United States Heading towards a Depression?

Nope, sorry, most unemployed American's enjoy unemployment compensation that is greater the the wage they would receive from a job paying a decent wage. Hence the problem.

Now, if employers in this country were actually allowed to pay a decent wage MINUS the demands for the golden parachute benefits packages, then yes... many of these jobs would come back here.

Another thing to keep in mind Rebecca is that most American's consider a decent wage to be about 3 times what in reality the job entails in terms of value/worth in relation to work vs. wage.

Most American's are greedy.. Greedier than the companies they call greedy. Hell, the irony here is that most of those same American's that think they should be paid a large wage to make widgets will go buy the Chinese variant of that widget at Wal-Mart because its cheaper than the widget they are paid to make.

 

The mandatory part is especially disturbing. I think decisions on whether we buy health insurance or not, should be left to us, not for the government to decide.

I just woke up and haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet, so I may come back... But, I just read your first sentence, and I don't think so. In my State, if a person were actually to qualify to get unemployment (which many don't) - then, they will get $250 a week before taxes. Are you trying to say $250 is a better wage than most people make, or do I just need more caffeine?

kay, I'm back. You first sentence is still wrong. Let's just say someone makes minimum wage allowed by law, which is in most states is $7.50. At that rate, they would have $300 before taxes. So, Jeremy, making less than even minimum wage is not a decent wage. Let's also not forget that workers only qualify for unemployment if they lose their job from no fault of their own.

 

That is it in a nutshell. Not sure how people get through college without understanding that focusing on customer satisfaction assures you customers. Its anecdotal, but I had a contracted Central American Dell representative show up at my doorstep to replace the battery and LCD on my laptop for a warranty repair on 24 hours notice to their Central American call center in the Caribbean. Considering my home is located in the jungle, a four and a half hour drive from their base of operations, it gave new meaning to the phrase, "Going the extra mile". Dell's prices are no longer 25% below all their competitors like they used to be, but all other things being equal, they would still be my number one choice for all of the above stated reasons.

[Edit] Another anecdotal story. HP makes the exact same laptop with different model numbers for each country so they can narrowly define their warranties to only be valid in the country associated with that model number. I actually tried to ship a laptop back to america for warranty repair, only to have it stolen on the Fedex loading dock. Fedex Central America then told me they wouldn't pay the insurance claim based on some paperwork technicality. Several scathing letters later to their board of directors and C-level staff, my claim got paid. With HP, FedEx got added to the list of companies I never deal with outside of the US, and work hard to avoid within the US(difficult).

 

Depends on the state and where you work. Here in WI, a lot of people work down in IL and receive IL unemployment which means $2500/mo. Not a bad wage considering they do not take the taxes out and you're pretty hard pressed to find a job in WI that will replace that amount. You're better off to stay on unemployment till the work comes back.

Now is it hard to live on after you're used to something more? Of course, but its better than nothing and more than many would get trying to find a job that paid that much for doing NOTHING....

Er, again... I think you've been mislead on the amount. And the taxes are not taken out immediately. Sure you still have to pay them, but most return to work and make enough to cover it based on what they were already having deducted. Ultimately it just means a smaller return.

And no, unemployment is not if you lose your job through no fault of your own. People who get fired claim it too... And it's VERY , VERY hard for an employer to dispute it.

BTW, the employer keeps making the contribution for these workers even when they are laid off... Where do you think the money comes from?

 

Texas lawmakers are set to slash funding for the agency responsible for fighting wildfires in the midst of a historic wildfire season in which some 2.5 million acres have burned.


What is odd is Perry cutting appropriations to the Texas Forest Service "responsible for fighting wildfires in the midst of a historic wildfire season in which some 2.5 million acres have burned" during a Drought.

FEMA is probably waiting for the pending resolution.....

 

Are you sure about that? A head of family filing jointly with three kids has a fairly high income threshold before taxes are owed to the federal government. Lets say a guy is pulling in 2k a month on unemployment and, with the 99 week unemployment setup we currently have, files a $24k income statement at the end of the year based on the 1099 he gets from the federal government. After taking deductions for his house payments, his three kids, and the itemized deductions from trying to start a new business to support himself, I would be VERY surprised if he did not get the entire EITC $4800 refundable tax credit as a tax refund, rather than having to pay taxes.

BTW, rumor has it Obama's "Jobs" program will include yet another extension to unemployment benefits. At some point, perhaps they can just merge it with the welfare program.

Something else people fail to recognize. These programs foster crime. The more cash you throw at people for doing nothing, the more people will engage in under the table businesses to be able to earn while still receiving their benefits. Its one of the big reasons drug sales is so popular in welfare neighborhoods. Even if the crime is limited to other legal jobs under the table, the whole program is counter productive.

 

Perry has not cut anything. The legislature only proposed a cut.
The reality however is that in 2010-2011 the allocation was $38 million and some change.
http://www.tamus.edu/offices/govrelations/81st/statebudgetoverview
the 82nd legislature actually more than doubled that amount to $81 million and some change this year:
http://www.tamus.edu/assets/files/gov/pdf/82nd-Leg-EOS-reportweb.pdf

I think the key word to look at here breeze is "Texas Forest Service for wildfires" and not "Volunteer FD".

You and your liberal buddies are confusing two entirely different legislative expenditures with one another and then crying foul.

 

What I said was that most people tend to return to work after a short period. Lets say you do construction and its seasonal. You'll work 9 months out of the year and in the winter get 3 months of unemployment. They don't take the taxes out, but they account for it in your overall take home. Given the deductions and what you've already paid, you likely see a lower return.

However, those on unemployment longer as you suggest generally not only do not pay taxes but end up getting back money they never paid in. Go figure.

Even worse are those that do just the bare minimum in terms of a wage and then end up making more then most middle class families because they get money from the government in the way of a return from which they never paid for to begin with.

We have one truly fucked up tax system.

What's even more annoying is the biggest complainers about the rich not paying taxes do not pay taxes themselves. In fact, more than 50% of Americans pay NO INCOME TAXES what so ever!

Here's another kick in the pants for you. Did you know that wonderful plan that Obama came up with to put more money in the pockets of employees by cutting or eliminating their share of a deduction for unemployment compensation was not only not applied to the employer (who also makes a contribution), but was jacked up on the employer end?

If we did not have all these bull shit programs to fund like FICA, SS, and Unemployment insurance we could probably hire more people.

 

Stop it, Jeremy. You do not. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY TABLE OF WEEKLY BENEFIT AMOUNTS

I haven't been "misled." I was let go from my job towards the end of April, and just started a new one at the end of July. So, I have intimate, firsthand recent experience with collecting unemployment. And, taxes were taken out of immediately. They actually allow recipients to decide if taxes will be deducted before payment, or later. Actually, some people who are fired claim it, but they are not often successful. You have to prove that even though you were fired, it still wasn't really your fault.

 

Stop what? Depending upon the amount you make you can generate a wage higher than you can find anywhere else for doing NOTHING...

I suggest you read the table. Keep in mind deductions, dependents and non-working spouse plays heavily into the income factor....

Your taxes were taken out because you elected to have them taken out.

 

Making stuff up.

I did read the table. That's how I knew this:

...was something you just made up.

Let's say if someone were making minimum wage ($300 a week) in Illinois. They would be getting $141. a week in unemployment compensation, that is, if they lost their job through no fault of their own. Let's say they lost a job making $500 a week, the unemployment benefit would be $235. If you have a non-working spouse, and/or a dependent child, it doesn't add that much to it.

Obviously. But, my remark was in response to your post claiming that taxes are not taken out immediately. My point was merely that as far as taxes, it's what the recipient elects at the time of qualifying for unemployment benefits.

 

.............

This must be your day for making things up Mia or is it on an hourly basis ????

 

So says the guy quoting the huffington post...

 

I was on unemployment once, about 15 years ago. I remember that I received unemployment because I was let go, and was NOT fired "for cause".

In the USA, you can be fired "for cause" immediately for:
1. Open insubordination
2. Violence (as soon as you throw that punch, you're unemployed)
3. Illegal drug use
4. Unauthorized absence three(?) or more days
5. Felony (embezzlement, etc) or certain other illegal activity
6. Irreversible and deliberate damage to the company, such as disclosing confidential information

 

Here's a list of misconduct that can make you ineligible for unemployment, but it's not all inclusive.

What you listed covers a lot, but you may engage in other forms of misconduct that would disqualify you: sleeping on the job, lying on your application, being dishonest in general, falsifying records, harassing behavior, - any deliberate misconduct or knowing violation of reasonable rules. In cases of termination, you write a detailed account of what transpired on the paperwork forms that the unemployment office sends you. They then make a determination as to how to proceed. They may deny it immediately. If they feel it wasn't really your fault, they'll get the process going and send a form to your ex-employer giving them a chance to appeal. Anyway, that's how it seems to work now.

 

The problem is, most small companies would simply prefer to "let you go" rather than "fire for cause" to reduce exposure to wrongful termination suits. Its a lot cheaper to pay higher unemployment insurance than it is to pay an attorney for just about anything. Considering that, I suspect there are very very few people who do not receive unemployment after losing their job for just about any reason.

 

And then you have other small companies that 1099 their employees.. Then you don't have to pay unemployment, insurance, taxes or anything... Contract workers cannot claim unemployment when they are let go. Less complicated... I think you're going to see this trend more and more if things keep going the way they are.

 

Yah, that seems all well and good until you see one of your former 1099 employees file for unemployment benefits and plea their case to the IRS that they were, in fact, an employee working full time at your place of business and having no other contract relationships with other employers. The IRS then assesses the employer back charges for both sides of payroll taxes and other withholding. After that, they add fines and penalties which triple the amount.

 

I've seen that happen.

There's always CASH!

 

I looked that up on an attorney website, and it appears to be saying the opposite. It says to file that type of suit you must have been discharged without good cause.

There is certain criteria you have to fall under to qualify, one of the the main reasons is lack of work (being laid off). In the case of employees that have been terminated, I would suspect many of them never even bother to apply unless they feel they have a compelling case to make it worthwhile to try. For me, and I think many others, if it weren't for the sluggish economy, I wouldn't even have bothered with unemployment. It's never taken me 3 months of sincere job hunting effort to find a job.