How long would you last on unemployment?

[CoffeeCat]

This question is probably none of my business. So, don't feel that you have to post a response. However,
the question "How long would you last on unemployment? is an important one to ask yourself.

We seem to be entering another round of rough turbulence in the economy. Job creation is anemic, consumer
confidence is down and the real unemployment numbers (U6) are bleak, revealing that 22 percent of all males
in the US are unemployed. If anyone else watches the Baltic Dry Index--that's dropping like a hot rock too.

I ran the numbers. I was astounded at what I discovered when I put it all on paper. In these uncertain times,
with corporations running the show and politicians lacking even the decency to extend unemployment--it's important
to know where you are and what your situation is. So you can prepare--financially, psychologically and emotionally.

I looked up how much our family of four would get if my husband became unemployed. Are you ready for this?

A whopping $1,650 per month. That's the maximum ANY family would receive. Unbelievable, right? That would pay our
mortgage. We would have food stamps if we were unemployed, so we could afford to eat and remain in our current home--but
NOTHING else.

I looked at our savings. I added up what our bare minimum expenses would be. Then I subtracted unemployment
and the cost of food (because food stamps would pay for it). I got a monthly total. I looked at our savings
and I discovered the number of months we could survive on unemployment--and remain in our house.

I was shocked.

I think it's important for everyone to know their "number of months" so they can be prepared. The days
of pretending that it-can't-happen-to-me are over. And the days of failing to understand the eventualities of
unemployment--or even long-term unemployment--are over as well.

As everyone knows, being prepared is important. There is so much fear out there, and that fear is justified. Sometimes
when we're fearful, we hunker down and plod along--just hoping we don't become a victim. That's just not
healthy or wise these days. Even if you add up the numbers and they're scary--it's important to face it before you're
in a crisis--so you can plan and prepare NOW while you have a clear head.

I know DU is full of intelligent, savvy people who are wise about finances and other areas of their lives. I just
think that it's critical right now to fully understand where you are and exactly how your life would be if you
were faced with a job loss, long-term unemployment or a complete lifestyle change.

[Liberal_in_LA]

1. I'd have to supplement unemployment with savings to pay mortgage and all.

[phantom power]

2. We've been giving this a lot of thought.

We have our mortgage paid 6 months ahead, and some liquid cash on hand.

And who knows if that's enough, really. If we were both unemployed for (say) 12 or 18 months, we'd be breaking into the 401k.

:shrug:

[closeupready]

3. I couldn't.

I could not survive on unemployment alone.

[tk2kewl]

4. i would be in trouble

unemployment might just pay my property taxes in the crazy county in which i live

[femmocrat]

5. Just to play devil's advocate---

Do you think you should receive more than enough for basic food and shelter? Other than medical expenses, what would you consider to be a necessity that unemployment should cover?

[closeupready]

6. Cigarettes, of course.

And lottery tickets.

[walldude]

8. Well if you want to find another job then a phone is a must...

and a computer with an internet connection wouldn't hurt either but that wouldn't be a necessity. Electricity. How about fuel or bus money? I mean biking is great but you ever show up to a job interview all sweaty and smelly? It doesn't go over well. Clothes? Got kids? How about school supplies and fees? What about creditors? Most Americans carry some kind of debt. Covering your mortgage and food is all well and good but with a family it takes more than that.

The "basics" differ for everyone.

[readmoreoften]

9. By playing devil's advocate, do you mean playing concerned Republican propagandist?

Why should a worker who is laid off live with any less dignity that one who is more fortunate? Sure a decrease in standard of living is de rigour. But why shouldn't the unemployed be able to keep their internet so their kids can do their homework? Why shouldn't they be able to afford to get their shoes fixed or a new coffee pot? What about that new health insurance we're all going to be forced to buy? They should be able to pay for that. Car insurance for those who don't live in NYC or Chicago or San Francisco or other expensive "walkable" cities.

And doesn't our economy run on consumption? Wouldn't it be "good" for America if people can still participate in the economy? Britain has substantial social security and everyone there seems pretty damn comfortable.

[reformedrethug]

13. I have to make a few points here,

The internet is a LUXURY not a necessity, if you need the internet for homework then it may be time to head to the local library or go to a friends house and work on homework together. A new coffee pot again is a luxury, do you have a normal pot? If so, boil water and steep your coffee that way. Car insurance can be paid either monthly, every 6 months, or once a year so that can be managed one way or another.

In order to pay the benefits to cover all of your noted expenses would be nice, but, how are we going to pay for it?

[femmocrat]

17. No, not at all.

I just started thinking about what was really necessary. Of course a family with children would have different needs than a single person. OK, clothing is a necessity, but how much more should they receive for that? A vehicle and corresponding expenses is a necessity if there is no public transportation.

Is internet really a necessity? And I did exclude health care.

Is keeping the economy running the purpose of unemployment insurance? True, it has an effect, but the economy would be stronger with lower unemployment, right?

And I don't know how "comfortable" the British are. No poverty there? Hmm, I doubt that.

[CoffeeCat]

10. That's an interesting question...

...and one that I had not thought of.

I think that's a very good question, but one I'm not really prepared to think about or answer!

I deal with what IS. The $1650 we would get---is reality. It's just the situation with which
we would be faced and I wouldn't think of unemployment in terms of wanting more of it. It
is what it is.

For me, this situation is more about knowing where you are and dealing with your individual numbers.

[femmocrat]

21. Sorry. And I hope you aren't going to find out.

It would be a very scary situation for most families. You offer very good advice. It is always best to prepare for the worst.

[SargeUNN]

7. actually I live on less than unemployment pays

I live on less than $650 a month and have for over a decade.

[99 Percent Sure]

11. I've lasted 2 and a half years, including

the several times that the Senate took months to approve.

As an exhaustee, I've survived the last 4 months with virtually no income, no UI benefits, and no hope of exhaustees ever getting anymore UI.

I have been seeking employment during all this time, and I've stepped up/turbo-charged my search these last 4 months. I'm finally getting nibbles.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

12. I agree that one needs to be prepared. But.........

I lost my job last year and did save what little money I could w/ my meager salary in what I called my "rainy day" fund. Little did I suspect that the job slide would persist as long as it did. And now that my unemployment is gone and my "rainy day" savings are depleted, I am unable to make my bills and now have to fall back in family.

So I agree savings are important, but there is only so much protracted economic downturn one can save for.

[CoffeeCat]

16. Yes, I totally agree...

...and what has happened to you is a good example of what I was talking about.

People need to be aware that after 3 months...6 months...one year--they lose it all and they
have to look at other options. Just as you have, falling back on your family.

If people are not prepared for "beyond" or if they don't face the fact that they could
be unemployed and burn through all savings--then they're severely gobsmacked when it
happens. And current statistics show that 45 percent of all unemployed people have
been unemployed long term.

I'm looking at the months that we would have--and I'm planning now. I'm asking myself
all sorts of questions. What could we cut out? How can I prepare now? How can I
possibly prepare the kids? Would it be wise to chuck it all now (house included) and
severely downsize until the uncertainty dies down?

I think it's important to face reality now and scenario it all out--including worst-cases.

[SoCalNative]

14. And if you have too much in savings

or assets (ie your car and equity in your home) you likely won't qualify for food stamps.

[CoffeeCat]

19. I didn't know that...

...but I suppose it makes sense.

I wonder what they consider "too much in savings" or "too much equity in your home."?

That's why these discussions are so important.

I always learn so much from other DUers.

[raouldukelives]

24. I know in California it's $2000 or less

in cash on hand to qualify for food stamps. I think you are allowed one vehicle and one residence.

[Subdivisions]

15. I would be sofa-surfing. n/t

[Warpy]

18. My dad was caught in Eisenhower's two recessions back to back

and used them as a teaching moment of why we had always lived like poor people while he and my mother had invested in blue chip stocks. He pointed out that there was absolutely no change in our standard of living even though he'd been unemployed for months at a time, thanks to the income from those stocks.

Having an emergency plan is absolutely essential. Living paycheck to paycheck while floating an upper middle class lifestyle on oceans of debt is what is going to destroy a lot of families in this country, good people who were conned into doing just that.

I managed a year of unemployment in 1974-75 while my ex went through 8 months of it. There are times I wonder what we ate, but we did it without food stamps or anything else but unemployment checks. It's a lousy way to have to live, but it can be done if you're not in debt, and we weren't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. After hubby retired from the Navy

we did, for over a year.

Realize we got his retirement pay and I purposely saved during his last hitch for the long haul... which we used completely.

[dmallind]

22. I lasted ten months recently, without being too desperate

A couple years may have been a bit of a challenge. I'm lucky in that I did not live paycheck to paycheck before that though, which is obviously the key.

Oh and my state max was a touch lower - $318 per week.

[ejpoeta]

23. i guess i'd be kickin back, reaping the rewards of getting my ass laid off.

to hear the republican congressman tell it, why would a person with a large mortgage payment and lots of bills exceeding that unemployment check go out and look for a job when he could drown in the debt from right on his couch.

[TheKentuckian]

25. I dunno but the "float" shrinks every month and is about gone at a year.

I'll have to find cheaper digs or get something going soon or I'll start to not be able to quite keep up and I'm far from perpetrating an upper class lifestyle.

[truedelphi]

26. In the example of using your household's stats -

You probably would not be eligible for County Insurance - though it would be worth checking out.

I am not sure if the County require you to do the COBRA offering till it runs out - but COBRA is gawd awful expensive.

And of course, should you go on County insurance, then the County can put a lien against your home I believe. (That is what our neighbors told us as to why they couldn't get health care - don't want to end up losing the home.)

one really good thing Obama has done is to declare every single County in the USA in emergency status.
This means that looking for work X amount of hours a week is not required. And that way you don't have a team of social workers clucking over you to get out there and look for work (Which can be an expensive thing to do, especially given that few jobs are out there.)

[dyingnumbers]

27. Got Milk?

I filed for unemployment last year and I was eligible to receive over $500 (after a brief stint moonlighting at a local movie theatre), but during the telephone interview my damn cell phone cut off because of a glitch in it.

That inconclusive interview was immediately followed by a letter from the Employment Development Department, stating that I didn't submit enough information during the interview, so I was disqualified and I didn't get my "benefits".

Whatever. Even with $500+ from the government, I'd be shit out of luck as soon as the lone carton of milk in my refrigerator expired.

[Greyskye]

28. I got hit by a paperwork error.

It took almost 6 months, an appearance before a judge, and much hair pulling to get my benefits restored and the missed checks sent on to me.

Early in the process, I had a cell phone disaster with EDD as well. I took Amtrak to attend a funeral, but because the train was 4 hours late, I was in a cellular dead zone when they called for my phone interview. Denied! Sigh.

[MrSlayer]

29. I could survive but it would be unpleasant.

I would have to supplement my income with some tax-free activities to maintain my lifestyle. Unemployment sucks.

[zazen]

30. unemployment checks would be a luxury (as an underemployed consultant)

So many people here in the Triangle survived the dot.bomb by becoming contractors/consultants after they got laid off. I already was one, since it helped me spend more time with the kids, but always turned away tens of thousands in business and still made a good living until I first 1) got cancer and had exacerbations that limited my ability to work and then 2) when I was coming out of it, the budgets of my university clients collapsed.

Yeah, Yeah. I guess I should have bought disability or some package that foresaw a financial crash, but I was just trying to work from contract to contract. And then nothing. And then no one would hire me for a position with benefits because I was overqualified or too independent or too old or still too blonde or God knows what, after having raised MILLIONS for them.

I now have a few contracts. And am returning for a PhD simply for the health insurance and deferred loans, since the COBRA from my ex has just run out. So I'll be even less hirable.

Unemployment insurance would be a LUXURY.

It still stuns me how invisible the self-employed--at all levels-- are in all of these discussions of unemployment.

[stray cat]

31. A lot longer than those who are not eligiable for it in the first place

but no one seems to care about them

[MedicalAdmin]

32. I'm self employed, so I would be able to live for zero months

As a small biz owner I can't get unemployment benefits, food stamps or any other benefit.

Stangely, even though I am self employed and can't get benefits I think the programs should be expanded and enlarged. I'll have to hand my free republic decoder ring.

[underpants]

33. I lasted 11 months but my wife works

it is tough

[tnlefty]

34. First, we'd have to break the news to the oldest that we

couldn't pay his tuition to MTSU anymore. We have a small garden in the back yard and food in 2 freezers, but if we couldn't afford to pay the power bill, that would be gone.

We have nothing close to an extravagant lifestyle, home bodies for the most part, but I don't know how I could feed 3 males 20 and under, my spouse and me even with the garden.

We don't have a mortgage payment, thank goodness, we paid the house off a few years ago, but I've been thinking about this for 2 hours and I don't know how we could pull it off.

I was listening to Nicole Sandler, who is filling in for Randi Rhodes this week (mainly because I switched from Thom Hartmann during a break and heard that Niclole was gonna have Jim Hightower on, and I adore Hightower)...anyway during that interview the repukes in the Senate refusing to extend unemployment benefits came up. She mentioned that these Senators are paid by taxpayers, have perks paid for by taxpayers and Hightower quipped, 'how rude of you to notice.'

Is it any wonder that they aren't concerned with the long term unemployed or most Americans for that matter? Crystal clear to me.