Posted on 02/06/2008 4:24:23 PM PST by reaganator
If you want more of something all you have to do is have it subsidized by the government. What happens when you subsidize unemployment?
Why won't extending unemployment benefits increase unemployment?
We are going through a correction in the nation's economy. Those of us who know to trust in the Free Market System know this correction should be allowed.
Early in President Bush's term unemployment benefits were extended from 26 weeks to 39 weeks. They want to do this again. Of course this allowed people to collect unemployment longer and artificially kept the unemployment rate higher than it would have been otherwise.
For those who don't know, people on unemployment don't just sit around the house, they work for cash.
I suspect every lawmaker supporting the Stimulus Bill which includes unemployment extensions know that it's not needed. It's an election year, what politician has the courage, or Trust in the American people to stand up against the Bill? Can you name one that would?
1. Working at a low paying job interfers with looking for a job in one's own field
2. Unemployment insurance is NOT a handout but an insurance policy that is paid for by the employer as part of the employment package
Yes it is a benefit and so is social security ... you want to cut that off too ... and it is temporary ... and there are lots of people out here who would be very willing to pay for it themselves if given the chance. Lastly I was out for 16 months looking for a job. Working at a low paying job would have completely interferred with my looking for a job in my field as an electrical engineer ...how am i going to tell my low paying boss that I have to take the day off to interview 300-400 miles away. Typically an interview is an all day affair in egineering even if the interview is local
I don’t want to offend you about this. In some way or another we probably all have received assistance. I just think if a company offers it as a benefit that is great but they shouldn’t be forced to pay. SS should be capped and phased out. We can’t afford to keep increasing and adding new social programs.
I kinda agree with you. I would prefer that the employee pay for the package with matching funds from the employer. It was discovered during the Great Depression that it was better for the society in general to provide that economic cushion to people who lost their jobs by no fault of their own. It is better for society to have a skilled person working in their trade or attempting to work in their trade than have them mopping floor. BTW if someone just walks out on their job ... they generally are not eligible for unemployment benefits ... When I was out ... I had been laid off by Motorola when they moved the whole plant to Beijing ... they laid everyone off.
BTW I used to live in Kingsville ... if you know where thats at ...
Working an unpreferred lower paying job would interfere with looking for your perferred job. I’ve heard it all now! How “special” and pampered can we get!?
I don’t mind helping people but you can get it for just about anything now. Most companies that lay off send their employees to get assistance and some even do re-training. I’m mostly talking about the ones that quit or get fired with cause.
Not to bright are you newbie ?
Not a newbie. Had to change my ID, I lost it somehow, did not remember my password, been here for years. I’m bright enough to know I do not have to be fully unemployed in order to seek more desirable employment. But whatever, that’s just me.
Back to my question: I predict that extending unemployment benefits will be the cause of the rise in the unemployment rate. Am I right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.