• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Long Should We Help the Unemployed?

I think a problem that's come up is that people find it unacceptable that others have to face making changes in life once income fluctuates or is culled somehow.

That's just part of life though - no matter what social system or economic system you're in.
 
donsutherland1 said:
One need not be clairvoyant to have a chance at success in today's demanding and tomorrow's even more demanding labor market. What one needs is a broad education that allows one to develop sophisticated and transferable knowledge and skills. The problem is that exactly the kind of education that makes that possible is being downsized via narrowing curricula (fewer math, science, history, english/writing courses that develop analytical and communications skills) or specialty courses. Worse, educational attainment in the U.S. has flatlined. It is declining in relative terms vs. the rest of the OECD for all students (male and female). For males, it is declining in absolute terms. In short, the nation is witnessing an erosion in its human capital even as the global economy is growing increasingly demanding.

Today, and even more tomorrow, job creation and higher wage positions are increasingly concentrated in knowledge areas. Low skill positions are already largely a commodity, with low wages playing a prominent role where such jobs are situated (usually low wage countries where a physical presence in the U.S. is not required). Not surprisingly, the Bureau of Labor Statistics data reveal that the higher education (bachelor's degree or above) provides the closest thing to full employment. Those with associate degrees or less are largely captive to labor market volatility and lack job security and labor force flexibility. Those labor market inequalities could be further amplified in coming years.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but that only addresses the problem down the road. The immediate problem is people out of the educational system and in the workforce that don't have the time to stop and get a broad based education to be more nimble in today's job field.
 
Wake said:
And what do we do when those unemployed people are suffering and struggling with no money or job to be found? Just leave them to hopefully grab a rope to keep from sinking?
Click to expand...

We could jsut keeping handing out money, and feel good about ourselves. Hey, 20 years on unemployment? It's okay, it's not my money that's being given to you!"

Unemployment should be given out at a rate of $2.00 under the going minimum wage for that state. Encourage people to take jobs, support themselves.
 
digsbe said:
I think we also need more affordable access to higher education. Many students chose not to get a degree because of the cost and the loans they will have to repay.
Click to expand...

The more government ensures education is going to be paid, the higher the costs. Oh, and who provides pretty much every student loan now?
 
MrVicchio said:
The more government ensures education is going to be paid, the higher the costs. Oh, and who provides pretty much every student loan now?
Click to expand...

The feds overhauled it under Obama's healthcare bill so that students can help fund the stupid thing by having the government profit from our student loan interest. I think the government should offer incentives for universities to keep tuition low or to even decrease tuition rates. They can certainly have a say in the tuition costs of public universities. Getting a doctorate level degree in this country is one of the most expensive things you can do. There is virtually no aid or help for students in a doctorate program. Medical school, law school, pharmacy school and the like are all doctorate programs that are very expensive and typically only able to be funded by taking out in many cases over $100,000+ in student loans. In other countries this is not the case.
 
Here is an interesting thought for the left side. Of course there is the argument that if people acted more responsible and cut down massively on their expenses and such, and stopped spending as much. And it makes plenty of sense, I'm not being sarcastic or anything and that is of course what you should do. But when that many people cut back that much, it could have a negative effect on the economy, and when you think about all the people not working both the unemployment rate and the actual unemployment rate which is much higher, so those people having 500 or 300 dollars less a week, and that much less money going into the economy, will have a negative effect I think. But then again you could also argue that, if we didn't have an unemployment tax, and that money wasn't taken out of peoples checks in the first place, that money would go into the economy. BUT if we keep the tax on the upper incomes higher, their spending habits will of course not be effected by having that taken out of their income, while the extra money going to the middle will help those people unemployed keep spending without having a large negative effect as a large part of it would come from the top, but then that comes to a rights/moral argument of sorts, as is it ok to do pure wealth redistribution? tax the top and let the people on the bottom spend it? The argument could be made for that.
 
As baffled as I am to find myself in agreement with Tigger, I think that is a big component to this: training programs need to be more ubiquitous.

We have not seen levels of college enrollment that are in keeping with the size of the college-aged population. The reason is because college is quickly becoming unaffordable. And a large part of that is that government aid to public colleges has dropped by about half in the last few years. This means tuition is skyrocketing, which decreases enrollment, and in turn decreases the money colleges have to continue operating. Some community colleges are so strapped that they're actually turning people away.

It doesn't need to be that way. It is that way because we don't consider education a priority anymore in this country, and we don't streamline our spending - so much of it is bloated and wasteful and overly complex. If we made education a priority and if the parties could come together and make a serious go of streamlining spending, we could make education vastly cheaper without adding any burden to taxpayers or decreasing availability. Plenty of countries have. And we used to.

Getting the cost of tuition under control and implementing training into unemployment benefits is crucial. I think it's the most important thing we need to do as a country.

On a personal level, I do hear some of you when you say some people are not willing to take the work they can find. I know a couple people like this - they used to make 6 figures in an industry that's now tanked, and they think it's beneath them to take a lower-paying job. And you're right, this mindset is stupid and they should take what they can find. Goodness knows I've worked below my skillset a lot in the last couple years. It's money. I need to eat. There is such a thing as a job that's not worth having, but that's based on treatment, not on the amount of money you make.

But really, these sorts of people are not extremely common. Most unemployed people are really just struggling to find anything. I'm not above doing anything, but I spent 2 months looking for a steady job in Tucson and failed. I had to go back to MN to find one. Admittedly, I have a physical injury that means I can't do certain jobs, and that was a limiting factor for me. But I applied to everything I could do... and even a couple things that were questionable.
 
JohnWOlin said:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/13/news/economy/unemployment_benefits_extension/index.htm

I found this to be a very interesting article and before I might say extend but I tend to agree--several unemployed don't need these extensions they need to learn to adapt and build up. This is a nonstarter to get unemployment down by continuously extending the unemployment for those out of work for over a year. I mean come on a year? Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree that continuing to allow people to collect unemployment isn't helping them to get back to work. However, from a purely logical aspect, if someone on unemployment is getting say 600 a week and the only jobs they can get are less, say 500 a week, why would they, or I if I was in that situation go to work and get less money?
 
00timh said:
I certainly agree that continuing to allow people to collect unemployment isn't helping them to get back to work. However, from a purely logical aspect, if someone on unemployment is getting say 600 a week and the only jobs they can get are less, say 500 a week, why would they, or I if I was in that situation go to work and get less money?
Click to expand...

That's why I say cut them off. The economy is changing in ways that you cannot adapt to if the government simply gives you an unlimited crutch. You have to consider these people are not only getting unemployment they are also likely getting SNAP benefits as well for being out of work. It's a tough reality but sometimes you have to relaunch yourself and the government may help in the short term but in the long term it is up to the individual person to get their lives in order.
 
00timh said:
I certainly agree that continuing to allow people to collect unemployment isn't helping them to get back to work. However, from a purely logical aspect, if someone on unemployment is getting say 600 a week and the only jobs they can get are less, say 500 a week, why would they, or I if I was in that situation go to work and get less money?[/QUOTE]

That is the problem with some today. No pride in being self sufficient, doing what it takes to make it, and let someone else (govt/tax payers) carry me.

I believe helping those that need a hand and are willing to help themselves. When I see statements like yours, I tend to say cut them off. Now if you were to say I am willing to work for 500 a week, it would be helpfull to meet rent/food to receive an additional 100/week. Then I think it is reasonalbe to help. but to say no, just give me the 600/wk and I will do nothing, I have no desire to help you.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
00timh said:
I certainly agree that continuing to allow people to collect unemployment isn't helping them to get back to work. However, from a purely logical aspect, if someone on unemployment is getting say 600 a week and the only jobs they can get are less, say 500 a week, why would they, or I if I was in that situation go to work and get less money?[/QUOTE]

That is the problem with some today. No pride in being self sufficient, doing what it takes to make it, and let someone else (govt/tax payers) carry me.

I believe helping those that need a hand and are willing to help themselves. When I see statements like yours, I tend to say cut them off. Now if you were to say I am willing to work for 500 a week, it would be helpfull to meet rent/food to receive an additional 100/week. Then I think it is reasonalbe to help. but to say no, just give me the 600/wk and I will do nothing, I have no desire to help you.
Click to expand...
Well, let's say that I had always been a good solid worker, but I got laid off (hypothetical BTW, I am currently working) and I have a house, kids, other payments to make. I am going to opt for the most money I can get. It wasn't my fault I got laid off, and if and when I can find employment that matches or exceeds that which I was making, I would do so. BUT... I am not going to reduce my lifestyle and have my kids go with less IF I don't have to. Its just common sense here. I never said it was right for the government to continue unemployment forever, but as a person in that situation with the option to collect more money from unemployment than being employed, I am going to take it.
Click to expand...
 
00timh said:
if someone on unemployment is getting say 600 a week and the only jobs they can get are less, say 500 a week, why would they, or I if I was in that situation go to work and get less money?
Click to expand...

exactly.. a freind of mine, a single mom of two at the time, could have more money to spend if she stayed at home and did nothing. the rent was paid except for $30per month, she received all her food for free, free health care, etc.
It would take a good paying job to match that. Also she'd then need to pay a sitter at around $5 per hour * 2 * 40.
 
Unemployment benefits keeps people spending, which keeps the economy moving.

Therefore, we should keep providing benefits as long as possible.
 
Thunder said:
Unemployment benefits keeps people spending, which keeps the economy moving.

Therefore, we should keep providing benefits as long as possible.
Click to expand...

and "long as possible" has run out unless money is given up from other programs. (lets not go down just tax the rich road here).
 
Thunder said:
I have no problem shifting funds to unemployment insurance.
Click to expand...

We are most likely on the same page. I believe in helping those that truely need and are wiling to help themselves. It seems for some they forget the dollars have to come from somewhere. Glad to see you do.

Hopefully 2012 will be a better year for the US.
 
JohnWOlin said:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/13/news/economy/unemployment_benefits_extension/index.htm

I found this to be a very interesting article and before I might say extend but I tend to agree--several unemployed don't need these extensions they need to learn to adapt and build up. This is a nonstarter to get unemployment down by continuously extending the unemployment for those out of work for over a year. I mean come on a year? Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...



Actually with extended benefits, believe unemployment benefits now run for 99 weeks. That's two years.


Does beg the question. How long is long enough?
 
Cole said:
Actually with extended benefits, believe unemployment benefits now run for 99 weeks. That's two years.


Does beg the question. How long is long enough?
Click to expand...

when you are on unemployment, you MUST look for work. as long as you are honestly trying to find a job, we should help you.

though..I understand your concern.
 
Paschendale said:
Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we just had a system in effect to place people into jobs? There would be no need to subsidize unemployment, since there would be far less of it.
Click to expand...

We do. We have state employment sites, and a number of general and specialized job sites on the internet, some free, some paid for, all routinely used.

I can assure you unemployment in the U.S. has significant components of these:

1. lack of adequate education/skills for availale jobs (see dropout factorys, teachers union menace, etc)
2. A sense of job entitlement to the type of job, they won't settle for any job
3. A sense of entitlement to welfare, many see no reason to actually find work when being paid for nothing, crazy right? Money good.
4. Life choices that they themselve deem higher than unemployment, such as staying at their current residence for emotional reasons rather than relocate for a job, etc., Choices that none of us have the right to take from them.

Jobs don't grow on trees, gotta work and stuff.
 
Thunder said:
when you are on unemployment, you MUST look for work. as long as you are honestly trying to find a job, we should help you.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm looking. Honest.

Besides, that's a crock of **** in any case. I don't want them to just look, I want them to WORK. I know plenty of people that look, find jobs, and promptly turn them down for a variety of reasons, first-hand I have had about 3 out of 40 people in the last two years cite unemployment payments as a reason they did not accept the offer (they wanted to wait until it was closer to out, these people presumably have dual incomes or aren't hurting for it apparently). They need to work. Yes there are downsides to taking "just any job". But if I'm paying for their slack time, and they are so unmarketable and so unprepared that they can't fend for themselves, why do beggars turn into picking eaters?
 
Thunder said:
Unemployment benefits keeps people spending, which keeps the economy moving.

Therefore, we should keep providing benefits as long as possible.
Click to expand...
Unemployment benefits create jobs. This is a smart jobs move, listen to Thunder, he knows.
 
00timh said:
I certainly agree that continuing to allow people to collect unemployment isn't helping them to get back to work. However, from a purely logical aspect, if someone on unemployment is getting say 600 a week and the only jobs they can get are less, say 500 a week, why would they, or I if I was in that situation go to work and get less money?
Click to expand...
The thing is, I don't think most people on unemployment are getting anywhere near $600 a week. The last time I was on unemployment the Maximum was like $350/week. Granted, that was a long time ago, and it has probably gone up a bit since then, but even back then it was barely enough to survive on your own.

Any savings you had would drain real quick.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
Unemployment benefits keeps people spending, which keeps the economy moving.

Therefore, we should keep providing benefits as long as possible.
Click to expand...

I agree. In fact, jobs are overrated. We should just pay everyone an unemployment check as soon as they graduate from high school until they start collecting Social Security.
 
TNAR said:
I agree. In fact, jobs are overrated. We should just pay everyone an unemployment check as soon as they graduate from high school until they start collecting Social Security.
Click to expand...


Can you just imagine??!!! The economy would be soaring with the eagles! These are the kind of innovative ideas we need in Washington, dangit!!



("Wait. Pelosi already proposed it? And those elitist republicans didn't jump on board. Damn.")
 
Why do we need rely on the government for helping the poor? Yes I generally show compassion for the lower class of society, especially given the fact that circumstances beyond peoples control can cause them to be misfortunate and less economically well off. Hell, even the smallest mistakes can plunge one into poverty, but everyone makes mistakes once in a while, and no one should be punished severely for little mistakes.

Instead of relying on the government (which apparently annoys the conservatives to no end, but who cares about what they think) what if people just casually releid on each other? Don't live by yourself, live with family or freinds. Pitch in together and all work part time minimum wage jobs while supporting each other in the respective household. Live a little rag-rag and cheap; the best pleasures in life, like food, sex, and people are usually very cheap or free altogether. Is your nest door neighbor having difficulty paying the rent? Lend him some extra cash and work a flexible date for paying back the money when they're ready. Establish more emotional bonds with the local community. What the government provides to the needy via systemization can also be done through simple will power and love.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom