quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Unemployment is an example. The average time for someone to find a new job right now is about 33 weeks, according to MSNBC.
Benefits were already triple that at 99 weeks, and with this tax package these benefits will be extended again for another year, to 151 weeks.
This is what I don't agree with. I am fine with giving unemployment benefits that are sincerely looking for a new job.
If you seriously believe that the reason so many people are out of work for so many weeks is because they are not "sincerely looking for a new job", then you are either deliberately ignorant, or need more personal experience looking for a job in an economic downturn.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Unemployment is an example. The average time for someone to find a new job right now is about 33 weeks, according to MSNBC.
Benefits were already triple that at 99 weeks, and with this tax package these benefits will be extended again for another year, to 151 weeks.
This is what I don't agree with. I am fine with giving unemployment benefits that are sincerely looking for a new job.
If you seriously believe that the reason so many people are out of work for so many weeks is because they are not "sincerely looking for a new job", then you are either deliberately ignorant, or need more personal experience looking for a job in an economic downturn.
The latter is really no guarantee of anything, considering plenty of people do still find work. Maybe Geraine would end up being one of them, which would only reinforce the point in his mind.
In general, relying on personal experience for things like that seems like a less-than-optimal approach.
Edit to add: I'm not really trying to offer commentary on the sentiment itself, one way or the other. But I was moving near the start of the financial meltdown, and I found myself looking for work during a time that was, statistically, one of the worst months in terms of private sector jobs lost. Nevertheless, I found a private sector job in less than a month, with, in all honesty, very little effort on my part.
I'm not saying that, therefore, anyone can. I'm just saying... well, what I said above. Personal experience is by no means guaranteed to teach him what you expect it to.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In general, relying on personal experience for things like that seems like a less-than-optimal approach.
Experience isn't necessary, just a little imagination is all that's required. This isn't a shot, Geraine, just some constructive criticism. When you consider what goes into obtaining employment that will support one's family and take into account what they have to offer and their environment, well, the choice between unemployment and taking a menial job or perhaps one that pays much less than their previous one did becomes suddenly much clearer. Because of course generally folks have to stay pretty close to home to find a new job rather than completely uproot their families and lives, that entailing all sorts of other expenses both in time and other resources.
And why should someone who has spent their working life just say, "No, I refuse to take unemployment for long, it's a matter of pride," if they're honestly looking for work and doing so in a strenuous way? They paid into unemployment themselves when they were working. When you get into a car accident and you're insured you don't say, "Well, this is a hideously expensive affair, but I'm not going to avail myself of the insurance that I've been paying into because that's demeaning somehow."
The problem is, real viable unemployment benefits that do the kinds of things your stated ideology actually supports would involve things like training, loans for education and moving, and so on and so forth, and that would involve...tax increases. They would also be longer-term.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
the way this all turned out was pretty ironically a good example vindicating gobbarment safety nets, yanno. I should document it and draw upon it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When you consider what goes into obtaining employment that will support one's family and take into account what they have to offer and their environment, well, the choice between unemployment and taking a menial job or perhaps one that pays much less than their previous one did becomes suddenly much clearer.
I could be wrong but for easy math purposes, if you take $1000 a month in unemployment but you go out and get a job earning $800 a month, you can still take $200 a month in unemployment.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could be wrong but for easy math purposes, if you take $1000 a month in unemployment but you go out and get a job earning $800 a month, you can still take $200 a month in unemployment.
The last time I drew unemployment pay, which was over a decade ago, this was not the case.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, Sorry I've taken so long to respond. I too am very busy with end of semester work.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I realize I probably sounded like a cold hearted bastard when I posted about self reliance. Let me clarify. Those that can't help themselves should be taken care of. I agree with you 100% on that point. Those that can take care of themselves however, should.
On this much, we fully agree. But it isn't necessarily easy to tell the difference between those who can't take care of themselves, those who could take care of themselves with the proper training and those who simply won't take care of themselves. Given that we are going to make mistakes, I'd rather err on the side of generosity. I'd rather pay taxes that end up giving assistance to a few free loaders than keep the money and turn people in genuine need out on the streets.
I think there is plenty of room for debate about the best way to give that aid and the best ways to determine who really needs it and who doesn't. But that debate should start with trying to assess the genuine needs, not a debate about cutting taxes.
quote:Unemployment is an example. The average time for someone to find a new job right now is about 33 weeks, according to MSNBC.
Benefits were already triple that at 99 weeks, and with this tax package these benefits will be extended again for another year, to 151 weeks.
This is what I don't agree with. I am fine with giving unemployment benefits that are sincerely looking for a new job.
You got something very different from that article than I did, which I believe highlights the difference in our outlooks.
When I read that article, what I saw was that basic unemployment insurance covers 26 weeks (6 months). That's 7 weeks shorter than the average time people, in this current recession, spend looking for a job and that's just the average, which would mean that around half the people unemployed won't be able to find a job after more than 6 months searching. That really sucks. Reading further, I found that there are currently 1.4 million Americans who are looking for work but have been unable to find it for nearly 2 years. I thought about the toll unemployment takes on people not just financially, but emotionally, physically and socially. I thought about the stress that puts on families and relationships. I thought about my friend who has been hunting for work 4 months and whose wife has just filed for divorce because she can't take the stress any more. I thought how lucky I am to have a secure job in this economy. I thought how truly dreadful it would be to be out of work and hunting for a job right now. To me, there was no question about whether we should extend the emergency benefit program. To me, doing so was a moral imperative.
You seemed to think "Those freeloaders need a kick in the butt".
You looked at the proposal to extended emergency benefits for another year and presumed it would allow everyone to collect unemployment for 151 weeks. I did a little research and discovered that the proposal is to extend the emergency program that allows some people to receive unemployment for 99 week, for another year. There is no current plan to provide any assistance to those 1.4 million who have been looking for jobs for more than 99 weeks. I also discovered that relatively few people are eligible for the emergency unemployment. This aid is focused in areas that have the highest unemployment rates.
I don't know why we see such different things in this data. I don't really understand why our responses are so different. Like you, I've always worked hard to support myself. My family never needed government aid to make ends meet. I've never been unemployed. I believe we share the same religion and grew up in the same region of the country. So why does one of us look at unemployment statistics and see free loaders and the other seeing the same stats thinks "There but for the grace of God, go I."
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just wanted to briefly address a past point...
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: And, at any rate, it still boils down to the fact that it costs more to eat more, even at McDonald's. A one-dollar burger usually has fewer calories than a five-dollar burger. People that are overweight from frequently eating fast food have chosen to pay for more calories, when they could have been saving the money to help improve their other financial situations. They've chosen high-fat items, when most fast-food restaurants have lower-fat options.
No, I don't think this is true. Sure, a one-dollar burger may have fewer calories than a five-dollar burger, maybe. But three one-dollar burgers will not have fewer calories than a five-dollar burger, yet it will still cost significantly less. So in your scenario, many times it does in fact cost less to eat more calories. And based on what I've seen (which is obviously anecdotal), fast-food restaurants typically have few lower-fat options on the extreme value menus.
quote:I personally believe that much of "sympathy" poor, overweight people garner comes from the fact that our society has decided that they're too dumb or uneducated to understand those basic concepts. I find that to be tragic.
That's probably true. Although, my sympathy stems from the likelihood that their being poor creates more anxieties and hardships that in turn relegate obesity to being an issue of much less immediate importance, that is, from their current perspective, obesity is the least of their worries.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is also a big problem that healthy foods like fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains are more expensive than junk food.
quote:Processed foods have become cheaper as real food grows more expensive. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that between 1985 and 2000 the retail price of carbonated soft drinks rose by 20 percent, fats and oils by 35 percent, and sugars and sweets by 46 percent. Compare that to the 118 percent increase in the retail price of fresh fruits and vegetables. In 15 years the price of vegetables ballooned six times as fast as the cost of sugary, calorie-rich, nutrient-poor sodas.
I just checked Safeway's online website for the Seattle area. Their store brand white sandwich bread is $079/lb. Orowheat whole grain bread costs $4.79/lb.
And the problem is exacerbated by numerous factors. Poor people tend to work more hours, need to travel further to stores, and have worse cooking facilities, so its harder for them to make a healthy home cooked meal.
Cheap calories are going to be lower in vitamins, minerals and protein, which means that they are also less satisfying. You are less likely to crave more calories than you need if you are eating healthy (expensive) food. Although it seems like a contradiction, malnutrition is one of the key factors associate with obesity.
[ December 20, 2010, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I was moving near the start of the financial meltdown, and I found myself looking for work during a time that was, statistically, one of the worst months in terms of private sector jobs lost. Nevertheless, I found a private sector job in less than a month, with, in all honesty, very little effort on my part.
I'm not saying that, therefore, anyone can. I'm just saying... well, what I said above. Personal experience is by no means guaranteed to teach him what you expect it to.
My mother, a die hard republican, opponent of the nanny state, and proponent of personal responsibility, has been out of work for 6 months now with only a brief stint of a few weeks as a contractor. She is constantly looking for work within an hour and a half range of her home in the field of quality assurance engineering. If you think she's the type of person who isn't looking hard enough, you're gravely mistaken. The fact is, the economy sucks and finding work is tough. The job she was laid off from was one she'd been at for about a year and a half and which she had taken a 30% pay cut for when she was laid off from her previous job at the start of the recession. As long as we're throwing anecdotal evidence around.
I also have a close friend whose father just committed suicide after being out of work for 9 months and unable to find work. The family was under serious financial strain and this also led to further emotional strain on the marriage. As Rabbit pointed out, unemployment has further reaching affects beyond reduced income.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just checked Safeway's online website for the Seattle area. Their store brand white sandwich bread is $079/lb. Orowheat whole grain bread costs $4.79/lb.
To be fair, there has never been a time when I've gone into QFC (in Seattle) and seen high quality wheat bread available for more than $2 for a 24 ounce loaf, or $1.33 a pound. Still more expensive, but nowhere near as expensive as your comparison suggests. Many of the high prices on semi-luxury items like better wheat bread are ways to extract oligopoly pricing from people who are brand loyal, and the grocery store rotates sales through those brands to compete for customers who are shopping based on price.
There are also store and discount brand 100% whole grain wheat breads on the same shelves that aren't quite as nice in taste, but are just as healthy, that typically cost similar prices per pound to the nicer brands on sale.
But there are serious and important concerns about food deserts and the like. This is one of the reasons I support government interventions for low income such as cash grants, because not all of getting food is having money for the food (what's more, more cash being spent in an area makes it much more likely to attract grocers).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, I think your definition of what constitutes a high quality full grain bread and mine must differ. I've never seen it for under $3 a loaf anywhere in the US, including QFCs in Seattle.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure where this obligation of self-reliance comes from, anyway. Look at homemakers, for instance. They're a large segment of the population who have the ability to support themselves financially and have chosen not to. And I think that's a great lifestyle choice.
Of course, in most cases they have someone else who's agreed to support them. The fact remains that they're a "drain on others," and there's nothing wrong with that. My point is simply that there's nothing obligatory about supporting yourself financially with your own labor.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer, While I agree with your general point, I think you've picked a poor example. Stay at home parents aren't "a drain on others". They work very hard and make a significant contribution to their families even if they aren't being compensated monetarily for their work.
If you are looking for an example of people who are a net drain on society, pick Paris Hilton and Prince William, two people who've never done an honest days labor in their lives and likely never will. Prince William and the entire royal family are even supported by tax payers.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused fugu. Didn't those photos show the regular price of those breads to be over $4 a loaf? Even the sale price was more than double the cost of cheap white bread. You claimed you'd never seen it for over $2/loaf. By my math, 2 for $5 is over $2/loaf.
It's also not what I consider a high quality whole grain bread, but yeah, many people would.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you could clarify what you consider high quality whole grain bread (or at least, in the class of Orowheat, which you seem to consider an exemplar). On what do you base the quality assessment? If nutrition, I have provided handy information (check the last link) that, nutritionally, the breads are comparable to Orowheat. If taste, then I submit that it is extremely subjective, and the breads I provided would probably fare well in a blind taste test with Orowheat (while cheaper wheat breads probably wouldn't).
As for your comment on regular prices, did you not read my earlier post when you responded to it? I quite clearly stated that there is always some bread in that class available on sale, every single time I enter that store and peruse the bread section, which has been several times a month for around five months now (since we moved to Seattle). Which brands are on sale rotates (and I think I've seen Orowheat in that rotation, though I don't keep track), but there is always one of the good whole wheat offerings on sale for around $2 a loaf (though I think occasionally the cheapest is around $2.50). The price of good whole wheat bread is not the regular price, it is the price people are required to pay when they are in the store.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Stay at home parents aren't "a drain on others". They work very hard and make a significant contribution to their families even if they aren't being compensated monetarily for their work.
The same is true for many of the unemployed, who we're not counting (for purposes of this discussion) as "self-reliant."
Of course homemakers spend their time wisely and make a valuable contribution, but that doesn't make them self-reliant. Self-reliance means you can support yourself with the money you make from your work, and homemakers definitely can't do that.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps you could clarify what you consider high quality whole grain bread (or at least, in the class of Orowheat, which you seem to consider an exemplar).
I don't actually consider Orowheat high quality whole grain bread. It was just the closest thing to it I could find on that website.
I consider something to be quality whole wheat bread if my husband likes it, which pretty much means that it is comparable to the bread I made regularly before I was diagnosed with Celiac disease. The short answer is, if its soft and squishy, it's not high quality bread.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I consider something to be quality whole wheat bread if my husband likes it, which pretty much means that it is comparable to the bread I made regularly before I was diagnosed with Celiac disease. The short answer is, if its soft and squishy, it's not high quality bread.
We'll just go with "as good as Orowheat", then, as comparable to your exemplar was all I was trying to suggest.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm happy to help you become better informed.
Did you go to the store just to take those photos? If so, I'm kinda impressed with your dedication to this discussion.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Stay at home parents aren't "a drain on others". They work very hard and make a significant contribution to their families even if they aren't being compensated monetarily for their work.
The same is true for many of the unemployed, who we're not counting (for purposes of this discussion) as "self-reliant."
Of course homemakers spend their time wisely and make a valuable contribution, but that doesn't make them self-reliant. Self-reliance means you can support yourself with the money you make from your work, and homemakers definitely can't do that.
In my family, my husband does not make enough money to pay for child care (which is what I provide by not working). So, is he still self reliant, being as he can not make it economically without my labor? Within the family unit, perhaps individual self reliance is not really measurable amongst the middle class.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did you go to the store just to take those photos? If so, I'm kinda impressed with your dedication to this discussion.
The store's about two blocks away, so this wasn't a big trip. Plus, I telecommute, so getting out of the house now and then is a good idea.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, Capitol Hill on Broadway. We're up near Broadway and Roy. We're up in Wallingford occasionally, though not at the QFC, visiting Gas Works Park.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As for your comment on regular prices, did you not read my earlier post when you responded to it?
fugu, Did you read what you posted earlier? Let me quote it for you.
quote:To be fair, there has never been a time when I've gone into QFC (in Seattle) and seen high quality wheat bread available for more than $2 for a 24 ounce loaf, or $1.33 a pound.
You did not say that you had never been to QFC when you couldn't find high quality wheat bread for under $2 a loaf. You said you had never seen high quality wheat bread available for more than $2 a loaf.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that you meant something other than what you said. It was however what you said that I was contesting and I did in fact find it confusing that you posted data that contradicted your own statement.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I spent the whole week packing to I didn't get a chance to post.
I wanted to thank everyone in the thread. I'm glad the discussion has progessed the way it has. I'm reading your posts with an open mind and most of it makes sense.
As far as unemployment is concerned, I am curious to know if there are jobs that people are not taking because they are making more money on unemployment. I have a friend that has been unemployed for about 6 months, and he has turned down 3 job offers because they offered a lower hourly rate than he was being paid before he got laid off. My friend was making $16 an hour, and he wouldn't take a $14 an hour job because he thought he was worth more than that.
I know people are hurting right now. I hope I don't lose my job, though it is pretty stable. If I did however, I would do whatever I had to. I'd flip burgers during the day and work a graveyard shift doing security or whatever else to support my family. I know not everyone has the health or desire to do that, but you do what you have to do.
One minor quibble to Rakeesh though. Employees don't pay into State Unemployment at all in most states. In most states it is purely an employer tax.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My brother-in-law was laid off from a company that he had worked for for 20 years. It took him a year and a half to find another job. It is not at the salary he made before but it is something. In the meantime, he worked off jobs for neighbors and my sister worked three jobs. My nieces worked as well as going to school. Even so, they would not have kept their home without unemployment benefits and the extension of COBRA benefits.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My apologies, I munged how I typed that sentence. I meant I had never seen it unavailable for any more than about that much.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:One minor quibble to Rakeesh though. Employees don't pay into State Unemployment at all in most states. In most states it is purely an employer tax.
That's really is kind of a silly quibble. Employee compensation includes both wages and benefits. Unemployment insurance is a benefit of employment. Whether its paid for by the employee or the employer is just a matter of book keeping that doesn't change the fact that the employee has to earn the benefit to be worth employing.
As for the question of how many people are making more on unemployment than they would make working, it certainly isn't zero. Your friend who turned down a $14/hour job isn't likely to be one of them since unemployment benefits are typically a little less than half what you earned as your last job.
And while I appreciate your sentiment that you'd do anything necessary to support your family rather than collect unemployment, I don't think it would be as simple a decision as you think. If you had to choose between making 1/2 your current salary on unemployment, or 1/4 of your current salary at McDonald's, which would you choose knowing that it isn't just you but also your family that would suffer? If you had to choose between spending your time hunting for a good paying job, and working double shifts at a low paying job, what would you choose? Would you accept the first low paying job you could find, or keeping job hunting with the hope that you could find something better? Those aren't easy questions to answer when they are merely hypothetical. When you actually have to do the math and see that you won't be able to pay the mortgage and buy food for the kids, its a different story.
It's also worth considering that it can be hard to find even a low paying job when you are qualified for a much better position. Businesses aren't stupid. They know someone who has an engineering degree isn't going to want to keep flipping burgers once the economy improves. When there are so many people looking for jobs, what makes you think you could get double shifts?
[ December 20, 2010, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's really is kind of a silly quibble. Employee compensation includes both wages and benefits. Unemployment insurance is a benefit of employment. Whether its paid for by the employee or the employee is just a matter of book keeping that doesn't change the fact that the employee has to earn the benefit to be worth employing.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you are looking for an example of people who are a net drain on society, pick Paris Hilton and Prince William, two people who've never done an honest days labor in their lives and likely never will. Prince William and the entire royal family are even supported by tax payers.
Not very fond of the British royal family in general, but fair's fair: William served in their armed forces. You might quibble about how much honest work he was allowed to do, but it's unlikely he just sat about all day hobnobbing with admirals.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And as for Paris Hilton, I'm starting to think you never even watched The Simple Life, Rabbit.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stand by my claim that neither Paris Hilton nor Prince William have ever done an honest days work.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I stand by my claim that neither Paris Hilton nor Prince William have ever done an honest days work.
what is an 'honest days work' to you?
Working on a "reality" show can take up to 12 hours a day for those that are involved.
Rabbit, unemployment may be considered a benefit, but it is not figured into total compensation. Healthare, 401(k) matches, etc are as they directly affect an employees pay. Unemployment, while a benefit, does not directly affect an employee's wages. An employer's SUI rate is determined by turnover within the lookback period, not by any individual employee data. Essentially the likelyhood of you losing your job determines what rate your employer pays.
Good point though, I hadn't really thought about unemployment as a benefit in that way.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... William served in their armed forces. You might quibble about how much honest work he was allowed to do, but it's unlikely he just sat about all day hobnobbing with admirals.
Yep, probably not as rough as Prince Harry in Afghanistan, but more than enough to reach the bar we're currently at.
quote: William, 25, will share a four-berth cabin aboard the vessel and be woken at 0630 every morning.
Rear Admiral Cooling said he would not be treated any different to other personnel.
"If we treated him like some super VIP and tailored a programme for him and walked around on egg shells, then that would be difficult," he said.
"But he's not, he's going to come just like any other young officer and do all the things that young officers get involved in."
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Nope, Capitol Hill on Broadway. We're up near Broadway and Roy. We're up in Wallingford occasionally, though not at the QFC, visiting Gas Works Park.
It's a bit belated, but welcome to Seattle.
I live near Greenlake, myself.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: One minor quibble to Rakeesh though. Employees don't pay into State Unemployment at all in most states. In most states it is purely an employer tax.
Yes, I'm aware of that, at least in my state. But you're also aware, I'm quite sure, that what I suspect are your own economic politics answer this objection quite handily: this tax gets passed on to employees in the form of lowered wages, and consumers as higher prices. Well, that's also basic economics, really, but conservatives do enjoy pointing out that aspect of economics whenever 'tax' is mentioned.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
