Another Bogus "Unemployment Benefits Are Too High" Article, This Time from the WSJ

[stopbush]

I'm getting tired of seeing this kind of crap:

"Management Recruiters of Sacramento, Calif., says it recently had a tough time filling six engineering positions at an Oregon manufacturer paying $60,000 a year -- and suspects long-term jobless benefits were part of the hitch.

"We called several engineers that were unemployed," says Karl Dinse, a managing partner at the recruiting firm. "They said, nah, you know, if it were paying $80,000 I'd think about it." Some candidates suggested he call them back when their benefits were scheduled to run out, he says." ( http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110013/debate-on-jobless-benefits )

This article gives the impression that this guy must have been bring home more than $60,000 a year in unemployment benefits. The FACT is that there is a CAP to unemployment benefits in each and every state in the Union. CA is one of the higher weekly benefit states out there, and that weekly benefit is capped at $450 per week. That means that the maximum ANY employee in CA can receive in a year's time is $23,400, ie: less than half of what that $60,000-a-year job offered. Plus, since Ronald Raygun, unemployment benefits have been taxed, so one has to give back some of that $23,400 at the end of the year. The national average for unemployment benefits is $310 a week, or $16,120 a YEAR. Just how many people making that princely sum are going to turn down a gig that pays $60k a year? Not many, I'd suspect.

This article also does not point out that unemployment insurance offers a worker only 50% of what his gross pay per week as a benefit. Ergo, in CA, one needs to be making $900 gross pay per week to qualify for that $450-a-week check from unemployment. If you are making $20 and hour, then you are making $800 a week, and your UI benefit is $400. If a person is making $12 an hour, they are grossing $480 a week at their job. That tidy sum translates into $240 a week in unemployment insurance benefits. The person making $12 an hour at their job ain't getting that $450-a-week UI benefit or even hitting that national average of $310 a week.

The fact is that there is probably no one in this country who is getting even $25,000 a year in unemployment payments (which translates as $480 a week in UI benefits).

What is missing in this article are the particulars. Why wouldn't the person take a $60,000 when he would consider an $80,000 job? Well, it might have involved relocating from CA to Oregon (what about relo costs?). It might have to do with the person having to sell their home in CA to take the job. That might involve a short sale or some other money-losing scenario that looks bad at $60k but pencils out positively at $80k.

What one DOES see are situations where one is getting more on unemployment than the would if they took some menial, low-wage job. If you make $900 a week in CA, your unemployment benefit is based on that number, and you get $450 a week. What incentive is there to take a job that nets you less than that, or that calls for you to drive a 100-mile-a-day round trip to get to and from the job? You need every cent you can get, and there are cases where unemployment payments are more than a job would NET you every week.

Plus, after your first year clock runs out on UI benefits, most states recalculate your benefit rate based on your most-recent employment history. So, if you take a $12-an-hour job, lose that job and reapply for UI, your rate will be based on that $12-an-hour-rate, NOT on your previous high rate. Why would any person getting the top benefit rate in their state take a crappy job that would hurt them immediately AND long-term in getting as much $ per week as they can?

At least this article offers a different perspective near its end, but the overall feel to the article is yet another slam at all those "lucky duckies" who are living the life of Riley that unemployment benefits provide to the rabble.

[sandnsea]

1. Oregon's max is $496 a week

Or $25,000 a year, IF they extend benefits past the 26 weeks.

Yeah, you bet, they were getting rich on their unemployment.

Maybe they weren't going to be suckered into less pay by a cheap-ass company.

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. That is unbelievable!

In Manhattan, benes top out at $405/week per NY State rules. I don't know a soul in the "405 club" that would turn down a job, even if it is only paying $60k in NYC much less Oregon.

[stopbush]

3. Yep. I live in SoCal, where I lost my $100k-per-year job last October

and gladly took a job that pays $60k in April. The fact is that I would have taken a job that paid $45k had it been offered.

I was getting the top UI rate in CA, and I would still get that top rate if I have to go back on UI. In the meanwhile, I'm dealing with living on 40% less than I was making before, which in SoCal means a lot of austerity and the occasional robbing of Peter to pay Paul.

That said, I'm overjoyed to be working again, for many reasons.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

4. It is probably much simpler than that

I hire about 20 people a year and there are two things I know to be true:

1. Head Hunters Lie, a used Chrysler salesman would be disgusted by their conduct.

2. Relocating is risky and complicated to impossible for two-income families.

So assuming the story isn't complete bullshit my first blush impression would be the people turning down $60,000 need to hedge their situation should their spouse not find work in their new location. I tried to hire an unemployed woman in Chicago last year, her husband (railroad industry) spent a month in L.A. looking for work and found nothing. It came down to they were trading one bad situation for another, either way one of them was out of work so they remained in Chicago.

[Arkana]

5. So because a couple of schmendricks decided to be picky

that means that everyone on UI is abusing it?

Fuck this country so hard.

[dkf]

6. My friend wouldn't consider a job under 100k for the last 2 years.

But now that his benefits look like they are going to end he has started to look for jobs under that. I'm not saying this is typical but it happens.

[Bitwit1234]

7. And up to 300 million in bonus and benefits

for CEO's who don't even keep their companies from going bankrupt are OK> See how stupid are republicans reasoning. And how stupid are the republican sheep and tea bags who are bleating about Unemployment whilst they go along with these obscene bonus's.

[doc03]

8. Well I got $397 on unemployment and $250 from

supplemental unemployment (SUB) from my employer, that comes out to $33,644. In my case it wasn't feasible to take a job for less than $16.18. But for $60,000 I think I could be forced to go to work.
I could have stayed on unemployment for another year and the company would have paid into my retirement and built my pension up a little but I opted to retire.