Why work? The problem with unemployment...

[Tab]

First, thank god for unemployment insurance. My getting unemployed coincided with my getting sick and with a crappy job market (hence the unemployment). I made so much money before (not that I have any left, life is funny that way) that I maxed out the unemployment benefits, as far as what they will pay weekly.

The ironic thing is that there's now a disincentive to work. I'm happy to work, but anything that earns me more than a third of my unemployment gets deducted from my unemployment benefit. Why bust my ass for 40 hours a week to earn effectively less than I earn by not working? Perhaps this is the point the conservatives are trying to make.

The other thing is that unemploymeent is based on your last 10 months of earnings. So if I take a lesser paying job, that (1) interrupts my unemployment and (2) qualifies me for LESS unemployment benefits the next time around. I could conceivably go back into consulting - my wife has family health insurance - in fact, that's the major benefit to her employment - but I'm tired of the consulting world. Regardless, if I took a job doing, say, cooking at a restaurant, I'll make a fraction of what I made the last time I was employed, and if I have to file for unemployment again I'll only qualify for a fraction of what I get now.

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm happy to receive UI... but there are some problems with the system. Now if I could get UI *AND* also work without jeapordizing my benefits, that would be good - it wouldn't threaten my house (meaning, failure to keep up the mortgage), I could take a lesser-paying job temporarily while I look for a better one, etc. As it is now, though, why bother looking at all if I can't get something comparable to what I had?

Just sayin', is all...

[geckosfeet]

1. Would flat rate unemployment benefits be better?

Maybe. If everyone receives the same rate the program would be infinitely simpler to administer. I also think that health insurance and food stamps should be part of any unemployment program.

The current program seems like a hand waving acknowledgment of the unemployment problem. The opportunity to improve it is boundless.

[Tab]

7. You'll never get a formula that works properly

If you are unemployed from a low-wage job (say, $8/hr), it'd likely to be to your benefit to get fired. If you had a high-wage job - over the maximum (and it varies by state) and you get benefits attractive to a low-wage earner, they're not going to help you much.

I do agree that health insurance would help. Although, you run into the larger problem of it being more attractive to be unemployed and get free health insurance than to be employed and have to pay for it.

There are no easy answers short of revamping the entire system.

I'm just trying to open it up for discussion, but there's lots of room for improvement in the system, you are correct on that point.

[Threedifferentones]

2. Perhaps conservatives design ass backwards welfare programs

So that they can say "see we were right all along."

There is no denying your situation is stupid; the only thing positive about it would be that you run no risk of taking a job from someone who is not so fortunate as you.

[PassingFair]

3. Why work? Because that unemployment won't go on forever....

better to take a job BEFORE it runs out.

Hopefully at or near what you were making
before, but as you run down the clock, you
will have to take anything you can get.

[Kansas Wyatt]

5. And if you stay unemployed long enough...

You run out of credits to be eligible for unemployment benefits to begin with.

Everyone knows that unemployment benefits will not last forever and it will not pay all the bills. In the beginning, it's a lot easier to juggle bills, but it eventually becomes impossible to pay all your bills if you've had to rely on unemployment benefits for a long time.

[customerserviceguy]

16. Exactly

I was faced with the same dilemma as the OP. Six months ago, I had a great 40 hour a week job, but was scrambling to find something else, since my company announced that it had merged with competitors, and our office was being shut down. My job would have ended on December 31, 2008. I would have gotten four weeks severance, and be UC eligible, but I decided to leave earlier when a part time job became available with a utility company.

I sincerely hope for all of our sakes that the economy is going to recover soon, but if it doesn't, the folks hoping for an extension of unemployment benefits are likely to be worse off than someone working steadily at 20-30 hours a week like I am. And there is the possibility of being able to go full time, I'm much more likely to get one of those positions by being on the inside, than trying to get in from the outside after just collecting UC for months and months.

[Mr Generic Other]

4. why bother to look for work?

because the unemployment checks will eventually stop arriving and you will need a job regardless of what it pays.
i agree with you that building dis-incentives into the unemployment program is a problem but most unemployed are not anticipating getting support for long on this system anyway.
the problems you highlight related to different amounts one can collect on unemployment could be solved by unemployment checks being based on the actual cost of living in specific areas rather than what one made while working. this might reduce the amount you currently receive but increase the amounts many others who don't have the luxury to compare unemployment checks to payroll checks the way you apparently do.
with this change you might be encouraged to look for work but others might be less encouraged to do so.
any system will have flaws and there are always exceptions to "the way things are supposed to work" but your complaints are minor and sound almost as if you believe that unemployment is the dole. the insurance is paid for by working people and is not a give away. just like all social programs, unemployment is paid for by workers and not a gift from above.
from my perspective there are many other real social ills to tackle that should get more attention than your "too large" check.

[lib2DaBone]

6. Don't forget that you also have to pay taxes on your unemployment....

..and BOA will charge you $6 to cash your unemployment check.

In Florida, State Sen Mike Bennett (R) wants to drug test UI recipients. Sen Bennett (quick-act surprised) gets campaign donations from a medical testing Lab.

I find it odd that Politicians want to drug test people on unemployment, rather than working to restore jobs and help people back to work. I thought elected politicians were 'public servants'?

Here's a quote from my 90-year-old grandfather, which I'd like to pass along to our politicians....: "Quit beating the mule and help load the wagon"

[Tab]

9. I stopped using BOA long ago

That's another thread altogether. We opened an account, I deposited two checks. One was a BOA-drawn check, they were going to clear it in 24 hours. The other was a check from my mother, who lives only one state over, ferchrissakes, and they wanted at least 5 days for it. Now, my memory may be faulty, but I worked in banks 20 years ago, and then 5 days was typical, but I believe the passing of whatever law it was required them to release most funds within 2 days, 3 at most. BOA wants to sit on it for over a week, which to my mind is just collecting interest as penalty for not using BOA on both ends of the spectrum, plus their fees were ridiculous. Screw that. We bank elsewhere now.

You started to get me going. I'll shut up now. I have a ton of comments on BOA, but I don't have the energy to get into them now.

[iamthebandfanman]

12. always best

to get the 10% taken out of your checks automatically to avoid any end of the year panic

[undeterred]

8. The incentive to work is not just the money

although if you've ever had to support yourself only on unemployment insurance you will find that its pretty meager living. The longer you are out, the worse it is for your job history, and that affects your whole career plan and future opportunities.

There is no incentive to take a minimum wage job, since unemployment pays more. But its better to take a 50% pay cut (as I have) and keep working in your own field if you can. Better financially and better for your career.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. I think we should whip the shiftless lazy proles until they shape up.

The major problems with UI are a) benefits can be taxed (a serious WTF), b) benefits are ridiculously low for modern times, c) benefits run out way too early, d) we don't have universal health insurance or universal higher education, e) mortgage and rent typically far exceed benefits (see b).

You should not have to take a lower wage job to supplement UI while you are looking for a job in your field at or near your former pay, as that puts you exactly into the bind you describe. Instead see a-e above.

They keep us in a state of fear uncertainty and doubt, they whip us relentlessly with social insecurity, so that we will be good little proles. It is our country, not theirs. We need to take it back.

[MADem]

14. In some high employment areas, benefits last for over a year.

They aren't luxurious, but they do keep the wolf from the door for many families.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. This recession has lasted for well over a year.

Oh and I forgot this gem: "The majority of American workers do not qualify for unemployment insurance. This includes part-time, temporary, and self-employed workers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#United_States

Many people burn through their savings while unemployed as, despite your claim regarding the much maligned wolves, UI compensation is inadequate to meet basic needs such as food clothing shelter medical insurance etc.

For your state the maximum benefit is $628 a week and the maximum number of weeks a claimant can collect full benefits is 30 weeks. That amounts to an annual compensation rate of 32,656 and a total benefit of 18,840 in a state where the median family income is $62,365. It would be difficult to sustain an argument that a family living on 60,000 can get by on 30,000 without making serious compromises.
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=elwdhomepage&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Elwd
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/census/ma/

[MADem]

19. Don't lecture me. You come off sounding like a didactic jerk.

With that kind of attitude you'll have a tough slog finding work.

I have four family members who are feeling the heat--three unemployed, one "underemployed."

They're making ends meet by banding together. The whole is greater than its parts. I, and others in our family, help. It's what families do.

Sometimes, you have to say good bye to stuff to keep your head above water--like cable and internet and that morning latte. Beans replace steak on the menu. You need new clothes? Try the thrift shop, not Macy's. Sell that extra car. Kiss those bikes gathering dust in the garage good bye. Look at your "stuff" and downsize it.

Sometimes, you have to get a roommate, consolidate households, turn down the heat, turn off the lights, get rid of that extra phone, sell a few things, do what you have to do to stay off the street.

Yes, it sucks, but don't blame ME for it. Unemployment compensation is a relatively new thing in the history of our nation. Back in the first Great Depression, you either turned to petty thievery, to the church for a handout, or you went home to family. There was no safety net at all.

Those "serious compromises" may have to be made, but they CAN be made. Imagine how much compromising people would be doing without any compensation at all?

FWIW, in MA, if you are unemployed and lacking medical insurance, the state picks up the slack.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. WTF? don't blame ME for it? Who did?

"Yes, it sucks, but don't blame ME for it. "

I'm really sorry if somehow you are under the impression that I have blamed you for anything. I apologize for your misunderstanding. I do not think UI is adequate and I believe it is deliberately inadequate for lots of reasons and has been since the inflation of the 70's and early 80's and the advent of reaganomics.

"FWIW, in MA, if you are unemployed and lacking medical insurance, the state picks up the slack." and partially as a result Mass is having major financial problems which, ironically, are resulting in state worker layoffs, more unemployed and more financial claims on their attempt at universal health insurance. None of which I blame you for, which qualification I appear to have to now put on everything I write.

p.s. with my attitude, which includes a healthy intolerance for bullshit, I haven't been unemployed in 30 years and about six or so recessions.

[MADem]

23. I concur that UI isn't optimal, but I do think they are doing the best they can with

assets they have available. The total timeframe has been doubled thus far--and who knows, if the slump continues, they may lengthen it even more.

I've never had to avail myself of UI. I feel sorry for those who do need it. Perhaps the way to solve the problem, rather than throw more money at it, is to find a way to defer mortgage payments for homeowners, or reduce rental payments for renters. Not everyone needs that sort of assistance, so it should be targeted to the need of the individual, not a blanket giveaway.

MA isn't the only state dealing with layoffs. States that don't spend a dime on health insurance are cutting the rolls, too.

[iamthebandfanman]

11. that check will end one day.

just sayin'.

[Tab]

13. I'm not looking for lifetime benefits

and really, I'm thrilled I have this stopgap measure, because I'd be in serious trouble otherwise.

I know they run out, and actually mine would be running out now, except for the extended benefits Obama put in, so I have a few more months of leeway. I know I need to get a "real job" soon. Will it pay six digits plus any more? Umm, probably not unless I got into consulting again.

The unemployment rolls are deceptive too. You drop off the list when your benefits run out. So you end up totally umemployed or underemployed, but for the purposes of counting "America's unemployed" you're not counted. You also don't count if you did consult, because you don't qualify for unemployment. And if you were an officer of a corporation, as I was once (not this time around) you don't qualify either, so there's lots of entrepreneurs out there not making any money, but not technically qualify for UI either.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Most people don't qualify

UI has been deliberately kept in its 'old economy' form of the 30-70's. It no longer covers most workers in our brave 'new economy'. By design. They want to keep us compliant and fearful.

[Nikia]

17. Well, it isn't just about someone like you getting work

If unemployment were relatively low and mostly high waged people were losing their jobs, you'd have a point.
As it is, if you are hired for a job cooking at a restarant, you took that job away from someone with less education and skills. If the job market were to get a little better and you settle because you are afraid of getting laid off again, the job you could have gotten is not being filled by the guy who would have cooked at the restaurant. The economy as a whole loses when higher skilled people take the jobs of lower skilled people.
I didn't used to think of it that way either until I had someone else explain it to me and recently, I have seen it happening.

[Mr Generic Other]

21. "no incentive to work"?

i have never spent a "vacation" in my life, as a child or an adult, not working. i have to do then the "work" i can never otherwise get done because of my employment schedule.
it takes time and effort to maintain a home, one's physical and mental health, and good social and family relationships. this work is almost always "put on the back burner" by american workers who work more hours per week, on average, than any other nation's workers except the south koreans.
both my spouse and i have advanced degrees and professional jobs as did both of my parents but i have never had the resources to pay others to do those things for me.
i think all of us should work less for others and more for ourselves.
i have been lucky enough to be continually employed all of my adult life but some "time off" paid for by an insurance policy i bought while employed sounds good to me. this should come in the form of paid vacations, allowing more of us to work fewer hours not as a lifeline at the end of employment.
the socialist countries of western europe have adopted this strategy and their citizens are prospering.

[AlphaCentauri]

22. Some people see it as forced vacation

another excuse to not search for work, unemployment services should include more help to find jobs