When 99 weeks of unemployment benefits come to an end…

Back in November 2009, I wrote a post about a very capable woman who entered the U.S. workforce in 2006 and was laid off in 2008. Let’s call her “Jessica”. For more than a year she had been collecting unemployment benefits. Jessica recently enjoyed a spa vacation with our mutual friend and I asked my friend how the vacation went. “We had a great time,” she responded, “but it made me wonder how the U.S. economy can survive. Jessica has worked a total of two years in her life. Now she has collected unemployment for almost two years. No wonder taxes are so high.”

What was next for Jessica? “She’s says that she’s going to look for a job when her 99 weeks of unemployment run out.”


  1. Caswel

    June 18, 2010 @ 5:53 am


    Congress is causing the unemployment.

    1. OBama repealed the Section 179 investment expense deduction. This credit lets small-businesses expense the first year, instead of 5 to 30 years. Then they can expand and hire new employees.

    2. Increasing unemployment benefits from two months to two years forced my state to sharply increase unemployment-insurance rates; employers can’t hire new workers: it’s too expensive.

    3. Why work when unemployment benefits pay as much as a job? An auto-body owner said his “best guys won’t return because they make as much on unemployment.” A private placement agency’s owner said he’d been embarrassed by applicants refusing job offers in line with their former wages because they made as much unemployed..

    This two-year unemployment benefit makes a profession out of doing nothing

  2. Hubbert

    June 18, 2010 @ 7:01 am


    Other states vary, but in Michigan:
    * To receive an unemployment check, you must certify that you are LOOKING and AVAILABLE for work and haven’t turned down a job offer.

    * The maximum benefit is $362/week: not quite enough for food, COBRA, rent, a telephone, and gas/insurance so that the unemployed person can do phone screens and show up for an interview. It definitely is not enough to finance luxury vacations.

    “Jessica” is the exception, and an unfair insult to the millions of people who are desperately looking for jobs that just don’t exist.

    We need about 127,000 jobs/month to keep up with population growth [1], and 125,000 jobs/month to keep up with immigration and work visas [2], or 252,000/month. And of course, we need to add far more to soak up the millions of unemployed [3].

    How’d we do in May? 431,000 total jobs less 411,000 were Census temps, leaving only 20,000 real jobs: That’s only 8% of what we need just to break even (completely ignoring the millions of jobs lost over the past years).

    Other figures say that there 5.5 unemployed people for every job that opens: even if one of the 4.5 disappointed seekers is a “Jessica,” what happens to the other 3.5 (adding to tens of millions total [4])? How well would you interview after living under a bridge for a month?

    I agree with your friend: something IS fundamentally wrong with the system. But the causes and solutions are not to be found by scapegoating the victims, but by examining substantial issues such as:
    * trade policies
    * currency policy
    * immigration policies
    * industrial policy
    * energy policy
    * civil service policies (excessive hiring, generous pensions, etc.)
    * preference for FIRE[5] economy interests over real goods/services economy interests.

    [1] http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/signs_of_healing_in_the_labor_market_though_unemployment_remains_in_double_/

    [2] http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/august-19-2009/125000-brand-new-foreign-workers-work-permits-each-month-heres-proof.h

    [3] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/the-jobs-deficit/

    [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-kent/how-much-job-creation-is_b_606803.html

    [5] Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate

  3. philg

    June 18, 2010 @ 8:15 am


    Hubbert: Jessica is not an “unfair insult” to other people. She is an actual person who is very intelligent and who makes decisions based on what is best for her. It doesn’t bother her that unemployment won’t pay for health insurance, for example, because, as she explained in the November 2009 posting, she is married and gets health insurance through her husband’s job. Being married to a working spouse is not an uncommon situation for an American.

    As for how the Politburo, Gosplan, and Premier Obama are going to create 15 million jobs in their next 5-year plan, that was beyond the scope of either posting.

  4. Retardo

    June 18, 2010 @ 9:28 am


    I’m sorry, Phil, but Paul Krugman has decreed that increased unemployment benefits won’t encourage people not to look for work. Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize; you don’t. He writes for the New York Times; you don’t. He teaches at Princeton, so arguably you outrank him there, but he still wins two out of three. That means that his guess about what time it is, for example, is more true than what the CDMA signal is telling your cell phone.

    Therefore, your lying eyes are showing you something unpossible here. You may think Jessica exists, but theory shows clearly that she does not.

  5. George

    June 18, 2010 @ 10:16 am


    In “Jessica’s” case, the laws for unemployment need to change. It should be based on the family income vs. individual. Also, at least in Massachusetts, certifying that you are looking and available to work is a joke: it’s just a checkbox which you must check on the form.

    The intention of unemployment benefit is good, unfortunately our politician extended the benefit so they can keep their own jobs vs. caring about the or the country “small people”.

  6. philg

    June 18, 2010 @ 11:57 am


    George: Unemployment isn’t welfare, so it doesn’t necessarily make sense to put in a family income test. The employee paid for the insurance through payroll deductions and received a lower take-home salary. The deeper questions are whether the premiums will ever cover the current level of spending on unemployment payments and what happens to a worker who has “collected unemployment for two years” on his or her resume (i.e., would such a person get hired in competition with a fresh college graduate).

  7. Fabian Gonzales

    June 18, 2010 @ 1:07 pm


    Phil: Intelligent or not, Jessica and people like her are abusing the system, and also breaking the law – specifically, committing fraud. You are supposed to actively look for work while collecting unemployment benefits.

    By undermining the intentions of the unemployment benefit system, people like Jessica makes it harder to justify the program expense to cover people who genuinely need the assistance.

    Your example highlights the drawbacks of providing social services – many people will inevitably take advantage, leading to added expense for productive, otherwise well-meaning, citizens. It also doesn’t help that America is a very individualistic society, where this kind of cheating evidently is socially acceptable.

  8. david

    June 18, 2010 @ 1:33 pm


    Jessica’s husband get his money worth out of the taxes he is paying.

  9. George

    June 18, 2010 @ 1:56 pm


    The deeper question for me is are we creating yet more entitlement programs (indirectly) such that society will simply turn to government more and more? And yes, extending the unemployment benefit is a form of welfare, why?

    If the government didn’t extend unemployment benefit to 99 weeks, “Jessica” and her family will do just fine (the family has incoming income from the husband to survive). On the other hand, if “Jessica’s” family couldn’t survive (she is a single parent or single income generator of the family, and can’t find a job) and her original 52 weeks unemployment benefit run out, what’s her alternative? Welfare!

    So for “Jessica” and everyone else who is on the extended unemployment benefit, they are automatically (and indirectly) being placed on a form of a welfare program.

  10. sr

    June 18, 2010 @ 3:06 pm


    Giving people 99 week vacations is not doing them any favors. Employers tend to be wary of workers with gaps in their employment history.

  11. Wan Chen

    June 18, 2010 @ 3:28 pm


    Phil: I noticed that all of you talking about these only limited in US. Let’s try to see the whole big picture.

    The Gini coefficient of US is extended in past 30 years. That means poor men in US are more poor but rich men are more rich. You cannot deny it.


    Everybody knows that consuming supports US’s economic. So people become poorer and poorer, they cannot afford their morgage. Finnally it causes subprime crisis.

    So you can see, the wrost thing is not US people got too much money. In fact, they are lack of money to support medical, house, even their life. They can only borrow money, live with debts.

    20 years ago, one man can support a whole family when he had work, but now is very hard. Why? Why cann’t us have the same life as 20 years ago? Didn’t we have more productivity? Didn’t we have much advanced tech?

    That’s because rich people invest India, China and all other countries. That make workers in US lose their power to negotiate wages. It makes unemployement rising. Some guys said, when Chinese become rich, they will import our goods. But that’s not true. Because China is not a freedom country. People worked like slaves, governments and officers got lots of money. They will only invest, not consume.

    1950’s, a four bed rooms house in long island costs only 4000$. Now is how much? Why they become so expensive? Because the rich people made lots of money by out sourcing, many foriegn rich man (owner of slaves) immgrant to US. More and more people work for financial industry. They play money games to grab money from other countries.

    Trust me, this country has big trouble. Rich people knows only invest to foreign counties. But they cannot control those countries. One day, they could lose all of their money in one night. Don’t forget what communist party did. Poor people lose jobs. They rely on benifits. Losing working ability. People talking about freedom, but they enjoy their life with products from NO freedom countries. They spent lots of money in Iraq, Afghan. But they never pay attention on the biggest players. Like China. Funny country.

  12. Gary Bloom

    June 18, 2010 @ 3:42 pm


    Any social system will always be gamed. Lefties will complain about large corporations gaming the system, righties will complain about minorities, unions, and lazy people gaming the system. The question has to be, what’s better for a society as a whole?

    For example, is it worse (as in a previous PhilG example) that some individuals may wait to get a major disease before paying into health insurance? Or is it worse that the insurance industry works to deny benefits while skimming a third of the health-care money off the top? How many Jessicas are there compared to those who legitimately can’t get a job, and would be homeless and wihout health-insurance if there were no unemployment benefits? (And which would also deepen the economic depression.)

  13. Hubbert

    June 18, 2010 @ 3:56 pm


    Thanks for the reply, Philip. In light of the Senate debate on reverting unemployment to a maximum of 26 weeks, it seemed that you were using Jessica as an example of an undeserving recipient and in support of the cuts.

    It’s a sensitive topic for the millions of Americans, especially singles, for whom homelessness and permanently falling out of the middle-class is a near-term possibility.

    Like you, I’m skeptical that government can “create” real private sector jobs. But the idea that job-seekers (rather than the economy’s lack of job creation) are to blame for their own unemployment is fairly common on the Internet, yet mathematically false. The government does directly control the number of work visas that it issues, and better managing it would be a step in the right direction.

  14. philg

    June 18, 2010 @ 5:49 pm


    Hubbert: I did not realize that this was being debated in the Senate. I don’t think of Jessica as “deserving” or “undeserving”. If the government wants to print money and hand it out to Wall Street executives, or tax a 70-year-old working at Walmart and hand that money out to 45-year-old retired public employees, there is no way to analyze the situation in terms of who deserves what.

    My personal view is that the best prediction about the future of the American labor market is that it will be similar to today’s labor market. Without a crystal ball, there is no reason to believe that it will be worse or better. Therefore it doesn’t help people to give them two years of unemployment payments. There won’t be more or better jobs in two years than there are now. An average unemployed American should survey the job market, move to a new state if necessary, switch to a different career if necessary, and take the best job found within a month or two. If the market-clearing wage for that person happens to fall below the federal minimum wage, he or she should work illegally in the cash economy (building up skills and references) or perhaps emigrate to a country where there are more jobs.

    A worker cannot depend on growth in the general U.S. economy to improve his or her standard of living. A worker’s main hope of advancement is the development of better skills, something that can be done only by attending school (though sadly most American schools are extremely inefficient and ineffective) or by working. The skill of watching TV and taking breaks to deposit unemployment checks is not valued by modern employers.

    Consider the people who lost their jobs in June 2008, when the current recession was new. If you’d asked them “will the job market be a lot better in two years” a lot would have said “of course!”. But as it happens, they were wrong. The job market right now is probably worse than it was in June 2008. So sitting at home waiting for the job market to improve was not productive.

  15. Hubbert

    June 18, 2010 @ 11:07 pm



    You make very reasonable points. The action items you have raised warrant discussion, as they could actually help people. I’d welcome your continued participation.

    Here are some practical challenges with your good ideas: any suggestions for surmounting them would be most helpful.

    1. Move to a new state.
    1.1 Jobs that can support a middle-class existence usually require specialized experience which leads to limited geographic mobility. Taxi driving is portable, but most engineering seems industry-specific these days. What value does a mechanical engineer with experience in dynamic ride height control bring to an oilfield services company in North Dakota?

    1.2 The only states with low unemployment rates are small and undeveloped [1].

    I haven’t run the numbers, but it looks like even 10% of the unemployed in California, Florida, and Ohio could easily swamp North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska without really making a dent in the sending states’ rates.

    1.3 Since buying or leasing shelter requires proof of income, the job seeker needs to get hired remotely before moving. And in a “mixed” couple, should the working spouse quit his/her job, or should they separate indefinitely?

    2.1 Switch careers…school
    It is sometimes possible to get a waiver and collect unemployment while taking classes under certain conditions, so millions of unemployed people who are trying to do just this will soon find themselves cut off and dropping out of a program. In any case, 26 weeks is certainly too short to do much meaningful retraining (even a single-semester course would be impossible unless the layoff was timed unusually favorably with respect to the academic calendar).

    Retraining, and the time it takes, is both the strongest argument in favor of extending benefits, as well as the clearest indicator of the shortfalls in the current system. It copes well enough with short-term plant closings and career transitions (i.e., plowman to canal team driver) in a simpler time, but is fairly inadequate now that middle-class jobs often require an advanced degree.

    2.2 …or by working.
    One of the biggest recent trends seems to be an increasing rejection of inexperienced people: the unemployment rate drops by half after 24: the over-45 rate lower still in many population groups [2]. Almost all posted positions require 3, 5, or 7 years of exquisitely specific experience that can only have been gained if you were doing THAT JOB circa 2005. If companies are rejecting bright, energetic recent graduates due to a lack of experience, it’s hard to see why they’d act differently toward an older person similarly situated.

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_unemployment_rate
    [2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/06/business/economy/unemployment-lines.html

  16. philg

    June 18, 2010 @ 11:30 pm


    Hubbert: I did not mean to suggest that unemployed workers would not endure hardship and/or lean heavily on family members.

    1.1: Your example is a mechanical engineer. He or she should move to a country in which manufacturing is growing, e.g., China, or take a low-paid apprenticeship to become a bioengineer.

    1.3: A couple in which one partner has been laid off should expect to split up for a while. Throughout human history it has been common for men to migrate for work, leaving wives and children behind.

    2.1: The most valuable retraining will occur through internships and apprenticeships. These are mostly illegal due to minimum wage laws, but can be pursued illegally or by moving to a foreign country (if you’re not getting paid you don’t need a work visa).

    2.2: Through minimum wage laws and the world’s most expensive health care costs, the U.S. essentially prevents the legal employment of people whose skills fall below a certain value to employers. The sensible long-term solution for these folks is emigration to a country where the minimum wage is lower. It is common for people in Africa or Latin America to have to migrate to find work.. why should the U.S. be different?

    If there were an obvious way to generate economic and jobs growth, the poor countries of Africa would have found it and they would no longer be poor. For reasons that nobody may ever know for sure, companies and individuals prefer to invest in places other than Africa and therefore there isn’t a lot of growth there. The U.S. now finds itself in the same position; investors would rather put their money into Brazil, China, and India. So there is job growth in those countries, but not in the U.S.

  17. Ken D.

    June 19, 2010 @ 12:42 am


    I do think that in some cases unemployment insurance has the unintended consequence of causing some people to feel less urgency related to finding the next job. Perhaps it would be better to structure unemployment insurance as a lump sum payment to the newly unemployed person. This would eliminate the perverse incentive to milk the system and delay the serious job search, for those people for whom their particular circumstances render this a practical possibility.

    Of course everyone’s situation is different and my heart goes out to anyone who is doing everything possible to find a new job without success; and certainly this applies to very many people.

    I also worry about the societal effects if, as now seems plausible, we may be entering an extended period when perhaps millions of formerly-comfortable middle and lower-middle class people find they need to undergo a significant reduction in their standard of living. How will society handle this strain if it does come to pass?

  18. jay cordaro

    June 19, 2010 @ 5:38 am


    Once upon a time, there was a guy who in the 90s worked for a large software company based in Washington State run by a high-strung indvidual. The CEO would periodically fire this individual. The individual would immediately apply for unemployment, go to Mexico, rent a cabin by the beach in a small town that had a good bank, and surf. Why? because Washington State paid unemployment even if you got fired, allowed you to renew unemployment via phone, and paid by direct deposit. They still do, and even allow you to do it online now (https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/uia/icintro/intropage.aspx?lang=en-us). Once a week he would go to the local payphone and place a call to the automated system and hit the digits that indicated he was still unemployed and still looking for work. He lived so frugally, and Washington state benefits were so generous ($192/wk at the time), that could scrape by even when the unemployment ran out. More often than not, the CEO would call him up and re-hire him before the unemployment ran out because he was a hot-shot programmer.

    You’ll be happy to know that the CEO in the story above is now an ex-CEO and is fabulously wealthy. The individual named above is orders of magnitude less wealthy but is still comfortable.

    My advice to Jessica is to move to a low-cost country and renew unemployment via phone or internet if her state allows it. Fill in missing gaps by ‘teaching english’ or something.

  19. donna

    June 21, 2010 @ 9:49 am


    I have been unemployed since January 2009, and I have been searching for job since that date. I have been on hundreds of job interviews but I have never been offered a job. I am 61 years old, I need unemployment in order to live. This is helping me pay my bills.

  20. Marty

    June 24, 2010 @ 7:18 pm


    By your logic, as you run out the 99 weeks, you can get a job.

    This isn’t the case, I had worked straight for 23 years in two different professions and got laid off from a company that posted an 8 billio0n dollar quarter as the layoffs were handed out. The CEO (for three months at that time) took a 7 million dollar bonus check.
    My 99 weeks, were shorted because I refused to file for 6 months after being laid off. To proud I guess.So my time ran out before the money allotted to me did, they kept it. I have a pile of paperwork documenting my job search, over an inch high on my desk, each page has a minimum of two applications on it.
    I haven’t seen an unemployment check in over 3 months, and guess what… STILL NO JOB!

  21. Northville

    June 25, 2010 @ 7:43 am


    My husband got laid off in Feb 2009, and was in scientific software sales/sales- he still has not been able to find a job…especially in Michigan. He is looking for any sales job. He even wanted a 30,000 a year job and was more than qualified, but they would not hire him because they said, he was over qualified, and they wanted someone just out of college. The unemployment agency, said he could not get unemployment benefits any longer, even though he started collecting on April 1 2009, well below the 99 weeks that anyone else is getting. The 99 weeks, seems to be retroactive- not from your starting date of benefits. Anyone want to hire a passionate “C” level salesman?

  22. old and unemployment

    June 26, 2010 @ 9:55 pm


    I am older (64), well educated, experience, and looking for a job. I actually like to work and want to work. No one will hire me. They look on the internet, see my age, and discount my experience and skills due to age. At this point, all hope is gone and I am at the very end. Never did I think my life of effort and hard work (worked for 35 years) would end like this. We, as a society, have no respect for the intelligence and capability of people beyond 50. Our value system far exceeds that of youth…yet corporate America is run by the young who know only greed and “what’s in it for me”! Sadly, soon we will all be gone (the old like me) and the world will depend on these selfish business people.

  23. philg

    June 27, 2010 @ 7:56 am


    Donna: I’m sorry to hear that your job search hasn’t been successful. At age 61 you are going to face a lot of discrimination from employers. I would advise you to concentrate your efforts on businesses whose customers tend to be senior citizens, e.g., neighborhood banks, various tourism operators, etc.

    Marty: I did not mean to suggest that a person would magically find a job after 99 weeks. Many Africans will never find a job because Africa is not an attractive place to do business. The same can now be said for many Americans and American states.

    Northville: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm gives unemployment rates by state. Michigan, as you can see, is a write-off. If your husband wants a job he will almost surely need to move to a state with a strong economy. Given that his expertise is software sales and the largest and healthiest software customer is the federal government, I would advise him to move to the Washington, D.C. metro area.

  24. smitty

    July 5, 2010 @ 3:38 pm


    Will you please tell me which state has a strong economy and plentiful jobs? And will you please tellme how to finance the move to this state with my wife and 3children, ,since I have been out of work for 23 months and have no more resources for the move. thank you.

  25. philg

    July 5, 2010 @ 9:06 pm


    Smitty: There are quite a few states with strong economies, including North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and some others shown in http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm . Washington, D.C. may be your best bet in terms of a sizable metro area.

    How can you afford to move your wife and three children? As noted previously, most workers who migrate for jobs leave wives and children behind. This is true in China. It is true in Africa. It has long been true in the U.S. for workers born in Latin America. And there is no reason to expect the situation for native-born Americans to be different in the long run (since we aren’t smarter or better educated than the Chinese). So… you would move to Washington, D.C. and get a job. Your wife and children would stay where they are. You would have your paychecks deposited in your joint checking account and your wife would spend the money. Depending on your income, you would travel home periodically to see the wife and kids.

    See http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2009/03/16/how-rich-countries-die/ for an explanation of how politically connected groups are able to capture most of a society’s wealth. If the only way that a 51-year-old retired state worker can continue to enjoy a life of leisure is for you to migrate thousands of miles away, share a two-bedroom apartment with seven other workers, and see your wife and kids only once every two years, then that is what will happen.

    I’m sorry if it seems unfair, but we’ve already gotten to the point where we think it is morally acceptable to tax a 67-year-old Walmart worker to support a 41-year-old retired city bus driver here in Massachusetts.

  26. Murphy O"Conner

    August 24, 2010 @ 10:55 am


    Anyone who puts down or has a problem with someone that has been unemployed whether back in like 08 till present. All I gotta say is, UPYOURS if you have a problem with us. I been laid off back in Oct. of 08.

    You think I never looked for work and this is a vacation right? YOU IGNORANT FOOLS. I even been hired on and off through this economical mess. You know what happens if you actually FIND A JOB you prix. This is what happens, they try to keep you at minimum wage, treat you like trash, you will NOT get your full time hours, YOU WILL NOT GET YOUR BENEFITS from your jobs nowadays, cuz everything is expensive and companies know, that they can do whatever they want to you. Due to the fact of this messed economy and theres just too many unemployed to fill your spot. Cuz hey, if you have a problem with your wage, hours and how they treat you today. Trust me they dont care and will find a way to either lay you off or piss you off so much till you quit. You’d even be lucky to be hired at all to this present day, and work pass your 90day probation period. All my friends, family, including myself whom have been unemployed and actually found work, all of us get laid off again & again. Whether before or even slightly after your 90day period. etc. Want to know why???….

    Obvious answer to this: How many people are unemployed now? So when a company knows that your 90day probation is near, & so they do not have to give you a raise or give you 401k or healthcare etc. THEY will then be simply done with you! ITS A PROVEN FACT AND IM LIVING PROOF. You even wonder why half of us out there are giving UP! But then, when a company is done with you, out comes another joe from outta no where to fill your spot. And if he/she has a problem with their current job they finally got, again they will let him go and get another random person outta know where to keep on minimum wage etc. it will just cycle like this. Like I said do not even try to argue with me, I been there done that. Even next week, supposively I have a job interview at oh ya, you’ll see this will cure my situation, the job interview will be at TARGET, I still have a security officer license, picture me at 30 making minimum wage now as a security officer, working part time, no benefits and since Target only pays so much. There would be no way they would pay me like they did when I was a private bodyguard or working on government property. But hey, its a job right, according to you ignorant prix. Oh and I do not want to hear, why do you not look for 2 jobs. Again, your being stupid. I have done that too and even worked 3 jobs at a time before. But AGAIN THEY WERE FREAKIN MINIMUM WAGE WITH NO BENEFITS AND STILL WAS BARELY GETTING BY WITH 3 FREAKIN MINIMUM PART TIME JOBS. THEY WILL NOT HIRE IN MY COUNTY A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE. THERES EVEN A JOB OPENING AT HONEY HAM DOWN MY STREET. GUESS WHAT THOUGH, PART TIME AND $7.50hr START, CAN YOU SURVIVE OFF THIS. FREAKIN GAS IS HEADING TO $2.90 to OVER THE $3.00 A GALLON RANGE. DAMN IT GET CLUED IN, I NEED A FULLTIME JOB WITH BENEFITS, THAT CAN PAY MY BILLS, I HAVE A HOUSE, I”M MARRIED, I HAVE CAR PAYMENTS, BILLS, EDUCATION BILLS ETC ETC ETC. SO SHUT IT ALREADY!

    Now heres the next thing to you jerks that put us unemployed citizens down. When you do actually find a job, and then you claim the money that you earned. So the workforce will know your being honest and that you found a job. Know what happens next? Simple, they immediately cut you off from your unemployed benefits. Not saying you need the money when you have a job, but gotdamn it, they should keep your file active. This happened to me 4 times now. And half the time I do not want to look for work. Due to the fact, it seems companies and the unemployment benefit workforce do not understand, that you do not have a stable job till you have at least been there for half a year.

    These idiots like I said done this to me 4 times when I found work. I would claim I’m making money, immediatley the unemployment workforce will throw out your file. Then when your present job lays you off again. My God then again you have to re-apply for unemployment. And you have no income from anywhere from 3 weeks to 3 months.

    So you know what I did next, well I mean what I’m doing presently. Simple, only thing I turn to is family, school, keep applying for work and I have opened a small home business. I’m taking upon welding, metal forging, gun/metal smithing. And my family opened a cleaning business, I’m sure you know where this is going.


    I hadn’t received an unemployment paycheck for over 9 weeks. AND I WAS BARELY ON MY FIRST EXTENSION. I try my best and keep looking for work. THERES NOTHING IN THIS COUNTY LOCALLY FOR WORK. You fill us with info. on where or what freakin state is hiring. And we will all move there. Make sure the expenses are on you for the move as well. Cuz hey I mean we all use the system right? We are on vacation, so please give us lots of baby food and therapy and more free money so we can move to a working state!

    Oh and not just any random job either jerknutts. WE WANT OUR CAREER PAYING JOBS BACK. This 30yr old would rather freakin be kicked to the streets then to go back to McDonalds or get shot at a convenience while I *hence* while BEING on the JOB for only $7.50hr LOL what a JOKE!

    We the people whom are unemployed want our real paying jobs back, you know a job where first off IS STABLE! 2nd that actually pays more then $10.00hr especially if your experienced, a job that actually gives you great health benefits. And a job that you know you can actually hear your superiors say thank you for working with us. Anything you need…etc .etc… Think this country will ever see days like that again???

    Nuff said oh and lastly did I mention all you unemployed bashers can go F””””YOURSELVES!

  27. Murphy O"Conner

    August 24, 2010 @ 11:54 am


    Oh I also forgot to mention this too. Half the time when you go to a job interview and if you are over the age of per-say 26, with a degree, or have lots of work experience. And you happen to ask for only a tiny bit more then minimum wage on your job.app. Well, good luck on that account. They will just look at you and say, your over qualified or no positions available at this time, call you in a couple weeks!

    Then the company will just end up hiring a person with no experience, barely any education, and even possibly have had a couple misdemeanor charges. And all in all will end up paying that new employee, oh right you guess it! MINIMUM WAGE! Anyone see where I”m getting at yet?

    Lastly, dont bother trying to fight for yourself if no one calls you back for an interview even though they say they will or if they actually promised you a job position, but still never calls you back. Because unless you have a lot of money to fight for yourself and a good workforce lawyer. Trust me on this one, the manager or top boss is always on VACATION!


Log in