DiscussMormonism.com

I can see the benefit (and need) for government coordinated "Unemployment Benefits", in which people who lose jobs are given money to help them pay the bills while they look for another job. Obviously an argument could be made that people should save their own "rainy day" funds and be responsible for themselves, but people won't, so the government does it for them, which is better than nothing.

But can someone help me understand if there is ever a point when these payments could be stopped? Should these payments be made indefinitely, or is there ever a point where a person who still hasn't been able to find a job is told that there is no more money coming?

In other words, should unemployment benefits be a never-ending series of payments given to someone only because they once held a job? If not, how do we know when they should stop?

We should probably look at the average time it takes a person to secure a new job (and their first paycheck) and use that as a guideline.

Just a thought.

cinepro wrote:Should these payments be made indefinitely, or is there ever a point where a person who still hasn't been able to find a job is told that there is no more money coming?

Unemployment payments are not made indefinitely, so your question seems rather disingenuous (or poorly thought out).

Unemployment payments are not made indefinitely, so your question seems rather disingenuous (or poorly thought out).

Exactly. But since cinepro raises the question, how would he answer it?

How long should unemployment benefits be provided?

Kevin Graham wrote:

Unemployment payments are not made indefinitely, so your question seems rather disingenuous (or poorly thought out).

Exactly. But since cinepro raises the question, how would he answer it?

How long should unemployment benefits be provided?

Well, we're talking about a very small amount of money. The maximum unemployment payment, whether you used to make $2,500 a month or $25,00 a month; is $1,800 a month, and poor people don't get anything close to that amount. I believe (in Califonia at least) you recieve 80% of your original salary, or $1,800 per month, whatever is less.

The unemployed worker already has to pay a deposit (I believe it is two weeks of benefits), fill out forms verifying they are actively searching for work, and deal with all sorts of interruptions in payments while they try to live on poverty-level wages. So to answer the question, I don't care how long. No one can live that way for long and despite the Republican sour grapes, I don't believe the average person would choose to live on unemployment given the choice.

On a side note: it's pretty funny that Republicans, who can't figure out why they lost the election, continue to speak out against the poor and working class as if that isn't why.

Kevin Graham wrote:Exactly. But since cinepro raises the question, how would he answer it?

How long should unemployment benefits be provided?

I honestly don't know. But whenever the prospect of having people's benefits end is raised, it seems the argument is that it is intolerable to end someone's benefits. So I'm just wondering if the question has ever been discussed of when it is and isn't tolerable?

Personally, I would think 6 to 12 months would fulfill the purpose of unemployment benefits. Unless we're going to argue that someone should get perpetual payments just because they once had a job, I don't think continuing those payments beyond 12 months should be called "unemployment".

In other words, should unemployment benefits be a never-ending series of payments given to someone only because they once held a job?

No.

If not, how do we know when they should stop?

The original intent was 26 weeks. The Obama admin increased it to 99 weeks in 2009 so there is little incentive to go back to work or start a business etc. and hence is another downward pressuring force on the economy. A huge amount of wealth consumed with no return.

bcspace wrote:The original intent was 26 weeks. The Obama admin increased it to 99 weeks in 2009...

Bush Calls for an Extension of Unemployment Benefits

George W. Bush wrote:When our legislators return to the Capitol, I ask them to make the extension of unemployment benefits a first order of business.

Are you dishonest or ignorant? Or a tad bit of both, perhaps?


Edited to add:

Republicans supported unemployment insurance under Bush

Bush Calls for an Extension of Unemployment Benefits

Republicans supported unemployment insurance under Bush

When did I imply I agreed with them on the issue? They're just caving into the Democrats as the blind lead the blind.

The Obama admin increased it to 99 weeks in 2009 so there is little incentive to go back to work or start a business etc.

You can't possibly be this stupid. Even with benefits received, there is EVERY incentive to go back to work. You Republicans are so friggin out of touch with reality that you actually think there are jobs available, but that people are so lazy that they prefer to stay home and receive their one-three hundred bucks per week and be satisfied with that! There is absolutely no evidence to support this. When you're in an economy where there are five applicants for every one job available, basic arithmetic should tell you that this isn't by choice.