Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 131

Thread: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    (snip)"From the WSJ:

    On Thursday, Senate Democrats failed to secure the 60 votes needed to break off a GOP-led filibuster. Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) voted with Republicans in a 57-41 roll call. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said this third vote on the matter would be the last, allowing the Senate to move on to modest legislation cutting taxes for small businesses.

    The collapse of the wide-ranging legislation means that a total of 1.3 million unemployed Americans will have lost their assistance by the end of this week. It will also leave a number of states with large budget holes they had expected to fill with federal cash to help with Medicaid costs.

    Up in the air are other provisions that were to be included in the legislation, including some $50 billion in new taxes designed to help offset its cost. They included an increase in levies paid by private investment groups, including hedge-fund firms and real-estate partnerships, a provision long sought by some Democrats that will likely return another day.

    Under a program initially enacted last year—which expired June 2—jobless workers could receive up to 99 weeks of aid, including 26 weeks of basic assistance provided by states plus longer-term federal payments. The Labor Department estimates that the long-term unemployed, meaning those out of a job for at least six months, make up 46% of all jobless workers in the U.S.


    And like every other stimulus program, there are those who focus on possible cons from the program end...

    There are economic risks in ending benefits. Workers receiving them tend to funnel money back into the economy immediately, helping prop up demand and jobs.

    In addition, said Harvard economist Lawrence Katz, if workers are unable to find work and no longer eligible for unemployment benefits, some will turn to other government programs, such as disability and Social Security. "If you're really concerned about the long-term deficit, you should be really concerned about the long-term unemployed," Mr. Katz said.


    and pros...

    Other economists argue that extended benefits have played a part in keeping people out of the labor force. "There's a very large body of research that says that more generous benefits and benefits that last longer…encourage people to stay out of work longer," said Bruce Meyer, an economist and public policy professor at the University of Chicago.

    James Sherk, a labor economics analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, said that while it could be argued that the benefits made available last year were too extensive, cutting off workers who expected to receive the full 99 weeks of benefits isn't ideal either. "You don't sort of pull the rug out from someone halfway through," he said.


    In our view, what will happen is that the 1.3 million who had gotten used to receiving benefits (and for whom we certainly feel sorry, as once again expectations and reality under the current administration diverge in a dramatic fashion) and had no desire to look for work, will immediately flood back into the labor force to find some job, any job, that pays even remotely as well as what the government did. What this means is that the total labor force (which incidentally dropped by 322,000 From April to May) of 154.393 million, is about to grow by at least 1.3 million, and as much as 2 million, in July. And since census employment peaked, and the number of employed will stay flat (at best) at 139.420 million, the expansion in the total labor force, will increase the unemployment rate by almost 1% in just a month, growing from 9.7% in May to 10.5% in July. That number will be reported in late August.

    But by then the sequel to the Great Depression v2 movie will be playing in every theater across the land, and this number will be the least of our worries."(snip)

    from


    I'm really at a loss as to what to make of this, but the following facts are inescapable ...

    Dumping 2 million+ long term unemployed off the federal extended unemployment benefits program will cause a significant increase in the official gov't U1 unemployment statistc

    Dumping 2 million+ long term unemployed off the federal extended unemployment benefits program will reduce annual federal deficit spending by some 60 billion dollars.

    Dumping 2 million+ long term unemployed off the federal extended unemployment benefits program will increase personal bankruptcy filings, will increase foreclosures / short sales etc. by those long term unemployed ( i.e. an acknowledgement that some number are permanently 'unemployable' ).

    It remains to be seen how many of these long term unemployed will then add to their state's deficit by signing up for welfare / medicaid / disability etc. This will obviously make budget shortfalls worse in states with the highest unemployment rates and most generous welfare / medicaid / social welfare benefit offerings.

    It is also possible, absent a weekly ~$300 unemployment check, that some number of these long term unemployed will opt to accept whatever sort of jobs are locally available at whatever market based pay rate is available, that some number of these long term unemployed will opt to relocate to a different city / state where economic conditions are better, etc.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-27-2010 at 11:48 AM.

  2. #2
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    It will definitely be for the worse in almost every respect. Wait and see.

    Perhaps they'll overturn this in an emergency move. There definitely will be more emergencies than previously.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    ^^^ not wanting to swing too far toward the political side of the economic issue, but ...

    The stated reason that this latest attempted vote to extend federal emergency unemployment benefits beyond the 99 week limit failed was that certain senators enacted 'Pay-Go' requirements to fund the additional $60 billion dollars ( or whatever ) in federal spending necessary to pay for those extended benefits. Complying with 'Pay-Go' would have involved senators having to vote to cut spending on existing programs by $60 billion, or having to vote to increase taxes by $60 billion, or some combination of the two. Apparently there are now a significant number of senators and representatives who are extremely concerned that they are caught between a 'rock and a hard place' i.e. voting to cut social welfare program spending would piss off their existing constituents, while voting for a tax increase would provide ammunition for their opponent, in the upcoming election.

  4. #4
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    There will be no jobs. There will be shootings. (Problem is they tend to shoot the wrong people IMO.)

  5. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    ^^^ well, the US congress has left for the holiday weekend without passing an 'extender'. Thus about 1.3 million Americans will find their unemployment checks stopping in the next couple of weeks.

    However, the dirty little secret in this regard is that, once the federally funded unemployment checks stop, many of these long term unemployed will instead become 'wards' of their particular states i.e welfare, medicaid, section 8 housing etc. This is additional bad news for states with high unemployment rates as well as 'generous' social welfare benefits - like California, Illinois, New York etc. - or should I say the taxpayers in these states, who now will have less help from federal taxpayers in footing the bill for this 'generosity' !

  6. #6
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Once all these various governments start feeling enough pain, then national policy on international trade will be reviewed.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,037
    Thanks
    1,891
    Thanked 5,124 Times in 3,086 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    I am unemployed and my checks have long ended. I will say this, people will take what they can, but these places will not hire people like me. The whole "take anything" is a myth. I know, I've tried these jobs and they reject me. They don't want a college educated professional in these jobs, they want unskilled or teens. The fact is the Republicans have proved to me they don't care about the poor (not that they ever did) and the Democrats have no backbone. I don't know what the answer is because in Ilinois I don't qualify for any assistance because I don't have kids (also a myth that those on unemployment will take welfare). There are no jobs because other countries stole them. Whether one wants to blame the unions or the corporations (I blame both) that's the reality.

  8. #8
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    There are no jobs because other countries stole them. Whether one wants to blame the unions or the corporations (I blame both) that's the reality
    Don't forget that the federal and Illinois state gov'ts also contributed to jobs leaving your state. Every mandated employee benefit cost, every tax increase, every coal fired power plant being 'ordered' to shut down, every 'questionable' state DOL ruling going against an employer, every new pollution control regulation, every state minimum wage increase etc. provided more economic justification for Illinois employers ( or California employers, or New York employers etc. ) to outsource, relocate offshore, or automate jobs out of existance.

    There is a basic element of economic competitiveness involved that cannot be avoided in today's global economy. And right now China's just increased minimum wage is now ~75 US CENTS an hour - China's coal fired power costs 1/3rd or less the cost of US power, China's mandated employee benefit costs, worker safety costs, and environmental compliance costs are 1/10th or less than their US counterparts.

    As to potential employers turning down overqualified college educated applicants for 'menial' jobs, from the employer's point of view they are being 'defensive'. Overqualified applicants will be the first to leave two seconds after a better opportunity presents itself. Overqualified applicants will also be the first to recognize a DOL or OSHA violation, or other grounds for a lawsuit, comp claim, or other action against the employer. Thus hiring an overqualified applicant can be viewed by the employer as exposing themselves to a higher 'risk factor' than hiring an applicant who is weaker of mind but stronger of back.

    However, on the flip side, there is now a fair body of anecdotal evidence that the gov'ts 'compassion' in providing 99 weeks worth of unemployment checks has motivated a significant number of unemployed people to REMAIN unemployed. The reason of course is that in most states the effective pay rate of unemployment benefits is $10-$12 an hour ... whereas the available pay rate for available jobs in the same state may the same $10-$12 an hour or less. Now the available jobs in, say North Dakota or Wyoming ( with a ~3% unemployment rate) may be $16-$20 an hour ... but the potential 'necessity' of moving to North Dakota or Wyoming in order to find 'decent paying work' in such 'undesireable' industries as mining or oil drilling has yet to sink in for the vast majority of long term unemployed.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-02-2010 at 01:46 PM.

  9. #9
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Most of these jobs, they are looking for the "perfect" candidate. Already jobs are flooded with hundreds if not thousands of applications/resumes. What is the big complaint? "I cannot find someone who is qualified enough in all these applications wahhhh wahhhh wahhhhhhhh!" How can an accountant go say "Hey, I'm goin to drill oil!" The company is not going to hire them!

    Maybe the soothsayers were right all along, because I am gambling there are going to be some monumental amazing unheard of changes coming to this country in 2012 if this shit keeps going on.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,037
    Thanks
    1,891
    Thanked 5,124 Times in 3,086 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Don't forget that the federal and Illinois state gov'ts also contributed to jobs leaving your state. Every mandated employee benefit cost, every tax increase, every coal fired power plant being 'ordered' to shut down, every 'questionable' state DOL ruling going against an employer, every new pollution control regulation, every state minimum wage increase etc. provided more economic justification for Illinois employers ( or California employers, or New York employers etc. ) to outsource, relocate offshore, or automate jobs out of existance.
    Yeah the taxes here are very high, which is why I have started looking for jobs in border counties and Indiana.

  11. #11
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Don't forget that the federal and Illinois state gov'ts also contributed to jobs leaving your state. Every mandated employee benefit cost, every tax increase, every coal fired power plant being 'ordered' to shut down, every 'questionable' state DOL ruling going against an employer, every new pollution control regulation, every state minimum wage increase etc. provided more economic justification for Illinois employers ( or California employers, or New York employers etc. ) to outsource, relocate offshore, or automate jobs out of existance.
    Again you're making things up based on your ideology that have nothing to do with reality. The reason we lost jobs is because of the severe financial crisis, not because jobs are being moved to China so businesses can save a few dollars on their electric bills. Canada has similar wages and environmental regulations as the US, yet they did not suffer the severe economic downturn we did. The difference being, Canada did not deregulate their financial sector. As a result, they never had the massive bank failures we had here. Canada also doesn't have conservatives fighting government spending to create jobs. Canada has now recovered three quarters of the 400,000 jobs lost during the recession.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    However, on the flip side, there is now a fair body of anecdotal evidence that the gov'ts 'compassion' in providing 99 weeks worth of unemployment checks has motivated a significant number of unemployed people to REMAIN unemployed. The reason of course is that in most states the effective pay rate of unemployment benefits is $10-$12 an hour ... whereas the available pay rate for available jobs in the same state may the same $10-$12 an hour or less. Now the available jobs in, say North Dakota or Wyoming ( with a ~3% unemployment rate) may be $16-$20 an hour ... but the potential 'necessity' of moving to North Dakota or Wyoming in order to find 'decent paying work' in such 'undesireable' industries as mining or oil drilling has yet to sink in for the vast majority of long term unemployed.

    ~
    Again your making things up. About 1/3 of the unemployed have had their benefits run out and they are still unable to find jobs. The reason people can't get jobs is because there aren't enough jobs available, not because people prefer not to work. The number of people applying for jobs far exceeds the number of jobs available.
    Last edited by eagle2; 07-02-2010 at 09:05 PM.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to eagle2 For This Useful Post:


  13. #12
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    ^^^ here's some 'professional' commentary on the subject ...

    Econ 101: Unemployment Insurance Promotes Unemployment
    Incentives matter, so policymakers should consider economics when extending jobless benefits.

    (snip)"From Adam Smith on, economists have based their theories on the basic concept that people respond to incentives. If you reduce the cost of something people will choose more of it. If you increase the costs, people will choose less of it. There is little debate in the profession about the truth of this hypothesis.

    So if we apply this to unemployment, it ought to be clear that if we reduce the cost of becoming or remaining unemployed, then we will have greater unemployment. This is not rocket science by any means. Suppose that unemployment benefits were $6000 per week and lasted indefinitely. Is there little doubt that most of us would choose unemployment?

    Normal unemployment benefits last for 26 weeks and are provided to persons actively seeking work who are out of work due to circumstances beyond their control – basically they were laid off rather than having quit. The cost is shared between the states and federal government. Employers pay a tax per worker to both the federal and state government to fund the program.

    One reason we have had such a “jobless recovery” is due to the reduction in the cost of remaining unemployed due to the expansion of unemployment benefits. All that is at question is the amount of additional unemployment.

    The efficiency of the market system in producing wealth for the masses occurs in good part because the price system, including that of labor services, and the profit system move resources swiftly from industries where consumer demand is falling or where resource costs are rising into areas where consumer demand in increasing or resource costs are falling. By lengthening the time of unemployment, this process of “creative destruction,” as Joseph Schumpeter called it, is deterred. Labor remains in the unproductive position of unemployment longer than would otherwise be the case and will delay moving into new industries where their labor resources are valued enough for them to gain employment.

    Another problem with unemployment insurance is that it increases the cost of hiring workers. Because employers must pay a tax per employee to fund the program, they will hire fewer workers than otherwise, making it harder for workers to find jobs. Again, there is not a question about whether this will increase unemployment, only how much unemployment will increase.

    Now there are advantages to having unemployment benefits. The primary one is that by lengthening the time one has to search for a new position, the probability of obtaining the highest valued position is increased. Economists distinguish between reasons for unemployment, and recognize that there is an optimal length of job search which is greater than zero. However, we would expect in a free society that people will responsible for their own actions and thus will save during their period of employment as insurance against a period of unemployment.

    A difficulty in insuring oneself against a period of unemployment is that unemployment insurance faces the standard moral hazard problem – once we are insured against an event we take fewer precautions to avoid the event. Government unemployment insurance attempts to avoid this problem by only providing benefits to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own.

    However, it may be hard to distinguish between getting fired and quitting in some cases and once unemployed we certainly have the incentive to remain unemployed when receiving benefits of up to $387 per week as under the current law [ this figure is state specific ... > $500 per week is available in some states - sic]. For this reason, it is difficult if not impossible to find private insurance against loss of income from unemployment.

    As a society we may wish to provide unemployment insurance, and we may wish to provide extended benefits as Congress has repeatedly done in the recent recession. However, when making such a decision we should take into consideration the fact that by doing so unemployment rates will be higher and our economy will be less efficient and dynamic than it would otherwise be."(snip)

    from

  14. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Canada also doesn't have conservatives fighting government spending to create jobs
    Canada also rakes in HUGE amounts of 'royalty' income from its oil, gas, minerals, lumber and other natural resources. This is a genuine source of gov't revenue that can in turn be spent by the gov't on stimulus / infrastructure / social welfare benefits without an accompanying need ( as is the case in America ) to saddle present and future taxpayers and businesses with the bill !


    The reason people can't get jobs is because there aren't enough jobs available, not because people prefer not to work. The number of people applying for jobs far exceeds the number of jobs available.
    Again one set of facts for everybody. Nebraska ( 4.9%), South Dakota ( 4.6% ) and especially North Dakota ( 3.6% ) essentially still have 'full' employment, meaning that jobs ARE available in those states. California, Michigan, Illinois, etc. have very high unemployment rates. So why aren't some long term unemployed Californians etc. moving to Nebraska or North Dakota in search of employment ?

    The logical two part answer is that A. they don't WANT to do so because life is much more pleasant where they are in terms of climate / amenities / culture etc. But more importantly B. California etc.'s available level of unemployment benefits / social welfare benefits etc. provides a sufficiently acceptable standard of living such that they don't HAVE to consider relocating to an 'uncultured icebox' state in order to find a job.

    It will be interesting to see if this arguable moral hazard situation begins to change as more and more long term unemployed Americans in California etc. stop receiving federal unemployment checks after their 99 weeks expires ... i.e. ex-Californians being economically 'forced' to take available jobs pumping Shale Oil in North Dakota !?!?


    Also, while I'm tempted to respond further to your comment about conservatives fighting increased gov't spending, I'll limit my response to this simple statement. Certain 'liberal' govt figures have a vested interest in trying to prevent the migration of long term unemployed residents out of of 'liberal' states and subsequently relocating to 'conservative' states ... despite the fact that the 'liberal' states have very high unemployment while the 'conservative' states have jobs available. The most effective way for 'liberal' gov't figures to accomplish this is to increase levels of state social welfare benefits ( i.e. food stamps + welfare + subsidized rent + subsidized utilities + medicaid) to the point where the standard of living attainable from such benefits is tolerable enough that recipients have little motivation to return to the active work force !

    I'll also leave it to someone else to comment on the 'pure coincidence' that 'liberal' states tend to have high unemployment rates while 'conservative' states tend to have lower unemployment rates / jobs available !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-05-2010 at 02:35 PM.

  15. #14
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post

    I'll also leave it to someone else to comment on the 'pure coincidence' that 'liberal' states tend to have high unemployment rates while 'conservative' states tend to have lower unemployment rates / jobs available !

    ~
    As always, Melonie is making stuff up that has nothing to do with reality whatsoever. Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida are ranked 43, 45, 46, and 47 in unemployment rates (lowest to highest), while liberal Vermont is number 4.

    http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

  16. #15
    Banned
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,037
    Thanks
    1,891
    Thanked 5,124 Times in 3,086 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Btw, many of the "liberal" states with high unemployment are that way because certain states have larger companies there. For instance, New York, California and Illinois all have major Fortune 500 companies there. The idea that one should have to move for a job is silly because many of these "red" states with (allegedly) low unemployment are states with not many large companies based there. In other words, in general there are better jobs in these areas. And like I said about Illinois, it's almost impossible for people without kids to get welfare here so that is a lie. I'd be curious to see what "jobs" these states have available. I suspect they are minimum wage jobs and that would make no sense whatsoever to move there.

  17. #16
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    ... about Northrop Grumman opening new office / program involving military drone aircraft in ND

    (snip)"Aircraft manufacturer Northrop Grumman will have a new office in Grand Forks. The company expects to have about 100 employees there within the next two years. They will help support the Global Hawk aircraft at the Grand Forks Air Force base.

    But a new Northrup Grumman facility will also bring in other companies. Ed Walby, director of business development for Global Hawk at Northrup Grumman, says there are also more than 300 subcontractors who support the Global Hawk program."(snip)


    ... about ND's Bakken Shale Oil ...

    (snip)"Production has grown so rapidly here, 100 miles south of the Canadian border, that companies had to build a rail line to transport their oil to market, since there wasn't a big enough pipeline in the state to handle the oil. Companies have scrambled to find labor in a state with fewer than a million people, and to keep drilling rigs running when the wind chill pushes temperatures to 50 degrees below zero. "(snip)


    ... about wind energy development

    (snip)"North Dakota ranks 10th in existing power capacities, with nearly all development in the wind energy industry coming since 2005, said Shane Goettle, director of the state Department of Commerce.

    So far, 24 projects with a capacity of 1,202.7 megawatt hours have been completed in the state, while two, with a capacity of 95.4 megawatt hours, are under construction. Another 19 projects, with a capacity of 6,417.5 megawatt hours, have been proposed by letters of intent with the Public Service Commission, but have not been started.

    Goettle said the state stands to benefit from additional wind farms. Landowners get ongoing payments for having turbines on their land, power companies have additional electricity to sell, communities have more tax revenue and an expanded tax base, and rural communities get more jobs in the form of wind energy technicians, he said."(snip)

    so much for the theory of minimum wage jobs in ND !


    New York, California and Illinois all have major Fortune 500 companies there.
    This is undeniably true. And it is also true that these Fortune 500 companies have eliminated lots of former jobs in NY, CA, IL ... based at least in part on the higher 'costs of doing business' in these states re higher taxes, energy costs, regulatory compliance costs, mandated employee benefit costs etc. But it is arguably for these exact reasons that it's unlikely Fortune 500 companies will ever restore those former jobs in these high cost high tax states. And that point brings us full circle to the original issue of long term unemployed NY, CA, IL residents having little hope of finding an 'equivalent' job in the forseeable future by remaining in these states after their 99 weeks of unemployment checks stop coming.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 07-06-2010 at 02:27 AM.

  18. #17
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    there are so many things wrong with the united states and the outlook of the current president that its hard to decifer everything and understand where to start. for starters what has been done has no significance so far, the stimulus has been proven to only be a band aide on a gash that needs stitches therefor useless. financial and healthcare reform were both jokes in a sense that both were more of a "photo op" than anything else. as much as i would love to say things are getting better i truly see things getting worse before they improve

    i feel bad for so many people who are getting hurt day to day because they had no common sense to save/invest/ and have a longer term outlook on life rather than "the next day"

    the problem is the govn will keep steping on the same rakes, and making the same mistakes time and time again and the people who cant afford it will be the ones getting hurt

  19. #18
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Quote Originally Posted by Kellydancer View Post
    The fact is the Republicans have proved to me they don't care about the poor (not that they ever did)
    let me guess... your a supporter for equalism aka socialism? common please get real, how is it somone elses responcibility to care for someone else but themselves?

    in capitalism everyone creates their own destiny, im not going to write out my life story but i came to the US from a 3rd world country and used to sleep on the floor with parents in a 1 bedroom apartment, believe me i came from the gutter and without the oppertunitys in america i would still be there

  20. #19
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    As always, Melonie is making stuff up that has nothing to do with reality whatsoever. Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida are ranked 43, 45, 46, and 47 in unemployment rates (lowest to highest), while liberal Vermont is number 4.

    http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
    Once again you did NOT bother to R E A D your own link ! Did you see which states are ranked at the bottom ? Michigan at 50. A high tax liberal state. The People's Republic of California comes in at 49. Ohio and Oregon are 42 and 41 respectively. Wash. D.C. is 38. New Jersey, which used to be a VERY low tax state, is 34. Washington ( home of Boeing, Microsoft and Starbucks ) is tied for 29 with Pennsylvania. Connecticutt is 26.

    Now who exactly is supposedly "making things up" based on their "ideology" ? Hmmm ?

    Florida got clobbered by the bursting real estate bubble. Now it's Gulf fishing and tourism economies are being devastated by the Oil Spill as are Alabama's and Mississippi's.

    Nevada, which is in last place, was clobbered both by the real estate bubble and its dependence on tourism in Vegas, Lake Tahoe and Reno.

  21. #20
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Yes I did READ my own link. The right-wing republics of Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, are ranked 43, 45, and 46. Melonie is wrong again. Nevada, with zero percent income tax, is in dead last. Where are all the jobs from the businesses that moved from high tax California to low tax Nevada? You and Melonie are wrong again.

  22. #21
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    Yes I did READ my own link. The right-wing republics of Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, are ranked 43, 45, and 46. Melonie is wrong again. Nevada, with zero percent income tax, is in dead last. Where are all the jobs from the businesses that moved from high tax California to low tax Nevada? You and Melonie are wrong again.
    Let's look at Melonie's original quote that got your shorts in a knot : She said that Liberal states "TEND" to have higher unemployument and that conservative states 'TEND" to have lower unemployment. Your own link proves HER point !

    It's NOT just taxes. It's also regulatory burden. The jobs that left California and STAYED in the U.S. went to Arizona; Oregon: Idaho and to some extent Nevada. In case you need to look at YOUR link again, BOTH California AND Nevada are dead last in unemployment. Why do you think that is ? How do you account for the anomaly of Vermont ? Low tax New Hampshire is also doing LESS badly in unemployment. You aren't going to try and correlate employment to HIGH taxes, are you ?

    You are aware of the devastating impact the oil spill has had on Gulf tourism , aren't you ? Like many resort areas in the U.S., places like Gulf Shores have to make the bulk of their money between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Two of their three biggest weekends have been ruined.

    Another reason, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina have been hard hit is education level. All three have low percentages of college grads and high percentages of poorly educated, unskilled workers. So does Nevada btw. Is it any surprise that they are seeing higher unemployment than most states ?.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 07-06-2010 at 11:18 AM.

  23. #22
    Banned
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,037
    Thanks
    1,891
    Thanked 5,124 Times in 3,086 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Quote Originally Posted by mk996tt View Post
    let me guess... your a supporter for equalism aka socialism? common please get real, how is it somone elses responcibility to care for someone else but themselves?

    in capitalism everyone creates their own destiny, im not going to write out my life story but i came to the US from a 3rd world country and used to sleep on the floor with parents in a 1 bedroom apartment, believe me i came from the gutter and without the oppertunitys in america i would still be there
    Nope, I don't like either. However the Republicans have made it known they never cared about the poor. In their defense they never pretended to either. Both parties ruined this country by outsourcing jobs. In theory we should all care for ourselves, but it gets hard when there are no jobs out there and one's skills aren't in demand. Sure, there's retraining, but right now there are no jobs in any field so that's not helping either.

  24. #23
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Quote Originally Posted by Kellydancer View Post
    Nope, I don't like either. However the Republicans have made it known they never cared about the poor. In their defense they never pretended to either. Both parties ruined this country by outsourcing jobs. In theory we should all care for ourselves, but it gets hard when there are no jobs out there and one's skills aren't in demand. Sure, there's retraining, but right now there are no jobs in any field so that's not helping either.
    its not republicans or democrats who outsource jobs, its the companies and more importantly the accountants who know tax law, who can calculate different types of cash flow ratios and see that there is bigger profitability outsourcing to china/india/korea/etc.

    you can blame unions, the recent health care legislation, minimum wage and fair labor laws, and many other reasons for why companies decide to outsource work

  25. #24
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,968
    Thanks
    798
    Thanked 1,121 Times in 605 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Confession time: Mel has a point. I would have found work much faster if I didn't have the security blanky of extended unemployment benefits, and a generous family that didn't want their daughter with an MBA to have to wait tables. I was on them for 6 months, got work, then 3 more months when those contracts ended.

    But those bennies were there for me, and dammit, I took 'em! Had I not had about $1,500 a month in unemployment, plus another $1,000 or so from my parents, I would have had to foreclose on my house within the first few months, and move to some shit city I don't want to live in, like Dallas.

    But at some point, people DO want to return to work. Just subsisting on your basic living expenses sucks. I qualified for the extension, but took this job anyway because now I make real money again and have sweet corporate benefits. Very few benefits available in TX for those without children.

    Its a fine balance. I don't think most people on meager unemployment want to substantially lower their lifestyle and go into debt just so they don't have to work. People like to work, it makes them feel important and productive. Being out of work causes depression, which I believe is a bigger reason people stay on unemployment if its there.

    In summary, I am thankful for the bennies I got, but probably would have gotten back to work much faster had they ran out sooner.

  26. #25
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: for better or worse, US congress stops at 99 weeks of unemployment checks !

    Quote Originally Posted by Kellydancer View Post
    Nope, I don't like either. However the Republicans have made it known they never cared about the poor. In their defense they never pretended to either. Both parties ruined this country by outsourcing jobs. In theory we should all care for ourselves, but it gets hard when there are no jobs out there and one's skills aren't in demand. Sure, there's retraining, but right now there are no jobs in any field so that's not helping either.
    I am tired of this ridiculous canard that "Republicans don't care about poor people". As compared to the Democrats ? Who wants MORE illegal immigration ? The Dems. Who gets hurt the worst ? POOR people. Poor, low and unskilled labor gets squeezed out by illegals. Who sees their wages forced DOWN by illegal immigration ? Poor people.

    Who promoted policies that pushed unaffordable homes on the working poor ? Maxine Waters. Barney Fwank. Chris Dodd and his fellow
    "Friends of Angelo". Andy Cuomo. Franklin Raines. Jamie Gorelick. Stop me when you see a Republican listed.

    Who has fought tooth and nail to protect lousy, failed school systems ? The Dems. Who suffers ? Black and other inner city children. Who has benfitted from charter schools and voucher programs ? Poor children. Who voted to cut off Federal funding for Washington D.C. 's successful voucher program ? The Dems.

    Who perpetuated a Welfare system that punished work and promoted dependence ? The Dems. Clinton would never have gotten Welfare Reform passed without the Republicans.

    Who supported union work rules that kept blacks from being hired ; from being promoted and from getting the best jobs ? The Dems.

    We wouldn't even have a Civil Rights Act or a Voting Rights Act or a Fair Housing Law without the Republicans. Who filibustered the first one. The late Robert "Sheets " Byrd who wasn't just a member of the K.K.K. but was an Exalted Cyclops and active recruiter.

    Who has suffered more from Obamanomics than poor people ? Especially black people. Especially black inner city youth.

    Who gets more campaign money from rich people ? The Dems. From big corporations ? The Dems.

    Who is it that advocates for an "opportunity society" where poor people can have a REAL chance to move up and join the middle and upper classes ? By and large, it's Republicans. For the most part, Dems support programs that promote increased government dependency.

    One set of facts for everybody folks. One set of facts for everybody.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 07-06-2010 at 12:46 PM.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-07-2010, 07:17 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-26-2010, 05:46 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 04:02 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-15-2009, 08:29 AM
  5. The buck stops here.
    By Archangel in forum Customer Conversation
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 04-28-2005, 11:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •