1.3 Million Jobless Americans Lose Benefits Today

[devil21]

Hmm....an article on this I posted over in the econ forum has the figure at 2.1 million.

 

[DamianTV]

1.3 million losing benefits.

How many had benefits that had run out already? How many never collected any at all? (I'm one)

I wonder what the real unemployment rate is?

(it's at least 25% in this area) and 90% of the jobs are on the State tit.

Yes,, I could relocate, and lose everything I had worked for.

This may be closer.

The scale of the graph does exaggerate the data, however, a 7% increase in Unemployed is absolutely nothing to scoff at. Also keep in mind that even before the crash in 2008 that the Unemployment Statistics were almost as distorted as they are today. In all fairness, some of the people not working are retired, going to school, or are actually not able to work (the truly disabled), so this chart is not accurate either, but probably closer to reality. The exact number, thus, has to be somewhere between the percentage of the population that are collecting unemployment (7.1%) and the percentage of the population not working (roughly 42%). 25% sounds like a relatively close approximation with data provided.

 

[angelatc]

I may be interested. I am reluctant to move because 1) I live in the family homestead which is one of the only things my father ever did right, and 2) it was mortgaged up to the hilt to pay off his medical bills when he died and it is still underwater, so I could end up taking a $50k hit to relocate -- $50k that I simply do not have. So it may be impossible no matter how badly I want to.

Live small in the new city, and use the salary to make your mortgage payments. I know a couple of people that did that.

I get the sentimental attachment, and would encourage you to hang on as long as you can.

But when it gets hard, maybe ask yourself if your Dad would have wanted to saddle you with the burden. If not, well....that's why they created bankruptcy.

 

[euphemia]

I am not in favor of indefinite unemployment benefits, because it supports a lifestyle rather than a transition.

However, not everyone can go do gas and oil work in South Dakota. Unskilled and stupid might be good enough for a healthy 20-something who has never owned a home, but for people who are very near retirement age with bodies that have survived cancer and serious health issue, that kind of work is really out of the question. Many people have a lot of equity in homes that might not supply the expense of a move far away. They could not take a dramatic loss in their investment.

In my opinion, it is a little bit arrogant to suggest there is a one-size-fits-all answer to the issue of jobs and work. I don't think we should support endless unemployment, but broad brush condeming the unemployed worker is not a good idea.

 

[LibForestPaul]

What we really need is another government engineered "Free Trade" agreement. That way we can get cheaper products and make our dollars stretch farther.

And more h1b visas. And government cronism, everyone needs an uncle sam.

 

[James Madison]

This thread is a classic display of why Republicans are the masters of 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory'. Let's support modern-day feudalism, while alienating half the population!

 

[Zippyjuan]

Some people out of work cannot afford to move to look for work someplace else.

In a perfect, theoretical world, labor is freely substitutable and completely mobile- meaning that people are free to go where jobs are when they are scarce where they currently live and that they can do any other job but that is not reality. Even what used to be "unskilled" jobs require specific training- manufacturing you need to know how to operate complicated equipment- not just a screwdriver and a hammer. You need to be able to properly program that lathe or milling machine- not just be able to eyeball it and measure things manually. Office jobs you need to be able to use their specific software and hardware. Companies don't want to have to train workers like they used to in the past either.

If you have troubles putting food on the table, is is hard to fill up the car with gas and drive to a different city or even state and rent an apartment while you find a new job. If you have a family, it gets even harder.

 

[Anti Federalist]

This thread is a classic display of why Republicans are the masters of 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory'. Let's support modern-day feudalism, while alienating half the population!

"Let them eat cake!"

Of course I'm not in favor of more handouts, good fucking grief it's gotta stop sometime, but you're right...FFS address from the perspective of WHY can't you find decent paying work???

And of course, we know the reason why they won't do that...being complicit in enacting and enabling the policies that caused this mess.

 

[Danke]

Some people out of work cannot afford to move to look for work someplace else.

In a perfect, theoretical world, labor is freely substitutable and completely mobile- meaning that people are free to go where jobs are when they are scarce where they currently live and that they can do any other job but that is not reality. Even what used to be "unskilled" jobs require specific training- manufacturing you need to know how to operate complicated equipment- not just a screwdriver and a hammer. You need to be able to properly program that lathe or milling machine- not just be able to eyeball it and measure things manually. Office jobs you need to be able to use their specific software and hardware. Companies don't want to have to train workers like they used to in the past either.

If you have troubles putting food on the table, is is hard to fill up the car with gas and drive to a different city or even state and rent an apartment while you find a new job. If you have a family, it gets even harder.

Yes, old argument. Capital can for the most part move without restrictions but labor can't move so freely. The answer?

 

[Zippyjuan]

There isn't really an answer to the problem. And that is only within the US. It gets even harder if you want to have global free movement of labor. There you not only may add cultural difficulties in moving to a new location seeking work but language ones as well. Travel costs would be larger too.

 

[James Madison]

Yes, old argument. Capital can for the most part move without restrictions but labor can't move so freely. The answer?

Stop adding workers to the already diluted labor pool would be a good start.

Let's also think about the transition from 'homemaker mom' to the 'professional female' that occurred during the 60s. You doubled the labor supply, while the demand for labor remained stagnant. You then brought in poor people from every corner of the globe -- cultures that have no history of freedom and citizens who are fine with being wage slaves because where they come from that is the norm. NAFTA gets a lot of heat, but we were already boned long before it passed -- just salt on an open wound.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Stop adding workers to the already diluted labor pool would be a good start.

Let's also think about the transition from 'homemaker mom' to the 'professional female' that occurred during the 60s. You doubled the labor supply, while the demand for labor remained stagnant. You then brought in poor people from every corner of the globe -- cultures that have no history of freedom and citizens who are fine with being wage slaves because where they come from that is the norm. NAFTA gets a lot of heat, but we were already boned long before it passed -- just salt on an open wound.

SO who should we ban from the workforce in order to avoid "diluting" it? That too is a step away from a free market where everybody is allowed to participate. Women? Can't have girls working- they should be making babies, eh? (actually the unemployment rate fell in the 1960's as more women entered the work force- in 1960 the unemployment rate was 6.7%- by 1970 it was down to 3.5% http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/us-unemployment-rate-history/ )

Any races? College students? Parents? Forced retirement when you reach a certain age?

You then brought in poor people from every corner of the globe

Maybe only rich people should be allowed to have jobs. (hungry people will work harder)

cultures that have no history of freedom and citizens who are fine with being wage slaves because where they come from that is the norm

Should have kept out all of those Germans and Irish and English and Italian and French and Japanese and other groups which helped build this country. Leave only the Native Americans. Of course that would mean that most of Texas and swaths of California would belong to Mexico again.

 

[James Madison]

SO who should we ban from the workforce in order to avoid "diluting" it? That too is a step away from a free market where everybody is allowed to participate. Women? Can't have girls working- they should be making babies, eh? (actually the unemployment rate fell in the 1960's as more women entered the work force) Any races? College students? Parents? Forced retirement when you reach a certain age?

Weak attempt at a strawman. Try harder, Zippy.

Maybe only rich people should be allowed to have jobs. (hungry people will work harder)

Keep trying. Someday you'll make a coherent argument.

Should have kept out all of those Germans and Irish and English and Italian and French and Japanese and other groups which helped build this country. Leave only the Native Americans.

Times change.

actually the unemployment rate fell in the 1960's as more women entered the work force- in 1960 the unemployment rate was 6.7%- by 1970 it was down to 3.5%

Nothing at all to do with that one thing in SE Asia, right?

 

[phill4paul]

Some people out of work cannot afford to move to look for work someplace else.

We need company towns. Those were the good old heady days.

 

[Zippyjuan]

When the company ran your life from cradle to grave. You shopped in the company store. You rented your home from the company. When you didn't like your job, there was nothing else to go to. Yep-- a true worker's paradise.

 

[phill4paul]

When the company ran your life from cradle to grave. You shopped in the company store. You rented your home from the company. When you didn't like your job, there was nothing else to go to. Yep-- a true worker's paradise.

'Murica. Fook yee-ahh!

 

[DamianTV]

'Murica. Fook yee-ahh!

Couldnt be Fook yee-ahh, he died in that plane crash with Capt Sum Ting Wong, Naviagor Wi Tu Lo, and the Flight Attendant Bang Ding Ow.

 

[UWDude]

So, wiseguy, how do you propose paying for a $50,000 hit when you are flat broke? I'll shovel shit or move to Alaska; I'm speaking math. You do understand math, don't you?

I wasn't the one that made the assumptive retarded comment. Kathy88 is.

Edit: sory kathy88, I mis-quoted, it was MelissaVW being assumptive and retarded as always.

Anyways, maybe you can explain to these pair of princesses why moving to South Dakota isn't an option for you, like it probably isn't for most people. You're not the only one with family and such in your home state.

 

[UWDude]

Some people out of work cannot afford to move to look for work someplace else.

In a perfect, theoretical world, labor is freely substitutable and completely mobile- meaning that people are free to go where jobs are when they are scarce where they currently live and that they can do any other job but that is not reality. Even what used to be "unskilled" jobs require specific training- manufacturing you need to know how to operate complicated equipment- not just a screwdriver and a hammer. You need to be able to properly program that lathe or milling machine- not just be able to eyeball it and measure things manually. Office jobs you need to be able to use their specific software and hardware. Companies don't want to have to train workers like they used to in the past either.

If you have troubles putting food on the table, is is hard to fill up the car with gas and drive to a different city or even state and rent an apartment while you find a new job. If you have a family, it gets even harder.

pffftt... ...you and your realism!! We are talking economics here, everything is just beans to be counted and moved around!

 

[kathy88]

I wasn't the one that made the assumptive retarded comment. Kathy88 is.

Edit: sory kathy88, I mis-quoted, it was MelissaVW being assumptive and retarded as always.

Anyways, maybe you can explain to these pair of princesses why moving to South Dakota isn't an option for you, like it probably isn't for most people. You're not the only one with family and such in your home state.

Oh yeah I'm a fucking princess. Tell you what asshole 12 years ago I was homeless with two kids. I moved into temporary housing for people in my situation. I got a job wiping mentally and physically handicapped adult asses and was grateful for it. I could have lived there a year but I was out in 6 months and had saved enough to buy a decent little trailer on a rented lot in the woods. Today I own a decent home and some land and a rental property. I have some retirement put away. My point was not directed at people truly looking for work. My point was for the countless lazy assholes who have more excuses than gumption. ND is a decent option for a lot of people. And it was just one example.