Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Gov. Christie: Nation turning into 'people sitting on a couch waiting...

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=Trades;4436028]Is the problem really about hurting the sensitive people on unemployment? This is what we need to worry about?[/QUOTE]

    I was merely reacting to 32's statement that this is NOT about demonizing the unemployed.

    Imagine being a father/husband who can't find work and Christie accuses you of being lazy and sitting on your couch waiting for your gov't check.

    There are no jobs. Blaming the unemployed is like blaming cancer patients for cancer. If they would only stop getting cancer we wouldn't have cancer!

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,527
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4436082]I was merely reacting to 32's statement that this is NOT about demonizing the unemployed.

    Imagine being a father/husband who can't find work and Christie accuses you of being lazy and sitting on your couch waiting for your gov't check.

    There are no jobs. Blaming the unemployed is like blaming cancer patients for cancer. If they would only stop getting cancer we wouldn't have cancer![/QUOTE]

    99 weeks of unemployment... I do blame the father at that point. That's 2 years. SPARE US.

  3. #23
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,268
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4436082]I was merely reacting to 32's statement that this is NOT about demonizing the unemployed.

    Imagine being a father/husband who can't find work and Christie accuses you of being lazy and sitting on your couch waiting for your gov't check.

    There are no jobs. Blaming the unemployed is like blaming cancer patients for cancer. If they would only stop getting cancer we wouldn't have cancer![/QUOTE]

    There are jobs, it is just that a lot of the people are allowing themselves to give up or live on the government dime for as long as possible because it is easier than taking a less than ideal job.

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=Trades;4436094]There are jobs, it is just that a lot of the people are allowing themselves to give up or live on the government dime for as long as possible because it is easier than taking a less than ideal job.[/QUOTE]

    You know I am willing to believe this if I can see some sort of evidence of it.

    Is this a feeling you have or do you base this on something?

    Not being a dick, I'm willing to be educated on this, just wondering if there is something to support the theory.

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,527
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4436096]You know I am willing to believe this if I can see some sort of evidence of it.

    Is this a feeling you have or do you base this on something?

    Not being a dick, I'm willing to be educated on this, just wondering if there is something to support the theory.[/QUOTE]


    How about LIVE testimony from the people on unemployment lines.

    "This is owed to me"....... its on the news a LOT.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4436096]You know I am willing to believe this if I can see some sort of evidence of it.

    Is this a feeling you have or do you base this on something?

    Not being a dick, I'm willing to be educated on this, just wondering if there is something to support the theory.[/QUOTE]

    1) It's simple economics - if unemployment pays more than the available job, why would someone take the available job? Even if the money is close, the question becomes "is working [harder/in these conditions/in that field/etc.] worth it given the difference in pay?" I'm sure there are people at the margins who will leap at whatever job comes along because they "want to be self sufficient" and people at the other end of the spectrum who won't take any job while on unemployment because being paid to do nothing is better than being paid more to work, but in the center, for most people, it's simply a rational economic choice. And while I think society [B]ought[/B] to subsidize people's ability [B]not[/B] to just take the first job that comes along (having people working in their chosen field maximizes productivity), at a certain point, that subsidy has to end. IMO, 99 weeks is too long.

    2) I think SouthPark mentioned a client who said something like this. I've seen reports that include interviews with people who refuse jobs because the bump in pay from unemployment (or the decrease in pay) is just not worth it.

    Personally, I think it should be 26 weeks of full unemployment benefits with no obligation to take a job out of your field or that pays less than unemployment, 26 weeks where you are obligated to take any job that comes along and unemployment benefits will cover the difference between your salary and what you had been making on unemployment, and then that's it, you're on your own. 6 months of pure job hunting (no layoff vacations), 6 months to transition to your new economic circumstances, and then the government support cuts off.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4436099]How about LIVE testimony from the people on unemployment lines.

    "This is owed to me"....... its on the news a LOT.[/QUOTE]

    No, I don't want anecdotes. I don't think that helps.

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,268
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4436096]You know I am willing to believe this if I can see some sort of evidence of it.

    Is this a feeling you have or do you base this on something?

    Not being a dick, I'm willing to be educated on this, just wondering if there is something to support the theory.[/QUOTE]

    I have seen it first hand. Ex-wife, step-mother's brother in law, a couple of friends from the company I was laid off at?

    Ex-wife, lazy POS always looking to game the system. Got unemployment while continuing to work under the table at same job "to help the office stay on it's feet".

    SM's BiL, Lazy POS male nurse got let go because "his boss had it in for him". Milked unemployment as long as possible because "the difference between what I can make and unemployment isn't worth it".

    Other people at my company who were told they were getting laid off rather than asking for it decided "to take the summer off", "spend more time with the kids", because between the severance and unemployment "what's the difference".

    I have posted my "laid off" story a few times here but in short, company was falling apart for many reasons, offered a package, I opted in. Started my new job 2 days after the old one ended and the only reason I took 2 days off was because off paperwork delays with the new company. Banked the severance so that I could be prepared if the worst happens.

  9. #29
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,268
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4436108]1) It's simple economics - if unemployment pays more than the available job, why would someone take the available job? Even if the money is close, the question becomes "is working [harder/in these conditions/in that field/etc.] worth it given the difference in pay?" I'm sure there are people at the margins who will leap at whatever job comes along because they "want to be self sufficient" and people at the other end of the spectrum who won't take any job while on unemployment because being paid to do nothing is better than being paid more to work, but in the center, for most people, it's simply a rational economic choice. And while I think society [B]ought[/B] to subsidize people's ability [B]not[/B] to just take the first job that comes along (having people working in their chosen field maximizes productivity), at a certain point, that subsidy has to end. IMO, 99 weeks is too long.

    2) I think SouthPark mentioned a client who said something like this. I've seen reports that include interviews with people who refuse jobs because the bump in pay from unemployment (or the decrease in pay) is just not worth it.

    Personally, I think it should be 26 weeks of full unemployment benefits with no obligation to take a job out of your field or that pays less than unemployment, 26 weeks where you are obligated to take any job that comes along and unemployment benefits will cover the difference between your salary and what you had been making on unemployment, and then that's it, you're on your own. 6 months of pure job hunting (no layoff vacations), 6 months to transition to your new economic circumstances, and then the government support cuts off.[/QUOTE]

    I think that is more than fair and a good plan. Necessity breed innovation and if people are never in need they will never make the leap to a different career, move to where the jobs are or come up with the next big product.

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4436108]1) It's simple economics - if unemployment pays more than the available job, why would someone take the available job? Even if the money is close, the question becomes "is working [harder/in these conditions/in that field/etc.] worth it given the difference in pay?" I'm sure there are people at the margins who will leap at whatever job comes along because they "want to be self sufficient" and people at the other end of the spectrum who won't take any job while on unemployment because being paid to do nothing is better than being paid more to work, but in the center, for most people, it's simply a rational economic choice. And while I think society [B]ought[/B] to subsidize people's ability [B]not[/B] to just take the first job that comes along (having people working in their chosen field maximizes productivity), at a certain point, that subsidy has to end. IMO, 99 weeks is too long.

    2) I think SouthPark mentioned a client who said something like this. I've seen reports that include interviews with people who refuse jobs because the bump in pay from unemployment (or the decrease in pay) is just not worth it.

    Personally, I think it should be 26 weeks of full unemployment benefits with no obligation to take a job out of your field or that pays less than unemployment, 26 weeks where you are obligated to take any job that comes along and unemployment benefits will cover the difference between your salary and what you had been making on unemployment, and then that's it, you're on your own. 6 months of pure job hunting (no layoff vacations), 6 months to transition to your new economic circumstances, and then the government support cuts off.[/QUOTE]

    What about benefits being linked to what your past employer has contributed in unemployment tax. Say I have worked 25 years then get laid off. Should I get more consideration than someone in their 20s with a spotty work record?

  11. #31
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,527
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4436109]No, I don't want anecdotes. I don't think that helps.[/QUOTE]

    These are REAL people..interviewed on TV and this is what they say.

  12. #32
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,943
    Although I am not a big fan of sweeping generalizations, Christie's statement rings true in far too many cases. In my opinion, it's very clear that the unemployment and welfare systems need fundamental reform with a stress on some form of productivity.

    There is far too much abuse in these systems, and incorporating some sort of community service into these benefits will go a long way in transforming this current employment alternative into its intended use of a true safety net.

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=Trades;4436028]Is the problem really about hurting the sensitive people on unemployment? This is what we need to worry about?[/QUOTE]

    Yes, because then the tax payers would be on the hook for therapy....

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4436082]

    Imagine being a father/husband who can't find work and Christie accuses you of being lazy and sitting on your couch waiting for your gov't check.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sniff.....Sniff......

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4436127]These are REAL people..interviewed on TV and this is what they say.[/QUOTE]

    Facts are kryptonite to liberals.....

  16. #36
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,268
    [QUOTE=parafly;4436132]Although I am not a big fan of sweeping generalizations, Christie's statement rings true in far too many cases. In my opinion, it's very clear that the unemployment and welfare systems need fundamental reform with a stress on some form of productivity.

    There is far too much abuse in these systems, and incorporating some sort of community service into these benefits will go a long way in transforming this current employment alternative into its intended use of a true safety net.[/QUOTE]

    I run my local recreation department (volunteer) and we have a policy that kids that are on the "free" lunch program can also play rec sports for free if they ask because we don't want to punish kids because their parents are poor. So one of my committee members asked if we could put a "community service" stipulation on the free play clause that says the parent of the kid playing for free would have to volunteer to help either coach, team mom, field cleanup, snack bar, whatever is needed within reason.

    The town administrator and our town council liaison said we couldn't do that because "it wouldn't be fair and we don't know what their circumstances are". This is a microcosm of what we are talking about. Taxpayers have to give and give some more but to ask the sponge to help out by donating some time might hurt their pride or self esteem so we can't even ask them to help.

  17. #37
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,123
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4436001]EXCEPT...they would be grateful for a job. :yes:

    I cleaned offices at night WITH a college degree to buy my first house.[/QUOTE]

    Some people think it is beneath them to do such things. Sense of entitlement is off the charts in this country.

    Random Person: "I went to college, I have a degree, I can't do that". Me: OK, have fun starving you idiot.

    And then the gov't bails them out on my coin.
    Last edited by DDNYjets; 04-16-2012 at 11:03 AM.

  18. #38
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4436001]EXCEPT...they would be grateful for a job. :yes:
    [/QUOTE]
    Right. And better off.

    Lost in all the bullcrap is the fact that working builds self-esteem. A lot better things will happen for a guy who works for $500 a week than for a guy who works to keep his $500 weekly checks from the government coming in as long as possible.

    That angle should be just as much a part of the conversation as the sob stories trotted out to enact benefit extensions.

    99 weeks. What a joke. Go mow a lawn.

  19. #39
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In transit
    Posts
    6,168
    [QUOTE=DDNYjets;4436178]Some people think it is beneath them to do such things. Sense of entitlement is off the charts in this country.

    Random Person: "I went to college, I have a degree, I can't do that". Me: OK, have fun starving you idiot.

    And then the gov't bails them out on my coin.[/QUOTE]

    I graduated Chiropractic school with a BA, a BS, and a DC after my name. Due to paperwork and National Boards it took 12 months to get a liscense. I worked for the census knocking on doors, and bartended, worked about 60 hours a week. It wasn't beneath me, I made enough cash to help pay for my first office with minimum debt.

    My Mom (bless her) got laid off. She milked un-employment for 18 months because it paid better than her getting a job. Her words, "I can't afford to go back to work right now." She then sold her house in NJ, moved to Texas, and bought 4 rentals with the money from the NJ house.

    Point being, I have friends who are too good for jobs, so they are unemployed, and a parent who wouldn't take a pay cut to get a job. I agree with Christie.

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4436121]What about benefits being linked to what your past employer has contributed in unemployment tax. Say I have worked 25 years then get laid off. Should I get more consideration than someone in their 20s with a spotty work record?[/QUOTE]

    Not necessarily. The point is (IMO) unemployment should be a prop to help people get over a temporary rough patch and get back on their feet, and transition (if necessary) to a different work reality. I'm not sure how that's really different for a 25 year worker and a 25 year old one.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us