A thought on unemployment benefits
 

While watching Keith Olberman's "Countdown" show last evening in which he
featured a segment on a couple who had lost their jobs, I had a thought on
how the unemployment insurance programs might be modified.

The husband had worked in the auto parts industry all his adult life but his
job was eliminated. Despite efforts to find a new, similar job he, like
many, had found that his job was gone, not to return.

He acknowledged finding a new job, requiring him to start over in a new
career and at a low starting wage. He freely admitted that it did not make
sense for him to take the new job because he was better off financially
collecting unemployment benefits. He wants to work, but has to do the best
thing money-wise to keep his house, etc.

Many are in the same boat.

Since many jobs are gone for good and people are going to have to start new
careers with lower pay due to little or no experience, my thought was this:

Rather than continue to extend full unemployment benefits during this
critical economy, structure the unemployment funding as a subsidy to the
new, lower pay scale common to a new job in which one has no experience.
Benefits would be tied to the last year's earnings before being layed off.
The combined new job pay and the subsidized income from the unemployment
fund would equal some percentage (say 75-90 percent) of the previous income.
This benefit would last for a period of 2 years ... sufficient time to
become trained and knowledgeable in the new job.

This would cut the amount of money currently being paid out in unemployment
benefits, provide an incentive for new jobs resulting in lower unemployment.

Note: This is a totally non-partisan idea. No blame cast on the left or
right.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

"Charles C." wrote in message
...
While watching Keith Olberman's "Countdown" show last evening in which he
featured a segment on a couple who had lost their jobs, I had a thought on
how the unemployment insurance programs might be modified.

The husband had worked in the auto parts industry all his adult life but
his job was eliminated. Despite efforts to find a new, similar job he,
like many, had found that his job was gone, not to return.

He acknowledged finding a new job, requiring him to start over in a new
career and at a low starting wage. He freely admitted that it did not
make sense for him to take the new job because he was better off
financially collecting unemployment benefits. He wants to work, but has
to do the best thing money-wise to keep his house, etc.

Many are in the same boat.

Since many jobs are gone for good and people are going to have to start
new careers with lower pay due to little or no experience, my thought was
this:

Rather than continue to extend full unemployment benefits during this
critical economy, structure the unemployment funding as a subsidy to the
new, lower pay scale common to a new job in which one has no experience.
Benefits would be tied to the last year's earnings before being layed off.
The combined new job pay and the subsidized income from the unemployment
fund would equal some percentage (say 75-90 percent) of the previous
income. This benefit would last for a period of 2 years ... sufficient
time to become trained and knowledgeable in the new job.

This would cut the amount of money currently being paid out in
unemployment benefits, provide an incentive for new jobs resulting in
lower unemployment.

Note: This is a totally non-partisan idea. No blame cast on the left or
right.

This basic concept has been talked about for a long time. I find it truly
loony that if you say you're in school, e.g., training for a new career,
you're unemployment benefits suffer. Of course, this would be unpopular,
mainly because it's a complicated explanation... not that it doesn't make
some sense.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Charles C." wrote in message
...
While watching Keith Olberman's "Countdown" show last evening in which he
featured a segment on a couple who had lost their jobs, I had a thought
on how the unemployment insurance programs might be modified.

The husband had worked in the auto parts industry all his adult life but
his job was eliminated. Despite efforts to find a new, similar job he,
like many, had found that his job was gone, not to return.

He acknowledged finding a new job, requiring him to start over in a new
career and at a low starting wage. He freely admitted that it did not
make sense for him to take the new job because he was better off
financially collecting unemployment benefits. He wants to work, but has
to do the best thing money-wise to keep his house, etc.

Many are in the same boat.

Since many jobs are gone for good and people are going to have to start
new careers with lower pay due to little or no experience, my thought
was this:

Rather than continue to extend full unemployment benefits during this
critical economy, structure the unemployment funding as a subsidy to the
new, lower pay scale common to a new job in which one has no experience.
Benefits would be tied to the last year's earnings before being layed
off. The combined new job pay and the subsidized income from the
unemployment fund would equal some percentage (say 75-90 percent) of the
previous income. This benefit would last for a period of 2 years ...
sufficient time to become trained and knowledgeable in the new job.

This would cut the amount of money currently being paid out in
unemployment benefits, provide an incentive for new jobs resulting in
lower unemployment.

Note: This is a totally non-partisan idea. No blame cast on the left
or right.

This basic concept has been talked about for a long time. I find it truly
loony that if you say you're in school, e.g., training for a new career,
you're unemployment benefits suffer. Of course, this would be unpopular,
mainly because it's a complicated explanation... not that it doesn't make
some sense.


Welcome back Ms Plume.
Your legion of admirers sure did miss you..................... you are all
they could talk about.
Did you buy a boat?
I probably won't see your reply until late Monday. We're taking mom and my
oldest sister to beautiful Cape Breton.
My youngest sister and her husband will meet us there as we visit my #3
sister.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:01:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



This basic concept has been talked about for a long time. I find it truly
loony that if you say you're in school, e.g., training for a new career,
you're unemployment benefits suffer. Of course, this would be unpopular,
mainly because it's a complicated explanation... not that it doesn't make
some sense.


but of course we know that, according to the right, unemployment is
caused by the lazy middle class.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:01:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



This basic concept has been talked about for a long time. I find it truly
loony that if you say you're in school, e.g., training for a new career,
you're unemployment benefits suffer. Of course, this would be unpopular,
mainly because it's a complicated explanation... not that it doesn't make
some sense.


but of course we know that, according to the right, unemployment is
caused by the lazy middle class.


Much of the current unemployment is caused by the elimination of jobs due to
outsourcing overseas. Jobs "added" so far this year don't even keep up with
the numbers of new people just entering the job market, let alone decent
jobs for those who have been laid off, a fact that the liberal press likes
to overlook.

A serious program to save existing jobs and promote the creation of new jobs
is needed to get out of this economic slump. Time for the POTUS and
congress to face facts and stop throwing money at the problem as a temporary
fix. Get tough with trade agreements and create incentives to manufacture in
the USA . Most people want to work.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

In article ,
says...

While watching Keith Olberman's "Countdown" show last evening in which he
featured a segment on a couple who had lost their jobs, I had a thought on
how the unemployment insurance programs might be modified.

The husband had worked in the auto parts industry all his adult life but his
job was eliminated. Despite efforts to find a new, similar job he, like
many, had found that his job was gone, not to return.

He acknowledged finding a new job, requiring him to start over in a new
career and at a low starting wage. He freely admitted that it did not make
sense for him to take the new job because he was better off financially
collecting unemployment benefits. He wants to work, but has to do the best
thing money-wise to keep his house, etc.

Many are in the same boat.

Since many jobs are gone for good and people are going to have to start new
careers with lower pay due to little or no experience, my thought was this:

Rather than continue to extend full unemployment benefits during this
critical economy, structure the unemployment funding as a subsidy to the
new, lower pay scale common to a new job in which one has no experience.
Benefits would be tied to the last year's earnings before being layed off.
The combined new job pay and the subsidized income from the unemployment
fund would equal some percentage (say 75-90 percent) of the previous income.
This benefit would last for a period of 2 years ... sufficient time to
become trained and knowledgeable in the new job.

This would cut the amount of money currently being paid out in unemployment
benefits, provide an incentive for new jobs resulting in lower unemployment.

Note: This is a totally non-partisan idea. No blame cast on the left or
right.

How about you get no more than 3 months of unemployment period.

How about unemployment benefits that are no greater than minimum wage in
your local area.

Nobody owes you a job.

Nobody owes you a job making the same amount of money as your last job.

Nobody owes you a lifestyle that you have become acustomed to.

Get off your ass and get to work.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

While watching Keith Olberman's "Countdown" show last evening in which he
featured a segment on a couple who had lost their jobs, I had a thought
on
how the unemployment insurance programs might be modified.

The husband had worked in the auto parts industry all his adult life but
his
job was eliminated. Despite efforts to find a new, similar job he, like
many, had found that his job was gone, not to return.

He acknowledged finding a new job, requiring him to start over in a new
career and at a low starting wage. He freely admitted that it did not
make
sense for him to take the new job because he was better off financially
collecting unemployment benefits. He wants to work, but has to do the
best
thing money-wise to keep his house, etc.

Many are in the same boat.

Since many jobs are gone for good and people are going to have to start
new
careers with lower pay due to little or no experience, my thought was
this:

Rather than continue to extend full unemployment benefits during this
critical economy, structure the unemployment funding as a subsidy to the
new, lower pay scale common to a new job in which one has no experience.
Benefits would be tied to the last year's earnings before being layed
off.
The combined new job pay and the subsidized income from the unemployment
fund would equal some percentage (say 75-90 percent) of the previous
income.
This benefit would last for a period of 2 years ... sufficient time to
become trained and knowledgeable in the new job.

This would cut the amount of money currently being paid out in
unemployment
benefits, provide an incentive for new jobs resulting in lower
unemployment.

Note: This is a totally non-partisan idea. No blame cast on the left
or
right.

How about you get no more than 3 months of unemployment period.

How about unemployment benefits that are no greater than minimum wage in
your local area.

Nobody owes you a job.

Nobody owes you a job making the same amount of money as your last job.

Nobody owes you a lifestyle that you have become acustomed to.

Get off your ass and get to work.


Unemployment pays better.
Why work?
It's the new American way.



--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

Charles C. wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:01:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



This basic concept has been talked about for a long time. I find it
truly
loony that if you say you're in school, e.g., training for a new career,
you're unemployment benefits suffer. Of course, this would be unpopular,
mainly because it's a complicated explanation... not that it doesn't
make
some sense.


but of course we know that, according to the right, unemployment is
caused by the lazy middle class.


Much of the current unemployment is caused by the elimination of jobs
due to outsourcing overseas. Jobs "added" so far this year don't even
keep up with the numbers of new people just entering the job market, let
alone decent jobs for those who have been laid off, a fact that the
liberal press likes to overlook.


"Liberal press" my ass. What does the mighty Wall Street Journal have
to say?
All working journalists are working. They have jobs and income.
Money to buy cheap imported goods.
They are part of an elite. Why should they upset the applecart?
Same with the pols.

A serious program to save existing jobs and promote the creation of new
jobs is needed to get out of this economic slump. Time for the POTUS
and congress to face facts and stop throwing money at the problem as a
temporary fix. Get tough with trade agreements and create incentives to
manufacture in the USA . Most people want to work.

"Most?" How about damn near all.
You have an obvious answer - balancing trade - but both political
parties are tied to the free trade/consumerist mentality.
They are owned by Wall Street and the Chambers of Commerce.
And their answer is to lower taxes and keep offshoring jobs.
After all, the current bosses who have managed the economy are the
experts. Right.
Run your unemployment compensation idea by them and the first thing
they'll say is you're giving gov handouts to bums.
Get it past them and they'll lower wages to scoop up gov gravy.
Bums all over the place.
Rather squawk than think and sacrifice for the future and greater good.
Call them the "Me Generation" or whatever you want.
I call them the "Never Been Hungry Generation."
Then you've got the WTO to deal with, another organization controlled by
wealth.
Nope, nothing much will happen until the situation gets much worse.
If those in power can keep the "downtrodden" off the streets and avoid
"10 Million Homeless March on Washington" events, we will continue
to decline.
Just have to maintain some minimum level of subsistence for the folks,
and blame them for their own poverty.
There's some element of truth to that.
And the rich will get richer while the poor get poorer.
The right will say it's all good, and the left will whine but do nothing.
Barring something seriously shaking up the status quo, that's how it
will transpire.
Some serious turmoil is the only thing that can change our direction.
Always is.

Jim - No guts, no progress. No blood, no progress.

Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don't know and I don't care.
Jimmy Buffett

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:00:46 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:





Much of the current unemployment is caused by the elimination of jobs due to
outsourcing overseas. Jobs "added" so far this year don't even keep up with
the numbers of new people just entering the job market, let alone decent
jobs for those who have been laid off, a fact that the liberal press likes
to overlook.

A serious program to save existing jobs and promote the creation of new jobs
is needed to get out of this economic slump. Time for the POTUS and
congress to face facts and stop throwing money at the problem as a temporary
fix. Get tough with trade agreements and create incentives to manufacture in
the USA . Most people want to work.


traditioal economic solutions in the US have focused on incentivizing
the rich to invest in capacity...supply side economics.

this doesnt work. it'a myth that the american right has drummed into
the cultural life of america's politics so that most people believe
it.

we have a collapse of demand in this country since the middle class is
tapped out. and the right simply can not believe the mddle class
hasnt lived up to its obligations to support the rich.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:13:55 -0400, BAR wrote:



How about you get no more than 3 months of unemployment period.

since there are 5 applicants for every job, how is this going to help

again and again the right penalizes the middle class. we bankroll the
rich with bailouts, then the right comes along and says the middle
class is lazy.


How about unemployment benefits that are no greater than minimum wage in
your local area.

Nobody owes you a job.

more of the right wing bull****...we socialize risk for the rich, then
privatize rewards for the rich and the middle class pays for both



Get off your ass and get to work.

more right wing bull**** mytholoogy

where are the jobs? notice he doesnt ask THAT question?

the right has their bull**** mythology. and it's centered around the
idea that the US should be a prison camp for the middle class