2 million lose jobless benefits as holidays arrive

M

mar350

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2026
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
gamblingeconomist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

it also gets those who have been 'waiting for a better job' to just take one and get off their @$$.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Wednesday, December 1, 2010 at 03:43PM by mar350.
 
Let's see, I can get a minimum wage job, work 40 hours per week, and pull down $290 per week before taxes. Or, I can sit at home and collect $302 per week before taxes in unemployment benefits. Hmmm, which should I choose?
 
There are only so many minimum wage jobs. And most of them are being done by illegals anyways.
 
higgmond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see, I can get a minimum wage job, work 40
> hours per week, and pull down $290 per week before
> taxes. Or, I can sit at home and collect $302 per
> week before taxes in unemployment benefits. Hmmm,
> which should I choose?


Then you also deserve to sleep hungry after 99 weeks.
 
pupdawg82 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> higgmond Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Let's see, I can get a minimum wage job, work
> 40
> > hours per week, and pull down $290 per week
> before
> > taxes. Or, I can sit at home and collect $302
> per
> > week before taxes in unemployment benefits.
> Hmmm,
> > which should I choose?
>
>
> Then you also deserve to sleep hungry after 99
> weeks.


Ok, let's bring this into our world, as I assume there aren't many minimum wage laborers on here.

I don't know your specifics, but let's assume you pull in $100,000 per year before taxes. I'll give you a choice, you can take the next two years off with pay (heck, I'll even give you a slight raise over those next two years), or you can work as usual for the next two years at your current salary. The only condition while you are off, is that you have to fill out a few forms every couple of weeks and come by the office to say hello. Which do you choose?
 
BlackSwan - I agree with the meat of your argument, but it's impossible to fit into a one-size-fits-all perspective and remove all forms of moral hazard.

For example, say a person used to make $100k and spend $90k and now is forced into a minimum wage job. At $7.25/hour for 3000 hours/year (2000 is generally considered full-time, so this is a generous estimate) he'd be pulling in a whopping $21,750. Going from steak to beans isn't going to cut expenses 80%, and that underwater mortgage won't help his situation any.

That being said, giving up, blaming outsourcing, and demanding handouts isn't going to get any pity either. It'd be great if we could separate the unemployed along these lines, because many people are doing everything to make ends meet unsuccessfully. It's hard to identify with because most of us on AF are risk averse and budget to make sure we're always afloat. Not everyone thinks in terms of NPV.
 
BValGuy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ can i sign up for your plan, higgs?


Sure. Email me ([email protected]) and I'll get you signed up.
 
marcus phoenix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are only so many minimum wage jobs. And most
> of them are being done by illegals anyways.


If an employer has a choice between hiring an illegal or an authorized citizen to work minimum wage, there's no reason to justify the risk of hiring an illegal, with all things being held equal. If you go on to suggest that the illegals will work harder, then what makes the unemployed citizen believe they deserve more than minimum wage being earned by the illegal to begin with?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."
-Joseph Stalin, Tehran Conference: 1943
 
Black Swan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> marcus phoenix Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There are only so many minimum wage jobs. And
> most
> > of them are being done by illegals anyways.
>
>
> If an employer has a choice between hiring an
> illegal or an authorized citizen to work minimum
> wage, there's no reason to justify the risk of
> hiring an illegal, with all things being held
> equal. If you go on to suggest that the illegals
> will work harder, then what makes the unemployed
> citizen believe they deserve more than minimum
> wage being earned by the illegal to begin with?

They get paid under the table and usually less than the min wage. No payroll taxes etc.
 
marcus phoenix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are only so many minimum wage jobs. And most
> of them are being done by illegals anyways.


So what you're saying is that if we grant amnesty to all illegals, they'll find someway to get laid off so they can collect unemployment instead of working and the feds will have to borrow more money to pay them and my lawn won't get cut? I don't think I like the whole amnesty idea then, unless it means I can get one of those cool SCAG mowers really cheap from a recently bankrupt lawn care company.
 
higgmond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Ok, let's bring this into our world, as I assume
> there aren't many minimum wage laborers on here.
>
> I don't know your specifics, but let's assume you
> pull in $100,000 per year before taxes. I'll give
> you a choice, you can take the next two years off
> with pay (heck, I'll even give you a slight raise
> over those next two years), or you can work as
> usual for the next two years at your current
> salary. The only condition while you are off, is
> that you have to fill out a few forms every couple
> of weeks and come by the office to say hello.
> Which do you choose?


Sounds great, but even if you pull in $100,000 per year before taxes, or $2000k per week, your unemployment benefits will max out at about $300 per week on average, or about 15k per year. So you'd be earning about $15k per year. That's before taxes. You may be able to get away without paying much tax between being in a low tax bracket and some credits, but it will be withheld anyway, so you will be living on less than $15k per year. So the idea that you can kick back without working and receive your previous salary is just a bogus claim.

If you are in Massachussets, you are fortunate to be living in the most generous state, which will pay $628 per week.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/LearnToBudget/how-much-jobless-pay-would-you-get.aspx

The above link was published in Feb 2009. It also notes: "About 38% of those currently unemployed are receiving benefits. The remainder have exhausted their benefits already OR NEVER QUALIFIED IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THEY WERE SELF-EMPLOYED, FIRED FOR CAUSE, OR WORKED ONLY PART TIME" (emphasis mine).
 
bchadwick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> higgmond Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Sounds great, but even if you pull in $100,000 per
> year before taxes, or $2000k per week, your
> unemployment benefits will max out at about $300
> per week on average, or about 15k per year. So
> you'd be earning about $15k per year. That's
> before taxes. You may be able to get away without
> paying much tax between being in a low tax bracket
> and some credits, but it will be withheld anyway,
> so you will be living on less than $15k per year.
> So the idea that you can kick back without working
> and receive your previous salary is just a bogus
> claim.
>
> If you are in Massachussets, you are fortunate to
> be living in the most generous state, which will
> pay $628 per week.
>
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt
> /LearnToBudget/how-much-jobless-pay-would-you-get.
> aspx
>
> The above link was published in Feb 2009. It also
> notes: "About 38% of those currently unemployed
> are receiving benefits. The remainder have
> exhausted their benefits already OR NEVER
> QUALIFIED IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THEY WERE
> SELF-EMPLOYED, FIRED FOR CAUSE, OR WORKED ONLY
> PART TIME" (emphasis mine).


You're missing my point. If you were a minimum wage worker prior to being laid off, you have had the opportunity to have 99 weeks off at a slight raise over your prior job. Who wouldn't take that deal? I was simply trying to put things into a wage level more "understandable" here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at Wednesday, December 1, 2010 at 05:18PM by higgmond.
 
higgmond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> marcus phoenix Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There are only so many minimum wage jobs. And
> most
> > of them are being done by illegals anyways.
>
>
> So what you're saying is that if we grant amnesty
> to all illegals, they'll find someway to get laid
> off so they can collect unemployment instead of
> working and the feds will have to borrow more
> money to pay them and my lawn won't get cut? I
> don't think I like the whole amnesty idea then,
> unless it means I can get one of those cool SCAG
> mowers really cheap from a recently bankrupt lawn
> care company.

Huh amnesty? I am against illegal immigration. But I want some sort of practical solutions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"USA troop is a public goods for American and World" ---Lord qqqbee, Sep 1, 2010
 
higgmond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bchadwick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > higgmond Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > Sounds great, but even if you pull in $100,000
> per
> > year before taxes, or $2000k per week, your
> > unemployment benefits will max out at about
> $300
> > per week on average, or about 15k per year. So
> > you'd be earning about $15k per year. That's
> > before taxes. You may be able to get away
> without
> > paying much tax between being in a low tax
> bracket
> > and some credits, but it will be withheld
> anyway,
> > so you will be living on less than $15k per
> year.
> > So the idea that you can kick back without
> working
> > and receive your previous salary is just a
> bogus
> > claim.
> >
> > If you are in Massachussets, you are fortunate
> to
> > be living in the most generous state, which
> will
> > pay $628 per week.
> >
> >
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt
>
> >
> /LearnToBudget/how-much-jobless-pay-would-you-get.
>
> > aspx
> >
> > The above link was published in Feb 2009. It
> also
> > notes: "About 38% of those currently
> unemployed
> > are receiving benefits. The remainder have
> > exhausted their benefits already OR NEVER
> > QUALIFIED IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THEY WERE
> > SELF-EMPLOYED, FIRED FOR CAUSE, OR WORKED ONLY
> > PART TIME" (emphasis mine).
>
>
> You're missing my point. If you were a minimum
> wage worker prior to being laid off, you have had
> the opportunity to have 99 weeks off at a slight
> raise over your prior job. Who wouldn't take that
> deal? I was simply trying to put things into a
> wage level more "understandable" here.

The people that were laid off were typically making far and above minimum wage. Who wants to live off 15K of taxable income? Living off UI is demeaning to most of these people who had stable careers before. They may be some taking advantage of the system but I am willing to bet they are in a minority.
 
gamblingeconomist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those who lose their unemployment benefits should
> be able to get food stamps, medicaid, and whatever
> other welfare they qualify for.
>
> The extension of the unemployment benefits beyond
> 99 weeks is unfair to the non-employed poor that
> do not qualify for unemployment benefits.
>
> It is also unfair to the folks with minimum
> wage-ish jobs that pay comparable amounts to the
> unemployment benefits of someone who was laid off
> from a high paying job two years ago.


I think these are good points.
 
The problem with our government is that the officials need votes to get elected, to get into power. If the masses are lazy, unable to plan for the future, and demand govt handouts, their votes are going to overtake the smart, prudent citizens. You end up with a government that's just as unresponsible as the bum that voted.

I think people making very little salary should have a cap on how many kids they are allowed to have.

Just as millionaires who get laid off, but have a fat bank account shouldn't get to collect unemployment checks.

The system will never be fair. Many hard choices that must be made for the better of the country will be political suicide. And at the end, when the politician looks at his/her own agenda, it's about them-self, holding onto that power, those govt benefits. At the end, they are just another individual wanting the live the good life.
 
Sweep the Leg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As the Greatest Nation On Earth, America should
> support everyone that cannot or will not support
> themselves. It is our duty to be sure everyone is
> Middle Class; bring the lower class up and the
> upper class down. Financially successful
> individuals should happily give away their wealth
> to fund the disenfranchised. Everyone is Entitled
> to everyone else's wealth. No one should be
> without food, education, health care, or cable
> television. When you pay taxes in April, please
> pay extra out of the goodness of your heart.
> Despite everything you've heard, it will be spent
> wisely.

I see what you did there. A+
 
iteracom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with our government is that the
> officials need votes to get elected, to get into
> power. If the masses are lazy, unable to plan for
> the future, and demand govt handouts, their votes
> are going to overtake the smart, prudent citizens.
> You end up with a government that's just as
> unresponsible as the bum that voted.
>
> I think people making very little salary should
> have a cap on how many kids they are allowed to
> have.
>
> Just as millionaires who get laid off, but have a
> fat bank account shouldn't get to collect
> unemployment checks.
>
> The system will never be fair. Many hard choices
> that must be made for the better of the country
> will be political suicide. And at the end, when
> the politician looks at his/her own agenda, it's
> about them-self, holding onto that power, those
> govt benefits. At the end, they are just another
> individual wanting the live the good life.


Ha, cap the amount of kids they can have! I bet you're the guy to go around and keep an eye on the lower-classes, if they start banging too much you intervene, ala those FCC guys when peter is laying pipe to lois.
 
jbaldyga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sweep the Leg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As the Greatest Nation On Earth, America should
> > support everyone that cannot or will not
> support
> > themselves. It is our duty to be sure everyone
> is
> > Middle Class; bring the lower class up and the
> > upper class down. Financially successful
> > individuals should happily give away their
> wealth
> > to fund the disenfranchised. Everyone is
> Entitled
> > to everyone else's wealth. No one should be
> > without food, education, health care, or cable
> > television. When you pay taxes in April,
> please
> > pay extra out of the goodness of your heart.
> > Despite everything you've heard, it will be
> spent
> > wisely.
>


Yawn.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"USA troop is a public goods for American and World" ---Lord qqqbee, Sep 1, 2010
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top