| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| USA employment; question | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 5 2004, 02:31 AM (303 Views) | |
| somerled | Apr 5 2004, 02:31 AM Post #1 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Correct me if I am wrong. In the USA people who become unemployed recieve unemployment benefit (for 9 months or something similar), after which they no longer recieve support. I have heard that rate of growth of the USA job market has stalled or is stagnant, and 3/4 of all unemployed in the USA have been unemployed for longer than 24 weeks. (PBS) OK .... what happens to them when their unemployment benefits (insurance) runs out ? Obviously they are still alive and need to eat, and need shelter, and the bills keep on coming in (utilities, and living expenses etc), many of them have families to support and feed, so how do they find the money if they have no job, no savings, and after they have sold everything they can sell, and have no government support ? Are they still included in the unemployment numbers once their benefits run out and they fall off the system ? So what is the REAL level of unemployment in the USA ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 5 2004, 07:19 AM Post #2 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
You've heard wrong, Sparky (again). Yes, I do love to correct you. There have been over half a million jobs created just this year. There were over 300,000 created just last month. So much for that stagnant job market. In addition, our economy grew at over a SIX percent rate in the last half of 2003. We're in an economic boom right now. The unemployment period is 39 weeks. After 26 weeks you can apply for federal unemployment assistance for 13 weeks. I'll tell you exactly what happens to most of those unemployed. They get jobs. The job may not always be at the level they had before, but they get jobs. The thought of not having money come in is quite a spur. Many of these people start their own CASH businesses, however small. Self-employed people (including me) are NOT listed on the job rolls. One dirty little secret out there is that this country has a thriving "cash only" economy. The only people who no longer are counted on the rolls are those who STOP looking for work. Many of these take the time to get some sort of training. You can still be looking for work and not receive unemployment. In fact, the unemployment offices have their own networking and training. The only reason I know this is due to a friend who owns his own IT support business. He has recruited most of his techs through the TWC (Texas Workforce Commission). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 5 2004, 07:39 AM Post #3 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Here is a practical way to look at it. My aunt (who is in her 50s) and I are both in the same field, we are both electrical engineers. When the Market tanked the area where we lived (a mini silicon valley out on long island NY) was hit hard, and we both lost our jobs. I had to go into my 13 weeks of unemployment assistance, before I found the job I am at now. But the truth of the matter is I was holding out for an electrical engineers position (few and far between at the time). Had I needed to get a job right away I could have. My aunt, just ran out her unemployment but never went back to work. Her husband had just gotten a lucrative promotion, so she didn’t need to go back to work. They moved to Florida (since his promotion involved flying out to South American countries regularly), and she in a sense has retired. What Bill says is true, first if one wants to find work they can – it might not be what they want but its there. I shutter to think how it would be if people where assisted indefinitely. In fact I may have had 26 weeks pulse of unemployment, but I was crawling out of my skin with not being able to work. Had I not find a electrical engineers position (even if I didn’t have a family to support) I would have taken a job just to stay sane. Second those numbers are almost meaningless as they don’t take into consideration people like Bill who started his own company or people like my aunt how never returned to work because she didn’t have to. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 5 2004, 08:38 AM Post #4 |
|
Admiral
|
But I still don't see the answer to the real question. What happens when the insurance period runs out and someone still cant find work, perhaps through no fault of their own? Do they and their family go hungry? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Apr 5 2004, 08:47 AM Post #5 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
If someone really needs the help welfare would kick in I suppose. Even though it is not popular among the Republicans welfare does exist in the US. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 5 2004, 09:19 AM Post #6 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Of course not. No one goes hungry. There are food stamps and other welfare-type programs for the genuinely needy. The family (if there is one) may have to do without some things, but no one starves. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 5 2004, 09:20 AM Post #7 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Well there is always welfare. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 5 2004, 09:28 AM Post #8 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Actually, Min, it wasn't welfare that was the problem... it was generations of people being on welfare because they were too lazy to work. If you added up all the programs that used to be available to people, you could live quite comfortably. In New York City, for example, benefits from the government, state, and city was the equivalent of $35,000 a year in 1994. You could have an apartment, electricity, phone, food stamps, and a cash stipend that increased depending on the number of children. In Chicago, the day the welfare checks arrived was known as "Father's Day" because the guys who fathered children and vanished mysteriously appeared again. These were able-bodied people who were, put bluntly, too lazy to work, and encouraged to stay in the same position. The government actually REWARDED laziness, out-of-wedlock births, and discouraged marriage. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 5 2004, 10:15 AM Post #9 |
|
Admiral
|
If you take a look on the recent welfare topic you'll see the way I think we can reform this kind of system so that it helps those really in need while avoiding long term dependency. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Apr 5 2004, 10:51 AM Post #10 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Nothing wrong with any government trying to increase the birth rate, those out of wedlock births will pay for your generations retirement |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 5 2004, 10:56 AM Post #11 |
|
Time to put something here
|
not if they don’t work and collect welfare - then they just strain the system more. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 5 2004, 10:56 AM Post #12 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
^^^^^
Not if they don't work, Cap. If they don't work, they don't contribute to Socialist Security, so they wouldn't be funding any of my generation's retirement. This is just another reason why I made other plans (than to depend on a little SS check when I retire). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Apr 5 2004, 11:02 AM Post #13 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
^^^ and ^^^ ^^^ Oh, come on , you both going to tell me you think the majority of kids from single parent families turn out to be bums! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 5 2004, 11:13 AM Post #14 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Single parent WELFARE families. I wouldn't say "bums." I would say "dependent on government largesse". There is a big difference between a single parent family and a single parent welfare family. As an example, I am a single parent. I have primary custody of my son. My ex lives 250 miles away and sees him once a month (I usually pay the flight), plus six weeks in the summer. We trade off Thanksgiving and Christmas. Yet, I am not on welfare, nor do I depend on government handouts. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 5 2004, 12:26 PM Post #15 |
|
Admiral
|
That's wise. I have done this as well. I hope to retire at 55, but I don't know if that will be possible, since I'm not a big risk-taker when it comes to TIAA-CREF.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




2:14 PM Jul 11