99 Weeks of Unemployement

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Are you still 12??

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]

You are missing the point muchacho…What I “THINK” is irrelevant. What YOU think is obvious and you are misrepresenting data to confirm your bias. You are intellectually dishonest (or lazy) so I don’t really give a flying finnish fuck WHAT you think.

42

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Maybe you missed the part where I stated that I would need to work 72 hours to make what I would have made in 40 hours. How do you look for a job, go to interviews, etc when you start a new job and have to work more than full-time?

43

In this economy most companies will only hire people that already have a job. The thought is you have the skills to keep your job, so you must be better at your job.

When I was on unemployment I applied for several minimum wage jobs. All turned me down. I actually was told you are over qualified for this position.

44

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
When I was on unemployment I applied for several minimum wage jobs. All turned me down. I actually was told you are over qualified for this position. [/quote]

Happening to many people everyday.

45

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
When I was on unemployment I applied for several minimum wage jobs. All turned me down. I actually was told you are over qualified for this position. [/quote]

Happening to many people everyday. [/quote]

I started to remove all of my degrees, but I could not remove my work experience because then it would look like I had not worked in 10 years.

46

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Are you still 12??

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]

You are missing the point muchacho…What I “THINK” is irrelevant. What YOU think is obvious and you are misrepresenting data to confirm your bias. You are intellectually dishonest (or lazy) so I don’t really give a flying finnish fuck WHAT you think. [/quote]

I’m only trying to ask you a question, again, which you refuse to answer because you would rather cry like a little girl who learned she could swear and get away with it for the first time.

47

For the record they uses the extended unemployment for particularly hard pressed time.

IF job seeker takes a job that pays less than he or she is used to that means the job they took a job some one else that would be better suited for and now won’t get it . I think it is completely reasonable to wait for a job that is best suited for the individual .

when you have 10 jobs and 25 people looking for work you will still have 15 unemployed people , no matter how you slice it

48

I have had 6 jobs in the last 2 years . I spent time this time and shopped the market found a job that pays twice as much . The day I got hired for this company I was hired by 2 other companies

49

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Maybe you missed the part where I stated that I would need to work 72 hours to make what I would have made in 40 hours. How do you look for a job, go to interviews, etc when you start a new job and have to work more than full-time?[/quote]

I don’t know, sleep a little less? Go out less? I didn’t say it would be easy. I’ve worked full time while being a full time student and still managed to find new employment.

50

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Maybe you missed the part where I stated that I would need to work 72 hours to make what I would have made in 40 hours. How do you look for a job, go to interviews, etc when you start a new job and have to work more than full-time?[/quote]

I don’t know, sleep a little less? Go out less? I didn’t say it would be easy. I’ve worked full time while being a full time student and still managed to find new employment. [/quote]

you only take the job if YOU HAVE TO , if you have the option not to take it don’t take it

51

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Maybe you missed the part where I stated that I would need to work 72 hours to make what I would have made in 40 hours. How do you look for a job, go to interviews, etc when you start a new job and have to work more than full-time?[/quote]

I don’t know, sleep a little less? Go out less? I didn’t say it would be easy. I’ve worked full time while being a full time student and still managed to find new employment. [/quote]

you only take the job if YOU HAVE TO , if you have the option not to take it don’t take it
[/quote]

Exactly. It is almost stupid to take a $10/hr job over staying on unemployment and collecting benefits and search for a better opportunity. It goes against human nature to work ten times as hard for something you were getting for nothing. I don’t fault the individual for this, but the system that encourages it.

52

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

I don’t know, sleep a little less? Go out less? I didn’t say it would be easy. I’ve worked full time while being a full time student and still managed to find new employment. [/quote]

You were a STUDENT?!??! And STILL managed to do all that? holy crap man, you are a regular renaissance man. You mean you were able to sacrifice smoking weed, partying with booze, trying to get laid, rooting on the sports team, in exchange for working a guaranteed subsidized job on campus at the dining hall, with an employer willing to work around your RIDICULOUS schedule and STILL managed to find a job on top of that? How did you even find time to commute 5 minutes across campus to your classes/!?!??!?!?!!??!?!

Why haven’t we heard about you on the news? Or on the Nobel committee. I can’t believe someone like you is out there and remains relatively unknown.

53

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

I don’t know, sleep a little less? Go out less? I didn’t say it would be easy. I’ve worked full time while being a full time student and still managed to find new employment. [/quote]

You were a STUDENT?!??! And STILL managed to do all that? holy crap man, you are a regular renaissance man. You mean you were able to sacrifice smoking weed, partying with booze, trying to get laid, rooting on the sports team, in exchange for working a guaranteed subsidized job on campus at the dining hall, with an employer willing to work around your RIDICULOUS schedule and STILL managed to find a job on top of that? How did you even find time to commute 5 minutes across campus to your classes/!?!??!?!?!!??!?!

Why haven’t we heard about you on the news? Or on the Nobel committee. I can’t believe someone like you is out there and remains relatively unknown. [/quote]

hahaha. Are still bitching like a fat little girl that didn’t get a car for her 16th birthday?

I guess you have to be a renaissance man to work 72 hrs per week and fin time to submit your application on the computer to various employers every night.

54

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

I guess you have to be a renaissance man to work 72 hrs per week and fin time to submit your application on the computer to various employers every night.[/quote]

If that’s all that you did in your “job search” I have to wonder what kind of “better job” you managed to end up with.

55

Maiden, I’m not quoting your post because I hate when one post is an entire page in these threads.

At one point I worked a full time job and went to school full time as well. And I can tell you it’s a lot easier working a full time job @40 hours a week and going to school AND looking for a new job, then it is working 38298379 hours a week and looking for a new job.

It’s a little easier pushing back homework till 1am then it is scheduling a job interview at 1am.

Edit: I also agree with VT, it takes a lot more in searching for a job than just clicking send on the computer screen. Not to mention I told you before that the $10 an hour job was in construction…how many construction companies do you know that have computers and internet at their jobsites.

56

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Maiden, I’m not quoting your post because I hate when one post is an entire page in these threads.

At one point I worked a full time job and went to school full time as well. And I can tell you it’s a lot easier working a full time job @40 hours a week and going to school AND looking for a new job, then it is working 38298379 hours a week and looking for a new job.

It’s a little easier pushing back homework till 1am then it is scheduling a job interview at 1am.[/quote]

57

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Maiden, I’m not quoting your post because I hate when one post is an entire page in these threads.

At one point I worked a full time job and went to school full time as well. And I can tell you it’s a lot easier working a full time job @40 hours a week and going to school AND looking for a new job, then it is working 38298379 hours a week and looking for a new job.

It’s a little easier pushing back homework till 1am then it is scheduling a job interview at 1am.[/quote]

I can’t argue with your experience. Maybe more difficult depending on the person but not impossible.

58

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

Edit: I also agree with VT, it takes a lot more in searching for a job than just clicking send on the computer screen. Not to mention I told you before that the $10 an hour job was in construction…how many construction companies do you know that have computers and internet at their jobsites.[/quote]

Yes, but maybe the job gives you an opportunity to network with people for better opportunities that you wouldn’t have considered had you not taken the job. Maybe you find you enjoy the work, do well, and within a year are making a couple more dollars an hour. Now you have a year of employment with a company and a promotion on your resume instead of another year of unemployment.

59

Yeah that computer engineer to night shift foreman is a pretty enviable career track

60

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

Edit: I also agree with VT, it takes a lot more in searching for a job than just clicking send on the computer screen. Not to mention I told you before that the $10 an hour job was in construction…how many construction companies do you know that have computers and internet at their jobsites.[/quote]

Yes, but maybe the job gives you an opportunity to network with people for better opportunities that you wouldn’t have considered had you not taken the job. Maybe you find you enjoy the work, do well, and within a year are making a couple more dollars an hour. Now you have a year of employment with a company and a promotion on your resume instead of another year of unemployment. [/quote]

Yes, but maybe (and mostlikely) I hate the job that only pays me $8 less an hour than my previous job. And maybe the only people I have to network with are other people who are only worth $10 an hour. And maybe because I didn’t take that shitty job I used the 0934920 hours that I would have spent working it, to find a better job or even a “career” path.