Unemployment Extension PASSED!!!!!!! so did extended TAX cuts!!!

[mommi2many]

Whatever one chooses to call it, welfare is welfare. Extending unemployment benefits is the new welfare system. In fact, one can receive unemployment benefits longer than traditional welfare benefits now.

Welfare is generally used by people who have never worked and therefore, have not paid into the system. Unemployment benefits are always used by people who have paid into the system.

[backtoschool]

I am not against unemployment benefits per se. But I do believe that after 99 weeks of unemployment, most employers are not going to find a person's resume marketable or viable. This is not necessarily fair, but it is a reality of the corporate world. I posted a ny times article about this last week. Long periods of unemployment are seen as a huge negative on a resume and make a person even more unhireable than they were before they collected the unemployment.

Also, in most states employees do not pay into the unemployment insurance system. The system is paid for by employers.

What is the solution? As I said in my previous post, I think on-the-job government subsidized training and internships would be a better solution.

[helpme2010]

Welfare is generally used by people who have never worked and therefore, have not paid into the system. Unemployment benefits are always used by people who have paid into the system.

mommi2many, you are correct. And there is some misconception that living off of unemployment is some awesome thing to do. Yes the grand life style of the unemployed, sailing around the world on our yachts, purchasing homes, going on vacations, new Mercedes and BMW's, eating out at fancy restaurants, new clothes and jewelry, the sky is the limit!!! Why did I ever work before???

[banca rotta]

I am so glad the unemployment benefits extension passed, for those who need it. I personally think the EUC should be there until this rotten economy starts creating jobs - maybe until the unemployment level drops to around 5 or 6%, and by this I mean TRUE unemployment numbers, where folks who are working part-time or are severely underemployed are also included in the rate.

For me, the extension is no help as I only got 26 weeks of benefits...due to some Federal requirement for EUC, I did not make quite enough money to qualify for the extensions.

I agree, but I can't imagine seeing 5 to 6% anytime soon. I think 10 years at least with all the newbies joining the workforce and all the old timers that will need to work till they take their last breath.

Personally I feel that when America once and for all gets rid of the entitlement mentality, once Americans watch their money better by buying more domestic products or at least buying less Asian products by pretty much keeping things as long as possible vs. always upgrading to "new and improved" then you will see a recovery.

The subject of this very post just sealed our fate. The fact that taxes won't rise and UE has been extended with no other cuts in spending as well as Obama's deficit commission thrown on the back burner, you can bet it's going to be a long painful winter from which there is no escape.

BTW I happen to support both UE extensions and tax cuts but I would pretty much nuke every other part of the budget with the exception of social security and military benefits. These are the only parts of the budget that would survive.

[helpme2010]

banca rotta I agree with your statement about UE extensions, social security, military benefits, and tax cuts (for me personally I like the idea that those below $250,000 continue receiving the tax cuts, but I would be for some type of compromise, say $500,000 for those that claim 250k is a little too low (perhaps living in areas of California or NY where the cost of living is very high, so I would be up for a compromise). But the statement was made when the dems even tried a million and the republicans wouldn't budget.

backtoschool, I believe you are right about a long period on a resume looking bad for interviewees. I have had employers ask my why I only worked 6 months at a couple jobs on my resume, and I explained that this is the way the modern corporations sometimes function, with one of my companies selling and another merging. But I then showed how I worked 19 years at one company, including the time with the new company that acquired us.

During a long period of unemployment, I for example completed my degree during the last couple years, so I did use my time very wisely. Some can volunteer for charity functions. Some will just have to talk their ways through it. But none of these people should be thrown out in the cold without a means to keep a roof over their head and food in their belly's. To do so would be inhumane.

I think prisoners are treated better than the unemployed that lose benefits. They at least get 2 square meals a day and a roof over their heads paid for by the state. They also eat better food than the military and get television and other privileges. Is this how we want to treat the citizens of our country that have worked many years and paid taxes, including paying into the UE system.

In California, I pay for half the UE and the employer pays the other half. Either way, I am entitled to receive help, especially during the largest recession since the great depression. As long as there aren't enough jobs for all the people that are trying to find work, the government has an obligation to help these people until the unemployment drops to a more respectable level. This is why I get so mad when I see the republicans pushing for so many bills that help the rich, while blocking legislation to help the poor.

This is exactly what the story A Christmas Carol is all about. Remember Ebenezer Scrooge.

[backtoschool]

I am all for keeping unemployment benefits going. People need to eat, and have a roof over their heads. But I think everyone that is receiving long term unemployment benefits needs to understand that the corporate world frowns very deeply upon them. Anyone who has received 99 weeks of unemployment benefits or even half that, without a clear demonstration as to what they were doing with that time, will face a very steep uphill battle in getting a good, full-time job with benefits after the unemployment insurance runs out.

If one is looking for a corporate job after receiving unemployment, it is far better to work part-time, or work as a temp, or start a business, than to collect unemployment for 99 weeks without having anything on your resume for that time frame. Of course you can collect the benefits while doing these other things.

[RichM]

Looks like I may be in the minority on this, but I opposed extending UE benefits. As backtoschool pointed out, long periods of unemployment, for whatever reasons, make a person even more unemployable. Having something on a resume between "regular" jobs greatly increases a person's attractiveness to a potential employer.

The plain, maybe harsh truth is that there's almost always some sort of job a person can take. Okay, maybe this isn't true if you live in the boondocks, but in almost any city, town, or suburb, there's almost always some sort of jobs available. Those jobs may suck. They may be unpleasant or dirty. They may not pay well. But they're still jobs -- and taking one of them while waiting for a job in your "regular" field to open up can impress a potential employer. It says, "This person takes initiative and is not afraid of the dirty jobs," rather than, "This person sat on his ass for 99 weeks and collected checks."

The reason that most people don't take these sucky jobs is because they feel that sucky work is beneath them. That's the kind of work that other, lower-class people do, not professionals like themselves. It's usually a matter of arrogance more than anything else.

Yes, there are exceptions, such as when a person's not physically capable of performing a manual labor job, or when the job would pay far less than the unemployment check and has absolutely no prospect of ever leading to a full-time or better-paying position. But most of the time, a person's refusal to take a crappy, temporary job is based on arrogance and classism.

I'm a middle-aged, self-employed person. I've been supporting myself for many years. I have three college degrees -- all earned while I was working full-time. The one time I drew unemployment was in 1981 -- and that was one single check during a layoff from a job I held for a short time after getting out of the service.

Now mind you, I'm not pinning medals on myself. The reason I've never drawn unemployment is because, as a self-employed person, I'm not entitled to it. There have been long stretches during which I was basically self-unemployed, meaning I had no billable work to do. Unemployment insurance not being available to me, I had to make a choice: Take a temporary job, or starve.

I chose not to starve. Instead, I took various jobs that would tide me over until some work came in, always choosing the kinds of jobs where my sudden departure wouldn't be missed all that much (in order to be fair to the employers). Some of these jobs included:

• Unloading trucks
• Driving trucks
• Servicing porta-potties on weekends (good pay, but a shitty job -- literally)
• Washing windows
• Plowing snow
• Delivering pizza
• Sorting refuse at a recycling plant
• Humping baggage at JFK
• Scraping old paint off houses so new paint could be applied
• Snaking clogged sewer pipes

You get the point. I did what I had to do to survive, because there was no other option available to me. I didn't say, "I have three college degrees! I'm too good to empty porta potties!" Why? Because there was no other option available to me. It was either take a shitty job for a while, or starve. And frankly, I think the longer UE benefits are extended, the longer people will sit on their asses waiting for the "right" job, and the more unemployable they'll become in the process.

As for the tax cut extension, mixed feelings. I'm a Libertarian. I believe that the income tax should be abolished and replaced with nothing, and that every federal agency whose duties are not required by the Constitution should be dismantled. So tax cuts in general please me. But I'm lukewarm about this tax cut extension, both because it's not offset by reduced spending and because it primarily benefits the wealthy.

I would have favored cutting taxes by making all income under $125,000 a year (for an individual) tax-free, and increasing this amount every year until the tax is eliminated. In this way, everyone would get the identical tax cut (because the exempt amount would be exempt no matter what a person's income was). And the cut would have to be offset by reduced spending.

But the tax cut extension is what it is, and I'm almost always pleased when less money winds up in government hands. But without being offset by spending cuts, it's basically just passing the problem down to the next generation; and it's still being implemented in an inequitable way that favors the wealthy.

-Rich

[backtoschool]

I also think that as employers continue to hire younger workers, workers at or near retirement age, are using unemployment insurance as an early form of social security while they wait to be eligible to claim social security benefits. Although this is understandable, since the employment outlook is particularly difficult for older unemployed workers, being close to retirement age, and being on unemployment for a long extended period of time, says to employers that a person's career is winding down, and that hiring them would be a risk, since they will quit in a few years anyway.

It is especially important for older workers to show initiative and at least take a part time job, or start a business while collecting unemployment, so that employers are not wary of hiring them once the market picks up.

[RichM]

I also think that as employers continue to hire younger workers, workers at or near retirement age, are using unemployment insurance as an early form of social security while they wait to be eligible to claim social security benefits. Although this is understandable, since the employment outlook is particularly difficult for older unemployed workers, being close to retirement age, and being on unemployment for a long extended period of time, says to employers that a person's career is winding down, and that hiring them would be a risk, since they will quit in a few years anyway.

It is especially important for older workers to show initiative and at least take a part time job, or start a business while collecting unemployment, so that employers are not wary of hiring them once the market picks up.

Absolutely. And if there really, truly is NOTHING available, as might be the case in some rural areas or in one-employer towns that have lost that one employer, then at least do some sort of volunteer work that can be verified. At least it shows potential employers that you have some sort of initiative and are not afraid of working. Collecting checks for 99 weeks doesn't. In fact, it strongly suggests the opposite.

-Rich

[helpme2010]

I am all for keeping unemployment benefits going. People need to eat, and have a roof over their heads. But I think everyone that is receiving long term unemployment benefits needs to understand that the corporate world frowns very deeply upon them. Anyone who has received 99 weeks of unemployment benefits or even half that, without a clear demonstration as to what they were doing with that time, will face a very steep uphill battle in getting a good, full-time job with benefits after the unemployment insurance runs out.

If one is looking for a corporate job after receiving unemployment, it is far better to work part-time, or work as a temp, or start a business, than to collect unemployment for 99 weeks without having anything on your resume for that time frame. Of course you can collect the benefits while doing these other things.

backtoschool, I agree with you. The same issue of employment is what prevented me from filing bk several months earlier than I did. I wish I had filed earlier, but all I could think about was how this would haunt me when I apply for jobs and they run a credit check on me. Finally I just thought to myself that I no longer care about what an employer thinks about me or what background checks they run on me, I simply have to survive or become homeless, period.

There are so many issues with interviewing, including employers not believing 25% of what we put on our resumes or say in an interview. I found this out with a couple recruiters that told me the reason why I wasn't hired for a couple positions was the interviewer did not believe my story about a couple companies I worked for (AND I TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT MY RESPONSIBLITIES). So sometimes I believe you have to look out for your survival and the heck with what a company does or thinks.

If some companies won't hire me due to a bk on my record, or some don't hire some people on this board for being out of work for 99 weeks, then these are simply not the best companies to begin with. 99rs have enough garbage to deal with, without having to worry that some employers are going to hold this against them.

All they can do is do the best they can do and whatever happens will take its course. Thanks for the reply.

[helpme2010]

Richm, you stated, "The plain, maybe harsh truth is that there's almost always some sort of job a person can take. Okay, maybe this isn't true if you live in the boondocks, but in almost any city, town, or suburb, there's almost always some sort of jobs available. Those jobs may suck. They may be unpleasant or dirty. They may not pay well. But they're still jobs -- and taking one of them while waiting for a job in your "regular" field to open up can impress a potential employer. It says, "This person takes initiative and is not afraid of the dirty jobs," rather than, "This person sat on his ass for 99 weeks and collected checks."

While I do agree with you that this is a good thing to do, to take any type of job that will pay the bills, it can also harm an employee. Employers will ask for your salary history and if they see you took a low paying job, they will dramatically cut down how much they offer you. I have seen this first hand.

So a job at Walmart or cleaning gutters will likely result in them lowballing you by tens of thousands of dollars. It can also make an employee look bad in that they could not get a regular job, so they had to take a low quality job. I know this argument can be presented your way as well - so I respect both of our positions.

But remember even McDonalds and Walmart can only fill so many positions and they will often turn down the over-qualified as they know the second the over-qualified can find a regular job again, they will split.

[helpme2010]

And richm, I have taken some low paying jobs during difficult times, and at least was able to use this to help give me skillsets in different industries. I have also consulted which was unreliable but did bring in some extra income. I did several years of volunteer work which I place on my resume, and I got a degree during the recession. So I do have good resume gap success stories to use.

I understand your logic and I also feel for those still unemployed.

[RichM]

You make good points, helpme2010, and you may be right about some of them, especially with regard to employers low-balling you after you've worked a string of low-paying jobs. I've been self-employed most of my adult life, so I really haven't had to contend with that sort of thing.

On the other hand, I've also hired people from time to time, and I don't think I would do that to a prospect who plainly told me, "I took the jobs because I needed to do something until a better one came along. Sitting around collecting checks isn't for me." But that's just me. I know that I'm not representative of employers in general. I used to hire mainly "kids" (college-aged young people), and I treated them as if they were my own -- even to the point of paying for their meals while they were at work and driving them home if they didn't have wheels. But again, that's just me.

I also think that being out of work and collecting checks for an extended period of time would also tempt many employers to low-ball a candidate at least as much as if that candidate had worked low-paying jobs in the interim. I mean, an employee who hasn't worked at all is in an even more desperate position than one who is willing to shovel manure, and who by that willingness demonstrates that he's not going to die if the interview doesn't go his way. But again, I can't read other people's minds.

I feel for the long-term unemployed, as well, and I understand that there are some situations in which they can't get (or shouldn't) take even crappy jobs. In addition to the reasons you cite, I also know of some people who belong to trade unions, and who will get kicked out of those unions if they take other work while unemployed. So yes, there are some situations that are out of the ordinary.

But for the majority of people who are out of work, I still believe that sitting around and collecting checks for an extended period of time will only hurt their prospects for finding a good job. I am also well aware that my opinion does not constitute gospel, however. It's just my opinion, and subject to change if I am persuaded that I'm wrong.

-Rich

[helpme2010]

Rich, you made some good statements. I also would ask those on unemployment for long periods of time, are you really going out there and looking, looking, looking. Trying all resources or do you belong to that category of pretty much having given up. While the unemployment rate is rated at what, 9.8%, it is actually 17% or even a little higher, when you factor in the people that no longer are eligible for unemployment or went from a 70k a year job down to a 20k a year job or part time job and are still living in poverty.

Some just give up looking for work altogether and end up living with their parents or some other family member or friend (and probably having to do odd jobs around the house and helping care for the medical needs of the parents - that actually happened to my uncle).

[discouraged]

I can say for myself that my resume is very good and I have good professional references. I have had a few interviews in the last 2 years, which does say something when there are hundreds of people applying for jobs, but the minute they see the wrinkles, the interview was basically over.

I still don't have a full time job but, thanks to my earlier work in a County environment, I was hired as a temp last year at the county (you can only work 6 months in a temp position at a government job because of the union). Then I didn't work for over a year again. Now I am a temp at the City and today just applied for an open county position. I am hoping that with the county and city work I have done, I will be hired. BUT - the reality is, people look at your age and say, No thanks.

I may luck out in this one because I have proven myself to be a hard worker, but we'll see. The pay is near what I used to make and I'm sure they will have hundreds of applicants.

THIS is what the older work force is facing. 5 years until I could get the lower social security, 10 if I hold out for the higher. And I have been applying for every job that looks even half-way decent - most well beneath my old salary.