Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

Do you agree with this theory? ~ Extending unemployment benefits is killing the job market

From R. Barro (WSJ): I want to focus here on another dimension of the Obama administration's policies: the expansion of unemployment-insurance eligibility to as much as 99 weeks from the standard 26 weeks.

The unemployment-insurance program involves a balance between compassion—providing for persons temporarily without work—and efficiency. The loss in efficiency results partly because the program subsidizes unemployment, causing insufficient job-search, job-acceptance and levels of employment. A further inefficiency concerns the distortions from the increases in taxes required to pay for the program. ...


Asked by grlygrlz2 at 2:40 PM on Aug. 30, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (106,530 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (32)
  • . It was never once a case of him not being able to do the job, it was a case of the employer wanting a decade of experience for entry-level wages.
    It's a new era, we are all going to have to adjust and bite the bullet. Any job is better than no job. The best way to find a job is to currently have one, I know it sounds crazy but it's the truth. Take the jobs when offered, it looks better on the application or resume.

    Answer by jewjewbee at 5:44 PM on Aug. 30, 2010

  • I agree that extending unemployment is making us lazy.

    Face it, If I could get paid by the government to sit on my ass and not look for a job, I would do it too.

    Answer by Jademom07 at 2:44 PM on Aug. 30, 2010

  • It IS safe to say that unemployed people aren't jumping at ANYTHING just to get off unemployment. The benefit does give you the chance to be a little choosy.

    Example: My husband was unemployed for nearly a year. Applied for at least two dozen jobs a week, got at least two interviews a month. During that time, there was ONE job he turned down because it paid far too little. It made no sense for him to take a job where the net pay after expenses would be less than unemployment.

    It's the same argument that's often given as a reason for women to stay home; if your take-home winds up being too little, why bother?

    He did wind up taking the lowest pay cut we agreed we could afford, nearly 30% less than he had been making in 2007 and a two hour commute one way. And he's still looking for something that pays better so I can stop working two jobs to make up the shortfall.

    Answer by gdiamante at 3:15 PM on Aug. 30, 2010

  • Don't you think you should have at least waited until your mortgage was paid off before retiring?
    Who do you think you are lecturing someone you do not know about her personal finances? My God, it must be awesome to be so right about everything that you feel that it is appropriate to lecture someone. lol unbelievable

    Answer by stacymomof2 at 5:03 PM on Aug. 30, 2010

  • Even if you are volunteering somewhere you are opening a doorway or a network to get a job somewhere sometime. Taking a part time job or low paying job is better than nothing even if it pays less initially because at some point it will work out to something better in the future. Very few people start at the top. And before anyone goes apecrazy over high unemployment areas, manufacturing is dead stop looking for jobs that don't exist anymore,get an education, learn a new trade, move, try something new. Inflexibility will be your downfall before the economy ever is.


    Answer by jewjewbee at 5:08 PM on Aug. 30, 2010

  • You know nothing about my situation and it is really arrogant of you to assume you know what is best for me. I am not stressed but the country IS stressed from the results of a poor economy. OK? I planned and I have a really good retirement fund. SHeeesh. Now I have heard everything. Lorikeet telling me I should have planned for my retirement, as if she is so on top of everything. @@

    I KNEW it was you posting ANON again Gertie!! Why do you insist on doing so?! And at 68, why can't you work? I work in retail a few hours a week for fun and an awesome employee discount...more than HALF of the women I work with are over age 70, and work part time in one or MORE jobs, while collecting SS, widows, or just want something to fill their days.

    And yes, we ARE on top of our finances---even in this economy! Sorry if that bothers you! I prefer NOT to be a burden on society, nor do I want that for my special needs children!

    Answer by LoriKeet at 5:45 PM on Aug. 30, 2010

  • No, because in Indiana it is REQUIRED for you to apply to a certain amount of jobs within the month in order to recieve your benefits. Which means that my dad, who is unemployed after being laid off from a 15 year job, has applied to countless jobs in the last two years. I think that people are giving up. Companies aren't fighting to stay open, consumers aren't buying as much, people in general are seeing on big FAIL across their forehead in the morning and going back to bed. It's the COMMUNITY that's killing the job market, not the unemployment.

    Answer by JazzlikeMraz at 2:56 PM on Aug. 30, 2010

  • Here you have to be activly applying and reporting it. So extending it good it helps people continue to look for jobs.. problem is there is a short supply of jobs these days depending on the area you live in!

    Answer by Shaneagle777 at 3:05 PM on Aug. 30, 2010

  • ARe you kidding? You would rather sit on your butt than go look for a job and take a job and be earning an honest liivng???? How lazy and stupid.
    There are not enough jobs out there and too many applications. There needs to be more unemployment beneifits until there ARE jobs for people who want to work.
    I am so glad I am retired now ,even though i have to pinch pennies and do without a lot of things.. It is such a stressful time.ANd, if I needed to work,you can bet I would be out there looking. Who knows. I might HAVE to supplement my income just to keep on making those mortgage payments and pay my bills. But, will the ageists, the people who don't think retirees have anthing to offer, hire me?????

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:14 PM on Aug. 30, 2010


    Evidently 99 weeks isn't enough. Which btw, when I referred to a certain Democrat on this website last week as a 99'er she had no idea what I was talking about. Maybe she'll read this post and educate herself today.


    Answer by jewjewbee at 4:58 PM on Aug. 30, 2010