2. Really? Come on, now. That’s just more excuses. If that was me, I would get a temporary lower-paying job (even if it meant I had to flip burgers) to fill the gap until I found another higher paying job. What’s the problem with that? I know a lot of people think some jobs are beneath them, but personally responsible folk don’t. No, really. We don’t. For a time, my Dad worked three jobs to make ends meet so my mom could stay home with us kids. He had his regular job, he worked behind the counter of a liquor store, and he moonlighted as janitor. When you respect yourself, no job is beneath you. A lot of people today have the opposite view. Why? Because the government is there handing out two years of unemployment benefits. Why work as a janitor to put food in your belly, if Uncle Sam is going to hand out free money. If that sounds callous too, so be it.

If you reread my post, I didn’t advocate eliminating unemployment benefits. I suggested that the term should be reduced — preferably back to what they were before America became a nanny state (26 weeks).

You sound a bit jaded over the fact that I have lived my life in a fiscally sound and responsible manner. And you’re darn right I’m outraged. I’ve sacrificed my whole life to be in the position I’m in, while the funemployed (not the unemployed, the FUNEMPLOYED) are enjoying themselves for 2 whole years on the public dole.

Why do you keep making excuses for them?

You cite your ability to store up a nest egg with pride and allude to the fact that others that are not in the same situation (2 years of savings)are there because they have chosen to live irresponsible and above their means.

These factors affect our safety net:
1. Your salary. If you are not an Aerospace engineer and living just above minimum wage – working overtime just to pay your basic bills – where is there an opportunity to save as much as you did? How can these people live below their “means” when their “means” are too small to measure to begin with? Your logic is not logical and your remarks are callous in nature.

2. Time: you have been lucky enough to have many years to store up this nest egg. It takes time to do that. What if you have been out of school for 2 years and have lived below your means to save money, but haven’t had time for your nest egg to build up? This often happens to younger employees that are competing for higher paying jobs in our unstable market with those with more experience.

To come up with a logical argument based on one scenario (YOURS) and then applying it to everyone else’s situation is truly idiotic. You are missing so many pieces in your perspective of reality.

This blog seems to be a platform for you to spew off what a remarkable, self-sustaining person you are and how outraged you are at those funemployed out there who are taking advantage of the tax payers.

yes, there are those who take advantage of the system. But if it is as great an issue as you seem to think, then perhaps the system that seems to be giving out the money(according to you) to the funemployed needs to be fixed, not the length of benefits. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water!

If the government can spend $45 billion bailing out one company (Citibank), and watch them pay their star trader $100 million, the government should certainly help out millions of people for only $70 billion by extending unemployment benefits.

It’s so easy to tell people who are unemployed to just work. People just dont know how DIFFICULT it is, until you walk in their own shoes.

Unemployed folks, stand strong.

FS

Your post is directed to those that refuse to look for a job because they enjoy getting “free” money”. I completely agree that they should be held to higher standards in their job search efforts.

I have a friend like the guy you mentioned in your post. She’s mid-20′s, used to work in sales, has been unemployed more than half the year and still drinks every single night and sleeps in until about 1pm each day.

She collects enough money from unemployment to pay all her living expenses and therefore will not be motivated to seriously look for a job until her unemployment runs out. Her benefits being extended would only guarantee that she’d remain unemployed for an additional 14 weeks.

They may outwardly show “fun” and “joy”, but I bet that’s more of them trying to make the best of the situation, and not purposefully trying to “game” the system.

I think it’s very important to show empathy to those who’ve lost jobs and do what we can to help each other out. It is one of the most depressing feelings in the world, and it’s not right downplay their efforts.

First, I hate cliches but, regarding your reference to Citibank, two wrongs don’t make a right. That being said, as Ashley noted, my argument was towards the “funemployed” – not those who are out there working everyday to find employment.

Second, while I believe it is important to show empathy to those who’ve lost jobs, we should also realize that there are plenty of people out there who simply decide to take advantage of the system and milk it.

Think about it, many people when given the chance to earn $15.00 per hour working at a job they are not too enamored with, ultimately opt to pass on the job in order to keep receiving the $11.88 per hour they are getting from their unemployment checks. Why? Because consciously or subconsciously, they weigh the opportunity cost of not working vs working and decide the additional $3.12 isn’t worth it.

While I can see the logic behind such a decision, I believe it is simply not fair to the taxpayers when the “funemployed” choose to continue to take the checks while spending most of the day at Huntington Beach, rather than spending 40 hours per week wearing out shoe leather and looking for a better paying job.

It’s easy to be in a position to admonish others if you have a job, but it’s a different story altogether when you’re on the other side.

When we are working, we pay into unemployment benefits/insurance with every pay check. Why shouldn’t we receive our unemployment checks when we need it the most?

So let me understand your argument: are you saying it is okay to “milk” the system since the benefits being paid out are only temporary?

I also don’t believe the fact that the unemployed are in a disadvantaged position invalidates my argument, does it?