We did something like that during the great depression. They did a lot of work in Upper Michigan where I visit my in-laws. From what I hear up there, it was a great program. It took out of work men, many with no skills, and taught them how to build bridges and such. It housed, fed, and clothed them while they did it. They paid the men and required that a certain amount be sent home to support dependents.

I understand there are people who think most (if not all) people receiving unemployment benefits are lazy. Such may be the case for half of these people. If 50% were the case, than there is the other 50% making an effort. If these people (As mentioned in earlier comments) were working labor jobs instead of searching for jobs, it would be even tougher for them to get back into jobs they would excel at because they are not putting full faith into the job hunt.

The whole situation sucks for those RECEIVING unemployment and STILL PAYING for others receiving unemployment. I believe there is no right or wrong answer. There are pro's and con's to having unemployment benefits in the first place.

I understand, but disagree with Jim Bunning's attempt to stop unemployment benefits from continuing. He makes some valid points about people not wanting to work if they are getting a handout. However, many of these people worked and contributed indirectly and directly to these funds. As many people on unemployment are trying to get jobs, the battle for basic living wages is tougher and tougher.

We all should take note that saving for this situation is critical. Budgeting is just one way to make sure that we are not so reliant on unemployment benefits. With that said, we all never know what MAY happen to us. Jobs we thought were secure are not. Times change and we may become hypocrites one day that we too need these unemployment benefits.

Tough calls on either side of the argument.

David Damron
LifeExcursion

He was making 17/hr before the lay off, which is rougly 34k/yr. Unemployment pays him 388/wk, which is roughly 20k. Minimum wage at 7.25/hr is roughly 15k/yr. All of the above scenarios assumed to be 40/hrs at 52 weeks. Why accept a job for 25k/yr when I get 20k for doing nothing.

And that people, is the problem with unemployment benefits. As long as it pays more than minimum wage, there is no incentive to apply for and consider every job.

I think, the first 6 months of unemployment should be free, no strings attached. After 6 months, some type of work should be required to receive the benefits (minimum of 30 hours a week).

I have seen and heard far too many folks use unemployment as a vacation, only to find a job right before or after the benefits expired. Here is the kicker, Indiana pays 390/wk for unemployment benefits. 390/wk would cover all my expenses. I too, would hold out for a job that is closer to my ideal salary and collect employment benefits until they ran out. But I'm not willing to work to collect that 390/wk unemployment check when I can work somewhere for 450/wk doing a regular job.

I thought initially you were talking about welfare.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard that in NYC, the mayor previously arranged for people receiving welfare cheques to work in labour type jobs to earn their cheque?

If that's the case, I think that's a good idea because it promotes a sense of worthiness and contribution to society, which may counteract feelings of depression, drug use, etc.

Don't mean to get all political here, but I come from the same Vancouver notorious for the Downtown Eastside and our cheques are handed out pretty liberally here =) And then everyone spends it on drugs on cheque day.

However, those with a work ethic shouldn't mind cleaning a park or performing some civic support for the benefit on a part-time basis while looking for work.

Those without work ethic would then be more likely to go get a real job.