What do jobless do when unemployment checks run out?

[longnecker]

Since abruptly losing her $312 weekly unemployment check in June, Laurie Cullinan has depleted her savings, sought food from the Salvation Army and lit candles to save electricity.
If she can't find a job this month, the Royal Oak, Mich., resident worries she'll be evicted from her apartment, an unthinkable prospect for the 52-year-old, who enjoyed a solidly middle-class lifestyle until she lost her office-manager job two years ago.
"What am I going to do if I'm homeless?" says Cullinan, who collected unemployment for 1½ years. "My mind won't let me comprehend that."
Cullinan is among about 1 million long-term unemployed Americans whose jobless benefits are phasing out this year as the federal government reels in Great Recessionlifelines that provided unemployment checks for as long as 99 weeks in many states. By year's end, another 2 million will see their checks cut off sooner than Cullinan's were, because extended unemployment benefits will end beyond the standard 26 weeks that states pay for. Congress could renew the program, but many economists say that's unlikely.
The cutbacks, required by a federal law passed in February, are already taking a toll. They are nudging some Americans into poverty, straining social services just as states and localities face their own budget woes and further crimping weak economic growth as those who lose benefits spend less.
The number of jobless workers has fallen from over 15 million in early 2010 to about 13 million now, but the share of unemployed workers collecting jobless benefits has dropped more sharply. It was about two out of three in 2010, but it's less than one in two now. Next year only about one in four will receive payments, according to the National Employment Law Project (NELP).


"There's going to be lots of people without any income still unable to find a job," says George Wentworth, a senior staff attorney for NELP. "You're going to see these people not be able to feed their families and not able to pay their mortgages. It will have a devastating impact on a lot of local economies."
Wentworth, like other advocates for the unemployed, does not accuse Congress of acting rashly, and he believes some scaling back of benefits was warranted. The federal government spent $59 billion on extended unemployment benefits last year and the up-to-99-week periods of subsidies are unprecedented in any economic downturn.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...ing/56720856/1

[childOfLacroix]

On one hand, there aren't enough jobs for these people. Despite popular belief, McDonald's and the mall cannot absorb every unemployed person in America; the people in the article are applying for those types of jobs and being turned down. It's called the Pigeonhole Principle; Google it.

On the other, perpetual unemployment checks aren't the answer, either. They don't solve the problem. They treat the symptom rather than the disease, and they don't even treat the symptom that well. UI in Delaware is, what, something like $350/week? You can't live off of that unless you sell drugs on the side. These people need jobs, not UI checks.

As a side note, I strongly suspect that the suicide rate among the unemployed is much higher than reported; I think the gov't is covering up how many of these people, facing homelessness, decide that a quick death by their own hand would be better than a painful, perhaps long one on the streets. Absent a note, a YouTube video or some other evidence (which the gov't could easily make disappear), many suicides could be ruled "accidents"....especially since coroners are gov't employees themselves. In addition, a family breadwinner may purposefully stage their suicide to appear to be an accident so that their spouse and children can collect life insurance money. A gov't eager to cover up suicides makes this easier.

People claim that the backbone of society is family. It's not. It's JOBS. Without jobs, without a means of financial support, there can be no families. Unemployment is causing our society to fall apart at the seams.

[wendy]

A friend of mine has had a series of health issues over the past few years, now I will say that many of them he created himself, however, these have left him to the point that he does not have the money to make his mortgage and car payment for this month. I have been trying to help him locate resources, help him sell his second car on Craig's List (btw...anyone interested in a 98 Honda Accord w/ 54000 miles. Needs a new battery. $3500. / blue book is 5k) to catch him up on his bills. His cable and internet are being cut off today. And he is working.

Last night at dinner D. said, "You get too involved trying to help people." (Actually, an interesting statement coming from someone who has done his time in the unemployment line and hated every minute of it). My response was, "I would just hope that if I were in that situation someone would help me out." He said, "Well, you won't ever be in that position."

Really? Where is THAT guarantee written? No one is promised an accident free, fully employed, uncomplicated life. I know I am blessed. I also know that it takes very little to lose everything. I've seen it happen to others and I thank God every day for what I have. These situations I hear about/read about are so sad and far too common. We get so comfortable in our lives; its a dangerous oblivion to what's going on around us.

[childOfLacroix]

I was homeless for a period when I was 18. I'm in my 40's now, and I still wake up screaming because of it. I know the abyss these people are staring into. They will never be the same again, having looked into it. If they fall into it, it will fundamentally alter them for the remainder of their lives, as it did me. Even years later, if they survive, they will always feel like they're set apart from everyone else, not really belonging. It's not dissimilar from surviving a war.

There is no way this is going to happen on this large a scale without our society coming apart at the seams.

[LozerBoozer]

I have been laid off and out of work more times I care to recall. I collected unemployment during that time, yes, I also did side jobs-
washed cars, walked dogs, cleaned houses, raked leaves, shoveled snow, pushed a broom, cut lawns, ran errands, took day jobs, etc etc etc etc etc. Use your imagination. I applied for every job I could find. Temp agencies and staffing companies are always looking for help. It might not be "THE PERFECT JOB" but it is a job and it is a paycheck at the end of the week.
Network- tell everyone you know, everyone you meet, that you are looking for a job. Follow up with them. Read the classifieds every day, go on craigs list and look at the jobs there. Sign up for career builder, phillyjobs.com, monster.com, indeed.com.
Update your resume and make copies, also keep an electronic copy that you can quickly email to potential employers. Most importantly, KEEP TRYING. Dont fall back on the bad habits of "I have another X-weeks of unemployment coming to me so I am going to sit on my ass" Those weeks will come and go and you'll be stuck.

Remember, the big bad world does not give a rats butt about your feelings....and you are entitled to NOTHING. The US Gov't does not owe you or anyone else a damned thing. It is not a picnic but it is the cold hard truth. Good Luck to you.

[childOfLacroix]

I'm having a discussion on that article with a topic very few people seem to understand: devaluation of one's resume. There's a good reason why some unemployed people don't want to work at McDonald's or the mall: if you were previously working on a high level--say, Software Engineer or VP of Marketing--and then you go work at McDonald's or the mall, you will be seen by future employers as a dirty burger flipper who doesn't deserve anything better. Maybe a mail room clerk's or receptionist's resume won't be devalued by a bottom-level job, but I assure you that an executive's resume will. Even a legal secretary's resume will be damaged by that.

Knowing this, an increasing number of people are doing what I've done for the past six months, in addition to walking dogs for another pet sitter before deciding to start my own business: taking white-collar contract work through oDesk.com and similar websites. "I've been doing contract work for clients on oDesk" sounds a lot better in a job interview than, "I flip burgers," plus the oDesk work is flexible; you can schedule it around job-hunting or entrepreneurial efforts. And while you won't get rich, if you hustle, you can make far more than you ever would at the mall.

Slightly off-topic, but I can never resist, heh:

The US Gov't does not owe you or anyone else a damned thing.

I agree! However, in return, the gov't is entitled to NOTHING from me. In exchange for being totally on my own, I want to be left alone by the gov't: no taxes at all, no services at all. If I want or need something, I'll buy it on the free market.

Since I work contract gigs--1099, not W-2--unemployment "insurance" is no longer stolen from my pay. Therefore, it doesn't bother me that, if I no longer have work, I cannot collect UI. I do, however, wish I were allowed to choose to purchase it on a free market. That is the solution to UI: privatize it. Then everyone is "entitled" to get whatever coverage they paid for, just like with any other insurance policy.

[Jessica]

I'm having a discussion on that article with a topic very few people seem to understand: devaluation of one's resume. There's a good reason why some unemployed people don't want to work at McDonald's or the mall: if you were previously working on a high level--say, Software Engineer or VP of Marketing--and then you go work at McDonald's or the mall, you will be seen by future employers as a dirty burger flipper who doesn't deserve anything better. Maybe a mail room clerk's or receptionist's resume won't be devalued by a bottom-level job, but I assure you that an executive's resume will. Even a legal secretary's resume will be damaged by that.

It's sad that this is the common perception. I would look at it and think "Wow, this is someone who wants to work, wants to do everything they can to stay active, and wants to stay employed while still searching for gainful employment in their field."

I think one of the major problems is that for someone who is receiving the full amount of unemployment, prematurely taking a very low paying job with long hours that will yield them only slightly more than their UI makes very little sense. If they're taking in $360 a week and have the time to pursue jobs, take interviews, and network, those things have to be considered. It makes little sense for them to leave that behind for a job that pays $460 a week but monopolizes their time and doesn't enhance their resume.

[max1]

I have done many different jobs in my life 20 years in a factory as a manager/ trainer when it closed I went to work for the state at half of what I made in the factory and I subsidized my life style by getting a job as a cashier at a liquor store or doing side work. All of these jobs SOME people would consider "beneath" them and those are the same folks who would tell you there are no jobs, no there are jobs, they just dont pay well and you may have to take two. If as an employer you think that way of me dont hire me please because I wont have any respect for you, and as an employee you feel that way about yourself, well then your self respect is lacking.

[EpicWin]

[childOfLacroix]

It's sad that this is the common perception. I would look at it and think "Wow, this is someone who wants to work, wants to do everything they can to stay active, and wants to stay employed while still searching for gainful employment in their field."

I think one of the major problems is that for someone who is receiving the full amount of unemployment, prematurely taking a very low paying job with long hours that will yield them only slightly more than their UI makes very little sense. If they're taking in $360 a week and have the time to pursue jobs, take interviews, and network, those things have to be considered. It makes little sense for them to leave that behind for a job that pays $460 a week but monopolizes their time and doesn't enhance their resume.

That's what makes oDesk and similar jobs great. Even when they don't pay much, at least they don't damage the applicant's resume, plus they offer flexibility to interview, network, etc. Try asking a pimple-faced "manager" at McDonald's if you can leave early so you can interview for a VP of Marketing job.

[childOfLacroix]

I have done many different jobs in my life 20 years in a factory as a manager/ trainer when it closed I went to work for the state at half of what I made in the factory and I subsidized my life style by getting a job as a cashier at a liquor store or doing side work. All of these jobs SOME people would consider "beneath" them and those are the same folks who would tell you there are no jobs, no there are jobs, they just dont pay well and you may have to take two. If as an employer you think that way of me dont hire me please because I wont have any respect for you, and as an employee you feel that way about yourself, well then your self respect is lacking.

Problem is, there are so few jobs these days that applicants can't just say, "F it, I don't need to work for that company."

I understand people not wanting to devalue their resume. Before I snapped and decided to work for myself, I ran into problems regarding my resume having been devalued...and I was nowhere near a six-figure level, even at my peak. It's one of the reasons why I decided to work for myself. My resume was so devalued that I had nearly no chance of landing a white-collar job that paid more than $10.00/hour. From a potential employer's POV, I'm a dirty dog walker who's too stupid and unskilled to do anything other than walk dogs and scoop waste. That's not how I feel about myself, but that is how I am perceived--I have been told such.

[Curly]

Even years later, if they survive, they will always feel like they're set apart from everyone else, not really belonging. It's not dissimilar from surviving a war.

With all due respect and sympathy for what you've been through, you've been in combat before? Just wondering.

[childOfLacroix]

No. My point was that people who have never been homeless have no idea what it's like, just as people who have never been in combat have no idea what that's like. Both fundamentally alter an individual's personality and how they perceive the world, as do all traumas. There's the person who existed before the trauma, and then there's the person who exists after. The person who existed before is effectively dead.

One of the charities I give to is the Wounded Warrior Project, because, while I cannot claim to understand exactly what combat vets have been through, I can empathize with the "before" and "after" part. And I think it's awful that our country turns its back on these vets once they've left the battlefield. Currently, more vets are being lost to suicide than in battle. They deserve better than that.

[max1]

No. My point was that people who have never been homeless have no idea what it's like, just as people who have never been in combat have no idea what that's like. Both fundamentally alter an individual's personality and how they perceive the world, as do all traumas. There's the person who existed before the trauma, and then there's the person who exists after. The person who existed before is effectively dead.

One of the charities I give to is the Wounded Warrior Project, because, while I cannot claim to understand exactly what combat vets have been through, I can empathize with the "before" and "after" part. And I think it's awful that our country turns its back on these vets once they've left the battlefield. Currently, more vets are being lost to suicide than in battle. They deserve better than that.

Very good post, I agree we need to treat our vets better.

[childOfLacroix]

I do apologize if any vets took my post the wrong way. I didn't mean to imply that I understood what it's like to be in combat. I don't understand it anymore than I understand what it's like to be blind. I can empathize with the "before" and "after" aspect of experiencing trauma, but complete understanding? No.

[Curly]

I do apologize if any vets took my post the wrong way. I didn't mean to imply that I understood what it's like to be in combat. I don't understand it anymore than I understand what it's like to be blind. I can empathize with the "before" and "after" aspect of experiencing trauma, but complete understanding? No.

I apologize if I'm came across the wrong way. I never been homeless or a vet of any war. So in other words, I'm clueless to both. I read your post and thought to myself that the comparison might put a war vet off. I've talked to many of them and can only go by what they've said but I'm never talked to people about their homeless experience. childOfLacroix, point well taken.

[Kid Lester]

I have said this many, many times on this board. If we do not do something about the staggering imbalance between the haves and the have nots in this country, we are heading straight for European style socialism. Nobody wants to accept that implementing policies that take a little more from the top and spread it around on the bottom is what has to happen. And it all ends up back at the top, anyway. So what's the big deal?

People are not going to resign themselves to being serfs. It won't happen. We continue to cripple this economy by favoring unheard of wealth over a robust working class. We have not even seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to public outcry over this.

[childOfLacroix]

Another article I saw on OTB, while looking for the one I posted on another thread:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/is-...he-new-normal/

It talks about how the present economy is "the new normal"...regardless of who wins the election.

[EpicWin]

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’
-Ronald Reagan