Incentives Not to Work

Indifference

Interesting take from WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... ns_opinion

FiveB247x

Sadly this is an ongoing problem with programs like unemployment, welfare, immigration and similar. If we don't make incentives and give people reasons to do the right thing and get things in order, why would they change?

mikepegg44

interesting take indeed. I really wish people would stop doing things that damage people in the long run in the name of compassion. It is really not compassion.

sabreleaf

The problem is that most of the people on unemployment were making good money. Now there are no jobs or so many people applying for a job it's hard to get. So your left with going from 50k a year to 15k at a store. Then guess what happens. They lose their house because they can't pay for it. The bank sells it off for half or less and then has to layoff some more of it's workers. People that were making 8 and 10 bucks a hour are not getting these extensions. You have to show you are looking for a job and they will give you jobs to go for. Plenty of shit pay jobs out there. I am lucky that I was only laid off for 4 months from a very good job. Thought I was done for awhile. It was greed and government not having any oversight that the economy lost all these jobs. Why punish the educated and middle class.

WaveCameCrashin

sabreleaf wrote:

The problem is that most of the people on unemployment were making good money. Now there are no jobs or so many people applying for a job it's hard to get. So your left with going from 50k a year to 15k at a store. Then guess what happens. They lose their house because they can't pay for it. The bank sells it off for half or less and then has to layoff some more of it's workers. People that were making 8 and 10 bucks a hour are not getting these extensions. You have to show you are looking for a job and they will give you jobs to go for. Plenty of shit pay jobs out there. I am lucky that I was only laid off for 4 months from a very good job. Thought I was done for awhile. It was greed and government not having any oversight that the economy lost all these jobs. Why punish the educated and middle class.

glad to hear you're back to work...

weenie

sabreleaf wrote:

The problem is that most of the people on unemployment were making good money. Now there are no jobs or so many people applying for a job it's hard to get. So your left with going from 50k a year to 15k at a store. Then guess what happens. They lose their house because they can't pay for it. The bank sells it off for half or less and then has to layoff some more of it's workers. People that were making 8 and 10 bucks a hour are not getting these extensions. You have to show you are looking for a job and they will give you jobs to go for. Plenty of shit pay jobs out there. I am lucky that I was only laid off for 4 months from a very good job. Thought I was done for awhile. It was greed and government not having any oversight that the economy lost all these jobs. Why punish the educated and middle class.

You are exactly right. I was without a permanent job for over two years. During that time period I worked jobs that I NEVER dreamed I would work, just to have a cushion between my humble apartment and living on the street. Unemployment pays so little that you're forced to make major lifestyle changes if you're on it for any length of time. The real kicker is that employers know they can hire people for substantially less than what they normally pay. Ultimately, the jobs that are out there are either low-level, low-paying positions where you're better off taking the unemployment and using the time to pound the streets, OR jobs that aren't low-level and USED to pay fairly well but don't anymore because employers can get away with hiring for less. It's really a tragic situation for what used to be considered the "middle class". I've lost or sold everything, including the property where I planned to build the last home I'd live in. Had it not been for Obama raising the amount paid by unemployment, and extending it several times, I would have been living on the street and thereby lose the opportunity to even look for a decent job. How can you interview when you can't make yourself look decent? It was a frightening time in my life. You should all thank your lucky stars if you aren't having to live through a similar situation. I think the majority of Americans don't really know just how dicey it is right now for lots of folks.

FiveB247x

Thanks for sharing your personal story with us. I think a big issue we have in our nation is that the human element is removed from decisions and policy. Everyone forms their opinions and doesn't always contemplate or think how it will or could directly effect them or people around them. It's always an arm length's away, until it's on your own doorstep, you know. Then once it becomes your specific issue and problem, everyone then begins to wonder and question why stuff is so out of whack. There's never an absolute right or wrong answer to most policy and program decisions, but there is good and bad. But in our society everything and one is setup to be combative, polar and black and white in nature... not good.

weenie wrote:

You are exactly right. I was without a permanent job for over two years. During that time period I worked jobs that I NEVER dreamed I would work, just to have a cushion between my humble apartment and living on the street. Unemployment pays so little that you're forced to make major lifestyle changes if you're on it for any length of time. The real kicker is that employers know they can hire people for substantially less than what they normally pay. Ultimately, the jobs that are out there are either low-level, low-paying positions where you're better off taking the unemployment and using the time to pound the streets, OR jobs that aren't low-level and USED to pay fairly well but don't anymore because employers can get away with hiring for less. It's really a tragic situation for what used to be considered the "middle class". I've lost or sold everything, including the property where I planned to build the last home I'd live in. Had it not been for Obama raising the amount paid by unemployment, and extending it several times, I would have been living on the street and thereby lose the opportunity to even look for a decent job. How can you interview when you can't make yourself look decent? It was a frightening time in my life. You should all thank your lucky stars if you aren't having to live through a similar situation. I think the majority of Americans don't really know just how dicey it is right now for lots of folks.

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

Thanks for sharing your personal story with us. I think a big issue we have in our nation is that the human element is removed from decisions and policy. Everyone forms their opinions and doesn't always contemplate or think how it will or could directly effect them or people around them. It's always an arm length's away, until it's on your own doorstep, you know. Then once it becomes your specific issue and problem, everyone then begins to wonder and question why stuff is so out of whack. There's never an absolute right or wrong answer to most policy and program decisions, but there is good and bad. But in our society everything and one is setup to be combative, polar and black and white in nature... not good.

weenie wrote:

You are exactly right. I was without a permanent job for over two years. During that time period I worked jobs that I NEVER dreamed I would work, just to have a cushion between my humble apartment and living on the street. Unemployment pays so little that you're forced to make major lifestyle changes if you're on it for any length of time. The real kicker is that employers know they can hire people for substantially less than what they normally pay. Ultimately, the jobs that are out there are either low-level, low-paying positions where you're better off taking the unemployment and using the time to pound the streets, OR jobs that aren't low-level and USED to pay fairly well but don't anymore because employers can get away with hiring for less. It's really a tragic situation for what used to be considered the "middle class". I've lost or sold everything, including the property where I planned to build the last home I'd live in. Had it not been for Obama raising the amount paid by unemployment, and extending it several times, I would have been living on the street and thereby lose the opportunity to even look for a decent job. How can you interview when you can't make yourself look decent? It was a frightening time in my life. You should all thank your lucky stars if you aren't having to live through a similar situation. I think the majority of Americans don't really know just how dicey it is right now for lots of folks.

but this situation isn't just right now. This has happened to people forever, people lose their jobs and become homeless...I feel terrible for people who are out of work, I went through it for a lot longer than i ever wanted and did a lot of shit work to be able to live...But is it anyone elses fault I didn't save money when I was making it? I had to have a car, I had to have a cell phone, I had to have cable tv, I had to have the internet, I had to go on vacation, I had to do all those things so that I was living Pay Check to Pay Check. Whose fault is it then when I don't have the money to cover my expenses? It sounds harsh, but it is the way I feel about it. It may not be the perfect job in the perfect place, but you can still look for a different job while you have one you don't like. I understand what many americans are going through all too well, but that doesn't mean that it is good for us to continue to borrow and print money to pay for these types of programs.

FiveB247x

I agree completely with you. Reminds me a bit of the book "Nickel and Dimed" (a great, easy read) in which an ordinary person tries to survive by working average/below average jobs. Puts the human element into our society. But all people is concentrate on what they hear on tv and in the media about misconceptions of corruption and people sitting around stealing your tax money cause of laziness. Pure nonsense.

mikepegg44 wrote:

but this situation isn't just right now. This has happened to people forever, people lose their jobs and become homeless...I feel terrible for people who are out of work, I went through it for a lot longer than i ever wanted and did a lot of shit work to be able to live...But is it anyone elses fault I didn't save money when I was making it? I had to have a car, I had to have a cell phone, I had to have cable tv, I had to have the internet, I had to go on vacation, I had to do all those things so that I was living Pay Check to Pay Check. Whose fault is it then when I don't have the money to cover my expenses? It sounds harsh, but it is the way I feel about it. It may not be the perfect job in the perfect place, but you can still look for a different job while you have one you don't like. I understand what many americans are going through all too well, but that doesn't mean that it is good for us to continue to borrow and print money to pay for these types of programs.

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

I agree completely with you. Reminds me a bit of the book "Nickel and Dimed" (a great, easy read) in which an ordinary person tries to survive by working average/below average jobs. Puts the human element into our society. But all people is concentrate on what they hear on tv and in the media about misconceptions of corruption and people sitting around stealing your tax money cause of laziness. Pure nonsense.

mikepegg44 wrote:

but this situation isn't just right now. This has happened to people forever, people lose their jobs and become homeless...I feel terrible for people who are out of work, I went through it for a lot longer than i ever wanted and did a lot of shit work to be able to live...But is it anyone elses fault I didn't save money when I was making it? I had to have a car, I had to have a cell phone, I had to have cable tv, I had to have the internet, I had to go on vacation, I had to do all those things so that I was living Pay Check to Pay Check. Whose fault is it then when I don't have the money to cover my expenses? It sounds harsh, but it is the way I feel about it. It may not be the perfect job in the perfect place, but you can still look for a different job while you have one you don't like. I understand what many americans are going through all too well, but that doesn't mean that it is good for us to continue to borrow and print money to pay for these types of programs.

I will definitely check that book out,

check this out, he raises some interesting ideas
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... mployment/

FiveB247x

Here's the book http://www.amazon.com/Nickel-Dimed-Not-Getting-America/dp/0805063897

There's tons of dirty secrets about how we calculate the unemployment rate as well. For example, if you were making let's say 35k working an office job and get laid off. Then find either a part time job or minimum wage job as a temporary hold over til you find a more suitable job to which you were making near the same salary. Guess what - you're not considered in the figures. So even though you're actively seeking the correct job of your level, education or salary demand, you're not included in the unemployment rate. Most industrial nations have methods and ways to account for all the ins and out of unemployment, but we skew our figures so it sounds and looks better.

Here's an article which references some of the things I referred too.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/2010/0305/Unemployment-rate-9.7-percent.-Underemployment-far-higher

mikepegg44 wrote:

I will definitely check that book out,

check this out, he raises some interesting ideas
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... mployment/

he still stands

My first thought after reading this article was that it totally ignores the story of those who genuinely need assistance and without it would lose their homes, family, and everything. Your argument cannot be that since some people take advantage of the system, the system should be destroyed. The argument has to consider those who benefit from unemployment and return to work after a few months in their profession and didn't go through "underemployment" as a result. It is a blind article written with obvious bias.

Secondly, regarding the "reservation wage"; it is a theory that is incomplete, at best. Yes, if people did not have unemployment available they would surely work for less because they must do SOMETHING do survive. But the only way to eliminate this phenomenon is to completely remove unemployment benefits - any form and amount of benefits will mean that the unemployed can search for the best job available for them rather than settling on something that is beneath their capabilities. So, if you're going to cite the "reservation wage" as a reason to get rid of unemployment it is like saying that we should get rid of air because it contains pollution...

Finally, I waited for it until the last paragraph, but the author does eventually make this a goddamn partisan argument. The focus should ONLY be on the adequacies and inadequacies of the system, without bias, not what Republicans should do to unemployment so they can get more votes this Fall. That is so fucking disgusting to me; "let's not fix the problem, instead let's focus on our own agenda."

I find that I am becoming more cynical every day about these issues.

FiveB247x

I agree with many of your points - but in my opinion, there is not nor will there ever be a perfect solution. In any program or policy there's a hook which can be exploited by some fringe group. Yes it is important to put checks and balances in to adjust for such things, but it also doesn't mean we should simply throw it all away at the misdeeds of a minority. There's a few bad apples in anything and everything in life, but the majority should be made to suffer as a result..right?

he still stands wrote:

My first thought after reading this article was that it totally ignores the story of those who genuinely need assistance and without it would lose their homes, family, and everything. Your argument cannot be that since some people take advantage of the system, the system should be destroyed. The argument has to consider those who benefit from unemployment and return to work after a few months in their profession and didn't go through "underemployment" as a result. It is a blind article written with obvious bias.

Secondly, regarding the "reservation wage"; it is a theory that is incomplete, at best. Yes, if people did not have unemployment available they would surely work for less because they must do SOMETHING do survive. But the only way to eliminate this phenomenon is to completely remove unemployment benefits - any form and amount of benefits will mean that the unemployed can search for the best job available for them rather than settling on something that is beneath their capabilities. So, if you're going to cite the "reservation wage" as a reason to get rid of unemployment it is like saying that we should get rid of air because it contains pollution...

Finally, I waited for it until the last paragraph, but the author does eventually make this a goddamn partisan argument. The focus should ONLY be on the adequacies and inadequacies of the system, without bias, not what Republicans should do to unemployment so they can get more votes this Fall. That is so fucking disgusting to me; "let's not fix the problem, instead let's focus on our own agenda."

I find that I am becoming more cynical every day about these issues.

he still stands

FiveB247x wrote:

I agree with many of your points - but in my opinion, there is not nor will there ever be a perfect solution. In any program or policy there's a hook which can be exploited by some fringe group. Yes it is important to put checks and balances in to adjust for such things, but it also doesn't mean we should simply throw it all away at the misdeeds of a minority. There's a few bad apples in anything and everything in life, but the majority should be made to suffer as a result..right?

Yeah I don't think there is a perfect solution either, only that I certainly don't think partisanship, a few examples of those who take advantage of the system, and incomplete theories should be used to determine the best solution available. The entire story must be presented, otherwise the argument has inherent bias.

Maybe I'm biased too, but my bias stems from my sympathy for those who need help, not from greed.

FiveB247x

Nah I don't think you're wrong at all. Whether its propaganda, misinformation or greed, are system is just fallen by the wayside because of partisan politics, ignorance, inactivity and greed.

he still stands wrote:

Yeah I don't think there is a perfect solution either, only that I certainly don't think partisanship, a few examples of those who take advantage of the system, and incomplete theories should be used to determine the best solution available. The entire story must be presented, otherwise the argument has inherent bias.

Maybe I'm biased too, but my bias stems from my sympathy for those who need help, not from greed.

weenie

Well, I DIDN'T live paycheck to paycheck.
I had savings, 401ks and property that I sold. I was responsible. Not everyone can be painted with a broad stoke brush or opinion by how YOU lived. I've worked hard all my life and paid taxes for many years. I had an excellent credit rating. My taxes have gone towards the welfare of many groups of people as well as war. Did I lose everything because I wasn't responsible with my money? No. How many people do you know who could live for two and a half years on $1600 a month and still keep their home? When I finally went to apply for food stamps, I was told that I paid "too much rent". Yet women who hadn't worked in years, who were toting 4 or 5 kids behind them received money for food AND medical coverage for their kids.

So you think I shouldn't have expected the government programs to cover me when I've paid toward everyone else for so many years? It's "my fault" I lived at a level my income could support? It's my fault my savings and 401ks ran out? Give me a fuckin break.

There's no logic to programs requiring people to be destitute before they kick in for basic human needs like food - for EVERYONE. Not just those with 4 or 5 kids under the age of 12. :roll:

FiveB247x

This is a perfect example though - what you're complaining about is reforms necessary to adjust for each and every particular situation. To simply toss the entire program aside because of a small minority who try and milk the system is an injustice to all those who may or will need it at some point.

weenie wrote:

Well, I DIDN'T live paycheck to paycheck.
I had savings, 401ks and property that I sold. I was responsible. Not everyone can be painted with a broad stoke brush or opinion by how YOU lived. I've worked hard all my life and paid taxes for many years. I had an excellent credit rating. My taxes have gone towards the welfare of many groups of people as well as war. Did I lose everything because I wasn't responsible with my money? No. How many people do you know who could live for two and a half years on $1600 a month and still keep their home? When I finally went to apply for food stamps, I was told that I paid "too much rent". Yet women who hadn't worked in years, who were toting 4 or 5 kids behind them received money for food AND medical coverage for their kids.

So you think I shouldn't have expected the government programs to cover me when I've paid toward everyone else for so many years? It's "my fault" I lived at a level my income could support? It's my fault my savings and 401ks ran out? Give me a fuckin break.

There's no logic to programs requiring people to be destitute before they kick in for basic human needs like food - for EVERYONE. Not just those with 4 or 5 kids under the age of 12. :roll:

mikepegg44

weenie wrote:

Well, I DIDN'T live paycheck to paycheck.
I had savings, 401ks and property that I sold. I was responsible. Not everyone can be painted with a broad stoke brush or opinion by how YOU lived. I've worked hard all my life and paid taxes for many years. I had an excellent credit rating. My taxes have gone towards the welfare of many groups of people as well as war. Did I lose everything because I wasn't responsible with my money? No. How many people do you know who could live for two and a half years on $1600 a month and still keep their home? When I finally went to apply for food stamps, I was told that I paid "too much rent". Yet women who hadn't worked in years, who were toting 4 or 5 kids behind them received money for food AND medical coverage for their kids.

So you think I shouldn't have expected the government programs to cover me when I've paid toward everyone else for so many years? It's "my fault" I lived at a level my income could support? It's my fault my savings and 401ks ran out? Give me a fuckin break.

There's no logic to programs requiring people to be destitute before they kick in for basic human needs like food - for EVERYONE. Not just those with 4 or 5 kids under the age of 12. :roll:

clearly you are upset, and like I said, I have been there and understand better than most what a dire time it is and how scary it is.

weenie wrote:

I had savings, 401ks and property that I sold. I was responsible. Not everyone can be painted with a broad stoke brush or opinion by how YOU lived.

I wasn't saying every single person but the fact is, a HUGE number of Americans think they are living a lifestyle that their income can support. they buy houses that are huge, they buy a car that is a 2009 instead of a 2000, they buy an iPhone instead of taking the free phone that the cellphone company gives out, they pay a $100 a month for a few extra channels, my point wasn't to disparage those that need help, but if a person makes a few hundred thousand a year for multiple years and still has a mortgage, and has car payments and all that stuff it isn't anyone elses fault when they cannot afford it anymore. . . that was more my point, I realize that a few people who do everything "right" (not really a right way to live I would say) still end up in dire straights

weenie wrote:

So you think I shouldn't have expected the government programs to cover me when I've paid toward everyone else for so many years?

yes, i don't think anyone should rely on the government for anything, because quite frankly when you need it the most it never comes through. Hopefully you were able to scrap back onto your feet. Good Luck, hopefully you didn't take was I was saying as an assault on you or your values, it was more about all americans realizing that gravy trains come to an end and we need to be better prepared to go through something like this in the future.

weenie

Yes, i don't think anyone should rely on the government for anything, because quite frankly when you need it the most it never comes through. Hopefully you were able to scrap back onto your feet. Good Luck, hopefully you didn't take was I was saying as an assault on you or your values, it was more about all americans realizing that gravy trains come to an end and we need to be better prepared to go through something like this in the future.[/quote]

What I thought I read was that I had lived irresponsibly and had no right to expect any help. So you clarified that I didn't live irresponsibly, but you feel that people shouldn't look to the government for help. Where else could I look? I have no family left and live in a city I moved to three years ago. I have a few friends who helped more than I could have ever dreamed anyone would. But, the reality is, very few people are in a position to provide support for someone else.

No, people shouldn't EXPECT help from the government, but when help lies no where else, what's the alternative? We all pay for programs we don't believe in/think are a waste etc. etc. etc. I for one was so freakin grateful for that $1600 a month - no one could EVER know just HOW grateful I was. It meant I didn't have to go live on the streets, or very close to.

Having been totally dependent upon the government, I can speak with authority as to the effectiveness of some of their programs. Are they perfect? No. But in a time such as we live in now, they are preventing a collapse of societal structure IN ADDITION to giving people who need it and will work for it, a second chance. If my taxes can help someone else out, like unemployment helped me out, I'll happily pay. For me, it's the right thing to do - even if there are the usual abusers. Reality is, you can't have one without the other. Perfection doesn't exist and neither does a utopia.

They do need to work on getting the right help to the right folks. I mentioned food stamps earlier. One elderly man who was applying/being interviewed during the same time I was, got a lousy $10 a month. I could go on and on with ridiculous examples of "program administration according to pretzel logic. Until you've been there over the long haul, and have no where else to turn, you just can't get possibly "get" it. Based on my experiences, we need to pay taxes and we need the government to develop and run programs to help its citizens in order to keep anarchy at bay.

aerial

weenie wrote:

Well, I DIDN'T live paycheck to paycheck.
I had savings, 401ks and property that I sold. I was responsible. Not everyone can be painted with a broad stoke brush or opinion by how YOU lived. I've worked hard all my life and paid taxes for many years. I had an excellent credit rating. My taxes have gone towards the welfare of many groups of people as well as war. Did I lose everything because I wasn't responsible with my money? No. How many people do you know who could live for two and a half years on $1600 a month and still keep their home? When I finally went to apply for food stamps, I was told that I paid "too much rent". Yet women who hadn't worked in years, who were toting 4 or 5 kids behind them received money for food AND medical coverage for their kids.

So you think I shouldn't have expected the government programs to cover me when I've paid toward everyone else for so many years? It's "my fault" I lived at a level my income could support? It's my fault my savings and 401ks ran out? Give me a fuckin break.

There's no logic to programs requiring people to be destitute before they kick in for basic human needs like food - for EVERYONE. Not just those with 4 or 5 kids under the age of 12. :roll:

are you saying the government gave you $1600 a month in unemployment benefits?

weenie

aerial wrote:

weenie wrote:

Well, I DIDN'T live paycheck to paycheck.
I had savings, 401ks and property that I sold. I was responsible. Not everyone can be painted with a broad stoke brush or opinion by how YOU lived. I've worked hard all my life and paid taxes for many years. I had an excellent credit rating. My taxes have gone towards the welfare of many groups of people as well as war. Did I lose everything because I wasn't responsible with my money? No. How many people do you know who could live for two and a half years on $1600 a month and still keep their home? When I finally went to apply for food stamps, I was told that I paid "too much rent". Yet women who hadn't worked in years, who were toting 4 or 5 kids behind them received money for food AND medical coverage for their kids.

So you think I shouldn't have expected the government programs to cover me when I've paid toward everyone else for so many years? It's "my fault" I lived at a level my income could support? It's my fault my savings and 401ks ran out? Give me a fuckin break.

There's no logic to programs requiring people to be destitute before they kick in for basic human needs like food - for EVERYONE. Not just those with 4 or 5 kids under the age of 12. :roll:

are you saying the government gave you $1600 a month in unemployment benefits?

Yes, that's the max payout based on the salary you earned before losing your job. In other words, if you were making $60,000 ($5,000 per month) a year or $100,000 ($8500 per month) per year - your benefits top out at $1600 per month. That's in Texas. Every state pays differently - some more, some less.

Pepe Silvia

while some people abuse it, like anything else, i'm sure most would prefer the security of having a good job rather than benefits that could be taken away and need to be reapplied for every 3months

weenie

Pepe Silvia wrote:

while some people abuse it, like anything else, i'm sure most would prefer the security of having a good job rather than benefits that could be taken away and need to be reapplied for every 3months

You got that right. Even though most of the process takes place online, if there is one exception on your weekly request (after you've been approved) you're required to call and speak to someone personally. I can understand this requirement. The problem comes when you get to the phone and dial. Sometimes the lines are busy for 6 or 7 hours a day. That's not an exagerration. It's a mind numbing exercise in many ways. But, it's better than nothing at all. I for one was grateful for it and as I said, don't mind paying taxes so that others can utilize the system if and when they need it.