Annie Lowrey’s New York Times
Article, States Cutting Weeks of Aid to
the Jobless, discusses the government’s decision to no longer support
long-term unemployment. Most extended benefits have come halt since the end of
2013. Lowrey states, “the country’s safety net for jobless workers has
undergone a sudden transformation.” The time between losing your job and
finding a new one has shortened. Many people are forced to take jobs they never
expected to have, just to earn some type of income. They are taking much lower
wages than what they earn at their previous jobs. Many people, who are laid off
from work, look for unemployment benefits to help support them and their
families while they are unemployed. These families are struggling and living on
very little.
In North Carolina, without the
extended unemployment insurance, the unemployment rate has dropped from 8.8% to
7.4%. This is not because people are suddenly finding work. The main reason for
this drop is, the workers that have become discouraged. Since they cannot find
work before their insurance is cut off, they simply give up looking for work.
In North Carolina, you can see the reduction in unemployment insurance is
positively correlated to the decline in the labor force.
There is also a divide among the
political parties about this change in policy. One side believes it is a necessary
change because people are too dependent on unemployment insurance. They believe
it encourages people to take their time to find a job when they could do
better. The other side disagrees and believes that many families need
unemployment insurance to help them through these tough economic times.
The standstill of unemployment benefits has certainly effected many people, as well as sparked debate on capital hill. Unemployment insurance is without a doubt a necessity. If it were up to me, I would say that people should receive unemployment benefits for a maximum of 5 months. However, those in Washington needs to find a way to work together to pass a bill clarifying the extend of unemployment benefits so that people who lose their job can make plans accordingly.
ReplyDeleteBased on my understanding of how the program works, I think I would even push 5 months to 6 months or even a year. The older employees who are laid off are typically the ones leaving the workforce altogether, because, who wants to hire someone who is to leave in a short 10 years? From my understanding, those who are unemployed need to turn in data that shows they have applied to a certain amount of jobs in that month in order to receive benefit. I think maybe that number could be risen to increase the likelihood of success. I don't think those who are unemployed are lazy, but they had no choice but to become somewhat dependent because that's the only thing they had. Going from $80,000, or even $50,000 can really shock a family's financial safety- that should motivate the unemployed by itself alone; not how long unemployment benefits last.
ReplyDelete