This ain't gonna be good:
"By Monday morning tens of thousands of Nevadans and more than one million Americans who rely on unemployment insurance and health benefits will simply lose them."
Printable View
This ain't gonna be good:
"By Monday morning tens of thousands of Nevadans and more than one million Americans who rely on unemployment insurance and health benefits will simply lose them."
^^^ this is actually just the latest development ( or non-development ) in regard to 'permanent' structural unemployment ... or put another way, perpetually extended federal unemployment benefit payments / COBRA subsidies serving as de-facto social welfare benefits for unemployable middle class Americans. These extended unemployment benefits / COBRA subsidies certainly can't be considered as insurance coverage, since the payments made into the unemployment system ( by their employers ) while these people were still working weren't even adequate to cover the cost of then 'normal' 26 weeks of coverage without a COBRA subsidy.
Lots of facts and commentary in the other thread at
There are already efforts underway in Washington to pass an additional 52 week extension of already extended unemployment payments / COBRA subsidies, at an estimated cost exceeding $120 billion for the year. If passed ( I should say WHEN passed - since there is no way this legislation won't be passed by one means or another) this would bring total unemployment check eligibility to 72 ( or 99 ) + 52 = 124 (or 151) weeks.
So if somebody is 59 years old, the best thing that they can now do is request a layoff and 'coast' from 3 years worth of unemployment checks right into Social Security checks !
As mentioned in the other thread, but conspicuously avoided by the Huff Post link, these 'perpetual' extensions of unemployment benefits are allowing both the politicians and the 'unemployable' Americans to avoid facing realities. However, this is made possible by piling yet more newly printed US dollars / US treasury bonds on top of the already record breaking pile ... the effects of which will burden future US taxpayers ( and their children and probably their grandchildren ) with a lower standard of living and fewer economic opportunities.
I actually give Rep Jim Bunning a lot of credit for having the 'balls' to make himself a media target in order to force the issue of the cost consequences of 'perpetual' unemployment benefits - and the associated issue that America has now permanently lost millions of former middle class jobs to foreign countries ( while nothing is being effectively done to restore them ) - and the associated issue that there are now 10 million + unemployed middle class Americans who have essentially zero possibility of maintaining their middle class lifestyles - into the public eye.
Of course, even Rep Bunning's filibuster news coverage is NOT bringing to light the other side of the perpetually extended unemployment benefits equation. In order to attempt to recoup as much money as possible to cover the costs of unemployment benefits, unemployment insurance premium charges to employers are rapidly rising. I have heard that a tripling of these employer charges has taken place in some circumstances for 2010. These increases in employer charges for unemployment insurance premiums are now adding a de-facto $2+ an hour to the employers' cost of employee labor in some circumstances. Not exactly conducive to either small business survival or to the (re) hiring of additional employees.
And ironically, because of the unemployment insurance formula ( which is heavily weighted towards the first $7,000 of employee income regardless of pay rate, but caps maximum dollars per employee irregardless of pay rate), the rising employer's cost of employee labor due to rising unemployment insurance premiums is having a disproportionate effect on employers of near minimum wage unskilled workers.
Viewed from a different angle, the 'perpetual' extension of unemployment benefits is also creating major 'moral hazard' situations. In many circumstances, long term unemployed Americans are financially better off remaining unemployed and collecting benefits based on the pay rate of their old job ... thus making their unemployment check amount greater than or equal to the amount of after-tax earnings possible if they accepted a replacement job in many locations. In turn, this allows many long term unemployed Americans to avoid packing up and moving from their present location to other areas of the country where job opportunities are better ( which in turn lays the groundwork for 'dying' cities like Detroit, where the number of people paying next to nothing in taxes but using public services / collecting social welfare benefits continues to grow ). All of this is counter-productive versus a real economic recovery actually getting off the ground.
~
In the reality based world, unemployment benefits are the only thing that's keeping many Americans from ending up out on the street.
Jim Bunning has no balls. He's a disgusting asshole. He had no problem with running up trillions of dollars of debt for Bush's tax cuts, most of which went to the wealthiest Americans. Now all of a sudden he's worried about where $10 billion is going to come from, that many Americans are depending on just to keep a roof over their heads.
Also, in the reality based world, most of those unemployed, are unemployed because of the financial crisis, not because there was some massive number of businesses leaving the country over the past year.
^^^ even the New York Times disagreees with you ...
(snip)"Call them the new poor: people long accustomed to the comforts of middle-class life who are now relying on public assistance for the first time in their lives — potentially for years to come.
Yet the social safety net is already showing severe strains. Roughly 2.7 million jobless people will lose their unemployment check before the end of April unless Congress approves the Obama administration’s proposal to extend the payments, according to the Labor Department.(snip)
(snip)"Every downturn pushes some people out of the middle class before the economy resumes expanding. Most recover. Many prosper. But some economists worry that this time could be different. An unusual constellation of forces — some embedded in the modern-day economy, others unique to this wrenching recession — might make it especially difficult for those out of work to find their way back to their middle-class lives.
Labor experts say the economy needs 100,000 new jobs a month just to absorb entrants to the labor force. With more than 15 million people officially jobless, even a vigorous recovery is likely to leave an enormous number out of work for years.(snip)
(snip)Some labor experts say the basic functioning of the American economy has changed in ways that make jobs scarce — particularly for older, less-educated people like Ms. Eisen, who has only a high school diploma.
Large companies are increasingly owned by institutional investors who crave swift profits, a feat often achieved by cutting payroll. The declining influence of unions has made it easier for employers to shift work to part-time and temporary employees. Factory work and even white-collar jobs have moved in recent years to low-cost countries in Asia and Latin America. Automation has helped manufacturing cut 5.6 million jobs since 2000 — the sort of jobs that once provided lower-skilled workers with middle-class paychecks.
“American business is about maximizing shareholder value,” said Allen Sinai, chief global economist at the research firm Decision Economics. “You basically don’t want workers. You hire less, and you try to find capital equipment to replace them.”(snip)
(snip)Traditionally, three sectors have led the way out of recession: automobiles, home building and banking. But auto companies have been shrinking because strapped households have less buying power. Home building is limited by fears about a glut of foreclosed properties. Banking is expanding, but this seems largely a function of government support that is being withdrawn.
At the same time, the continued bite of the financial crisis has crimped the flow of money to small businesses and new ventures, which tend to be major sources of new jobs.(snip)
(snip)"By the early 1980s, gas and rent strained their finances. So she took a job as a quality assurance clerk at a factory that made aircraft parts. It paid $13.50 an hour and had health insurance.
When the company moved to Mexico in the early 1990s, Ms. Eisen quickly found a job at a travel agency. When online booking killed that business, she got the job at the beauty salon equipment company. It paid $13.25 an hour, with an annual bonus — enough for presents under the Christmas tree.
But six years ago, her husband took a fall at work and then succumbed to various ailments — diabetes, liver disease, high blood pressure — leaving him confined to the couch. Not until 2008 did he secure his disability check.
And now they find themselves in this desert of joblessness, her paycheck replaced by a $702 unemployment check every other week. She received 14 weeks of benefits after she lost her job, and then a seven-week extension.
For most of October through December 2008, she received nothing, as she waited for another extension. The checks came again, then ran out in September 2009. They were restored by an extension right before Christmas. (snip)
(snip)Local job listings are just as mysterious. On a bulletin board at the county-financed ProPath Business and Career Services Center, many are written in jargon hinting of accounting or computers.
“Nothing I’m qualified for,” Ms. Eisen says. “When you can’t define what it is, that’s a pretty good indication.”
Her counselor has a couple of possibilities — a cashier at a supermarket and a night desk job at a motel.
“I’ll e-mail them,” Ms. Eisen promises. “I’ll tell them what a shining example of humanity I am.”(snip)
from
The 'gold foil hat' crowd definitely agrees with the NY Times that the basic functioning of the American economy has changed. Per the link's example of the aircraft parts company moving to Mexico in the 1990's, and the link's statement of capital equipment replacing skilled labor, over the past 20 years US federal and state gov'ts have continued to impose new mandated 'costs of doing business' which have incentivized the 'permanent' elimination of US jobs that actually produced things of value. In turn, new jobs were created in the so-called service sector ... which basically amounted to extracting an income by absorbing a percentage of someone else's spending - from real estate / car sales / private dance sales commissions, to loan / mortgage origination fees, to dog walking / lawn mowing / burger flipping / beauty salons. But the fundamental dependence on other people's spending made all of these jobs vulnerable to ( surprise, surprise ) the day when there were too few other people still spending ( or able to spend ).
The dirty little secret of course is that, at the 'headwaters' of other people's spending, there must be actual creation of new wealth to be spent. As federal and state gov'ts increased mandatory employee benefit costs, increased environmental compliance costs, increased product liability / litigation costs, increased energy costs, etc. those US businesses and industries that actually created new wealth via mining, manufacturing, refining etc. were given stronger and stronger economic incentive to transplant facilities outside the USA or outsource jobs outside the USA, technologically automate US jobs out of existance, or simply succumb to foreign competition / sell out / close their doors.
From one bizarre viewpoint those US businesses and industries that create additional real value are akin to normal humans who create blood. Following the same analogy, those US service sector businesses that depended on a percentage of other people's spending are akin to vampires. And any vampire will tell you that the one thing that can never be allowed to happen is for the percentage of normal humans to fall so low versus the percentage of vampires that the vampires are forced to start feeding off each other. Unfortunately, this is the point that the US economy has now devolved to ... such that the absence of a sufficient number of real wealth creating US businesses and industries ( and the resulting shortage of 'blood' supply ) is now causing the service sector businesses and industries to starve to death permanently.
The US gov't is now attempting to replace the lost creation of new wealth with the printing of new money / borrowing of additional money from foreign lenders. In the case of money printing, this is analogous to 'watering down' the existing 'blood' supply. In the case of additional borrowing via issuance of new US treasury bonds / state muni bonds, this amounts to borrowing 'blood' from foreigners who will indeed try to eventually collect their 'pound of flesh' in return.
And as to the 'perpetual' extension of unemployment benefits, while this allows some of the vampires to continue feeding on a reduced platelet diet ( i.e. structurally unemployed service sector workers ), it indeed is doing so by directly sucking more 'blood' from those 'normal human' US workers / taxpayers who are still creating real wealth ! This of course brings us to the final chapter of the analogy ... i.e. that government is the 'king of the vampires'. If the gov't attempts to suck too much 'blood' from the remaining productive 'normal human' US workers / taxpayers, they will be weakened to the point where their incentive to continue working / paying taxes i.e. providing more 'blood supply' will be lost.
" The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money " - Margaret Thatcher
~
and Mike Shedlock just took the NY Times article one step farther ...
(snip)Let's take a look at the employment situation and prospects for jobs starting with the cold hard numbers as they exist today. Please consider the following grim unemployment statistics.
•14.8 million unemployed
•3.8 million want a job but are not considered unemployed because they have not looked in the past four weeks
•8.3 million have a part-time job, but want a full time job
Total that up and you will see there are 26.9 million people who are unemployed or underemployed.
Bear in mind the above numbers do not count self-employed real estate agents without a sale for months, salesmen on commission only, those selling trinkets on Ebay and many other ventures where income has precipitously plunged, sometimes to zero.
Also note that part-time job workers for even a few hours a week, are still considered employed.
Of the unemployed, 6.3 million have been out of work 27 weeks or longer. The average duration of unemployment is 30.2 weeks.
Those mind-numbing statistics are straight from the BLS Employment Situation Report For January 2010.
Unemployment Projections
Bernanke is only fooling himself if he thinks this situation will turn around soon.I believe we are going to see the unemployment rate above 9% all the way out to 2015 even if there is no double-dip recession.
I made those projections in Mish Unemployment Projections Through 2020 and covered it again in Mapping Unemployment - You Make The Call - Downloadable Spreadsheet.
The Fed has given new unemployment projections that I believe are from Mars, and when I get a chance I will try and map them to show just what it will take to reach the Fed's targets.
Millions of Unemployed Face Years Without Jobs
26.9 million is such a huge number that it is hard to equate to. Yet those are real people, many whose lives are permanently destroyed. Moreover, If my projections are correct, many of those jobs are not coming back for years, and most likely ever.
The New York Times puts some names and faces of the "New Poor" in an gut-wrenching four page article Millions of Unemployed Face Years Without Jobs."(snip)
[ references to NY Times article - sic ]
(snip)"There are many more stories like that in the article. Please take a look. More importantly, play that story out 20 million times because that is what is happening in the real world.
Job Growth
Here is a key snip about job growth from the article "During expansion in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, the number of private-sector jobs increased about 3.5 percent a year. During expansions in the 1980s and ’90s, jobs grew just 2.4 percent annually. And during the last decade, job growth fell to 0.9 percent annually."
There are 138 million employed. If the economy added 1% a year, that would be 1.38 million workers a year. Yet, it takes 100,000 to 125,000 jobs a month to keep up with birth rate plus immigration.
Thus it takes 1.2 million to 1.5 million jobs a year just to hold the unemployment rate steady!
Questions For Pollyannas
•Think the unemployment rate is going to drop rapidly?
•Is another housing boom coming?
•Is commercial real estate going to be the savior?
•Think we can sustainably create 200,000 jobs a month?
•Is this a faith based economy where wishes are fishes?
Wishes Aren't Fishes
I do not think the economy will create 200,000 jobs a month given the sorry backdrop of debt, deleveraging, and poor housing fundamentals, but even if wishes were fishes and that many jobs magically appeared, the unemployment rate would only drop by 1% or so a year.
That backdrop should help put union whining over not getting an 8% raise into perspective.
In case you missed it, please consider San Francisco Infested with Union Parasites and Pestilence; Outrage Over Transit Worker Pay. [ at - sic ]
It is hard to have anything but contempt for transit workers moaning about not getting an 8% raise when there are 26.9 million unemployed or underemployed people who would gladly do anything on the premise "Any job is a good job".
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
"(snip)
Im sorry but also considering AIG is looking for another damn bailout after getting $182 billion?
How many in congress would cut their own benifits for help other Americans?
I am sick to death of people bitching and whining about entitlements. We pay into these programs all our lives ie Social Security etc. The ONLY time any of those funds should be tapped is in situations like this. But no Congress pulls funds from Social Security for all kinds of random crap. If those in congress were responsible with the money they were given we would have enough money to help our own citzens. They are the ones blowing our money!
This is my situation right now. I took unemployment for a few months last year and it saved my ass. Then I started working and didn't need it, even though I was highly underemployed and barely scraping by. Now, that work is done for and I've had to apply again. I have found some more work..again, work I am highly overqualified to do, and I will be paid significantly less than I'm worth, but I'm taking it.
Once that runs out (6 week contract), if I do not get benefits again, I will lose my house, within a few months. I am retired from stripping and have physical and mental reasons why I cannot go back.
I am an honest, hardworking, tax paying individual. How many people are going to be in the situation you outlined Melonie? So close to social security benefits already so that your plan will work?
Last I heard, most of us aren't 59-ish, and most people also wouldn't qualify for 3 years LIVING wage through unemployment.
Its actually very tough to live off an unemployment check. Why don't you have any compassion for people just trying to get by?
^^^ since you are personalizing this, I do have compassion for anyone like yourself who is willing to accept work that you are really overqualified for. I also have respect for anyone like yourself who demonstrates a good work ethic and reports their income / pays their taxes. Under those circumstances there is absolutely no objection to taking advantage of unemployment benefits that you ( or more precisely your employer ) has paid money to fund.
Where the problem comes in is that you are arguably in the minority. Increasingly, a whole lot of unemployed Americans are choosing to remain unemployed rather than accepting work that they are overqualified for ... simply because the equivalent cash value of extended unemployment benefits plus subsidized COBRA plus avoided transportation and other costs of working exceeds the after-tax earnings they could bring home by accepting available jobs.
I would also add that even if such people worked for 20 years, there is no way that their (employer's) contribution to the unemployment insurance fund would come remotely close to paying the actual costs of providing these benefits for 72-99 and now probably 124-151 weeks ! In point of fact, the costs of these extended unemployment benefits must be borne by (future) taxpayers. Thus in point of fact, these extended unemployment benefits and COBRA subsidies constitute a new social welfare program in everything but name.
As to your rhetorical comment about (American) people 'just trying to get by', there is no constitutional right to living in your own house, driving a recent model car, having all the food you need, having ample heat and air conditioning, having a flat screen TV with 100+ cable channels etc. In point of fact, the actual standard of living of many Americans is not sustainable because it cannot be paid for based on today's 'global' value of their labors. This applies to unskilled, relatively uneducated 'poor' Americans whose 'global' value of labor is on the order of $2-3 per hour. And lately this also applies to certain skilled, relatively educated 'working class' Americans whose 'global' value of labor is on the order of $10 an hour. Thanks to easy credit and/or 'compassionate' social welfare programs, both of these groups were able to achieve an artificially high standard of living in recent years. However, that artificially high standard of living was never sustainable in the long term ... and with recent economic events may not be sustainable in the short term.
So far, both these groups of Americans has been able to avoid facing a day of 'global' reckoning ... thanks to social welfare benefits and lately extended unemployment benefits, lately by mortgage foreclosure moratoriums etc., which must be paid for by still employed US taxpayers, and also by their children. Put bluntly, the future economic opportunities of the next generation of Americans is being compromised in order to maintain an artificially high standard of living for many of today's Americans ... many of whom are taking full advantage of the 'compassion' of their still employed taxpaying neighbors.
Essentially the same situation applies to both Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. Where these were both originally conceived to be stand-alone programs - and economically self-sustaining based on the principle that separate taxation thus separate revenues would be exclusively used to fund future benefit payouts, in point of fact both programs are Ponzi schemes ! From the beginning, surplus Social Security tax revenues have been 'swept' into the gov'ts general tax revenue fund and immediately spent ... with the Social Security administration receiving pieces of paper constituting a claim against tax revenue collected by future US income taxes in exchange for that surplus cash. States have played similar accounting 'games' with surplus unemployment insurance premium money in past years. Thus the reality of the situation is that neither of these programs was ever actually self-funding or actually separate from general gov't taxation and spending.Quote:
We pay into these programs all our lives ie Social Security etc. The ONLY time any of those funds should be tapped is in situations like this. But no Congress pulls funds from Social Security for all kinds of random crap
Also, there is another tidbit of economic reality ... that the total dollar value of all of the Social Security tax revenues collected from a worker ( and their employer ) after 40 years of work is just about able to pay for THREE YEARS worth of standard Social Security retirement benefits. The cost of Social Security benefits for the likely 12+ additional years the retired person will live to collect will essentially fall on other Americans who pay income tax. Thus the argument that 'we paid Social Security taxes for 40 years' is only meaningful when the total AMOUNTS paid over that 40 year period are measured against the cost of annual Social Security benefits.
I haven't read your entire response Melonie, but yes, my situation is very personal and highly emotional right now, so I am certainly biased. I've never ever in my life accepted any public benefit, aside from a few months of unemployment benefits last year (which I paid into along with my employer of course)***. My parents and I came to this country without a penny and not knowing any english. They worked for everything they have and taught me to do the same.
And while there is a large "welfare class" in this country, there has to be a better way of auditing system abusers than punishing everyone, including honest Americans in need? Know what I mean?
I actually have some great ideas for how to audit groups of people living the welfare "lifetime" dream..but those ideas are potentially incendiary and would cause some flaming and fights.
***By saying I paid into the benefits, I mean the federal stimulus extention that I applied for. My previous employer funded benefits ran out because they laid me off 3 months into my job. My employer before that was international and didn't pay into unemp., and the one before that...well I should have $15K sitting in my fund from them but Texas Unemp. refuses to give me those benefits for some reason.
Hence, any future benefits I'll be getting (probably 2 weeks worth, a HUGE whopping ~$700!) will be somewhat funded by the federal taxes I will be paying over the course of my life. ;)
^^^ I hear you loud and clear.
Unfortunately, as states run out of money, and also run out of the ability to borrow more money, and also run out of the political plausibility of further increasing income taxes on state residents who still have decent jobs / paychecks, at some point the large 'welfare class' is going to be forced to take a 'pay cut' ! The same will be true of the 'perpetually unemployed'. At that point the flaming and fighting will probably NOT be confined to an internet BBS ! And to make matters worse, this is likely to happen at the very same time that states are firing police and firefighters !
This does make some sense. If a family has a certain lifestyle that they have adapted to, it might be more beneficial for the worker to continue with unemployment benefits as long as they have them..while they continue to search for a job that will actually pay their bills.
And have you ever been on unemployment before? Its seldom enough money to live on, and, barring some kind of magical Obama administration funded perpetuity unemployment...it DOES run out.
But yes, if the only job options I had were minimum wage jobs, I would continue to take unemployment if I qualified. Why? Well, the 40 hours I'd spend breaking my back could be better used networking, applying, going to job fairs, and/or attending professional training that could help me score a better gig.
My unemp. benefits gave me $390 a week, and the tax is not already taken out. Minimum wage, full time, is $290 a week in Texas, pre-tax. Why wouldn't a professional degreed person with a lot to offer make a fiscal decision and continue to search for better work?
That's just logical and no one is going to give a shit about the government and the rich saving some money over their own livelihood.
This is obviously logical and reasonable ... up to a point. But at some point, i.e. after the 26 weeks worth of unemployment benefit checks that a worker ( and their employer ) have actually paid for via past contributions to the state unemployment fund, if there still aren't any job opportunities to be found that take advantage of that person's particular area of expertise or pay sufficiently well to provide a certain lifestyle to which that person had become accustomed, a 'reality attack' is in order. That 'reality attack' may mean that the person acknowledges that their particular area of expertise is no longer marketable ( in the local area anyhow ) ... which in turn leads to a tree of decisions about relocation to find work in their particular area of expertise, or acceptance of a lower paying job that IS available in the local area (and adjusting their standard of living accordingly). My point of contention is that 126-151 weeks worth of extended unemployment benefits indefinitely postpones such a 'reality attack' ... and does so at the expense of a slower economic recovery as well as fewer / poorer economic opportunities for future Americans.Quote:
But yes, if the only job options I had were minimum wage jobs, I would continue to take unemployment if I qualified. Why? Well, the 40 hours I'd spend breaking my back could be better used networking, applying, going to job fairs, and/or attending professional training that could help me score a better gig.
My unemp. benefits gave me $390 a week, and the tax is not already taken out. Minimum wage, full time, is $290 a week in Texas, pre-tax. Why wouldn't a professional degreed person with a lot to offer make a fiscal decision and continue to search for better work?
To add: and by lifestyle..I mean, people will fight and claw to keep what they got. Its very hard for a father and husband to tell the wife and 2 kids..we're going to have to foreclose the house, sell the cars, and move into a 1 bedroom apartment in the ghetto. It still happens every day...but people and families will always be more concerned about themselves than worried about future taxpayers or their neighbors.
I don't think unemployment benefits should be given in perpetuity..but given the economic crisis, how does a few more months chance hurt? Aside from the future tax implications.
^^^ because it only 'kicks the can down the road' ... and makes solving the real economic problems more difficult when they finally must be faced. It avoids facing the fact that many types of former American jobs that offered decent pay rates will NEVER return. It avoids facing the fact that certain states / regions in America have established policies that have permanently driven busineeses and jobs away, while other states / regions in America offer far better economic / job opportunities. It avoids facing the fact that many people who were allowed to 'buy' their own house based on zero down and interest only mortgage payments for the first couple of years should never have been allowed to buy that house in the first place ... and shouldn't be allowed to continue living in that house free of charge at the expense of banks failing. It avoids facing the fact that a typical unskilled American 'career welfare recipient' enjoys a far higher standard of living than unskilled people in other countries working their butts off for $2-3 an hour !
You don't know that. You're just making that up based on your ideology, just like you do with everything else. You're unable to comprehend, that right now, there aren't jobs available and many people are dependent on those benefits to keep a roof over their head.
Apparently you don't understand the concept of insurance.
You have no understanding of how things work in the real world. According to your logic, Haiti and Ethiopia should be economic superpowers and Germany and Japan should be impoverished countries, since the prevailing wage rates in Germany and Japan are probably 20 times as high as Haiti and Ethiopia.
No, you're just stating ideological nonsense, that it's a bad thing for government to help people. Why do you even care? You don't live here anymore.
Re: lifestyle adjustments. Americans have already been making those adjustments over the past 2 years and will continue to make them.
I am using myself as an example because I have the specific figures, but I am not alone and know many others in this predicament, I personally know.
I went from making $1,000-10,000 a week stripping and in other various professional endeavours.
That dried up, so I took a paycut and was making about $1,000 a week.
Got laid off, had $390 a week for a few months to help me out. That barely actually only pays the mortgage. I can't get a mortgage bailout due to my circumstances, without getting into uneeded detail. So I sell at a loss...selling means having to come up with a certain amount of money to make the place sellable..a couple of grand put in for repairs, etc. Don't have that, can't save any money on $390 a week.
Most honest Americans will do what they can to prevent foreclosure and bankruptcy. That's all people care about, taking care of themselves and their own.
People ARE adjusting to the recession. You can't punish us because of the few people taking advantage of government aid.
That's based on the assumption that the economy will never recover and that all of the lost jobs are permanently lost jobs.
Why should a professional, who spent many years educating himself, and many more years working up the ranks in his profession, resort to having to take a minimum wage job serving burgers at Jack In the Box..when they can take advantage of a few more months government unemployment in order to receive a certification that might make him very much currently employable?
Check out this program that's starting in Texas to train people on "green" jobs:
http://www.coolaustinjobs.com/aboutRenew.html
The economy WILL recover.
well, obviously this is the reason that millions around the world are lined up for legal immigration opportunities, and millions more don't bother with the legal immigration process.Quote:
That's why people want to come to America lady!!!
Yes America's 'minimum standard of living' provided via social welfare benefits while sitting at home / working under the table is higher than the standard of living available to unskilled people working full time jobs in many other countries. But this boost in 'minimum standard of living' for unskilled / structurally unemployed Americans comes at the expense of reducing the standard of living for higher skilled hard working Americans.
At some point, and for some reason, yes it will. However, many are betting ( figuratively and literally ) that things will get worse before they get better.Quote:
The economy WILL recover.
^^^ well, a 30 day 'reprieve' has just been approved in Washington ...
This sounds identical to my story. I too am a retired dancer who can't return to club dancing due to physical problems (namely arthritis, and at 39 my days of being a big moneymaker are long behind me). The last few years I worked for a railroad and they laid off people. The only people they laid off were those with college degrees because "you'll find another job". The only problem is two years later I HAVEN'T found another job, and not for lack of trying. I have experience in several fields along with two degrees and I'm lucky to get interviews for jobs I qualified for. I even apply at minimum wage jobs, and get the I am overqualified response. Of course I am, but what else can I do? If it wasn't for my family helping me out and digging into my savings (which I was saving to buy a house) along with a severance package and unemployment (both long gone) I'd be on the street. I've tried job training too but I am immediately rejected because I have a Masters. I've even considered going back to school to become a teacher, but here they are laying off teachers, including special ed, the so called "safe from economics" field. The only solace is that I didn't buy a house because I would have lost that and the money I would have put down on it.
I resent those who put unemployment in the same category as welfare. It's not, it's for people who worked. Btw, here in Illinois single people don't qualify for any social programs except some food programs, and even those are skimpy (like $25 a month).
I absolutely agree with you that NORMAL unemployment checks have been at least partially funded by employee and employer payments of insurance premiums to a state unemployment insurance fund 'program' ... and as such, generally represent an unemployed worker receiving an unemployment check that has been at least partially funded by themselves and by their employer.Quote:
I resent those who put unemployment in the same category as welfare. It's not, it's for people who worked
However, when you stop talking about normal unemployment checks under state insurance programs, and start talking about 'extended' unemployment checks under the new federal program, the link between an employee / employer paying insurance premiums against which unemployment checks are later drawn is broken. Under the 'extended' unemployment benefits, neither the employee or employer has paid one dollar towards funding these 'extended' benefits. In fact these 'extended' unemployment checks are currently paid for via borrowed money ( = newly issued treasury bonds), which translates into future US taxpayers having to pay back this borrowed money with interest over the course of the next 20+ years. Or put another way, 'extended' unemployment checks paid out now represent an ongoing burden for all future US businesses and taxpayers in the future.
From a purely economic standpoint, receiving gov't money without having contributed to the 'program' from which the money is now being paid out has a very simple description ... it's called a social welfare benefit ! Thus from that purely economic standpoint, there is extremely little difference between collecting welfare checks and collecting 'extended' unemployment checks.
You got to tailor your resume information to what you think they are looking for. You don't HAVE to tell everyone you have a Masters degree or even a Bachelor's. Sure, they are going to treat you like an ignorant dog but ya take their money until you find someone who is interested in the additional training.
Then ya don't burn your bridges with the current one, you simply say you found new opportunities and wish the best for them. If they ask more - ya tell em... with a grin on your face.
And the money is coming from where now? Right, oh i see the treasury is just printing it up.
Just another thing in a mile long list that means the next President starting in 2013, won't be a Obama on a 2nd term, it won't be Romney, and it won't be Hillary, it will be a bankruptcy attorney of some type, probably one of those guys you see on the billboards driving down the highway.
Also, fluency in Mandarin will be a real plus.
^^^ trying to stay within the 50% economic content 'rule' ...
well, technically, the treasury prints up new US Treasury Bonds. The FED prints up the new money out of thin air and loans it to Wall St. 'member' banks at 0% interest. The Wall St. 'member' banks then purchase the newly printed US Treasury Bonds with the newly printed dollars and pocket the interest rate spread ! The treasury then immediately spends the money it received from the sale of the newly printed US Treasury bonds on 'unfunded' programs such as 'extended' unemployment checks. And the US taxpayer gets to foot the bill not only for the repayment of the newly printed US Treasury bond principal, but also for the interest payments !Quote:
And the money is coming from where now? Right, oh i see the treasury is just printing it up.
By playing this little '3 card monty' shuffle, the US Treasury can avoid a direct financial report to the world that the 'US money supply' ( M1 ) is being inflated by freshly printed US dollars ... since newly issued bonds technically don't count towards the M1 calculation. But as you indirectly point out, the Chinese ( and Japanese and Arabs and anybody else holding a mountain of US dollar denominated treasury / agency / corporate bonds ) see exactly what's taking place ... and are quietly divesting themselves of US dollar denominated holdings while the US dollar is still 'worth something' in terms of international exchange rate / global purchasing power.
But yes in point of fact the 'extended' unemployment checks are being paid for by the sale of freshly printed US Treasury bonds ... which represent a claim against future US tax revenues over the course of the next couple of decades. And the 'gold foil hat' crowd would tell you that, at the rate new US Treasury bonds are now being printed, in a very few years 1 out of every 2 tax dollars collected will have to go towards repayment of these US Treasury bonds ( along with repayment of state issued municipal bonds, along with repayment of social security issued special bonds etc.). This in turn will lead to either a doubling of current tax rates or the cutting in half of US gov't spending if the US dollar's global 'purchasing power' remains the same, or debasement of the US dollar's exchange rate ( = $6.00 a gallon gasoline, $2,400 gold, $15 for a Big Mac meal etc.), or the US 'defaulting' on its bond debts ( = essentially zero future credit ).
One need look no further than Greece, or for that matter to US colleges, to see how that scenario is likely to play out !!!
(snip)"BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) - Students carried out raucous rallies on college campuses nationwide Thursday in protests against deep education cuts that turned violent as demonstrators threw punches and ice chunks in Wisconsin and blocked university gates and smashed car windows in California.
At least 15 protesters were detained by University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee police after as many as 150 students gathered at the student union then moved to an administrative building to deliver petitions to the school chancellor. (snip)
(snip)"The school was among dozens of nationwide campuses hit with marches, strikes, teach-ins and walkouts in what was being billed as the March 4th National Day of Action for Public Education.
In Northern California, rowdy protesters blocked major gates at two universities and smashed the windows of a car.
Protesters at the University of California, Santa Cruz surrounded the car while its uninjured driver was inside. Earlier, demonstrators blocked campus gates.
University provost David Kliger said there were reports of protesters carrying clubs and knives, but Santa Cruz police Capt. Steve Clark could not confirm those reports."(snip)
from
Let me try to make this point in a way that will get the attention of the most Dollar Den readers. Because 'extended' unemployment checks have not been previously funded by employer / employee insurance payments toward an 'unemployment fund', they in fact constitute a new form of social welfare spending by the US gov't. Because the US gov't has a limited ability to immediately raise income taxes ( they're waiting until 1 / 1 / 2011 to do that !!! ), gov't spending to fund 'extended' unemployment benefit checks must effectively compete directly with other gov't spending programs ... including college tuition assistance.
Because there is an ultimate limit to the tax rates that can be imposed on Americans who are still working, there is simply no way in the real world for the US gov't to give additional Americans 'something for nothing' without affecting other Americans who are already receiving 'something for nothing' from the US gov't. Thus the more money that the gov't decides to give away via new programs ( i.e. 'extended' unemployment benefits, first time homebuyer grants, cash for clunkers etc.) the less money the gov't can continue to give away via existing programs ( i.e. tuition assistance, medicaid, alternative energy subsidies etc.). The gov't is now beginning to make decisions in regard to the 'cutting' of existing benefits ... arguably based mostly on the political 'clout' ( or lack thereof ) of the affected group of beneficiaries. Thus, arguably, the American economy will soon reach the point where the would-be beneficiaries of each and every gov't giveaway program threatened with cuts will 'take to the streets' to defend their own particular social welfare benefit ... at the expense of someone else's different social welfare benefit.
~