There has been no small amount of media coverage regarding the fact the Washington State Employment Security Department is s-w-a-m-p-e-d with new claims and related inquiries.
As regular readers will recall, this blogger is searching for employment at a, um, less than optimal time. A bad local environment for political jobs (at least with an R next to your name) combined with a less than stellar economy has made things interesting to say the least. I've been fortunate to land multiple interviews for several job openings, at least one of which would be a great fit...though with uncertain implications for future blogging.
Either way, I've had the less than enjoyable experience of filing for unemployment. Despite the many warnings of a 4-6 week wait for claim processing, my claim filed on January 28th produced a 1st check in my hand on February 7th. Somewhere along the way, somebody handled things very well.
Granted, there was a comedy of errors along the way, which included the dread "due to current call volume, we are unable to take your call at this time." That's not helpful when you need to have a question answered prior to filing your claim online. And eventually, there was this exchange:
Employee: "Are you sure the U.S. Department of Education is a federal agency?"
Me: "Uh...yes, I'm sure."
Employee: [pause] "Is that part of another Department...like the State Department?"
Me: "No, it's a separate, Cabinet-level agency. Trust me."
Ultimately, there was a legitimate reason why that exchange occurred (the Department uses a subcontractor to handle unemployment claims processing so isn't listed in the state's database). Nonetheless, it was funny...now that my claim has been processed so quickly.
Now if I could just make myself ineligible for benefits by landing a good job in these troubled times...
Posted by Eric Earling at February 08, 2009 06:52 PM | Email ThisThey are a fraction of what people have earned. If anything its incentive to look harder for work because of how much you cannot do on UI benefits.
Exactly. The max benefit of $541 a week isn't chump change, but it's also nothing more than an inadequate finger in the dike.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 8, 2009 07:45 PMI've never understood why you need the state government to provide such a service. I am sure that the private industry can meet the needs of the people at a far lower cost.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 8, 2009 08:35 PMI personally know a half dozen people who are on unemployment and have refused (and/or struggled to accept jobs) to take on jobs that would pay just $700 a week.
For some people getting something for nothing is still preferable to actual work.
Posted by: Doug on February 8, 2009 08:41 PMtough shit, you guys did your Gordon Gecko dance twice now in the last 2 decades or so and thought nothing of laissez faire economics since Raygun. I've babysat kids that squawked less than you guys are doing now about unemployment insurance and some jack ass on here has the fucking nerve to suggest that too be privatized after all the shitstorm with AIG and the others. Holy shit, the apocalypse must be happening.
Posted by: John Kenneth Galbraith on February 8, 2009 08:54 PMGet the gov't out of my knickers, then I'll stop complaining.
Why are unemployment benefits taxed? Seems rather ridiculous.
Posted by: The Sasquatch on February 8, 2009 09:19 PMH.R. 155 would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend the taxation of unemployment compensation for 2 years.
Posted by: This is now on February 8, 2009 09:59 PMThe state (along with the Federal government) provides Job Service offices to assist you in finding a job and for filing for UI. You can go to any state and file for UI, but your claims will be paid from the last state you were employed in (that qualifies you for UI). It is possible to be paid more than a state's maximum if the other state's rate is higher.
Posted by: Aldomeir on February 9, 2009 05:02 AMNo, it generally requires an involuntary separation to qualify.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 9, 2009 07:20 AMI know a guy whose wife had just got pregnant almost 3 years ago, and she was lucky enough to get laid off during that time. She's been collecting unemployment for the past two years, over $2k per month, while staying home and taking care of the child, which she would have been doing anyway. She's just had to show that she's been looking for work, which is basically filling out an online application now and then to keep collecting.
Posted by: Palouse on February 9, 2009 08:06 AMThus, in order to really survive, one has to go and do other things to make ends meet, which means having some form of employment or income, which means not qualifying for unemployment assistance.
Why don't we simply realize like our ancestors did that sometimes we lose things. We have to make hard choices, sell houses, etc. take steps backward to then begin going forward again. The whole culture of entitlement whereby everyone expects assistance with every problem is exactly how we got in to this financial mess and recession in the first place.
I don't wish for Eric to lose his house, but if it comes to that, I am sure he would choose to go back to renting or some other responsible outcome instead of defaulting on his mortgage or just sitting there waiting for the government to help him like so many others have done. As some point there is a fiscal reality for us all that many seem to want to ignore.
Meanwhile, there's billions in the "stimulus" bill allocated for TV converter boxes. And that's some of the most benign pork. We have gone from a nation with a self reliant can do attitude, to a nation of fat couch potatoes in very little time. Pathetic.
#20 -- The last time I was unemployed, I avoided filing for unemployment because I truly felt that I was greater than a government handout. I felt that I didn't need their help to find a job, and that I should be able to find a way to get by in the meantime without the handout. The point made in response to the income taxes comment was well placed for this comment too. Employers pay unemployment taxes into an "insurance" fund...like your house insurance, you hope never to be in a situation where you need the benefit (cutting through the bureaucracy of the claims departments, relocating to temporary housing, the disruption of your normal lifestyle, etc), but it's there if you need it. Just because the government happens to be the "insurance agency" tasked with administering the funds, doesn't make it a government handout. Learn the facts, ignorant liberal....
Posted by: RedGreener on February 9, 2009 10:47 AMLet's see...since you are not working, you are relying on the Fed's to provide you with income. Since you are not contributing to the system by working, you are getting a handout (aka income) for essentially doing nothing (except send your resume out 3x a week and fill out a Govt. form once a week). Now do explain how this is not a Govt. handout?
As you can see @18 people are already taking advantage of the system.
Agree. And that's another reason we don't want the government running healthcare.
Posted by: Palouse on February 9, 2009 12:49 PMWhich is a pipe dream at best no matter what the Dem's say.
The bigger difference is when big companies take advantage of the system and fail they call up the Federal Govt. who in turn gives them a bailout.
The Democratic spendulus is already funding SCHIP, which people who can afford private health insurance are already taking advantage of, courtesy of the taxpayers.
The spendulus also gives money to people who do not pay income tax. But they don't call it what it is (welfare), they use a term like 'refundable tax credit' or something like that.
Posted by: Palouse on February 9, 2009 02:56 PMNow you want to take away health care from kid's who's parents work at Wal-Mart? I thought the GOP mantra was that all life was precious and worth saving.
No, I want the government out of the healthcare business.
I thought the GOP mantra was that all life was precious and worth saving.
Which has nothing to do with the spendulus (except for taxpayer funded abortions) or the taxpayers paying for SCHIP with debt that our grandchildren will be paying for.
Posted by: Palouse on February 9, 2009 04:07 PMDidn't deregulation and lack of oversight get us into this mess in the first place? Govt. certainly has a role in regulating healthcare. Maybe the Govt. should get out of the national defense industry, it costs at least 5000x more than the Govt. involvement in the healthcare industry.
the taxpayers paying for SCHIP with debt that our grandchildren will be paying for.
They're already going to be paying for the GOP's reckless spending spree during majority of the of the 00's years. We have nothing to show for it except a bloated bureaucratic organization known as Homeland Security and a lovely recession which pout your buddy Eric here out of work. At least this way our grandchildren can see measurable benefits from the money spent because they'll still be alive.
No actually, it didn't. It was government interference in the marketplace that did.
Govt. certainly has a role in regulating healthcare.
Regulating, yes. Managing, no.
Maybe the Govt. should get out of the national defense industry
Wrong. National defense is actually in the Constitution, providing healthcare isn't.
They're already going to be paying for the GOP's reckless spending spree during majority of the of the 00's years
So Obama's solution is to make it worse. Nice.
Posted by: Palouse on February 10, 2009 09:42 AMWhat interference? It was the lack of interference that led companies to commit outright fraud like these idiots and get away with it. Govt. should have shut these guys down before they gave away billions in mortgages that no one could pay for. Instead Bush Admin. looked the other way just like they did for their buddies over at Enron.
Regulating, yes. Managing, no.
I agree
Maybe the Govt. should get out of the national defense industry
I'm sure the founding fathers didn't envision a day when millions of Americans would be struggling just to get/pay for health care. Much like they likely didn't envision American citizens wanting to own M-16's. The fundamentals ideas are still valid and strong but a lot has changed since 1776. Which is why we have items like the 19th and 20th Amendments.
One could also interpret "promote the general Welfare" as a mandate for health and well being. I don't know if the courts would agree, but vague wording leads to vague interpretations.
So Obama's solution is to make it worse. Nice.
His stimulus package will likely create jobs rather than blowing it all on needless wars and massive pork projects like the "Bridge to Nowhere".
The CRA for starters, and allowing GSE's to repackage loans and purchase loans from private banks who gave them to buyers who couldn't pay them back. Without GSE backing those loans, those banks couldn't have made them.
I agree
Then you should be opposed to SCHIP. The government is the provider and manager of care.
One could also interpret "promote the general Welfare" as a mandate for health and well being.
Providing healthcare is not an enumerated power. Promote the general welfare is not an excuse for unlimited government like Democrats want it to be.
His stimulus package will likely create jobs rather than blowing it all on needless wars and massive pork projects like the "Bridge to Nowhere".
The nonpartisan CBO has already predicted it will have a negative long term impact on GDP. Negative GDP pork bills aren't how jobs are created. It will just balloon the deficit further and put this country further in debt.
Posted by: Palouse on February 10, 2009 12:31 PMBush could use his Executive Privilege powers to fix the situation, he ignored the problem. Again, corporate and Govt. responsibility was never on Bush Admin's radar. Seems that businesses should be allowed to "regulate themselves" was the watchword for the last 8 years.
Then you should be opposed to SCHIP.
If getting healthcare wasn't such a huge problem in this country I would certainly think more about it. As it stands I'd rather kids get quality healthcare than none at all.
The nonpartisan CBO has already predicted it will have a negative long term impact on GDP.
LOL, now you believe the CBO? My what short memory you have. It wasn't so long ago the the GOP was on the warpath saying ignore the CBO when it said Bush's budget's would do the same thing.
No, in fact, he didn't.
corporate and Govt. responsibility was never on Bush Admin's radar
Again, false. See the previous link, and remember that Bush signed Sarbanes-Oxley.
Seems that businesses should be allowed to "regulate themselves" was the watchword for the last 8 years.
Yes, thanks to Democrats who blocked regulation of GSE's, which got us into this mess.
As it stands I'd rather kids get quality healthcare
So you agree that government should not be in the healthcare business, then you say you're for it, as long as it's "for the children". You really are a Democrat.
the GOP was on the warpath saying ignore the CBO when it said Bush's budget's would do the same thing.
Please provide a link supporting this. Regardless, I never said ignore the CBO, and I criticized Bush for his reckless spending as well, but knew Democrats would have been worse. They have been, and with this bill today, that's confirmed again.
Posted by: Palouse on February 10, 2009 01:34 PM