Urban planning community | #theplannerlife

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 55

Thread: Do we really need to keep extending unemployment benefits indefinetely?

  1. #26
    Cyburbian JimPlans's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gone to a better place (in my mind)
    Posts
    407
    Indefinitely? No. But for a long time? Yes.

    From 2008 to 2009, 5.5 million Americans lost their employment. This is the largest one-year loss of employment in the U.S. since 1945, when 1.1 million people lost their jobs after demobilization. The third largest loss was in 1992, when 1 million people lost their employment. So, the current situation is five times worse (employment-wise) than any other economic downturn in the U.S. since 1940. In other words, this is a serious break from past trends.

    To fix the current situation in 2010, it seems that the U.S. would need to employ these 5.5 million people by the end of the year. But it's worse than that.
    Over the last 10 years, the non-institutionalized civilian population age 16 or older (i.e., people available to work in the civilian labor force) has increased about 1.1 percent per year. This means that, each year, there are more and more people who need jobs. Even if the number of employed workers remained constant year-to-year, the unemployment rate would increase because of these new workers being added to the labor force.

    And it's worse than that. In 2000, the labor force participation rate (i.e. the percentage of the non-institutionalized civilian population age 16 or older who were actually working or available to work) was 67.1 percent, one of the highest labor force participation rates since 1940. In 2009, it was 65.4 percent, the lowest rate since 1986. This is partly to do with changing demographics, but has more to do with work availability. Remember, if your not employed or "actively seeking employment" the you're not considered to be part of the labor force.

    From 2000 to 2009, the average labor force participation rate was about 66.2 percent. If we assume that part of the reason for 2009's lower 65.4 percent rate is discouraged workers (people who would be in the labor force if they had any hope of finding employment), then we should assume that the "true" participation rate in 2009 should be higher. In 2008 it was 66.0 percent, so let's use that.

    In 2009, there were 14.3 million unemployed persons in the U.S., up from 8.9 million the year before. This translated into an unemployment rate of 9.3 percent in 2009, up from 5.8 percent the year before (which was up from 4.6 percent in 2007). Note that, if the labor force participation rate in 2009 was the same as in 2008, the 2009 unemployment rate would have been 10.1 percent. But, those 1.5 million discouraged workers kept the rate down.

    So, to get back up to a 66 percent labor force participation rate (to bring discouraged workers back into the labor force) AND to bring the unemployment rate back down to the 2008 level, we will need 8.3 million more employed people by the end of 2010, because:

    - The the non-institutionalized civilian population age 16 or older will have increased by 2.6 million people from 2009 to 2010, of which 66 percent (over 1.7 million) will need to be considered part of the labor force.

    - About 1.7 million of these people will need to be employed to achieve a 5.8 percent unemployment rate for these new workers.

    - About 1.4 million existing "discouraged workers" will need to be employed who are now unemployed (out of almost 1.5 million total).

    - About 5.3 million persons who were newly unemployed in 2009 will need to be employed.

    - This will require the addition of more than 8.3 million jobs, as some people have more than one job.

    So, if the economy creates more than 8.3 million jobs between 2009 and 2010, and the 8.3 million people who needs these jobs are gainfully employed, then we can talk about returning the unemployment insurance system to its normal operating state. By the way, the largest single year-to-year increase in employment since 1940 occurred in 1984, when 4.2 million more people were employed than in the previous year. The U.S. would need to almost double that increase today to bring the economy back into balance. If we don't, then we will have over 1.7 million more new people to employ in 2011, in addition to the 1.7 million new people from 2010, and in addition to whoever is still unemployed from 2009.

    I think we have a lot of work to do on the economy before we can talk about throwing people out in the cold by taking away their unemployment compensation.

    Now, if you want to talk about reinstituting some sort of Civilian Conservation Corps to get people on public assistance working at something worthwhile, I'm all ears.

  2. #27
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Dec 2006
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,844
    I guess I will have to reiterate this again:

    Yes, there are families with children who can't easily move to a new job. Yes, there are handicapped and elderly who also face daunting realities. However, I think a sizeable majority of unemployed workers are far more mobile than they think.

    In another words, my original argument may not apply to you PERSONALLY.

    Yes, my job search was different than many. Yes, I had the flexibility to just pack up and move. However, as Raf suggested, when many people (NOT ANY OF YOU PERSONALLY) start reaching 18-24 months of unemployment, I think more need to start re-evaluating where they are. Yes, there are a bunch of unemployed people in this country with a high school education (so those people should get off their butt and get a college diploma or at least some advanced training). I have also seen plenty of people on cyburbia and land8lounge fresh out of school doing zilch in terms of actively looking (I am not naming any names). I agree that the hypercompetition for ANYTHING has a darwinist streak: that's just the reality. The job search is a numbers game, don't take it personally, and have a backup plan firmly in place.

    I am not cold, inhumane, or heartless as some of you think. I have known many of you for a few years on here, and I am very disappointed that some of you would label me as such. The original post may not have been worded as delicately as some of you demand, but that is no reason to fy off the handle! As PDO for my APA chapter I am expanding my professional development committee to meet the career needs of ALL planners and students(not just AICP) through many different tools (establishing a mentorship program, mock interview sessions, resume/cover letter/portfolio review, etc) throughout the year. Previous PDOs in my chapter have never explored this. No, I am not asking you to follow in my footsteps. Sometimes, I think it's just as important to understand who wrote something as what was written. If I wrote posts for the sake of reeking havoc, I would have been banned a long time ago.
    Last edited by nrschmid; 16 Jun 2010 at 5:07 PM.
    "This is great, honey. What's the crunchy stuff?"
    "M&Ms. I ran out of paprika."

    Family Guy

  3. #28
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,968
    I started thinking, as postings here have made speculations about who exactly is unemployed, about what the demographics of this recession look like.

    I found this interesting op-ed piece from the NYTimes dated a year ago. Here are some things it stated which I think have a bearing on this discussion:
    Three-quarters of the workers let go over the past year were permanently displaced, as opposed to temporarily laid off. They won’t be going back to their jobs when economic conditions improve. And many of those who were permanently displaced were in fields like construction and manufacturing in which the odds of finding work, even after a recovery takes hold, are not good.

    Another startling aspect of this economic downturn is the toll it has taken on men, especially young men. Men accounted for nearly 80 percent of the loss in employment in this recession. As the labor market center reported, “The unemployment rate for males in April 2009 was 10 percent, versus only 7.2 percent for women, the largest absolute and relative gender gap in unemployment rates in the post-World War II period.”

    Workers under 30 have sustained nearly half the net job losses since November 2007.

    This is not a recipe for a strong economic recovery once the recession officially ends, or for a healthy society. Young males, especially, are being clobbered at an age when, typically, they would be thinking about getting married, setting up new households and starting families. Moreover, work habits and experience developed in one’s 20s often establish the foundation for decades of employment and earnings.
    It also occurs to me that with an economy whose health is often measured in relation to consumer spending, how difficult recovery will be. So many are saving, not spending, or out of work with no cash to spend to begin with. With lower spending, companies suffer and ostensibly lay off more people. And round and round we go.

    Add to that the large number of people in the construction trade alone who are out of work. Many of these are skilled workers with a shrinking market for what they do. Going back to school, getting retrained in some area where there are jobs (and with 5 applicants for every job available, this is not a promising trend) also costs money and has no guarantee that they will be employed at the end of it all. Where will that money come from? College applications are at an all time high it was reported today, so even that field is getting crowded.

    Lastly, I had some thoughts on mobility and work and the challenges people face looking for work. If a worker with a family loses a job, they may rely on extended family connections for help. We are seeing trends toward larger households with multiple generations, for example. If someone moves for a job, or even to look for work, that safety net of family is not as strong. There is no garage to move into or auntie's house to take the kids for dinner. It creates a challenging situation by placing the burden of family survival on fewer people, effectively reducing the social capital people have at their disposal. Not that someone should not move for a job, but I am just trying to articulate some of the complications that folks face in considering doing so.

    I guess my comment to nrschmid is that if you think that people are unemployed these days because they didn't play their cards right, plan ahead effectively, get a college degree or rack up enough savings, I think you are mistaken about just how wide and deep this economic situation is and who it has impacted. I am sure you can find examples of people that fit these descriptions, but I am sure you will find many more that do not. 15 million people are unemployed today according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 6.8 million have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks (their definition of "long-term unemployment"). Can you imagine the impact on this country if you cut off 6.8 million people from this kind of support?!
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  4. #29
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    5,275
    Blog entries
    1
    Geez, wahday, your post makes me feel like jumping off a bridge. Not really, but the stats are startling to say the least. Granted, I've only been actively looking for a job for about 3 months, and have only been out of school a little over a month, but certain days I do feel hopeless. I try to be driven, and just plug away with the applications, but what if these planning jobs never come back, what if us recent grads can never find work, to be passed up by those that have been in the field longer?

    I'm one of those young males that's thinking about wanting to be off on my own, get married, start a family and all that. But sometimes I feel like I'm going to live with my parents forever.

    I guess that's kind of off-topic, but to bring things back on-topic, yes this recession is very deep. And even a conservative Republican like me understands the importance of extending unemployment benefits. There are so many people out there who desperately want to work and have been looking a lot longer than I have, and who don't have the safety nets, or who have dependents.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  5. #30
    Cyburbian Cardinal's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Cheese State
    Posts
    10,074
    I don't believe, as some have suggested, that unemployment encourages people not to look for work. In Wisconsin the maximum benefit is about $375 per week, which is about 20% of what I made at the peak. It does not replace a good job as a means of subsistance, and you'd better believe that people do cut back on spending when they lose their jobs.
    Anyone want to adopt a dog?

  6. #31
    Cyburbian Brocktoon's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Promoting synergies...
    Posts
    3,687
    Quote Originally posted by Cardinal View post
    I don't believe, as some have suggested, that unemployment encourages people not to look for work. In Wisconsin the maximum benefit is about $375 per week, which is about 20% of what I made at the peak. It does not replace a good job as a means of subsistance, and you'd better believe that people do cut back on spending when they lose their jobs.
    Senator Kyl AZ-R, has said that on the Senate floor. In Arizona the max benefit for unemployment is $240 a week.
    "You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it,..." -Bane

  7. #32
    Cyburbian Marine Corps Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Naples Italy
    Posts
    27

    Do we really need to keep extending unemployment benefits indefinetely?

    YES, WE DO. It's the right thng to do. We're American's... it's what we do.... help each other.

  8. #33
    Cyburbian boilerplater's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Heaven or Las Vegas
    Posts
    916
    Well, It looks like we'll be finding out what will happen when unemployment gets cut off now. Things are going to get interesting, and I don't think that will be a good kind of interesting.

  9. #34
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    13,217
    I think with the filibuster and subsequent removal of the bill from the Senate floor, we will see where the nation stands on this. Are people still willing to up the national deficit to help out our countrymen or are we so worried about the debt that we cannot support our own?

    I have a feeling that this will be a BIG deal for the coming months and into the election season.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  10. #35
    Cyburbian Cardinal's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Cheese State
    Posts
    10,074
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    I have a feeling that this will be a BIG deal for the coming months and into the election season.
    Agreed. There is a sentiment that banks and big business got bailed out, while small businesses and working people (including the unemployed) got shafted. I am not big fan of the democrats, but the republicans are really missing the message. All they seem to do is criticize without offering any solutions other than extend or grant new tax breaks to the wealthy and to big business.
    Anyone want to adopt a dog?

  11. #36
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,576
    Quote Originally posted by boilerplater View post
    Well, It looks like we'll be finding out what will happen when unemployment gets cut off now. .
    Well, according to the OP, people will find a job now. [/snark]

    I think it is quite clear that this will be detrimental and won't help the struggling economy. But I don't think the broken Congress cares enough about that. One almost is led to conclude that the crazy minority in Congress is deliberately trying to trash the economy to get elected. Pathetic governance by our Plutocrats, if you ask me.

  12. #37
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Dec 2006
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,844
    There is a growing number of people who have been on unemployment for more than 2 years. I agree that there are plenty of forces beyond most people's control that led them to this unfortunate situation. I also think most of these people are hard working, honest, people who really want to get back to work.

    However, when you are unemployed and are approaching 18-24 months of no activity, I think it's the individual's responsibility to change direction. Expecting the government to cover the gap entirely until the economy fully recovers is not feasible.

    It's not that people AREN"T looking but I think it's very difficult for them to face the reality of going in a different direction when there is no light at the end of the tunnel, at least in the near future.
    "This is great, honey. What's the crunchy stuff?"
    "M&Ms. I ran out of paprika."

    Family Guy

  13. #38
    Cyburbian boilerplater's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Heaven or Las Vegas
    Posts
    916
    One almost is led to conclude that the crazy minority in Congress is deliberately trying to trash the economy to get elected.
    That has been suggested elsewhere. I think I read it on the Huffington Post. OK, not exactly unbiased. They're using the idea that incumbents historically get voted out in a down economy, and so keeping it down will help them.

    Yeah, some jobs have gone the way of Pony Express Riders and steelworkers, and maybe keeping unemployment going isn't feasible for people in some industries, and maybe that includes mine. Neither is it reasonable to expect that they will just get retrained to be RNs, x-ray techs, and IT architects. Many just don't have the educational background and intelligence to be able to make it through such courses of study, even if the gov't is floating them. That means more entering the permanent underclass. Its starting to look more like Kunstler's "Long Emergency" with every news update.

  14. #39
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    1,689
    It would be an interesting study to see exactly how much unemployment benefits cost to the economy and society as a whole, as well as to the federal government's ledger. I can't imagine that many UI benefits are saved, or invested, or transferred out of the country, so the base multiplier effect for every dollar of UI benefits has to be huge and probably isn't a drag on the economy at all (or at least a very, very small one), though it clearly has some transfer effects for state/fed balance sheets. That said, it would be interesting to see a good study on what effects the benefits have on overall long term societal behavior as well (do they make people less likely to change industries? go back to school? become lazy? smoke weed? etc, etc?)

    I remember reading a very thorough study on the effects of German UI several years ago, but I can't seem to find it now. It's not very comparable to the US though, because our entire social safety net and educational system (including re-education) is entirely different.

  15. #40
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Dec 2006
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,844
    Quote Originally posted by boilerplater View post
    Neither is it reasonable to expect that they will just get retrained to be RNs, x-ray techs, and IT architects. Many just don't have the educational background and intelligence to be able to make it through such courses of study, even if the gov't is floating them. That means more entering the permanent underclass.
    I am not buying this argument. Everyone is responsible for their own livelihoods and the choices they make in life. Why should people with just a college degree be expected to pursue graduate degree(s) to move up the ladder, but the general public is supposed to feel sorry for and support the people who coast on by working in "antiquated" professions and not expect them to pull their own weight and change their lives around for their own betterment?
    "This is great, honey. What's the crunchy stuff?"
    "M&Ms. I ran out of paprika."

    Family Guy

  16. #41
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,895
    Quote Originally posted by nrschmid View post
    However, when you are unemployed and are approaching 18-24 months of no activity,
    I have a couple friends that are in the following scenario.

    1) Lost job making decent money
    2) Unemployment being collected and based on their recent salary, lets say $400 weekly.
    3) Fruitless job search for months.
    4) Find part-time work, with a maximum 8-12 week time frame paying about $600/wk and no benefits. They take the job. Better to be working than not.
    5) Laid-off again from part time gig. Back on unemployment.
    6) Unemployment pay adjusted due to recent work history. Now getting $200/wk.
    7) Months of fruitless job searching.

    It's really hard to find a permanent job. Also, by taking the part-time job, they are often putting themselves out of other benefits like food stamps and Medicaid (if they have kids). So, taking the job is actually putting them deeper in the hole than staying on unemployment and looking for a decent job that will have benefits and keep them on full-time. I keep hearing from my friends that the same companies are just rotating through temps with limited employment lengths.

    Granted, this is not the "no-activity" situation you talked about, but it's the alternative to no activity. You take whatever comes your way and you'll get burned once you are laid off from the part-time gig again. You stay on unemployment, you get predictability in insurance payments, TANF, and medicaid (if you have kids).
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  17. #42
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Dec 2006
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,844
    In some states you can still keep your unemployment benefits while working part time, provided earnings do not exceed X percentage of your unemployment benefits (usually 50%). However, in your example, the person was receiving $400.00/week in unemployment assistance which meant he/she could not earn more than $200.00/week in work. He/she could still earn $600.00 in combined earnings: $400 in unemployment assistance, which is taxed at the end of the year, and $200.00 gross earnings from the contract job. Was this person allowed to work fewer hours for less pay (to keep the unemployment assistance)? How were they able to collect unemployment on a part time job for 8-12 weeks of work?
    "This is great, honey. What's the crunchy stuff?"
    "M&Ms. I ran out of paprika."

    Family Guy

  18. #43
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,576
    Quote Originally posted by boiker View post
    I have a couple friends that are in the following scenario.

    1) Lost job making decent money
    2) Unemployment being collected and based on their recent salary, lets say $400 weekly.
    3) Fruitless job search for months.
    4) Find part-time work, with a maximum 8-12 week time frame paying about $600/wk and no benefits. They take the job. Better to be working than not.
    5) Laid-off again from part time gig. Back on unemployment.
    6) Unemployment pay adjusted due to recent work history. Now getting $200/wk.
    7) Months of fruitless job searching.

    It's really hard to find a permanent job. Also, by taking the part-time job, they are often putting themselves out of other benefits like food stamps and Medicaid (if they have kids). So, taking the job is actually putting them deeper in the hole than staying on unemployment and looking for a decent job that will have benefits and keep them on full-time. I keep hearing from my friends that the same companies are just rotating through temps with limited employment lengths.

    Granted, this is not the "no-activity" situation you talked about, but it's the alternative to no activity. You take whatever comes your way and you'll get burned once you are laid off from the part-time gig again. You stay on unemployment, you get predictability in insurance payments, TANF, and medicaid (if you have kids).
    Not only do I have friends in this scenario, I have family as well. And two more are being forced to retire early. They will make it, but still want to work.

    Despite what the OP ignorantly insists is possible, my family members are not sure if there is decent work to find (not "Welcome to Wal-Mart!!!!!! *heart*!!!!!!!!!!!) , and they have a vast social network. But they are not single and child-free and not free to insist that everyone sell their house and move where there is work because everyone should be single and rootless just to have work.

  19. #44
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Dec 2006
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,844
    Quote Originally posted by ColoGI View post
    Not only do I have friends in this scenario, I have family as well. And two more are being forced to retire early. They will make it, but still want to work.

    Despite what the OP ignorantly insists is possible, my family members are not sure if there is decent work to find (not "Welcome to Wal-Mart!!!!!! *heart*!!!!!!!!!!!) , and they have a vast social network. But they are not single and child-free and not free to insist that everyone sell their house and move where there is work because everyone should be single and rootless just to have work.
    Again, I never said that this was easy for EVERYONE to do. I never said that everyone can easily pack up and relocate either (some have families, some are elderly, many have homes that they would have to sell). It seems like every time I back up my original post, rephase, and note over and over that THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS people attack back bringing their own PERSONAL examples.

    A job at Walmart is a job. It pays wages and benefits. Is it sustainable? Nope. Is it enough to support a family on? Nope. For 6 months before my first planning job (after graduation) I worked for 6 months at a Sears call center earning $9.49 an hour with benefits (10 cents more an hour than someone without a college degree). It was humiliating but I made the most of it didn't complain, worked my tail off, and even earned special training to become an ISO auditor, all while doing another planning internship and looking for work. If Sears asked me to shovel piles of manure I would do it because it's a job, whether I had a family to support or not.

    Maybe I have too much of a Depression-era view of work is work is work but I got through it. I've worked pretty much nonstop since I was 13 so I have always seen work opportunities even if it's demeaning (and yes, one of them involved shoveling manure). If there isn't even a "shovel-ready" job doing that, use the internet and either find contract work online or start an online business (buying and selling stuff, daytrading, web design). With so much data at our fingertips all it takes is some ingenuity to find some creative ways of bringing in a few bucks, in good times or not. Go door to door offering to mow a lawn, open a lemonade stand, walk a neighbor's dog, etc. You don't have to be kid to do this kind of work either. It's a far call from the dream job or even one to comfortably support a family, but it's a stepping stone to bigger and better things
    "This is great, honey. What's the crunchy stuff?"
    "M&Ms. I ran out of paprika."

    Family Guy

  20. #45
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,895
    Quote Originally posted by nrschmid View post
    In some states you can still keep your unemployment benefits while working part time, provided earnings do not exceed X percentage of your unemployment benefits (usually 50%). However, in your example, the person was receiving $400.00/week in unemployment assistance which meant he/she could not earn more than $200.00/week in work. He/she could still earn $600.00 in combined earnings: $400 in unemployment assistance, which is taxed at the end of the year, and $200.00 gross earnings from the contract job. Was this person allowed to work fewer hours for less pay (to keep the unemployment assistance)? How were they able to collect unemployment on a part time job for 8-12 weeks of work?
    I was rough on the details because I don't know the intimate details. The numbers were all make believe for the concept of the scenario.

    Like you said, it varies state to state. If I remember correctly from the 2003 recession when I was laid off, any earnings I made part time counted against my unemployment income and adjusted against me if I became unemployed again--- at least that's how they made it sound. Luckily, I found employment around my 20th week of unemployment. It sucked. I had one youngster and a child on the way and we got medicaid, TANF, and unemployment insurance, sold our house, moved in with family and searched region-wide for a job. I worked part-time often for cash to supplement.

    It seems like every time I back up my original post, rephase, and note over and over that THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS people attack back bringing their own PERSONAL examples.
    I brought mine up because you brought yours up .
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  21. #46
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Dec 2006
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,844
    I brought mine up because you brought yours up .

    True...
    "This is great, honey. What's the crunchy stuff?"
    "M&Ms. I ran out of paprika."

    Family Guy

  22. #47
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,576
    Quote Originally posted by nrschmid View post
    Again, I never said that this was easy for EVERYONE to do. I never said that everyone can easily pack up and relocate either (some have families, some are elderly, many have homes that they would have to sell). It seems like every time I back up my original post, rephase, and note over and over that THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS people attack back bringing their own PERSONAL examples.
    The overarching issue is that the implicit assertions in the original post are relevant to only a very small %age of the population, IMHO. Therefore the prescriptions and conclusions are broadly not relevant to the general population.

    Andrew Sullivan has a regular topic called 'The view from your recession' to try and put the 'you brought yours up' into larger perspective. Which is the point. And the difficulty of being a planner and making plans for others is to ensure your perspective is wide.

  23. #48
    Cyburbian JimPlans's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gone to a better place (in my mind)
    Posts
    407
    More info on just how bad it is out there from Pew:

    http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/759/How the Great Recession Has Changed Life in America

    The survey also finds that more than half of the adults in U.S. labor force (55%) have experienced some work-related hardship — be it a spell of unemployment, a cut in pay, a reduction in hours or an involuntary move to part-time work. In addition, the bursting of the pre-recession housing and stock market bubbles has shrunk the wealth of the average American household by an estimated 20%, the deepest such decline in the post-World War II era, according to government data.
    The typical unemployed worker today has been out of work for nearly six months (23.2 weeks). This is almost double the previous post-World War II peak for this measure—12.3 weeks—in 1982-83. Long-term unemployment of this magnitude and duration raises a vexing question: Beyond a “normal” cyclical downturn, might the U.S. economy be going through some long-term structural changes that will lead to relatively high rates of unemployment for years to come?
    High as they are, measures such as the unemployment rate (9.7% in May 2010) and the median length of unemployment (23.2 weeks) still don’t fully convey the scope of the employment crisis that has unfolded during this recession. A broader measure from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics that also includes involuntary part-timers and other marginal workers puts the combined unemployment and underemployment rate at 16.6%. And the Pew Research survey finds that among all adults in the labor force, fully 32% say that they are either now unemployed or that they had been unemployed for some period of time since the recession began.
    Scary stuff.

  24. #49
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Newburgh, NY
    Posts
    53
    Definitely not. People should come off unemployment insurance system which is only a temporary fix and hardly equiped to handle a jobs crisis of these proportions.

    But what happens next? First off, we need to wake up to the fact that the jobs that have been lost are gone, probably for good. Therefore, we will need to invest in massively expanded welfare systems to accommodate those suffering from what will very likely be chronic double-digit unemployment - food stamps, WIC, medicare/medicaid, a reconstituted and expanded AFDC program, a guaranteed minimum income, subsidized housing, maybe start building massive SRO facilities, lower the retirement age to 55 and turn SS into a straight-up hand out, etc.

    Bold thinking is needed and we should start by realizing that a.) unemployment insurance is a temporary band-aid and that b.) stimulus bills aimed at creating jobs should be scrapped in favor of massive new welfare systems.

    We will simply have to come to terms with the fact that up to 1 out of every 4 Americans will simply be a ward of the state in the future. There's just no getting around it. Extending unemployment benefits will not be a viable solution, so I agree with the OP.
    Last edited by crummmountain; 07 Jul 2010 at 2:33 PM.

  25. #50
    Cyburbian Cardinal's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Cheese State
    Posts
    10,074
    Quote Originally posted by crummmountain View post
    This is the worst economy since the depression and you want to cut off people's only life line because they might get comfortable? Absolutely extend unemployment benefits indefinitely.

    However, having said that, I do believe that at some point we will have to wake up to the fact that most of the jobs that have been lost are never coming back. Therefore, many will have to be transfered from unemployment insurance to outright welfare programs - food stamps, WIC, medicare/medicaid, a reconstituted AFDC program, subsidized housing, maybe start building massive SRO facilities, etc...
    You make a good point. In terms of the long-term costs, is it better to extend unemployment or transfer people to a host of welfare programs? Of course, the employed as well as the unemployed may also be eligible for some programs like food stamps.
    Anyone want to adopt a dog?

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 6
    Last post: 08 Mar 2014, 1:10 AM
  2. Unemployment (Views From Both Sides)
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 18
    Last post: 06 Jul 2010, 2:40 PM
  3. Extending ETJ and Rezoning
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 2
    Last post: 07 Sep 2006, 4:04 PM
  4. Extending the ETJ/rezoning
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 6
    Last post: 23 Jun 2006, 9:51 AM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last post: 07 Apr 2005, 3:13 PM