Unemployment Extension "died in the Senate"

[VanceMack]

Well that's because - since they're illegals - they get paid what would be an *illegal* wage for a citizen-laborer. Thus, they also don't receive overtime or benefits that are the norm and/or soon to be federally mandated (like health insurance) and so on.

Thus - unless someone is willing to work for 0 benefits at an insufficient wage (what's it - $2.00/hr or something?) then they're likely to NOT take those jobs.

The employers need to pay *at least* a decent wage - and since these types of employers have no interest in doing so, they will continue to secretly employ illegals to save theirselves money.

As a young man I worked at a greenhouse alongside illegals. Heck, the site supervisor was illegal. INS would bust them regularly and send them home for a vacation...they would usually be back by Monday or Tuesday of the next week. Wage wise...I know per hour they got paid comparable wages. I have no idea what they did off the books. I know the same holds true with a lot of folks currently in the construction business.

I agree that its a practice that has to change. The point I am making is that you know what...those illegal immigrants come here and find work...anywhere...somehow...no matter what. Ive talked to a LOT of people and read more accounts of employers that cant find Americans to work for them because the pay isnt sufficient and they make more sitting at home on their ass.

At the end of the day...this is all going to have to crash and hurt a lot more before it every gets better. Thats an unfortunate reality. BUT...we've gone through this before. The answer is to LET the markets and the economy fix itself by getting out of its way. Government HAS to do rthe same thing you or I would have to do...budget more careful and cut WAY back on its spending. Stop choking the economy by increasing the tax burdens and creating market instability. hell...even if the government were to spend...let them spend on jobs.

This is a fairly complex problem. There are no 1 off solutions to fix everything. But there ARE solutions. Ending waste and frivolous spending is a great place to start. Do you realize how much we give away in billions to students to study ants? I read yesterday that the government has given a guy a 1.44 million dollar grant to study male prostitutes in China. Thats not an anomaly...it happens ALL the time. Id also be all for ending ALL foreign aid and then reinvesting that money and open farms and textile/goods factories, and then shipping food and supplies to people instead of dollars to governments. The illegal immigrant problem...unless people are willing to be honest that situation is never going to change and if people ARE being honest they would see just how devastating that is to our economy and jobs picture. We funnel who KNOWS how many billions into the mexican economy (which is why the mexican government embraces illegal EMIGRATION but shoots its own illegal immigrants on its southern borders). Most of those folks dont buy homes...new or used...and if there are 20-30 million people here illegally just from mexico, how many of those are taking the jobs of prospective home buyers? And how much do they cost in terms of services? How much of a strain do their children (now US citizens if born here) put on the schools and healthcare system especially if mommy and daddy are here illegally and NOT paying taxes? OF course we can pare back government spending in the civil service workforce and military without costing a single job...there is a TON of waste there. Our government contracts should ALL be reconsidered...there is a difference between making a profit and making a killing. I know how much we pay contracted computer geeks...and I know how much we pay their businesses in pure profit.

I agree with you. Employers nmeed to pay a decent wage and allow the cost to be reflected in the price of their product. Short term...the profit margin will decrease but long term...if more people are working at fair market value jobs then they will create more consumers, generate more revenue for services...etc. just like the economy is SUPPOSED to work.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Suggesting that a citizen who worked hard and is unemployed for no fault of their own should just be satisfied to live how an illegal immigrant chooses to live is senseless - even the government doesn't agree with that.
That leads to my post #25 - and all the issues I presented. It's just not that simple as "get up and walk away" - any option will affect you for the rest of your life and will *not* be temporary.

*edit* On this note I think its' fair to add: Why is it unacceptable for someone to get unemployment benefits - but ok for them to get foodstamps and other welfare? Isn't it all, really, the same problem: depending on government? The only difference between these two things (aside the amount paid out) is that a company pays into the unemployment benefit pool - like insurance - so if someone's on unemployment it's partially still covered by their former employer.*/edit*

The government caused our economic disaster with their various problems and decisions.
Individual companies caused our economic disaster with their various problems and decisions.
So they should cover the brunt of everyone's burdens.

And, to add, everyone is cutting back on their spending - and that's part of the problem. Our off-tilt economy depends on such a high and unsustainable level of excessive and debt-spending that it can't exist without people staying in debt and in the hole.

Something does have to go - but it's retarded to insist that the only thing that needs to flex is everyone's standard of living . . . why not the cost of gas, the price of items at a store, the taxes that government keeps raising? (not necessarily federal, here - state taxes are going up). Life is still just as expensive as it use to be - which is a huge part of why our country and even the world is still in an economic pit. Everyone's incomes have vanished - but everything costs the same (even more) as it did 3 years ago. . . *because* no one has money to spend.

It's a circle. . . it keeps going around and around. . . you can't just *stop* it and fix it - it has to keep rolling while it's being fixed.

 

[Kushinator]

You'd have to be more specific. If you mean underemployment as in fast food workers getting paid minimum wage and that isnt a 'livable' wage then I would say...and? Its not a job MEANT to be a livable wage job....its a job meant to provide entry level work, typically done by teens or as a source of second income...not a job done by a homeowner providing for a family. If you mean underemployment as in the jobs given to people and paid under the table without paying taxes, unemployment benefits, etc...thats an entirely different kettle of fish. So...to what are you referring?

I figured it was a case of misrepresentation. Underemployment is a term used to describe a worker, or a set of workers, who's skill set(s) supersede thier both their pay rate, and position. For example, when the financial crisis emerged, you would hear of MBAs getting laid off and taking positions at starbucks (primarily for medical benefits). Such a labor phenomena poses multiple problems for labor markets.

First and foremost, having a glut of over qualified workers poses asymmetrical boundaries for job seekers who actually possess the correct skill set for the said job. Not only is Bobby Joe - who paid 100k for a post graduate education - not living up to his/her full earning and working potential, but it diminishes the incentive for the employer to hire the appropriate entry level candidate (typically a younger person hoping to enter the labor market for the first time) because they are getting more for their money by keeping the underemployed "Bobby Joe".

The second issue with underemployment is psychological. Having to tell people or lie about your employment status when you used to take home a six figure salary is quite disruptive to a persons self esteem. This can cause long term issues with the person obtaining the proper job that utilizes their skill set, all the while keeping entry level positions closed to those who are most suited.

When underemployment spikes (as it did in the current recession), it is a sign of structural weakness in labor markets. Unemployment benefits are key in decreasing such job search frictions across the entire skill spectrum. The MBA at starbucks is a hyperbole, but there are the occasional outliers.

The employment of workers with high skill levels in low-wage jobs that do not require such abilities, for example a trained medical doctor who works as a taxi driver.

"Involuntary part-time" workers—workers who could (and would like to) be working for a full work-week but can only find part-time work. By extension, the term is also used in regional planning to describe regions where economic activity rates are unusually low, due to a lack of job opportunities, training opportunities, or due to a lack of services such as childcare and public transportation.

"Overstaffing" or "hidden unemployment", the practice in which businesses or entire economies employ workers who are not fully occupied---for example, workers currently not being used to produce goods or services due to legal or social restrictions or because the work is highly seasonal.

From wiki

 

[VanceMack]

I figured it was a case of misrepresentation. Underemployment is a term used to describe a worker, or a set of workers, who's skill set(s) supersede thier both their pay rate, and position. For example, when the financial crisis emerged, you would hear of MBAs getting laid off and taking positions at starbucks (primarily for medical benefits). Such a labor phenomena poses multiple problems for labor markets.

First and foremost, having a glut of over qualified workers poses asymmetrical boundaries for job seekers who actually possess the correct skill set for the said job. Not only is Bobby Joe - who paid 100k for a post graduate education - not living up to his/her full earning and working potential, but it diminishes the incentive for the employer to hire the appropriate entry level candidate (typically a younger person hoping to enter the labor market for the first time) because they are getting more for their money by keeping the underemployed "Bobby Joe".

The second issue with underemployment is psychological. Having to tell people or lie about your employment status when you used to take home a six figure salary is quite disruptive to a persons self esteem. This can cause long term issues with the person obtaining the proper job that utilizes their skill set, all the while keeping entry level positions closed to those who are most suited.

When underemployment spikes (as it did in the current recession), it is a sign of structural weakness in labor markets. Unemployment benefits are key in decreasing such job search frictions across the entire skill spectrum. The MBA at starbucks is a hyperbole, but there are the occasional outliers.



From wiki

OK...so...now...is it a good thing or a bad thing? I suppose its just a 'thing'. Heck Ive met cab drivers in LA who were doctors in India but still manage to put thier children through school and instill in them a work ethic and have them succeed.

Some people go to college and get degrees (even advanced degrees) without ever considering if the degree is a marketable, economically viable option. Some people have viable degrees but dont consider their local or even state job picture when they get the jobs.

regardless...'unemployment benefits' (I love the implication...you get benefits for being unemployed) are meant to buffer the worker while they pursue other forms of employment. I dont give a **** if you are a lawyer...if you cant find work as a lawyer your ass ought to dig a ditch. You shouldnt get paid to remain an unemployed lawyer.

 

[VanceMack]

Suggesting that a citizen who worked hard and is unemployed for no fault of their own should just be satisfied to live how an illegal immigrant chooses to live is senseless - even the government doesn't agree with that.
That leads to my post #25 - and all the issues I presented. It's just not that simple as "get up and walk away" - any option will affect you for the rest of your life and will *not* be temporary.

*edit* On this note I think its' fair to add: Why is it unacceptable for someone to get unemployment benefits - but ok for them to get foodstamps and other welfare? Isn't it all, really, the same problem: depending on government? The only difference between these two things (aside the amount paid out) is that a company pays into the unemployment benefit pool - like insurance - so if someone's on unemployment it's partially still covered by their former employer.*/edit*

The government caused our economic disaster with their various problems and decisions.
Individual companies caused our economic disaster with their various problems and decisions.
So they should cover the brunt of everyone's burdens.

And, to add, everyone is cutting back on their spending - and that's part of the problem. Our off-tilt economy depends on such a high and unsustainable level of excessive and debt-spending that it can't exist without people staying in debt and in the hole.

Something does have to go - but it's retarded to insist that the only thing that needs to flex is everyone's standard of living . . . why not the cost of gas, the price of items at a store, the taxes that government keeps raising? (not necessarily federal, here - state taxes are going up). Life is still just as expensive as it use to be - which is a huge part of why our country and even the world is still in an economic pit. Everyone's incomes have vanished - but everything costs the same (even more) as it did 3 years ago. . . *because* no one has money to spend.

It's a circle. . . it keeps going around and around. . . you can't just *stop* it and fix it - it has to keep rolling while it's being fixed.

Hell I 'solved' this whole mess a few years ago but nobody listened to me...instead of bailing out business and banks, the fed should have paid off every home in America that was under 250k. Talk about an economic stimulus plan. And instead of providing cash for banks the fed should have passed 2 laws...law one...no bank can sell home notes...once you make the loan...thats where it stays. and 2-any bank that goes under the property reverts to the homeowner paid in full. That would have forced the banks to renegotiate the ARMS to a low fixed rate, spread the payments out, etc. The bank and home crisis is the fault of the banks for making stupid loans, the people for taking out stupid loans they couldnt repay, and the fed for piss poor management of fed loan programs.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Yep, I agree with you on that.

 

[Barbbtx]

Oh...BTW...the other half just completed her masters and teaches at a university...worked full time as an adjunct while in the program.

Heck I still had time to get in the occasional round of golf and to fish.

If you want it...and are willing to accomplish it...its not that hard. Non trad university programs offer classes full time Friday evenings and all day Saturday, every 3 weeks. Some offer classes that meet 4 hours one time a week with 6 week classes...thats 3 full time classes in a semester. People are their only obstacle to success. I never had a class in a non-trad setting that had ANYONE that was 'just' a student. Most of them were working full time professional jobs. Again...its not as hard as you might think. Hard work...yes. EMINENTLY doable.

(and OHBYTHEWAY...in EVERY CLASS I have had there has been a pretty fair mixture of men, women, straight, gays, whites, blacks, hispanics, hell a few Columbians thrown in the mix every once in a while-and all of varying ages. Point being...ANYONE...ANYONE can succeed.)

It sounds like you are doing well for yourself. With all that hard work you will eventually be making a pretty good living. I bet you can't wait to "spread the wealth around" to those who aren't as "lucky" as you.
I do feel for the people who have lost jobs, but if we are going to keep extending unemployment benefits we need to find a way to pay for it that doesn't hurt hard working Americans. Personally I think this Adm. wants everyone dependant on Gov. Everything they do HURTS job growth.

 

[the makeout hobo]

It sounds like you are doing well for yourself. With all that hard work you will eventually be making a pretty good living. I bet you can't wait to "spread the wealth around" to those who aren't as "lucky" as you.
I do feel for the people who have lost jobs, but if we are going to keep extending unemployment benefits we need to find a way to pay for it that doesn't hurt hard working Americans. Personally I think this Adm. wants everyone dependant on Gov. Everything they do HURTS job growth.

I disagree. Government spending is good during a recession because it stimulates the economy when no one else is spending any money. The problem is that the previous administration ran up debt when they should have been paying off the deficit.

 

[Kushinator]

OK...so...now...is it a good thing or a bad thing? I suppose its just a 'thing'. Heck Ive met cab drivers in LA who were doctors in India but still manage to put thier children through school and instill in them a work ethic and have them succeed.

Some people go to college and get degrees (even advanced degrees) without ever considering if the degree is a marketable, economically viable option. Some people have viable degrees but dont consider their local or even state job picture when they get the jobs.

regardless...'unemployment benefits' (I love the implication...you get benefits for being unemployed) are meant to buffer the worker while they pursue other forms of employment. I dont give a **** if you are a lawyer...if you cant find work as a lawyer your ass ought to dig a ditch. You shouldnt get paid to remain an unemployed lawyer.

I think you are missing the point. It is not good for the labor market if people were to have that sort of mind set. Such sentiments are sure to pose a significant threat to future job growth.

Also, unemployment benefits are actually quite stimulative.

 

[Kushinator]

It sounds like you are doing well for yourself. With all that hard work you will eventually be making a pretty good living. I bet you can't wait to "spread the wealth around" to those who aren't as "lucky" as you.
I do feel for the people who have lost jobs, but if we are going to keep extending unemployment benefits we need to find a way to pay for it that doesn't hurt hard working Americans. Personally I think this Adm. wants everyone dependant on Gov. Everything they do HURTS job growth.

What has the current administration done to discourage job growth?

 

[Barbbtx]

I disagree. Government spending is good during a recession because it stimulates the economy when no one else is spending any money. The problem is that the previous administration ran up debt when they should have been paying off the deficit.

How's all that spending working out for us? Why are other countries going the other direction? Why are we doing something that has no history of working?
BTW when are liberals going to stop blaming Bush when Obama is Bush on steroids? Besides weren't we told that TARP was paid back with interest? That should take Bush off the hook for that at least. It's not his fault it went into a slush fund.

 

[the makeout hobo]

How's all that spending working out for us?

Decently well. It's bought time and kept things from getting even worse, but the big problem here is that our financial sector is in such tatters, and that our economy is addicted to bubbles. The spending is buying us time.

Why are other countries going the other direction? Why are we doing something that has no history of working?

I disagree. It was working during the Great Depression, until FDR started listening to deficit hawks and slashed spending. Even then, the thing that got us out of the depression was when the government started spending massive, massive amounts of money during WWII. And what other countries are you referring to?

BTW when are liberals going to stop blaming Bush when Obama is Bush on steroids? Besides weren't we told that TARP was paid back with interest? That should take Bush off the hook for that at least. It's not his fault it went into a slush fund.

The difference is that the economy wasn't in a recession for most of bush's term. He should have focused on paying off the deficit instead of tax cuts and war spending, so that the government could safely run deficits when they really need to, like now.

 

[VanceMack]

It sounds like you are doing well for yourself. With all that hard work you will eventually be making a pretty good living. I bet you can't wait to "spread the wealth around" to those who aren't as "lucky" as you.
I do feel for the people who have lost jobs, but if we are going to keep extending unemployment benefits we need to find a way to pay for it that doesn't hurt hard working Americans. Personally I think this Adm. wants everyone dependant on Gov. Everything they do HURTS job growth.

I already do...in both donations and pro-bono work (and hell yes I take the deductions).

Lucky, huh? Yeah. Sure...why not. course that first 20 years might be called the ANTI-lucky...and the next 10 wasnt great...and I might contend that it wasnt luck but hard work and a commitment to changing my future...but I'll go with lucky if that works for you...

 

[VanceMack]

I disagree. Government spending is good during a recession because it stimulates the economy when no one else is spending any money. The problem is that the previous administration ran up debt when they should have been paying off the deficit.

I agree that they certainly ran up debt...which as i have said is why I left the republican party...but thats not 'the' problem. Certainly a component...not THE. and if Bush doing what he did in 8 years was bad (and it was) this guy is making Bush's spending look like pocket change.

There are so many more complex parts to the problem. the BEST thing that the government could have done 4 years is to let the things crash. We would be 3-4 years into an economic recovery, instead of still desperately bailing out a bucket sized hole with a tin can.

 

[the makeout hobo]

I agree that they certainly ran up debt...which as i have said is why I left the republican party...but thats not 'the' problem. Certainly a component...not THE. and if Bush doing what he did in 8 years was bad (and it was) this guy is making Bush's spending look like pocket change.

Again, the difference was that we weren't in a recession, the economy was booming. You should run deficits in a recession and surpluses otherwise.

There are so many more complex parts to the problem. the BEST thing that the government could have done 4 years is to let the things crash. We would be 3-4 years into an economic recovery, instead of still desperately bailing out a bucket sized hole with a tin can.

I'm confused. Letting things crash would have been better, how?

 

[imagep]

Well that's because - since they're illegals - they get paid what would be an *illegal* wage for a citizen-laborer. Thus, they also don't receive overtime or benefits that are the norm and/or soon to be federally mandated (like health insurance) and so on.

Thus - unless someone is willing to work for 0 benefits at an insufficient wage (what's it - $2.00/hr or something?) then they're likely to NOT take those jobs.

The employers need to pay *at least* a decent wage - and since these types of employers have no interest in doing so, they will continue to secretly employ illegals to save theirselves money.

Not everyone hires illegals for $2/hr. I suspect that most illegals make something close to normal take home wages for their job.

If I was going to employ illegals, it would be because they could do a better job than I could find a non-illegal to do the same job, and it would be for about the same wage (after taxes). If I ever did employ illegals, when both of them left (assuming that it was two) due to the fact that they couldn't work together (in-laws), they both would have ended up finding jobs at above minimum wage, but significantly less than what I was paying them.

 

[imagep]

I disagree. Government spending is good during a recession because it stimulates the economy when no one else is spending any money. The problem is that the previous administration ran up debt when they should have been paying off the deficit.

I tend to agree. Although I would like to see government spending money in such a fashion that it is mostly spent improving our infrasture and not wasted on "programs" and pie in the sky phoney alternative energy scams.

 

[imagep]

Why is it unacceptable for someone to get unemployment benefits - but ok for them to get foodstamps and other welfare? Isn't it all, really, the same problem: depending on government?

Yes, it is exactly the same. Sometimes liberals refer to these welfare programs as "saftey nets". The thing is, when you know that there is a safety net, they why try so hard not to fall? Saftey nets are part of the problem, not part of the solution because saftey nets alieviate the fear of failure. It's the fear of failure that is a motivating factor for all of us going to work every day. We are afraid of loosing our job if we dont go to work and work hard. If we know that there is a saftey net, we ain't quite as afraid, so we don't work quite as hard.

I've been self employed for over 20 years, and I have never had a spare penny. During that 20 years I have had a lot of competitors enter our market, with lots of money and fancy equipment and a huge advertising budget - but yet they fail. While I have been modistly sucessful with a shoestring budget. The reason I have outlasted a lot of competitiors is that if I don't make money, I don't eat. Many of those competitors had money, and knew that they could afford to fail if their business endevor turned out to be difficult or if they found it to require hard work. Their business was doomed because of their personal saftey net, not enhanced by it.

 

[ricksfolly]

This is horrible for MANY legal Americans across the nation! This includes myself
States struggle to pass budgets without stimulus - Business - msnbc.com

Im very sure there are people that take advantage of this situation. They have a wife or husband that also works so the other half doesnt have to seek employment ASAP. Thats probably 10%-15% of the people on the program. What about the REST of the people!? As for me Ive been on for about 6 months and I havent found anyone that has accepted me. Ive been on interviews (not many) and... nothing. Im afraid Im going to lose EVERYTHING because of this. Its not like I can get a minimum $ job and pay my bills! And guess what.... even so, most ALL the jobs at that pay are filled by mexicans, legal and illegal.
No wonder why the suicide rates are up!

It puts another 13 million people who want to work but can't find jobs on the streets, and the money they used to buy things is gone. Shop owners, grocery stores, house payments, car payments, and other places they spent money will also be impacted, everyone but the Republicans who can't relate with no paychecks because they only know they get theirs...

 

[phattonez]

No, it means they will be less likely to take the jobs that they don't want to take and now will be more willing to start producing again. You can't have consumption if you don't have production, period.

 

[Renae]

Not really.

Eventhough the purpose of welfare is to assist when someone's income is under ___ amount welfare doesn't cover a lot of things that these people need to pay for: mortgage, vehicle costs, medical coverage (only pregnant women and children are covered by medicare) and so on . . . it would be best not to put these people on a reduced and quippy form of government support when it was the failed company which put them out of work to begin with.

It's neither the Companies problem, nor societies. Why do people think companies OWE employees a job??

 

[Kushinator]

No, it means they will be less likely to take the jobs that they don't want to take and now will be more willing to start producing again. You can't have consumption if you don't have production, period.

What is your take on job search frictions that lead to underemployment? Do you believe that the long term labor market will benefit from underemployment? Secondly, the bold makes very little sense given the size of the US labor market (employed).

 

[imagep]

No, it means they will be less likely to take the jobs that they don't want to take and now will be more willing to start producing again. You can't have consumption if you don't have production, period.

Companies don't hire people when demand for products is less than the amount of production that their current number of employees can produce. Demand for production controls how much is produced, not the other way around.

 

[ricksfolly]

No, it means they will be less likely to take the jobs that they don't want to take and now will be more willing to start producing again. You can't have consumption if you don't have production, period.

I see you know nothing about unemployment processes. It's not about turning down jobs you don't want, It's about actively seeking any kind of a job. If you don't show actual effort, at least three interviews, your checks are stopped. You can't cheat either, because periodic spot checks are made.

ricksfolly

 

[Barbbtx]

I already do...in both donations and pro-bono work (and hell yes I take the deductions).

Lucky, huh? Yeah. Sure...why not. course that first 20 years might be called the ANTI-lucky...and the next 10 wasnt great...and I might contend that it wasnt luck but hard work and a commitment to changing my future...but I'll go with lucky if that works for you...

OMG, I'm sorry. I thought it would be obvious that I'm on your side. I did put "lucky" and "spread the wealth around" in quotations. You sound like a hard working great American who didn't give up and went for the American dream. I'm not surprised you are charitable on top of it. That's a bit different than being forced to "spread the wealth around" by an out of control government.