Monday, April 4, 2011
Utah refusing extension of unemployment benefits
I was surprised when I read the title. After reading the article, I understand why a little more. Not really sure what I think though. I think for some people it's been really hard to find a job and 13 more weeks would be pretty beneficial. I think I'd offer it to people but attach some pretty tight strings to the money I didn't agree with the comment that it's not the role of government to provide jobs for people. I think if the government can find jobs for people until they can find better jobs, that would be a good thing. I don't agree with just giving them money without having them work for it. Especially right now when unemployment is still pretty high and it's hard to find work for some people. Giving them a temporary job that contributes to society, could make it easier for them to find a real job. I wouldn't pay a ton so they want to find a new job, but a little more than welfare amounts. That way they have the incentive to work, but also the incentive not to stay with that job forever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Lauralee
ReplyDeleteI think you have some great points about unemployment and our current economy has definitely made this a challenge for many! I also think there is a myth about unemployment in that people are on it because they are to lazy to find work. Research has shown that for both unemployment and welfare recipients that most of them want to work and would gladly take a job over unemployment. I think the challenge we see today with unemployment is that many professionals and skilled laborours are now recipients and "a job" is not always enough for a living wage, especially considering their skill sets,etc. Afterall, how would you feel being one of the rocket scientests from ATK who has been laid off and now is having to report to DWS for job club to recieve training. Just some thoughts.
I think I can see at least a bit of each side's view3. On one hand, the federal governement is deep in debt. If someone is in debt, the first thing any financial counselor will tell them is to decrease spending. On the other hand, being unemployed stinks, and I don't consider being unemployed as a sure mark of lower moral fibre or an excess of laziness. One of the aims of our Constitution is "promote the general welfare," and letting a bunch of unlucky people and their families go hang in times of unemployment could be considered to be against that guiding principle. On the other hand, what about all the other people that are paying for these people during their period of unemployment? Is that promoting the general welfare? Will this encourage unemployemnt and sponging off the system? (This is unlikely if what Maegan said is true, but many have this concern. After all, the European countries with what we consider extreme unemployment benefits have what we would consider extreme unemployment.) On the other hand, helping people through this hard time and helping them find jobs might help everyone in the end as more revenue is produced. I do not know. I feel sorry for those in financial straits and am concerned about the deficit. I have no answer.
ReplyDeleteI think at some point in time the question needs to be asked when is enough, enough. I am a huge fan of food assistance, but unemployment is not one of my favorite government programs. The article points out that the state already pays for 26 weeks and the federal government pays an astounding 47 weeks. I would personally be a fan of limiting it to 6 months (24 weeks) total. If the people/families are to the point they are hungry then the government should step in to prevent hunger, or provide shelter.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government is mired in extreme amounts of debt, something has to be done. Continued spending cannot be the only answer. Adding another 3 months of unemployment payments on top of 18 months seems to be pretty excessive.
There are not many jobs out there for the unemployed to go and find and it is a problem. The government taking out debt to give to people who are not working is not the best answer. I would prefer to see the civil conservation corp brought back instead of extending unemployment payments.
Here is a link to a short document that explains how unemployment insurance works. while governments do contribute to this program, so do employers.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de8714b.pdf
Aaron, I would love to see the CCC return. I personally benefited many times from their projects in the Carolinas while I lived there [especially the Blue Ridge Parkway]. Do not think, though, that these programs can be revived without costs to the taxpayer. The men who worked in the CCC had to live near their work, so the Pisgah National Forest in N.Carolina has preserved some of the cabins and other facilities they used while at work there. They did their work often in rural areas, so men relocated while working for the CCC.