GOP Does Not Extend Jobless Benefits

Seems like they're saying your family should get their future unemployment benefits from McDonalds.

Actually I was making fun of the politicians, since they're saying all the jobs are back, they must mean McDonald's jobs.

Geez, people. C'mon.

If Democrats don't capitalize on this during the campaign, then they're idiots.

I thought Capitalism was bad.

Come the beginning of January, all seasonal employment will cease. That's an enormous chunk of the job market once you add it to the amount of Americans that are already unemployed. Of course the Republicans do not care about this, either.

God bless America. Fuck.

Here's the dirty little secret: Neither do Democrats...

At least the Democrats wanted to extend the federal unemployment benefits, while the Republicans don't. But Republicans have enough votes to override Democrats' opposition so the Americans lose out at the end.

Yando, I am sorry about your family, and none of this is personal...but, my general feelings on the issue are as follows:

1)The best way to spur people to either find jobs, or go into business for themselves, is to make the alternatives as absolutely godawfully harsh as possible;

2)Welfare/charity is better left to non-profit organizations, individual communities/cities, or perhaps even state governments, but this country needs the federal government doing less, not more;

3)The job recovery, while not grand, is real, and this may help spur people to begin the new year by re-doubling their job searching efforts;

4)Many people create their own economic disasters by having children they cannot adequately afford to care for, making purchases beyond their means, and by not adequately planning and saving for the future. As a single, hard-working male who spent many years and accumulated much debt acquiring an education, I get very upset at seeing so much of paycheck go to subsidize those who do not plan for the future but use their voting power to ensure subsidies from the government;

5)There is never a good time to end subsidy programs. Ever. It is like feeding the wild-life, they grow dependent on the hand-out and over time this "helping hand" cannot help but change the natural patterns of food-gathering, hunting, and grazing. When you end a subsidy, some needy people will get the short end of the stick. This is sad, and very regrettable, but again, this a problem better solved by entities other than the federal government and subsidies in the long run are a very bad idea that stifle individual achievement and create dangerous distortions of the capitalistic ideal.


In the end, the unfortunate truth about subsidies is this:

If you want more of an particular activity or of a particular lifestyle, all the government needs to do is subsidize it.

Of course the Dems wanted to extend benefits. What better way to ensure loyal followers are lined up at the teat for the next government hand out?

Republicans have deemed that the environment is such that individuals can now fend for themselves again. This is simply a step in encouraging people to do that.


BTW: VERY well said Overlord.

Dude, wake up. Unemployment insurance is EARNED by you having worked however long previously. Your former employers are the ones who pay it, ultimately. It's not some free check given out like Best Buy gift cards.

The economy IS on the mend, yes, but they are so many millions depending on those benefits just to live, and some of those people will be out in the cold starting Dec. 21.

That's absurd. And don't even try and frame athuss Republicans "thinking people can now fend for themselves and they're encouraging that."

Our top income bracket citizens were able to fend for themselves even with their previous tax rates, estate taxes, and capital gains taxes, but the Republicans had no problems eliminating those as much as possible to ensure that THEIR loyal followers were taken care of.

They may be out in the cold, but what this doesn't mention is that unemployment benefits have already been extended for over a year longer than they originally were supposed to be.

Economists have proven that the longer unemployment benefits last, the longer unemployment also lasts, because there isn't as much of an incentive to get back to work. As a result of this, you will probably see unemployment drop faster over the next few quarters than it would have otherwise. This may not mean that people are getting back on at Cisco, but it may mean more people are setting up their own small businesses, which is the lifeblood of the economy.

It may also mean more foreclosures, credit problems, bankruptcies, and people dropping out of the work force altogether.

If unemployment benefits do nothing but extend unemployment, then why offer them at all? Oh, that's right. They do other things like help keep people financially solvent.

Anyone who's content living on $200-300 a week (before taxes) to the point where they supposedly won't look for work as long as they're getting it,....I highly doubt they're in much of a hurry to find a job in any case.

Then again, it may not.


Of course, it's always the Republicans fault:

I can only assume that anyone who believes that unemployment benefits discourage people from finding readily available work have never tasted the bitter sting of long-term unemployment. I don't know what the system is like in the US, but in the UK the unemployment benefit is barely enough for someone on their own to get by on basic food and accomodation. Factor in a family to support and the notion of avoiding work in favour of living off welfare is frankly laughable. I'm sure some low-expectation-having motherfuckers do it, but the vast, vast majority of jobless people want nothing more than to find steady employment, but are unable to because of a shitty job market.

The idea that there are millions of people kicking their heels who only need to have their safety net removed to provoke them into taking a job or starting their own business doesn't match with my - and my friends and families - experiences of being out of work.

Based on my out-of-work experiences, I'll say one word to accompany that: ditto.

Same here. And my girlfriend is currently slogging through longterm unemployment with benefits due to expire soon.

Worker Productivity is the Highest in 20 Years, But Wage Growth is the Slowest in 16

"Another side to the slow increase in employment despite the upturn in output has been the extraordinary growth in labor productivity, i.e., the extent to which US firms are driving their employees to work harder. The Labor Dept. announced Dec 3 that employee production per hour during the 3rd quarter rose at an annualized rate of 9.4%, the highest in two decades... Sullivan of Morgan Stanley commented, 'The downside of the productivity miracle is that there is less pressure on employers to hire.' Employers are making every effort to increase production without engaging new workers, resulting in a 14-month high in the average workweek. The increase in hours, according to Lehman Brothers analyst Drew Matus, is 'the equivalent of adding 350,000 additional jobs.' As productivity soars, workers' wages are seeing next to no improvement. Average hourly earnings rose 0.1% in November to $15.46. Hourly earnings over the last 12 months are up only 2.1%, the slowest annual growth in 16 years."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/de...jobs-d06.shtml

I can only speak from my own experience, but two points:

1) When I found myself unemployed in the early part of this year, I had no compunction at all about applying for unemployment insurance (as it's euphemistically called) because that was money that I HAD PAID IN FROM MY PAYCHECKS FOR THE PREVIOUS TWO YEARS. It was not a handout, it was my money. So I didn't worry about "saving my pride"--it wasn't in danger.

2) Being unemployed is no picnic. All I ever wanted to do was get back to work as soon as I could, so that my family would have health insurance and some security. The thing unemployment insurance checks did for me was enable me to find a GOOD job, rather than being forced to take the first McJob that came along.

If it hadn't been for that, I'd have been flipping burgers or waiting tables. There's nothing wrong with those jobs, but it's hard to support a family and a chronic illness (diabetes) on 38 hrs a week at minimum wage and no benefits.

Oh, and when I had my family, I had a good job. I didn't CHOOSE to have kids while I was on the dole to increase my take. That is largely a spurious argument, I believe.

Let's see, past out-of-work experience:

(Flashback 25 years)
Mom is a single mom / teacher who becomes terminally ill with Myasthenia Gravis: check

3 years in intensive care (and all the bills that come from it): check

Refused vocational re-training by the state / government because she is terminal and is going to die: check

Waiting on the front step for our church to bring us food for over 2 years: check

Three legaly signed death certificates: check

Absolute, total refusal to quit: check

Fought to survive, revive career, AND pay off all medical debt: check

(current)
Mom is Director of troubled youth school and mental health counselor, all medical bills paid: check

Because she was terminal, the government refused to help. The state refused to help. No workers comp/unemployment/etc... because she was terminal.

Single mom with a total devotion to NOT quit: check

That's my past experiance and perhaps now some can understand why I feel the way I do about self-reliance.

The Republicans already have all that unemployment money earmarked for pharmaceutical company handouts and other corporate welfare. Individual human welfare is not important.

If companies stay solvent, and profitable, they will hire and expand, therefore making individual welfare moot because there will be jobs.

Logical to me.

Gimme a fucking break. Companies are about bottom line, and are rapidly farming jobs out of the country. They couldn't give two shits about employing Americans. We have to pass laws to keep them from exploiting labor.

And that's an astonishing and inspiring story. But it's not the norm. There seem to be some posts in this thread that suggest that there are vast untapped reservoirs of great jobs that people are choosing not to take because living on welfare is so cushy. This argument has been trotted out time and again when the issue of unemployment comes around, and it's balls.

People become unemployed for myriad reasons, and find it hard to get another job for equally varied reasons. Geographic factors, ebbs and flows in industries, changes in the overall economy and job market...

Taking away benefits won't suddenly magic jobs for these people out of thin air.

See, everyone talks about no jobs, no jobs.

I can't open the paper without hospitals begging for nurses, districts begging for teachers, counties begging for police and fire fighters.

All noble and badly needed jobs.

If someone needs a job that bad, apply for vocational re-training and do something useful.

Not in your field? So?

Pay, benefits, some security, with a little bit of work. I don't see the problem in that.

If the un-employment bug hits me, that's my plan at least. Not to give up and just say, "oh, the sky is falling, there are no jobs!!"

Look for options and exploit them!

Grifter, that's the whole point. People are looking for options, and the unemployment benefits help give them the time they need to find jobs or training. That's kind of the WHOLE POINT ABOUT BENEFITS. They aren't there so my friend Jake who got laid off two days before Thanksgiving can sit at home watching soap operas and eating bon bons. He's a programmer, he's looking for work as a programmer, he's not about to go "well, there are so few progamming jobs available right now, I think I'll train to be a nurse!". Unemployment benefits, which he has been paying into for years, will help him to meet his living expenses while searching for a new job. Period.

Begging for teachers? Police and firefighters?

None of these areas are begging for work. Teachers are needed because so many have been let go due to budget cuts - that doesn't mean they're hiring more.

Police and firefighters in the large majority of districts have lists hundreds of people long waiting to be accepted. People wait for years on these lists. If they're short on people it is only because of budget constraints.

To add to Jacob's post, which I totally agree with, there's also something to be said for people who are GOOD at their jobs. This requires a degree of passion or at least INTEREST in the job. I don't want some out-of-work programmer teaching fourth-grade math, and I don't want a highly-qualified graphic designer in a nursing job that he/she doesn't want.

Wasn't there just a thread about how throwing money at the education system won't improve it? Don't you think people who decide to teach as a plan B are even greater detriments to learning?

This sort of crass generalized reduction is just insulting, frankly.

Do you think these millions are NOT looking for options? Do you think they're NOT pounding the pavement madly before the clock (benefits) run out? You think they like $200-300 a week BEFORE taxes (income that's already been taxed, mind you. What happened to the Republicans trying to end double taxation? Oh, that's right....only for the rich and their capital gains and estates.) stipends?

Yes, they do say "There are no jobs."

But you left out the rest:

There are no jobs...today. There are no jobs...this week.

It doesn't matter. They keep looking. Because they must. Meanwhile, colleges are churning out more new workforce members than we can create jobs for. Yes, ONE person or A NUMBER of people will make it through despite all odds against them, but that's the extreme exception to the rule.

To expand on DaveB's point, even if there were thousands of unfilled vacancies just waiting in the police, the fire service or teaching and nursing, these aren't jobs that just anyone can - or should - do. Cops and firefighters require a level of physical fitness and bravery that not everyone possesses. Teaching and nursing are more than mere jobs, they're vocations that require a certain temperament, a certain personality.

They're also jobs that require a LOT more than a quick training course to get in to. I considered teaching, but literally couldn't afford to train. You get a government "golden hello" subsidy for training as a teacher, but the training takes at least a year, and a £6000 handout doesn't stretch that far. If you don't get in on the ground floor out of college or university with careers like that, it's incredibly hard to make the switch once mortgages, childcare and debts mount up.

The idea that people should take whatever jobs are going, to ease the burden on the state, regardless of suitability and against their own wishes and desires, seems to me to be...well...kinda communist.

Regarding extending unemployment benefits and the amount of time people spend out of work:

http://www.nationalreview.com/script...0312090838.asp

From linked NR article;

Easy for him to say, given that a journalist requires little to no training.

Now, how about that Electrical Engineer, with a Masters degree, with a mortage to pay and kids to feed. Think it's fun to switch seven jobs around, while keeping the obligations.

I know the point he's making, but if he does have a skill, it to make "switching jobs and retraining" sound trivial.

Too bad he didn't bother checking his story against current stats.

Wages are stagnant, not increasing. Industries are farmed overseas, not "evolving." And the "unemployment subsidizes people loafing around until their last week of benefits" argument is devoid of substance since people will pick ANY job - whether it actually meets their bills or not, whether they're trained for it or not, whether they can do it or not - in desperation to replace the lost unemployment income.

That doesn't do the economy any favors.

Whether or not it sounds trivial, that's what's happened throughout history. On top of that, most jobs do not require a specialized undergraduate degree. There is enough inherent flexibility in the job market that this has worked well for us throughout history.

stag·nant: Showing little or no sign of activity or advancement; not developing or progressing; inactive: a stagnant economy.

From earlier in the thread:
Hourly earnings over the last 12 months are up only 2.1%

I wouldn't call 2.1% stagnant, especially with the low inflation we have. People are still, year over year, getting larger earnings increases than core inflation, therefore their standard of living is increasing. All this talk of the Indians taking our jobs is problematic - they ARE taking jobs that could have gone to Americans, but generally speaking they are not replacing US workers, but rather supplementing them, and we'll need it as we run out of workers here in the next 10-20 years.

Good thing he is talking about young adults and not parents with dependents.

OK, so we go back to my first post. You are talking about Walmart or McDonalds?

But, then, what about the parents with dependents?

Or was that your point?

Ummm.... no. Jobs in journalism may only require an undergrad degree, but a decent publication doesn't hire just any old bum. Plus, as bad as it may be for an electrical engineer to find work, at least they have the opportunity to make decent money while employed. Plus, compare the number of jobs out there for writers to those available for engineers.

Granted, becoming a poor journalist is a decision just like any other, but let's not assume that someone who makes that decision has any more job flexibility than someone trained for engineering. If anything, they probably have less.

His post was based on the assumption he was talking about 7 job changes for parents with dependents which was false in context.

So my point was correcting.

Oh. Okay.

...

So what about parents with dependents?

Which really shows the worthlessness of the article linked. He's trying to compare switching jobs for higher pay to being out of work. People who are laid off for any reason don't usually find a better paying job just laying in wait. People getting unemployment benefits aren't in the middle of jumping from a small job to a bigger one.

I assume they average less amount of job changes since they have already, on average, had 7 when they first entered the job market.

Anyone who changes jobs that much while being depended on either has bad luck, poor job skills, or really needs to find what they are good at and fast. Or possibly is good enough at life and eveything it entails period that they can keep that up and NEVER worry about unemployment.

Trying to raise a family under any of those first three conditions is not recommended. The first one you can't always avoid though. But like they say, "you make your own luck." Certainly are circumstances outside those mentioned though.

It is a weak point of the article yes, but not enough to dismiss it out of hand. Good points are still made albeit could have been better argued. (The article does appear to be slightly rushed in tone)

Hey isn't the author that guy that Al Franken challenged to a fight? Just wondering, looks familiar.

I thought that was Hannity.

More like the guy who was challenged by Franken originally.

But yes they had some good humored ribbing between the two.

Still have something going if I recall correctly.

Matt knows more than I though.

What about small business? All we hear about are the mega corporations like Siemens, ExxonMobil, Citigroup, and Wal-Mart, but the majority of people in the US are either self-employed or work for a small business. There are still opportunities out there, even if US Steel lays off 20,000 people.

Don't large corporations only make up 30 percent of business in America? Or is that number more like 5?