Skip to main content

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/2...t_benefits/index.htm

quote:
Roughly 14.8 million Americans are unemployed, with about 6.2 million of them out of work for at least 27 weeks. About 8.5 million people are collecting unemployment insurance.

Jobless benefits cost so far: $319 billion
But as the nation's economic funk grinds on, a growing number of the jobless are exhausting their benefits. Precise numbers are hard to come by, but estimates show that about 3.5 million people have fallen off the rolls, though some of them have landed work.

That's why advocates are pressing Congress to add another tier of unemployment benefits. The additional weeks will cover the jobless, while giving the economy more time to recover and create employment opportunities, they argue.

There is little appetite in Congress, however, to extend benefits beyond the current 99-week maximum. A bill that would have added 20 weeks went nowhere this fall.

That is not deterring the activists.

The American 99ers Union, for instance, sent 10,000 letters to lawmakers earlier this month. The petitioners are arguing that the additional benefits will be spent quickly, which creates jobs and stimulates the economy.

Other groups are taking a more high-profile approach. FlashMobs4Jobs is holding rallies and demonstrations, mainly in New York City, to show how urgent the need is to extend the safety net.

"We want to educate and ask for support from the American public so they understand these are not lazy bums happy to get a check," said Kian Frederick, an unemployed union organizer who founded the movement....



Yet....

Cost of Thanksgiving meal rises 1%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...24-1Afood24_ST_N.htm

quote:
For two years, the number of Americans whose food needs are not being met has been at a record high, pushing demand at some food banks beyond their capacity to help.
As food prices rise slightly — the cost of a Thanksgiving dinner for 10 is up 1% to $43.47 — hunger relief agencies are in a crunch for the holidays.

"People who require emergency food are numb at this point," says Dave Krepcho, head of the Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida.

The Orlando food bank was distributing 1.2 million pounds of food monthly in early 2008, but by last month, it was distributing 3 million pounds as more unemployed people turned to its pantries.

The number of Americans who at some point in 2009 and 2008 couldn't afford sufficient food was the highest since 1995: 15% of households — 17 million families — the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported this month.

The recession means donors are strapped, too....



Well, if they'd just stop being lazy and find a job...right?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Has anyone noticed any "accepting application" signs around anywhere. I have. It may not be the most wanted or best paid job but they are out there. At my company when we have a down week we have a problem getting volunteers to work, they would rather stay home and take unemployment. There are some who need help but there also some that are lazy and won't get a job.
It's real easy for someone not out of work at this time to pass judgement.
Yeah, there are many "Now Taking Applications" and "Help Wanted" signs out there.
Guess what, that's exactly what they are doing...taking applications.
I know people whom have excellent skills and work history. They have put in for every job that has come "open". Many, if not the majority of these places, especially fast food, want teens. The people who could care less if they are living at home.
A large majority of the people out of work are older workers. Nobody wants to hire a 50 year old.
I personally have watched job opening ads online , in this area, that have been there for over a MONTH. You can't tell me they couldn't have found someone to fill the slots by now.
There is an automotive parts place I was in this weekend that had a "Help Wanted" sign. I asked the guy about it. He said it had been up for over TWO weeks, that they had gotten hundreds of applications, and that they really needed people to fill the jobs. The problem? Corporate hadn't hired anyone yet! Still taking applications.
It's not as "easy" to score even a minimum paying job in this area if you're in the "wrong" age group.
You wanna see people looking for jobs??? Go to ANY of the job placement agencies, where most of the jobs around here are contracted, and TRY and find a parking place...any day of the week.
The majority of out-off-work people I know, want a JOB.
I challenge anyone whom thinks these people "sit around on their ass" to try and make it on $200 or less a week...and still make payments.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:


At my company when we have a down week we have a problem getting volunteers to work, they would rather stay home and take unemployment.



What does that even mean??? Volunteer to work? For a week? Or, take unemployment and spend time looking for a real fulltime position.


Just shows you've never had a real job. In tough economic times plant don't have enough orders to run 40 hours a week. They decide to shut the plant down for a week, you're basically laid off for a week. The company tries to help the employees by offering work on a volunteer basis to clean up etc. instead of drawing unemployment. Any more dumb questions.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:


At my company when we have a down week we have a problem getting volunteers to work, they would rather stay home and take unemployment.



What does that even mean??? Volunteer to work? For a week? Or, take unemployment and spend time looking for a real fulltime position.


Just shows you've never had a real job. In tough economic times plant don't have enough orders to run 40 hours a week. They decide to shut the plant down for a week, you're basically laid off for a week. The company tries to help the employees by offering work on a volunteer basis to clean up etc. instead of drawing unemployment. Any more dumb questions.



What a crappy company.

At my first engineering job, the company management treated the hourly employees in the plant with the same disdain. These folks had special training to work with explosives, security clearances, and years of experience, and since it was a union shop they were very well paid. It sometimes made for a unpleasant atmosphere in the plant.

THANKS AGAIN FOR THE SIG!!!

.
I called the unemployment office today, was told that all extensions stop as of Nov. 30th.

If you have funds in your account you still get those funds. It's not just the 99er's who are losing benefits, it's everyone who is currently on extended unemployment.

My husband and I are both on unemployment, this was our first extension. Mine runs out Jan. 5th and his runs out Jan. 26th.We cannot file for more benefits and we have not received 99 weeks of benefits. So those who think everyone is still going to get 99 weeks are sadly misled.

ALL extended benefits will end tomorrow. How soon do you think it will be before crime escalates?
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:


At my company when we have a down week we have a problem getting volunteers to work, they would rather stay home and take unemployment.



What does that even mean??? Volunteer to work? For a week? Or, take unemployment and spend time looking for a real fulltime position.


Just shows you've never had a real job. In tough economic times plant don't have enough orders to run 40 hours a week. They decide to shut the plant down for a week, you're basically laid off for a week. The company tries to help the employees by offering work on a volunteer basis to clean up etc. instead of drawing unemployment. Any more dumb questions.



What a crappy company.

At my first engineering job, the company management treated the hourly employees in the plant with the same disdain. These folks had special training to work with explosives, security clearances, and years of experience, and since it was a union shop they were very well paid. It sometimes made for a unpleasant atmosphere in the plant.

THANKS AGAIN FOR THE SIG!!!

.


A crappy company in Huntsville does this. They pay their employees a full salary while they perform volunteer work.
I know there are some people who take advantage of the benefits. I get that. But overall we're facing something this generation has never faced before. We came incredibly close to another Great Depression - and we're still not out of the woods.

A new Kohl's store opened down here about two months ago and I read where nearly 1,000 people applied for just a few cashier jobs. This store is in Hoover, in Shelby County - the county with the lowest unemployment rate in Alabama.

People can't just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" (I hate that phrase almost as much as I hate "think outside the box") like they could 20 or 30 years ago because the rules have changed. The jobs we used to have are gone forever due to outsourcing or technology. The problem is, they haven't been replaced and no one seems to be coming up with any job creating ideas.

Things to consider....

Employers will post job openings in the newspaper or online because they have to. All the while they are planning to promote from within, many times.

Also, employers like candidates who are already employed and are looking to just change jobs. They don't like to hire the unemployed because they don't want to have to go the extra step to find out whether or not the candidate became unemployed due to being fired or because of the state of the economy. So if you have a job and are looking for one, you are much more likely to land one.
How about doing something to curb the imports from China? it's too hard to find anything at Wal-mart that is made in the USA. Cheap we thought was good but I would rather pay a little more knowing I'm helping our country instead of China or any other country. Average Chines workers make about $200 a month. It's hard for us to compete against that.
Thats capitalism. Companies use Chinese labor, dont lower their prices and net larger profits. The average Chinese earning $200 lives much better than they did just 20 years ago, when they probably earned $2.

Are you endorsing trade tariffs? Companies like IBM, GM, VW, Apple, all are in China to make more money and becasue the Chinese market is now the largest in the world. There will be more automobiles sold in China this year than any other country. About 300million Chinese are planning to buy a car in the next 5 years.
quote:
How about doing something to curb the imports from China?


Why are you so eager to make everything more expensive?

quote:
it's too hard to find anything at Wal-mart that is made in the USA. Cheap we thought was good but I would rather pay a little more knowing I'm helping our country instead of China or any other country.


If it's too hard, look harder. If you want to help American business, I think that's great. Just don't force people struggling to get by to pay higher prices.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
How about doing something to curb the imports from China?


Why are you so eager to make everything more expensive?

quote:
it's too hard to find anything at Wal-mart that is made in the USA. Cheap we thought was good but I would rather pay a little more knowing I'm helping our country instead of China or any other country.


If it's too hard, look harder. If you want to help American business, I think that's great. Just don't force people struggling to get by to pay higher prices.


What good are cheap imports if there are fewer and fewer Americans who can afford them? The unemployment rate in October was 9.6%.

The irony of this is outsourcing these good-paying manufacturing jobs for the purpose of making merchandise more affordable in this country (and to earn more profits for the companies) has resulted in many not being able to afford the imported products sold at big box mart at all. Loss of jobs = loss of income.
quote:
What good are cheap imports if there are fewer and fewer Americans who can afford them? The unemployment rate in October was 9.6%.

The irony of this is outsourcing these good-paying manufacturing jobs for the purpose of making merchandise more affordable in this country (and to earn more profits for the companies) has resulted in many not being able to afford the imported products sold at big box mart at all. Loss of jobs = loss of income.


Virtually all economists, including uber-liberal Paul Krugman, agree that economic protectionism neither helps the economy nor reduces unemployment. Competitive advantage is real. Economies of scale are real. Autarky is an economic disaster.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
What good are cheap imports if there are fewer and fewer Americans who can afford them? The unemployment rate in October was 9.6%.

The irony of this is outsourcing these good-paying manufacturing jobs for the purpose of making merchandise more affordable in this country (and to earn more profits for the companies) has resulted in many not being able to afford the imported products sold at big box mart at all. Loss of jobs = loss of income.


Virtually all economists, including uber-liberal Paul Krugman, agree that economic protectionism neither helps the economy nor reduces unemployment. Competitive advantage is real. Economies of scale are real. Autarky is an economic disaster.


Yes, I've heard all of that about protectionism.

I'm just saying that now there are many more people wanting jobs than there are jobs available, and no one seems to have any great ideas about how to create the jobs needed to make our economy healthy again. So what good is it to have cheap stuff available for purchase (made in other countries and imported to the U.S.) when so many people can't even afford food, rent or many other basics now?

Obtaining a decent job in this country in 2010 is like a game of musical chairs. When the music stops, you better make sure you find a seat and keep it because when the music starts again, there's no guarantee you'll find another one.
quote:
I'm just saying that now there are many more people wanting jobs than there are jobs available, and no one seems to have any great ideas about how to create the jobs needed to make our economy healthy again. So what good is it to have cheap stuff available for purchase (made in other countries and imported to the U.S.) when so many people can't even afford food, rent or many other basics now?


I've never had a heroin addiction, but my understanding is that the withdrawal process is very unpleasant. It's unpleasant and unavoidable. One can't go to rehab and tell the doctor they wish to get clean the fun and easy way.

We're in basically the same situation. The reason there are no good ideas for fixing the economy is because all the people putting forth any ideas are trying to alleviate the hardships people are facing. While that's a noble thing to do, it doesn't actually improve the economic situation.
quote:
I've never had a heroin addiction, but my understanding is that the withdrawal process is very unpleasant. It's unpleasant and unavoidable. One can't go to rehab and tell the doctor they wish to get clean the fun and easy way.

We're in basically the same situation. The reason there are no good ideas for fixing the economy is because all the people putting forth any ideas are trying to alleviate the hardships people are facing. While that's a noble thing to do, it doesn't actually improve the economic situation.


I don't think you grasp the enormity of the situation. This is not simply some few companies laying off, or shutting down, this is nationwide. From Mom-and-Pop businesses to giants.
The ship (economy) is sinking. Should we give the passengers (unemployed)life vests first? Or should we simply let them drown, until (when) we repair the leak?
It is obvious that the "Captains" are running around doing nothing to fix the leak.


Will there be anyone left to buy tickets when the ship is ready again?
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
What good are cheap imports if there are fewer and fewer Americans who can afford them? The unemployment rate in October was 9.6%.

The irony of this is outsourcing these good-paying manufacturing jobs for the purpose of making merchandise more affordable in this country (and to earn more profits for the companies) has resulted in many not being able to afford the imported products sold at big box mart at all. Loss of jobs = loss of income.


Virtually all economists, including uber-liberal Paul Krugman, agree that economic protectionism neither helps the economy nor reduces unemployment. Competitive advantage is real. Economies of scale are real. Autarky is an economic disaster.


This is true if BOTH sides are free market and in this case China has not opened up their market to US produced goods as we have for China.
quote:
I don't think you grasp the enormity of the situation. This is not simply some few companies laying off, or shutting down, this is nationwide. From Mom-and-Pop businesses to giants.
The ship (economy) is sinking. Should we give the passengers (unemployed)life vests first? Or should we simply let them drown, until (when) we repair the leak?
It is obvious that the "Captains" are running around doing nothing to fix the leak.


Your analogy isn't perfect, but I get the point. I'm not going to comment on which we should do first. Instead, I'll just let that be a matter of each person's personal opinion. I'm simply stating that this idea that we can effectively repair the economy while making sure no one suffers is not reality. The economy is bad because of mistakes. When those mistakes are corrected, someone is going to have to feel the pain. It's often the unfortunate case that those who feel the pain aren't those who made the mistakes. This is not a good situation, but it is reality. A nation of finite resources cannot simultaneously jump start an economy and support massive entitlements.
quote:
This is true if BOTH sides are free market and in this case China has not opened up their market to US produced goods as we have for China.


1) China does import many goods. They import less than they export, but they aren't completely shut off to trade.

2) The standard of living in China is still below that of the US. They engage in a number of things like trade restrictions, currency manipulation, etc... that facilitate this. That is to China's detriment, not ours. Cutting off our supply of cheap goods will mostly harm the people who's lives have been improved by being able to buy more with less. Any small benefits from producing these goods domestically will be over-shadowed by the higher prices everyone will have to pay.
quote:
quote:
I don't think you grasp the enormity of the situation. This is not simply some few companies laying off, or shutting down, this is nationwide. From Mom-and-Pop businesses to giants.
The ship (economy) is sinking. Should we give the passengers (unemployed)life vests first? Or should we simply let them drown, until (when) we repair the leak?
It is obvious that the "Captains" are running around doing nothing to fix the leak.




quote:
Your analogy isn't perfect, but I get the point. I'm not going to comment on which we should do first. Instead, I'll just let that be a matter of each person's personal opinion. I'm simply stating that this idea that we can effectively repair the economy while making sure no one suffers is not reality. The economy is bad because of mistakes. When those mistakes are corrected, someone is going to have to feel the pain. It's often the unfortunate case that those who feel the pain aren't those who made the mistakes. This is not a good situation, but it is reality. A nation of finite resources cannot simultaneously jump start an economy and support massive entitlements.


Oh, I understand what you are saying, believe me. Therein lies the "Catch 22" of the whole thing. Can this be reversed? I dunno.
quote:
Any small benefits from producing these goods domestically will be over-shadowed by the higher prices everyone will have to pay.


I think I would rather have a job and pay a little more for American made than to be laid off and not able to buy the cheap stuff. Wal-Marts idea was to import cheap goods so the average American could buy more "stuff". The side affect was all our jobs went to China. We all will have to realize that not every house needs 3 or 4 cars, 2 big screen tv's, multiple cell phones, computers, and all the other latest gadgets.
quote:
I think I would rather have a job and pay a little more for American made than to be laid off and not able to buy the cheap stuff.


I'm sure most people would, and you are free to do just that.

quote:
Wal-Marts idea was to import cheap goods so the average American could buy more "stuff". The side affect was all our jobs went to China.


This is not really how it works. Loosing jobs in one sector to another country doesn't create unemployment. It just means we can now buy those goods cheaper, and our labor pool can focus on more productive work.

quote:
We all will have to realize that not every house needs 3 or 4 cars, 2 big screen tv's, multiple cell phones, computers, and all the other latest gadgets.


First, "we all" don't have to do anything. "We all" can have as many cars, TVs, and cell phones as we can buy. Second, wouldn't you want GM, Ford, Verizon, AT&T, Apple, Microsoft, etc... (American companies) selling as much as they could? This would surely be a boost to the economy.
quote:
Employers will post job openings in the newspaper or online because they have to. All the while they are planning to promote from within, many times.

Also, employers like candidates who are already employed and are looking to just change jobs. They don't like to hire the unemployed because they don't want to have to go the extra step to find out whether or not the candidate became unemployed due to being fired or because of the state of the economy. So if you have a job and are looking for one, you are much more likely to land one.


Explain why you say employers have to advertise. We have never posted a job opening online or in the paper. We call the employment office, they send candidates that they think fit the job we have open, or we ask around to see if anyone knows someone interested in the job and is qualified for it. I honestly have never been told by anyone that we had to advertise job openings. And being employed already can be a disadvantage sometimes. Because if they're leaving one company you have to wonder how long they will stay with you after you invest hours of training and passing up other possible employees that will be there for the long run. We're not hiring now, and trying hard not to lay anyone off. And any employer that wouldn't take the time to "take the extra step" and find out why a candidate was laid off/fired is an idiot. I would NEVER hire anyone without knowing their work history.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
I don't think you grasp the enormity of the situation. This is not simply some few companies laying off, or shutting down, this is nationwide. From Mom-and-Pop businesses to giants.
The ship (economy) is sinking. Should we give the passengers (unemployed)life vests first? Or should we simply let them drown, until (when) we repair the leak?
It is obvious that the "Captains" are running around doing nothing to fix the leak.


Your analogy isn't perfect, but I get the point. I'm not going to comment on which we should do first. Instead, I'll just let that be a matter of each person's personal opinion. I'm simply stating that this idea that we can effectively repair the economy while making sure no one suffers is not reality. The economy is bad because of mistakes. When those mistakes are corrected, someone is going to have to feel the pain. It's often the unfortunate case that those who feel the pain aren't those who made the mistakes. This is not a good situation, but it is reality. A nation of finite resources cannot simultaneously jump start an economy and support massive entitlements.


Someone is going to have to feel pain? So millions of people going without food, or losing their homes, is acceptable pain? Extended unemployment benefits for nearly 2 million Americans begin to run out as of today and if 2 million people can't find jobs in the next couple of weeks, what will they do?

Honestly, where will these people go? Who will they turn to? Food pantries are already turning folks away because they don't have enough food donations. And why don't they have enough donations? Because most people who used to donate are stretched thin with their own obligations. Some people can turn to family, friends or church for help, but they can only help so much too.

I guess some people just don't have any empathy for those who are struggling. Oh well. I guess I have the ability to feel for the unemployed and struggling because I know what it's like to eat a meal that was paid for with food stamps. My dad died when I was a child and if not for "entitlements" I'm not sure how my mom would have fed us. (As an aside, government cheese is actually pretty tasty.)
Last edited by Buttercup
Buttercup,

This is not a matter of empathy, it's a matter of reality. When I say someone has to feel pain, I mean that not as a harsh, uncaring statement. I mean that when an economy contracts, there are fewer resources to go around and some people are going to have to deal with that. If your moral judgement is that the smaller resource pool should be used to make sure to poorest are taken care of, I can't fault you for thinking that. It's just not possible to use less money to simultaneously increase welfare and investments.
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Employers will post job openings in the newspaper or online because they have to. All the while they are planning to promote from within, many times.

Also, employers like candidates who are already employed and are looking to just change jobs. They don't like to hire the unemployed because they don't want to have to go the extra step to find out whether or not the candidate became unemployed due to being fired or because of the state of the economy. So if you have a job and are looking for one, you are much more likely to land one.


Explain why you say employers have to advertise. We have never posted a job opening online or in the paper. We call the employment office, they send candidates that they think fit the job we have open, or we ask around to see if anyone knows someone interested in the job and is qualified for it. I honestly have never been told by anyone that we had to advertise job openings. And being employed already can be a disadvantage sometimes. Because if they're leaving one company you have to wonder how long they will stay with you after you invest hours of training and passing up other possible employees that will be there for the long run. We're not hiring now, and trying hard not to lay anyone off. And any employer that wouldn't take the time to "take the extra step" and find out why a candidate was laid off/fired is an idiot. I would NEVER hire anyone without knowing their work history.


Many employers will advertise (not all) to stay in compliance with EEOC.

And many (again, not all) employers do not want to go the extra step to determine whether or not an unemployed candidate was fired or was simply a casualty of the economy because they have plenty of applicants now; it is an employers' market.

I didn't say these things were true for every business, especially small businesses, but I used to work in HR where I interviewed and hired people. I know how it works, overall.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
Buttercup,

This is not a matter of empathy, it's a matter of reality. When I say someone has to feel pain, I mean that not as a harsh, uncaring statement. I mean that when an economy contracts, there are fewer resources to go around and some people are going to have to deal with that. If your moral judgement is that the smaller resource pool should be used to make sure to poorest are taken care of, I can't fault you for thinking that. It's just not possible to use less money to simultaneously increase welfare and investments.


I understand what you're saying, I really do. But what's the alternative: rampant homelessness? Those of us with jobs will just end up picking up the tab for that too unless we decide to go for the Scrooge approach: If they can't support themselves, let them starve.
quote:
But what's the alternative: rampant homelessness? Those of us with jobs will just end up picking up the tab for that too unless we decide to go for the Scrooge approach: If they can't support themselves, let them starve.


The solution, I suspect, lies somewhere in the middle. While I don't doubt that some people genuinely need help right now, some do not - at least not that much. I am fully in favor of strict means tests for entitlements in the short term, with the goal of eliminating them in the long term. I've never advocated an immediate change that would harm those who have honestly become dependent on government, but I also suspect such people are fewer in number than you would guess.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×