Okay, not all unemployed people, but definitely some of them. Let me explain.
Last month the U.S. House of Representatives passed another 13-week extension of unemployment benefits on top of the current California maximum of 79 weeks. And just last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D‐Nevada) introduced a proposal to extend unemployment insurance by up to 14 additional weeks for jobless workers in all 50 states. The proposal would also extend benefits for an extra 6 weeks in high unemployment states.
Assuming these provisions survive and eventually get signed into law by President Obama, it means qualifying individuals in California will be eligible to receive unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks.
The cost of this extension is estimated to be on the order of $70 billion. Of course, U.S. lawmakers have not figured out whether or how to pay for that, so they’ll just cover it in a manner that requires the least amount of political courage. That is, they’ll just print more money – damn the torpedoes and thank you very much.
That being said, for now let’s forget about the financial impacts and just focus on the magnitude of time, shall we?
Ninety-nine weeks.
If we’re going to talk about the length of time that certain people should be getting paid unemployment benefits, I have to insist on raising a bit of a stink. Come on, that’s almost two whole years.
Hey, I have nothing against the number 99 per se.
Ninety-nine is a terrific number if you’re the greatest hockey player who ever lived. Or a secret agent.
But 99 is a ridiculous number when it comes to the number of weeks the government allots some people to find a job while enjoying the luxury of a safety net. To be more specific, I have no doubt this is a big reason there are now a growing number of people who characterize themselves as being happily “funemployed.”
According to this expose by the Los Angeles Times, the funemployed are “usually single, in their 20s and 30s and find that life without work agrees with them.”
This story by CBS News asks, “If the economy is so dismal, why are victims of the recession smiling?”
I’ll tell you why: Because a lot of people are collecting $475 per week in California or $900 per week in Massachusetts for doing absolutely nothing!
Most of those smiling people are single, under 35 and either have a low mortgage payment or are renting an apartment.
One of my coworkers was telling me about a friend of his who fits that profile who absolutely refuses to look for a job until his jobless benefits run out. He’s having a blast and the Unemployment Office isn’t paying enough attention to notice that he isn’t really looking for work anyway.
And who can blame the guy? Why work for $10 bucks an hour stacking boxes when you earn $11.88 per hour sitting at the beach or skiing at Mammoth Mountain?
If the government is going to continue to extend unemployment benefits, then the state unemployment offices need to do a better job policing those who are receiving them.
I say that before anybody receives a single cent of extended unemployment benefits resulting from the Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, they should have to prove they are making a good-faith effort at finding a job. After 52 weeks, and until they can show otherwise, people that have failed to meet such a modest requirement should be required to do community service for 20 hours per week in order to continue to receive further unemployment benefits.
After 72 weeks, the community service requirement for failing to demonstrate a good-faith effort to find a job should increase to 40 hours per week.
No community service, no check.
If you want to stay “funemployed,” be my guest, Skippy – just don’t expect the taxpayers to subsidize you.
Hey! If you liked this article, please be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed!
Subscribe to Len Penzo dot Com!
via Email 
Len, sorry, but I’m opposed to your statement.
If the government can spend $45 billion bailing out one company (Citibank), and watch them pay their star trader $100 million, the government should certainly help out millions of people for only $70 billion by extending unemployment benefits.
It’s so easy to tell people who are unemployed to just work. People just dont know how DIFFICULT it is, until you walk in their own shoes.
Unemployed folks, stand strong.
FS
Enjoyed the post and mostly agree with what you’ve said. Also I think its important to point out that you are not saying people who actively make a serious effort to find a job should not receive the extension.
Your post is directed to those that refuse to look for a job because they enjoy getting “free” money”. I completely agree that they should be held to higher standards in their job search efforts.
I have a friend like the guy you mentioned in your post. She’s mid-20’s, used to work in sales, has been unemployed more than half the year and still drinks every single night and sleeps in until about 1pm each day.
She collects enough money from unemployment to pay all her living expenses and therefore will not be motivated to seriously look for a job until her unemployment runs out. Her benefits being extended would only guarantee that she’d remain unemployed for an additional 14 weeks.
Ashley – Do you think if your friend had a choice of working for more money or being unemployed, she’d still choose unemployment? I don’t think so.
They may outwardly show “fun” and “joy”, but I bet that’s more of them trying to make the best of the situation, and not purposefully trying to “game” the system.
I think it’s very important to show empathy to those who’ve lost jobs and do what we can to help each other out. It is one of the most depressing feelings in the world, and it’s not right downplay their efforts.
@Sam: I appreciate where you are coming from, but I have a couple rebuttal comments…
First, I hate cliches but, regarding your reference to Citibank, two wrongs don’t make a right. That being said, as Ashley noted, my argument was towards the “funemployed” – not those who are out there working everyday to find employment.
Second, while I believe it is important to show empathy to those who’ve lost jobs, we should also realize that there are plenty of people out there who simply decide to take advantage of the system and milk it.
Think about it, many people when given the chance to earn $15.00 per hour working at a job they are not too enamored with, ultimately opt to pass on the job in order to keep receiving the $11.88 per hour they are getting from their unemployment checks. Why? Because consciously or subconsciously, they weigh the opportunity cost of not working vs working and decide the additional $3.12 isn’t worth it.
While I can see the logic behind such a decision, I believe it is simply not fair to the taxpayers when the “funemployed” choose to continue to take the checks while spending most of the day at Huntington Beach, rather than spending 40 hours per week wearing out shoe leather and looking for a better paying job.
Len – Sorry, but I don’t agree. I think if you ever go to the unemployment office, you’ll see plenty of people eagerly searching to work. There may be those who are trying to “milk it”, but things always come to an end anyway.
It’s easy to be in a position to admonish others if you have a job, but it’s a different story altogether when you’re on the other side.
When we are working, we pay into unemployment benefits/insurance with every pay check. Why shouldn’t we receive our unemployment checks when we need it the most?
Sam: Employees do not make ANY contributions towards unemployment insurance – the employer bears the entire cost.
So let me understand your argument: are you saying it is okay to “milk” the system since the benefits being paid out are only temporary?
I also don’t believe the fact that the unemployed are in a disadvantaged position invalidates my argument, does it?
No worries Len I’m a civil guy
Employees most certainly do contribute to unemployment insurance by virtue of them working for their employer! As an employer, you calculate ALL costs of an employee, which definitely includes health care insurance, life insurance, social security, and unemployment benefits! No employer just looks at a worker’s salary, I know, b/c my relatives have their own private companies, and I, as a manager see all the costs.
So yes, if you spend 5 years of your life working, what’s 2 years of unemployment benefits? Nothing.
Well, let’s see.. As I understand it, employers are liable for federal taxes on only the first $7,000 of compensation paid to each employee per calendar year at a rate of 6.2% – but that normally nets only 0.8% because of a tax credit employers can take for compensation of up to 5.4% of state unemployment taxes. I’m pretty sure California charges only a few percent on the first $7000 too.
That ain’t a lot payment into the unemployment pool per employee – a few hundred bucks per year. In fact, if I am doing my math correctly, that’s less than one unemployment check per year.
Two years of unemployment benefits requires a lot of folks to work for a lot of years to cover somebody who exhausts 99 weeks of unemployment checks.
So, in conclusion, it doesn’t take a lot of abusers to screw things up for the truly needy.
Why are your comments all these funny colours and so dark – it’s hurting my eyes!!!
I hear what you are saying but I suspect it’s a pretty small group of people who can “live the high life” on unemployment benefits without stressing about the future.
I think there are a lot of people who are unemployed that are either not able to switch to another industry (and maybe need to get off EI and move somewhere else) or just don’t have a lot of ability and need some help.
I don’t know – these kind of benefits can really save some people from dire straights as well as give other people motivation to not look for work.
A friend of mine recently told me she didn’t want to do contract work because she wouldn’t get EI (Canadian unemployment benefits) during the contract and once the contract was over she would be unemployed again. I was amazed – she had just got through telling me how frustrating the job search was.
If you can get some work – then get it!
The funny colors are there to keep you guys disoriented and unable to mount a credible challenge to the host.
But seriously, I’ll do some research and see if I can get some detailed statistics regarding unemployment benefit demographics and time on benefits to see if I can find any correlations.
I know a twenty something who is receiving unemployment benefits, actively looking for work and also taking classes to hone skills. She is unemployed, not funemployed, and the benefits are making it possible to keep her apartment and pay for groceries. She gets interviews, but as a recent college grad with only 1 year of experience, she’s competing with more experienced unemployed people. She’ll get a job soon I’m sure, but the benefits really help.
Thanks Four Pillars and Susan for supporting my thoughts.
Until you’ve experienced unemployment and looked for a while, or have a close friend, or family member looking for work, it’s hard for people to grasp the emotions of being unemployed and the need for help.
It’s easy to poke fun or blame those who are “funemployed” but it’s not nice. I see it as folks doing their best to keep light hearted in a difficult situation.
Empathy and support for others is key.
Sam: Let me see if I follow your logic. Those who have not been unemployed are incapable of forming an rational argument against the “funemployed” abusing the system. If that is incorrect, please set me straight because the germ of most of your comments all seem to center on this point. In fact, the comment is completely irrelevant.
You can try and take the emotional high ground by insinuating that I am somehow “making fun” of those who abuse unemployment insurance – and by extension everybody else who has ever needed it, but it doesn’t fly with me. In fact, the assertion is categorically false if you reread the post.
It does, however, sound like you are defending those who choose to go fishing all day instead of spending most of their days hitting the streets and looking for a job. You can rationalize it anyway you want, but it is still abuse.
Would you characterize somebody who shoplifts a CD who couldn’t otherwise afford one, for example, as “just doing their best in a difficult situation?” Something tells me you would say “Len, that is a different story.”
That’s where you and I will have to agree to disagree.
I think this horse is officially dead.
Great article, wish I had seen it a couple days ago, and linked it to one I just did. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts in the future. My article was “Self Reliance, Not Government Approved”
http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/guest-commentary-self-reliance-not-government-approved/#comments
Thanks, LOI. I read your excellent article at Stand Up for America and I totally agree with you!
i have got 15 years exp. as an auto tech. in ohio where i live and am un employed and have been counting on these extensions with my wife and 3 kids 326.00 a week down from 1100.00 a week does that sound fun to you genious
I note you did not reply to the questions of whether or not you’ve had any meaningful unemployment: I’m willing to wager that you have not been unemployed for any meaningful amount of time, if ever. Strangely enough, there are people that always seem to have gainful employment, through no fault of their own. Also, strangely enough, people that put in the time, money, energy and take the risks to focus on something they think will better their situation have it come back to bite them, hard: whatever they’ve worked towards, goes out of fashion/date somehow, and employers don’t demand that set of skills and experience. I know, from personal experience, how that works, and I’ve been laid off from most of my employers in my career field that I’ve worked for.
Well, since you seem to think you’re so damned smart, to the point where you’re being a self-righteous jerk, and think you actually understand how reality works, I’m here to inform you: you’re a complete idiot and clearly have no clue how reality really works when you’ve been laid off, have to live on unemployment, and have to look for work, and quite possibly are on unemployment for a long time. You see, it isn’t nearly as easy to accept a much lower-paying job as you think it is: you can apply all you want, but the reality is if you apply for positions that are much lower-paying than the jobs you’ve done in the past, you’ll be considered a major flight risk in most cases, and no sane employer will even *touch* your application for most jobs that pay notably less than the sorts of jobs you’ve had before, because that’s a guaranteed loss of time/investment when you inevitably leave them for greener pastures.
There are some jobs that you can get that won’t see you as a flight risk if you make far less per hour/year than you were before: things like delivering pizza, or other very high turnover jobs with little training where even having people around a month is a benefit, even if they leave, and also, these jobs are often part-time with all sorts of weird hours. That, or sales jobs based on commissions, or…. various types of scam companies, MLM, etc. but very few honest jobs will take anyone with far too much experience and pay history seriously and consider hiring them. As such, it’s often far more sensible to completely ignore that those jobs exist: you’ll submit applications in whatever form, taking all that time and effort to do so, just to have them be sent into oblivion, because they absolutely won’t take the risk of someone that’s too good for them to hang around long-term.
Now, here’s the thing: I’m currently living in the Seattle area, and I’ve been laid off from a very large firm, where I made a rather meaningful salary by the standards of most: as a result, the weekly unemployment checks are 1/3 of what I made working a salaried week, and that’s because in Washington state, the cutoff for where unemployment is reimbursed based on income is at $50,000/year, and anything you make above that, is of no value towards collecting more unemployment. Oh, and the cost of living around here isn’t cheap, either. I expect you’re blissfully unaware of an interesting thing: the unemployment office doesn’t require you to accept employment that’s substantially below your previous income if in your field, and if you can’t understand why that is, then I pray you get laid off and learn about reality by doing more than theorizing about it.
First off, I am sorry to hear both of you are unemployed and I wish you both nothing but the best toward finding a new job as quickly as possible.
@ PO’d: You can call me a self-righteous jerk or a complete idiot all you want. I think those charges are way off base, and if you calm down and carefully reread my post, you’ll see I never advocated eliminating unemployment benefits – I believe in them, for a limited period.
It sounds to me like you would be more than happy with the government extending unemployment benefits indefinitely. If that isn’t so, where would you draw the line? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?
I’ve never been unemployed in my life although I work in a very cyclical industry where layoffs are commonplace: aerospace engineering. I’ve been through a half dozen major down-cycles over the past 25 years and I have been lucky enough to have survived them all – so far. But my time is coming, I’m sure – and I’ve been preparing for that day, sir, since I first graduated from college.
I have lived within my means despite my high salary. In fact, I have lived well below my means. While most people making half the money I do were out spending more than they earned and leveraging themselves to the hilt (using their homes as a piggy bank, for example), I have been living a modest life and saving for both my retirement and the day that I eventually get laid off from my job – in a very high cost of living area I might add.
Keep in mind, it’s not just me who has been sacrificing – it’s been my wife and kids too. I could spoil them silly with the salary I earn, but I don’t because of the constant threat of unemployment always hanging over my head and my convictions regarding self-reliance and limited government.
The good news is because I have lived well within my means for many many years, if I lost my job tomorrow, God forbid, I could survive without government assistance and still meet all my obligations for at least a couple years because I have never expected the US taxpayer to support me. That ain’t theory, buddy. That’s fact.
On the other hand, it is apparent for all to see that you aren’t willing to deliver pizza or work a job with weird hours simply because you believe it is the taxpayer’s responsibility to take care of you until you find an acceptable high-paying job – whether it is 99 weeks or 99 years.
I am a personal responsibility guy. My readers know I preach personal responsibility here on this website almost daily. Yes, I talk the talk, sir – but I also walk the walk.
Unlike you, I absolutely refuse to depend on the knuckleheads in Washington to provide for my financial well-being should I lose my job.
I’d rather deliver pizzas or work a job with weird hours than be dependent on the government and the taxpayers to pay my bills.
That, sir, is reality.
Hmmm…
No, Len, you’ve jumped to ill-considered, and wrong conclusions, working on lacking information.
You accuse me of being unwilling to deliver pizza or work a job with weird hours simply because I believe it is the taxpayer’s responsibility to take care of me until I find an acceptable high-paying job, whether it is 99 weeks or 99 years. Well, you’re full of it, once again: remember me explaining the problem about being a “flight risk” to potential employers by applying for far lower-paying jobs than the past job history had anytime remotely recently? I’m not just pulling crap out of my butt like you are, with your self-righteous attitude that I clearly must think others should pay for me living off the government’s teat long-term, because I MOST CERTAINLY KNOW FROM FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE about applying for low-paying jobs after being laid off for a LONG TIME while trying to find suitable work I was qualified for. In fact, I delivered more pizzas in 10.5 months for $6.50 hour+tips than you’ll likely eat for the rest of your life, until I finally got a job back in my field. You see, Mervyn’s (which I applied to the same day, for a night stock clerk job that was approximately minimum wage) flat-out turned me down, for something I could do in my sleep, because I was horribly overqualified. Yes, I was willing to work the graveyard shift doing what’s very much menial labor compared to the development employment I had before then, something that’d bore me to tears.
Oh, and another thing: all the plans of mice and men can fall apart with a major health crisis, even if you start out well-insured. After 18 months, COBRA runs out, and you’d better have something to replace your health insurance at that time, and if you go with an individual plan, you most certainly will NOT get a decent rate, unless you get no coverage worth having in the first place, beyond the value of it being “creditable coverage” until you can next get an employer’s plan that you benefit from group bargaining for reasonable rates.
Oh, yes: you might just be interested to know I had bought a house several years before, well under the means I had to pay for it: ok, I also had student loans to pay off, which I did during the time I was unemployed. I was (before being laid off, unexpectedly, despite all assurances by my supervisor I’d be managing my own project within a year if I kept up at that rate, after 3.5 years at the time of layoff) getting out of all my debt, and living well below my means: where I was living and working, it was one of the few places where it made more sense to buy a house than to rent an apartment, because mortgages (I got a fixed rate) were cheaper for the space than an apartment, even without speculation.
Oh, another thing: there’s this catch-22 when unemployed: do you (if you can) try to go back to school to retrain, while committing to some schooling schedule, and trying to look for work? Easy to say, not as easy to do: going back to school also takes you out of ready consideration of many employers if you can’t make the schedule work. And yet, going back to school is the best long-term thing someone can do, or something like it, to work on diversifying themselves while not fully/at all employed. But wait, unless some government program provides the money for that schooling (most schooling costs a meaningful amount, especially when you’re already unemployed) you’ll need to either have good credit (which I did at that time) to get what you need to survive, or…. work.
Finally, believe it or not, there’s a spiritual component to the whole work/employment situation: one of the absolutely worst things you can do to any sane person is to put them into a situation where the evidence seems to point at them not being useful, and causes them to feel they have no purpose in life. Even if that isn’t true, after a long enough pattern of rejection, it’s incredibly hard to pull yourself out of such a funk. But, seeing how thus far it’s all been rosy for you, you’re blissfully unaware of how smelly the fertilizer of such experience can be, so you can’t conceivably empathize based on experience. Really, the government would be far better off paying people to go back and get retrained if they’re out of work too long, to adapt to the new reality: however, usually by the time such things pop up, people have had reality bite so hard that they can’t afford to do that once it is offered, if ever.
And that, dear, inexperienced in when-the-#^@&-hits-the-fan, is cold, unpleasant reality for a lot of people that weren’t lucky enough to guess right, despite doing all they can to make a good show of themselves.
Congrats on getting people talking Len.
The problem with universal benefits is we instigate them for the benefit of good citizens like P.O., and then they get abused by dossers who aren’t so much pissed off as “taking the piss” as we say here in the UK.
The one time I was qualified for unemployment benefit (shortly after graduating here in the UK, after failing to get the kind of job I wanted) I walked to the benefits office and walked right out again. I decided society had done enough for me for now.
But if I hadn’t been able to get a less satisfactory job that I ultimately moved on from, I would have had to go back. Do we want people to die or starve instead? That’s the difficulty.
Ultimately, you have to incentivise people to work through low taxes and other benefits, I think, rather than removing the safety net. I agree too that some of those weekly cheques look high. (Most people in Europe would never believe those figures for the US).
The problem with your ‘make them work for free’ argument is it undermines other paid labour. I used to believe this was more sensible, too, but someone pretty smart who has looked into it assured me that in the long-term, even if you theoretically started the unemployed off tidying up crap nobody else is dealing with etc, in time local officials, companies and citizens would stop paying for certain things being done because they’d presume the unemployed would eventually be sent over to sort it for free. So ultimately, unemployment rises and the less qualified lose another rung on the ladder.
Beware of unintended consequences.
@PO’d: You do get that I never said I was against a safety net? Right? Nowhere in that post did I say I was against a safety net. Your emotions seem to have clouded that fact, because you continue to argue as if I am against a safety net when, in fact, I am only against another extension in benefits to 99 weeks. I am sorry you have had such a tough time. You seem to have had an absolutely extraordinary run of bad luck. Why should that change or invalidate my convictions? I understand catastrophic events happen – but nobody can plan or save for that. But if I do run into such a situation, then I will quickly run through my savings and begin running up massive debt, through no fault of my own. I will claim myself as being destitute and apply for Medicare and any other services that are offered. Does that make me a hypocrite? Hell no, because I don’t use that possibility as an excuse to usurp my responsibility for trying to build my own safety net in the meantime. I’ve sacrificed more that you’ll ever know, sir. Your “bad things happen to good people argument (therefore unemployment benefits should be extended forever) argument” is poppycock. Basically, you are saying because bad things happen to good people, the personal responsibility argument is simply null and void. Sorry. I don’t buy it. Call me a bully. Continue to call me self-righteous, sir. Tell me I’ve lived a charmed life – however you want to rationalize it. I’m just curious, how do you think the great Americans who came before us got by without 99 weeks (or even 52 weeks) of unemployment insurance? (That is a rhetorical question.)
@M: I’m with you, M. Lower taxes would help us all, but that’s kind of tough to do when we’re giving out unemployment bennies for 99 weeks to everyone.
I am not against a safety net. Most people reading my article seem to miss that subtle point. I just think anything over 52 weeks is overkill.
All of us should be building our own personal safety net, like I did, rather than trying to rely on the government to save us. The problem is, America has become a nation that loves instant gratification, and therefore most people don’t want to make the sacrifices necessary to build their own safety nets.
Is that a popular opinion? Heck no, judging by most of the comments here. But that’s how I see it – and I am instilling those values in my kids as well.
@Len
Great job explaining your position with class and logic without stooping to emotional and anecdotal arguments. You just earned yourself another RSS subscriber
– Joel
Its an entitlement such as social security would you suggest people limit their dependency on social security as well? its absurd to believe our gov. doesn’t have everyones well being in mind.
You are confused about the responsibility of the US government. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say the government is responsible for providing welfare benefits, or unemployment insurance, or health care for the people. It is absurd to believe otherwise.
I believe everybody should be responsible for their own retirement – which is how it was in this country for well over 150 years before the Social Security program was implemented. Some how or another, the good people of the United States survived without it for all of those years. People were more self-reliant then and didn’t count on a nanny state to take care of their every need. Of course, for most Americans, it would be impossible and unfair to rescind the benefits promised to them over their lifetime. The genie is out of the bottle and it ain’t going back in for those over 35.
first of all if not to cater to and defend us from all threats physical and social what good would our government be? you might say its not any good . but you would be wrong. you see, for those “150 years” that individuals took care of themselves as you are suggesting it was a different era and they didn’t actually take care of themselves people back then would inherit skills ,marketshare and money from family who in turn expected their heirs to allow them to retire by taking care of them. it just doesn’t happen that way anymore in a new era of corperations and reverse mortgages and uninterested youth who would scoff at the idea of taking over the family buisness or helping their parents after they retire. the sad truth is that big government is taking place of family structure and its not anybodys fault except everyones.
You’ve hit the nail on the head: that is precisely the role of government – to defend us and our Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. Nothing more.
Sorry. Believe it or not, I’d venture that at least half of this country’s people are still proudly self-reliant.
I don’t blame corporations and reverse mortgages as the reason some people insist on the government taking care of them. I blame people who believe it takes a village to raise a child, and who pass on their entitlement mentality to their children and perpetually vote in socialist and Big Government politicians who sell fear and tell us that we can’t survive without government “assistance” year in and year out.
It ain’t my fault. I’m certainly not raising my children that way, and I am instilling in them the values of self-reliance.
That’s what built this great country. And if we’re not careful, this woe-is-me socialist entitlement mentality is eventually going to bring it down.
“One of my coworkers was telling me about a friend of his who fits that profile who absolutely refuses to look for a job until his jobless benefits run out. He’s having a blast and the Unemployment Office isn’t paying enough attention to notice that he isn’t really looking for work anyway.”
So you called and reported him to his state’s unemployment security office , right ?
You are part of the problem.
@Practice What You Preach – Don’t you think you are being a bit harsh? The info Len rec’d was second hand through a co-worker. Additionally, it is not clear as to whether this was the co-worker’s opinion of the situation or if there was something more concrete upon which to base the accusation. Wouldn’t it be rather presumptious and irresponsible to be a tattletale, in this instance, based on second hand info? It is one thing to share, in general terms, what most recognize as an issue of human nature and quite another to indiscrimately act on that information based on assumptions. The point we rec’d from Len’s statement is that human nature has certain tendencies and right, wrong, or indifferent we’ve all had or made similar assessments based on our own observations. These assessments may not have met the threshold to lock ‘em up and throw away the key, but they are practical talking points.
Steven and Debra´s last blog ..Airline Passenger Profiling: Why Not – Do It Yourself (DIY)?
Unemployment is a joke right now. How many people who don’t have a job are walking around talking on iPhones. It’s time for people to learn sacrifice again.
I guess you must TRULY EXPERIENCE the frustration, anxiety and depression of prolonged unemployment before you can really (and honestly) empathize with the long term unemployed. There are also lazy, incompetent folks who do not deserve to be employed, but for whatever reason (nepotism, kissing up, powerful union, government payroll protection) they never have to worry about being fired or layed off. Wouldn’t it be nice it there would be some kind of “Twilight Zone” event where the long term unemployed (who are trying hard to find a decent job) switch places with the lazy, incompetent employed?
Haven’t read all the posts, because it’s a waste of time. Those of you who are judging people for being unemployed need to get a life and worry about your own pathetic soul! Shame on you!!! There are more important things to worry about!!!!! Stop the hatred!
I think you need to re-read the article and then take the time to read the comments – then tell me specifically where this “hatred” is. For the most part all I see in the comments are well-thought-out arguments from both sides and a civil course of discussion.
Regarding Len Penzo’s comments: Have you heard the saying “if they can, they will” ? I feel probably a lot of what you’ve said, is not only because you probably feel you are capable of arguing you feelings well, but because you can. Based on what I read, compassion does not seem to be in your vocabulary, although it should be, because usually “what comes around, goes around.” Your lack of compassion and sarcastic attitude may come back to bite you someday. I’m not saying it should, but that could end up being the case, too, maybe if for no other reason but to open up your eyes! Don’t get me wrong, if there are people “milking” the unemployment symtem, shame on them. But you know there ARE all kinds of people in this world, and usually there are the ones in practically every situation that make others look bad. For instance, there are very good child day care providers, and then there are the ones that I would not leave a pet with. I feel if you want to judge and debate, why not try being optimistic, and fair. Right now the way you come across is someone that may be more naive than he could ever accept and so critical that refuses to even believe he could be wrong in describing the majority of the unemployed.
Thanks for your comments, Rita. I think you need to reread my article though, as nowhere in the article did I characterize the majority of the unemployed as being abusive of the system. For most people, it is true, “If they can, they will.”
I have stated I believe 52 weeks of unemployment benefits is reasonable without checks and balances, but not 99 weeks – I think 2 years of unemployment benefits to an able-bodied citizen is welfare.
I think we also need to have a debate on the definition of “compassion.” I take offense at your unfounded assertion that I lack compassion simply because I don’t agree with you that 2 years of unemployment benefits is reasonable.
We also need to debate who is actually more optimistic. But I will argue that, in reality, it is you who needs to be more optimistic! I have faith that the great majority of the unemployed in this great country of ours have the gumption, determination and ability to go out, pound the pavement and find another job in a time period significantly less than two years. You, on the other hand, seem to suggest that most people will be unable to do exactly that. That sounds down right pessimistic to me.
Finally, I don’t think it’s compassionate to promote laws that increase our able-bodied citizens’ reliance on the Federal government and decrease their incentive to stand on their own two feet. Never mind that it is more of the same fiscal recklessness that our Congress has been passing for much of the last 10 years – and will eventually bring this country to its knees.
When I said “if they can they will,” I was referring to you and people like you that get their “kicks” in complaining about anything with such arrogance. Focusing on the negative side of issues and the negativity of people, yes you will always be able to find something to argue and complain about. The world is not perfect and never will be. Maybe you should utilize your words and energy in trying to help people instead of complaining, judging, and critizing. You are one of the lucky ones and I hope you appreciate that. There are many people on unemployment that do realize that their days on unemployment are limited and if their situation doesn’t improve they could end up homeless, and God knows we have too many homeless people already. I don’t want to argue with you and won’t, but you said it yourself, the Federal government may need to re-evaluate the unemployment system, they are the ones responsible for the Mess you claim it is in.
Arrogance? The mere fact that you are so bold to call me arrogant and unsympathetic takes gravitas. Did you read my article at all, or did you just pick and choose what you wanted to read and leave out the inconvenient truths?
The “You’ve got it lucky” lines are getting tiresome. I’ve stated that fact numerous times already. Obviously I am fortunate. How does that negate my underlying position (and supporting commentary throughout the article and all of these previous comments) that two years is a ridiculous amount of time for able-bodied people to be unemployed?
Most people like yourself who disagree with me can only appeal to their emotions. You, and most people who think like you, find it hard to believe that the majority of able-bodied Americans out there would much rather work two or three lower-paying jobs while looking to get reemployed at a higher wage, than take a taxpayer-provided government hand-out for two solid years. But it’s true.
If you call that arrogance, Rita, then so be it.