April 10, 2009
Washington State Jobless Benefits

Today's USA Today has an article comparing jobless benefits by state.  The print edition of the article includes a table giving average weekly benefits, total weeks of benefits and percentage of jobless receiving benefits, by state.   (The online edition has the same information, but in a map where you have to mouse over each state.

The data comes from a leftwing group, which is using government statistics to compare the states.  I have not checked their data, so I will not guarantee that the numbers are accurate.  But the numbers are interesting enough so that I thought that I would bring them to you, for discussion, without commentary.

In sum, Washington state pays relatively high weekly benefits — an average of $355.33 — for relatively long periods of time — up to 72 weeks — to a relatively small proportion of the jobless — 36%.  Washington state's weekly benefits are the fifth highest, after Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.  Four states, California, North Carolina, Oregon and Rhode Island, now offer benefits for as long as 79 weeks.  (Those lengths are probably set by federal law rather than state policies.)  Twenty-two states give jobless benefits to even fewer of their unemployed than Washington does.  The lowest is South Dakota at 18%.

And the highest?  That's our neighbor to the east, Idaho, which pays jobless benefits to 61% of the unemployed.  Surprised?  I was.

(Note:  The printed table says that Washington state's maximum weeks of benefits is 72 weeks.   The map says 46 weeks.  The number in the table seems more plausible, so I have used that.  I did check the NELP site for their numbers.  They have some data from the end of last year, which looks compatible with the table, but off by one quarter.)

Posted by Jim Miller at April 10, 2009 02:54 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Hand up or Handout?

Posted by: Sam Adams on April 10, 2009 03:04 PM
2. All this unemployment insurance is a crock. There are jobs out there for anyone at about 9-10 dollars an hour. But IT/Financial/Professional types refuse to take them, so they get unemployment $ instead. You only have to accept a job in your "field".

ZMac

Posted by: ZMac on April 10, 2009 08:00 PM
3. All this unemployment insurance is a crock. There are jobs out there for anyone at about 9-10 dollars an hour. But IT/Financial/Professional types refuse to take them, so they get unemployment $ instead. You only have to accept a job in your "field".

ZMac

Posted by: ZMac on April 10, 2009 08:00 PM
4. All this unemployment insurance is a crock. There are jobs out there for anyone at about 9-10 dollars an hour. But IT/Financial/Professional types refuse to take them, so they get unemployment $ instead. You only have to accept a job in your "field".

ZMac

Posted by: ZMac on April 10, 2009 08:00 PM
5. All this unemployment insurance is a crock. There are jobs out there for anyone at about 9-10 dollars an hour. But IT/Financial/Professional types refuse to take them, so they get unemployment $ instead. You only have to accept a job in your "field".

ZMac

Posted by: ZMac on April 10, 2009 08:00 PM
6. And I am sure any smart employer is going to hire an IT professional at $10 an hour doing some clerical task or whatever because, quite frankly, he is assured that this person will be around for the long haul, and is going to display a lot of job satisfaction. Have you ever been a hiring manager, ZMac?

Posted by: Eyago on April 10, 2009 09:34 PM
7. ZMac...The employer pays a tax, a percentage of around .06 percent on the wages the employee makes for unemployment insurance coverage to the State as well as an additional percent to the Federal Government. An employee must work for a certain length of time with a company to qualify for the coverage. An employee must be laid off not, fired or if he resigned to receive benefits. He is also, limited to a certain amount of weeks he is able to receive the benefits. If he is foolish to simply lay around, riding out his benefit time limitations and then, looks for a job, the employer can become aware of such a delay and it will go against the decision to hire a known slacker. So, most people who become unemployed will quickly start looking for a job. It goes without saying, unemployment insurance is a needed and a deserving great help to someone who is laid off.

Posted by: Daniel on April 11, 2009 10:30 AM
8. Eyago...A smart employer will usually not, hire an IT professional at $10 a hour. It would be a risky decision because, the person would be overqualified for the $10 a hour position. Meaning, as soon as a position that he is qualified for opens in the marketplace, he will leave your employment for that position leaving you the employer, empty handed for time and money it takes to find and train a replacement. It is not, good business practice to knowing hire a person who will soon leave.

Posted by: Daniel on April 11, 2009 10:56 AM
9. This is one tax the taxpayers actually get back in time of need...They paid into it they deserve it.

unlike SS which will be depleted in 5 or 10 years

Posted by: hellpig on April 11, 2009 11:33 AM
10. Daniel #8,

Exactly my point.

Posted by: Eyago on April 11, 2009 06:30 PM
11. Sorry....I misread your point.

Posted by: Daniel on April 11, 2009 06:45 PM
12. These people who are against unemployment comp. effectively want workers to become either indentured servants or slaves. Workers should continue to say "no" to that.

Posted by: C.G. on April 12, 2009 07:03 PM
13. 72 weeks without finding gainful employment? That, to me, reeks of either someone that isn't using the full resources available to them (this is the information age the last time I checked), or someone that really is making only a half-hearted attmept to find employment.

Our acquiescent attitude towards illegal infiltration into this country by foreign nationals or dare I say "illegal home invasion squatters" that take many otherwise accessible jobs away doesn't exactly help the plight of the unemployed either. Of course, just the mention of that reality now has me on a list within the Dept. of Homeland Security in the obama administration as a "right-wing extremist". Welcome to the Marxist era or governing.

Posted by: Rick D. on April 14, 2009 09:30 PM
14. Rick D @13
I see you haven't been out of work, or work in a common field, where there are always jobs. I also assume you don't work in the Construction business, worked in sales of autos (or similar businesses like RV's).

You are quite correct, say, if you have Nursing credentials, or work in an area that still is in high demand.

I am not looking right now, but I did look up recently for my own profession, and in the area, the only jobs currently available in my own profession are entry/beginning level (several $10K cut), have a specific skill they are looking for (i.e., company has an immediate need and doesn't want to put money into training), or is contract work (i.e., companies not wanting any long term commitments, either because the project is of sort duration, or don't want to take on the burden of a permanent employee).

Before, you make such grandiose generalizations, you should do a check yourself in your own profession, and check with some people in other professions and ask them how their trade/vocation is doing right now. While, in general, it seems like your statement should be true, right now, in certain sectors, it is down right brutal. Just ask some middle-level, ex-WAMU employees, out-of-work car/RV sales people, or people work in new-construction (especially residential).

My opinion is if you have a job, great! Keep working hard at what your doing. Right now is not a time to be trying to search for a new job.

Posted by: tc on April 15, 2009 07:37 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?