Every few months Congress goes back-and-forth about extended long term unemployment benefits. Clearly getting a job is not easy in this economy, and some people are for whatever reason stuck in areas that have very few opportunities. There are also a lot of families dependent on these benefits. There could be economic fall-out if their benefits are cut off. Myself and many people I know have at times struggled to find work in the past few years. Some people need help for longer periods of time, but where do we draw the line?

At what point does long term unemployment benefits become just straight-up welfare? If some people aren't forced to find work, they won't. So should we start cutting off benefits to those people who have been collecting for years now? And if so, how do we do it in such a way that wouldn't cause serious but unintended negative economic consequences?

11/18/2010 3:59:51 PM

I doubt if an extension could survive a filibuster at this point in the lame-duck session, but with the new congress coming in, there is no need to worry about more unemployment benefits after they get seated.

I think the lame-duck will be more focused on things like trying to get a vote on the New START treaty, and figuring out which of these tax cut plans to go with:

11/18/2010 4:08:51 PM

You make it sound like the Republicans will quickly and easily cut unemployment benefits during the new congressional term. I don't know about that. Some in congress would consider that political suicide. It's much easier to vote against cutting unemployment benefits when you know it will pass anyway.

Tax cut specific discussion belongs in a different thread.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 4:20 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 4:16:53 PM

Quote :

"At what point does long term unemployment benefits become just straight-up welfare? If some people aren't forced to find work, they won't. So should we start cutting off benefits to those people who have been collecting for years now? And if so, how do we do it in such a way that wouldn't cause serious but unintended negative economic consequences?"

So long as public monies were used to bail out failed companies and trillions worth of support was aimed at helping banks repair balance sheets (in addition to relaxation of prudent accounting rules to paper over their mistakes) the UE should continue indefinitely.

I simply can't believe there exists anyone that somehow thinks these people would rather not work.

I'd be in favor of some sort of a compromise that actually has them doing "something" productive either for the State directly or with a plan like Germany (where the State takes the burden of certain benefits from the employer so they aren't laid off), but until all the support is withdrawn from the blood sucking fucks in New York, no way.

11/18/2010 9:02:04 PM

Of course, the tea baggers want us to go back 100 years, there were no unemployment benefits back then......if we could do without back then, we can do without now!!!!!!!!!

TEABAGGER '12

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 9:20 PM. Reason : w]

11/18/2010 9:19:53 PM

Yes, long term benefits need to expire to force people into employment. Long term benefits should never have existed in the first place.

11/18/2010 10:08:06 PM

Quick question.

So when they talk about extending the "temporary extended unemployment compensation" thing, what do they mean exactly?

Currently, a lot of people can get up to 99 weeks of unemployment. Are they trying to extend this beyond 99 weeks--like an extra three months or something?

OR

Are they trying to extend the current arrangement so the newly unemployed can continue to get up to 99 weeks?

11/18/2010 11:15:11 PM

Quote :

"I simply can't believe there exists anyone that somehow thinks these people would rather not work."

It's not so much that people would rather not work so much as they have incentives not to. Though I can't speak to unemployment specifically as I have no experience with it, and illustrative example is found in my wife's attempt at getting SSI when she qualified. What she needed was something very temporary to get her through the short periods when her health prevented her from working (or cost her her job) and when she started working again, just a few weeks of enough to make sure essentials were paid. What she was told by the government was that to get on SSI, she would need to submit an application, which would take about 6 months to process. During those 6 months, she could not work more than 10 hours / week, or she would be denied, and she would have to start all over again. Once she was approved, she could work a maximum of 20 hours / week, and her benefits would be decreased proportionally. If she ever exceeded that 20 hour limit, she would be removed from the program completely and have to start all over again.

She walked away, as she had no intention of effectively being unemployed for 6 months, but if she had gotten on SSI, you can guarantee that she would have ever incentive in the world to not take the chance of working for the 20 hours.

11/19/2010 1:21:22 PM

Quote :

"Of course, the tea baggers want us to go back 100 years, there were no unemployment benefits back then......if we could do without back then, we can do without now"

Funny story. Back then unions were a voluntary organization workers would happily join, as to compete for workers' dues most unions offered job placement, legal services, and unemployment benefits to members that were laid off. That said, without today's machines labor productivity was very low back then, unemployment was sufficiently rare, and children were considered an investment, so most workers opted out of such arrangements so they could better house and feed their families in the short term.

Just because the government does not offer mandatory services, does not rule out their existence.

11/19/2010 1:38:47 PM

Quote :

"It's not so much that people would rather not work so much as they have incentives not to"

On average, people would rather take a job than not. It's just that jobs aren't available right now. I can cite a ton of anecdotes of folks from my former job where our multibillion dollar corp went bankrupt that aren't able to find work. One of them, a 50+ guy with tons of experience, was let go in May 2008. He immediately set out on getting as many certs as possible while he looked for work. He was the model UI case. I got a facebook request from him last week, he is now apparently trying to be a yoga teacher, having given up on engineering after not getting work for 2 years.

I was unemployed myself for 9 months. And it beyond sucks. Psychologically, it's taxing as hell dealing with hiring managers who have 100s of applications to choose from. I have tons of testing experience and have a damn good track record of being able to assimilate new skills faster than most people I've dealt with in my 8 years since graduating, yet I had a hiring manager who didn't want to bother to bring me in for an interview because I had no Labview experience on my resume. By pure coincidence I'm using it at work now, self taught and pretty damn proficient in it in about 3 months time. But nope, why should this guy who has a huge assortment of people to choose from bother taking a chance on someone that isn't proven in the exact skillset he needs? In 2005, he HAD to because the people weren't around for him to choose from. Not now. Btw, this position was an entry level one with a salary range nearly 45% less than what I was previously making because I was confident enough if I could just get back employed I'd be able to make my mark quickly and my salary would move back up to where it needed to be accordingly.

I likely could have found a job sooner by looking nationally instead of just regionally, but then you start talking about a whole host of intangibles in addition to monetary factors like how far away to move from family, friends, familiarity with a new area/climate, how much the move will cost you, how much are you going to lose on selling your home to move to take the job (which was about $14k after commission for me, btw)...and so long as the playing field is tilted towards the rich fucks in suits, I have no problem with people getting help for so long as the playing field remains tilted.

Quote :

" What she needed was something very temporary to get her through the short periods when her health prevented her from working"

Then it simply seems like SSI wasn't ever designed for her

Quote :

" It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter."

I can see why it would take 6 months, because a human has to analyze the case to make sure the taxpayer isn't getting defrauded.

Quote :

"She walked away, as she had no intention of effectively being unemployed for 6 months, but if she had gotten on SSI, you can guarantee that she would have ever incentive in the world to not take the chance of working for the 20 hours"

Are you saying there are folks out there that are happy to scrape by on a minimal amount of chump change the government tosses at them? No disagreement. But the majority of people that can make well above this chump change level are going to do it, absolutely.

11/19/2010 4:06:53 PM

short term beneifts should exist to quickly help people trying to find a new job
long term benefits and welfare should be merged and the goal should be switched from maintenance to re-education.

11/19/2010 4:20:05 PM

Quote :

"Then it simply seems like SSI wasn't ever designed for her"

Unfortunately, it's all she qualified for at the time, and was what the government people she spoke with told her to look into. Her heath conditions met the criteria for a disability and she certainly had little or no income (during the times her health got the better of her, she would be lucky to bring home $30 / week and that was only if her employer would allow her to come to work and do what little she could.

Quote :

"I can see why it would take 6 months, because a human has to analyze the case to make sure the taxpayer isn't getting defrauded."

And this is the ultimate problem. So many of these programs are so far removed from the people and the area they serve that the checks against fraud must be carried out in long drawn out processes which merely add to the incentive to not get off the system once you're on.

Quote :

"Are you saying there are folks out there that are happy to scrape by on a minimal amount of chump change the government tosses at them? No disagreement. But the majority of people that can make well above this chump change level are going to do it, absolutely."

I'm saying that there are people who given the choice between a certain miserable life and an uncertain less miserable life will choose certainty.

11/19/2010 4:40:11 PM

Quote :

"But nope, why should this guy who has a huge assortment of people to choose from bother taking a chance on someone that isn't proven in the exact skillset he needs? In 2005, he HAD to because the people weren't around for him to choose from. Not now."

If older people are going to get all the jobs & all the social security, then the younger folks might as well get back what they've paid in now while its still there, while they need it.

More seriously though, I can see the sense behind Shaggy's idea to make the focus retraining/education for the long term unemployable.

11/19/2010 5:00:48 PM

Opportunity is dead in this country. Meanwhile, bankers are skimming trillions off the top and Obama is appointing them to high level positions in his administration. I don't think anyone really comprehends how much the standard of living has already dropped, or how far it has to go. People with experience, certifications, and degrees can't find jobs after a year or more looking. The people graduating from universities now are beyond fucked, barely scraping by performing trivial tasks in any job they can get. Want to live like people lived in the 90s? It'll have to be in another country, or you'll have to be one of the elite few that has connections.

11/19/2010 5:03:32 PM

Quote :

"People with experience, certifications, and degrees can't find jobs after a year or more looking."

Honestly, I think this has to do more with the fact that everyone and their brother had a certification or degree these days. The problem with any sort of certification is that if you don't keep it exclusive, it looses its real value. The bachelor's degree of today is almost the high school diploma of the 60's. Just take a gander through any job listings site and see how many secretary positions require or prefer someone with a 4 year degree. For that matter, look at how many simply require a 4 year degree, with no restrictions on what you studied. Both are good indicators of just how meaningless a degree is these days.

Quote :

"Want to live like people lived in the 90s? It'll have to be in another country, or you'll have to be one of the elite few that has connections."

To be fair, I think I lot of people lived in the 90's on cheap credit, not on any standard of living increase. Anyone remember the "I'm in debt up to my eyeballs" commercial? It's funny, but it's funny because it was true.

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM. Reason : asdf]

11/19/2010 5:23:04 PM

^^ Dude, what do you read that you are so doom and gloomy? Fortunately, we produce enough wealth in this nation that at the present rate of skimming by the elites, the rest of us still have it pretty good. We're currently still able to, despite the rates rising, to feed people via food stamps and other support programs.

Things aren't great, but they likely won't end in fire and ashes like most of your posts would lead someone to believe.

Quote :

"I don't think anyone really comprehends how much the standard of living has already dropped"

How much is that?

Quote :

"People with experience, certifications, and degrees can't find jobs after a year or more looking."

People with none of those things have found jobs. As with any given diverse population, it's simply a mixed bag.

As it stands now, were more likely to muddle through a recovery towards our next crisis somewhere down the road than any sort of outright dismantling of the economy.

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 5:26 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 5:31 PM. Reason : m]

11/19/2010 5:25:51 PM

Quote :

"The people graduating from universities now are beyond fucked"

A buddy of mine just graduated and was able to find a nice job working for Volvo, doing what he expected to do. The world isn't as bad as you like to think it is.

11/19/2010 5:53:34 PM

^^^Both good points. Four year degrees are basically the new high school degree. You need the right kind of training and specialization to get a decent paying job, and even then you're working against a saturated job market. Perhaps the wealthy lifestyles that became common place in the past few decades was a result of a false boom, but there's no reason to believe we'll be going back to that.

^^Are you seeing a light at the end of the tunnel that I'm not? Are we going to return to robust economic growth? What am I missing?

I don't know how bad things will get. A lot of people have lost their jobs, and there are no jobs that pay comparative salaries. They're falling behind on mortgages, then bills. The cost of food is going up, the cost of oil is going up. For the middle class, an increasingly higher percentage of income is going towards basic survival needs. I'll ask again, what is going to change?

^Engineering jobs are generally reserved for the affluent. What about everyone else? Keep on trucking in your low paying service sector job and pray that you survive the next round of lay offs?

[Edited on November 19, 2010 at 6:03 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2010 5:57:24 PM

Important things to get a job in order of importance
#1 who you know

























#2 dont be a jackass









































#3 what you know

11/19/2010 6:00:39 PM

Quote :

"Engineering jobs are generally reserved for the affluent."

He graduated with a business degree.

Quote :

"What about everyone else?"

Well you were talking about "people graduating from universities now". For people who aren't graduating from universities, If they want a better life, they will need to get the education that it requires.

11/19/2010 6:14:06 PM

2 yrs is enough. imo

11/19/2010 6:20:17 PM

Quote :

""Engineering jobs are generally reserved for the affluent.""

Joke?

I thought it was the opposite. MBA programs at your elite schools are "good ole boy" clubs.

BTW i do not think longterm unemployment benefits should last indefinitely. Otherwise where is the swift kick in the ass to get a job. My roommate is sitting on the couch right now and has been on unemployment for a year. Currently is not looking for a job.

11/19/2010 6:38:16 PM

Quote :

"People with experience, certifications, and degrees can't find jobs after a year or more looking."

Recessions happen. They also end. While I don't know which direction the economy is going to go, it is going to go somewhere.

11/20/2010 1:53:08 AM

Quote :

"^^Are you seeing a light at the end of the tunnel that I'm not? Are we going to return to robust economic growth? What am I missing?"

I said it in my post, I think we'll muddle through to our next crisis. So long as the banks in concert with their public faces (the politicians) enact policies aimed at keeping banks from failing, that will be an albatross around the neck of what could otherwise be a growing economy. The credit excess has to be delevered and we are allowing that to happen...just very very slowly.

Quote :

"A lot of people have lost their jobs, and there are no jobs that pay comparative salaries. "

It's fairly hard to have a reasonable discussion when this is your premise. What is "a lot"? A lot of people found jobs, particularly in the engineering fields.

Quote :

"The cost of food is going up, "

As much as I hate the CPI, apparently other measures of the costs of foods are in line with it http://bpp.mit.edu/.

All this recent food inflation talk you bought into was driven by the pops in commodity prices likely driven as dumb money piled in on the QE2 announcement (while smart sell siders were more than eager to unload their positions on them).

In the coming months we may see the commodity price jumps result in prices going up in the grocery stores, but so far, it hasn't happened yet.

Quote :

"the cost of oil is going up. "

It's up a whopping 6% yoy right now with it being down as much as 10% as recently as 2 months ago.

Quote :

"For the middle class, an increasingly higher percentage of income is going towards basic survival needs. I'll ask again, what is going to change?"

Not yet. Not per CPI, Shadowstats, billion prices. Maybe in the next few months we'll see prices show up at the finished goods level.


You never answered the question. What do you read that has you thinking the end is nigh?

11/20/2010 9:22:53 AM

Quote :

"Recessions happen. They also end. While I don't know which direction the economy is going to go, it is going to go somewhere."

Quote :

"I said it in my post, I think we'll muddle through to our next crisis. So long as the banks in concert with their public faces (the politicians) enact policies aimed at keeping banks from failing, that will be an albatross around the neck of what could otherwise be a growing economy. The credit excess has to be delevered and we are allowing that to happen...just very very slowly."

It seems like what you're saying to me here is that there's no light at the end of the tunnel. There's another tunnel at the end of the tunnel, and then maybe there's light after that. I can accept that, but do you see a scenario where we're back to where we were 10 years from now, minus the excessive credit expansion? It just doesn't seem possible. Maybe I was wrong to say opportunity is dead. Maybe it's just greatly diminished.

Quote :

"What is "a lot"? A lot of people found jobs, particularly in the engineering fields. "

Okay, but it hasn't been a net positive. All you have to do is check the unemployment thread, and you'll see that many qualified people can't find jobs. Your justification for keeping UI going is that very qualified and experience individuals can't find work for years on end.

Quote :

"All this recent food inflation talk you bought into was driven by the pops in commodity prices likely driven as dumb money piled in on the QE2 announcement (while smart sell siders were more than eager to unload their positions on them). In the coming months we may see the commodity price jumps result in prices going up in the grocery stores, but so far, it hasn't happened yet."

Quote :

"Not yet. Not per CPI, Shadowstats, billion prices. Maybe in the next few months we'll see prices show up at the finished goods level."

Food inflation has been happening for a while, and we certainly haven't had food deflation. I don't see the recent commodity surge to manifest in prices until early 2011.

Quote :

"You never answered the question. What do you read that has you thinking the end is nigh?"

Nothing in particular, but I do agree with the Austrian school, and current events should tell you that we're living in a very unstable period. It's possible that we'll have an extended period of very limited or negative growth. It's also possible that we'll have a collapse. I'm not going to sit here and act like I know for sure. It all depends on how the government and market movers react to current and future events. I'll be the first to admit that human behavior cannot easily be predicted, but we both know that the underlying fundamentals of the economy are flawed.

11/22/2010 9:54:35 PM

Quote :

"It seems like what you're saying to me here is that there's no light at the end of the tunnel. There's another tunnel at the end of the tunnel, and then maybe there's light after that"

I said muddled growth. Growth being key. It will be slow and many people will struggle to find work, but this likely isn't something that will last forever. I'll challenge you to tell me how we are so different from Japan, who has had low unemployment to go along with their low growth.

Quote :

"I can accept that, but do you see a scenario where we're back to where we were 10 years from now, minus the excessive credit expansion? It just doesn't seem possible"

But this isn't generally what you're stating in these threads. You're stating the end of the American economy as we know it.

Quote :

"All you have to do is check the unemployment thread, and you'll see that many qualified people can't find jobs."

I'm not trying to quibble here, but going back over the last several months and that thread has all but stopped being relevant with it being bumped rather sparingly and with only a few people seeming to continue to be unemployed.

Quote :

"Your justification for keeping UI going is that very qualified and experience individuals can't find work for years on end."

My on personal politics is one of pragmatism and fairness. So long as tax payer dollars went to and are still going to aid the elite and those that are already rich beyond my imagination, then I'm all for the handouts to keep people like me, people a little better off than me, and people a lot worse off than me from having to do stressful shit like sell homes at a loss, take jobs completely out of their field to make ends meet, etc. We're this congress to decide no more bailouts and support to those that steered the economy in the ditch, I'd rightly say that 99 weeks is probably more than plenty for main street to get their house in order.

11/22/2010 10:20:53 PM

Quote :

"I simply can't believe there exists anyone that somehow thinks these people would rather not work. "

I know numerous people on unemployment that are happy to be on it and have no desire to even look for a job until the benefits run out. Not saying it's the norm, but it definitely happens.

11/22/2010 10:40:55 PM

I don't know anyone like that. I have known people that might have been kinda looking for work on occasion, but they didn't really have anyone lighting a fire under their ass to do it. The natural disincentive for that kind of attitude is, "shit, I'm going to die if I don't find work." Survival is the strongest instinct we have. Is it better to engineer a system where we remove that constraint? I can't see how.

Quote :

"I said muddled growth. Growth being key. It will be slow and many people will struggle to find work, but this likely isn't something that will last forever. I'll challenge you to tell me how we are so different from Japan, who has had low unemployment to go along with their low growth."

I think the main way that we are different from Japan is the source of debt. Japan has the highest debt to GDP ratio, by a very large margin. Are they selling government bonds to foreigners? For the most part, no. Their debt is internal. They have their postal savings system which encourages savings (probably beyond what is optimal, even) and provides easy debt for Keynesian policies. Their economy seems at least somewhat sustainable, but their punishment for departing from free market policies is lower growth than normal.

Our debt, of course, is mainly to foreigners. Our ability to sustain our current level of growth depends almost entirely on the generosity (read: stupidity) of foreign investors. That is the plug that can, and likely will, be pulled.

Quote :

"But this isn't generally what you're stating in these threads. You're stating the end of the American economy as we know it."

I think it seems inevitable, and I don't we'll see the "end," we'll see the bottom. What happens beyond that bottom is largely up to the people, or more grimly, the powers that be. Like I hinted at above, we're moving at a much more accelerated rate than Japan, and in more unstable circumstances.

Quote :

"My on personal politics is one of pragmatism and fairness. So long as tax payer dollars went to and are still going to aid the elite and those that are already rich beyond my imagination, then I'm all for the handouts to keep people like me, people a little better off than me, and people a lot worse off than me from having to do stressful shit like sell homes at a loss, take jobs completely out of their field to make ends meet, etc. We're this congress to decide no more bailouts and support to those that steered the economy in the ditch, I'd rightly say that 99 weeks is probably more than plenty for main street to get their house in order."

Time will tell, and I hope you're right.

[Edited on November 22, 2010 at 11:18 PM. Reason : ]

11/22/2010 11:03:15 PM

Quote :

"I know numerous people on unemployment that are happy to be on it and have no desire to even look for a job until the benefits run out. Not saying it's the norm, but it definitely happens."

What is their situation? I'm guessing many mid 20s engineers that don't have sig others and don't have a rent payment (likely shared with 2 other guys) are living high on the hog right now.

Either that or they do have a sig other that earns enough to fill the gap for awhile, possibly eating into savings as they go.

Anyone with a typical mortgage and kids does not fit that profile.

Quote :

"Are they selling government bonds to foreigners? For the most part, no. Their debt is internal. "

It ultimately doesn't matter who gives you <insert the currency you need here> for your debt, so long as someone does. If Japan couldn't get it's citizens to finance it's debt, it could have gone into the world market, possibly at higher rates.

Quote :

"Their economy seems at least somewhat sustainable, but their punishment for departing from free market policies is lower growth than normal."

But not the end of the world.

Quote :

"That is the plug that can, and likely will, be pulled."

I don't have the links handy but zerohedge did a couple posts about how foreigners have been scaling back their purchases compared to the Fed, who as you know is printing money to do it. And we still don't have inflation to show for it.

Quote :

"Like I hinted at above, we're moving at a much more accelerated rate than Japan"

How so? Certainly not in terms of inflation

11/23/2010 5:12:03 PM

Quote :

"Anyone with a typical mortgage and kids does not fit that profile."

Now there's an interesting question. How many people reaching the end of their 99 weeks of unemployment are as you say "with a typical mortgage and kids". Don't know the answer off hand. Do they even collect those statistics?

11/23/2010 5:33:06 PM

I'd imagine it's pretty tough to support a family or pay a mortgage on unemployment, much less do both, so realistically I'd imagine the number is fairly low.

11/23/2010 7:25:45 PM

Quote :

"What is their situation? I'm guessing many mid 20s engineers that don't have sig others and don't have a rent payment (likely shared with 2 other guys) are living high on the hog right now. "

College dropouts in their 30s with substance abuse problems and cheap apartments. All of them are what I would consider worthless individuals, and it's an absolute shame they are trying to fuck over the system. I personally would not be able to cover my mortgage and basic utilities with unemployment, but they can afford to get drunk and high all day long while living on Ramen noodles.

11/23/2010 10:17:54 PM

I live in a low-income apt complex. The only person I know of who collects unemployment is a wheel-chair bound mother two buildings down. She is actively job-seeking.

That said, I don't support another extension of jobless benefits. I think 46 weeks is enough time to find some sort of job.

11/24/2010 10:24:56 AM

You got to factor in the associated costs with NOT extending the benefits....they will be a drain on society and money no mater what happens....

11/24/2010 2:22:42 PM

^ And how would that be?

11/24/2010 3:33:55 PM

I'm still confused about engineering jobs being reserved for the affluent. Can you provide an explanation for this accusation?

11/24/2010 8:14:16 PM

I suspect it works the other way. Affluence is reserved for those with engineering jobs.

11/24/2010 8:32:09 PM

Quote :

"I'm still confused about engineering jobs being reserved for the affluent. Can you provide an explanation for this accusation?"

An inner city kid going growing up in a shit school isn't going to become an engineer. The average "working man" doesn't have access to the kind of schooling necessary to pursue that profession. The point of that statement was that it doesn't really matter if a small fraction of people are getting engineering jobs, because the majority of Americans are forced into service sector jobs, since it's all they're qualified to do.

11/24/2010 10:46:28 PM

Quote :

"An inner city kid going growing up in a shit school isn't going to become an engineer."

geez. Im sure there are plenty of examples of that happening, but probably a lesser percentage. (ill give you that)

11/24/2010 10:53:30 PM

Yeah, I should have gone with "tends not" rather than "isn't going" There will always be certain individuals that excel, even in a poor environment.

[Edited on November 24, 2010 at 11:34 PM. Reason : ]

11/24/2010 11:22:43 PM

Quote :

"because the majority of Americans are forced into service sector jobs, since it's all they're qualified to do."

And therefore...what? The state should subsidize attendance at engineering schools such as NCState University? They already do!

11/25/2010 12:17:37 AM