economy I’d be looking hard for a new job… now I’m grateful to have a job.
It is not unrealistic that we’ll both be unemployed this year. I’m hoping we’ll get UI if that happens. We’ve always figured out how to live with just one salary (if no daycare/after school care) – but like jpinpb’s cousin… I’m not sure I’d be happy as a SAHM (IMO the hardest job in the world… I’m not sure I’m strong enough for it.)
Seeing my husband look HARD for work and seeing him get told over and over that he was over qualified. He was told by a firm that he had the perfect experience – but to hire him at the budget they had (less experience, lower salary) it would cause internal strife because the other staff would know he was making less than them and had waaaay more experience. It’s not a matter of settling, it’s hard to get job if you have a lot of experience or some grey hair.
Anyone who’s middle/upper middle class who thinks unemployment insurance is a cakewalk – it’s not… not if you have a mortgage, kids, etc…
And if the laid off person is the person who provided insurance for the family – whoa nellie… that’s the biggest reason I jump through hoops to keep my job in this economy.[/quote]
UCgal,
Frankly, I’m pretty frustrated with a lot of companies I deal with, because a lot of companies are going for “cheapest cost”, and as a result, experience is being tossed out for say entry positions, and well you know the results are less than stellar when that happens. It’s increasingly funny when all the sudden the project goes to hell and companies lose deals/contracts because frankly what they produced was..well. shit….
Side question. Has your husband considered a different profession? I mean, not to poke or prod, but how long has it been difficult as an architect in general, and how much longer do you folks expect it to be? Is there other things you think he might be interested in getting involved in? I know it’s easier said than done, but perhaps exploring other options at the same time as continuing to job hunt.
Second thing is, how open are you folks to relocating elsewhere? San Diego probably is extremely tough for his line of work right now, I’m guessing.
Just wondering if your husband has explored alternatives at the same time still looking within his main profession. I know that it’s easier said then done. Much easier said then done…..
July 6, 2010 @ 10:54 PM
UCGal,
I’m sorry to hear
UCGal,
I’m sorry to hear about your husband’s job (again!), and hope that both you and he are able to find/remain in something that stabilizes.
You are so right, and I’ve heard this from many other people like yourselves: it is NOT easy (not even possible, in many cases) to find a job right now, even if you’re willing to take a significant pay cut. It’s disappointing to hear others claim that those on UE insurance are “lazy” and undeserving. In this economy, it is literally the difference between homelessness and starvation for many people — real homelessness, not just losing a purchased house and having to rent.
Best of luck to both you and your husband. I really hope the PTB start focusing on JOBS instead of asset prices. Their single-minded focus on asset prices is literally destroying the middle class in the U.S. We need to spend all our resources on jump-starting some R&D and other work programs, IMHO.
July 7, 2010 @ 12:13 AM
I say that the first 6 months
I say that the first 6 months to a year falls under the insurance aspect. Everything else after that is of unlimited duration, but treated as a government loan with deferred interest until that person gets a job.
That eliminates the “lazy bum” aspect, and yet, prevents being heartless as a society and having families ending up on the streets.
July 7, 2010 @ 9:56 AM
flu wrote:UCGal wrote:My
[quote=flu][quote=UCGal]My husband collecte UI for a period last year. Even now he’s underemployed (less than 1/2 time). That’s part of being an architect when the economy implodes… even the “bread and butter” business – hospitals and schools (he’s got a lot of experience in these.)
He’s likely to be fully unemployed again within a few weeks… there’s NO work and the office is likely to close down entirely. It’s already down to the owner, a drafter, and my husband (the one who does the work, seals the drawings, gets the permits.)
When he was on unemployment we pulled the kids from daycare and cut back a LOT. Even when he went back to work, partime, we minimized after school care (3-4 days/month) and kept up our austerity program. Because of this we only tapped our savings a little.
BUT – I feel/felt trapped. My income became more important than ever… I don’t love my job – and my employer continues to downsize bigtime, but I do what it takes to keep my job, keep the bosses happy, even as benefits get cut, salaries are frozen, etc… In a normal economy I’d be looking hard for a new job… now I’m grateful to have a job.
It is not unrealistic that we’ll both be unemployed this year. I’m hoping we’ll get UI if that happens. We’ve always figured out how to live with just one salary (if no daycare/after school care) – but like jpinpb’s cousin… I’m not sure I’d be happy as a SAHM (IMO the hardest job in the world… I’m not sure I’m strong enough for it.)
Seeing my husband look HARD for work and seeing him get told over and over that he was over qualified. He was told by a firm that he had the perfect experience – but to hire him at the budget they had (less experience, lower salary) it would cause internal strife because the other staff would know he was making less than them and had waaaay more experience. It’s not a matter of settling, it’s hard to get job if you have a lot of experience or some grey hair.
Anyone who’s middle/upper middle class who thinks unemployment insurance is a cakewalk – it’s not… not if you have a mortgage, kids, etc…
And if the laid off person is the person who provided insurance for the family – whoa nellie… that’s the biggest reason I jump through hoops to keep my job in this economy.[/quote]
UCgal,
Frankly, I’m pretty frustrated with a lot of companies I deal with, because a lot of companies are going for “cheapest cost”, and as a result, experience is being tossed out for say entry positions, and well you know the results are less than stellar when that happens. It’s increasingly funny when all the sudden the project goes to hell and companies lose deals/contracts because frankly what they produced was..well. shit….
Side question. Has your husband considered a different profession? I mean, not to poke or prod, but how long has it been difficult as an architect in general, and how much longer do you folks expect it to be? Is there other things you think he might be interested in getting involved in? I know it’s easier said than done, but perhaps exploring other options at the same time as continuing to job hunt.
Second thing is, how open are you folks to relocating elsewhere? San Diego probably is extremely tough for his line of work right now, I’m guessing.
Just wondering if your husband has explored alternatives at the same time still looking within his main profession. I know that it’s easier said then done. Much easier said then done…..[/quote]
He’s open to career changes – but he’s even older than me (and I’m old) – so a career change in your late 50’s is hard to manage. When he was off last summer he was studying for the LEED qualification – figuring it makes him even more attractive to potential employers. (Kind of like a programmer picking up a few extra languages/skills between gigs.) He’s talked about doing commercial appraisal, forensic architecture, construction management… but with the entire building industry depressed those aren’t really booming fields.
As far as relocation – we just spent a huge sum building a detached granny flat so we could have my disable father in law (and non-disabled mother in law) live with us. This was a pretty serious family need since at 83, my MIL is less able to manage a wheel chair bound husband. So we’re a little less mobile than some. That said – he interviewed and pursued jobs that require extensive travel – something that he wasn’t willing to do in better times.
July 7, 2010 @ 10:27 AM
Forgot to address one of
Forgot to address one of flu’s questions…
He’s always been able to find work. He’s got some impressive stuff on his resume – worked in house for the Franklin Institute in Philly, worked for Venturi-Scott-Brown, was offered work by Disney on Euro Disney (but they didn’t pay well, expected him to work for half the going rate.) Locally he was part of the US Grant Hotel remodel, lots of school work under prop MM, and then in recent years hospital work (Kaiser, Scripps, UCSD… he knows the guts, roofs, elevators, imaging departments of all the local hospitals.) He’s never had a hard time finding a job… even in down economies… until now.
And svelte – you’re right about the money not being in architecture… when I first met the hubster I assumed architects made big bucks…. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha… I never would have thought that engineers had much higher salary potential. The system is totally bogus with what’s basically indentured servitude until an architect gets registered (mid 30’s typically).. and even then, if they’re an employee (vs a principal) there is very little money compared to other professional fields. An acquaintance from Philly figured it out and ended up getting his MBA and eventually being Rendell’s Controller and now Temple U’s VP of treasury… more money in accounting and budgets than in design and building. He’s never looked back.
July 7, 2010 @ 12:16 PM
UCGal wrote: He’s talked
[quote=UCGal] He’s talked about doing commercial appraisal, forensic architecture, construction management… but with the entire building industry depressed those aren’t really booming fields.
[/quote]
If his resume fits into that bolded field at all, I’d suggest he look there. That piece of the industry is not down, as it tends to lag all the rest by 3 to 12 years. I can’t say its booming, but it has been non-stop busy for at least the last 10 years, with no short term end in sight. It’s hard work, may involve a lot of travel, and would be learning a new way to deliver his (probable) existing skill set, but I think the money is decent, and I know there have been at least a few local firms (which amounts to 3 of the 5 local firms that I’m aware of that do this kind of work) looking for help over the last 6 months.
July 7, 2010 @ 7:38 AM
No argument here that certain
No argument here that certain fields are without job opportunities right now as they usually are in downturns (one of the reasons I left architecture). Also no argument that tech job salaries are being driven down.
I still like the idea of working for unemployment $. Maybe the first six months or a year are exempt from that so one can look for a job full time.
But after that, I think everyone wins if the unemployed works, say 20 hrs/week (so they still have time to look for work).
Everyone wins: the state gets something back. The unemployed gets out of the house (I get bunker mentality if I stay in my house all day) and is doing something constructive…I know it would brighten my day.
I have to say after about 6 months, I am pretty sure I would be starting to tinker around with starting my own business, even if it is in a field I have never worked in before. I can’t sit still for long.
July 7, 2010 @ 8:13 AM
Maybe other than healthcare
Maybe other than healthcare (and I’ve read some nurses can’t find the position they want neither), almost all different fields are just as competitive if not more so, so trying something new or a new industry is no different. This recession is across the board across many fields.
Downsides of re-training also is that for folks with mortgage/kids, it’s hard to be able to spend 2 -3 years to learn a new trade. Does that mean unemployment should last 2-3 years till you get your new degree in fields that have work “now”?
Even if you are prudent and can afford to survive on 1 income, UI doesn’t provide enough time to last 2 years for most training programs.
I do like the idea of getting a loan from the IRS. Maybe you can just go negative for 2 years or defer all bills and just tack it on to your personal IRS record…
Course, some people will probably just leave the US after. 🙂
July 7, 2010 @ 9:06 AM
joec wrote:
Downsides of
[quote=joec]
Downsides of re-training also is that for folks with mortgage/kids, it’s hard to be able to spend 2 -3 years to learn a new trade. Does that mean unemployment should last 2-3 years till you get your new degree in fields that have work “now”?
[/quote]
I think on the other hand, spending the next 2-3 years trying to find a job in a profession in a geographic location for which demand is low is riskier….One gambling that things will get better in the long run. If it doesn’t, you’re 2-3 years out and still at square 1, with the exception that now you are 2-3 years older, and so are your kids, presumably with larger bills. I’m not suggesting to abandon looking in one’s profession at all, but I do think in times like these, it seems like it would be beneficial to at least consider/look into a plan B, even if you end up not needing to use it…even if plan B doesn’t immediately yield any money, but just get some experience/exposure to something else that could lead to future opportunities…Possibly, a hobbie that could at least lead to something…Again, easier said then done
This sort of thing is happening right now in the software business with Oracle’s acquisition spree. Folks who have invested a lot of time/energy in enterprise software development in Java/J2EE better starting thinking/executing on plan B or end up getting a really rude awakening… Oracle has been going on a shopping spree and started buying out all it’s competitor, and much worse, some key technologies that are more development-centric from BEA and Sun….Oracle IS going to shutdown J2EE/Enterprise Java so it can push it’s own proprietary stack, and it’s going to shutdown MySql and other opensource things that it got from the Sun acquisition. If there’s any indication of this, just look at the latest J2EE or JSR activities…There isn’t any, because Oracle has put most of it on hold….And Oracle is doing this so it can push it’s own proprietary solutions.. This is going to be a nightmare for folks who have invested a good portion of their careers only doing J2EE/Enterprise Java, especially so in San Diego, where several local defense companies are also simultaneously letting folks go with these very same skillset…The supply of folks with this skillset drastically outnumbers the demand for this skillset right now…
I think there are probably several piggs here who have doubled up. I can think of SDR, for instance, who is(was?) enginerd by day and RE mogul the other times, and it probably has paid off to have doubled up in times like this. I don’t count, because while I made a switch, I’m still in the same line of business more/less.(I always said if things get bad, I could end up being a full time mechanic…Looks like Toyota needs the help these days :))
July 7, 2010 @ 11:45 AM
flu wrote: I don’t count,
[quote=flu] I don’t count, because while I made a switch, I’m still in the same line of business more/less.(I always said if things get bad, I could end up being a full time mechanic…Looks like Toyota needs the help these days :))[/quote]
I always kept thinking the only jobs we’ll have are those where you have to be present. That’s why I think construction was a big sector that did so well. I’m thinking mechanic, though not glamorous, is a safe job that won’t be outsourced. People drive cars and cars break. You have to take it in somewhere local to fix it.
I remember in high school (as I date myself) that they offered an auto shop class, welding, etc. No more. Computer classes for jobs that can be outsourced, yes. Any mechanical class, no.
I mentioned this in another thread one time. Couldn’t we somehow combine unemployment benefits w/at least training. If we have to pay unemployment to someone who is having difficulty finding a job in their field, wouldn’t it be a win-win to have that person trained in another profession?
I heard this morning on KPBS about bio-tech jobs in Grand Rapids and how it could help their depressed economy, but many people there have no experience or training b/c they’ve been in manufacturing their whole life.
It’s sort of like that one book, “Who moved my cheese.”
July 7, 2010 @ 12:17 PM
jpinpb wrote:flu wrote: I
[quote=jpinpb][quote=flu] I don’t count, because while I made a switch, I’m still in the same line of business more/less.(I always said if things get bad, I could end up being a full time mechanic…Looks like Toyota needs the help these days :))[/quote]
I always kept thinking the only jobs we’ll have are those where you have to be present. That’s why I think construction was a big sector that did so well. I’m thinking mechanic, though not glamorous, is a safe job that won’t be outsourced. People drive cars and cars break. You have to take it in somewhere local to fix it.
I remember in high school (as I date myself) that they offered an auto shop class, welding, etc. No more. Computer classes for jobs that can be outsourced, yes. Any mechanical class, no.
I mentioned this in another thread one time. Couldn’t we somehow combine unemployment benefits w/at least training. If we have to pay unemployment to someone who is having difficulty finding a job in their field, wouldn’t it be a win-win to have that person trained in another profession?
I heard this morning on KPBS about bio-tech jobs in Grand Rapids and how it could help their depressed economy, but many people there have no experience or training b/c they’ve been in manufacturing their whole life.
It’s sort of like that one book, “Who moved my cheese.”[/quote]
I sort of see an issue with some of the employment in the high tech area. The issue is as follows
a)There are jobs for which for experienced people in the relevant area….still commanding a pretty hefty compensation
b)There are jobs for which are entry level, for folks who are starting out/no experience.
*The gap between (a) and (b) is huge.. Filling positions in (a), companies are resorting to poaching from each other.
*Companies don’t want to spend time/money on retraining anyone with experience (but not in the relevant areas) into (b).. companies rather hire new grads to do (b) and pay new-grad dollars. Also, given the difference between a new grad and someone retrained into the same position, some (not all ) employers view more favorably for the new grad, as the thought is you can throw a bunch of work and have that new grad finish (since he/she is new, and wants to conquer the world, versus someone that’s been in the industry for a long time that has since learned that deadlines slip, very rarely are things “urgent”, and a delay here/there isn’t going to kill anyone)….
*Realitiy is though that some new grads (millenium generation) tend to have some serious issues wrto expectations, in that they expect to be a manager from day 1 and not do the grunt work, and the once that are really good get poached among the employers.
Hence, why you still have some positions that are “open”, yet unfilled.
Frankly, I’m hoping to exit this industry 4-5 years from now, if things ever self-sustain at my own house…Because I can’t see myself keeping up with folks when I’m in my 40ies in this line of work.
July 7, 2010 @ 9:33 AM
I don’t believe that many
I don’t believe that many people collecting unemployment would be out on the streets eating from dumpsters if benefit extensions stop. They would have a place to stay and adequate nutrition with friends or family. I am sure that would motivate people who can’t make ends meet w/o benefits to find ways to be useful and resourceful, with or without organizational efforts towards such ends by the government. I think it could be beneficial to the soul of this country to take this path and get on with a reality reset, instead of blowing bubbles,enslaving future generations, invading another country or something like that.
The people who are truly unemployable and/or unwanted elsewhere are on different systems of welfare or already on the streets. The rest of us have a ton of potential to combine resources.Hundreds of thousands of people are getting by in California, without great jobs or unemployment benefits or turning to crime.I don’t now how to approximate the numbers nationally but of course there are millions.
I also wonder how much of that extended unemployment money is going towards mortgages and credit card debt to the banks that already get massive handouts,while people in real need are often ignored.
I don’t like the “solution” of offering more debt possibilities. Haven’t we had enough of the consequences for all this paying for the chickens before they hatch stuff?
I am not someone who has had an easy life. If I had, I would not dare make these comments.
I like Josh’s suggestion of support centers but I don’t think they would be heavily used because of the current situation.
July 7, 2010 @ 11:32 AM
Russell wrote:I don’t believe
[quote=Russell]I don’t believe that many people collecting unemployment would be out on the streets eating from dumpsters if benefit extensions stop. They would have a place to stay and adequate nutrition with friends or family. I am sure that would motivate people who can’t make ends meet w/o benefits to find ways to be useful and resourceful, with or without organizational efforts towards such ends by the government. I think it could be beneficial to the soul of this country to take this path and get on with a reality reset, instead of blowing bubbles,enslaving future generations, invading another country or something like that.
The people who are truly unemployable and/or unwanted elsewhere are on different systems of welfare or already on the streets. The rest of us have a ton of potential to combine resources.Hundreds of thousands of people are getting by in California, without great jobs or unemployment benefits or turning to crime.I don’t now how to approximate the numbers nationally but of course there are millions.
I also wonder how much of that extended unemployment money is going towards mortgages and credit card debt to the banks that already get massive handouts,while people in real need are often ignored.
I don’t like the “solution” of offering more debt possibilities. Haven’t we had enough of the consequences for all this paying for the chickens before they hatch stuff?
I am not someone who has had an easy life. If I had, I would not dare make these comments.
I like Josh’s suggestion of support centers but I don’t think they would be heavily used because of the current situation.[/quote]
Russ, I understand what you are getting at, but severing the support of the weakest is not going to get rid of materialism, it’s going to create a massive underclass. Every study I’ve seen on wealth disparity(I mean real science not economics) for 1st and 3rd worlds alike, huge wealth disparity causes more crime for more psychological than survival reasons. Of course, factored together will absolutely cause more crime. The fact that we are “helping” employed homeowners with their mortgages while not helping the unemployed highlights our priorities. The structure as it is now for budget cuts is for the lowest of the wealth pyramid to get kicked out of the system. Like I said, I understand what you are getting at, but kicking the periphery out will not achieve your desired results.
Actually, during the depression there was a good bit of starvation with half the population living on family farms and farmers throwing away food because people did not have money. Today, with less than one percent living on farms the only option is for monetary support. Also as budget problems persist, the last thing they would do is divert more funds to the bottom for support centers. Actually the least money will be available for that type of thing and existing support structures will get overwhelmed at the same time as funding dries up for them. What we are creating is an underclass with diminishing support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0
July 7, 2010 @ 11:36 AM
Arraya wrote:
Russ, I
[quote=Arraya]
Russ, I understand what you are getting at, but severing the support of the weakest is not going to get rid of materialism, it’s going to create a massive underclass. [/quote]
This is where I disagree…I don’t think that the unemployed are the ‘weakest’. I think many of them could find work if they wanted to–they just don’t want to. Continuing to support them will not turn the economy around or encourage them to find jobs. The one thing that will encourage them to take jobs is to cut off the spigot or force them to actually work for their ‘benefits’. I think if we started forcing people to clean toilets, pick up trash and sweep streets for their UI benefits you’d find that a lot of them magically were able to find a job.
July 7, 2010 @ 11:41 AM
You know Mead this will never
You know Mead this will never happen. They would be taking union jobs and we all know that is a no no. 😉
July 7, 2010 @ 11:50 AM
meadandale wrote:
This is
[quote=meadandale]
This is where I disagree…I don’t think that the unemployed are the ‘weakest’. I think many of them could find work if they wanted to–they just don’t want to. Continuing to support them will not turn the economy around or encourage them to find jobs. The one thing that will encourage them to take jobs is to cut off the spigot or force them to actually work for their ‘benefits’. I think if we started forcing people to clean toilets, pick up trash and sweep streets for their UI benefits you’d find that a lot of them magically were able to find a job.[/quote]
I do think that there must be some kind of job that can be offered for those on unemployment. Even if it is to provide day care for those working. It’ll get those not working out of the house, interacting w/people, give them some self-esteem and earning their pay.
Honestly, I don’t think that many educated people enjoy being on unemployment. I think it does have a psychological detriment. My brother has a master’s in business and his focus for the past 25 years was the automobile industry. He was in mid-upper management. Since he was laid off from Maserati/Ferrari in October, he has been on unemployment. He’s not happy. He is considering going to the Gulf to help clean up efforts just to do something productive.
July 7, 2010 @ 2:28 PM
Another reason they probably
Another reason they probably don’t force people to do something else is liability. Think if unemployed people started to do day care. Talk about lack of training, or possible child molestation, kidnapping issues. For things like manual labor, there’s worker’s compensation and on the job injury…The legal mess is probably not worth the hassle to figure out what so and so can do while unemployed…
The comment about picking up trash and unions is no joke. I have read that union/employed people wouldn’t want employed people working for free since it will take their jobs away as well.
Why would business pay someone if they have someone else who will do the work for free? It’ll be a race to the bottom in terms of pay for any industry this is setup for.
It can probably apply to most careers as well actually…Biotech testing? I’m sure most engineering type can learn in 3 months how to run or do Q/A on the same testing environment if given the chance…
Another good point brought up is it’s all well and easy to tell a 21 year old to get off his butt, move for a job or start a new career by training, etc…but for someone in the mid/late 50s, have parents and inlaws who are not mobile and need constant care, it’s not that easy to kick them to the curb and say “tough”, I need to find work so I now have to pay someone else 2000-3000/month just to watch you so I can make 2000 after taxes to pay for your care.
In the end, this is a very complex problem with no easy solution and I still don’t think people who haven’t been there before know what it’s like (since I used to think that way too).
July 7, 2010 @ 4:14 PM
remember how I said hubby’s
remember how I said hubby’s office was down to 3 people… as of next friday it’s down to 2. But hubby is one of the remaining 2. It’s down to him and the owner.
July 7, 2010 @ 5:17 PM
Good luck to your family UC.
Good luck to your family UC.
This sadly points to a lingering down economy. The construction begins with the design of the buildings and if nothing is in the pipe, then nothing for construction trades to do. And look at the lead time when the design/engineering begin.
Shovel ready jobs??? right.
July 7, 2010 @ 12:35 PM
Arraya wrote:Russell wrote:I
[quote=Arraya][quote=Russell]I don’t believe that many people collecting unemployment would be out on the streets eating from dumpsters if benefit extensions stop. They would have a place to stay and adequate nutrition with friends or family. I am sure that would motivate people who can’t make ends meet w/o benefits to find ways to be useful and resourceful, with or without organizational efforts towards such ends by the government. I think it could be beneficial to the soul of this country to take this path and get on with a reality reset, instead of blowing bubbles,enslaving future generations, invading another country or something like that.
The people who are truly unemployable and/or unwanted elsewhere are on different systems of welfare or already on the streets. The rest of us have a ton of potential to combine resources.Hundreds of thousands of people are getting by in California, without great jobs or unemployment benefits or turning to crime.I don’t now how to approximate the numbers nationally but of course there are millions.
I also wonder how much of that extended unemployment money is going towards mortgages and credit card debt to the banks that already get massive handouts,while people in real need are often ignored.
I don’t like the “solution” of offering more debt possibilities. Haven’t we had enough of the consequences for all this paying for the chickens before they hatch stuff?
I am not someone who has had an easy life. If I had, I would not dare make these comments.
I like Josh’s suggestion of support centers but I don’t think they would be heavily used because of the current situation.[/quote]
Russ, I understand what you are getting at, but severing the support of the weakest is not going to get rid of materialism, it’s going to create a massive underclass. Every study I’ve seen on wealth disparity(I mean real science not economics) for 1st and 3rd worlds alike, huge wealth disparity causes more crime for more psychological than survival reasons. Of course, factored together will absolutely cause more crime. The fact that we are “helping” employed homeowners with their mortgages while not helping the unemployed highlights our priorities. The structure as it is now for budget cuts is for the lowest of the wealth pyramid to get kicked out of the system. Like I said, I understand what you are getting at, but kicking the periphery out will not achieve your desired results.
Actually, during the depression there was a good bit of starvation with half the population living on family farms and farmers throwing away food because people did not have money. Today, with less than one percent living on farms the only option is for monetary support. Also as budget problems persist, the last thing they would do is divert more funds to the bottom for support centers. Actually the least money will be available for that type of thing and existing support structures will get overwhelmed at the same time as funding dries up for them. What we are creating is an underclass with diminishing support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0%5B/quote%5D
What I am getting at I am also tip toeing around.
Everyone complains about corrupt Daddy big business or Corrupt Mommie big government or both but no one wants to be weaned from both soured milk teats at the same time.I don’t want to be held in check by the crime boogeyman anymore than the economic spiral boogey man or any of the other things that supposedly threaten us.I think we are a culture in need of bigger solutions and I have never seen a bunch of babies fighting to nurse solve anything beyond infantile appetites.
July 7, 2010 @ 1:14 PM
Russell wrote:Arraya
[quote=Russell][quote=Arraya][quote=Russell]I don’t believe that many people collecting unemployment would be out on the streets eating from dumpsters if benefit extensions stop. They would have a place to stay and adequate nutrition with friends or family. I am sure that would motivate people who can’t make ends meet w/o benefits to find ways to be useful and resourceful, with or without organizational efforts towards such ends by the government. I think it could be beneficial to the soul of this country to take this path and get on with a reality reset, instead of blowing bubbles,enslaving future generations, invading another country or something like that.
The people who are truly unemployable and/or unwanted elsewhere are on different systems of welfare or already on the streets. The rest of us have a ton of potential to combine resources.Hundreds of thousands of people are getting by in California, without great jobs or unemployment benefits or turning to crime.I don’t now how to approximate the numbers nationally but of course there are millions.
I also wonder how much of that extended unemployment money is going towards mortgages and credit card debt to the banks that already get massive handouts,while people in real need are often ignored.
I don’t like the “solution” of offering more debt possibilities. Haven’t we had enough of the consequences for all this paying for the chickens before they hatch stuff?
I am not someone who has had an easy life. If I had, I would not dare make these comments.
I like Josh’s suggestion of support centers but I don’t think they would be heavily used because of the current situation.[/quote]
Russ, I understand what you are getting at, but severing the support of the weakest is not going to get rid of materialism, it’s going to create a massive underclass. Every study I’ve seen on wealth disparity(I mean real science not economics) for 1st and 3rd worlds alike, huge wealth disparity causes more crime for more psychological than survival reasons. Of course, factored together will absolutely cause more crime. The fact that we are “helping” employed homeowners with their mortgages while not helping the unemployed highlights our priorities. The structure as it is now for budget cuts is for the lowest of the wealth pyramid to get kicked out of the system. Like I said, I understand what you are getting at, but kicking the periphery out will not achieve your desired results.
Actually, during the depression there was a good bit of starvation with half the population living on family farms and farmers throwing away food because people did not have money. Today, with less than one percent living on farms the only option is for monetary support. Also as budget problems persist, the last thing they would do is divert more funds to the bottom for support centers. Actually the least money will be available for that type of thing and existing support structures will get overwhelmed at the same time as funding dries up for them. What we are creating is an underclass with diminishing support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0%5B/quote%5D
What I am getting at I am also tip toeing around.
Everyone complains about corrupt Daddy big business or Corrupt Mommie big government or both but no one wants to be weaned from both soured milk teats at the same time.I don’t want to be held in check by the crime boogeyman anymore than the economic spiral boogey man or any of the other things that supposedly threaten us.I think we are a culture in need of bigger solutions and I have never seen a bunch of babies fighting to nurse solve anything beyond infantile appetites.[/quote]
Well I hate to bust your bubble , Russ, but both of those boogey men lurk over your shoulder whether you like it or not. Denying their existence does not make them go away. Just as ignoring an infected wound does not make it go away. And this highly armed, infantilized nation will do all kinds of nasty things to each other if it drags on too long.
But you hit the nail on the head. Mommy and Daddy are severely perverted, abusive and cause 99% of the problems. The good thing is the both are completely human constructs that we can change any time we like. But recognizing and acknowledging the problems and threats posed is necessary to moving on.
Tinkering with the survival means of the weakest and potential psychological impacts of such tinkering is just an act of sadism, IMO.
July 7, 2010 @ 5:17 PM
[quote=Arraya
Well I hate to
[quote=Arraya
Well I hate to bust your bubble , Russ, but both of those boogey men lurk over your shoulder whether you like it or not. Denying their existence does not make them go away. Just as ignoring an infected wound does not make it go away. And this highly armed, infantilized nation will do all kinds of nasty things to each other if it drags on too long.
Tinkering with the survival means of the weakest and potential psychological impacts of such tinkering is just an act of sadism, IMO.[/quote]
I think the problem isn’t that the weakest are being affected the problem is that it is happening higher up. The weakest can’t travel around the world or catch up on hobbies or maintain and improve houses on the dole.They can’t complete a new degree on funemployment. The weakest can’t sell and move into a smaller house.The weakest are having bombs dropped on their houses. Not saying there would not be problems.But by continuing all these bailouts other people will pay for maintaining lives of luxury for people who for the most part have only ever tried to help themselves and I don’t think that is right.
Further more no matter how long the recession goes on you might not even get benefits, even if you were destitute, unless you are a card carrying “cog in the wheel”. Who in this situation thinks 3 years of unemployment for fee takers, warmachine workers,junk food maker/vendors and gadget builders is cool? How about if you are actually poor and have to go wash their fancy cars to make ends meet and get paid with their dole money knowing that they look down on you because you are one of those people who lives 6 adults to house, but off your own sweat?
How does throwing money at luxury not induce crime from the weakest?
July 7, 2010 @ 6:49 PM
Unemployment benefits if
Unemployment benefits if anything creates additional jobs. People who get the benefits spend that money, which creates some jobs.
Some argue unemployment benefits INCREASES the unemployment rate, which in effect is saying if the Government gives Joe Blow unemployment benefits, employers will lay other people off. How does that make sense?
What does happen is those who are more able to deal with unemployment withdraw from the work force while freeing up a potential job for someone who desperately needs a job.
An example…..
In 1986 my company was laying off. I had lots of seniority so didn’t have to worry but I actually wanted the time off so that I could go to school. Others with low seniority had families and needed every extra dime and the benefits so could not afford to be laid off and collect unemployment.
Rather than going down the seniority line my company asked for volunteers for lay off. It got all the volunteers it needed. No one suffered.
Extrapolate this to the larger economy. Unemployment benefits does not decrease the total number of jobs available but what it does do is cause a shift. The most desperate are able to find that job because a guy who can afford to live off of unemployment has stopped whole heartedly trying to find a job.
It will be argued by some that this means that some lazy Liberal Bum is not working and living off the public dime. But what I would argue is since there is a finite amount of jobs wouldn’t it be better to allow those who best afford unemployment insurance have it and wouldn’t it be better to allow those who most need a job and benefits have it? Or is it mandatory everyone suffer?
I think under normal times 6 months is long enough. During economic turmoil like now, extensions are prudent.
That said, I hope the extension is not approved because I want a complete and total economic collapse since it seems that will be the only thing that will over come our governments attempts to reflate the housing bubble.
July 8, 2010 @ 10:46 AM
sobmaz wrote:Unemployment
[quote=sobmaz]Unemployment benefits if anything creates additional jobs. People who get the benefits spend that money, which creates some jobs.
Some argue unemployment benefits INCREASES the unemployment rate, which in effect is saying if the Government gives Joe Blow unemployment benefits, employers will lay other people off. How does that make sense?[/quote]
I disagree.
Unemployment only reduces the number of jobs lost in the early stages of decline. By definition, these are people who had jobs, but lost them. Replacing their wages with unemployment insurance only insures that they dont immediatly stop spending, slowing the decline in total employment as the grocerie stores and gas stations and rent/mortages people still get paid. UE at best protects jobs in daily necessity industries. It doesnt create new jobs, with the possible exception of a few government workers to service the added people.
As for increasing the UE rate, it does, atleast in less hard times. Because people hold out for better jobs, or jobs in their area, with similar pay. Except, those are few and far between in down times, so they stay unemployeed longer looking for that ‘right’ job. If they had to work NOW, they would take most anything that they could reasonablly do, and get off the UE roles.
July 8, 2010 @ 3:29 PM
DWCAP
So you are saying most
DWCAP
So you are saying most of those on unemployment could find jobs if they wanted? You are saying the jobs are there, employers are desperately trying to find labor but the labor is unavailable because the labor has decided to stay home and collect unemployment?
If so many jobs are going unfilled, why are employers laying off? Why are help wanted adds at near all time lows? It doesn’t add up.
There are millions of unemployed and by your logic there are millions of jobs available but employers cant find the workers.
So when the economy contracted in the last couple of years it was actually just a statistical issue, real jobs were not involved?
When the economy collapsed two years ago, overall, the economy did not lose any jobs?
When the stock market crashed two years ago, overall the economy continued to produce enough jobs to deal with graduating college students?
When home building crashed from 1.5 million units to 300k units 2 years ago, the economy still had jobs available for all those laid off construction workers?
When you put money into the hands of people who are out of work, it does protect jobs, it does create economic activity, I don’t care what you think, facts prove otherwise.
How do you explain the hundreds of thousands of retirees in places like Sun City West and Sun City? None of them work, yet they spend money that is sent to them monthly. They spend at grocery stores, walmart, utilities, vets…and on and on. Each dollar spent has a multiplier effect.
Unemployment benefits mean some people will not lose their jobs because people still have money to spend. It is a waste of tiime to argue if that is creating or saving jobs. The political rhetoric is that it actually causes a loss of jobs and that is bunk.
I know to most it is like I am explaining why 1+1 =2, but it appears it is necessary in this case.
Some chose to believe fact, some chose to believe rhetoric.
July 8, 2010 @ 5:07 PM
There is a fundamental issue
There is a fundamental issue we gloss over. In the US, we pay for and value specialization. If you specialize, you get paid but what happens when you lose that job? What do you do if that industry is contracting (i.e. semiconductors, hardware)?
I always hear stories re: Silicon Valley workers who are unemployed for 1-2 years b/c they can’t find jobs relevant to their experience.
I don’t think (for example) an engineer making 100k a yr is going to take a Starbucks job (assuming he could actually get one) if he’s got a family, mortgage or meaningful debt b/c it doesn’t solve the problem.
Some jobs are useful across industries (book-keeper, accountant, back office) but some aren’t. I don’t think unemployment benefits should be free once you’ve exhausted what you’ve paid for in insurance premiums. Make extension recipients contribute back to society (charities, local govt works, whatever) for the additional $.
July 8, 2010 @ 5:17 PM
Werewolf wrote:There is a
[quote=Werewolf]There is a fundamental issue we gloss over. In the US, we pay for and value specialization. If you specialize, you get paid but what happens when you lose that job? What do you do if that industry is contracting (i.e. semiconductors, hardware)?
I always hear stories re: Silicon Valley workers who are unemployed for 1-2 years b/c they can’t find jobs relevant to their experience.
I don’t think (for example) an engineer making 100k a yr is going to take a Starbucks job (assuming he could actually get one) if he’s got a family, mortgage or meaningful debt b/c it doesn’t solve the problem.
Some jobs are useful across industries (book-keeper, accountant, back office) but some aren’t. I don’t think unemployment benefits should be free once you’ve exhausted what you’ve paid for in insurance premiums. Make extension recipients contribute back to society (charities, local govt works, whatever) for the additional $.[/quote]
Plan B…It happens all the time…
July 9, 2010 @ 9:08 AM
Here’s a possible solution:
Here’s a possible solution: http://takeourjobs.org/. Dude was on Colbert Report last night and he said only 3 Americans have taken him up on his offer.
July 9, 2010 @ 3:48 PM
sobmaz wrote:DWCAP
…….
I
[quote=sobmaz]DWCAP
…….
I know to most it is like I am explaining why 1+1 =2, but it appears it is necessary in this case.
Some chose to believe fact, some chose to believe rhetoric.[/quote]
Wow, that was an emotional response to something I clearly didnt say. I can tell this is a very emotionally charged issue for you, so please read my next words carefully to really understand what I am saying.
1) Unemployment Benifits dont create NEW jobs, they protect the economy from LOSING MORE jobs. It stops someone from freezing all spending after losing their job, agrivating the bust cycle into steeper recessions or depressions. People dont go out and spend extra when they are laid off, they cut back. UE is what, max $1800/month? That keeps the lights on, the fridge half full, and the car going. Not much more. But none of that is NEW/extra spending, UE replaced regular spending from now missing wages. That isnt new jobs, it is protecting the spending supporting old ones.
Is that clear? You said it yourself:
“When you put money into the hands of people who are out of work, it does protect jobs, it does create economic activity.”
– Yes, it PROTECTS current jobs, not creates NEW ones as you argued.
2) Direct Quote from Larry Summers:
[Quote]Unemployment insurance also extends the time a person stays off the job. [Kim] Clark and I estimated that the existence of unemployment insurance almost doubles the number of unemployment spells lasting more than three months. If unemployment insurance were eliminated, the unemployment rate would drop by more than half a percentage point, which means that the number of unemployed people would fall by about 750,000. This is all the more significant in light of the fact that less than half of the unemployed receive insurance benefits, largely because many have not worked enough to qualify.[/Quote]
Obviously some people dispute your ‘facts’, and that is Obamas guy, so save the the political ploys. I argue that UE raises the number of people on UE, IN MORE NORMAL TIMES! That Summers piece was witten in 2005. I specifically said, “in less hard times”. Others in this thread posted about people milking the system, it happens, not everyone is SOL, just like not everyone is milking the system. There are jobs out there, and people may have to move or take less pay, but it isnt a 0 hiring economy.
I qualified my point, you didnt. The distinction is important, as our goal is to get back to ‘more normal times’.
If you had read earlier posts, I split increasing unemployemnt from 6 months to one year, and over 99 weeks. I support increasing benifits to 1 year in times like these, becuase jobs, ANY jobs, dont exist in enough numbers for the people who want them. But if we are talking over two years of benifits, then we need to start looking at other solutions, (education, career training, moving,) because it is obvious this isnt working and these people are damaging their ability to move back into the work force. Past two years UE, that is more harmful than helpful and it is time for other solutions, even if they are more painful than desired.
Now, I am not gonna argue with you about how much the economy has sucked or the fact that my generation is falling further and further behind as we graduate from HS or college and have little in the way of prospects. I am not gonna argue with you about the emotional devistation going on around the country as people loose jobs, houses and even self identities. All are true, and all too true.
But paying them to avoid the hard truths about their careers and job prospects isnt gonna help either. Employment isnt evenly spread around the country, currently South Dakota has a 4.5% unemployement rate (april 10). Detroit is something like 18%+ right now. To pay people to stay in detroit and not be able to work is not a long term viable solution when there is surly some kind of labor to be done in South Dakota. (Not everyone in Detroit can go, I am not saying that, but some can, and that movement to new opertunities is good for the economy).
And I firmly disagre with you here:
[Quote]It is a waste of tiime to argue if that is creating or saving jobs. The political rhetoric is that it actually causes a loss of jobs and that is bunk. [/Quote]
This seems to be our major point of contention. I think it most certainly does matter if we are creating new jobs or saving old ones. The only way out of this mess is to have solid paying long term jobs for people who need them. That requires putting people in new jobs, Just saving old ones doesnt do the trick.
And I dont know who is spouting the idea that this costs overall jobs in an economy like this. But I dont espout that idea, so please do not attribute it to me.
July 9, 2010 @ 9:18 PM
From Yahoo to a WSJ
From Yahoo to a WSJ link:
Long Recession Ignites Debate on Jobless Benefits:
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110013/debate-on-jobless-benefits
It said that unemployment benefits according to most economists would extend someones “out of workness” by about 1.6 weeks compared to someone without Unemployment Insurance.
Since we like quoting Larry Summers above, here is his response back in April to an editorial about his 1993 quote:
“In his scholarly past, Lawrence Summers, now Mr. Obama’s economic guru, wrote in 1993 that “government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment … by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work.” When an April Wall Street Journal editorial described his position, Mr. Summers fired back in a letter to the editor: “In the wake of the worst economic crisis in eight decades … there can be no doubt that the overwhelming cause of unemployment is economic distress, not the existence of unemployment insurance.”
I really liked the comment where the guy gets laid off from his 65k job, finds another after 2 months for 72k and quits hating it in a week and not being eligible for UI anymore…Maybe he should’ve just put up with it for the money, but like I mentioned earlier, it’s not that black and white whether to take another position if it will so drastically affect your or your family’s life in a negative way.
July 10, 2010 @ 10:03 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news/economy/farm_worker_jobs/index.htm?hpt=T2
Thoughts?
July 11, 2010 @ 1:35 AM
flu
[quote=flu]http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news/economy/farm_worker_jobs/index.htm?hpt=T2
Thoughts?[/quote]
From the link:
“Farm workers do the work that most Americans are not willing to do,” said union president Arturo Rodriguez in the announcement of the campaign.
This is the line that is so often quoted and so very full of B.S.
My dad grew up on a farm, as did all our relatives on his side of the family. I’ve never heard of a single one of them having to hire “illegal” immigrants (or any immigrant, for that matter) to work on the farm.
Americans have a long history as farmers, but they won’t do it for the same price that *illegal labor* is willing to slave for. Personally, I’m more than willing to pay more for produce that’s been planted/harvested by legal U.S. workers. I know there are many others who feel the same way I do about this.
The low wages are not necessarily passed down to the customer, either. It’s all about increasing the margins for the owners; yet the TRUE cost of illegal labor (low wages, overburdened physical and social infrastructure, high medical expenses/closed hospitals, higher housing prices, lower quality of life, etc.) is borne by the rest of us.
Hooray for globalism! [/sarcasm]
July 11, 2010 @ 8:50 AM
CA renter wrote:Hooray for
[quote=CA renter]Hooray for globalism! [/sarcasm][/quote]
And capitalism.
Some of these owner-farmers have a lucrative business w/the Mexcian cheap labor. If there were no Mexican cheap labor and no U.S. citizen would work for the slave wages, they would be force to pay higher wages for people to work the fields or they would have rotten fruits and vegetables w/no one getting their hands dirty. Our economy is not receptive to minimum wage for U.S. citizen farm workers and it’s ridiculous to suggest that. Meanwhile the profits are being made off the backs of Mexicans and no savings passed to consumers
(CAR – there you go again, stealing my thoughts)
P.S. My aunt and uncle in Italy had a small farm. Not glamorous and hard work. They were out there w/their workers and they enjoyed it. It’s a lifestyle for some people in Italy, believe it or not. My other uncle in Italy has a small winery w/fields of grapes they tend to. They find in rewarding in many ways, not just financial.
July 12, 2010 @ 12:23 AM
jpinpb wrote:CA renter
[quote=jpinpb][quote=CA renter]Hooray for globalism! [/sarcasm][/quote]
And capitalism.
[/quote]
Exactly.
And you’re right about people farming for the love of it, as well as for the money. Most of the farmers I’ve known are farmers at heart. They couldn’t imagine doing anything else, and they love what they’re doing (even though it is very difficult, back-breaking work).
I’m tired of hearing about “lazy” Americans who “won’t do xx work.” I’m sure most of us over 40 all worked doing very menial labor when we were young. Today, our teenagers cannot find these same jobs because the illegal workers have filled all the positions. It’s no wonder today’s kids feel the need to get into management right away. We’ve eliminated most of the lower-end jobs that were the first steps to moving up the ladder.
BTW, by paying these people such low wages, we’ve really made it clear how much we value “productive” workers. We’ve denigrated real work/workers to such an extent that the only way for people to get any respect for the work they do is if they have a useless college degree (and we’re starting to disrespect that as well, BTW) and get involved with pushing paper or financial speculation.
July 11, 2010 @ 8:44 PM
flu
[quote=flu]http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/07/news/economy/farm_worker_jobs/index.htm?hpt=T2
Thoughts?[/quote]
“Most applicants quickly lose interest once the reality sinks in that these are back-breaking jobs in triple-digit temperatures that pay minimum wage, usually without benefits, according to the union. Some small farms are not required to pay minimum wage and in 15 states farms aren’t required to offer workers’ compensation.”
That’s what tolerance of employers utilizing illegal labor does. Takes jobs and drives the compensation to minimum wage or below with no benefits.
Here’s a simple question? Who wants to go pick produce in 100 degree plus field when you can look at the picture menu on McDonald’s for $10/hr in nice AC comfort?
July 11, 2010 @ 9:24 PM
The illegal labor is the
The illegal labor is the issue since compared to their own country, minimum wage could be decent due to a lower cost of living there. It’s not a fair comparison what they are proposing since the money earned isn’t used to actually LIVE in the US, but somewhere else.
They make the US wage here and send it to another country where that buys a lot more in terms or food, clothing, rent, entertainment, etc…
Not true I don’t think, but say if Japan had a minimum wage with exchange rates of say 20 USD an hour (a music CD is 3000 yen after all) and it was a train’s ride away, I think a lot of people won’t mind sitting or working in a book shop or McDonalds for “minimum wage” and be quite happy doing it.
July 12, 2010 @ 10:03 AM
joec wrote:
Not true I don’t
[quote=joec]
Not true I don’t think, but say if Japan had a minimum wage with exchange rates of say 20 USD an hour (a music CD is 3000 yen after all) and it was a train’s ride away, I think a lot of people won’t mind sitting or working in a book shop or McDonalds for “minimum wage” and be quite happy doing it.[/quote]
That just made me laugh. 20-25 years ago (wow I’m getting old) I believe the minimum wage in Japan was about 350-400 yen/hour although CDs still amazingly cost about 3000 yen. Now, the minimum wage in the Tokyo area is 790 yen/ hr but CDs are still about 3000 yen.
July 12, 2010 @ 12:39 PM
looking wrote:joec wrote:
Not
[quote=looking][quote=joec]
Not true I don’t think, but say if Japan had a minimum wage with exchange rates of say 20 USD an hour (a music CD is 3000 yen after all) and it was a train’s ride away, I think a lot of people won’t mind sitting or working in a book shop or McDonalds for “minimum wage” and be quite happy doing it.[/quote]
That just made me laugh. 20-25 years ago (wow I’m getting old) I believe the minimum wage in Japan was about 350-400 yen/hour although CDs still amazingly cost about 3000 yen. Now, the minimum wage in the Tokyo area is 790 yen/ hr but CDs are still about 3000 yen.[/quote]
Thanks for the update on the Tokyo minimum wage (about $9 USD/hour).
Still, you get the idea, I don’t think the cost of living in the country south of us is anywhere near what it is in the US of A for locals/natives who aren’t in a tourist/vacation spot so minimum goes much further and I still believe that’s part of the problem…
July 12, 2010 @ 4:26 PM
Re the Plan B comment, have
Re the Plan B comment, have you done this yourself or are you commenting as an arm-chair quarterback?
Would love to hear stories about how people are able to retool in the recession but I have a hard time believing it…
July 21, 2010 @ 5:02 PM
Werewolf wrote:Re the Plan B
[quote=Werewolf]Re the Plan B comment, have you done this yourself or are you commenting as an arm-chair quarterback?
Would love to hear stories about how people are able to retool in the recession but I have a hard time believing it…[/quote]
I’ve done it myself a few times ever since the dot.com imploded into the dot.bomb out of necessity. and more recently, like I said, as the enterprise SW market started drying up…(It’s probably easier in my case, since there is some related things from one tech track to the other)…
I think the thing that worked for me, frankly, was not waiting until the crap hits the fan before picking something else up. Usually, I start to try to pick something else up while things are going well otherwise (because the pessimist I am, I never think good things last a very long time).. In the past, things usually starts as a hobby that leads to something else. I got involved with what i’m doing now initially because I wanted to win some money from Google in their competitions they had…It lead to incubating a few startup ideas from friends that went nowhere… to what I’m doing now..which I guess is so so…
I think the other thing I just gotten use to, is just failing…Everyone only likes to think that every transition is smooth. I think for every 1 thing that worked I can think of 10+ efforts that were complete waste of time/drain/etc. It’s almost like getting dumped a couple of times by the women you liked and hopefully finding one that sticks. Lastly, hard lesson I learned (more recently) is, never get too comfortable with how well things are going, because that will change very quickly…like how recently one of my former partners whom I introduced to a few leads recently royally f’d me over and am now directly competing with over things. (axxhole)….Kinda like, if you end up getting the pretty girl on the block, make sure no one else on the block tries to steal her away.
Corollary to the last rule: never feel sorry for a friend and let him/her into something related to money that you normally wouldn’t give to anyone else out of a business context….
July 21, 2010 @ 4:36 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/21/news/economy/unemployment_benefits/index.htm?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
Well, looks like it passed…
July 21, 2010 @ 4:59 PM
flu wrote:
Well, looks like
[quote=flu]
Well, looks like it passed…[/quote]
I expected it would.
August 5, 2010 @ 7:20 AM
“Altogether, 8.56 million
“Altogether, 8.56 million people were collecting some type of unemployment benefit in the week ended July 17. That was up from 8.30 million in the prior week.Some 8.2 million Americans lost their jobs during the height of the recession in 2008 and 2009 and many remain out of work. The lack of job growth has become a central issue between Democrats and Republicans as the fall congressional elections approach. At the end of June, the U.S. unemployment rate stood at 9.5%. The government on Friday will report an updated jobless rate when it releases its monthly employment for July.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jobless-claims-rise-19000-to-479000-2010-08-05?dist=beforebell
August 5, 2010 @ 12:21 PM
She supports extending
She supports extending unemployment benefits:”Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced a bill Wednesday that would provide extra weeks of benefits to people who’ve reached the end of their unemployment insurance lifelines. The measure would provide 20 extra weeks of unemployment benefits and extend a tax credit for businesses that hire workers who’ve been unemployed for 60 days or longer.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/tier-5-sen-stabenow-intro_n_671550.html
August 5, 2010 @ 12:26 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/arti
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/food-stamp-usage-hits-18-sequential-record-high-408-million
Food Stamp Usage Hits 18 Sequential Record High At 40.8 Million
August 5, 2010 @ 11:01 PM
Good thing the middle class
Good thing the middle class in the U.S. isn’t disappearing or anything. Apparently, all is well. Let’s keep up the good work!
/sarcasm
August 6, 2010 @ 7:52 AM
Arraya
[quote=Arraya]http://www.zerohedge.com/article/food-stamp-usage-hits-18-sequential-record-high-408-million
Food Stamp Usage Hits 18 Sequential Record High At 40.8 Million[/quote]
A friend’s daughter recently applied for food stamps. They are living in a house in poway ($1700/month rent) and have two cars. Neither her daughter or her daughter’s husband are working. Although they qualified for the food stamps they were denied because they owned two cars.
Her daughter asked “Well what if one of us gets a job? We need to have a car to get to work!” Well, technically if ONE of you gets a job you only need ONE car to get to work. If both of you got jobs and you needed a second car…well then you’d probably be earning enough money that you wouldn’t need to be on food stamps, right?
It goes to show the mentality of people…when they got their income tax refund this year the first thing they went and spent the money on: sending their dog to the groomer.
August 6, 2010 @ 9:45 PM
Out of curiosity, are the 2
Out of curiosity, are the 2 cars even paid off? I suppose the downside of getting rid of the cars is if it’s not paid off, they won’t get anything (and may have to bring cash to the table) to sell it and if they can get food stamps, getting another car will be tough with no ready assets to buy even a low priced car…