long term unemployment
 

I have all the sympathy in the world for the unemployed
having 2 immediate family members out of work, one for 7 months
the other for 6. Both have been searching since day one.

My problem is the recent extension of another 13 months, seems
to me it would be better extending at 3 month intervals to keep
people beating the bushes.

Only natural if you have another year most will put off looking.

That may be good, 3 month extensions. May also have some of the unemployed working at the employment office.

How does one differentiate between those working hard to get back to work and those that aren't?

I'm all for systems that help those that need, for a time, but what about when it is being milked? Can't allow anyone to offend the milking, can we?

As someone that has used unemployment benefits twice in 15 years it certainly helped and made blowing through savings take at least longer than had there been no benefits.

For those that are out of work and have been for some time, I really feel for you. I've been there in a tough economy (though not as tough as this), and it sucks.

I really believe there is a MASSIVE opportunity for someone creative to help out the unemplyed. Although I never supported Obama, this is the type of thing I thought his admin would come up with, so much for hip and new change!Look at the success of facebook, craigslist and ebay. There should be a website set up for the people on unemployment where they offer up their services. The govt should "bond" them so there is no risk if they are dishonest. This should be part of the unemplyment process. People, like me, can search in their local areas for services they need - running errands, light construction, going to the dump, shoveling snow, mowing the lawn, painting, tutoring kids. The possibilities are endless! Customers can bid on the services or there can be a flat fee. Customers can comment on the services on the web, sort of like an ebay customer rating. My wife and I both work adn we can always use a hand. I'd be happy to pay someone $30 to spend a few hours running errands for me around town. There would have to be rules and controls but I know this would work. the unemployed would earn some $, feel more confident and establish networkign opportunites. this could lead to career changes and further opportunites. Instead of selling crap or telling everyone you just went to dinner, lets use social networking for positive change!

That's actually how they do it now. My wife has been unemployed for just over a year now. The extensions are not lumped into 13 month intervals. Her latest extension was for 13 weeks.

eventually
 

you find that you've been un employed for so long

that you are in fact now un employable because the GAP
in employment on your resume speaks louder than words.

After subsequent multiple lost opportunities your only recourse is
to self employ but the economy isn't really in a good place for that option either
....so it's a no win situation. :hs:

All of this assumes the unemployed want to get another job in leu of collecting a check. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely some people that want to get back to work and are trying to do so, but I bet there are a whole lot more that don't.

I know if I were unemployed for an extended period, I'd do whatever I can to launch a new business. Bootstrap it. Most businesses aren't going to make a penny in the first 3-6 months (more likely 6-12 months).

With regards to paying someone to run errands for you... those services already exist.
Errands Service/Landscape Service

JR, go back to the early 60's when jobs were hard to find.
My wife was out of work then and had to report in person
each week to the unemployment office with a list of jobs she applied for the previous week.

They were strict and would check.
That was then and this is now where that would be called a
hardship and not PC . :doh:

I hate to sound callous towards those who are genuinely looking, but there's a real disincentive at play here, it's too easy to get unemployment.

My next door neighbor is an out-of-work lawyer. I got him an interview at my insurance company, they offered him a job paying $100,000 a year, and he turned it down because it "didn't seem like a good fit" for him. And he still gets his unemployment benefits? you turn down a good job, you should be cut off.

And I'm sorry, I just don't understand the whole business of just mailing people checks for nothing. Those collecting unemployment benefits should be required (if they are able) to either perfomr some kind of community service, or participtae in an internship in their field, or be taking training for a new field. There is absolutely no justification (other than liberal ideology, which requires a large voting block that's addicted to the welfare that libs campaign on) to just giving people money and not requiring that they do SOMETHING.

I agree, I run into people who turn down offers with good working conditions and benefits because "for 50 less a week I can stay home and not have to do anything"

:claps: