Millions of Americans lose all jobless benefits

ruggedtoast

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66D0LB20100714?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29

(Reuters) - Deborah Coleman lost her unemployment benefits in April, and now fears for millions of others if the Senate does not extend aid for the jobless.
"It's too late for me now," she said, fighting back tears at the Freestore Foodbank in the low-income Over-the-Rhine district near downtown Cincinnati. "But it will be terrible for the people who'll lose their benefits if Congress does nothing."
For nearly two years, Coleman says she has filed an average of 30 job applications a day, but remains jobless.
"People keep telling me there are jobs out there, but I haven't been able to find them."
Coleman, 58, a former manager at a telecommunications firm, said the only jobs she found were over the Ohio state line in Kentucky, but she cannot reach them because her car has been repossessed and there is no bus service to those areas.
After her $300 a week benefits ran out, Freestore Foodbank brokered emergency 90-day support in June for rent. Once that runs out, her future is uncertain.
"I've lost everything and I don't know what will happen to me," she said.

This is the reality of what happens when people stop paying for other people who cant work.

The people who "dont" work are another matter. I would dearly like some of the career unemployed over here to get a dose of wake up reality. Sadly how can you do that without removing the safety net from those who are genuinely trying?

lewisa

A modern day workhouse, thats what it needed.

If I had the choice of homelessness and hunger or workhouse, I know which Id pick. Shame or no shame.

Mr_Mumble

Jobless benefits of $300 per week is pretty luxurious, there has been a fierce debate in the US about whether the benefits stop people from accepting work - this WSJ article gives an overview.

PS. this Reuters story doesn't add up. Why would a charity pay for 90 days of rent but not pay for the, far cheaper and job creating, alternative of paying for a one way taxi ride to Kentucky and a couple of weeks rent to get the lady on her feet?

ruggedtoast

Who knows. American benefits are the same as Japanese ones, which has a similar problem with destitution. If you're made unemployed you continue to receive whatever your salary was for 6 months, up to a maximum amount per month.

Thats why you see a lot of unemployed salarymen sitting around in parks and comic book cafes all day. Theyre pretending to go to work and their families, for a while, dont know anything is wrong because they are still bringing home the same money.

After that you receive nothing whatsoever.

PasturesNew

I have a friend who is now just 2-3 weeks away from this happening. Single/male, 1-bed rented flat.... benefits stop in 2-3 weeks. Worked all his life full-time until the last 3-4 years when things changed and he's been laid off about 4x in that time. And now it's finally the end of the road .... the money's about to run out and he's bricking it!

pardal51

Since I was a kid I learnt that you have always to put some money aside for the rainy day. Problem is that with easy credit everywhere people tend to consume, consume, consume. If everybody was taught to prepare themselves for such situation, i.e., put some money aside even when things are going really well. Then they would have a cushion and not get desperate. Then they could prepare a plan on how to find a job and if they don't find a job that match their skills they would try to get anything else to afford a ceiling and food. People need to learn how to live within their means. This is my opinion anyway.

Llubrevlis

ruggedtoast wrote: »

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66D0LB20100714?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29



This is the reality of what happens when people stop paying for other people who cant work.

The people who "dont" work are another matter. I would dearly like some of the career unemployed over here to get a dose of wake up reality. Sadly how can you do that without removing the safety net from those who are genuinely trying?

How long before this sort of thing happens in the UK? Maybe next decade maybe sooner.

One thing is for sure there wont be enough money left for my state pension.

wageslave

Llubrevlis wrote: »

How long before this sort of thing happens in the UK? Maybe next decade maybe sooner.

One thing is for sure there wont be enough money left for my state pension.

Or mine.

Re your quotation, you ever read Horace?

Vilius argentum est auro, virtutibis aurum.

purch

This is the reality of what happens when people stop paying for other people who cant work.

How Unemployment Benefit is paid is totally different in the U.S. than it is in the U.K.

Employers pay a separate State and Federal Unemployment Taxes that go some way to pay for the Benefit.

When Benefits are paid they can be taken from either of the previous two employers contributions.

FUTA is paid at a rate as much as 7% of an employee's earnings, but if the employer has a good track record of not having ex-employee's claim benefits the Tax can be as low as 0.8% of gross earnings.

The system puts the onus very much onto employers, and despite there being much looser employment laws in the U.S., it is still difficult to sack an employee because of the potential cost in higher FUTA payments.

Comparing the U.S. system to the U.K. system is not comparing like for like, so drawing any 'kneejerk' conclusions is pointless.

wageslave

If it was up to me....

Before umpteen years of Blair and Brown I considered myself a socialist. Nowadays, I get really pis sed off at the "I am entitled to" culture we have in this country.

Would I go the Yankee route? I think I would. I'd exclude those under 25 and over 50, everyone else should fend for themselves.

Benefits should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice.

Every system is open to abuse and you accept that as the price you pay to protect the vunerable. But when half the country is abusing the other it is time to turn off the benefit tap

Malcolm.

wageslave wrote: »

If it was up to me....

Before umpteen years of Blair and Brown I considered myself a socialist. Nowadays, I get really pis sed off at the "I am entitled to" culture we have in this country.

Would I go the Yankee route? I think I would. I'd exclude those under 25 and over 50, everyone else should fend for themselves.

Benefits should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice.

Every system is open to abuse and you accept that as the price you pay to protect the vunerable. But when half the country is abusing the other it is time to turn off the benefit tap

Hi wageslave, I disagree as usual .

Having been to poor areas of America, I didn't like what I saw, many homeless people in bad health actively begging - stopping people in the street or following them.

I'm pro the UK having a safety net, so long as that safety net doesn't afford a better standard of living than those working. Clearly, at the moment, it does (for many) and needs total reform.

Have you bought any new boots recently?