Post
If unemployment is at 9%, should we cut off benefits to all those who cannot find a job? Our state borrowed millions from the federal gov to pay unemployment since Jan 2008. Now business' must pay back the feds with interest. Of course this puts a big burden on the state. Let me emphasize that those benefits were borrowed in 2008...2009...2010.
Shellfinder Shellfinder 56-60, F 11 Answers Oct 16, 2010

Your Response

Cancel

No.... My own husband is a recipient of unemployment benefits. He was laid off by no fault of his own and his former employer's company dissolved. Companies pay into unemployment with their payroll taxes. Why end the benefits? So the politicians can pocket the money that should have gone to the unemployed?

Best Answer

Shure--Cut out all goverment assistance!

Then those with money better be Careful shopping as they would run the risk of getting stabbed for groceries!

Watching men,women &children starve in the streets would become the Norm!

Best Answer

go asked a dumb azz republican

Best Answer

Total employment as a fraction of the population between the 21st and 65th birthdays is still 58.5%. While markedly down from what it was in 2006, 64.5%, 58.5% is still higher than what it was 1950-76. We entered this recession with a greater fraction of adult women working than at any time in US history.



Most of us who lost jobs in 2009-10 won't ever get them back. Getting back to work will require, for many of us, a career change. Going back to work will often mean accepting a paycheck that is 20-40% lower than the ones we pulled in before the current recession. The trouble with the dole is that it encourages one to put off swallowing this very bitter pill.



A team of academics were allowed to get their hands on the database of the state of Pennsylvania's unemployment comp fund for the 1970s and 80s. In 1982, unemployment spiked at 11% nationwide, and could have been several percentage points higher in smokestack Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania database showed how long people were out of work, and how much they were paid when they went back to work. The blunt fact was that those laid off in 1979-82 eventually had to settle for making 25% less on average than they had been making before they were laid off.



For most of my life, unemployment lasted 26 weeks. In 1982, that was temporarily lengthened to 65 weeks. The USA tradition is definitely one of having a clock running. The current eligibility of 99 weeks is an all-time record.



The Feds can borrow very cheaply, thanks to very low interest rates and thanks to the fact that investors prefer to lend to the Feds rather than to private parties who can default. The Feds can then relend the money cheaply to state unemployment funds. Unless the interest rate the Fed charges states is uncomfortably high,



Unemployment benefits should only last 6 months. Further benefits should take the form of zero interest loans from the government. We would pay back those loans by an income tax surcharge. Any balance unpaid at death would be a claim against the decedent's estate.



A lot of of unemployment nowadays is affecting only one half of a marriage. Her pay in a service sector job, plus his unemployment, plus food stamps means that a lot of families are getting by. He's angry and humiliated, and will took out his frustrations at the polls last month. Obama had to learn an object lesson in the politics of disappointment.



I am a bit puzzled that the main form populist discontent with the current state of affairs in the USA has taken is the Tea Party business.

Best Answer

I am sure that no matter what he did, good or bad, he is going to go under the gun. That man cant win any arguement.


I have seen too many signs out there help wanted. Shouldnt bee any signs. I recall those bad years. We took what we could get. Today, tis different?


No men will take it out on their working wives and kids.

Best Answer

This is a really tough question. In a perfect world, unemployment benefits would support a person of family while the person was unemployed through no fault of their own while the person did everything possible to find a job and was willing to take whatever job were available.



I have been unemployed several times in my life. It is never fun or easy. Each time it has happened I have worked hard and faithfully to find a job -- but not any job. I was willing only to take a job that was comparable and commensurate with my experience, capabilities, prior work history, and prior salary. I was not willing to take whatever job was available. Is this reasonable? I don't know, but I do know it is typical of most people.



Unfortunately, in a situation like we have today, companies are not hiring as much as normal. In truth, even though absolute employment has increased somewhat, the rate of unemployment has remained steady or even increased in recent months. When you look at the real rate of unemployment, some estimates place the number in the mid to high teens around 17 percent. This includes all of those who technically are on the unemployment roles are are supposedly looking for work. It also includes those who have for any reason fallen off the unemployment roles or are no longer looking for work.



There is something of a theory that as long as people receive an unemployment check, they will not be willing to take any job and will remain unemployed in hopes of finding a job at least as good as the one they lost. I believe this is true. But when companies are not hiring and the nation is in a recession, and yes we still are in a recession, can we fairly just cut them all off? Probably not. Again unfortunately, Government has never been and never will be a fine instrument -- Government is very blunt and does not deal well in nuances. The ideal might be to deal with every case on an individual basis, evaluate whether and how hard a person is looking and how willing to take any job and reduce or terminate unemployment for those unwilling to act, but continue it for those who are trying hard without success. I don't know how to implement that as Government policy.



Perhaps the answer is to offer a steadily decreasing amount of unemployment once the initial period has been exceeded -- that is, create a negative incentive not to find a job. One argument I have heard and even made in favor of allowing poor immigrant workers to enter the US from Mexico, Central and South America, Asia, and Africa is that they perform work no American will perform. Perhaps a time like now we should send those people home or turn them away at the border and required the long term unemployed to take those jobs instead until the economy recovers.

Best Answer

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I have to say though, Republicans have never wanted to extend benefits to the unemployed. My own state R have voted against it.


I would strongly suggest that everyone remember this at the polls.

Best Answer

The amount of time a person gets unemployment should reflect how long they actually worked at the job. That way those who were working towards a career are properly compensated and those who just worked the few weeks necessary to get unemployment don't get squat.



Welfare should be handled the same way. Not just given to every drug infested single mom that walks in the door. At the very least they should earn their spot.

Best Answer

Sorry.. i am only answering your question because i saw no one does. I am Asian.. And your question is i guess only for those living in US.. goodluck..

Best Answer

Related Questions