Since March 1st, automatic federal government budget cuts known as the sequester took effect. California's Employment Development Department announced a 17.7% cut in weekly unemployment benefits paid out by the U.S. Treasury taking effect April 28th. This cut is directed upon those unemployed for more than six months. Currently in California, there is an estimated 400,000 who fall under this category. We also have one of the highest unemployment rate in the nation recorded at 9.6% tied with Nevada and Mississippi.Although the sequester does not cut benefits given to those unemployed for 26 weeks, it hurts the more needy who have been unemployed for up to 47 more weeks. "The state's maximum benefits is $450 per week. Those recipients would see a weekly trim of $79. A 54 year old laid-off warehouse worker in Half Moon Bay responded, "It seems like every time we have a problem, and they can't come up with a budget, they want to attack someone. It's always the working class that gets hit the hardest."
The cuts will be "phased in over several months depending on when people enrolled for benefits." Details on the cuts are being mailed to recipients in hopes that they will be able to prepare for the money loss. This sequester, however, also weakens other attempts to help the unemployed. "The Employment Development Department is losing $3.3 million in federal money for administering the unemployment insurance program. Additionally, funding for the state's Workforce Investment Boards, which operate job centers, is being cut by at least $15 million." Like we learned in class, this may be a way to help encourage those who are unemployed to push harder for even the smallest of jobs. What are your opinions on the sequester? Is it too harsh?
4 comments:
*Please forgive me if I come off to harsh or condescending in my post.
I believe the sequester is not being too harsh at all. People need to want jobs, and if you don't want it you don't deserve free money. I actually think welfare is generally a bad idea, many of those people made bad decisions earlier in life and are facing the consequences. I mean there are some people who actually had no choice and well sorry. However, people shouldn't get a free ride for couple of months because they cannot find a "job." Many fast food joints are hiring all the time and even though it's minimum wage, it is still something. One can always look for a job while working part time. I feel like the warehouse worker is kind of lazy and wants to blame someone for his own laziness. "Blah blah blame someone and attack blah blah blah" is what I got from that quote. People need to want a job. If you want something bad enough, you can always achieve it. So good, maybe more people will look for jobs re stimulating the economy!
I actually have to side with Bruce on this one as he makes many great points. I see a lot of stores these days hiring at minimum wage and I feel like people would rather get the money for free and stay unemployed rather than work at places like McDonalds for minimum wage. If people are able to work and need money, then they should work. There are some people who get paid into social security while working their whole lives and disabled people who I believe truly need government help.
I like the fact that they are cutting pay to people who have been unemployed for a long time and not the people who have been unemployed temporarily. This will hopefully be an incentive for those able to work who haven't worked to get jobs and give time for the newly unemployed to start a job hunt. 6 months is plenty of time to land a minimum wage job.
I think Bruce is being somewhat harsh, but I do agree with what he is generally saying. Those people who have been unemployed for so long and decided to benefit from free money instead of getting a stable job deserve what the cuts will do to them. As jobs are becoming more competitive in the nation, those who take the effort to find a job know what the consequences will be if they do not. This is simply how capitalism and competition work. As the saying goes, the strong eat and the weak are meat.
If the unemployment benefits are not creating incentives for the unemployed to look for work, the sequester cuts will only hurt the lazy and apathetic in society. There are people who have lied to get unemployment benefits as well. I feel little sympathy for these people that are essentially stealing money from Uncle Sam's wallet. That being said, a lot of people are probably going to suffer from these cuts. Those who have desperately tried to find work but cannot will continue to be burdened by these shifting economic conditions.
Unfortunately for California citizens, this unemployment rate is a dilemma whose solution has not yet been found. Those people who have used up 26 weeks of state benefits and are on federal extensions will now have to work harder than before. As more people are unemployed, less people will get wages to spend and stimulate the economy. This does not seem to bode well for California, but the cuts are the cuts, even if you think they are too harsh. If there's any silver lining to this situation, it's that maybe this will give extra incentive for the unemployed eating out of benefits to start participating more in the economy.
I believe that this sequester is necessary. People who abuse governmental aid should not be rewarded for their own ineptitude. However, this sequester will be unfair for those who genuinely try to find work, but are inhibited by special reasons. There is no way to aid those who actually try to take an active part in society, because there is no way to gauge effort and diligence.
Ultimately, I agree with the previous comments, but with mixed feelings. While this sequester might hurt those who are in desperate need of aid, it might just push those who are too lazy to actively search for jobs.
Post a Comment