http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/9613917/

I am torn on this. I know quite a few people who are or have been on unemployment since the recession started and made little to no effort to find a job until it was out or about to run out. These folks all miraculously found work (sometimes making less, but still work) when it ran out. Which leads me to believe they could have while the benefits were coming, but did not try as hard since they had some income to squeeze by on. Some people make basically no effort to find a job, and even turn down part time work because they do not want to mess up their unemployment benefits.

The other side of this is if you look at the unemployment map for NC Wake County is in much better shape than many other places in NC. There are areas where it is as high as 15% (we are way less than 10%). I can understand how people who are actively looking in those areas cant find work. Especially if a closed plant or factory has dried up the economy for the whole town, if a huge plant closed and all money spent in the town came out of the plant, no one else in town is hiring either.

I don't think unemployment should be extended indefinitely, at some point the person has to make a decision to take care of themselves...even if that means moving where there is opportunity, working a different job, or working for less pay in another industry. I always thought unemployment assistance was a stopgap measure to keep people from starving or becoming homeless due to an unforeseen layoff.

What makes this even more convoluted is the state is failing to change their formulas that would qualify more people for federal unemployment, so its not the states money being spent on those benefits anyway.

5/19/2011 12:54:55 PM

a lot of the problems lie with the department of labor. they don't do JACK SHIT to determine if someone is actively pursuing employment, and from what I can tell they don't care either.

5/19/2011 1:39:53 PM

I have two mental images of people on unemployment.

The first is my buddy who is a plumber and got laid off when the recession started (probably because he was not the most reliable employee, the company did not close...just had to thin the heard), he stayed high 24-7 for over a year. Unemployment covered his rent, weed, & food. He did not spend money on anything else because he rarely left the house. He had a nice long vacation but when the unemployment ran out found another job with little trouble.

The other is a 40 something year old guy with kids and a house he has been paying on for over a decade. Laid off due to no fault of his own, lets say a factory worker or something, the dude worked hard and was reliable, and for whatever reason his plant closed. He is up shits creek in a town where no one is hiring (due to towns income evaporating) and cant take care of his family or make mortgage pmts. This guy could easily lose everything he has worked for if his home falls in to foreclosure. His skills lie in a job that has been likely offshored, he is too young to retire, but old enough to not look appealing as a job candidate for a different type of work. When he finds another job it will still be with a huge pay cut, and he still may have to move or give up his house. His house is probably losing value due to no one in the town having a decent income and no one moving in due to the lack of jobs.

In both cases the person needs to find a damn job...but I have more compassion for the second one. That guy has a legitimate hardship and needs some help to get back on his feet.

5/19/2011 2:16:17 PM

Any idea on what kind of income your plumber was making when he was dropped?

Every time I've seen people cite the abuse of UEC it is always with these type of examples. The kind of people who have very little financial obligations. It's my impression (though, I obviously don't have proof) that these type of people are in a small minority. So, cutting it back because of these type of people ends up harming some other folks who do need it as a safety net not a vacation.

Putting aside the ideological aspect of whether it should exist or not, if we allow that some safety net does exist, then there are certainly better ways to go about distributing it and a means test wouldn't necessarily be a bad way to go.

[Edited on May 19, 2011 at 6:07 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2011 6:07:00 PM

Quote :

"The other is a 40 something year old guy with kids and a house he has been paying on for over a decade. Laid off due to no fault of his own, lets say a factory worker or something, the dude worked hard and was reliable, and for whatever reason his plant closed. He is up shits creek in a town where no one is hiring (due to towns income evaporating) and cant take care of his family or make mortgage pmts. This guy could easily lose everything he has worked for if his home falls in to foreclosure. His skills lie in a job that has been likely offshored, he is too young to retire, but old enough to not look appealing as a job candidate for a different type of work. When he finds another job it will still be with a huge pay cut, and he still may have to move or give up his house. His house is probably losing value due to no one in the town having a decent income and no one moving in due to the lack of jobs."

Yeah, this is like 100% a result of inflexibility of location. If there's a small town with a big factory, more than likely the case is that you can't keep living there and make ends meat after it closes.

I know, mortgages locked people into where they were living. Hopefully people won't enter into these agreements in the future.

5/19/2011 6:16:39 PM

Unfortunately it is no longer viable for twenty-somethings to buy a house or have kids these days. It just doesn't make sense to do so with this kind of instability in the economy. Those are quickly becoming luxuries for the rich only. Once again the middle class gets the shaft.

5/19/2011 6:20:10 PM

The rich don't have crazy numbers of kids. That would be the poor. Regarding the population dynamic, the "rich" are too small a demographic to matter. Being successful/responsible basically removes you from the gene pool.

5/19/2011 6:29:04 PM

Enter Idiocracy. The people most capable of raising children are the least likely to do so. A sad state of affairs.

[Edited on May 19, 2011 at 6:34 PM. Reason : ]

5/19/2011 6:33:37 PM

Quote :

"The rich don't have crazy numbers of kids."

The point is, they could have a fuck ton of them if they wanted. The middle class can't, not because they can't afford them but because the can't predict if they will lose their job or if another one in this country will be easily available.

5/19/2011 6:52:15 PM

collecting unemployment = lazy

5/19/2011 7:34:44 PM

Yeah, I've always found unemployment to be a tricky issue and I don't think I've quite got a handle on it yet.

Under normal circumstances, having a very limited program of unemployment insurance makes sense. Give people some reasonable amount of time to find new work -- maybe even just a hair under "reasonable" to encourage them to bust their asses finding it.

But, as you say, these aren't normal circumstances. Nationwide unemployment is hovering around 9%, if memory serves me correctly. And even if you take mortgages, families, and the other things that anchor people geographically, relocation sure isn't easy. If I get fired from a $25,000/yr job in Raleigh and find a similar job in Seattle (even adjusted for cost of living), that's not an easy move to make. Who wants to compensate a lower-income worker to relocate when they can almost certainly find a comparable one nearby? Nobody. For that matter, even if they don't have to compensate, doesn't it make more sense to find somebody nearby who you know will work for you and probably start sooner?

Quote :

"Enter Idiocracy. The people most capable of raising children are the least likely to do so. A sad state of affairs."

Surely you have a reason for why our statist centralized non-libertarian government is responsible for this trend?

5/19/2011 8:27:25 PM

Quote :

"a lot of the problems lie with the department of labor. they don't do JACK SHIT to determine if someone is actively pursuing employment, and from what I can tell they don't care either."

I would think the reason DOL doesn't do anything to determine if someone is eligible is probably because its not their job.

http://www.ncesc1.com/PMI/aboutesc/divisions.asp

http://www.nclabor.com/agprogs.htm

As for the don't care, why should they? The 'caseworkers' keep getting more work for less pay (no raises + extra costs in other areas) and have smaller numbers of employees for more cases. And they have zero incentives to find fraud.

5/19/2011 8:42:26 PM

I used to favor "safety net" but my views have shifted away from that lately, and for many of the reasons people have stated already. (mainly, bc I think I have shifted libertarian)

I totally agree with mrfrog and d357 on the kids issue. I think that you can see the effects of the safety net being abused and the consequences.

I keep hearing people say, "there should be a program to help people who lose their jobs for a limited amount of time." Why not do away with unemployment insurance, get paid more, and save an emergency fund? I would argue that PART of the reason people no longer save for emergencies is that they feel they can "count" on someone else bailing their ass out. Moral hazard. Which also goes back to your kid issue.

5/19/2011 9:25:39 PM

It's like I've stated here before...if crony capitalism didn't exist and if the government wasn't so deeply inserted in the economy, people could draw on prior experiences and position themselves for a recession accordingly and have a pretty high level of confidence what to expect.

But so long as the rich have garnered the favor of congressman to the detriment of the common man, saying to do away with your fellow commoners support is a bit heartless.

Quote :

"I would argue that PART of the reason people no longer save for emergencies is that they feel they can "count" on someone else bailing their ass out."

Facts not in evidence. I guess you could use the US savings rate and maybe come up with an estimate for how much the average person has in the bank, but I doubt anyone has that statistic. Have you contemplated that people don't save because they always assume they'll be able to get gainfully employed again after some short period of time? I saved an emergency fund before I knew UEC existed, but that is only because I through luck more than anything developed some frugality. Up until it was plainly obvious that my company wasn't going to make it, I didn't contemplate the fact that large multi-national companies completely shut the doors (oh, and in doing so get protected from having to pay out 3-4 months worth of compensation).


[Edited on May 19, 2011 at 9:43 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2011 9:36:02 PM

^I would prefer they do away with all bailouts. It is not heartless to expect companies and individuals to deal with consequences of their own actions. I feel it is heartless to live wrecklessly and expect others who havent to bail you out. Or more accurately use the govt power to take ones property to give to another who hasnt earned it.

^exactly, use the savings rate. That went up dramatically when the recession hit. Why? Because people felt they needed more security. Please dont think Im saying that if you lose your job you did something wrong, that is not the case. However, there is no gurantee of employment. If you work for someone, they decide if they need you. If you own your own business there is the chance that you go out of business, esp if your business is dependent on another business that goes under. I will say that not having insurance or an emergency fund is living wrecklessly though. I am in no danger of losing my job that Im aware of, but have saved 6 months worth of expenses in case I do. I also BUY long term disablity insurance in case something terrible happens and I can no longer practice. It isnt cheap and I dont like paying for it, but it is necessary.

[Edited on May 19, 2011 at 9:51 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2011 9:43:25 PM

Of course...the problem with replying to any thread is it isn't implied what the rest of your politics are.

5/19/2011 9:44:40 PM

But how do I know if I hate you or not?

5/19/2011 9:53:20 PM

“It is an unfortunate human failing that a full wallet often groans more than an empty stomach.” - FDR

I find it so strange that people somehow think that the poor and stupid do not have it tough enough and need to have additional hardships imposed upon them. Was serfdom that long ago that we have forgotten it? Further marginalizing those in the bottom of our society would, without doubt, turn them to drugs and crime, and deny us the oppurtunity of them or thier offspring being presented with the opportunity to succeed and help us all.

5/19/2011 10:00:09 PM

Serfdom! Now there's an idea whose time has come. These schmucks will never get out of debt anyway, might as well let them toil their own piece of rented land. Personally I'd rather plow the earth by hand than deal with job interviews just to stay on welfare.

[Edited on May 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2011 10:15:32 PM

Quote :

"Why not do away with unemployment insurance, get paid more, and save an emergency fund? I would argue that PART of the reason people no longer save for emergencies is that they feel they can "count" on someone else bailing their ass out."

OK, I can see some of this logic. But the "emergency fund" is so far down the list of causalities that cutting off employment without FIRST doing a great deal to fix the underlying problems will accomplish nothing.

Why not save for an emergency fund? Well, first, you might not have any idea how. Among the worst problems in the modern education system is that it teaches jack-all-shit about personal finances. I'm a reasonably intelligent person with reasonably helpful parents, and there are still some significant gaps in my knowledge on that front that I've had to hastily close, often too late.

Then, of course, I'm not sure how many people could reasonably be expected to save up enough to live through the sort of long-term unemployment we've seen lately (and this can't be blamed too much on the perverse incentives of unemployment insurance -- if that were the case, we'd have seen similar rates before the recession).

Then there's families. We've been focusing on the kids, but it goes both ways -- a lot of people have to take care of their parents (and sometimes siblings), too, when they become infirm for whatever reason. And as to kids, well, shit -- if we make it a precondition for having children that you must always have enough cash on hand to support them for weeks or months without any income, then I guess some people will have their wish: only the wealthiest will get to breed.

5/19/2011 10:19:32 PM

^^I never know how to take your responses. Now while that may give you that air of enigma you seem to be going for, it forces me to take you less seriously.

[Edited on May 19, 2011 at 10:21 PM. Reason : ]

5/19/2011 10:20:37 PM

I'd put more in savings if I didn't have to spend so much on FICA. I'll never see that shit again.

5/19/2011 10:21:57 PM

Think of all the good it's doing, though. That alone should give you the warm and fuzzies.

5/20/2011 12:50:46 AM

Quote :

"Why not do away with unemployment insurance, get paid more, and save an emergency fund?"

if folks had enough sense to save money, we wouldn't need unemployment, medicare, or social security

but folks are idiots and for some reason they think the government should protect them from themselves

5/20/2011 7:20:41 AM

IIRC the poorer folks end up getting more out of those programs than they had put in, so it's still good that we have them.

5/20/2011 7:29:22 AM

that's just like, your opinion, man

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 8:12 AM. Reason : if i wanted to donate money to poor folks i'd give it to a fucking charity]

5/20/2011 8:08:52 AM

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

5/20/2011 10:26:27 AM

Quote :

"if folks had enough sense to save money, we wouldn't need unemployment, medicare, or social security"

As someone who just researched this topic for grad school, personal savings amongst most people went up in the 90s when income was going up, but the US savings rate fell by a huge amount because the rich took the extra income and reinvested it.

The point is that people do save.

But, can they save enough? Lets say you are working and save 15% of your monthly salary (the US average is around 5%), half in a savings account and half in a retirement account. Now lets say you get laid off, and you magically drop your cost of living to half of what you were spending (unlikely for most people but not the point). How long is that money that you saved going to last?

5/20/2011 10:34:11 AM

I've got a buddy who has spent the last 8 months traveling all over the world while collecting unemployment. His brother is filling out the forms and signing for him while he lives well in spots like Croatia, Poland, Thailand, Vietnam and China (countries he has hit so far).

He's living the dream.

5/20/2011 10:36:26 AM

^^roughly a month for every 3 months you saved.

5/20/2011 10:39:02 AM

Quote :

"Why not save for an emergency fund? Well, first, you might not have any idea how. Among the worst problems in the modern education system is that it teaches jack-all-shit about personal finances. I'm a reasonably intelligent person with reasonably helpful parents, and there are still some significant gaps in my knowledge on that front that I've had to hastily close, often too late."

QFT

I think a quick course on the tricks of credit card and finance companies would do more good than the majority of the shit they teach in school. Hell when I graduated high school they were still teaching the use of a check register...when online banking and debit cards were already free.

5/20/2011 4:03:32 PM

Quote :

"Hell when I graduated high school they were still teaching the use of a check register...when online banking and debit cards were already free."

More than they ever taught at my school. I had to learn how to write a check from my roommates when I first moved out of the dorm -- our first month's rent was the first check I'd ever had to write, and no course in school even touched on it.

5/20/2011 5:49:46 PM

Quote :

"if folks had enough sense to save money, we wouldn't need unemployment, medicare, or social security "

I agree, but the my response is do you think NOT allowing them to learn this trait is the correct response? If there was no such thing as unemployment benefits do you feel people would save more? Well if they didnt at first, they sure as shit would after their first bout being unemployed without an emergency fund.

We all make bad decisions but you have to face the consequences of those bad decisions to learn and make better decisions in the future. It is how we learn. Touching the hot stove is a great example. You tell your kids not to touch a hot shove/item bc it will hurt. And a lot of times they do it anyway. Now lets say the govt forces a stranger to place his hand between the child's and the hot stove... so he just keeps touching it without any personal sacrifice while all the pain is felt by the third party. Not a great system or way to learn cause and effect. imo

Grumpy, I think it was you that said you had a good family that taught you how to save and about money. Your parents were passing on what they know. The same is for other parents. They teach what they know. A lot of these people know exactly what they should get and how to get more benefits.

5/20/2011 6:44:01 PM

Quote :

"I agree, but the my response is do you think NOT allowing them to learn this trait is the correct response? If there was no such thing as unemployment benefits do you feel people would save more? Well if they didnt at first, they sure as shit would after their first bout being unemployed without an emergency fund."

So...your plan is to wait until a family falls into financial ruin, then show up and say "I guess you'll save more next time, huh?"

Sounds brilliant.

Quote :

"A lot of these people know exactly what they should get and how to get more benefits."

'these people'

5/20/2011 9:03:04 PM

Quote :

"Touching the hot stove is a great example."

I'd describe playing with matches as a better example, yeah you might just burn yourself and learn not to do it again, or you might burn your house down and die, and learn nothing. People may suffer such financial ruin they are never able to get out of it. When those people are left behind, we suffer a loss of potential which negatively effects us all.

5/20/2011 9:10:23 PM

Quote :

"So...your plan is to wait until a family falls into financial ruin, then show up and say "I guess you'll save more next time, huh?" "

haha, not really MY plan at all. I would prefer if we just respected everyone's individual rights. If you choose to save for emergencies fine. If you choose to spend that money on other things, like entertainment, then you would certainly enjoy that money more than the saver. However, dont then take from the saver, who has sacrificed that joy for security.

We all make decisions, live with the consequences. There will always be people willing to help those who are down on their luck and need help. However, looting from one to provide for another is not charity at all. I support choice.

BTW, I would imagine more people would save more if they realized they couldnt rely on these programs for bailouts. Ask around to people in their 30s if they plan on SS being there when they retire? Or if they are planning on it not being their and saving now. Ask yourself which is more cruel? Taking care of these matters yourself or putting all your dependence on someone else who might not be able to meet what you were promised? Like people who worked decades for a company and were planning on retiring soley on the pensions they were promised. Only now the company goes under and they have no savings.

Kris, so lets use the govt power to ban matches bc they may be used to burn down a house and kill people thus losing potential. Gun bans have done wonders for DC. All but eliminating all crime. lol We "lose potential" all the time. Many would argue that a lot of entitlement programs and failing public schools cause us to lose the most. At some point people will wake up and realize that we cant legislate certain things, including outlawing bad outcomes. But we seem hell bent on throwing as much money at failing programs though. And the evidence of faillure isnt reason to kill the program, no, it is always that we simply havent wasted enough money on it.

5/20/2011 10:03:44 PM

Quote :

"Kris, so lets use the govt power to ban matches bc they may be used to burn down a house and kill people thus losing potential. Gun bans have done wonders for DC. All but eliminating all crime."

You really missed the point. I'm not going to try to explain it to you, instead I'll take it a different way, let me ask you this: Do you not owe the rest of the world, the government, old people on Social Security, etc. for giving you the opportunities for success that you have been lucky enough to take advantage of? Where would you be without all of the other human beings?

5/20/2011 10:15:55 PM

Where would all the other human beings be without me?

5/20/2011 10:18:19 PM

They'd be just fine.

5/20/2011 10:21:43 PM

Quote :

"Well if they didnt at first, they sure as shit would after their first bout being unemployed without an emergency fund. "

That ship has sailed. As things are now, you're talking shock therapy. A sudden wave of unemployed people with no funds or safety net is going to be an expensive burden to society one way or the other -- through crime, through the free emergency room care we'd have to give them, through the fact that the children of this generation would necessarily be less educated because of the poverty spiral that comes with the situation you describe.

You seem to take it as a given that people would bounce back from their first bout of unemployment. As if that wasn't absurd enough, you seem to assume that most people wouldn't be begging to bring back unemployment insurance (either because they need it or are suffering the negative externalities of having a sudden massive growth in the population of people with no money). AND you're ignoring completely some of the points I made earlier -- that even if you eliminated unemployment, SS, etc. so people could get paid more, low income earners (and probably most middle-income earners) can't reasonably be expected to save up enough money to survive the sort of long-term unemployment we see now.

Quote :

"Grumpy, I think it was you that said you had a good family that taught you how to save and about money."

If you'd actually read my post you'd see that I actually said I had (otherwise) good parents who didn't teach me how to write a check.

5/20/2011 10:24:53 PM

Quote :

"They'd be just fine."

Then no one owes anyone anything by that logic.

5/20/2011 10:30:10 PM

If you're asking where individuals would be without the group, then that's the same question I asked.

5/20/2011 10:32:21 PM

The individual would be wherever he wanted to be by transacting with private individuals. That some third party benefits in some other way has nothing to do with me. That he does benefit in some way though is the miracle of individual freedom, not the miracle of some mythical group you're trying to construct into existence.

5/20/2011 10:38:53 PM

Murder and theft are the natural way of things, not trade. That both are able to mutually benefit is not due to individual freedom, but yes, that mythical group that allows it to happen.

5/20/2011 10:42:45 PM

Oh, ok Kris, because you said so.

The same guy that says we can architect a full command system with enough knowledge and enough modeling. Clearly, we'll eventually be able to Minority Report the world and eliminate all matter of chaos from human decisions...the ones that compel us to theft and murder for gain in lieu of, you know, mutually beneficial trading.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 10:48 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2011 10:46:47 PM

Well explain to me. Why would I trade with you when I could just take what I want?

5/20/2011 10:54:08 PM

Quote :

"Why would I trade with you when I could just take what I want?"

for starters risk/reward. Lets say you are hungry. You could trade with someone who has food so that you both agree on a mutual beneficial trade. Or you can break into his house and try to take his food. Of course now you face the prospect that he might be willing to put up a fight and kill you over it.

So which is preferable? 1. a mutually beneficial voluntary deal 2. risking your life in a theft

Grumpy, I agree the ship has sailed. There are a host of people that benefit from the labor of others through the use of government coercion. However, by your definition then unemployment should be endless? To save money and all? I dont agree with that. I think you start stepping down what these programs do until you get to the point of eliminating them. As for the people begging to bring back unemployment insurance, they could buy private ins. or save for such a thing. Ok, I will address your point about low and middle income earners. Well there are low and middle income earners who manage to save and become millionares. But ignoring that fact, why do you say they cannot save? Are you saying they dont have the discipline, intelligence, or money? I assume you think it is a money issue. And Ill point to the fact that the FICA tax is about the only tax(fed) that those income groups pay. So allowing them to keep that tax money is money they could put in savings. However, my point is that it isnt anyones business what they do with their money but their own. Just dont expect the govt to loot others for you when you piss it away. And that goes for individuals and corporations.

Sorry I misunderstood about your parents. The only financial advice I got was avoid credit cards. great advice actually. So how did you learn to save? Did you hit lucky lottery ticket that allows someone to come into your home to teach you. As Kris would say, it would just be LUCK that you learned how to manage money, not by any self action.

5/21/2011 1:27:08 AM

Quote :

"Do you not owe the rest of the world, the government, old people on Social Security, etc. for giving you the opportunities for success that you have been lucky enough to take advantage of? Where would you be without all of the other human beings?"

They got paid for their work. Perhaps they didn't benefit as much as others benefited from their work, but that is our profit, it is too late to re-negotiate.

5/21/2011 7:58:23 AM

Quote :

"I assume you think it is a money issue. And Ill point to the fact that the FICA tax is about the only tax(fed) that those income groups pay. So allowing them to keep that tax money is money they could put in savings. "

I admit to not knowing the FICA tax burden for a full-time Food Lion cashier, but I'll go out on a shaky limb and say that it's probably not enough to generate significant savings. Certainly not the type of savings that could carry someone (or some family) through months, and potentially years, of unemployment.

But hey, I guess they shoulda had a better job, right?

5/21/2011 8:35:15 AM

^YEARS of unemployment? Seriously? I dont know anyone who saves an emergency fund for YEARS.

Quote :

"I'll go out on a shaky limb and say that it's probably not enough to generate significant savings"

Actually studies show that the lower income earners are better savers on average.

Correlation between income and wealth

With doctors having a high propensity to be a UAW as evidence, there is an indirect relationship between the level of income an individual earns and the net wealth that one accumulates.[5] Doctors have a reasonably high level of income; therefore, it is more likely that doctors have relatively low amounts of net worth. The same holds true for those that have lower levels of income. They are more likely to accumulate more in relation to their level of income.[6


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door

I believe teachers tend to do the best as a profession on the accumulation of wealth. Doctors and other high income earners tend to do poorly. As they accumulate a lot of student loan debt and really raise their lifestyle after getting jobs.

5/21/2011 9:30:20 AM