Originally Posted By Disneyland55 I have a friend who was let go from his job about 4 months ago. He does job search daily. He finds available jobs consistently, but the problem is that he gets more money from unemployment than he would get from taking any of the available jobs... so of course he keeps on collecting the unemployment instead. It really bothers me. A lot. I work hard for a living and other people are getting paid great wages to not work... But thinking objectively I don't think that I can honestly say that I would do anything different. If I got paid more to have no job than I would to work full time... Well I think a majority of people would do the same. Who knows how many would admit that though. I think unemployment should pay less. Enough to survive, but not so much that people can live comfortably on the unemployment wages. I'd like to think that people with no job would be willing to settle for a lower end job until something better came along. Of course it wouldn't solve the whole problem, but there are a lot more people who would accept the jobs that ARE available more quickly.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^If the only jobs your friend is finding pay less than UE then they must be minimum wage jobs (and you friend had a good job before being let go) Having been laid off twice from a non-menial job this past decade I can say this: Searching for a quality, non-menial job is in of itself a full time job. Both time I received severance and found a job before I was eligible to collect unemployment. I probably spent at least 6 hours a day searching for jobs that I could apply for, custom tailoring my resume to highlight the reasons I was a good match for that job, writing a good cover letter, again tailored for that position, etc. Had I taken a menial job at the time I wouldn't have been as effective in my job search. And yes, had I begun collecting UE, my weekly benefit would have been more than what I would have earned at a menial job. Still, it would have been tiny compared to my former salary. I would barely be able to cover the mortgage with it. Anyway, just some food for thought.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << He finds available jobs consistently, but the problem is that he gets more money from unemployment than he would get from taking any of the available jobs... so of course he keeps on collecting the unemployment instead. >> Can you define what you mean by "he finds available jobs consistently?" Do you mean that this person is finding a job listing, applying for the job, getting a response, being accepted for the position, and then turning down the position? 75% of job postings online are bogus. Just seeing a listing online doesn't mean it is available.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Unemployment traditionally pays less (usually about 2/3) of the salary amount you were making at the job you were laid off from. If the jobs he is finding are paying less than what he is getting through unemployment it means that they are probably paying a LOT less than the job he was let go from. I know I wouldn't want to take a pay cut, especially if it meant not being able to pay my bills.
Originally Posted By hopemax I thought good capitalists believed that in a productive, efficient system, people should be employed in the jobs that best utilize their skills and education level. Pie makers should make pies, not sew clothes. Seamstresses should make clothes not pies. But these days we think skilled and educated people should take jobs that are below their skillset to fulfill some moral expectation of "work ethic." But the result, would it not, be promoting a less productive, more inefficient economy?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Unemployment traditionally pays less (usually about 2/3) of the salary amount you were making at the job you were laid off from.<< Only if you were earing a menial wage. In my case it wouldn't have been even 1/4 of my old salary.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "But these days we think skilled and educated people should take jobs that are below their skillset to fulfill some moral expectation of "work ethic." But the result, would it not, be promoting a less productive, more inefficient economy?" Perhaps the skillset this particular person possesses is outdated and not in demand anymore. In this case, the unemployment benefit would be creating an inefficient outcome by incentivizing the worker not to accept his new situation.
Originally Posted By fkurucz First time claims for unemployement insurance topped 500K. The "double dip recession" is a done deal.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ I wonder when we're actually going to have the guts to start calling it a depression?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I wonder when we're actually going to have the guts to start calling it a depression?<< Around the same time we have the guts to start calling Michele Bachmann a fascist.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 FWIW, officially we'd need two consecutive quarters of negative growth (not just slowed growth) to be in a "double dip recession."
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>FWIW, officially we'd need two consecutive quarters of negative growth (not just slowed growth) to be in a "double dip recession."<< That assumes that the first dip actually ended. Main St. continues to burn to the ground as personal bankruptcies have continued to soar. They can spin the GDP numbers all they want and play games with where or not we are in a recession They can fudge the unemployment rate by not counting discouraged workers and part timers who want a full time job. But other numbers are harder to cover up: State governments that have multi billion dollar budget gaps to plug as tax revenues continue to plummet. The number of people on public assistance has not decreased and continues to grow to record numbers. Car sales remain in the toilet and will probably collapse even more in the second dip.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I thought GM finally turned a profit. Nobody's saying things are hunky dory. Many numbers are still bad, though some are improving. I'm just stating the classic official definition of a recession, which Is two consecutive quarters oh negative growth.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<I thought GM finally turned a profit.>> From what I read that was skewed by a recent surge in rental fleet sales. And who knows if GM is "really" profitable? >>I'm just stating the classic official definition of a recession, which Is two consecutive quarters oh negative growth. << I understand what you are saying. If you prefer we can call the situation what it really is: a crisis. The Fortune 500 might be doing OK with their overseas sales (of products and services that are also created overseas) but the employment situation is worsening, not improving. Sure the U3 unemployement index is officially down, but that's only because about 1 million people have given up looking for work. More than a few anaylists believe that the second leg of the crisis will be worse than the first leg was. I hope they're wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 GM posted their first profits after a looooooong string of losses. Who knows how "real" it is, but it's better than another loss, certainly. (And if they could have fudged the previous losses, presumably they'd have done so long before this). And the Volt should help, provided they price it more realistically than early reports indicate. ($40,000? Even with the 7-8,000 tax credit, that's too high, and constitutes GM shooting itself in the foot, IMO). Like many indications lately, it's not gangbusters, just "at least better than before." And overall the economic indicators are murky to say the least. Hard to say if we're headed for another dip, a looooong slooooow climb out, or neither of the above.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Again, as I'm no economics expert, I have only a layman's opinion. But if many people keep saying "we're screwed" and we're all going to hell, then it seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 SPP, I often wonder what ever happened to the old we can do anything we put our mind too. the haters have taken over the country.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>But if many people keep saying "we're screwed" and we're all going to hell, then it seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.<< Lemme ask you this. If you are standing in the middle of the freeway, and an 18 wheeler is coming right at you, and I say "you better move or that 18 wheeler is going to squoosh you," and you don't, and it does ... Does that make my prophecy self-fulfilling? Or was I just correct?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Lemme ask you this. If you are standing in the middle of the freeway, and an 18 wheeler is coming right at you, and I say "you better move or that 18 wheeler is going to squoosh you," and you don't, and it does ... Does that make my prophecy self-fulfilling? Or was I just correct?" Since I have professed many times not to be an expert on such matters, I don't think I can make the choice between the two answers.
