After my newspaper closed in 1979, I tried and tried to land another position, but had no luck. I knew I could only draw a limited amount of unemployment, so I managed to make it stretch out as long as possible by telemarketing subscriptions to a weekly newspaper. Finally, with no jobs in sight, I took out a student loan and returned to Missouri Southern State College. My telephone work led to a reporting job and later an editing job.
Since then, I have been on unemployment once, for a few weeks in 1999. There are few things that make a person feel as useless as being ready and willing to work but having no job.
It doesn’t make a person feel any better, but an unemployment check is a lifeline, a way to keep you from being hungry while you pound the pavement looking for work.
That was how I always thought of unemployment insurance until today. I learned today from a noted scholar that many people are just begging for more money to freeload on the government’s dime.
"At what point does unemployment compensation become welfare? The longer you pay people not to work, the longer they're not gonna try to work. At what point does unemployment compensation become welfare? And I'm here to tell you that we may be on the cusp of it. Unemployment compensation is just another welfare program."
How is it that Glenn Beck is the one starting a university, and not the man who spoke these words, that wise sage Rush Limbaugh?
He continued, “It's not emergency spending. We don't have the money for this. This is another expanded welfare program. It's a welfare program. It's not called that. It's called unemployment compensation insurance, now two and a half years.
“It used to be you got this for a month or two, 13 weeks. Then it expanded and expanded and expanded and expanded. So what a dramatic kickoff to the Summer of Recovery, effectively a new welfare program put in place by the Obama regime.”
How easy it must be for Rush Limbaugh, sitting in the lap of luxury, making more money in a month than many of us will make in a lifetime, to sit behind a microphone and make sport of those who, invariably through no fault of their own, are unable to support their families.
How simple it must be for Mr. Limbaugh, who has spent considerable airtime over the past several years preaching the religion of cutting taxes for those in his lofty tax bracket, to state, without even realizing the irony, that it is those who cannot find work who are milking the taxpayers dry.
I wouldn’t wish unemployment on anyone, not even Rush Limbaugh. How scary the thought, though, that this man whose every word is followed by millions, is so out of touch with the reality that his own rantings helped bring about.
10 comments:
unemployment benefits are a good thing, but do they need to run for 99 weeks? no one said we should eliminate benefits, just that we should limit them to six months (already too long). Will there be the same Randy Turner complaint (rich people don't care about "the workers," and that's why they don't want to extend the benefits) when someone opposes extending benefits to 125 weeks? How long should someone have to find an altenate source of income after he loses a job?
It may not be a politically correct or popular thing to point out, but economic realities are economic realities. Namely, if you subsidize something you get more of it. Now, we are subsidizing unemployment at unprecedented levels. Why, then, are we surprised that the job market has not improved?
Everyone feels compassion for those who are out of work. However, an unlimited stream of government checks may only exacerbate the problem. Consider an unemployed worker in a very depressed area, such as Michigan. This individual might be able to move to another area of the country and find a job. However, unemployment checks allow him to stay right where he is, looking for jobs that don't exist.
The same thing is true of those who are holding out for jobs of a type and quality that may no longer exist. While it might be hard for a former middle manager to start stocking shelves somewhere, sometimes taking a lower-wage job is would be a rational economic decision. However, unending employment benefits keep workers from making those tough choices, prolonging unemployment and costing the nation a great deal in economic productivity that the labor market would otherwise have produced.
If unemployment benefits become an unlimited entitlement with no cutoff date, then Rush is quite correct in stating that they have become welfare by another means. They will merely subsidize an underclass of the unemployed who will be disincentivized from finding work.
It has been my experience that over half the people receiving unemployment benefits aren't out "pounding the pavement," as Randy would say, but rather content to stay at home and collect their paychecks from the government.
How radical an idea is this...getting some of the money we've paid in working our whole lives...We have unemployment insurance taken out of our paychecks every week. The average unemployed person on unemployment is 35 to 55 years old so they have been paying into UI for many years. For most of them this is the first time they have ever drawn UI. You HAVE to have that money in your account..paid by you..to draw it out..and the employer who laid you off or fired you has to pay too. I work in the employment office and maybe twice since this started did I think that maybe someone was taking advantage of the system. Our area is very economically stressed and there are very few jobs out there. You have to have a high school diploma now to work at Buzzes BBQ..That means that half of the people that work at factorys or in construction, (two of the worst hit industries in our area) can't get a job flipping burgers...for seven flippin dollars an hour. Most employers are now being alot more selective because they know they can. Crane who makes toilets could'nt find people for three positions out of 450 applicants.(because for that 10 dollars an hour they want a flipping scientist) So give me a break. If they can no longer get the money they put into Unemployment and there are no jobs than they will be on Welfare. You have to have WORKED to be on Umemployment people..
The last comment made by the person who says they work in the employment office is not entirely correct. Many people, like this individual, have been misled for years that the worker pays into unemployment. That is totally false. There are two unemployment taxes--state unemployment or SUTA and federal unemployment or FUTA. Each fund has a tax rate that is applied to wages that a business owner pays to a worker. The SUTA rate is based on an individual business's unemployment benefit experience rating over a three year period. The FUTA is a set rate. There are also cutoffs as to the amount of wages that are taxed. Those limits for the SUTA are set by each state.
That being said, not one penny of these two taxes is withheld from an employee's gross wages. It is totally and completely paid by the business owner. It is an expense of doing business that is passed on to the consumer in the price of goods and services. This is why business owners aggressively protest unjust UI claims against them. It is the business owners' money that is paying the unemployment claim not the employee. Should a worker who can't follow the company policy by showing up to work on time and when scheduled be awarded unemployment benefits when he is fired for excessive absenteeism. No, but 9 times out of 10 in today climate that worker is awarded benefits even when the employer has documented his absences.
It is my experience that many of these people are not out pounding the pavement looking for work rather they are just looking for someone to sign their work search document saying they asked about a job. That is why our business refuses to sign them. I handle the UI claims for businesses over a 30 state area and to give you an idea of how out of whack some of our states are-- I have seen claimants quit their job of their own accord turnaround and file for benefits, get denied, but then the denial gets reversed by an appeal hearing officer. Is that right?
Congress is not helping these people by extending the emergency benefit period but crippling them. Continuing to expand the entitlement and dependency mindset that has destroyed the work ethic among people in this country. We have a whole generation of people that are growing up that know more about how to get something for nothing than they know how to work to earn a living.
Just a few thoughts.
Trent, You mean you work for the businesses in thirty states or that you handle UI claims for the government?
This whole argument against unemployment compensation is very flawed. Read this to find the truth:
http://www.nelp.org/page/-/UI/DisincentiveUI.pdf?nocdn=1
Here's a snippet:
"A review of economic findings concerning the impact of UI in the labor market shows that significant considerations are often ignored when presenting economic research in the context of the current debate over extending Emergency Unemployment Compensation. In short, a careful review of the research finds:
1.
Today’s severely depressed job market—not unemployment insurance—is the cause of long unemployment duration: Previous research assumed that work is readily available (full employment). These studies do not apply with equal force in today’s slack labor market where there are 5.6 workers for each job opening and when a far greater proportion of workers has been subject to permanent rather than temporary layoffs. With odds of finding a job this slim, any possible disincentive effect of UI is drowned out by labor market effects.
2.
Newer research debunks old assumptions about the impact of unemployment benefits on unemployment duration: Estimated impacts of UI on the duration of unemployment spells vary greatly, depending on research design and the underlying data used. Compared to older studies, several estimates based on new research show any disincentive impact is very modest. For example, recent research by influential economist David Card found that the incentive effect was less than half as much as the widely cited estimates by Katz and Meyer.
3.
Unemployment benefits boost the economy, and help employed workers by stabilizing demand: Many older studies concerning the impact of unemployment insurance benefits on unemployment did not account for ways in which benefits may actually lower the unemployment rate (e.g., by sustaining consumer spending and leaving jobs available for uninsured workers). This was because they used data solely related to insured jobless workers and did not assess the effect of UI on the overall labor market and economy.
4.
The positive social welfare impact of unemployment benefits far outweighs the marginal impact of UI on the length of jobless spells: Unemployment insurance enables workers and their families to preserve their savings (e.g., retirement accounts and life insurance policies) as well as avoid severe financial hardship (e.g., foreclosure, bankruptcy, and hunger). And, with the worst long‐term unemployment since World War II, benefit extensions play a critical role in preventing poverty and economic hardship in 2010. In other words, even if UI extends the time jobless workers are laid off, these workers and the economy are better off for having received the assistance."
This whole argument against unemployment compensation is very flawed.
Here's a snippet:
"A review of economic findings concerning the impact of UI in the labor market shows that significant considerations are often ignored when presenting economic research in the context of the current debate over extending Emergency Unemployment Compensation. In short, a careful review of the research finds:
1.
Today’s severely depressed job market—not unemployment insurance—is the cause of long unemployment duration: Previous research assumed that work is readily available (full employment). These studies do not apply with equal force in today’s slack labor market where there are 5.6 workers for each job opening and when a far greater proportion of workers has been subject to permanent rather than temporary layoffs. With odds of finding a job this slim, any possible disincentive effect of UI is drowned out by labor market effects.
2.
Newer research debunks old assumptions about the impact of unemployment benefits on unemployment duration: Estimated impacts of UI on the duration of unemployment spells vary greatly, depending on research design and the underlying data used. Compared to older studies, several estimates based on new research show any disincentive impact is very modest. For example, recent research by influential economist David Card found that the incentive effect was less than half as much as the widely cited estimates by Katz and Meyer.
3.
Unemployment benefits boost the economy, and help employed workers by stabilizing demand: Many older studies concerning the impact of unemployment insurance benefits on unemployment did not account for ways in which benefits may actually lower the unemployment rate (e.g., by sustaining consumer spending and leaving jobs available for uninsured workers). This was because they used data solely related to insured jobless workers and did not assess the effect of UI on the overall labor market and economy.
4.
The positive social welfare impact of unemployment benefits far outweighs the marginal impact of UI on the length of jobless spells: Unemployment insurance enables workers and their families to preserve their savings (e.g., retirement accounts and life insurance policies) as well as avoid severe financial hardship (e.g., foreclosure, bankruptcy, and hunger). And, with the worst long‐term unemployment since World War II, benefit extensions play a critical role in preventing poverty and economic hardship in 2010. In other words, even if UI extends the time jobless workers are laid off, these workers and the economy are better off for having received the assistance."
http://www.nelp.org/page/-/UI/DisincentiveUI.pdf?nocdn=1
This whole argument against unemployment compensation is very flawed.
Here's a snippet:
"A review of economic findings concerning the impact of UI in the labor market shows that significant considerations are often ignored when presenting economic research in the context of the current debate over extending Emergency Unemployment Compensation. In short, a careful review of the research finds:
1.
Today’s severely depressed job market—not unemployment insurance—is the cause of long unemployment duration: Previous research assumed that work is readily available (full employment). These studies do not apply with equal force in today’s slack labor market where there are 5.6 workers for each job opening and when a far greater proportion of workers has been subject to permanent rather than temporary layoffs. With odds of finding a job this slim, any possible disincentive effect of UI is drowned out by labor market effects."
http://www.nelp.org/page/-/UI/DisincentiveUI.pdf?nocdn=1
Sorry for the multiple posts - I thought it wasn't taking it.
Post a Comment