If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Realizing that cutting off the only source of income for millions of poor, increasingly desperate people, might be a BAD thing, at least in an election year, the GOP signals they may cave on extending unemployment benefits   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 129
    More: Obvious, Bad Things, GOP, unemployment benefits, bad, George Stephanopoulos, Chuck Schumer, incomes, Rand Paul  
•       •       •

1082 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jan 2014 at 2:24 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-06 11:44:35 AM
I'm all for paying some people to stay the hell away from the work force. Some people just arn't going to cut it. However "unemployment" benefits isn't the right term. If you can't get a job in 99 weeks you need to be on disability. Or maybe we need a new set of benefits, maybe a "unemployable" category? A category of people who can just give up get section 8 housing that has a cafeteria attached with a nurse that makes the rounds and makes sure they are still breathing.
 
2014-01-06 11:55:25 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I'm all for paying some people to stay the hell away from the work force. Some people just arn't going to cut it. However "unemployment" benefits isn't the right term. If you can't get a job in 99 weeks you need to be on disability


You DO realize the "99 weeks" crap hasn't been in existence for well over 2 years? And that these people are on unemployment because they were WORKING, made enough money to qualify for unemployment, AND lost their jobs through no fault of their own?

It's amazing the lack of knowledge regarding the program, and the shiat people say from said standpoint.
 
2014-01-06 11:55:42 AM
If these people REALLY wanted jobs, they'd move to where the jobs are.  Like Mexico, for example.
 
2014-01-06 12:03:30 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I'm all for paying some people to stay the hell away from the work force. Some people just arn't going to cut it. However "unemployment" benefits isn't the right term. If you can't get a job in 99 weeks you need to be on disability. Or maybe we need a new set of benefits, maybe a "unemployable" category? A category of people who can just give up get section 8 housing that has a cafeteria attached with a nurse that makes the rounds and makes sure they are still breathing.


There are currently three unemployed people (defined as people ACTIVELY seeking work) for every Job opening there is in the US right now.   No matter how you slice it, that's a pretty serious problem.

and until you actually go on UI benefits you don;t realize what utter crap they are anyway.   The idea that you are so comfortable on them that you sit at home and luxuriate rather than looking for work is garbage.   when I was Unemployed for an extended period in '09 my take-home pay after deductions for things like healthcare and transit was about $2,200 every two weeks.   My UI benefit (which is done by the income you made while working) was $396 per week.   I dare you to try to maintain even a semblance of your standard of living on about 1/3 your former income for any period of time.
 
2014-01-06 12:08:40 PM
"...If Dems Play Ball". Let me guess: defund Obamacare.
 
2014-01-06 12:11:42 PM

MrBallou: "...If Dems Play Ball". Let me guess: defund Obamacare.


Color me cynical, but that's the first thing that popped into my mind.
 
2014-01-06 12:19:49 PM
dang. Someone suggests a new government program to shelter, feed and take care of the basic health needs of people and you make it sound like I'm the bad guy.


mediablitz: You DO realize the "99 weeks" crap hasn't been in existence for well over 2 years? And that these people are on unemployment because they were WORKING, made enough money to qualify for unemployment, AND lost their jobs through no fault of their own?


So how long is long enough? At what point (give it in days, weeks or years) do we cut them off? I say never. But we need to be efficient!

Magorn: I dare you to try to maintain even a semblance of your standard of living on about 1/3 your former income for any period of time.


And that's what you think unemployment is suppose to do? It's there to keep you alive and not starving to death.
 
2014-01-06 12:35:35 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: dang. Someone suggests a new government program to shelter, feed and take care of the basic health needs of people and you make it sound like I'm the bad guy.


mediablitz: You DO realize the "99 weeks" crap hasn't been in existence for well over 2 years? And that these people are on unemployment because they were WORKING, made enough money to qualify for unemployment, AND lost their jobs through no fault of their own?

So how long is long enough? At what point (give it in days, weeks or years) do we cut them off? I say never. But we need to be efficient!

Magorn: I dare you to try to maintain even a semblance of your standard of living on about 1/3 your former income for any period of time.

And that's what you think unemployment is suppose to do? It's there to keep you alive and not starving to death.


NO I know that, and it does even that extremely poorly.    I have heard many politicians like Rand Paul,  and many GOP'ers in general,  say some variant on the following "Why would people even bother to look for work if they can just sit at home and collect Unemployment?"   Which statement seems to show these people presume that you can survive for even some length of time on that kind of income.   My rent at the time was $1000 per month that was 2 1/12 UI checks just to keep a roof over my family's head.  leaving about 600/mo for food, utilities, gas to travel to Job interviews, car maintenance, .  Try living on $20 a day sometime for everything...now try doing that with three people.
 
2014-01-06 12:37:23 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: dang. Someone suggests a new government program to shelter, feed and take care of the basic health needs of people and you make it sound like I'm the bad guy.


mediablitz: You DO realize the "99 weeks" crap hasn't been in existence for well over 2 years? And that these people are on unemployment because they were WORKING, made enough money to qualify for unemployment, AND lost their jobs through no fault of their own?

So how long is long enough? At what point (give it in days, weeks or years) do we cut them off? I say never. But we need to be efficient!

Magorn: I dare you to try to maintain even a semblance of your standard of living on about 1/3 your former income for any period of time.

And that's what you think unemployment is suppose to do? It's there to keep you alive and not starving to death.


$400 a week won't even keep a roof over your head in many cities, let alone leave you enough to feed yourself and buy a rough newspaper every two weeks to wipe your ass. What world do you live in?
 
2014-01-06 12:47:30 PM

Magorn: NO I know that, and it does even that extremely poorly. I have heard many politicians like Rand Paul, and many GOP'ers in general, say some variant on the following "Why would people even bother to look for work if they can just sit at home and collect Unemployment?" Which statement seems to show these people presume that you can survive for even some length of time on that kind of income. My rent at the time was $1000 per month that was 2 1/12 UI checks just to keep a roof over my family's head. leaving about 600/mo for food, utilities, gas to travel to Job interviews, car maintenance, . Try living on $20 a day sometime for everything...now try doing that with three people.


That's the fun with blanket statements. Can you just sit at home? No. However many can and do. One of my best friends from my college days is just that way. Section 8 housing, SNAP card and a bus pass is all he needs. And in the town he lives in you get a free bus pass if you are on any type of public assistance.
Which is good! He doesn't need to be out there trying to make a living. He has problems lots and lots of problems and he needs to stay home. He basically lives in the exact the set up that I describe. Bonus they have Wifi.
 
2014-01-06 01:05:03 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: However many can and do.


Citation please.  And you can leave off personal anecdotes.
 
2014-01-06 01:14:13 PM
Wow, you finally get tired of the inane moronic crap and ignore one farker and the thread is so much easier to read.

I was just watching Fox and they are now calling the extended benefits a form of welfare because Reid is calling it emergency spending.

seems legit
 
2014-01-06 01:19:35 PM

2wolves: The Stealth Hippopotamus: However many can and do.

Citation please.  And you can leave off personal anecdotes.


I'd say that the fact that there are more unemployed seeking jobs than there are actual jobs to be had is proof enough that the problem is systemic and can't be passed down to lazy people too unmotivated to look through the classifieds.

Even if every single job seeker were an A+++ candidate doing everything they could and should do to find work, you'd still have people being left without jobs.

When the number of available jobs are less than the number of job seekers, you will have inevitable unemployment. Period.
 
2014-01-06 01:20:30 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: One of my best friends


One of my best friends used UE benefits to support him while he found another job. Which he did in only a few weeks. I guess my anecdote cancels out yours.
 
2014-01-06 01:24:49 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Magorn: NO I know that, and it does even that extremely poorly. I have heard many politicians like Rand Paul, and many GOP'ers in general, say some variant on the following "Why would people even bother to look for work if they can just sit at home and collect Unemployment?" Which statement seems to show these people presume that you can survive for even some length of time on that kind of income. My rent at the time was $1000 per month that was 2 1/12 UI checks just to keep a roof over my family's head. leaving about 600/mo for food, utilities, gas to travel to Job interviews, car maintenance, . Try living on $20 a day sometime for everything...now try doing that with three people.

That's the fun with blanket statements. Can you just sit at home? No. However many can and do. One of my best friends from my college days is just that way. Section 8 housing, SNAP card and a bus pass is all he needs. And in the town he lives in you get a free bus pass if you are on any type of public assistance.
Which is good! He doesn't need to be out there trying to make a living. He has problems lots and lots of problems and he needs to stay home. He basically lives in the exact the set up that I describe. Bonus they have Wifi.


So one guy you know does that and lots of people do it, eye roll.  One guy who you admit has lots of problems.
 
2014-01-06 01:26:54 PM

spongeboob: So one guy you know does that and So lots of people do it, eye roll.  One guy who you admit has lots of problems.


FTFM
 
2014-01-06 01:28:10 PM
Bonus they have Wifi

wow, regular bunch of rockefellers
 
2014-01-06 01:36:46 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: One of my best friends from my college days

"I know a guy"

is not a basis for national domestic policy
 
2014-01-06 01:39:48 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I'm all for paying some people to stay the hell away from the work force. Some people just arn't going to cut it. However "unemployment" benefits isn't the right term. If you can't get a job in 99 weeks you need to be on disability. Or maybe we need a new set of benefits, maybe a "unemployable" category? A category of people who can just give up get section 8 housing that has a cafeteria attached with a nurse that makes the rounds and makes sure they are still breathing.


I actually think that you are on to something with this idea...

if you throw in some retraining and education programs...Hell, make it a WPA project and hire a bunch of them to repair our existing infrastructure....now we'd be talking.
 
2014-01-06 01:48:21 PM

Jackson Herring: Bonus they have Wifi

wow, regular bunch of rockefellers


Funny thing about Wi-fi,:
 first internet access is more or less mandatory if you are job hunting these days because even if employers are ones that advertise in the paper rather than monster, and even IF the employer would accept a paper application A) at $0.40 minimum per letter, that adds up damn quickly and B) by the time your resume gets there, the job is likely to be filled these days

and B) it tends to get bundled with home phone service these days, you know,  that thing you need to have so the employer can be it ring for you start working again.
 
2014-01-06 01:50:59 PM
*sigh*

Look, I understand that expecting people to have a firm grasp of economic systems before they spout off in a thread on the topic is too much to ask. This can be a difficult concept to grasp, so let me use a metaphor to illustrate it how an economic system works. Imagine a see-saw. A see-saw goes up and down, but only if it has two people on it who are equally participating. In the ideal see-saw world, there is a person on one side and a person on the other side, and they're each using their legs to push up when their side descends. "See," the first person says as he pushes, and now the saw goes up on his side and down on the other. "Saw," the other person replies, and mirrors the action. On and on, equal sharing in responsibility.  See, saw, see, saw. In this equilibrium, the two people, our little mini-society, can have wonderful see-saw fun for as long as they wish.

But now, imagine that the second person, upon reaching the ground, does not push back up. "See," the first person says, and the second person's reply is to merely cross his arms over his chest and shake his head, mutely, from side to side. He just sits there, grinding his heels into the dirt, while his partner dangles helplessly in the air, legs kicking. He has no leverage to lower himself. He is trapped, suspended, all because his "friend" will not expend the effort required to safely lower him. His friend is not participating in the system. And so what choice does he have? Only two.

One: He can vault himself off the see-saw. This risks serious injury himself, for the fall is at least six or seven feet and he almost certain to land awkwardly because of the angle. But it also risks serious injury to his partner. The sudden loss of weight could cause a dangerous shift in the see-saw's stability, possibly vaulting his friend sideways and inflicting grievous harm. So it is for both his own and his partner's safety that he rejects this choice as untenable. And, from a more philosophical standpoint, why *should* he abandon the see-saw? He enjoys the see-saw. He's been working hard to make it function normally. Why, now, should he be forced to abandon something that brings happiness and comfort into his life?

Two: He can bargain with his partner. Plead with him, appeal to his better nature. Perhaps give him some incentive. "Here," he might say. "if you will only lower me, I shall give you the $5 in my pocket."

And so, of course, it is the second option he chooses. His partner smiles and holds out his hand, and as the bill flutters down toward him, he nods and slips it into his pocket. "Saw," he says, finally, and pushes up. And just like that, everything is back to normal. "See," his friend says, happy that their carefully balanced system has been restored.

But, again, he only dangles there. Again, there is silence from his partner. Again, the crossed arms, the heels grinding in dust. And then, after a time, his partner holds out his hand.

See? Do you see what his partner has learned? He has learned that he can hold the system hostage, that he does not have to participate equally. More than that, in fact -- he has learned that he can actually claim more than his fair share to simply make the system work as intended. The old system is now gone. Only the new system remains.

I hope this clears things up.
 
2014-01-06 01:53:03 PM

Magorn: Jackson Herring: Bonus they have Wifi

wow, regular bunch of rockefellers

Funny thing about Wi-fi,:
 first internet access is more or less mandatory if you are job hunting these days because even if employers are ones that advertise in the paper rather than monster, and even IF the employer would accept a paper application A) at $0.40 minimum per letter, that adds up damn quickly and B) by the time your resume gets there, the job is likely to be filled these days

and B) it tends to get bundled with home phone service these days, you know,  that thing you need to have so the employer can be it ring for you start working again.


Even if its not bundled, an basic DSL connect runs $12.99 where I live.  You can get a cheap WiFi router for $20 on sale, or for free by dumpster diving or getting one from a friend when they upgrade to a faster WiFi version.  Also $12.99 for DSL + using something like Ooma or MagicJack for phone calls is cheaper than a regular analog line with no Internet and a basic long distance package.
 
2014-01-06 01:55:18 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: The Stealth Hippopotamus: One of my best friends

One of my best friends used UE benefits to support him while he found another job. Which he did in only a few weeks. I guess my anecdote cancels out yours.


your story doesn't prove the conservative point of lazy unemployed person using the system instead of working.

I know a guy similar to his friend, but I am the guy similar to yours.  I guess, I cancel myself out.
 
2014-01-06 02:09:44 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: 2wolves: The Stealth Hippopotamus: However many can and do.

Citation please.  And you can leave off personal anecdotes.

I'd say that the fact that there are more unemployed seeking jobs than there are actual jobs to be had is proof enough that the problem is systemic and can't be passed down to lazy people too unmotivated to look through the classifieds.

Even if every single job seeker were an A+++ candidate doing everything they could and should do to find work, you'd still have people being left without jobs.

When the number of available jobs are less than the number of job seekers, you will have inevitable unemployment. Period.


While I am not jumping on the unemployed people are lazy bandwagon, the ratio of job-seekers to jobs isn't necessarily indicative of a systemic problem.

Things have pretty much returned to normal w.r.t. economic activity(I know people will dispute this but the data supports the statement and it only feels wrong because people want to compare now to the unsustainably frothy period 2004-2007)

The reality is 6% unemployment is pretty much full employment. I work in a profession with a historical unemployment average of 4%. It is difficult to hire as 10% of the profession is plain unemployable and that unemployed pools tends to concentrate them.
 
2014-01-06 02:31:52 PM
So, where does Freelance fit into the job spectrum?.
 
2014-01-06 02:34:50 PM
RAND PAUL suggests that the government needs to create jobs.
 
2014-01-06 02:35:34 PM

Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

Look, I understand that expecting people to have a firm grasp of economic systems before they spout off in a thread on the topic is too much to ask. This can be a difficult concept to grasp, so let me use a metaphor to illustrate it how an economic system works. Imagine a see-saw. A see-saw goes up and down, but only if it has two people on it who are equally participating. In the ideal see-saw world, there is a person on one side and a person on the other side, and they're each using their legs to push up when their side descends. "See," the first person says as he pushes, and now the saw goes up on his side and down on the other. "Saw," the other person replies, and mirrors the action. On and on, equal sharing in responsibility.  See, saw, see, saw. In this equilibrium, the two people, our little mini-society, can have wonderful see-saw fun for as long as they wish.

But now, imagine that the second person, upon reaching the ground, does not push back up. "See," the first person says, and the second person's reply is to merely cross his arms over his chest and shake his head, mutely, from side to side. He just sits there, grinding his heels into the dirt, while his partner dangles helplessly in the air, legs kicking. He has no leverage to lower himself. He is trapped, suspended, all because his "friend" will not expend the effort required to safely lower him. His friend is not participating in the system. And so what choice does he have? Only two.

One: He can vault himself off the see-saw. This risks serious injury himself, for the fall is at least six or seven feet and he almost certain to land awkwardly because of the angle. But it also risks serious injury to his partner. The sudden loss of weight could cause a dangerous shift in the see-saw's stability, possibly vaulting his friend sideways and inflicting grievous harm. So it is for both his own and his partner's safety that he rejects this choice as untenable. And, from a more philosophical standpoin ...


So you're saying businesses are sitting on the ground unwilling to hire people because they can always hire a child in China to be their partner for pennies on the dollar.  Got it!
 
2014-01-06 02:38:12 PM

Pocket Ninja: I hope this clears things up.


TL; did read.
 
2014-01-06 02:38:32 PM
b2theory:  While I am not jumping on the unemployed people are lazy bandwagon, the ratio of job-seekers to jobs isn't necessarily indicative of a systemic problem.

Then what's a "systemic problem", especially since this "situation" happens to be lasting 5 years now?
 
2014-01-06 02:40:23 PM

MrBallou: "...If Dems Play Ball". Let me guess: defund Obamacare.


Although I'm sure that would be acceptable, I think they're asking for what they always ask for......that money be taken from another program to pay for it, rather than adding to the 17 trillion debt.
 
2014-01-06 02:40:40 PM

Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

Look, I understand that expecting people to have a firm grasp of economic systems before they spout off in a thread on the topic is too much to ask. This can be a difficult concept to grasp, so let me use a metaphor to illustrate it how an economic system works. Imagine a see-saw. A see-saw goes up and down, but only if it has two people on it who are equally participating. In the ideal see-saw world, there is a person on one side and a person on the other side, and they're each using their legs to push up when their side descends. "See," the first person says as he pushes, and now the saw goes up on his side and down on the other. "Saw," the other person replies, and mirrors the action. On and on, equal sharing in responsibility.  See, saw, see, saw. In this equilibrium, the two people, our little mini-society, can have wonderful see-saw fun for as long as they wish.

But now, imagine that the second person, upon reaching the ground, does not push back up. "See," the first person says, and the second person's reply is to merely cross his arms over his chest and shake his head, mutely, from side to side. He just sits there, grinding his heels into the dirt, while his partner dangles helplessly in the air, legs kicking. He has no leverage to lower himself. He is trapped, suspended, all because his "friend" will not expend the effort required to safely lower him. His friend is not participating in the system. And so what choice does he have? Only two.

One: He can vault himself off the see-saw. This risks serious injury himself, for the fall is at least six or seven feet and he almost certain to land awkwardly because of the angle. But it also risks serious injury to his partner. The sudden loss of weight could cause a dangerous shift in the see-saw's stability, possibly vaulting his friend sideways and inflicting grievous harm. So it is for both his own and his partner's safety that he rejects this choice as untenable. And, from a more philosophical standpoin ...


Holy shiat.

img.fark.net
 
2014-01-06 02:40:55 PM

mediablitz: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I'm all for paying some people to stay the hell away from the work force. Some people just arn't going to cut it. However "unemployment" benefits isn't the right term. If you can't get a job in 99 weeks you need to be on disability

You DO realize the "99 weeks" crap hasn't been in existence for well over 2 years? And that these people are on unemployment because they were WORKING, made enough money to qualify for unemployment, AND lost their jobs through no fault of their own?

It's amazing the lack of knowledge regarding the program, and the shiat people say from said standpoint.


The problem is that the blue-collar workers' jobs are evaporating and transferring to other areas in the world where the people are fortunate to have those jobs and are happy to work for $2 a day, while the American worker sits at home refusing to learn a more valuable skill or to work for less than union wages. It's ridiculous to blame the country for your factory job being shipped over seas while we have to beg borrow and steal every tech worker we can find to keep the US tech industry thriving.

If your drawing an unemployment check, you still have a full time job which is finding another job by either researching companies in your field, looking for areas to relocate, or spending time in a classroom learning useful skills, not just going on an interview a week so you can keep cashing the check.

Maybe my POV is skewed by the losers I know. Friend of mine got laid off from a shiatty auto repair place, stayed on unemployment for almost a year, then sure enough 2 weeks after it ran out he had a new job at another shiatty auto repair place.
 
2014-01-06 02:41:09 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: The Stealth Hippopotamus: One of my best friends

One of my best friends used UE benefits to support him while he found another job. Which he did in only a few weeks. I guess my anecdote cancels out yours.


Care for another?

I was laid off after the 2008 crash, and was unemployed for over a year. This wasn't from lack of trying to find a job, and I did odd contracts whenever I could to make ends meet, but UI was incredibly helpful, especially with the long-term extension (and thanks to Obama's stimulus package, I got a 66% subsidy on COBRA at the time which meant I could keep my health insurance for a while, which was good when I had to go to the ER).

Sometimes, you just can't find a job in a short amount of time. I'm incredibly lucky to have my support structure (and even then I considered, with genuine panic, the possibility of moving back to my hometown for a time), but it's not easy and it's not fun. Even if you end up sitting on your ass for any amount of time, it's more likely to be because you're so depressed and hopeless. This isn't a vacation for poor people or lazy people, it's a time that genuinely can fark with your mental and physical health, and I'm willing to see "lazy" people leech off society if it means helping the people who try and farking suffer. Even if there are undesirables out there stealing from society, I'd rather support them than abuse the desperate and eager.
 
2014-01-06 02:42:13 PM

Muta: Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

Look, I understand that expecting people to have a firm grasp of economic systems before they spout off in a thread on the topic is too much to ask. This can be a difficult concept to grasp, so let me use a metaphor to illustrate it how an economic system works. Imagine a see-saw. A see-saw goes up and down, but only if it has two people on it who are equally participating. In the ideal see-saw world, there is a person on one side and a person on the other side, and they're each using their legs to push up when their side descends. "See," the first person says as he pushes, and now the saw goes up on his side and down on the other. "Saw," the other person replies, and mirrors the action. On and on, equal sharing in responsibility.  See, saw, see, saw. In this equilibrium, the two people, our little mini-society, can have wonderful see-saw fun for as long as they wish.

But now, imagine that the second person, upon reaching the ground, does not push back up. "See," the first person says, and the second person's reply is to merely cross his arms over his chest and shake his head, mutely, from side to side. He just sits there, grinding his heels into the dirt, while his partner dangles helplessly in the air, legs kicking. He has no leverage to lower himself. He is trapped, suspended, all because his "friend" will not expend the effort required to safely lower him. His friend is not participating in the system. And so what choice does he have? Only two.

One: He can vault himself off the see-saw. This risks serious injury himself, for the fall is at least six or seven feet and he almost certain to land awkwardly because of the angle. But it also risks serious injury to his partner. The sudden loss of weight could cause a dangerous shift in the see-saw's stability, possibly vaulting his friend sideways and inflicting grievous harm. So it is for both his own and his partner's safety that he rejects this choice as untenable. And, from a more philosoph ...


<a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" muta"="">Muta: So you're saying businesses are sitting on the ground unwilling to hire people because they can always hire a child in China to be their partner for pennies on the dollar.  Got it! 

I thought the guy on the ground was the GOP, unwilling to keep the guy in the air in the economic game by extending some help, instead pointing at him and saying he obviously doesn't want to participate.
 
2014-01-06 02:44:16 PM

mizchief: Maybe my POV is skewed by the losers I know. Friend of mine got laid off from a shiatty auto repair place, stayed on unemployment for almost a year, then sure enough 2 weeks after it ran out he had a new job at another shiatty auto repair place.


So? How many real families should suffer becuase your anecdotal (and purely hypothetical) slacker mechanic friend, um, "exists"?
 
2014-01-06 02:45:10 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: The Stealth Hippopotamus: dang. Someone suggests a new government program to shelter, feed and take care of the basic health needs of people and you make it sound like I'm the bad guy.


mediablitz: You DO realize the "99 weeks" crap hasn't been in existence for well over 2 years? And that these people are on unemployment because they were WORKING, made enough money to qualify for unemployment, AND lost their jobs through no fault of their own?

So how long is long enough? At what point (give it in days, weeks or years) do we cut them off? I say never. But we need to be efficient!

Magorn: I dare you to try to maintain even a semblance of your standard of living on about 1/3 your former income for any period of time.

And that's what you think unemployment is suppose to do? It's there to keep you alive and not starving to death.

$400 a week won't even keep a roof over your head in many cities, let alone leave you enough to feed yourself and buy a rough newspaper every two weeks to wipe your ass. What world do you live in?


We live in a world where you have to take care of yourself. We have trailer parks and shiatty duplex apartments for a reason. The majority of the people in the world would literally kill to make $400 a week. You get what you can earn for yourself, you don't get to just say "I need $X to live the way I want, therefore someone should give it to me!"
 
2014-01-06 02:46:03 PM

Muta: Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

Look, I understand that expecting people to have a firm grasp of economic systems before they spout off in a thread on the topic is too much to ask. This can be a difficult concept to grasp, so let me use a metaphor to illustrate it how an economic system works. Imagine a see-saw. A see-saw goes up and down, but only if it has two people on it who are equally participating. In the ideal see-saw world, there is a person on one side and a person on the other side, and they're each using their legs to push up when their side descends. "See," the first person says as he pushes, and now the saw goes up on his side and down on the other. "Saw," the other person replies, and mirrors the action. On and on, equal sharing in responsibility.  See, saw, see, saw. In this equilibrium, the two people, our little mini-society, can have wonderful see-saw fun for as long as they wish.

But now, imagine that the second person, upon reaching the ground, does not push back up. "See," the first person says, and the second person's reply is to merely cross his arms over his chest and shake his head, mutely, from side to side. He just sits there, grinding his heels into the dirt, while his partner dangles helplessly in the air, legs kicking. He has no leverage to lower himself. He is trapped, suspended, all because his "friend" will not expend the effort required to safely lower him. His friend is not participating in the system. And so what choice does he have? Only two.

One: He can vault himself off the see-saw. This risks serious injury himself, for the fall is at least six or seven feet and he almost certain to land awkwardly because of the angle. But it also risks serious injury to his partner. The sudden loss of weight could cause a dangerous shift in the see-saw's stability, possibly vaulting his friend sideways and inflicting grievous harm. So it is for both his own and his partner's safety that he rejects this choice as untenable. And, from a more philosoph ...


I read it as the deadbeat unemployed people are just sitting there demanding a handout for doing the bare minimum expected of them.

So, no your analogy did not particularly clear things up.  Am I supposed to perpetually pay people a salary for not working just because they once worked?
 
2014-01-06 02:46:06 PM

Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

Look, I understand that expecting people to have a firm grasp of economic systems before they spout off in a thread on the topic is too much to ask. This can be a difficult concept to grasp, so let me use a metaphor to illustrate it how an economic system works. Imagine a see-saw. A see-saw goes up and down, but only if it has two people on it who are equally participating. In the ideal see-saw world, there is a person on one side and a person on the other side, and they're each using their legs to push up when their side descends. "See," the first person says as he pushes, and now the saw goes up on his side and down on the other. "Saw," the other person replies, and mirrors the action. On and on, equal sharing in responsibility.  See, saw, see, saw. In this equilibrium, the two people, our little mini-society, can have wonderful see-saw fun for as long as they wish.

But now, imagine that the second person, upon reaching the ground, does not push back up. "See," the first person says, and the second person's reply is to merely cross his arms over his chest and shake his head, mutely, from side to side. He just sits there, grinding his heels into the dirt, while his partner dangles helplessly in the air, legs kicking. He has no leverage to lower himself. He is trapped, suspended, all because his "friend" will not expend the effort required to safely lower him. His friend is not participating in the system. And so what choice does he have? Only two.

One: He can vault himself off the see-saw. This risks serious injury himself, for the fall is at least six or seven feet and he almost certain to land awkwardly because of the angle. But it also risks serious injury to his partner. The sudden loss of weight could cause a dangerous shift in the see-saw's stability, possibly vaulting his friend sideways and inflicting grievous harm. So it is for both his own and his partner's safety that he rejects this choice as untenable. And, from a more philosophical standpoin ...




Must be nice to be the wisest man on FARK.

/A dubious honor, but an honor nonetheless.
 
2014-01-06 02:47:40 PM

Magorn: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I'm all for paying some people to stay the hell away from the work force. Some people just arn't going to cut it. However "unemployment" benefits isn't the right term. If you can't get a job in 99 weeks you need to be on disability. Or maybe we need a new set of benefits, maybe a "unemployable" category? A category of people who can just give up get section 8 housing that has a cafeteria attached with a nurse that makes the rounds and makes sure they are still breathing.

There are currently three unemployed people (defined as people ACTIVELY seeking work) for every Job opening there is in the US right now.   No matter how you slice it, that's a pretty serious problem.

and until you actually go on UI benefits you don;t realize what utter crap they are anyway.   The idea that you are so comfortable on them that you sit at home and luxuriate rather than looking for work is garbage.   when I was Unemployed for an extended period in '09 my take-home pay after deductions for things like healthcare and transit was about $2,200 every two weeks.   My UI benefit (which is done by the income you made while working) was $396 per week.   I dare you to try to maintain even a semblance of your standard of living on about 1/3 your former income for any period of time.


Meh, I've done it for far longer. The trick is to avoid debt.
 
2014-01-06 02:48:26 PM
Average is 7 applicants per job opening. I know it has become a fun talking point for the Rand Pauls of the world to say "there are jobs that employers cannot fill" while ignoring the idea that not everyone can take just any job. There are qualifications for most jobs unlike congress where you can win your job regardless of your background.
 
2014-01-06 02:48:38 PM

Magorn: The Stealth Hippopotamus: dang. Someone suggests a new government program to shelter, feed and take care of the basic health needs of people and you make it sound like I'm the bad guy.


mediablitz: You DO realize the "99 weeks" crap hasn't been in existence for well over 2 years? And that these people are on unemployment because they were WORKING, made enough money to qualify for unemployment, AND lost their jobs through no fault of their own?

So how long is long enough? At what point (give it in days, weeks or years) do we cut them off? I say never. But we need to be efficient!

Magorn: I dare you to try to maintain even a semblance of your standard of living on about 1/3 your former income for any period of time.

And that's what you think unemployment is suppose to do? It's there to keep you alive and not starving to death.

NO I know that, and it does even that extremely poorly.    I have heard many politicians like Rand Paul,  and many GOP'ers in general,  say some variant on the following "Why would people even bother to look for work if they can just sit at home and collect Unemployment?"   Which statement seems to show these people presume that you can survive for even some length of time on that kind of income.   My rent at the time was $1000 per month that was 2 1/12 UI checks just to keep a roof over my family's head.  leaving about 600/mo for food, utilities, gas to travel to Job interviews, car maintenance, .  Try living on $20 a day sometime for everything...now try doing that with three people.


This. Canadian unemployment is 55% of your regular income, and that's just barely enough to cover rent and other basic necessities. High rent? Too bad. Got other bills you want to pay? Good luck with that.
 
2014-01-06 02:51:49 PM

MrBallou: "...If Dems Play Ball". Let me guess: defund Obamacare.


Republican demands for unemployment extension
1) Charge and convict the President for Treason then publicly hang him
2) Repeal Obamacare
3) Declare Non Republicans enemies of the state
4) Abolish all social welfare programs
5) Repeal all labor laws
6) Repeal all industrial regulations
7) Outlaw Unions
 
2014-01-06 02:52:52 PM
Okay, leaving this thread before I get genuinely upset.

\Just gotta kill a half hour another way.
\\Yay, press conferences!
 
2014-01-06 02:53:50 PM
I'm a self employed real estate appraiser so I've never had to worry about unemployment.

But i once visited the unemployment office with my mother back in the mid 1980's under St Reagan.


I said it's great the government is giving you this free money, she told me it wasn't free and that she would have to pay it back with taxes on her next job.


That left a mark on me, so I guess I don't see unemployment benefits as some big giveaway.
 
2014-01-06 02:54:02 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So how long is long enough? At what point (give it in days, weeks or years) do we cut them off? I say never. But we need to be efficient!


We've got infrastructure projects we can do.

Hell, hire a bunch of people for a massive broadband project similar to the rural electrification project.

Hire some more DMV attendents, speed up the lines.

Hire more cops, teachers, firemen, etc.

Hire more FDA and USDA inspectors.

Expand research grants, small business loans, and scholarship programs.

There is a lot we can do, but nope, can't have the government spend money while recovering from a recession.  That's bad for some reason.
 
2014-01-06 02:54:38 PM
Now! Now! Is the time to strike. The Republicans are in full retreat, we have the most libby is liberal president to ever lib in the White House. Now we must demand an Employer of Last Resort program. This program will guarantee a job to every able body person in the United States who does not have a job and wants one.  It will pay them $50,000 dollars a year with health insurance at no cost to them.

We can eliminate most of our poverty, unemployment, and health insurance problems in one fell swoop.
 
2014-01-06 02:56:48 PM
What I learned from this thread:  Pocket Ninja is the Kandinsky of trolling.
 
2014-01-06 02:59:25 PM

Tricky Chicken: Muta: Pocket Ninja: *sigh*

Look, I understand that expecting people to have a firm grasp of economic systems before they spout off in a thread on the topic is too much to ask. This can be a difficult concept to grasp, so let me use a metaphor to illustrate it how an economic system works. Imagine a see-saw. A see-saw goes up and down, but only if it has two people on it who are equally participating. In the ideal see-saw world, there is a person on one side and a person on the other side, and they're each using their legs to push up when their side descends. "See," the first person says as he pushes, and now the saw goes up on his side and down on the other. "Saw," the other person replies, and mirrors the action. On and on, equal sharing in responsibility.  See, saw, see, saw. In this equilibrium, the two people, our little mini-society, can have wonderful see-saw fun for as long as they wish.

But now, imagine that the second person, upon reaching the ground, does not push back up. "See," the first person says, and the second person's reply is to merely cross his arms over his chest and shake his head, mutely, from side to side. He just sits there, grinding his heels into the dirt, while his partner dangles helplessly in the air, legs kicking. He has no leverage to lower himself. He is trapped, suspended, all because his "friend" will not expend the effort required to safely lower him. His friend is not participating in the system. And so what choice does he have? Only two.

One: He can vault himself off the see-saw. This risks serious injury himself, for the fall is at least six or seven feet and he almost certain to land awkwardly because of the angle. But it also risks serious injury to his partner. The sudden loss of weight could cause a dangerous shift in the see-saw's stability, possibly vaulting his friend sideways and inflicting grievous harm. So it is for both his own and his partner's safety that he rejects this choice as untenable. And, from a more phi ...


It's the implied caste system in the US. Once you feel you belong in a certain class, you feel entitled to stay in that class no mater what the realities of the world around you are. What we consider poverty in the US is considered rich for most people in the world. Taking a lower paying job based on the value of your skills or being transferred into a welfare system is beneath those who were making $50 an hour screwing on lug nuts or those fresh out of school with their degree in medieval literature.
 
2014-01-06 03:00:21 PM

Pocket Ninja: I hope this clears things up.


Always good to see you on your game. :)

monoski: There are qualifications for most jobs unlike congress where you can win your job regardless of your background.


Yeah. I had a great experience here one day, with someone who was going "Omg, anyone can get a job, just come up here to Canada."

So I went, "All right, I'm game. When can I come up?"

Next phrase was, "Do you have an MLS degree?"

/yup, ANYONE can get a job. . .
 
2014-01-06 03:00:28 PM

Tricky Chicken: I read it as the deadbeat unemployed people are just sitting there demanding a handout for doing the bare minimum expected of them.

So, no your analogy did not particularly clear things up. Am I supposed to perpetually pay people a salary for not working just because they once worked?


You're new here, I take it.  Bask in the glory that is Pocket Ninja.
 
Displayed 50 of 129 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report