The state House passed an increase in unemployment benefits today. That's a reasonable thing to do in the big picture, especially given that the state's unemployment trust fund is the largest in the nation.
But, pay attention to the details:
The bill would boost the minimum weekly benefit amount from $129 to $155, and all unemployed workers would receive an additional $45 a week, so the minimum would actually be $200 per week. The maximum weekly amount, including the additional $45, would be $586."That's a mortgage payment for many people," House Speaker Frank Chopp told reporters at a news conference before the House debated the measure.
The boost in benefits would be temporary, ending with claims filed on Jan. 3, 2010, but Chopp, D-Seattle, said lawmakers would reevaluate the situation at that time. If passed by the Senate and signed into law by Gov. Chris Gregoire, the increases would take effect May 3.
Despite the appearance of an immediate helping hand from Olympia, this change does to little boost the benefits of the recently unemployed for lat least a few months.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 06, 2009 05:07 PM | Email This
That's the opportunity!
http://www.albertacanada.com/immigration/
Posted by: John Bailo on February 7, 2009 01:12 AMNO Facts: Jealous that some folks can make a living without handouts? Or that someone can use their skills and initiative to build a better life? I realize it's not the Obama way, but it's been the American way since the beginning. Get lost.....loser.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 7, 2009 07:41 AMUnemployment insurance is something that I pay for - if I have to pay for it, then it needs to function properly in this world.
I would prefer to not be forced to pay for it but since I must...
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 7, 2009 10:31 AMin a world where you fire off resumes to monster.com to meet your minimum contacts to get unemployment, you might be right.
In a world where you actively build a professional network, nurture those relationships, and bring something to them yourself, it's really not that difficult to find a job - assuming you have the intellectual curiosity to continually improve yourself and make yourself more marketable.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 7, 2009 10:35 AMI have applied for 2 jobs this past month. 174 people applied for 1 of them (no interview).
76 people applied for the other (interviewed @ #4 position) :(
The hiring pool is chuck full of talent, and getting a job just got a lot harder. Ask any person working in HR.
I currently have a job, I was trying to move to more stable employer. My hubby is working one week on, one week off right now with no promise that it might become a full blown layoff.
Times are tough, and people do need that unemployment check. I would rather see them in that line, than the welfare line.
I know where you can get a job MONDAY, at double the minimum unemployment benefit. And it will include full medical/dental, 2 weeks paid vacation, educational reimbursement, and the opportunity for promotion.
Interested?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 7, 2009 11:57 AMAmong the chief rand clones, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and Bernie Madoff. Wow, they have done wonders for this country. From AP, the following facts:
Unemployment by the numbers
THE INFORMATION on age and college education is a sample of the wealth of data beyond the headline-unemployment rate that shows up in the Labor Department's monthly employment report. Here are some more details about who is included in the ranks of the jobless, by the numbers.
January versus past downturns
11.6 million: People unemployed in January 2009.
11.9 million: People unemployed in November 1982, the final month of the last recession that lasted more than a year.
7.6 percent and 153.7 million: Unemployment rate and total work force in January 2009.
10.8 percent and 111.1 million: Unemployment rate and total work force in November 1982.
September 1992: Last time the unemployment rate was this high.
60.5 percent: Portion of the total population that had jobs in January.
May 1986: Last time the portion was this low.
January jobless rate by group
7.6 percent: Adult men
6.2 percent: Adult women
10.3 percent: Female heads of households
6.2 percent: Asians
6.9 percent: Whites
9.7 percent: Hispanics
12.6 percent: Blacks
20.8 percent: Teenagers
Jobs harder to find
22.4 percent: Share of unemployed in January who have been looking for 27 weeks or longer.
18.1 percent: The same figure in January 2008, one month into the recession.
22.8 percent: The share in June 2003, when the unemployment rate peaked after the last recession.
Snapshots of January's jobless
2.75 million: People who were trying re-enter the work force after leaving work for reasons such as parenthood or retirement.
2.1 million: People who wanted to work, were available for work and had looked for work in the past 12 months but had not looked in the past month.
7.8 million: People working part time because of slow work or business conditions.
Who is surveyed
60,000: Number of households interviewed in the monthly Census Bureau survey from which the unemployment rate is extrapolated.
40 percent: Portion of companies in the survey of businesses, from which payroll and job-loss numbers are extrapolated, with fewer than 20 employees.
Highs and lows
22.6 percent: Unemployment rate for El Centro, Calif., in December, the most recent month for which a local figure is available.
2.7 percent: December rate for Morgantown, W.Va.
Source: The Associated Press
So, good luck on your job hunt Eric, don't count on Jeff B or Bernie Madoff for moral support. Oh, check out the front page of the Seattle Times, older educated men are the victims of the latest downturn.
Posted by: Rand Clones are Creepy on February 7, 2009 03:30 PMEveryone who is waiting for the government to save them is making a choice. It might require a pride swallowing moment to take a lesser job in retail, etc. but there is work for those who truly want to work. And Andrew Brown notes that we unfairly pay in to the unemployment insurance system, so he'd like to use it, but the reality is that it would not be enough to make ends meet. One still has to go out and fend for oneself to really survive. This is reality. There is no all-benevolent place where everything is paid for, despite what our government loving rivals believed during their Obama rapture. You saw the video of the gal in Florida who expects that she won't have to make her mortgage payment any more now that Obama is president. It's just nuts. She's in for a hard wakeup call.
And no one is here to provide moral support. That's what friends and family are for. And if you have not made those connections, well that's a bad choice as well. I don't lose sleep over the problems of people I don't know.
And I can choose my clients too. It's pretty easy to figure out those with money who will pay. Occasionally you get one that does not pay on time, etc. but then you move on. It's the average of picking good people who also believe in the morality of hard work and personal responsibility. If I find a person like Facts, I just move on. There's no use wasting time in life on a deadbeat that expects others to fend for him.
The truth hurts. The reality is that the productive don't need the unproductive. And yet the reverse is not true.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 8, 2009 11:24 AMBy the way, Eric, if you haven't found work by now, Jeffie thinks you are a loser and you sure don't want his self-righteous sympathy.
Posted by: Rand Clones are Creepy on February 8, 2009 12:33 PMIf they're unemployed for more than a few months, then yes. Like Jeff, I'm self-employed, and have been so for more than a decade. I've worked through 3 recessions, and have never gone more than 3 months without gainful employment.
My career has changed many times over the years, but I understand the right to the pursuit of happiness does NOT mean the right TO happiness. Sometimes you switch careers, or take a job you originally weren't considering. It happens.
By the way, Eric, if you haven't found work by now, Jeffie thinks you are a loser and you sure don't want his self-righteous sympathy.
Only if Eric does not have the wherewithal to stay unemployed as long as he would like. I know several people who took a year off after being laid off, because their resources were sufficient they could take the extended break. Others had a spouse gainfully employed and were able to make ends meet with a single income.
If Eric isn't looking, and complaining and demanding additional benefits, then I'd have a problem with him. There is no evidence this is reality, though (your little delusional strawmen notwithstanding).
So tell me, what if I could get you a job TOMORROW at twice the unemployment benefit, that included two weeks of PAID vacation a year, medical/dental insurance (100% employer paid), and significant educational reimbursements (up to $6500 per year)? Full time employment, starting TOMORROW. Interested?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 9, 2009 11:28 AM