Here and here is some demographic information about the 9.2 percent of your constituents who will be most affected by your vote:
There are 321,700 of them.
They have been unemployed for an average of half a year.
Their unemployment insurance amounts to about one half their former salary up to a maximum of $629 per week.
More than one in ten of them used to have jobs paying more than $75,000 per year, which means that they are trying to live on significantly less than half their former salary.
They know that you believe that
we should enact policies that reduce taxes and cut government bureaucracy in order to create real, private sector jobs so that America’s entrepreneurs and businesses can put our citizens back to work
But right now there aren’t many of those jobs, and each dollar of unemployent insurance helps not just their families but also generates $1.61 in economic activity, which we need to get back those private sector jobs.
They hope that you decide to vote in favor of this bill.
And if the bill doesn’t pass, they pray you are right — and soon enough to save them.
…perverse incentive issues with continued extension of unemployment compensation in its current form.
<
p>Isn’t it way past time to reorient the incentives rather than simply continue with a fundamentally flawed approach?
How about worker oriented incentives geared more toward accelerated reentry and maintaining long term employability?
<
p>
The author of this article can’t even parse the numnbers right. He acts as if the increase in unemployment benefits over the past five years is simply an issue of them becoming more generous, ignoring the fact that spending has gone up primarily because unemployment has gone up. When you miss a fact that essential, you have no credibility.
Unemployment spending is up greatly disproportionate to the increase in the unemployment rate over the past 5 years.
<
p>By my reckoning, unemployment is up by a factor of about 1.8x from FY 2005 to 2010. Correspondingly, the increase in unemployment payouts is up by a factor in excess of 5x. I’d have to agree with him that majority of that increased spending is due to extending benefit duration and not simply due to unemployment increasing.
<
p>Data aside, the perverse incentive aspects of unemployment compensation are seemingly significant and widely recognized. Again, my point was: It’s time we consider better solutions which incentivize rapid reemployment rather than benefit maximization though extended unemployment.
This chart is pretty convincing evidence that this recession in particular is not about unemployed workers being choosy about their next job, as your linked article argues. The jobs just aren’t there.
<
p>But interesting that you raise the issue of disincentives to work. Right now, federal law severely penalizes people experiencing long-term unemployment who accept some part-time or temporary work. The bill to extend unemployment insurance also incldes a fix this powerful disincentive. Senator Brown – a chance to encourage work — what do you think?
when unemployment runs out.
Sell house and toys.
Pay off camper and truck.
Wal-Mart here we come.
<
p>Hey there are no jobs. The government/industry consortium has worked tirelessly on that consistently since NAFTA.
Who dares hire people in light of Obamacare. And it’s not my fault globalists decided to crash the economy on purpose.