Falling off the unemployment insurance cliff

[ProSense]

Falling off the unemployment insurance cliff

by Laura Clawson



Thanks to congressional inaction, emergency unemployment insurance for people who've been unemployed longer than six months expired today with long-term unemployment at double the level it's been when such benefits expired after past recessions. That's a very big deal to 1.3 million people who will now not have the jobless benefits that are in many cases what's standing between them and the loss of a home or other basic necessities.

The lapse in emergency unemployment insurance will hit middle-class—or formerly middle-class—people hard:

Unlike food stamps—another safety net program that Congress likes to kick around—Americans don't qualify for unemployment insurance by being poor. In fact, you can only qualify for unemployment benefits if you had a solid work history prior to being laid off. And you can only remain eligible by continuing to search for work.

Roughly 40 percent of Americans who've received long-term unemployment benefits since 2008 had previously earned between $30,000 and $75,000, according to an analysis of Census data by the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Earlier research by the Congressional Budget Office has shown that more than two-thirds of recipients had annual incomes more than twice the poverty level and that such households received 70 percent of all unemployment payments.

Still, they're not rich, so Republicans are all too willing to screw them.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/28/1265776/-Falling-off-the-unemployment-insurance-nbsp-cliff

Bernie Sanders: Supporting the Unemployed (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024240453

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[panader0]

2. Many of those that will lose benefits sre supporting families.

So it's more than a million victims.
K and R

[adirondacker]

6. That's an Excellent point! One of my best friends is a union electrician and is supporting 3 kids

and his wife. He's been mostly unemployed since 2008 with a few temp projects in between. This is someone who is a complete spendthrift, had a typical salary of 65000/yr, contributed to an IRA, and paid most of his mortgage. He is now visiting a foodbank every week, spent a large chunk of his retirement savings and doesn't see any light. This will hit him like a brick wall.

[Demo_Chris]

3. Okay, how long should these benefits be extended for....?

And if the answer is indefinitely, are you willing to decouple unemployment benefits from employed wages?

[ProSense]

4. ?

"Okay, how long should these benefits be extended for....?

And if the answer is indefinitely, are you willing to decouple unemployment benefits from employed wages?"

Where is this coming from? Are you referring to a specific proposal?

Since you're posing the question, a predetermined answer and a subsequent action based on that answer, what's your opinion?

[Demo_Chris]

5. Answers...

I have heard that in many other countries these benefits never expire and can be collected indefinitely (I'm sure some conditions apply). That said, after a certain length of time has passed, it seems wrong to base benefits off pre-unemployed earnings.

In any case, we cannot continue as we are, passing temporary extensions and hoping the problem goes away.

[ProSense]

7. Why do you

"That said, after a certain length of time has passed, it seems wrong to base benefits off pre-unemployed earnings."

...think it's wrong, and what should it be based on? I'm trying to understand what you're proposing.

"In any case, we cannot continue as we are, passing temporary extensions and hoping the problem goes away."

The "problem" exists because people are unemployed for long periods, and Republicans have spent the last few years blocking jobs bills and additional stimulus.

Still, why can't benefits continue as long as the problem exists? If Congress doesn't pass legislation to stimulate job creation, the problem will drag on.

In that case, do you think benefits should be cut off for the long-term unemployed?

[Demo_Chris]

8. Perhaps I was not clear. Your questions in bold.

Why do you think (basing benefits off pre-unemployed earnings) is wrong? what should it be based on?

I think it is reasonable to base temporary unemployment benefits off of wages. The idea here is to prevent a temporary loss of work from causing possible irreparable disruption to a family or individual. We don't want people losing their house or car because a factory closed, so we give them a little time to get a new job. However, the key here is temporary assistance.

Once we pass that temporary threshold -- whatever we decide that time limit is -- it's time to say that they are no longer collecting unemployment, and if they were middle class when they lost their job, perhaps a great deal of unemployment-- but welfare. Once we move beyond the temporary everyone, regardless of their previous income, should be treated the same.

The "problem" exists because people are unemployed for long periods, and Republicans have spent the last few years blocking jobs bills and additional stimulus.

That, and I think that there are not enough jobs for the number of people who need jobs. And that's a problem that no one in Washington is really talking about.


Still, why can't benefits continue as long as the problem exists? If Congress doesn't pass legislation to stimulate job creation, the problem will drag on. In that case, do you think benefits should be cut off for the long-term unemployed?

I think we need to take care of everyone in this country. I don't think temporary unemployment extensions are the way to do it. We need a permanent long term solution, and everyone in this situation -- poor, middle class, or wealthy -- should be treated exactly the same.

Obviously a proposal like this wouldn't be popular with the formerly middle class worker who finds himself out of work and his career gone, but that situation is nothing new.

[ProSense]

10. Is the

I think it is reasonable to base temporary unemployment benefits off of wages. The idea here is to prevent a temporary loss of work from causing possible irreparable disruption to a family or individual. We don't want people losing their house or car because a factory closed, so we give them a little time to get a new job. However, the key here is temporary assistance.

Once we pass that temporary threshold -- whatever we decide that time limit is -- it's time to say that they are no longer collecting unemployment, and if they were middle class when they lost their job, perhaps a great deal of unemployment-- but welfare. Once we move beyond the temporary everyone, regardless of their previous income, should be treated the same.

..."temporary threshold" passed if the person remains unemployed? Are you proposing moving people from unemployment to "welfare"? Your point isn't clear.

That, and I think that there are not enough jobs for the number of people who need jobs. And that's a problem that no one in Washington is really talking about.

Again, Republicans are blocking any jobs bill: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024132016

Still, why can't benefits continue as long as the problem exists? If Congress doesn't pass legislation to stimulate job creation, the problem will drag on. In that case, do you think benefits should be cut off for the long-term unemployed?

I think we need to take care of everyone in this country. I don't think temporary unemployment extensions are the way to do it. We need a permanent long term solution, and everyone in this situation -- poor, middle class, or wealthy -- should be treated exactly the same.

Obviously a proposal like this wouldn't be popular with the formerly middle class worker who finds himself out of work and his career gone, but that situation is nothing new.

Huh? Unemployment is based on income, and everyone is treated the same...based on income.

You state that there needs to be "a permanent long term solution." What exactly are you envisioning? Also, why on earth wouldn't your proposal "be popular with the formerly middle class worker"?

I mean, that seems to imply that it would be "popular" among the "wealthy." Why? What are you proposing?

Also, given that you repeated that everyone should be "treated the same" here as in your response at the top, are you proposing that the wealthy also receive "welfare"?

It's really not clear what you're proposing.

[Demo_Chris]

12. Answers (Your questions in bold)

Is the "temporary threshold" passed if the person remains unemployed? Are you proposing moving people from unemployment to "welfare"? Your point isn't clear.

Yes. At some point we need to recognize that someone is no longer "between jobs."


Huh? Unemployment is based on income, and everyone is treated the same...based on income

They are only treated the same when they receive the same benefit, not as a percentage, but in real dollars.

[ProSense]

14. You

"Yes. At some point we need to recognize that someone is no longer 'between jobs.'"

...still haven't said what you're proposing. If they're still unemployed, how can they not be "between jobs"?

What are they?

"They are only treated the same when they receive the same benefit, not as a percentage, but in real dollars. "

Again, what does that mean in terms of what you're proposing? Let me repeat:

You state that there needs to be "a permanent long term solution." What exactly are you envisioning? Also, why on earth wouldn't your proposal "be popular with the formerly middle class worker"?

I mean, that seems to imply that it would be "popular" among the "wealthy." Why? What are you proposing?

Also, given that you repeated that everyone should be "treated the same" here as in your response at the top (see previous comment), are you proposing that the wealthy also receive "welfare"?

It's really not clear what you're proposing.

[Demo_Chris]

15. How many different times and ways do I need to explain this?

What I propose:

1. Someone who loses their job should, as now, receive TEMPORARY UNEMPLOYMENT. The amount they receive should be based on what they earned while employed.

2. This benefit should be TEMPORARY. This is unemployment insurance. The goal is to prevent a brief and temporary job loss from devastating a family. It is not intended to be anything BUT temporary. If you cannot find a job within a set period of time, this benefit should end.

3. When it expires they should still receive assistance, but if a different sort. Call it welfare. And everyone in this position -- regardless of what they earned while employed -- should receive the same benefit. For example, every single male with no children should receive $25 a month (just a number) regardless of what they earned at their former job.

[ProSense]

16. "If you cannot find a job within a set period of time, this benefit should end. "

"3. When it expires they should still receive assistance, but if a different sort. Call it welfare. And everyone in this position -- regardless of what they earned while employed -- should receive the same benefit. For example, every single male with no children should receive $25 a month (just a number) regardless of what they earned at their former job."

You didn't explain that before. So you're proposing that the next time extended benefits expire, the government should set a benefit amount that everyone receives regardless of prior income or current wealth?

You threw out $25 a month as "just a number." Obviously, you gave this proposal a little thought.

Realistically, what do you think that benefit amount should be, and how should it be paid for since it's no longer an unemployment benefit?

Would the funding come via SNAP benefits?

[Demo_Chris]

19. No clue on any of that...

But I do know that at some point an individual's temporary unemployment compensation payments (based upon income) need to end. The government shoved them off a cliff, I propose a net.

[ProSense]

17. Also, if someone

is unable to find a job or can only find a low-wage job, it won't take long for that person to join the ranks of the poor and/or homeless.

Would you support a program like this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024245161#post12

[Demo_Chris]

18. Yes, if they cannot find work they will become poor...

That is as it should be. Middle class is not something that, once attained, becomes an automatic taxpayer funded entitlement.

And yes, I have no problem with a program like the one you linked.

[ProSense]

22. What

"Middle class is not something that, once attained, becomes an automatic taxpayer funded entitlement."

...does that mean? Where is the "middle class" an "automatic taxpayer funded entitlement"?

Are you equating that to unemployment benefits?

[Demo_Chris]

23. You will have to puzzle this out for youself now. nt

[ProSense]

24. Can't explain? It's your point. n/t

[Demo_Chris]

25. I did Pro, and my words are not cryptic. I believe you are playing a game...

And I do not wish to waste my time playing.

[ProSense]

26. No

"I did Pro, and my words are not cryptic. I believe you are playing a game...And I do not wish to waste my time playing. "

...I don't think you did, and I didn't imply that your words were "cryptic"

You stated: "Middle class is not something that, once attained, becomes an automatic taxpayer funded entitlement."

I simply asked what you meant? Where is the "middle class" an "automatic taxpayer funded entitlement"?

Are you equating that to unemployment benefits?

[Demo_Chris]

27. The THREAD is discussing unemployment...

Specifically the termination of unemployment benefits. So yes, I am talking about unemployment benefits, as were you. You said that someone who is unable to find a job, or a lower paying job, would soon find themselves poor. I responded that you were correct, and that this is how it has to be, and that:

Middle class is not something that, once attained, becomes an automatic taxpayer funded entitlement.


I don't know how to say it any clearer than that Pro.

[ProSense]

28. First

"The THREAD is discussing unemployment...Specifically the termination of unemployment benefits. So yes, I am talking about unemployment benefits, as were you. You said that someone who is unable to find a job, or a lower paying job, would soon find themselves poor. I responded that you were correct, and that this is how it has to be, and that:

Middle class is not something that, once attained, becomes an automatic taxpayer funded entitlement."

...you think unemployment benefits are equivalent to an "automatic taxpayer funded entitlement" that sustains "middle class" status? Really?

Where do you believe this is happening?

Secondly, you're proposing moving people off unemployment benefits even if they're still unemployed, pulling the classification of them as "between jobs" and moving them into some program that you haven't fully thought through.

Yes, the thread is "discussing unemployment," but you seem hostile toward it.

You say you support the poor and homeless, but I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that unemployment benefits are an "automatic taxpayer funded entitlement"?

[Demo_Chris]

29. Answers (you in bold)

...you think unemployment benefits are equivalent to an "automatic taxpayer funded entitlement" that sustains "middle class" status? Really?

No, and I do not wish to see unemployment benefits become that, which is why they must remain temporary.

Secondly, you're proposing moving people off unemployment benefits even if they're still unemployed, pulling the classification of them as "between jobs" and moving them into some program that you haven't fully thought through.

Yes.

The purpose behind unemployment insurance is to provide a cushion between jobs. It is not intended for long term assistance. I am not opposed to long term assistance, but it should be provided as part of a different program, with fixed benefits.

[ProSense]

32. Wait

"No, and I do not wish to see unemployment benefits become that, which is why they must remain temporary. "

...how would unemployment benefits become an "automatic taxpayer funded entitlement" that sustains "middle class" status even if it is repeatedly extended?

I mean, there is nothing about unemployment benefits that screams "middle class."

"The purpose behind unemployment insurance is to provide a cushion between jobs. It is not intended for long term assistance. I am not opposed to long term assistance, but it should be provided as part of a different program, with fixed benefits. "

Why? It seems you're equating unemployment with an "automatic taxpayer funded entitlement" because you're against it for some reason, but then you turn around and propose "long term assistance" via some mysterious program. Who would pay for this? What would the benefits be? How long is "long term"?

[Demo_Chris]

33. Simple...

If payments are based on income than anyone who earned more prior to their termination had at least a theoretical opportunity to amass some savings and assets, yet they get a big check, while the guy on the bottom making nothing gets less than nothing.

And while that system is understandable for a brief period, it makes increasingly less sense the longer it goes on. The guy on the bottom is forced to immediately accept ANY job that's offered while the more affluent guy has (at least theoretically) the luxury of waiting for something better. At some point you have to place all unemployed people into the same category.

[ProSense]

34. This doesn't

"If payments are based on income than anyone who earned more prior to their termination had at least a theoretical opportunity to amass some savings and assets, yet they get a big check, while the guy on the bottom making nothing gets less than nothing."

...make sense. It's based on a percentage of income, and it's capped at a very low amount. No one is getting a "big check."

"And while that system is understandable for a brief period, it makes increasingly less sense the longer it goes on. The guy on the bottom is forced to immediately accept ANY job that's offered while the more affluent guy has (at least theoretically) the luxury of waiting for something better. At some point you have to place all unemployed people into the same category. "

I understand your concern about the "guy at the bottom," but I don't see how the duration of unemployment has anything to do with the "affluent" holding out for "something better." No one turns down a decent job to remain on unemployment.

I'm not against moving the long-term unemployed to another program if it's well-thoughout. I too like the suggestion here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024242223#post11). This economic crisis took a toll on older workers, especially those nearing retirement, and no amount of unemployment benefits will help them to get their lives back on track. For many the consequences have been devastating.

This debate (and the concern) is about people who can't find jobs. People want to work.

The best solution is to increase the number of available jobs, and Congress can help to facilitate job creation.

[Cha]

9. Thanks PS!

[gulliver]

11. There needs to be a Job Reserve Board

We call it stimulus, but that makes it seem transient. The government should create and stockpile labor demand and release it as needed to prevent social discontinuities. It should be triggered by events, not subject to the whims and manipulation of incumbents.

[Demo_Chris]

20. That's actually freaking brilliant...

Like infrastructure jobs in which the planning is complete.

[spanone]

13. compassion is sooo yesterday.

the criminal congress. their pay never stops. benefits and salary for life.

[steve2470]

21. k&r ! nt

[DCBob]

30. If congress doesn't act perhaps President Obama can do something with an executive order

This is one of those things that we cant let happen.

[sheshe2]

31. k&r!