Unemployment

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

A recent thread about unemployment over the next few years got me thinking of the US safety net. It seems to me that the most recent unemployment extension bills have started to meet resistance in congress. This makes me wonder if no more bills will be passed.

Assuming the worst case scenario and unemployment festered at 10% for 2010 and maybe even 2011. What will be the outcome of any future unemployment bills? Will there be anymore? Do you think they'll only be for a new generation of unemployed? (IE. No more extensions for people who say started collecting in December 2008 or earlier)

[Heracles 417]

I just read an article that the benefits run out for 1 million Americans at the end of December.

[Heracles 417]

Time to bring this sort of stuff into the 21st century.

Here are the payment rates that Aussies get indefinitely and every fortnight while looking for work.

In addition to that, they also receive rent assistance etc.

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/inte...start_rates.htm

Even though they have states rights too, unemployment benefits are handled at a federal level.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Booyah!

[rebeccajo 14]

I just read an article that the benefits run out for 1 million Americans at the end of December.

The 20 week extension passed last year by the Fed ends December 20. Meaning you have to have exhausted your regular bennies before that time to file for it.

[rebeccajo 14]

Time to bring this sort of stuff into the 21st century.

Here are the payment rates that Aussies get indefinitely and every fortnight while looking for work.

In addition to that, they also receive rent assistance etc.

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/inte...start_rates.htm

Even though they have states rights too, unemployment benefits are handled at a federal level.

BY -

You can't take a country the population size of the US and compare it to a smaller nation. There are too many regional variables as to why the unemployment in one state might be way different than another. And states have different taxation rates (which attract - or don't - more employers) so states have a responsibility to account to their citizenry for the predicament the people may be in.

I'll agree with you that UI needs 'brought into the 21st century' - but comparing it to the Australian system isn't even apples to apples.

A recent thread about unemployment over the next few years got me thinking of the US safety net. It seems to me that the most recent unemployment extension bills have started to meet resistance in congress. This makes me wonder if no more bills will be passed.

Assuming the worst case scenario and unemployment festered at 10% for 2010 and maybe even 2011. What will be the outcome of any future unemployment bills? Will there be anymore? Do you think they'll only be for a new generation of unemployed? (IE. No more extensions for people who say started collecting in December 2008 or earlier)

The new bill only met resistance on the Hill because of the healthcare debate. The GOP held the bill in committee until the Democrats would relent on a clause in the healthcare bill regarding abortion.

Everybody knows full well that extensions are needed. But the GOP are willing to punish unemployed Americans to push their agenda on unrelated issues.

Edited November 19, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Heracles 417]

It's not really a comparison but more to illustrate what can and should be done. Surely a country that can put someone on the moon or spend $1,100,000,0000,0000 on the military a year can spare a few dollars for unemployed americans.

[rebeccajo 14]

It's not really a comparison but more to illustrate what can and should be done. Surely a country that can put someone on the moon or spend $1,100,000,0000,0000 on the military a year can spare a few dollars for unemployed americans.

In my state (which is not up there by any means for any sort of 'averages' for US income) a person can draw UI in the amount you have indicated. Probably for having earned about $50K a year or so. I'm sure it's much higher in other states.

I've noticed one of the differences between US UI and other nations is ours is based on a sliding scale. In other words what you draw is tied to what you have been earning. In other countries it tends to be a flat 'dollar' amount. My husband draws unemployment right now and it's a far higher amount than what he would draw in the UK. However, in the UK it would not 'run out'.

[Heracles 417]

In my state (which is not up there by any means for any sort of 'averages' for US income) a person can draw UI in the amount you have indicated. Probably for having earned about $50K a year or so. I'm sure it's much higher in other states.

I've noticed one of the differences between US UI and other nations is ours is based on a sliding scale. In other words what you draw is tied to what you have been earning. In other countries it tends to be a flat 'dollar' amount. My husband draws unemployment right now and it's a far higher amount than what he would draw in the UK. However, in the UK it would not 'run out'.

Interesting point. Would someone rather receive more for a short period or less for an indefinite period?

There is a cut-off in what you can earn or even be worth to claim unemployment benefits in Aus. Furthermore, your income as well would be factored in when determining whether or what your husband would be paid. However, as you pointed out, a person is paid indefinitely, therefore, does not need to worry about ending up on the street because their benefits will run out. They also have the benefit of zero cost health care and $4.95 for brand name prescriptions, discounted public transport etc. If you husband decided to go back to college or a trade school, the government would fund that for a year.

Rather than your typical 80's government employee, these federal offices have a range of staff that are professional, and work diligently towards assisting the unemployed get on their feet. They provide a range of services and facilities for them to use. Ironically, you can thank conservatives like myself there for improving these places, paying the employees more and holding them accountable.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Booyah!

[rebeccajo 14]

In my state (which is not up there by any means for any sort of 'averages' for US income) a person can draw UI in the amount you have indicated. Probably for having earned about $50K a year or so. I'm sure it's much higher in other states.

I've noticed one of the differences between US UI and other nations is ours is based on a sliding scale. In other words what you draw is tied to what you have been earning. In other countries it tends to be a flat 'dollar' amount. My husband draws unemployment right now and it's a far higher amount than what he would draw in the UK. However, in the UK it would not 'run out'.

Interesting point. Would someone rather receive more for a short period or less for an indefinite period?

There is a cut-off in what you can earn or even be worth to claim unemployment benefits in Aus. Furthermore, your income as well would be factored in when determining whether or what your husband would be paid. However, as you pointed out, a person is paid indefinitely, therefore, does not need to worry about ending up on the street because their benefits will run out. They also have the benefit of zero cost health care and $4.95 for brand name prescriptions, discounted public transport etc. If you husband decided to go back to college or a trade school, the government would fund that for a year.

Rather than your typical 80's government employee, these federal offices have a range of staff that are professional, and work diligently towards assisting the unemployed get on their feet. They provide a range of services and facilities for them to use. Ironically, you can thank conservatives like myself there for improving these places, paying the employees more and holding them accountable.

The folks in our UI office have been nothing but great with my husband. I've been there a time or two with him. They are very helpful and professional. They help prepare resumes (if you need that). They help you navigate their job-seeker system so that your skills are "shot gunned" out through the most categories for phone calls on posted jobs. They have never treated my husband like he has his hand out. There are also some programs where you can obtain training while drawing benefits. That's not unique to Australia.

You can, however, find yourself in a world of hurt for lack of the health care you lost when your job went away.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Time to bring this sort of stuff into the 21st century.

Here are the payment rates that Aussies get indefinitely and every fortnight while looking for work.

In addition to that, they also receive rent assistance etc.

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/inte...start_rates.htm

Even though they have states rights too, unemployment benefits are handled at a federal level.

BY -

You can't take a country the population size of the US and compare it to a smaller nation. There are too many regional variables as to why the unemployment in one state might be way different than another. And states have different taxation rates (which attract - or don't - more employers) so states have a responsibility to account to their citizenry for the predicament the people may be in.

I'll agree with you that UI needs 'brought into the 21st century' - but comparing it to the Australian system isn't even apples to apples.

A recent thread about unemployment over the next few years got me thinking of the US safety net. It seems to me that the most recent unemployment extension bills have started to meet resistance in congress. This makes me wonder if no more bills will be passed.

Assuming the worst case scenario and unemployment festered at 10% for 2010 and maybe even 2011. What will be the outcome of any future unemployment bills? Will there be anymore? Do you think they'll only be for a new generation of unemployed? (IE. No more extensions for people who say started collecting in December 2008 or earlier)

The new bill only met resistance on the Hill because of the healthcare debate. The GOP held the bill in committee until the Democrats would relent on a clause in the healthcare bill regarding abortion.

Everybody knows full well that extensions are needed. But the GOP are willing to punish unemployed Americans to push their agenda on unrelated issues.

So I guess every few months we'll see Congress continue to extend until say unemployment reaches 8%? Even if its 2012 or 2013?