[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Many states pay the equivalent of $10-$12/hr for unemployment benefits. You the average person is going to take a $9/hr job for 40 hrs of work per week, or continue collecting $10 a week for zero hrs of work?
[/quote]
FTR…I’m not in favor of extending to 99 weeks, however…
I’m not certain about the law in every state, but in Texas and every other state I am familiar with, payments are based on the wage you were earning prior to being released without cause. If I recall in 2011 it was 65% of weekly gross or a maximum of $415/week. If you were earning $9/hr ($360.00/wk) your payment would be $234/wk. Not exactly ‘living large’.
[/quote]
No, it’s not but I know of several individuals who work part time under the table in addition to their unemployment and they do just fine. For them.[/quote]
There will always be people willing to take advantage, they should be prosecuted.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
We had people in Tampa call into a radio show proud of how they are getting unemployement and welfare and such, but get money on the side (I’m assuming drugs) and drive BMW’s, etc, etc. [/quote]
As I mentioned already, they should be prosecuted.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Many states pay the equivalent of $10-$12/hr for unemployment benefits. You the average person is going to take a $9/hr job for 40 hrs of work per week, or continue collecting $10 a week for zero hrs of work?
[/quote]
FTR…I’m not in favor of extending to 99 weeks, however…
I’m not certain about the law in every state, but in Texas and every other state I am familiar with, payments are based on the wage you were earning prior to being released without cause. If I recall in 2011 it was 65% of weekly gross or a maximum of $415/week. If you were earning $9/hr ($360.00/wk) your payment would be $234/wk. Not exactly ‘living large’.
[/quote]
No, it’s not but I know of several individuals who work part time under the table in addition to their unemployment and they do just fine. For them.[/quote]
There will always be people willing to take advantage, they should be prosecuted.
[/quote]
Agreed, this is just as bad as someone just sittin on their ass and not looking for work imo. They should be prosecuted and either forced to pay back ther $ or completely cut out of it all together.
Yeah, there is just absolutely no way that the longer the state allows one to take unemployment benefits results in more people being on unemployment. Impossible.
How about this: you lose your job, you get unemployment benefits until you find a new one no matter how long it takes. You think this will cause more or less people to take advantage of unemployment?[/quote]
You are misrepresenting a graph to represent your position.
Correlation: those states with highest unemployment rates also have longest time on assistance
We can agree that
But your correlation argument “therefore, the time on assistance leads to high unemployment” shows all you really did was look at a graph and sorta kinda use it to support your own bias. Backing it up with some sort of emotional appeal was a nice touch. Not to sound like Counting Beans here, who LOVES to talk about what he’s just read about, but THAT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY, bro!!! (I remember when he also kept using the word demagogue, that was funny)
Did you, or did you not, realize that the EUC enacted in 2008 specifically set the longer assistance timelines for the states with the highest unemployment? Be honest here. You answered the chicken and egg question wrong because you didn’t bother to do any research to back up your claims. Which in this day and age of the internet is just pathetic.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I’m saying that the average person that does get $400 weekly will not take the 9/hr job over continuing to collect benefits and looking for something better. It is a problem with the program that accepting certain jobs equates in a pay cut from collecting benefits. [/quote]
What’s your proposal? Lower the benefit or raise the wage?
[/quote]
raise the wage [/quote]
Ha…I already knew what your proposal would be! [/quote]
Take into consideration once you run out of Unemployment benefits and you stop looking for work then the unemployment numbers will drop. This is why the participation rate is so important. When the participation rate drops and employment stays the same, unemployment numbers will drop.
Just so yall know the participation rate is the lowest it has been since around 1978-1979.
I hope the link works. A lot of the reason of the lower participation rate is because people are getting older and retiring.
There will always be people willing to take advantage, they should be prosecuted.
[/quote]
And the point is not that they shouldn’t be prosecuted but rather that the more lavish the system benefits the more people are going to take advantage of the system.
[/quote]
Not if they fear the prosecution for doing so. Also lavish is a bit extreme…
There will always be people willing to take advantage, they should be prosecuted.
[/quote]
And the point is not that they shouldn’t be prosecuted but rather that the more lavish the system benefits the more people are going to take advantage of the system.
[/quote]
Not if they fear the prosecution for doing so. Also lavish is a bit extreme…[/quote]
In my book two years of unemployment benefits is lavish. For sure.
For you? Who knows? Maybe it would take a decade before you’d implement the word “lavish.” You tell me.
[/quote]
Part of the problem is, obviously, government getting in the way of government. I know someone who works for WIC. (A program I’m okay with our government running, it is temporary and provides very specific things to very specific people.) WIC, at least in MA, is fairly hot about preventing fraud. They came up with a plan to require vendors to integrate their EBT machines with the POS sale system, switch to an EBT card instead of a check, and have the register reject payment if the correct food wasn’t on the belt.
This fell through. Why? Well because the government has regulations based on proximity to food. So people live too far away from major food chains, so they have to allow small mom-and-pop stores to accept WIC. The mom-and-pops couldn’t afford the point of sale integration, so the plan was scrapped.
So one government regulation prevented another program from greatly reducing fraud…
There will always be people willing to take advantage, they should be prosecuted.
[/quote]
And the point is not that they shouldn’t be prosecuted but rather that the more lavish the system benefits the more people are going to take advantage of the system.
[/quote]
Search Results
lav·ish
Ë?laviSH/
adjective
adjective: lavish
1.
sumptuously rich, elaborate, or luxurious.
"a lavish banquet"
synonyms: sumptuous, luxurious, costly, expensive, opulent, grand, splendid, rich, fancy, posh; More
informalfancy-schmancy
"lavish parties"
antonyms: meager
(of a person) very generous or extravagant.
"he was lavish with his hospitality"
synonyms: generous, liberal, bountiful, openhanded, unstinting, unsparing, free, munificent, extravagant, prodigal More
"lavish hospitality"
antonyms: frugal
spent or given in profusion.
"lavish praise"
synonyms: abundant, copious, plentiful, liberal, prolific, generous; More
literaryplenteous
"lavish amounts of champagne"
antonyms: scant
verb
verb: lavish; 3rd person present: lavishes; past tense: lavished; past participle: lavished; gerund or present participle: lavishing
1.
bestow something in generous or extravagant quantities upon.
"the media couldn't lavish enough praise on the film"
synonyms: give freely to, spend generously on, bestow on, heap on, shower with More
There will always be people willing to take advantage, they should be prosecuted.
[/quote]
And the point is not that they shouldn’t be prosecuted but rather that the more lavish the system benefits the more people are going to take advantage of the system.
[/quote]
Not if they fear the prosecution for doing so. Also lavish is a bit extreme…[/quote]
In my book two years of unemployment benefits is lavish. For sure.
For you? Who knows? Maybe it would take a decade before you’d implement the word “lavish.” You tell me.
[/quote]
This is why they fucking invented the DICTIONARY jeeeeez
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Some want unemployment benefits extended to 99 weeks. TWO YEARS to find a job. And you better believe they won’t be taking any job offers that pay the same or slightly more that what they are getting on unemployment because they know they will have nearly two years to collect a check while doing nothing.
[/quote]
You have interviewed thousands , yourself , I am sure
[/quote]
Many states pay the equivalent of $10-$12/hr for unemployment benefits. You the average person is going to take a $9/hr job for 40 hrs of work per week, or continue collecting $10 a week for zero hrs of work?
[/quote]
Well wouldn’t that depend on how much an individual makes? For example my first time on unemployement the job I was “released” from I was making $18 phr. During the process of searching for work, I came across a construction company that was hiring. But they only wanted to pay me $10 perhr. Now although that was a $3 perhr upgrade from what I was collecting on unemployement, it was still $8 less than I was making before and what I needed to pay my bills and continue living.
So should I have taken that job? Spent 72 hrs a week working to make what I usually would make in 40 hours? Had no time to look for another job, had no time for my family, had no time to network with anyone else besides my surroundings…would that be the route you would have gone?
Or should I have continued looking for a better job, with more reasonable pay?[/quote]
What you should have done is take the $10/hr job, get off assistance, and continue looking for a better job while working. You don’t have to be on unemployment to look for a better job. My main point is that 99 weeks of unemployment does not encourage that. It encourages one to turn down that job knowing they have many more months of assistance to find a better offer. Do I blame the individual? No, I blame the system that encourages it.
Yeah, there is just absolutely no way that the longer the state allows one to take unemployment benefits results in more people being on unemployment. Impossible.
How about this: you lose your job, you get unemployment benefits until you find a new one no matter how long it takes. You think this will cause more or less people to take advantage of unemployment?[/quote]
You are misrepresenting a graph to represent your position.
Correlation: those states with highest unemployment rates also have longest time on assistance
We can agree that
But your correlation argument “therefore, the time on assistance leads to high unemployment” shows all you really did was look at a graph and sorta kinda use it to support your own bias. Backing it up with some sort of emotional appeal was a nice touch. Not to sound like Counting Beans here, who LOVES to talk about what he’s just read about, but THAT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY, bro!!! (I remember when he also kept using the word demagogue, that was funny)
Did you, or did you not, realize that the EUC enacted in 2008 specifically set the longer assistance timelines for the states with the highest unemployment? Be honest here. You answered the chicken and egg question wrong because you didn’t bother to do any research to back up your claims. Which in this day and age of the internet is just pathetic.
[/quote]
Let’s try again. Do you think extending unemployment benefits indefinitely will lead to less people on unemployment or more?
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Well wouldn’t that depend on how much an individual makes? For example my first time on unemployement the job I was “released” from I was making $18 phr. During the process of searching for work, I came across a construction company that was hiring. But they only wanted to pay me $10 perhr. Now although that was a $3 perhr upgrade from what I was collecting on unemployement, it was still $8 less than I was making before and what I needed to pay my bills and continue living.
So should I have taken that job? Spent 72 hrs a week working to make what I usually would make in 40 hours? Had no time to look for another job, had no time for my family, had no time to network with anyone else besides my surroundings…would that be the route you would have gone?
Or should I have continued looking for a better job, with more reasonable pay?[/quote]
What you should have done is take the $10/hr job, get off assistance, and continue looking for a better job while working. You don’t have to be on unemployment to look for a better job. My main point is that 99 weeks of unemployment does not encourage that. It encourages one to turn down that job knowing they have many more months of assistance to find a better offer. Do I blame the individual? No, I blame the system that encourages it.[/quote]
This approach sound much better than it works…
As an employer the last thing I want is a series of workers accepting positions with my company only to resign two weeks or two months later for other work. In most ‘serious’ work, turnover is a production killer!
This approach sound much better than it works…
As an employer the last thing I want is a series of workers accepting positions with my company only to resign two weeks or two months later for other work. In most ‘serious’ work, turnover is a production killer! [/quote]
I agree. I am curious though if most employers consider $10 an hour employees serious work.
My employer has resorted to a temp agency because his most recent operations manager/girlfriend convinced him it would save money. The turnover and injury rate you get from a $10 per hr employee is staggering. We have had more injuries in the last three months than in my previous fifteen years here and I have actually trained three different people in the same week.
This approach sound much better than it works…
As an employer the last thing I want is a series of workers accepting positions with my company only to resign two weeks or two months later for other work. In most ‘serious’ work, turnover is a production killer! [/quote]
I agree. I am curious though if most employers consider $10 an hour employees serious work.
My employer has resorted to a temp agency because his most recent operations manager/girlfriend convinced him it would save money. The turnover and injury rate you get from a $10 per hr employee is staggering. We have had more injuries in the last three months than in my previous fifteen years here and I have actually trained three different people in the same week.[/quote]
They seriously effect the bottom line…I know that for certain.
Our experiance is similar; the 80/20 rule certainly applies!
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Let’s try again. Do you think extending unemployment benefits indefinitely will lead to less people on unemployment or more? [/quote]
FTR…I’m not in favor of the extension.
IMO…if all else remains unchanged it would have little, if any effect. An increase in demand for goods and services is the only thing that will significantly effect the employment picture.
