Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 126

Thread: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass Sen

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass Sen

    'Following last week's surprising passage of the preliminary approval to extend emergency unemployment claims, i.e. emergency jobless claims, for 3 months, when six republicans sided with democrats and gave approval to the original $6.4 billion legislation, there was an expectation that up to 1.4 million Americans would get their benefits extended once again (despite the so-called recovery in the economy, and the job market, instead of just all time high S&P500). Moments ago such hopes were dashed, when a Senate plan to restore long-term jobless benefits hit a wall Tuesday after Republicans withdrew their support amid complaints over cost and other issues.

    The $18 billion bill, which would restore the benefits through the end of 2014, failed to clear a key test vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needed to attract 60 senators to move the bill forward, but the bill stalled on a 52-48 vote.

    No Republicans voted in favor.
    What happened between then and now, and why did those republicans revert back to the party line?

    Reid lost their support when he amended the bill and failed to come up with a plan to offset the cost within 10 years.

    "It doesn't look good," Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins said before the vote and after a meeting with Reid.

    Collins and Nevada GOP Sen. Dean Heller unsuccessfully proposed that Reid go back to the three-month extension. "We're back to ground zero," Heller said.

    The senators are expected to return to the negotiating table. The GOP-controlled House has yet to vote on extending the benefits.

    Reid postponed a prior vote Monday night upon realizing he didn't have enough support and said he needed time to talk with members of both parties.
    It almost makes one wonder if Reid isn't trying to sabotage his own legislation. Whatever the answer, it increasingly seems that no law, retroactive or otherwise, will pass before the end of the month, which also means that up to (a record) 1.4 million Americans will fall out of the labor force, in addition to the now traditional 200K-600K people who quietly exit the labor pool every month. Which also means that, as we explained previously, since the impact on the unemployment rate could be as high as 0.8% from just the EUC expiration alone, that the unemployment rate for January could crash to under 6% just as the economy is starting to really backslide, as shown by the recent horrendous data from retailers across the board.'

    Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass Senate | Zero Hedge

  2. #2
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    '

    Reid postponed a prior vote Monday night upon realizing he didn't have enough support and said he needed time to talk with members of both parties.
    It almost makes one wonder if Reid isn't trying to sabotage his own legislation. Whatever the answer, it increasingly seems that no law, retroactive or otherwise, will pass before the end of the month, which also means that up to (a record) 1.4 million Americans will fall out of the labor force, in addition to the now traditional 200K-600K people who quietly exit the labor pool every month. Which also means that, as we explained previously, since the impact on the unemployment rate could be as high as 0.8% from just the EUC expiration alone, that the unemployment rate for January could crash to under 6% just as the economy is starting to really backslide, as shown by the recent horrendous data from retailers across the board.'

    Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass Senate | Zero Hedge
    Why do you "fall out of the labor force" when you get these benefits? Real question.

  3. #3
    Sage
    reinoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Out West
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    16,130
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Why do you "fall out of the labor force" when you get these benefits? Real question.
    The labor force consists of people working and looking for work. However the people looking for work only count for around six months. Anyone looking for work for more than 6 months (about 24-25 weeks) is no longer counted.

    The theory among Republicans is that extending unemployement encourages people to not looks for work: hence extending unemployment for 99 weeks can cause the labor force to look smaller because people are unemployed for more than that 24-25 weeks more willingly.
    Trump Attacked A Syrian Airfield. Trump will be a one-term president.

  4. #4
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    I don't mean to sound cruel, but what first world country other than the US thinks providing unemployment insurance for upwards of 2 years and perhaps beyond is good fiscal/economy policy?

    Unemployment insurance is a stop-gap support for people transitioning from a lost job to a new job - it is not a long-term substitute for income. In Canada, the maximum is 45 weeks, and it depends on the particular unemployment rate in the region in which you live.

    Rand Paul and others are correct - there should be no consideration of extending unemployment insurance unless 1) it's fully paid for by reductions in expenditures elsewhere and 2) it is linked to new training and other job creation initiatives that look to solve the problems not just push them down the road for another few months or years.

    Subsidized unemployment for up to and beyond two years does nothing to help people find jobs and, in fact, likely makes those receiving it less employable. What business is going to hire someone who's been out of work for over two years gaining no current experience or training?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  5. #5
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,093

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I don't mean to sound cruel, but what first world country other than the US thinks providing unemployment insurance for upwards of 2 years and perhaps beyond is good fiscal/economy policy?

    Unemployment insurance is a stop-gap support for people transitioning from a lost job to a new job - it is not a long-term substitute for income. In Canada, the maximum is 45 weeks, and it depends on the particular unemployment rate in the region in which you live.

    Rand Paul and others are correct - there should be no consideration of extending unemployment insurance unless 1) it's fully paid for by reductions in expenditures elsewhere and 2) it is linked to new training and other job creation initiatives that look to solve the problems not just push them down the road for another few months or years.

    Subsidized unemployment for up to and beyond two years does nothing to help people find jobs and, in fact, likely makes those receiving it less employable. What business is going to hire someone who's been out of work for over two years gaining no current experience or training?
    Sure cut them off, and remove them from the labour force for being lazy.... but that does not mean that there are jobs for them to get and that is the problem. All it does, is increase the poverty levels.. and I guess that is the strategy of the GOP these days.
    PeteEU

  6. #6
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,424

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    'Following last week's surprising passage of the preliminary approval to extend emergency unemployment claims, i.e. emergency jobless claims, for 3 months, when six republicans sided with democrats and gave approval to the original $6.4 billion legislation, there was an expectation that up to 1.4 million Americans would get their benefits extended once again (despite the so-called recovery in the economy, and the job market, instead of just all time high S&P500). Moments ago such hopes were dashed, when a Senate plan to restore long-term jobless benefits hit a wall Tuesday after Republicans withdrew their support amid complaints over cost and other issues.

    The $18 billion bill, which would restore the benefits through the end of 2014, failed to clear a key test vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needed to attract 60 senators to move the bill forward, but the bill stalled on a 52-48 vote.

    No Republicans voted in favor.
    What happened between then and now, and why did those republicans revert back to the party line?

    Reid lost their support when he amended the bill and failed to come up with a plan to offset the cost within 10 years.

    "It doesn't look good," Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins said before the vote and after a meeting with Reid.

    Collins and Nevada GOP Sen. Dean Heller unsuccessfully proposed that Reid go back to the three-month extension. "We're back to ground zero," Heller said.

    The senators are expected to return to the negotiating table. The GOP-controlled House has yet to vote on extending the benefits.

    Reid postponed a prior vote Monday night upon realizing he didn't have enough support and said he needed time to talk with members of both parties.
    It almost makes one wonder if Reid isn't trying to sabotage his own legislation. Whatever the answer, it increasingly seems that no law, retroactive or otherwise, will pass before the end of the month, which also means that up to (a record) 1.4 million Americans will fall out of the labor force, in addition to the now traditional 200K-600K people who quietly exit the labor pool every month. Which also means that, as we explained previously, since the impact on the unemployment rate could be as high as 0.8% from just the EUC expiration alone, that the unemployment rate for January could crash to under 6% just as the economy is starting to really backslide, as shown by the recent horrendous data from retailers across the board.'

    Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass Senate | Zero Hedge
    If you can't pay for something, you can't have it.

  7. #7
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Sure cut them off, and remove them from the labour force for being lazy.... but that does not mean that there are jobs for them to get and that is the problem. All it does, is increase the poverty levels.. and I guess that is the strategy of the GOP these days.
    You know, to be blunt, that's just so much crap.

    According to numbers I've seen there are upwards of 4 million job openings in the US and that is projected to rise this year and for the next decade. There are many reasons these positions aren't being filled but three primary ones are 1) the skills required for the jobs available don't match the skill set of those looking 2) too many unemployed are looking for jobs that pay them the same or higher than the ones they lost, and 3) uncertainty in the economy, around things like Obamacare, that keep businesses leary of new hires and more selective than they may otherwise be.

    So as I said, no extension to unemployment insurance should be adopted unless it's fully paid for and it's tied specifically to training initiatives. And yes, some are lazy and don't want to work at anything they consider "beneath" them and would rather sit on their asses collecting unemployment insurance for 2 plus years.

    Get government out of the way and ditch the incentives to be lazy. Nothing makes a person take a job faster than an empty belly and a need to ensure your own survival.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  8. #8
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by reinoe View Post
    The labor force consists of people working and looking for work. However the people looking for work only count for around six months. Anyone looking for work for more than 6 months (about 24-25 weeks) is no longer counted.

    The theory among Republicans is that extending unemployement encourages people to not looks for work: hence extending unemployment for 99 weeks can cause the labor force to look smaller because people are unemployed for more than that 24-25 weeks more willingly.
    Thank you for your clear, unbiased explanation.

    So, this is theoretical (it seems) that getting unemployment (renewed) would cause people to stop looking. I would think it would have the opposite effect since this extension can't be counted on to repeat. So, it seems inappropriate for this to "lower the unemployment rate".

    That's why I don't take these numbers very seriously. They are just educated guesses with convenient assumptions. Nobody really knows the state of the economy. To me, it seems the economy is OK but that a lot of low end workers are not OK. Does that matter (unless you're one of the low end workers)? Or is "the economy" actually pretty good?

    My state has the highest "unemployment rate" so I'm genuinely concerned. I don't want to live among poverty. I want the middle class to do well. I want my neighbors to have jobs (my friends all have jobs). So, I wish I could know how the economy is REALLY doing.

  9. #9
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Get government out of the way and ditch the incentives to be lazy. Nothing makes a person take a job faster than an empty belly and a need to ensure your own survival.
    Still stuck in the 1920's?

    Underemployment is actually less desirable than specific instances of unemployment.

    Say an accountant takes a job as a janitor after being laid off. Sure, he will be commended in some circles for work ethic and personal responsibility. Now however, a person who is adequately skilled, i.e. not overqualified, will find it that much more difficult to land this position because Joe the accountant is mopping floors, when he should be performing financial analysis for a bank or non-financial firm.

    Now both people are worse off, especially in terms of opportunity cost for Joe the accountant.

    Any economic policy that incentivizes underemployment is horse ****!
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #10
    Sage
    reinoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Out West
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    16,130
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Unemployment Rate Set To Plunge As Bill To Restore Jobless Benefits Fails To Pass

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    You know, to be blunt, that's just so much crap.

    According to numbers I've seen there are upwards of 4 million job openings in the US and that is projected to rise this year and for the next decade. There are many reasons these positions aren't being filled but three primary ones are 1) the skills required for the jobs available don't match the skill set of those looking 2) too many unemployed are looking for jobs that pay them the same or higher than the ones they lost, and 3) uncertainty in the economy, around things like Obamacare, that keep businesses leary of new hires and more selective than they may otherwise be.

    So as I said, no extension to unemployment insurance should be adopted unless it's fully paid for and it's tied specifically to training initiatives. And yes, some are lazy and don't want to work at anything they consider "beneath" them and would rather sit on their asses collecting unemployment insurance for 2 plus years.

    Get government out of the way and ditch the incentives to be lazy. Nothing makes a person take a job faster than an empty belly and a need to ensure your own survival.
    99 weeks is about 1 1/2 years and it's only available in states that have exceptionally high unemployment along with meeting certain other metrics. So it's not even available in all 50 states.

    Some hiring agencies and experts claim that taking a bad job soon hurts your resume more than waiting longer for a good job. I don't know whether that's true or not because there's contradictory information out there.

    Re hiring: some of those jobs are simply fake. As in companies post jobs with no intention of ever filling them. I saw that happen at where I used to work. They had about many job openings and were never filled. I know several qualified people who applied for them and recommended some others. And I don't mean not filled by the people I know I mean not filled at all ever. I'm not sure why companies do this sort of thing.

    Oh and of course there are the Craigslist scams but I'm not sure if those are counted or not.
    Trump Attacked A Syrian Airfield. Trump will be a one-term president.

Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •