How long should unemployment benefits last?

I've got a question for everyone out there concering the efforts to pay money to those who are unemployed. How long should the government extend unemployment benefits to those out of work? In other words, how long should those who are unemployed continue to receive unemployment money? 2 years? 5 years? As long as they need it?

My concern is this: If we continue funding those who are unemployed, don't we risk creating one huge, massive welfare class in America? Hear me out before you start to flame, please. We've all heard people bemoan that there are no jobs to be had out there. How accurate is that assertion? Wouldn't many people rather not work and still get paid? Don't you think if people know they can stay home and get paid for it that they will choose to do that instead of going out and finding work?

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on this because I've asked in a couple of threads 'how long do we extend benefits? How long is reasonable?' and have not seen any responses. Please keep this topic of discussion serious and above partisan politics.

I think we need to change our mind set, there are people unemployed because they want to be, or they are looking for there same pay rate, this cant not be. If the benefits go longer than one year then that person be comes complacent in being unemployed, and wait's for the dream job. When there is no dream job. There is work but it is a give and take, I do work at $9.00 Phr when that same work last year made me up $30.00 an hour, i have been unemployed for up to 9 months, and have never got unemployment, i did qualify for it, but it was a low pay 64$ a week! not wroth my time when i can make 120$ a week, even thought it is not steady work that is why i am able to type this, some days out the door at 8:00 am other days sit and wait for the ride to work or use the one car we have, or days of no work and look for a 9 to 5 job that i can walk to , and were i live most are taken or have a 3 block line of people to put the app in. Now for the thought of 2 -5 years or as long as needed, 12 months, in my own 2 cents, should be long enough.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by bekod]

I think that it should be proportional to the number of years that you've worked and paid into the system.

If you've only been employed for 6 months, then get laid off, you shouldn't get benefits for as long as someone who has a twenty year history of employment.

Until the crappy government we have finds a way to fix the problems with the job market that they created.

They allow all this outsourcing BS that takes away the jobs for the people in our own country just so big business can save a few bucks.

They should have to pay for their mistake until they fix what they started.

As unemployment insurance is just that, insurance, those that have paid into it with decades of employment should get more than those who have not.

I was laid off after 25 years of steady employment and received my insurance claim payments as scheduled. A year later, I got a 3-month contract job, and when that ended, I qualified for another claim that was no different that the first one (i.e. the same amount of claim payments), other than I had only worked 3 months to earn that same amount compared to the 25 years for the first claim. Both claims had the same extension schedules.

What's wrong is not that people who have contributed years and years of insurance payments out of their paychecks are getting extended benefits, but that those that have not worked nearly as long are getting these same extensions above and beyond what they have contributed to the insurance system.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Monsieur Neary]

reply to post by black cat


Hi,

Personal view is that is that it depends on the circumstance of the claimant. I'm sure there are real cases of hardship brought about by factors outside the claimant's control; illness, redundancy after n years of work, divorce, separation. Believe that such should be given help or assistance to find other work as required.

Conversely there are others who haven't done a stroke of work in their lives and never intend to (I met several in Berlin) or insist on sending humanity into a descending spiral of mediocracy by raising 10 kids on the state....

The latter should be given 3 opportunities to work and if they don't take what's offered then all subsidies should be stopped.

Unfortunately, I'm aware of the people administering benefits (both in Germany and the UK) and they are incapable of differentiating between honest claimants and thieves. Until each country invests in correct administration then the problem will only escalate - the few supporting the many.

Peace!

The problem with the unemployment system is WHO gets taxed to pay
for it. We, amongst ourselves, pay for it. If the corporate giants who have
been allowed to outsource jobs from this country funded the system, we
wouldn't even be having this discussion.

reply to post by rival


Hi,

Not sure which country you are in but in the UK (and Germany) companies must pay corporate (company) tax and also have to contibute (substantially) pay for National Health Insurance on behalf of the employees.

Both employers and employees are paying into the system - the problem is that there is no pragmatic or logical control as to where the money goes.

Peace!

Peter Schiff comments on unemployment benefits and how they are retarding recovery.

I agree with him.



He got a ton of negative comments on that report, which he responds to here:

reply to post by black cat


First thing to note...From an economic stimulas perspective there is no better way to effect the economy for the better.

Not my opinion, but an agreed upon truth by economists of every political leaning. Forget Gov. Spending, Monetary or Fiscal Policy...nothing beats unemplyment compensation for a return of money to the economy...for every dollar of unemployment doled out..it is spent to higher degree and quicker than any other form of "stimulas".

The concept is to keep folks who are "employable" afloat during a brief bad spell so they can return to the work-force and be productive..

Once someone spirals, becomes homeless, hungry, on the street etc. It is a thousand more times more difficult for them to return to employment since thier world shifts into "survival mode" on a daily basis.

How long? Hard to say...these are extraordinary times. Maybe scaled to the national unemployment rate for a period of time. If the rate doesn't recover...well we are all screwed then and it's an unessary question.

Just my opinion.

Edit to add: By design Unemployment benefits actually prevent those folks becoming part of a permanent welfare class.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 7-9-2010 by maybereal11]

It is worth noting explicitly that unemployment benefits are stimulus, and a highly effective form of it. When the government cuts an unemployed person a check, that person is necessarily jobless. He tends to have close to nothing in savings; Harvard’s Raj Chetty has calculated that the median person currently unemployed had only $250 in liquid savings at the time of job loss. He tends to have no other source of income. And so he generally goes out and spends his unemployment check — raising consumption, that all-important 70 percent of the economy — rather than saving it. That means that if Congress trims $40 billion in unemployment benefits, it trims $40 billion in stimulus and somewhere close to $40 billion in consumer spending as well.

washingtonindependent.com...

Components of an Effective Stimulus Package
An effective stimulus package — one that meets the above criteria — should include four elements:

■Strengthened unemployment insurance. Temporary increases in unemployment insurance (UI) benefits are particularly effective as stimulus: the benefits go to workers who have lost their jobs, so the added income is likely to be spent quickly. As CBO director Orszag recently told the House Budget Committee, “research has shown that the unemployment insurance system is among the most effective dollar-for-dollar economic stabilizers that we have in terms of counterbalancing periods of economic weakness.”

Accordingly, a stimulus package should include a temporary measure to provide additional weeks of federally funded UI benefits for workers who exhaust their regular UI benefits before they can find work, as Congress has done in every recent recession. The need will be especially great if a new recession sets in, given the large share of unemployed workers who have remained without a job for longer than 26 weeks (the normal duration of UI benefits).

www.cbpp.org...

reply to post by maybereal11


Hi!

Your first line of your first post was spot on - from an economic simula(e) perspective....

However, from a moral (and even genetic) perspective I'd disagree - question was 'How long should benefits be paid?'

As posted above - I've met several people who had no intention of working and all the benefits (and illegal, undeclared earnings) in no way went back to the society sustaining them but to strangely extended (3 months) holidays in the Sudan, (from where they were 'refugees'), Poland or Russia. Good I suppose for the distribution of wealth across the planet but not so good for those supporting them?

From a genetic point of view nature establishes an optimum number of offspring that can be sustained - one egg for one bird, several for another. To support people who insist on rearing 10 kids without a job and then expect to be housed, fed, supported etc. is totally 'unatural' and as such should be left to support themselves and their way of life.

Sorry but for 40 years I've worked and for a good part of which I've paid 40% tax to support such parasites.

Peace!

reply to post by maybereal11


Hi

Afterthought.... My daughter works in the UK for a government agency and at the tender age of 24 she has frequently commented on how such benefits are more often than not, used to buy alcohol and nicotine but not food....

Peace!

Originally posted by The Wave

As posted above - I've met several people who had no intention of working and all the benefits (and illegal, undeclared earnings) in no way went back to the society sustaining them but to strangely extended (3 months) holidays in the Sudan, (from where they were 'refugees'), Poland or Russia. Good I suppose for the distribution of wealth across the planet but not so good for those supporting them?

The few folks you know that chose to take a holiday in Sudan? not representitive of the millions of unemployed. Big leap...very big leap.

From a genetic point of view nature establishes an optimum number of offspring that can be sustained - one egg for one bird, several for another.

In modern society genetics has little to do with employment. Might be more relevant a couple thousand years ago.

The world over shows the correlation between poverty and birthrate in direct opposition to what you are suggesting. The more economically successful ...fewer children.

Originally posted by The Wave
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Hi

Afterthought.... My daughter works in the UK for a government agency and at the tender age of 24 she has frequently commented on how such benefits are more often than not, used to buy alcohol and nicotine but not food....

Peace!

In the USA foodstamps are not permitted to be used for nicotine or alchohol...and again you are extrapolating personal stories to the scale of entire nations populations. I would rather consider researched evidence.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by maybereal11]

Unemployment should not last one second. Are you such a baby that you need the government to hold on to your savings for you?

reply to post by maybereal11


Hi

Perhaps you need to travel a little more - it broadens the mind...? I also mentioned Poland, Russia.... Selective editing perhaps?

And as for decreasing birthrates - hmmmm Try reading British papers where underaged girls are getting themselves pregnant to escape having to work, and where oversized families are demanding five or six bedroomed houses (on the state) to support their 10 kids....plus, naturally, state benefits.

I still believe that where there is a real reason to support people then fine - trouble is that when times are good many spend everything (and more) and never once put anything away in case.... then when things fail - it's everyone's fault - the government, the employers.... not of course themselves.

Maybe try reading something enlightening like 'The Selfish Gene?'

Peace!

reply to post by maybereal11


Hi,

In the UK social payments are made in cash - how that is used is totally up to the individual.

Again, you appear to have a very limited experience of living and working in other countries?

Peace!

Originally posted by The Wave
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Hi

Perhaps you need to travel a little more - it broadens the mind...? I also mentioned Poland, Russia.... Selective editing perhaps?

At last count I have travelled or lived in 21 countries.

Originally posted by The Wave
And as for decreasing birthrates - hmmmm Try reading British papers where underaged girls ....

British papers? Well it must be the truth then if you are citing "british papers".

Try actual research..as opposed to ignoring research and factual evidence to suit your idealogical views.
Start with what we know and work backwards to an opinion...it's a healthy way of living in reality.

In multivariate analyses, which controlled for some of the correlates of family poverty level, the proportion of families living below poverty level remained by far the most important predictor of the birthrate among young teenagers

www.guttmacher.org...

Without resources to secure their future, people can rely only on their own families. Thus, when poor parents have lots of children, they are making a rational calculus for survival. High birth rates reflect people's defensive reaction against enforced poverty.

www.globalissues.org...

Poverty fuels developing world's high birth rate | Economic Review
findarticles.com...

A regional analysis of teen birth rates and related problems
www.springerlink.com...

Key determinants of population growth

High fertility rates have historically been strongly correlated with poverty, high childhood mortality rates, ....
Falling fertility rates and the demographic transition are generally associated with improved standards of living
dieoff.org...

Lord I could do this all day and list a mountain of known research

My question is why do you keep saying you read a newspaper article about some girls or you know some guy...and then pronounce some world view, before actually researching?

I still believe that where there is a real reason to support people then fine - trouble is that when times are good many spend everything (and more) and never once put anything away in case.... then when things fail - it's everyone's fault - the government, the employers.... not of course themselves.

Here in the states part of our paycheck goes toward unemployment insurance..Even if we never find ourselves unemployed.

Economists agree that supporting folks during unemployed periods actually benefits the economy...it returns them to "spenders" more quickly. It returns them to higher paying jobs more quickly and it returns tax dollars to the Government more quickly.

It seems you are working hard to take your idealogical opinions and claim them as fact...without actually supporting them at all. In the USA we call those people politicians.

reply to post by maybereal11


Hi

Fine - best of luck with your 'research'. You are obviously so right!

Peace!