"unemployment" is currently 79 wks in Michigan

[cantretire]

In responses to the person who posted this:
"I don’t have children, so I am not eligible for any government help such as help with housing, free healthcare, tuition or food stamps"

Not true. If you have over 3K in assets, you better not think the state of MI is giving you anything in terms of medicaid, housing assistance etc. kids or not.

I'm in NY so the laws and situations vary. I do know that a person can't get welfare if they have a certain amount of money in the bank, so people don't put their money in the bank. My point is that I've lived a fairly responsible life. However, I don't get back what I've put into the system, even if my savings completely deplete. No help with medical, food, or housing at all. A drug addict can, and illegal can (they know all the tricks here), a **** popping out kids she can't pay for can. But I can't. I'm honest. I won't use fake names and SS#s to get it like many do.

It penalizes honest taxpayers who desperately need help now.

[cantretire]

I'm not saying you're not entitled to it. I interpreted this section of your post:



as meaning that the dollar amount you've paid in is more than or equal to what you'll be receiving. If that's not what you meant, then it was just a miscommunication.

We have no way to know how much we have paid into the system with our taxes, consumerism and other ways we have paid, but since I've been working for 28 years, I assume I've paid at least my share, if not more.

[Goldy1]

I knew my post would bring controversy. (oops sorry but nothing like a good debate)

[Goldy1]

By the way, I have a B.S. degree and have held many low paying ie $10 to $12 an hour jobs b/c there were no jobs here in MI in teaching. It's not fun working for that low but wasnt horrible being married to a better wage earner. It just kinda sucks there are not more jobs that provide near living wages for your time even if it's not high skilled. I know so many people working for that, broke, and in the 'rents basement.

[cantretire]

By the way, I have a B.S. degree and have held many low paying ie $10 to $12 an hour jobs b/c there were no jobs here in MI in teaching. It's not fun working for that low but wasnt horrible being married to a better wage earner. It just kinda sucks there are not more jobs that provide near living wages for your time even if it's not high skilled. I know so many people working for that, broke, and in the 'rents basement.

Could you have supported yourself solely on 10-12 a hour?

[Goldy1]

No, I could maybe support my dog on $10 an hour. lol. no, I said I couldn't. It still sucks working for that b/c trust me I had to do ALOT of stuff for that kind of wage including know how to sell, run diagnositc medical scanning equipment that cost in the realm of 35K, and medical billing etc etc, take out the trash if I had a free second or file.

[wedge421]

When I was on UI a few years ago I know that I was allowed to work a job part time as long as I did not earn over a certain amount and still collect UI on top of that.

[maat55]

Oh, and I forgot to make another point.

Some of you are complaining that this is coming out of your taxes/wages in some form or another and that we are living off of your toil.

You fail to recognize that this has come out of OUR taxes/wages as well. We've worked, paid taxes, our employers have paid taxes, and we've paid all the associated costs through our own consumerism.

So, using that reasoning, we have already paid for our own UI benefits.

Shut up and leave us alone. It could very well happen to you.

If you are refering to me, I have paid into the system as an employer for the last twenty years and am not quailfied to recieve it.

It is a government run insurance policy that promotes financial irresponsibility and abuse by those who choose to ride it out.

The employer pays it as an expense, much like supplies or rent. To say it is money you have paid in is a stretch.

I'm not begrudging you for taking advantage of it. You are just like those who are taking advantage of cash for clunkers or the 8k home buyers incentive. My beef is that they offer them at all.

The government has a long history of establishing poorly ran socialistic programs that are a detriment to society as a whole.

[ceejay74]

When I was on UI a few years ago I know that I was allowed to work a job part time as long as I did not earn over a certain amount and still collect UI on top of that.

Wedge, I can't believe you're the first one to mention this! I guess each state is way different. Here in Minnesota, my partner has been laid off since December 2008. She has burned through her state UI benefits and is now receiving the federal aid.

However, MN has a really great policy where, if you're not making anywhere near your old income, you can still be working and collecting benefits at the same time. You report what you made, and they give you enough UI to make up the rest. So since her desired industries are basically not hiring right now, she is taking in seamstress and freelance editing work, reporting the income, and getting compensated for the gap between that and her benefits. It keeps her busy and connected but she's not in danger of losing her benefits until she gets a decent-paying job. In fact, it actually extends the length of her benefits, because she gets a finite amount of money from MN and a finite amount from the federal govt., and if she takes reduced benefits one week that money stays in the account. She only recently switched over to federal; her state UI lasted 8 months even though it would normally last about 6 months if you took it all every week.

If every state doesn't do this, they probably should; it makes it easier for people who WANT to work but don't want to make less than unemployment would pay to do so.

[disneysteve]

MN has a really great policy where, if you're not making anywhere near your old income, you can still be working and collecting benefits at the same time. You report what you made, and they give you enough UI to make up the rest.

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.

[disneysteve]

It is a government run insurance policy that promotes financial irresponsibility and abuse by those who choose to ride it out.

The problem is that any program, public or private, designed to help people in need tends to have some type of loophole that can be used to abuse the system by people who aren't really in need. That is not a reason to scrap the program, though. It is a reason to find a way to close loopholes and better manage distribution of the resources. That often raises administrative costs, though, which can make the system too costly to exist. Instead, they may just accept the fact that abuses will occur but for the sake of the greater good of all the people actually helped by the program, they let it go on.

[cptacek]

I NEVER thought I would be unemployed. I never thought about if the government would help me or not if I was. It didn't even cross my mind. I think before I went through this experience, I would probably be echoing maat's sentiments.

I worked for an airplane company, and after heads of companies were crucified for flying private jets, three aircraft companies in Wichita dropped over 1000 workers within months. I hear they are still dropping employees. I was on a project where there were 5 of us, and they dropped it down to one.

I was on unemployment for 4 months, going through the same kinds of things other posters are talking about. At first I felt ashamed I had to take it. I had gotten all my other jobs by sending one resume to the company I wanted to work for, dazzling them with an interview, and negotiating my salary up . I still can't believe it took that long to get a job. I was making $45 an hour at my previous job. Unemployment paid $11.20 ($423 per week from the state, plus $25 in stimulus money / 40 hours)! I was offered part time job making $8. I did do some part time work and reported that income, because I could make $100 extra and still get the full amount. I also helped my husband farm, allowing him to take on more custom work.

A few months before I was unemployed, I got an offer for $34,000 (down from $95,000, mind you, but closer to home). I maybe could have gotten that one had I called them again. What held me back is that when I start working for someone, I think they deserve to know that when they hire me, I will be dependable, hard working and loyal. Taking a job when I knew that as soon as I found something else I would be out of there felt like cheating them, a little. So, I looked and looked and looked some more, and after 4 months, finally landed one making $60,000. Am I now under-employed? I don't know about that. I am doing pretty much exactly the same kind of work, and even after being there for only a week, I think I might expect some good raises. It might be that due to the location, I am making just about as much as I can expect.

I am grateful for the unemployment. I was able to pay all of our household bills with it (it, along with the severence pay I got). Had my new job not started Aug 1, we would have been in some trouble, though.

[cantretire]

The problem is that any program, public or private, designed to help people in need tends to have some type of loophole that can be used to abuse the system by people who aren't really in need. That is not a reason to scrap the program, though. It is a reason to find a way to close loopholes and better manage distribution of the resources. That often raises administrative costs, though, which can make the system too costly to exist. Instead, they may just accept the fact that abuses will occur but for the sake of the greater good of all the people actually helped by the program, they let it go on.

BINGO! A large majority of people are NOT abusing the UI system.

As for part-time work, in NY they take what you're making out of your check. It does help to 'extend' the benefits over the year - before they granted the extensions. You can end up making a little more than the UI payment, but not much. The form asks me if I made more than 405. If so, I get nothing. So it can help. Problem is, can't find part-time work either. Maybe next week. or the next. or the next

[cantretire]

If you are refering to me, I have paid into the system as an employer for the last twenty years and am not quailfied to recieve it.

It is a government run insurance policy that promotes financial irresponsibility and abuse by those who choose to ride it out.

The employer pays it as an expense, much like supplies or rent. To say it is money you have paid in is a stretch.

I'm not begrudging you for taking advantage of it. You are just like those who are taking advantage of cash for clunkers or the 8k home buyers incentive. My beef is that they offer them at all.

The government has a long history of establishing poorly ran socialistic programs that are a detriment to society as a whole.

Not to you specifically, more of a general address. I've always thought that the self-employed should get help if they needed it. I hope to open my own business someday and this is a concern of mine. I hope you have a healthy emergency fund should you need it. As for the statement of paying, that was in response to someone stating that we all pay for it in the long run, through the cost of consumer goods and services. I have to agree as a company would add the cost of UI expenses to their product.

I'm not in the same group as the cash for clunkers or mortgage people. I'm not 'taking advantage' of anything. I'm not buying a car or house or any unessential consumer goods. I'm trying to pay the rent to keep a roof over my head, and food on my table. Electricity is a nice perk too. I'm so glad I don't own a car.

[maat55]

The problem is that any program, public or private, designed to help people in need tends to have some type of loophole that can be used to abuse the system by people who aren't really in need. That is not a reason to scrap the program, though. It is a reason to find a way to close loopholes and better manage distribution of the resources. That often raises administrative costs, though, which can make the system too costly to exist. Instead, they may just accept the fact that abuses will occur but for the sake of the greater good of all the people actually helped by the program, they let it go on.

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.