Or maybe just maybe politicians shouldn't be in the business of buying votes. They should be in the business of doing what is best for the country. Your idea of an endless stream of income because of failed job growth policies under this president goes against all logic. I've said it to you in other threads and I'll say it again you hate math. You obviously don't understand how the economy works. It what crazy world does having an unlimited stream of income from the government incentivize people to get a job. Sure a lot of people want to work and most are good people . They should be provided with short term help to find work . But at some point someone has to be an adult and cut the cord. Life isn't always easy and sometimes struggling incentives people to strive.

 

I have yet to hear one solution from you. You Dodge and have a single answer that anyone who thinks unemployment benefits should have a limit don't care about people. When in fact are very ideas truly show the most compassion , instead of allowing people to become complacent we incentivizes them to work.

How does one find a job when there aren't any?

 

One of the differences between you and me is that you think people on unemployment are shiftless. I think the opposite.

 

A monthly unemployment compensation check will pay for groceries and not much more.

 

Been there. Done it.

I know 3 people who are unemployed, and have been for an extended time. One is a 60 year old female with administrative skills and excellent employment history, no degree. One is a male in his mid 40's with an MBA. One is a female in her late 40's with a degree in sociology. None have been able to find a job. All have had had at least 30 initial interviews over the time they've been unemployed. I would say on average, the 40-ish year olds have been called back for second interviews at a rate of 2:1 versus the 60 year old's 2nd interview call backs. None have been ultimately hired to date. None have turned down any job offers, the job offers have all gone to other candidates.

What specifically do you agree with Bash about? That those drawing unemployment compensation can be or should be compared to enabled substance abusers?

 

Absolutely amazing.

 

 

:lol:

 

It was a fair analogy but no I agree that unemployment benefits should be limited.

 

I think comparing them to spoiled kids may be a better analogy. Same premise though. As long as someone is enabling that behavior then that behavior will never change. If you want to use an analogy to deflect from the main question of the thread then that's on you.

How does one find a job when there aren't any?

 

One of the differences between you and me is that you think people on unemployment are shiftless. I think the opposite.

 

A monthly unemployment compensation check will pay for groceries and not much more.

 

Been there. Done it.

Why do you continue to dodge my question?

I know 3 people who are unemployed, and have been for an extended time. One is a 60 year old female with administrative skills and excellent employment history, no degree. One is a male in his mid 40's with an MBA. One is a female in her late 40's with a degree in sociology. None have been able to find a job. All have had had at least 30 initial interviews over the time they've been unemployed. I would say on average, the 40-ish year olds have been called back for second interviews at a rate of 2:1 versus the 60 year old's 2nd interview call backs. None have been ultimately hired to date. None have turned down any job offers, the job offers have all gone to other candidates.

 

 

Are they looking for jobs in their field or are they looking for jobs period?

How does one find a job when there aren't any?

 

One of the differences between you and me is that you think people on unemployment are shiftless. I think the opposite.

 

A monthly unemployment compensation check will pay for groceries and not much more.

 

Been there. Done it.

 

 

My college kid can find a job. My teenagers can find a job. I've worked in many fields in my life. I am currently a mechanic. If I lose my job then I'll find a job somewhere. I may not be a mechanic. Hell, I may be a janitor or go back to delivering pizzas but I bet I get a job. Or two. Whatever jobs I can get to support my family is where I'll be. If I don't have this job as a mechanic then obviously my family and I will be going through some lifestyle changes but I'll be working somewhere collecting a pay check from somebody. I can't help but wonder how many people don't want to lower themselves or look outside of their specialized field to find work. There is always work somewhere. I don't have a problem greeting you at Walmart or taking your order at McDonalds if I can get a check.

I think it's a very fair question. What length of time do you think is sufficient? Surely, you don't think individuals should be able to live off unemployment their entire life?

 

I'm a registered Dem, but pretty middle of the road. That being said, unemployment benefits should only last so long. I'm thinking a year, AT MOST. Even that seems like a long time to me. If you can't find some kind of job in that amount of time, you aren't trying hard enough, IMO.

:lol:

 

It was a fair analogy but no I agree that unemployment benefits should be limited.

 

I think comparing them to spoiled kids may be a better analogy. Same premise though. As long as someone is enabling that behavior then that behavior will never change. If you want to use an analogy to deflect from the main question of the thread then that's on you.

First drug addicts ... then spoiled kids. What's next? Worthless slugs?

In order to become eligible for unemployment compensation, one must have lost his or her job "through no fault of his or her own." Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Most everyone who sides with the Republicans on this issue needs to realize that they're one bad boss or one merger away from becoming unemployed. And if you're over 50 and suddenly unemployed, good luck.

Most everyone who sides with the Republicans on this issue needs to realize that they're one bad boss or one merger away from becoming unemployed. And if you're over 50 and suddenly unemployed, good luck.

 

As someone who uses two different staffing agencies to fill needs in my place of employment, there are jobs to be had. Maybe not the job some want, or maybe not in their specific field, but it is not as hard to find employment as many make it out to be. Sure there are some people giving 110% trying to find employment with no luck, that is going to happen. But I'm fully confident that if I lost my job today (good thing my boss isn't here today), I could find SOME form of employment rather quickly.

Why do you continue to dodge my question?

If it were up to me, I'd pay for extended unemployment benefits by reining in corporate welfare. For what it's worth, unemployment benefits have never run past 99 weeks. Some of these corporate welfare benefits, on the other hand, have been on the books for decades. Got to sweep away the cobwebs before you can even read what the breaks are about.

It's a tough question. I don't believe people collecting unemployment for long periods of time have no incentive to find work. An unemployment check doesn't pay for much, especially for someone who is accustomed to making more than $30k a year. I've been out of work through no fault of my own, and extended benefits kept me afloat long enough to do what I had to do to change careers for the better. If it had been capped at 26 weeks, there's no way I could have made it without settling for something significantly less, and that's assuming I could get a job delivering pizza or bagging groceries. It's not as easy as you think just to pick up just any job, even minimum wage when you are a highly qualified individual. Many employers won't hire you because they feel you'll be gone as soon as you find something better, or that you could never be happy in an entry level position.

 

During rough times I do think 26 weeks can be too short, especially when the hiring process can now take up to 30 days or more and to do it right, it costs money and time to find a job. On the other end, 99 weeks just seems too long....that's almost 2 years...at some point you have to take some personal responsibility....maybe you're in the wrong field, or need to upgrade your skill set.

During rough times I do think 26 weeks can be too short, especially when the hiring process can now take up to 30 days or more and to do it right, it costs money and time to find a job. On the other end, 99 weeks just seems too long....that's almost 2 years...at some point you have to take some personal responsibility....maybe you're in the wrong field, or need to upgrade your skill set.

 

:thumb:

My college kid can find a job. My teenagers can find a job. I've worked in many fields in my life. I am currently a mechanic. If I lose my job then I'll find a job somewhere. I may not be a mechanic. Hell, I may be a janitor or go back to delivering pizzas but I bet I get a job. Or two. Whatever jobs I can get to support my family is where I'll be. If I don't have this job as a mechanic then obviously my family and I will be going through some lifestyle changes but I'll be working somewhere collecting a pay check from somebody. I can't help but wonder how many people don't want to lower themselves or look outside of their specialized field to find work. There is always work somewhere. I don't have a problem greeting you at Walmart or taking your order at McDonalds if I can get a check.

 

I was just getting ready to post almost this exact same thing. Heck, not too long ago I applied at multiple places for a second part time job (have a wedding and honeymoon I have to pay for this year :lol2:), and received 4 offers in a 2 week span. These were grocery stores, restaurants, etc. Ended up getting a raise and not having to get a 2nd job, but the point remains. Jobs are out there. They may not be in the field one is currently in, or earning the same wages, but they're out there if you're truly wanting it.

How does one find a job when there aren't any?

 

One of the differences between you and me is that you think people on unemployment are shiftless. I think the opposite.

 

A monthly unemployment compensation check will pay for groceries and not much more.

 

Been there. Done it.

 

Where have I said anything you just stated. All I've simply stated is there needs to be a time limit on the benefit. Government assistance should have a cap and not continue to be extended. You don't even realize how this cycle of complacency feeds this system and unemployment.

 

Tell me how extending unemployment is going to create jobs?

 

During rough times I do think 26 weeks can be too short, especially when the hiring process can now take up to 30 days or more and to do it right, it costs money and time to find a job. On the other end, 99 weeks just seems too long....that's almost 2 years...at some point you have to take some personal responsibility....maybe you're in the wrong field, or need to upgrade your skill set.

 

^This.

 

But to say there aren't jobs out there is baloney. There are 3 billboards within 3 miles of the Kennedy bridge here in Louisville announcing that there are jobs. So, that argument doesn't hold water. I understand that if you're 60 and become unemployed that it's tough to reinvent yourself. But there are jobs to be had.

 

Corporate welfare. That's where the answer lies it seems.