Getting Unemployment Benefits To All Who Need Them
Getting Unemployment Benefits To All Who Need Them
According to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. unemployment rate is now 8.9 percent. 13.7 million people are currently unemployed, a number which “has grown by 6 million over the last 12 months.” As MarketWatch noted, “of the 13.7 million people listed as officially unemployed, a record 27.2% have been out of work longer than six months.”
With these numbers providing a backdrop, the Wall Street Journal had a piece today comparing the American unemployment insurance system to that of Europe, and the differences are pretty striking. (See chart on the right.) While going as far as Germany is probably going too far, there is definitely room for the U.S. to do more, given the current circumstances.
One step would be to address the pervasion of overly restrictive eligibility requirements for receiving unemployment benefits. As USA Today reported:
While 13.2 million people were unemployed in March, approximately 5.8 million were collecting unemployment benefits at the end of the month…That means less than half of those who were out of work and were actively trying to find a new job were receiving unemployment benefits.
The stimulus package passed in February did provide money for states to ease their restrictions, but the states have to actively pass legislation to receive the funds, which many have not done. As the National Employment Law Project found, “over 300,000 workers will likely be left without any [benefits] despite the full federal funding provided by [the stimulus package] unless certain states with especially high levels of unemployment act quickly.”
President Obama also announced new initiatives today “to help the unemployed pursue education and training, and at the same time keep their unemployment benefits.” Obama encouraged states to update rules “so that the unemployed can enroll in community colleges and other education or training programs without giving up their benefits,” and to allow colleges to make unemployed workers eligible for Pell Grants.
These are smart steps, but until we actually get benefits to all the people who need them, the President’s plans won’t generate the maximum effect. Considering how many people are out of work, and how slow the economic recovery will likely be, there’s no reason for states to perpetuate unfair and outdated benefit restrictions.
4 Responses to “Getting Unemployment Benefits To All Who Need Them”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
….But each of those countries you mention have good economies and good GDP per capita figures with Germany being slightly lower than the U.S. but the rest being better than the U.S. in GDP per capita.
I’ve seen that statement twice today (While going as far as Germany is probably going too far) but if your economy and per capita GDP is comparable and there is a much better social safety net, there is no obvious reason why you think Germany’s benefits are too far.
Please explain
May 8th, 2009 at 5:12 pmUnemployment doesn’t only affect the uneducated.
I’m “self-UN-employed,” since I have my own consulting business. As I’ve learned over the past 2 years, consultants are “the first to go” when the economy has a downturn. I’m not eligible for unemployment benefits because as a sole proprietor for the past 14 years, I haven’t contributed to my state’s unemployment insurance program. However, I have paid my state’s Business and Occupation taxes, my federal income taxes, my social security taxes, my county’s property taxes (of which at least half of the money goes to pay for schooling and I have no children), and all of the sales taxes required by law.
Obtaining more education or training benefits seems irrelevant to me. I have a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University. I also completed a post-doctoral research fellowship in the Netherlands. How much more education or training will help me?
My sense is that my level of education merely tells potential employers–in our current economic situation–that I’m overqualified for any position they may have available (and that I’ll probably “cost” too much). I spend every day looking for work. I read ads for “senior” people with requirements such as “3 to 5 years of experience.” My 25+ years of experience are completely out of proportion in comparison.
I applied for one job that required all applicants to be “nicotine free” for at least 6 months. This is not legal in all states, but happens to be legal where I live. I answered honestly that I had used a nicotine patch in the past 6 months, and thereafter paid $100 per month for a prescription to Chantix–a medication to help one quit smoking. Even though the job paid significantly less than my last job as an employee (15 years ago), I was willing to take it. However, I was rejected because I used one nicotine patch in the last 6 months!
As an entrepreneur, I’ve tried to start several other businesses in the past few years. Yet, none of them have been able to provide me with sufficient income, compared to my consulting rate of $120 to $160 per hour.
I tried blogging on Google’s Blogger with AdSense. It took me 2 months to “earn” over $100.00–the minimum amount before Google would pay me anything. Within days, Google decided to delete my account for some undisclosed reason other than to tell me that I violated their terms. My appeal, which included names of people who know me and who work at Google (including a senior software engineer who works on AdSense) was rejected. It was a mere $124.00. Compared to how much money Google rakes in every day and how much I worked for that $124.00, their dismissal turned my stomach.
Because I have a Ph.D. and teaching experience, I contacted the local college to see if they had any openings in my field. Yup, they did. And they would pay me a fee of $25 per class that I taught as an adjunct professor. Of course that wouldn’t include the time I’d spend creating a syllabus, course notes, exams, grades, etc. I figured that my total income would be at most $400.00 per month, if I taught a class that met twice a week. Too much work for too little income for someone with my qualifications.
I thought about selling my home so I could reduce my housing expenses, but according to my real estate agent, homes where I live tend to stay on the market (at greatly reduced prices) for approximately 200 days or so. Even if I were to find a buyer someday in the future, the selling price would be below my mortgage debt.
On top of all of the above, I’m single and do not have a spouse or partner who might contribute to my income crunch.
If anyone reading this has any ideas for how I might survive for a few more months (or, hopefully, years), please don’t hesitate to submit your comments. I’m open to any and all suggestions.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:33 pmThe “No Nicotine” Company
In case anyone reading my former post is curious, the company that requires 6 months of no use of nicotine is…
Alaska Airlines
I figure it’s ok to name them, since the company itself states this requirement on their website at:
http://www.alaskasworld.com/jobs/asjobs/Alaska-FAQ.asp
(See the last FAQ item on the page.)
The thing that gets me is that in some states it is legal to ask this quesion, while in other states it is illegal. So, they are applying different criteria for employment based on the state in which an applicant resides. In other words, some employees are allowed to be smokers and some are not. Seems biased to me.
Oh, and one other thing. They will test for use of nicotine in the past 6 months if you live in a state where it is legal to do so. However, they don’t test for alcohol or use of other drugs that may have an even greater effect on one’s behavior on the job.
I guess I could understand their policy if one were a pilot or a steward or stewardess. I’m not really sure I understand it if one works in their computer software division (which is located in the state where I live) or any other “office” job and one only uses nicotine while not at the office.
Maybe they get cheaper health insurance rates due to this policy. Or maybe one of the “higher ups” in the company had a significant event (e.g., loss of a loved one) due to nicotine addiction.
Whatever the reason for their policy, they are very strict about sticking to it (in the states where it is legal). So, someone who is willing to work for half of the pay they made 15 years ago can be rejected without any other cause is their choice–despite the qualifications of the applicant.
May 8th, 2009 at 6:05 pmBig government is cruel, because it designs unemployment insurance keep people unemployed. If people could keep more of what they earm, they would not need unemployment insurance.
May 11th, 2009 at 8:30 am