December 07, 2010
— Gabriel Malor I've been seeing this error in media reports and the blogosphere all day, particularly from folks like Hugh Hewitt complaining about the absurdity of 13 more months of "paid unemployment" tacked onto the existing 99 weeks, so just as a point of clarification:
The tax deal would extend the federal unemployment payments scheme for another 13 months. It would not add 13 months of payment eligibility to the current 99 weeks authorized by federal law. I agree with Hewitt that 161 weeks of unemployment insurance would be absurd. Fortunately, that's not part of the tax cut deal.
Background:
Some unemployed are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. First come 26 weeks of state benefits. Then, if the individual is still unemployed, he may apply for federal benefits. These federal "extensions", referred to as "tiers", get progressively shorter from 20 weeks at Tier 1 to 6 weeks at Tier 4. Then come 20 weeks of "Extended Benefits" which were tacked on by Obama last year. When an individual finishes his 20 weeks of Extended Benefits, he can't get any more federal unemployment assistance. The 99 weeks number comes from adding up the state benefits, plus the Tiers and EB.
However, the program was not funded past this month. The funding scheme was set up so that individuals can finish receiving assistance for whichever tier they are on, but cannot apply for the next tier after November 30. EB payments are to halt completely on December 12.
The Tax Cut Deal:
The deal provides:
The framework agreement extended unemployment benefits at their current level for 13 months, through the end of 2011. This will save millions of Americans searching for work from losing their unemployment benefits in the coming months and will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Setting aside the puffery in the second sentence, this says that the unemployment scheme I described above will be continued until January 2012. In other words, individuals will still get their four tiers and EB payment, if the deal passes Congress. That's 99 weeks, in accordance with federal law.
It does not say that the EB payment or the Tiers are getting lengthened or that another type of extension (Extended Extended Benefits?) is being added to the scheme. Rather it says, the benefits will continue "at their current level" for 13 months.
Here's some background on unemployment insurance that describes the scheme and its imminent expiration.
So far, the Hill, OpenCongress, and Las Vegas' KTVN have correctly described the unemployment insurance extension. Other media, including CNN, ABC News, and Fox News keep incorrectly reporting that the unemployment insurance extension in the deal will add 13 months of coverage to the existing 99 weeks.
Incidentally, I'm probably being too hard on the folks, including in the media, maybe, who didn't understand this proposal. Obama's own description of it was ambiguous. For example, at the press conference today, right after the "hostage-taker" slur, he said "There are people right now who, when their unemployment insurance runs out, will not be able to pay the bills."
A plausible interpretation of that sentence is that "when their 99 weeks run out, they will not be able to pay the bills." This interpretation implies that the tax cut proposal will extend the 99 weeks.
Though plausible, that is not the correct interpretation. Rather, he means "when their state unemployment insurance runs out or their Tier 1 benefits or Tier 2 benefits run out, they will not be able to pay the bills because they won't be able to apply for federal jobless insurance or Tier 2 benefits or Tier 3 benefits, etc., respectively."
He doesn't say it that way because, obviously, it's not very pretty, and more importantly because he gets political points for sounding like he's even going to help the folks who have run up against the 99 weeks.
Is there hope for the 99ers, as they're now being called? Not on the horizon:
Administrator Cindy Jones says the deal announced Monday would only continue the 99 weeks of eligibility for another year, not extend benefits to those who've reached that threshold.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
01:45 PM
| Comments (159)
Post contains 695 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: Huckleberry at December 07, 2010 01:48 PM (s2bW4)
I just don't have faith that, when it comes to it, they won't end up extending that 99 weeks again.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 07, 2010 01:49 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Dean Wormer at December 07, 2010 01:49 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: AmishDude at December 07, 2010 01:49 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Robin at December 07, 2010 01:50 PM (VY112)
Posted by: Mr LaRue to you at December 07, 2010 01:50 PM (Fr8N6)
No doubt keeping postmen employed delivering those checks.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 07, 2010 01:50 PM (JrNno)
Posted by: pep at December 07, 2010 01:51 PM (8lSIO)
The payroll tax thing is 2% of that paid by the employee. Here are the details of the whole deal. There are some things in there that most of us following the media have not heard about.
http://tinyurl.com/3yu29r3
Posted by: Vic at December 07, 2010 01:51 PM (e4sSD)
Posted by: Oldcat at December 07, 2010 01:52 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at December 07, 2010 01:52 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Vic at December 07, 2010 01:52 PM (e4sSD)
Posted by: AHFF Geoff at December 07, 2010 01:53 PM (5r0Tz)
Nobody will see the bill until after it's voted on. Then we get to find out what's in it.
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at December 07, 2010 01:54 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Kortezzi at December 07, 2010 01:56 PM (zAZNI)
Posted by: sybilll at December 07, 2010 01:57 PM (bqd0P)
Posted by: nickless© at December 07, 2010 01:58 PM (MMC8r)
Obama caved on a major campaign promise by agreeing not to raise taxes on the dirty filthy rich.
In return, Obama agreed to an unemployment insurance extension scheme which cuts off benefits for HIS OWN program, right before Christmas.
And he calls this a "victory"?
OMG the guy is a bigger idiot than I thought.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 07, 2010 02:00 PM (i7Wd9)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 07, 2010 02:01 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 07, 2010 02:01 PM (8y9MW)
Except that Obama agreed to defund his own constituency-building program (right before Christmas!). My God the man is incompetent.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 07, 2010 02:02 PM (i7Wd9)
Thanks, Gabe. I had pointed this out this morning. Glad you made a thread of this. A lot of people were mistaken about what the deal was.
There is a lot about "people should just take a lower paying job" going around. Hint, there are no jobs, at least not enough. I'm 60 years old, I've seen a few recessions. I think this one is worse than people realize, surely the worst I've seen. My house is paid for, my kids are grown, not much for bills, I can tap into retirement money without spending principle, just dividends. I could probably push some young guy out of a job, but who would be hit harder? This crap ain't gonna end soon.
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 02:04 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 07, 2010 02:04 PM (i7Wd9)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 07, 2010 02:05 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 07, 2010 02:05 PM (swuwV)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 07, 2010 02:05 PM (i7Wd9)
Thanks for this because there is an enormous amount of misunderstanding about this point.
Just think where we might be at this point if the Crapulus had been a 12-month tax holiday.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 07, 2010 02:05 PM (U6LOz)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 07, 2010 02:08 PM (eOXTH)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 07, 2010 06:05 PM (8y9MW)
You can be communist AND incompetent.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 07, 2010 02:08 PM (z1N6a)
You can be communist AND incompetent.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 07, 2010 06:08 PM (z1N6a)
It's a given, actually. The only way to balance it out is with brutality.
So look out.
Posted by: nickless© at December 07, 2010 02:10 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 02:10 PM (cX9pO)
On a semi-related note, HA has a link to "Morning" Joe Scarborough crying in Politico that the oh-so-noble President caved too easily to those mean, nasty Republicans.
I'm tempted to save the link and just post it in the comments of any website that tries to claim that Joe is a conservative.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 07, 2010 02:10 PM (8y9MW)
Within a couple of days the extension to unemployment was announced and 18 of the 19 never showed up for work.
Posted by: jmflynny at December 07, 2010 02:11 PM (fP/nY)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 06:04 PM (cX9pO)
A lot of the impetus for decisions prior to 2008 was that nobody could remember the early 80s - it could never again get that bad. In future, people will remember conditions now for quite some time and decide on that basis.
Its easier to break an egg than put it back together.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 07, 2010 02:12 PM (z1N6a)
True. It's one of those things where I try not to (publicly) assume malfeasance when stupidity will suffice.
Privately, I wish all kinds of bad ends on the man. Like having to watch "America's Next Top Model" re-runs for eternity.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 07, 2010 02:12 PM (8y9MW)
So look out.
Posted by: nickless© at December 07, 2010 06:10 PM (MMC8r)
If I were Obama's nine iron I'd be worried.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 07, 2010 02:13 PM (z1N6a)
The guy who hired them is incredibly bad at his job.
Posted by: oblig. at December 07, 2010 02:14 PM (x7Ao8)
Lowered expectations are going to be the "new normal" in the years to come.
If we were smart, we'd be requiring these people to work say 20 hours a week doing something to help cover local government shortfalls to qualify for that check after a period of say 3 months.
They can pick up trash along the roads, paint over graffiti, fill pot holes, etc...basically pick up the slack where local governments would otherwise be cutting back due to budget constraints.
The unions will of course scream about something like that, but fuck'em.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 07, 2010 02:14 PM (JrNno)
So Scarborough is getting his Charles Johnson on. On MessNBC. Color me unsurprised.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 07, 2010 02:14 PM (swuwV)
Why on earth would you believe that? People in NV couldn't remember that Harry Reid had thrown the whole state under the bus less than two years previously just this November. People in AZ couldn't remember that their Congressman had called for a boycott of his own state.
Of course they'll forget again: History always begins yesterday. Whenever that happens to be.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 07, 2010 02:15 PM (8y9MW)
Not surprised; just tired of him getting to call himself Conservative when he so obviously is not.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 07, 2010 02:16 PM (8y9MW)
That is one hell of a significant difference from what I'm guessing most people believe it to be.
So, do the Republicans spell it out and make the Dems look even worse than they presently do in the eyes of the libs or do they keep it quiet and let it reveal itself through a chorus of furious slackers who learn the hard way?
I vote the latter.
Posted by: jmflynny at December 07, 2010 02:16 PM (fP/nY)
I'm not talking politics, I'm talking houses, TV sets, and business decisions. And I saw it happen in the 80s. You fire fast, and hire slow.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 07, 2010 02:17 PM (z1N6a)
We're not even close to coming out of this mess yet. We're still at the leading edge. A few years of hard times ain't nothing like a decade of hard times when it comes to burning lessons into people's minds.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 07, 2010 02:18 PM (JrNno)
When this sinks in, there will be a lot of pissed off expectant recipients who were hoping for a change that would allow them to continue to collect free money. Many of them have probably already spent their anticipated windfall on booze, drugs, and whores. Another brilliant communications moment from the greatest orator since Lincoln.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 07, 2010 02:18 PM (xxgag)
Actually, he's a very successful businessman and with repeated evidence of the unemployed behaving in such a manner, why would you think that?
Posted by: jmflynny at December 07, 2010 02:18 PM (fP/nY)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 02:18 PM (cX9pO)
I'll have you know Mr. Scarborough is just as mainstream conservative as I am!
Posted by: Kathleen Parker-Noonan at December 07, 2010 02:18 PM (swuwV)
They can pick up trash along the roads, paint over graffiti, fill pot holes, etc...basically pick up the slack where local governments would otherwise be cutting back due to budget constraints.
The unions will of course scream about something like that, but fuck'em.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 07, 2010 06:14 PM (JrNno)
I'm sure Acorn can find something for them to do. No thanks.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 07, 2010 02:18 PM (z1N6a)
I'm thrilled that Obama kept his rhetoric down in his concession speech earlier today:
I'm sure he believes Republicans are terrorists holding America hostage, like he said.
I'm sure he believes that the only thing Republicans want is the tax cuts for the wealthy, as he proclaimed.
Likewise, I'm sure he thinks that Republicans are really going to try to repeal the middle-class tax cuts, like he predicted they will.
Finally, I am absolutely certain that he's up for a fight... on the next important issue that comes along. Just not on this one.
But don't tempt him. Really.
Posted by: Truman North at December 07, 2010 02:19 PM (HLGCA)
The two usually go hand-in-hand. Communists are good at breaking things and agitating people, but when it comes to being creative (other than finding new ways to execute/imprison and work the "undesirables" or "mentally ill" to death), their abilities here are sorely lacking.
btw, here's another "duh" moment from the WikiLeaks document:
Latest from Wikileaks: Lockerbie bomber freed after Libya threatened to cut UK trade ties - Sky News http://bit.ly/eHHJxL
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 07, 2010 02:19 PM (c0A3e)
Swine flu.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 07, 2010 02:19 PM (xxgag)
Another thing: Dude can't call Muslim terrorists... Muslims or terrorists. But Republicans looking to stop a huge tax hike, they're terrorists.
The mask keeps on slipping, slipping, slipping...
Posted by: Truman North at December 07, 2010 02:20 PM (HLGCA)
That's almost as much of a shocker as when Wikileaks proved that Hillary was dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 07, 2010 02:21 PM (xxgag)
With ObamaCare, the game is heavily biased towards "staying small" as long as possible too. Small businesses what might otherwise have been looking to grow aren't going to be doing that now and will take great pains to stay under that magic number of employees where they'd be forced to provide HC or pay fines.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 07, 2010 02:22 PM (JrNno)
Posted by: Jambo..fetch the chocolate sauce! at December 07, 2010 02:22 PM (zcudj)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 06:18 PM (cX9pO)
Not sure I buy that. Even with Reagan's reforms that one took years to recover from. Interest rates were high for 10 years or more. None since then aside from this one were anything close.
And anyway, if this one is worse, everyone will be even more cautious going forward, not less.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 07, 2010 02:24 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Jambo..fetch the chocolate sauce! at December 07, 2010 06:22 PM (zcudj)
For your one remaining week, I suppose.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 07, 2010 02:24 PM (z1N6a)
I guess I misread your post then. I thought you were saying that "next time" people wouldn't get caught by surprise: which I highly doubt.
As far as this goes, you're right: but that should be written as a law of Economics.
When the most recent bubble burst, people first cut back on non-essentials and cut waste, then they started cutting out "the fat" in their employees, then they made hard decisions about cutting valued employees.
When the economy starts moving again (jury still out on if this will work, but its better than what's been tried so far), employers will make due with what they have as long as possible (and, sometimes, longer than is prudent) before they start hiring again. And then, they'll hire only as required, not as fast as is possible.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 07, 2010 02:24 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Truman North at December 07, 2010 02:25 PM (HLGCA)
Posted by: radioactive at December 07, 2010 02:26 PM (PWj+8)
Posted by: George Costanza at December 07, 2010 02:26 PM (VMcEw)
Yep. What's the cutoff for "small" business? Fifty employees? The number of 49-person staffed businesses is going to skyrocket. Progressive businessmen (a bit of a walking contradiction there) still don't get that economic elasticity thing.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 07, 2010 02:27 PM (swuwV)
Your naivety is touching.
There was a caller to Boortz this morning that was just a complete breath of fresh air. He is from Atlanta but moved to North Dakota to work in an oil operation. He kept, essentially, feeling embarrassed for his "greed". Boortz pressed him and found that the guy is working 80 to 100 hours per week in 7 degree (and worse) weather. He spoke of how he hears people say they can't find work but that he knows they can if they are willing to look for work wherever it is. He said that people don't want to leave home anymore and that "that's not the way this country developed" (pp). The guy was just terrific and I hope he calls in again.
The sad part was that he has been made to feel embarrassed about his "greed". Neal told him as much, and congratulated him on his drive and ambition.
Posted by: jmflynny at December 07, 2010 02:27 PM (fP/nY)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 02:28 PM (cX9pO)
yes, that's what I was getting at. If we had a magic law to restore the exact economic situation in 2007, we would not recover to that same place at once. Because everyone still remembers that it can get screwed up, and hedges their bets.
And Obama's "reforms" are acting only to make businessmen and rational customers even more unsure about what the future holds.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 07, 2010 02:29 PM (z1N6a)
@6 I have no problem with the extension of unemployment benefits until the economy improves. I was very happy to see the tax cuts extended, and hope that as the Republicans take charge, they not only make them permanent, but lower the corporate taxes as well to encourage business back in to the US. Then they need to expand drilling and other traditional energy sources - defund the EPA, and our economy will be rocking - then we can cease the unemployment benefits.
I'm in somewhat the same camp. I don't justify a temporary extension of unemployment benefits with the usual Marxist nonsense - I look upon it as the govt taking responsibility for its own actions.
At best, unemployment pays about minimum wage. Nobody's going to stay on that for the money - it sucks! The people most likely to stay on it for the full 99 weeks are the people at the very bottom of the job ladder, where unemployment is often 25% or more. Those guys aren't even getting the full benefit (so it's a fraction of min wage).
I don't see the EPA going away any time soon, but certainly all the things you talk about would help. Whatever it takes to get employment back on track (and it's probably mostly from ObamaCare), at lot of these people would have jobs, if not for the govt.
OTOH, they're mostly the people who elected the kind of politicians who created this mess in the 1st place (including Obama, of course). So it is partly their own fault, too.
Posted by: Optimizer at December 07, 2010 02:30 PM (2lTU+)
Gabe, what about those who are at 98 weeks? There isn't anything in the compromise language that prevents them from the fresh reset of benefits, is there?
Posted by: Journolist at December 07, 2010 02:30 PM (LwLqV)
I'm in somewhat the same camp. I don't justify a temporary extension of unemployment benefits with the usual Marxist nonsense - I look upon it as the govt taking responsibility for its own actions.
Posted by: Optimizer at December 07, 2010 06:30 PM (2lTU+)
Unless they are funding this outlay out of their own salaries, it is hardly taking responsibility for anything.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 07, 2010 02:32 PM (z1N6a)
With ObamaCare, the game is heavily biased towards "staying small" as long as possible too.
In my land of ancient Greece, a small penis was considered beautiful. I wrote about small penises constantly.
Posted by: Aristophanes at December 07, 2010 02:34 PM (HLGCA)
hahahahaha, I can't believe these people are that stupid.
Posted by: Vic at December 07, 2010 02:36 PM (e4sSD)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 02:38 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: sifty at December 07, 2010 02:40 PM (MoA1d)
Posted by: Anniee451 at December 07, 2010 02:42 PM (kwojf)
Posted by: Anniee451 at December 07, 2010 02:44 PM (kwojf)
Posted by: Captain Hate at December 07, 2010 02:44 PM (ccPlf)
As someone whose friends were trying to get jobs at the time, it was bad enough.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 07, 2010 02:44 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 02:47 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: Anniee451 at December 07, 2010 02:48 PM (kwojf)
Posted by: justin cord at December 07, 2010 02:49 PM (c0+w5)
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 07, 2010 02:49 PM (NcstB)
He recently did a bit where he showed a chart of France's unemployment relative to the term of unemployment benefits.
France used to offer benefits for up to four years (four years!) and, guess what. At about 3 1/2 years, people would miraculously find employment. So, France changed the policy to three years of benefits believing that it took around three years to find a job and, guess what. Folks suddenly found jobs at around the 2 1/2 year mark. Now their benefits are for 2 years.
Anyone care to venture a guess as to how long it will take for someone drawing benefits to find a job?
Posted by: jmflynny at December 07, 2010 02:51 PM (fP/nY)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 02:51 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: Anniee451 at December 07, 2010 02:53 PM (kwojf)
Posted by: Joe at December 07, 2010 02:54 PM (i8qw5)
Hope for what? The people who I know and talked to who actually do hiring say that having a 2 year hole in your resume is a problem and they'd be leery about hiring you...
So hope of getting a job? Probably not. At least not until say the 0-20ers have a job.
This is going to be a LIFO queue programatically speaking. Unless you're not just a unique little snowflake; but also a damned fine worker whose resume and job experience will justify getting a job over the other people applying; the people who lost their job after you are going to get a job before you. At least once you've waited more than... say 15-20 weeks.
An employer (rightly or not) will see you as someone who is willing to either sit at home rather than work, or game the system. That puts you in the pile under the guy with the same skills, experience but has only been out of work 6 weeks... so he's going to get hired first.
Posted by: gekkobear at December 07, 2010 02:56 PM (X0NX1)
Posted by: Anniee451 at December 07, 2010 02:56 PM (kwojf)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 02:58 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 03:02 PM (cX9pO)
No kidding. Upton was just chosen over Barton for the Energy and Commerce Committee. Barton's fight was uphill due to term-limits, but he would have been a sound re-selection. Upton was big on rhetoric but his actions have been moderate at best. The GOP is already backsliding. The Tea Party Caucus has its work cut out and we're going to have to yank the leash pretty regularly on the "leadership."
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 07, 2010 03:02 PM (swuwV)
Posted by: Anniee451 at December 07, 2010 03:05 PM (kwojf)
Oldcat, recession, inflation, high interest rates, Disco. I remember the 70s very well. The only good thing that happened was I met my wife.
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 03:06 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: Anniee451 at December 07, 2010 03:08 PM (kwojf)
Annie, yes. All would go on until the next 13 months extention of funding ran out in Jan. 2012, unless further changes were made by congress in the meantime.
And, don't worry, I won't get mad. :-)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 03:11 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 07, 2010 03:14 PM (XVaFd)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 03:21 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: Anniee451 at December 07, 2010 03:22 PM (kwojf)
We could increase jobs by building refineries, nuclear plants, cutting our own timber, using our resouces, creating more demand.
Refineries, nuclear plants, and other parts of our infrastructure. Yeah, that would create a lot of jobs. Eight hundred billion dollars could easily get that started. Wasn't that the essence of the last stimulus?
What happened with that?
Posted by: FireHorse at December 07, 2010 03:22 PM (sWynj)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 03:23 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: Anniee451 at December 07, 2010 03:26 PM (kwojf)
Posted by: Joe at December 07, 2010 03:36 PM (i8qw5)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 03:39 PM (cX9pO)
Um, huh?
How, exactly do unemployment benefits create jobs?
Posted by: Jay at December 07, 2010 03:40 PM (EKpAZ)
This "emergency" program will never be rolled back.
Posted by: Jay at December 07, 2010 03:47 PM (EKpAZ)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 03:47 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: sifty at December 07, 2010 03:56 PM (MoA1d)
Then Rush had this all wrong today when claiming those at week 98 would qualify for a new reset of extensions.
However, one way of looking at the extension matter is that there will be at least the same number of individuals, if not more, who will be maxing out at 99 weeks due to the latest extension relative to those who benefited from the original extension.
Look at this way, if x is constant, the extension represents 2(x) and we essentially doubled the benefits.
Posted by: Journolist at December 07, 2010 03:58 PM (LwLqV)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 04:00 PM (cX9pO)
bigred: You said so much at #118, and it's all true. Your nugget about believing in ourselves is solid gold.
For what it's worth, I've come across quite a few people who view intellectual as a derogatory term, so there's hope.
Posted by: FireHorse at December 07, 2010 04:00 PM (sWynj)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 08:00 PM (cX9pO)
<bigred, did I get this right then?
Posted by: Journolist at December 07, 2010 04:00 PM (LwLqV)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 04:06 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: Journolist at December 07, 2010 04:09 PM (LwLqV)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 04:16 PM (cX9pO)
Also, worth mentioning, Tier IV benefits are only available in states with 8.5% unemployment or higher. Texas has been hovering at 8.2% for awhile.
Posted by: mpurinTexas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at December 07, 2010 04:16 PM (paOeu)
The jobless rate has now peaked at 9 percent for 19 months in a row. ItÂ’s the longest stretch on record.
What are we going to do if this doesn't end for another 5 years?
Posted by: Jay at December 07, 2010 04:17 PM (EKpAZ)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 04:21 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 04:25 PM (cX9pO)
Local HHS office here is constantly hiring new people to process claims....
Posted by: mpurinTexas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at December 07, 2010 04:26 PM (paOeu)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 04:29 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: Handyman at December 07, 2010 04:30 PM (8xYyJ)
Posted by: toby928™ at December 07, 2010 04:40 PM (S5YRY)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 04:48 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 08:54 PM (cX9pO)
< If you don't blog, let me know.
Posted by: Journolist at December 07, 2010 05:02 PM (LwLqV)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 05:07 PM (cX9pO)
Posted by: Journolist at December 07, 2010 05:09 PM (LwLqV)
Thanks, J. You're cool, too. Hell, I might've even brought that next round. :-)
I lurk here a lot. Since I don't play GOW or watch zombie movies, I'm kinda quiet. Was a lot more fun when I drank, Like Ron White says "I had the right to remain silent, just not the ability".
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 05:15 PM (cX9pO)
When you're at middle age, no degree in finance, and trying to find work in a field with a lot of qualified people applying for that same job, it's going to take a long time to find other work, and the longer it takes the longer the odds. Even temp positions have gotten very choosy on who they'll take, so that avenue of tiding you over has gone away for the most part.
Many HR people and hiring managers still operate as if it's a mystery why someone is unemployed for more than 3 months, and some companies won't even hire someone unless they're already employed by someone else. That one is a mystery since someone looking for another job in this economy is a risk of being a malcontent.
Moving to another state is not an option for many because they're probably tied to a mortgage of a house they can't sell, or a spouse would have to quit his or her job, moving the same problem to another state. Then some jobs have gone away and are never coming back. Companies aren't into retraining 50 year old middle management personnel, no matter how bright and experienced.
As for taking lesser paying jobs, many of those lesser paying jobs have been filled by overqualified people who accepted less than what they aspired to. You can find many $9 hr customer service reps who were previously $60K and up professionals who had to take something after the bennies ran out. They still have that mortgage and other debt, and they never expected that any future downturn would get THIS bad. I sure didn't
If you're young and in a safe spot like working for the government or a company where you're very well connected, it's easy to assume that others just aren't trying hard enough.
Posted by: kbdabear at December 07, 2010 05:27 PM (vdfwz)
Like I said, kd, this one is worse than a lot of people realize. Some guys just slightly older than me (60) may never work again. I've heard of guys saying they'll try as long as UC holds out, and then just take SS early, give up the couple hundred a month more they would have gotten waiting until age 66.
I hope things work out for you. Just remember you are far from alone.
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 05:46 PM (cX9pO)
#151, you make some good points. However, as the person who is in charge of hiring at our firm, I'd say that the 99-weekers have no idea of the harm they're doing to themselves.
An employer looking at a 2-year hole in a resume will assume that that the applicant isn't serious about working. They will expect the prospecive employee to treat employment as a hobby, to tell the employer what they will and won't do, and to figure out a way to be dismissed as soon as they're eligible for benefits again.
And that two-year hole never goes away. Every time you send out a resume/CV, the hole will be there and will give the employer reason to toss your application to the side and find somebody who shows more evidence of a solid work ethic. It may not be fair, but that's how it looks from the side of the person who pays the wages.
Posted by: Avogadra at December 07, 2010 05:54 PM (dtIOD)
Posted by: bigred at December 07, 2010 06:08 PM (cX9pO)
That's why you are never unemployed on your resume. You're Self-Employed.
Posted by: toby928™ at December 07, 2010 06:15 PM (S5YRY)
FWIW I had a 17 year gap in my resume and I simply explained I was raising children at the time to prospective employers; before the economy really tanked it wasn't a big deal and I could still find work even with the gap. Don't the employers know that jobs are very scarce and while you may be looking like crazy you still may not get anything sustainable even for quite some time? The "official" unemployment numbers only tell you how many people are getting benefits; the "real" unemployment is supposed to be something like double the official number. I mean, they must realize that even people with a good work ethic sometimes can't find a job for a long time in such a depressed economy.
Posted by: Anniee451 at December 07, 2010 06:21 PM (kwojf)
Posted by: Mary Cloggerstien from Brattleboro, VT at December 07, 2010 06:21 PM (zVOB7)
Frankly, Gabriel, "the media" have about 50 years of dumb shit to make up for before I even feel slightly bad when anyone punches them in their stupid cakeholes, not to mention "being too hard" in them.
If they didn't lie, distort and generally act like douchebags every day, maybe. But they do, so be as hard as you like.
Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at December 07, 2010 06:48 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: Anniee451 at December 07, 2010 06:58 PM (kwojf)
<i>Avo, that may well happen as long as labor remains a buyer's market. But when, and if, the pool shrinks, compaies will be back to taking who ever they can get. Plus, with an ever growing number of 99s, their options grow smaller. And a number will still get jobs through family, friends, former employers. </i>
You're right, of course. I've hired people with gaps in their resumes when my other options were poor. But a two-year hiatus for something other than child rearing is huge. It will always raise a question and put you at least a step behind the competition. Hiring an employee is a big investment, and employers like to minimize risk when they can.
Posted by: Avogadra at December 07, 2010 07:38 PM (dtIOD)
Thanks for the clarification, that's less offensive than 99+13. IMHO, continuing unemployment benefits in a limited way is the right thing to do. I object that it will be funded with deficit spending rather than finding other federal expenses to cut. We all make our own difficult budgeting choices, so must the feds. Didn't us voters make clear that the election last month was largely about spending?
Posted by: Duke at December 08, 2010 08:49 AM (ek8I+)
Posted by: John at December 08, 2010 04:39 PM (+czsU)
Posted by: sharon at December 08, 2010 08:03 PM (ioEtC)
Posted by: mary at December 08, 2010 09:29 PM (+aMFJ)
Posted by: sharon at December 09, 2010 05:39 AM (ioEtC)
Posted by: Jackie Famighetti at December 09, 2010 06:24 AM (kqyO4)
Posted by: sharon at December 09, 2010 09:27 AM (ioEtC)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3414 seconds, 287 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Just because it hasn't so far doesn't mean it won't in the Glorious Futuretm!
Posted by: nickless at December 07, 2010 01:47 PM (MMC8r)