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 ThisZMac
Posted by: ZMac on April 10, 2009 08:00 PMZMac
Posted by: ZMac on April 10, 2009 08:00 PMZMac
Posted by: ZMac on April 10, 2009 08:00 PMZMac
Posted by: ZMac on April 10, 2009 08:00 PMunlike SS which will be depleted in 5 or 10 years
Posted by: hellpig on April 11, 2009 11:33 AMExactly my point.
Posted by: Eyago on April 11, 2009 06:30 PMOur 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 PMYou 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