Unemployment Benefits End: 297 / 40 = $7.42


First, we’re talking about $297.00 a week.

Don’t forget that:

About 45,000 people have lost extended benefits in the month-long standoff between Republican legislative leaders and Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue, up from an initial estimate of 37,000 people who lost the chance to receive 20 weeks of federal benefits after normal benefits and all other extensions have been exhausted.

Each week, about 2,100 people are running out of benefits, which would pay them an average of about $297 a week, officials said.

So, I just checked and this is what I found:

I’m not sayin’……I’m just sayin’.

Advertisements
9 comments
  1. Ash-Bea said:

    I find that interesting…now if you can weed out the ones that are not legit or require to you join the armed forces. I feel sure you won’t have as many matches. I’m just sayin…

    • pino said:

      now if you can weed out the ones that are not legit or require to you join the armed forces. I feel sure you won’t have as many matches.

      Fair enough.

      The point is, of course, that as long as we continue to pay people not to work-the incentive to work isn’t as strong. How long do you think benefits should last?

      • Incentives aren’t the issue. Absence of jobs is the issue. That’s what the data shows.

        http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/job_openings_per_unemployed_worker_unchanged_in_august/
        This morning the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the August report from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), showing that job openings increased by 60,000 in August (and upward revisions to earlier data reveal that there were 99,000 more jobs openings in July than previously reported).

        The total number of job openings in August was 3.2 million. From the August Current Population Survey, we know that the total number of unemployed workers was 14.9 million. This means that the ratio of unemployed workers to job openings was 4.6-to-1 in August, unchanged from the revised July ratio. It is important to note that this ratio does not measure the number of applicants for each job. There may be throngs of applicants for every job posting, since job seekers apply for multiple jobs. The 4.6-to-1 ratio means that for every 46 unemployed workers, there are only 10 available job openings.

        More recent data here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm and here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.htm

        There were 3.1 million job openings on the last business day of March,
        the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The job openings
        rate (2.3 percent) was unchanged over the month, following a gain in
        February. The hires rate (3.1 percent) and the separations rate (2.9
        percent) also were unchanged in March.

        Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 244,000 in April, and the unemployment rate
        edged up to 9.0 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
        Job gains occurred in several service-providing industries, manufacturing,
        and mining.

        Household Survey Data

        The number of unemployed persons, at 13.7 million, changed little in
        April. The unemployment rate edged up from 8.8 to 9.0 percent over the
        month but was 0.8 percentage point lower than in November. The labor
        force also was little changed in April.

      • nickgb said:

        So you found that “1000+ jobs” are listed, which as Ash-Bea points out often include lots of bogus opportunities (I’d say over 50% from the times I’ve looked).

        You also cite that 45,000 people lost benefits and 2,000 more lose benefits every week.

        Your data supports extending benefits. The number of people looking for work far exceeds the number of jobs available at any given time. I know that reflectionephemeral already responded with more accurate numbers than your monster.com search, but your own numbers disprove your point. Did you just want to write a screed about lazy people?

        And trust me, trying to live on $15,000/year gives you LOTS of incentive to work.

  2. Henry said:

    Years ago I was unemployed. With extensions, I was able to NOT work for one year. I never really needed the money, but it was there, so I took it as long as it was available. There was no incentive to refuse it.

    Here is how I believe unemployment insurance should work:
    If I want insurance to cover my family while I am unemployed, I will buy it, just as I currently buy auto, homeowners, and life insurance. My unemployment insurance rates would be based upon MY employment history. People that have a proven track record of NOT filing unemployment claims, would have lower premiums than people that are habitually unemployed. I also may elect to NOT purchase unemployment insurance. It would be my choice; if I want the coverage, I would buy it. This may seem like a simplistic solution, but it seems fair to me. The one reason that workers would balk at this is that the unemployment insurance has ALWAYS been paid for by the employer, so workers consider themselves entitled to it. Maybe employees are entitled to it. I am not sure about this.

  3. Ash-Bea said:

    Being in our situation I will tell you I’m biased as to how long UEB should last…I see where people who are employed are coming from. I will tell you that my husband, a residential builder and licensed general contractor can not get a job because he’s over qualified for a lot of the positions he’s applied to EVEN outside of the construction industry. He’s been to numerous interviews over the past two years since he’s been unemployed. He’s unemployed because there’s nothing out there, not because he doesn’t want to work. TRUST me…he wants to work.

    • Henry said:

      The government has a big pot of money to use for unemployment checks. Some people are in line to get a check because they REALLY NEED it. There are also MANY people in line just because the money is being given away. The unemployed worker compares the actual take-home pay that a new entry level job would bring in verses the amount that can be received from unemployment. It is a simple dollars and cents issue. Many people chose to NOT work because the money that they would receive from working is about the same or less than the money that they can pocket from NOT working. The more people that we have drawing money out of the unemployment pot, the sooner the money pot becomes depleted. Is there a way to encourage unemployed workers to take lower paying jobs rather than draw money from the unemployment insurance fund? What if we provided better parking spots for folks that have stable employment records? In a city like Ann Arbor Michigan, that would just about guaranty 100% employment. Here is another idea that would not cost our government a dime , yet I believe it would encourage people to stay off unemployment. Allow people with stable employment records to select the days that they will be called in for jury duty.

      • pino said:

        Many people chose to NOT work because the money that they would receive from working is about the same or less than the money that they can pocket from NOT working.

        In many many cases, this is true.

    • pino said:

      He’s been to numerous interviews over the past two years since he’s been unemployed.

      Ash-Bea,

      On a personal note, Ill say a prayer for you and your husband; I sincerely feel horrible when I hear about folks dealing with these conditions. Stay strong.

      I see where people who are employed are coming from.

      When deciding on policy, the idea should be to create an environment that creates proper incentives. When politicians, in an honest and sincere effort to make life better, raise the minimum wage to the point that it prices people out of the job market, that’s bad policy. When politicians, in an honest and sincere effort to make life better, extend benefits so long that people, in general-not specific-, make the decision that going to work for 40 hours in order to earn $400 isn’t worth the trade-ff of staying home and earning $300. In the balance, that trade is the same as saying we’ll pay that worker $100 for 40 hours of work. No wonder he stays away from a job.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: