Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"unemployment" is currently 79 wks in Michigan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    A forty hour job should be a cake walk. The idea you think you are intitled to a vacation on the taxpayer is sad. Working 100 hours a week, you should have loads of money to get you through.

    I used to believe that "hard work" was the way to get through life. Now, I am not so sure. I see lots of people working very hard and not getting ahead at all and others who don't and have lots of money. A lot of it just had to do with picking the right career through skill, luck, or whatever.
    As for working "100 hours" a week. Uh, no thanks. I think I would rather live in a tent in the woods and own my time and have time to spend with my family than slave away day in and out for little to nothing.

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by maat55 View Post
      In case I miss it, let me know when the government actually does something right. By nature, the government is inefficient, this is why it should have very few responsibilities.

      The people today are nowhere near the resourcefull people that came out of the depression. This is largly due to the numerous government programs that have been established since then.

      As far as unemployment, 3 months should be tops.
      We can all point to examples of government waste and inefficiency. I'm not arguing that point. Even in non-government programs, though, there is plenty of waste and inefficiency. Look at private health insurance companies. There's a perfect example. I'm a board member of a private religious organization. We have a system in place to help members who are struggling financially to maintain their memberships. Last year, the board approved a change in the policy of how we evaluate requests for assistance because we felt too many people may have been getting aid that wasn't truly needed. So even in fairly small privately run organizations, there can be inefficiences and abuses. That is not confined to the government.

      As for unemployment, why 3 months? Why not 2 or 4 or 5? Maybe it should somehow be a floating number based on the state of the economy and the unemployment rate. In good times, it could be shorter. In bad times, it may need to be longer since finding a job is more difficult. I don't know the right answer anymore than anyone else does.
      Steve

      * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
      * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
      * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by disneysteve View Post
        I suspect that they don't actually "make up the rest" but rather up to whatever the max benefit is. If you were making 500K, they wouldn't make up the difference if you got a new job making 100K. That could still leave you making a lot less than you did at your old job.
        For sure, DS. Sorry if I wasn't clear. My girl only gets half of what she made at her previous job. I was responding to comments on this thread (including one from you) about not wanting to take a job that brought in less than the UNEMPLOYMENT compensation they were already getting. This way, you could take that job and it would give you something to do plus extend your benefits if your desired job field was really tight but you wanted to keep trying to get into it.

        Comment


          #64
          The mindset of today's employer:

          Just got this in my mailbox today:
          Dear Cantretire:

          This will acknowledge receipt of your resume for the Administrative Assistant position which was advertised. We have decided not to fill this position, but will keep your resume on file for future reference.

          We greatly appreciate your interest in the firm and extend to you our best wishes for your future success.

          VTY
          PrettyBigLawFirm, LLC

          Now, I'm used to the 'we've hired another candidate' and the 'we've hired from within' letters and emails, but I've gotten many of these in the last few months. It seems like the surge of job postings, that I thought might signal a positive sign in the employment front, are a bunch of bull cookies. Companies are posting jobs to see what they have to pay for people, and then decide not to hire.

          WTF??????

          Comment


            #65
            cantretire, that reminds me of what my cousin told me a few years ago. Pre-recession, he was looking for work. He went to a few job fairs in Philadelphia. There were booths from many big name local companies. It looked like a great opportunity. After speaking to some of the recruiters there, though, he kept getting the same answer: We're not hiring right now. Well then why are they set up at a job fair? The answer was that they are contracted with the company that runs the fairs to have a table there whether they have any openings or not. So hundreds of people looking for work come, resumes in hand, only to speak with dozens of company reps who don't actually have any jobs available and aren't looking to hire anyone. It was a total waste of everyone's time.
            Steve

            * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
            * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
            * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

            Comment


              #66
              [QUOTE]
              Originally posted by disneysteve View Post
              We can all point to examples of government waste and inefficiency. I'm not arguing that point. Even in non-government programs, though, there is plenty of waste and inefficiency. Look at private health insurance companies. There's a perfect example. I'm a board member of a private religious organization. We have a system in place to help members who are struggling financially to maintain their memberships. Last year, the board approved a change in the policy of how we evaluate requests for assistance because we felt too many people may have been getting aid that wasn't truly needed. So even in fairly small privately run organizations, there can be inefficiences and abuses. That is not confined to the government.
              At least your organization is attempting to weed out the waste, it is nice to know that they have a savy financial guy giving input.

              As for unemployment, why 3 months? Why not 2 or 4 or 5? Maybe it should somehow be a floating number based on the state of the economy and the unemployment rate. In good times, it could be shorter. In bad times, it may need to be longer since finding a job is more difficult. I don't know the right answer anymore than anyone else does.
              I'm being generous with 3. My guess is that the world would not come to an end if 3 were the line in the sand.

              Comment


                #67
                Re: Because that would be the responsible thing to do?

                Originally posted by feh View Post
                Because that would be the responsible thing to do?

                I'm quite liberal; I believe in social programs like unemployment benefits. But I must admit, it riles me when I hear about people treating unemployment like a vacation. Or not taking a job because it doesn't pay what their previous job did. I view that kind of behavior as gaming the system.

                PS - I shouldn't refer to UI as a "social program", as it isn't (usually) a government program. However, we do all pay for it, indirectly (and the extended benefits, I believe, are coming straight out of the stimulus money).
                I understand your position. I do think that people should at least seek training programs to prepare them for jobs that fit their salary. Many people are going back to college to make themselves more marketable. These people should not be required to seek a job, until their schooling is finished.

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by Justice44 View Post
                  I understand your position. I do think that people should at least seek training programs to prepare them for jobs that fit their salary. Many people are going back to college to make themselves more marketable. These people should not be required to seek a job, until their schooling is finished.
                  I think you lose your benefits for that week (in Kansas at least) if you go to any kind of training.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by maat55 View Post
                    In case I miss it, let me know when the government actually does something right. By nature, the government is inefficient, this is why it should have very few responsibilities.

                    The people today are nowhere near the resourcefull people that came out of the depression. This is largly due to the numerous government programs that have been established since then.

                    As far as unemployment, 3 months should be tops.

                    You mean selling apples and pencils on street corners? Yeah, that'll work.

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by cptacek View Post
                      I think you lose your benefits for that week (in Kansas at least) if you go to any kind of training.
                      In illinois too, you cannot go to school and have unemployment benefits. Apparently is not able to work and go to school. For quite some time I worked and went to school but if I continue in school I won't get benefits.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X