Unemployment

• ernest_t_bass

  

  Just read Belly's thread, and I thought I'd start a different thread with my take on unemployment.
  
  I've never personally had to go through it, wife hasn't, so I consider myself blessed. I feel terrible for the people who have lost their jobs, been laid off temporarily, or had pay decreases... but only b/c it hurts them paying bills.
  
  As far as this boom in unemployment, I think many of us fail to see how it is VERY important for it to happen, for our economy to operate correctly. Businesses NEED this to happen. I seriously wonder how many businesses were over staffed before all of this went down. Many businesses were just keeping people on, but they see that they can handle the work load with a smaller work force. I think that employment will pick up, and new jobs will open... they have to, as that is how our economy works.
  
  Just trying to be optimistic... I think.
• Sonofanump

  Unemployment is actually worse than it currently looks. The government is inflating the numbers with an increase in temporary public sector jobs that actually cost money instead of producing goods or services.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I'm not sure I really understand the initial post, many of the positions lost aren't due just to businesses cutting back, but businesses going away entirely, meaning the jobs are gone and aren't coming back. I would guess 75%+ of the people I've known that have lost their jobs in the last couple of years did so because their employer went under. Heck, I can think of over a dozen people that were part of the Circuit City meltdown. There's no more workload to be had by anyone in those situations. I can only imagine how bad it is in the heavier manufacturing states like Ohio and Michigan.
• 2quik4u

  

  unemployment is really around 16%
• THE4RINGZ

  

  I believe some businesses were over staffed, and had to do some right-sizing. The last company I worked for was a perfect example, they had numerous people with overlapping responsibilities. They were labor heavy in many areas. That was a result of the "good times" in that business. When business was booming, overhead especially personel got out of hand. I believe trimming some of that fat was necessary.
  
  Not all businesses are like that however, but assuming labor is the largest component of your overhead, and when times get slow, you have to make cuts. Sadly, in a lot of situations the cuts are based soley on seniority and not on productivity.
  
  I got layed off due to the fact that I was the least senior member in my department at that company, I became pro-active, started my own company and took away some of their bigger clients. Revenge is sweet.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: I'm not sure I really understand the initial post, many of the positions lost aren't due just to businesses cutting back, but businesses going away entirely, meaning the jobs are gone and aren't coming back. I would guess 75%+ of the people I've known that have lost their jobs in the last couple of years did so because their employer went under. Heck, I can think of over a dozen people that were part of the Circuit City meltdown. There's no more workload to be had by anyone in those situations. I can only imagine how bad it is in the heavier manufacturing states like Ohio and Michigan.

  OK, businesses going under = not a good thing. But businesses cutting back can be.
• muffy

  Additionally unemployment is not counting those who no longer qualify for unemployement benefits or who have stopped applying - it doesn't mean they have jobs. My husband is unemployed, he no longer gets unemployment benefits but he is not being counted.
• Belly35

  

  ernest_t_bass wrote: Just read Belly's thread, and I thought I'd start a different thread with my take on unemployment.
  
  I've never personally had to go through it, wife hasn't, so I consider myself blessed. I feel terrible for the people who have lost their jobs, been laid off temporarily, or had pay decreases... but only b/c it hurts them paying bills.
  
  As far as this boom in unemployment, I think many of us fail to see how it is VERY important for it to happen, for our economy to operate correctly. Businesses NEED this to happen. I seriously wonder how many businesses were over staffed before all of this went down. Many businesses were just keeping people on, but they see that they can handle the work load with a smaller work force. I think that employment will pick up, and new jobs will open... they have to, as that is how our economy works.
  
  Just trying to be optimistic... I think.

  For more Belly wisdom visit
  Politics
  Deep Thoughts- By Belly35 :idea:
• se-alum

  

  I have mixed feelings on unemployment. Obviously it is a good system for the short term, but it has gotten completely out of hand. There are alot of people out there turning down jobs, because they can make just about as much money sitting @ home and doing nothing. There are plenty of jobs out there, sure, they might not be glamorous, but they are there. Alot of people have an overinflated view of their worth, and won't take certain jobs because they believe they are above them!
• I Wear Pants

  se-alum wrote: I have mixed feelings on unemployment. Obviously it is a good system for the short term, but it has gotten completely out of hand. There are alot of people out there turning down jobs, because they can make just about as much money sitting @ home and doing nothing. There are plenty of jobs out there, sure, they might not be glamorous, but they are there. Alot of people have an overinflated view of their worth, and won't take certain jobs because they believe they are above them!

  If a dude has a family why would he take a minimum wage job if his unemployment pays more than that? It'd be irresponsible of him.
• GoChiefs

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: If a dude has a family why would he take a minimum wage job if his unemployment pays more than that? It'd be irresponsible of him.

  And pretty fucking stupid of him as well! LOL
• GoChiefs

  

  se-alum wrote: I have mixed feelings on unemployment. Obviously it is a good system for the short term, but it has gotten completely out of hand. There are alot of people out there turning down jobs, because they can make just about as much money sitting @ home and doing nothing. There are plenty of jobs out there, sure, they might not be glamorous, but they are there. Alot of people have an overinflated view of their worth, and won't take certain jobs because they believe they are above them!

  So..if you get laid off..and you're making 200 a week on unemployment..but McDonalds calls you..and they will pay you 200 a week. You're going to do it? Didn't think so.
• Heretic

  

  GoChiefs wrote:

  se-alum wrote: I have mixed feelings on unemployment. Obviously it is a good system for the short term, but it has gotten completely out of hand. There are alot of people out there turning down jobs, because they can make just about as much money sitting @ home and doing nothing. There are plenty of jobs out there, sure, they might not be glamorous, but they are there. Alot of people have an overinflated view of their worth, and won't take certain jobs because they believe they are above them!

  So..if you get laid off..and you're making 200 a week on unemployment..but McDonalds calls you..and they will pay you 200 a week. You're going to do it? Didn't think so.

  Precisely. I'd rather be collecting my $200 and using my time to find a job that pays more than $200 than having "x" number of my potential job-search hours be eaten up by a meaningless low-level job.
• se-alum

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  se-alum wrote: I have mixed feelings on unemployment. Obviously it is a good system for the short term, but it has gotten completely out of hand. There are alot of people out there turning down jobs, because they can make just about as much money sitting @ home and doing nothing. There are plenty of jobs out there, sure, they might not be glamorous, but they are there. Alot of people have an overinflated view of their worth, and won't take certain jobs because they believe they are above them!

  If a dude has a family why would he take a minimum wage job if his unemployment pays more than that? It'd be irresponsible of him.

  I never said he should take a job that pays less than his unemployment, that obviously wouldn't make sense.
  

  Heretic wrote:

  GoChiefs wrote:

  se-alum wrote: I have mixed feelings on unemployment. Obviously it is a good system for the short term, but it has gotten completely out of hand. There are alot of people out there turning down jobs, because they can make just about as much money sitting @ home and doing nothing. There are plenty of jobs out there, sure, they might not be glamorous, but they are there. Alot of people have an overinflated view of their worth, and won't take certain jobs because they believe they are above them!

  So..if you get laid off..and you're making 200 a week on unemployment..but McDonalds calls you..and they will pay you 200 a week. You're going to do it? Didn't think so.

  Precisely. I'd rather be collecting my $200 and using my time to find a job that pays more than $200 than having "x" number of my potential job-search hours be eaten up by a meaningless low-level job.

  You should have to take a job that pays equal to your unemployment or lose your unemployment benefits.
• GoChiefs

  

  se-alum wrote: You should have to take a job that pays equal to your unemployment or lose your unemployment benefits.

  You didn't answer the question.
  

  GoChiefs wrote: So..if you get laid off..and you're making 200 a week on unemployment..but McDonalds calls you..and they will pay you 200 a week. You're going to do it? Didn't think so.

• royal_k

  

  I was layed off last year for 7 months. My benefit amount was quite high, due to making pretty good wages from my employer. I got several job leads that weren't up to the unemployment benefit amount I was recieving. I didn't take any of those jobs. That would have been stupid on my part.
• I Wear Pants

  http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/04/19/dont-blame-unemployment-extension-for-high-jobless-rate/
• se-alum

  

  GoChiefs wrote:

  se-alum wrote: You should have to take a job that pays equal to your unemployment or lose your unemployment benefits.

  You didn't answer the question.
  

  GoChiefs wrote: So..if you get laid off..and you're making 200 a week on unemployment..but McDonalds calls you..and they will pay you 200 a week. You're going to do it? Didn't think so.

  I would absolutely hate it, but I couldn't justify not taking it. I'm certainly not going to let someone else pay my way if I'm capable of doing it myself.
• GoChiefs

  

  se-alum wrote: I would absolutely hate it, but I couldn't justify not taking it. I'm certainly not going to let someone else pay my way if I'm capable of doing it myself.

  If that's a "Yes, I would". I'm gonna call BS on that one. You pay your taxes, you've paid into unemployment, you need it. That's what it's there for.
• sonofsam

  

  se-alum wrote: I have mixed feelings on unemployment. Obviously it is a good system for the short term, but it has gotten completely out of hand. There are alot of people out there turning down jobs, because they can make just about as much money sitting @ home and doing nothing. There are plenty of jobs out there, sure, they might not be glamorous, but they are there. Alot of people have an overinflated view of their worth, and won't take certain jobs because they believe they are above them!

  Agreed 100%. Short term-fine, long term needs to get a better policy for the couch potatoes.
• se-alum

  

  GoChiefs wrote:

  se-alum wrote: I would absolutely hate it, but I couldn't justify not taking it. I'm certainly not going to let someone else pay my way if I'm capable of doing it myself.

  If that's a "Yes, I would". I'm gonna call BS on that one. You pay your taxes, you've paid into unemployment, you need it. That's what it's there for.

  That is what it's there for, short term.
• GoChiefs

  

  se-alum wrote: That is what it's there for, short term.

  If it was there for just short term..they obviously wouldn't allow you to collect as long as you can. It's there for as long as they allow it. That's why you can't collect for the rest of your life.
• se-alum

  

  GoChiefs wrote:

  se-alum wrote: That is what it's there for, short term.

  If it was there for just short term..they obviously wouldn't allow you to collect as long as you can. It's there for as long as they allow it. That's why you can't collect for the rest of your life.

  They allow it for way too long.
• GoChiefs

  

  se-alum wrote: They allow it for way too long.

  6 months is too long? Sure..they allow it for quite some time now..but that's b/c of the circumstances.
• se-alum

  

  No, 6 months is not too long, that would constitute short term. However, 79 weeks is way too long!