I'm not sure that anecdotal evidence is a good indicator of how people are going to treat extended benefits. $475 a week may be good enough if you live with your parents or have lots of roommates, but what about people who have a family to feed? I seriously doubt many of them would chose $475 in government checks if they had a better option.

Welfare always seems a bit unfair to the people who are paying taxes and working at the same time. And I wouldn't suggest that there AREN'T people who would happily continue to accept unemployment for as long as they can, rather than to look for work.

But I guess I'd argue that I'd rather risk having some people take advantage of the system than see a vast increase in the number of homeless families. Lesser of two evils, really, as with nearly all issues of a failing economy.

States can vary it some, but the basic model from the federal government is that there's a baseline period of unemployment benefits that applies most of the time, and then a longer period when the unemployment rate is high.  So, for example (they've been changing the details and I haven't kept up, so these are example numbers), normally it's 6 months, but when unemployment goes over 6% it goes up to 1 year.

I think that makes a lot of sense.  When economic conditions are normal, you keep the benefit short enough that it's not so easy to take advantage of, but then when times are tough, you make them more generous.

I don't think there's widespread abuse of unemployment benefits to take time off, simply because most people live right at the edges of what they can afford.  Most people can't get by on just what unemployment provides, so they need to find another job as quickly as possible.

That said, there are some people who arrange their life to minimize the amount of work they have to do and to take maximum benefit of things like unemployment.  I wrote about one of them here:

http://www.wisebread.com/find-work-worth-doing

Do you need to have had a job in Ca to collect Ca unemployment? I'm gainfully employed in NV and would gladly move across the border to collect $475/wk to relax and travel. I'm a capitalist and did not vote for this socialist regime but if you can't beat em....

That IS weird, about the taxation. "Here is some money - oops, we're going to take some of that back! We could have just given you a little less to begin with, but that would be far too efficient!"

I despise anyone that naively states that based on the increase, people receiving unemployment are less motivated to look for employment. Not everyone can qualify for the maximum of $475 in California. I made $26 grand a year and only qualified for $250 a week from unemployment.

I have busted my ass trying to find work. I have gone to several job placement agencies and they too are having a rough time trying to get jobs to fill. What else am I supposed to do when job sites are filled with scam jobs and local businesses are shutting down?

The EDD has programs to help train the unemployed. The EDD also conducts random interviews to check in on recipients. They aren't going to just money away.

I ask that people like you do some more research into what the EDD is and what is does for the unemployed. Please do more than read a couple of articles before you post your next blog.

My son is a laid off union electrician. His benefits will run out withing 3 months. Now that is incentive to get back to work! Either way, the extended benefits is a good thing. He really wants to work, and having just "come out of his time" as a Journeyman, he wants to stay in the trade it took 5 years to apprentice in. Maybe we need to stop over-analyzing everything.

You don't understand the situation. Unemployment is higher here than any other state. Do you honestly think the majority of us sit at home calculating what we get hourly with our unemployment checks? Do you honestly think we sit there thinking "hell, I'm living high on the hog. i don't need to work"? I wish it were so easy to grab a minimum wage job right now. It's easy for an employed person to look down on us and make snap judgements.

but this thread does sound somewhat judgemental to me. I find it disturbing to have a focus on why people don't scramble to take terrible jobs, instead of choosing to work on getting a decent position. Quite often a perspective changes when a person finds him/herself in an unexpectedly dire situation. Somewhat like a healthy person who looks down on the sick, until he/she is diagnosed with a life-threatening disease.

I live in IL and my husband and I have been working on an unemployment budget(just in case). I'm a SAHM so DH is the bread winner.
We looked into benefits and it breaks down to a percentage of what you made. Just because our state's benefits top out at $538 a week doesn't mean that you get that. It just means that $538 is the most they will give out. They definitely won't pay you more than you were earning while working. If you earned minimum wage, you won't even come close to the $2000 a month on unemployment.
Unemployment definitely wouldn't be a step up for most and definitely not us. But with preplanning and some praying, I think that we could hang on to what we have if we had to go on unemployment.
Best wishes to all!

My spouse has been out of work for 14 months, I've been out of work for nearly 8 months, and we are very glad to have the unemployment extension...

If the extension were not in place, and our regular unemployment ran out, we would be spending down savings at a catastrophic rate just trying to keep our (modest fixer-upper) house.

It's not as easy as "go out and get a low-paying job to survive" because the places paying $10/hr (or whatever) don't want to hire someone who was working in IT for ten years making $50-80K, or even someone in a sales job making $40K, because they know that as soon as a decent job in our field comes along, we're going to bolt. My spouse got instantly rejected for a checkout clerk job at Whole Foods. Basically at least one of us has to get a normal job in our field, or things are going to get dire in a few months, because we can't count on finding a McJob.

Back in the late 90s I was unemployed by my own doing and had decided to switch careers. Canada's unemployment offered an option where you could go back to school with a $5000 grant to switch to new skills that were needed in an area. I had to cough up an additionally $10,000 (student loans) but one thing I knew, I didn't want to stay on unemployment. I wanted to be working.

I now live in the US and one thing I've noticed is a general exhaustion with work here. The only difference I can see is that Canada has universal health care. Which means even if I do get unemployed, I'm still covered for that. It makes me wonder if it's a matter of hope and optimism when being offered an opportunity (more education) as well as not having to worry about the bigger bills (medical) that made a difference.

No one I knew in Canada wanted to be unemployed.

That said, this market is different than back then (it was just prior to the Web bust). I think it's a reality of the fact that there are no new jobs in the market just yet and, extending the benefits is the safety net that's needed to prevent situations like the camps and such that erupted during the Great Depression. It will take time for the market to swing around again (although there are some glimmers right now going on in the Stock Market that doesn't mean much, IMO, to the average person).

Your friends who want to get unemployment as a "vacation" are probably not "average" people. I've had that attitude in the past, now and then, but at the time, I had an in-demand skill, a degree from a good college, no responsibilities, and no kids. Also, I've never had to do serious job hunting for more than a month to get some kind of relatively cushy jobs, or a tougher job with better pay, or even get a request to interview from friends. I count myself very fortunate, though I'm barely "middle class", because I haven't had to struggle much. (I also love my work.)

Almost everyone else I've known who's had that attitude was some kind of underground bohemian with a low income and few responsibilities.

All the other folks, the normal folks, do not like unemployment. They fear it, especially in this shrinking economy.

They can't just go job hunting and get a $50k a year job within a few weeks.

Even if unemployment benefits were equal to their former wages (and they never are), there's motivation to seek work, because your unemployment benefits are limited. In this down economy, they might have to use them later if they get laid off again.

Also, though government numbers say CA unemployment is just over 10%, if you factor in the people who are underemployed or stopped seeking work, the rate could be as high as 19%, according to Dr. Housing Bubble.

That's serious.

In Arizona where I live it is $265 a week. I got laid off two weeks ago and I am willing to take any job to save my home. I think people would rather work then be in the position they are in. I know I do.

How flippin dare you - do you think I'm happy about not finding a job? Do you think my family is? Think I'm livin large on $198 plus $25 (and thanks, truly, for that).

and unemployment compensation is going to upset people, but it still has to be done. In every labor market, there is going to be some optimal level and length of unemployment benefits: low enough and short enough to force people to make NEEDED changes (in career, geographical location, wage rate, etc.) and high enough/long enough to prevent UNNECESSARY hardship. And even at the optimal level, it won't be perfect. Some people will take advantage, some people who are doing everything they can will suffer great hardships.

Most unemployment compensation banefits come from unemployment insurance and general taxes. Employers pay unemployment insurance; higher/longer benefits make for higher premiums, and cause employers to cut back on jobs. Higher taxes divert funds from the private job-creating sector, and therefore also reduce jobs.

Most people in this country are descended from folks whose poor employment prospects forced them to undertake major life changes to adapt and improve their lives. Some of my grandparents and great-grandparents walked most of the way across Eastern Europe and took steerage passage across the Atlantic to work in North Dakota mines. The hardships they endured in making those adjustments resulted in major improvements in their lifestyles and their children's prospects, compared to their relatives who stayed behind.

If one can't get a job in one's regular career within a year, then it seems to me that some major adaptation in one's life is in order. When lots of people can't get new jobs within a year, some major social adaptations are in order. California has a lovely climate and many great advantages, but maybe it just has too many of something else, too: maybe too many people, maybe too much government burden of taxes and regulations, maybe something else. It needs to look to its public policies and adapt them if its job market is so poor.

For years, my family was in the restaurant business. The application of minimum wage laws to waitresses (who already made over $40,000 a year with tips before the law changed) along with minimum wage hikes for dishwashers & bus-boys, high rates of unemployment insurance and worker's comp costs, and the need to practically keep a lawyer on staff to deal with all the constant legal hassles (if a cook leered at a waitress there was a sexual harassment claim; if a black person got fired there was a discrimination complaint; if a customer came in drunk but hid it well and got served a drink, there was a liquor control violation), basically made the business unprofitable and not worth keeping open. Approximately 80 full-time jobs were lost when that business closed; the new business that took over the property hires four full-time workers. Not to mention that a whole lot of customers lost their favorite eatery. Notice that every single thing that made the business unprofitable was basically a government policy in action.

And then there are the relentless political attacks, subsidized by our tax dollars, against any business that DOES manage a few successful years - Walmart, Exxon and the rest of the oil companies, the drug companies, agribusiness. If you're successful, you're evil, if you're a failure, you're subsidized. And sometimes, like AIG, you're both evil AND subsidized.

Things will probably have to get a whole lot worse before some sanity is restored to our employment and business climate. Or maybe we're really on our way to becoming Zimbabwe, and sanity is no longer an available option. For anyone who thinks things are bad now, get thee to the history books for some perspective.

in my area of ny there roughly 250000 out of work and at any given time there are 10000 jobs avalible including min wage so lets see what are the other 240000 supposed to do its not that individuals are looking for a free ride its that there arent enough jobs to go around and across the country jobs keep disspearing and new ones arent being created i may not be a math major but i can see the issue here.
i understand your trying to promote disscusion but doing so in a condesending form with a let them eat cake mentality dosent help anyone the individuals who suddenly found themselves caught up in this economic storm are not jumping for joy there sitting there wondering if there going to have a roof over there head or food to eat and god forbid if they get sick its game over period.
With no disrespect to the auther ist is clear you have never felt hardship on this level your self I invite you to open up and try feeling the pain and suffering of others I think it will change your opinon of things greatly, its hard to undersatnd the veiws of others untill you walk a mile in their shoes.
Once agian I mean no ill feelings for the writer of this article.

Xin Lu, there are better ways to deal with unemployed types who use their benefit as a vacation, rather than weakening the American Social Safety Net more than the last few administrations have.

The Canadian brought up many good points regarding American exhaustion and health care. Most employed people I know, in the US, work 60+ hours to make ends-meet with just one measly week of paid vacation each year. Also, the crappy American healthcare situation keeps far too many Americans chained to jobs they detest. Sadly, work for many in the US is a never ending cycle of wage slavery and drudgery. A 40 hour work week with adequate paid time off would be a good start.

To the poster who called the current administration socialist, I am curious why he or she is repeating this fallacy mentioned often in the corporate media and on hate-radio. Please let us know how President Obama is a socialist. And please don’t say it is because those making more than $250,000 will pay more in taxes. If this concerns you, you need to receive immediate psycho analysis into why your heart bleeds for the VERY fortunate and well-off more so than the less-fortunate. I do not see socialism here, but do see a continuation of state-sponsored capitalism that was employed during the last President’s tenure.

When you talk about families "making it" or "getting by" on extremely low incomes-- what does that mean? Does that mean they have secure housing? Do they have health insurance? What type of neighborhood do they live in? Where do their children go to school, and do they have childcare?

I'm also curious where you got the idea that low-paying jobs are easier to find. Yes, wages are based on the laws of supply and demand, but the job market is not monolithic-- there are a lot of different supplies to meet a lot of different demands. The grocery store manager isn't scoring a coup when he hires a laid-off IT professional as a cashier.

like I said multiple times, if you are getting $X a week then there is no point to take a job that pays less than that.

Saying it multiple times doesn't make it so.

In addition to the social reasons for getting a job (any job), and the potential benefits like health insurance, the whole tax system greatly favors getting a low-paying job (over collecting unemployment). For instance, you can only qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit if you have (wait for it!) earned income! Also, you will not be paying into the social security system, so you won't be eligible for things like disability, death benefits for relatives, retirement benefits, etc. etc. These things may be theoretical to your 20-something friends, but to folks like me with kids, they are very real.

The system almost always favors those with earned income, such that in most cases it's preferable to take the job... if you can get one (big if).

are not necessarily lazy, but they have traditionally traded higher "benefits" for lower overall wages and higher chronic unemployment, as well as much reduced labor market flexibility. Between 1991 and 2005, average wages after inflation in Germany DECLINED while ours increased. For most of a generation, Germany's unemployment rate was considered excellent if it got down to levels that we would call a severe recession. Our economy has added millions of new jobs (most of which are still there in spite of this recession) for our growing population and our immigrants, while Germany has added no new jobs and its labor force has remained about the same size for years.

If you've never been an employer, there is something you probably don't understand. An employer looks at the total cost of an employee when deciding whether to hire, including wages, health coverage, employment taxes, "paid time off," training costs, severance costs, everything. If it costs an employer $60,000 to add an employee, it is irrelevant to the employer how much of that goes to wages, how much to employment taxes, etc. The total cost is all that counts. That new employee has to add much more than $60,000 to the employer's bottom line to make it worth hiring him/her, because that employee has to be supervised, supplied, officed, etc., and of course, make a profit, because otherwise there's no point in the employer existing.

From the employer's standpoint, the cleanest system would be to pay an employee that $60,000 (less employment taxes) and let the employee decide to spend it. One employee might prefer to spend some of it to "buy" vacation time or sick leave, another might prefer a particular health plan, etc., and the employer could dispense with most of its HR department. But most employees are too ignorant to figure that out, and they allow themselves to be manipulated by offers of various "benefits" in lieu of money. The government has also distorted the picture by making some of those benefits pre-tax.

If you think that an employer actually "gives" paid time off, you are deluding yourself. Employers don't "give" anything, and why should they? The employer has adjusted that employee's overall compensation package to account for the vacation time. Every employee "buys" his/her vacation and sick leave time through lower wages, whether they know it or not. And that includes Germans.

The fact that Americans don't usually get as much "paid time off" as Germans is simply because Americans by and large still prefer to take the money, rather than the time. Those Germans who would rather have the money emigrate to the U.S.

Xin, why are you assuming that your job will run from Jan 1 to Dec 31?

You may have had no EI all year, and getting a job in the last few months of the calendar year, even if you only earn a few thousand dollars, will enable you to qualify for the EITC.

Anyway, folks can't usually time their employment so precisely -- you don't know when the next job offer will come along if you turn one down. But the tax incentives for earned income vs. unemployment insurance are there.

This is getting pretty far afield from the topic of this post, but in fairness to Phil Gramm I have to take issue with Guest above. Gramm gets blamed by partisan ideologues for the mortgage crisis because he sponsored a bill back in 1999 to encourage competition between banks and other financial institutions, competition usually being a good thing for consumers. It was approved by the vast majority in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate, and signed into law by (drumroll) Bill Clinton.

And Bill Clinton promised to veto the legislation unless it included a provision prohibiting banks from getting regulatory approval for mergers unless they were lending enough to subprime borrowers. So, yes, Phil Gramm agreed to that amendment, and that certainly did help bring about the subprime crisis, but it hardly seems fair to blame him for something Bill Clinton insisted on.

And interestingly enough, even the people who try to shift the blame to Gramm don't seem to be proposing to change the law to force banks back out of other financial service sectors and vice versa.

The far bigger problem always was the combination of 1) forcing banks to lend to subprime borrowers (creating a whole lot of risky loan products which ended up being used by lots of people who were not subprime) and 2) the perception that the U.S. government was guaranteeing the resulting debt through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And who refused to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Well, it was not Phil Gramm, who left Congress in 2002. And it was not the Bush Administration, which was pressing for reform starting at least in 2003 and even earlier. If you judge by who got the biggest campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it was Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, in that order.

In a way, maybe this comment does relate to the topic.

The obvious answer to the question, do generous unemployment benefits prolong the length of unemployment is, absolutely, yes. This has been proven time and again through economic analysis, and the fact that so many people commenting here get all hot and bothered about that is a big part of our national problem, which is an unwillingness to face unpleasant facts. SOME people DO delay returning to work until their benefits run out. Not all, but some. Therefore, the longer the benefits, the longer the average period of unemployment. Of course, not all people on unemployment are lazy, but those who are lazy will take advantage of the system. Duh.

Likewise, lending money to people with poorer credit WILL cause more defaults. Of course not all people with poor credit are deadbeats, but a lot of deadbeats do have bad credit, and some of them will get loans when lending standards are loosened. This is so obvious it is amazing it has to be said, but apparently a lot of people would still rather everybody just shut up about unpleasant truths.

Why would someone want to stay unemployed? Because even $12/hour jobs are not easy to find these days.

Because people lose their health benefits or have to pay out of pocket.

Because people have existing rent to pay (they aren't going to be able to downsize and get accepted to a smaller place while unemployed --you didn't even consider this).

Because people have existing mortgage payments and they aren't going to be able to sell in this market.

Because people have children to clothe, feed and house.

And the best reason for generous unemployment benefits (and California's is a pittance compared to most wealthy nations): The nations with highest standard of living for the greatest proportion of their people have: generous social programs, strong safety nets for the unemployed, universal health care regardless of income, strong unions or protections for labor and so forth.

It just so happens it's better for the economy and people living in the country if people aren't scared out of their wits they will become homeless and hungry. It just so happens it's better for a country if their children don't do without health care because their parents can't afford it.

So, you can cheap out and thereby motivate people, but the proof in the pudding is that the nations that do the opposite seem to have the wealthiest citizens across the board as well as the shortest workweeks, best health care (and most affordable), etc. etc.

I would also recommend that you develop some sensitivity to people that are madly looking for work for many months now and post a more thoughtful item about unemployment or don't post at all.

I have heard a lot of folks say, "Why should I take a job for less than what unemployment is paying me??"

The effect of longer UI benefits on unemployment duration has been studied to death. Although you are correct that UI benefits are typically extended during periods of higher unemployment, there is plenty of economic evidence that, irrespective of that, longer benefits CAUSE (not just correlate with) longer unemployment.

Economists have studied the average amount of time people spend looking for work at various stages during their unemployment, and there is absolutely no question that people who receive UI benefits on average spend less time looking than those who do not, and that on average they intensify their efforts considerably as the end of their UI benefits approaches, more than tripling their daily time spent in job-seeking efforts. I hope you will agree and not require "studies" to prove the obvious point that people are more likely to find work if they spend more time looking for it. As for the studies that show the relationship, if you are actually interested, start with these:

--David Card and Phillip B. Levine, "Extended Benefits and the Duration of UI Spells: Evidence from the New Jersey Extended Benefit Program," Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 78 (1-2) (October 2000), pp. 107-138;

--Lawrence Katz and Bruce Meyer, "The Impact of the Potential Duration of Unemployment Benefits on the Duration of Unemployment," Jour­nal of Public Economics, Vol. 41, No. 1 (1990), pp. 45-72;

--Stepan Jurajda, "Estimating the Effect of Unemployment Insur­ance Compensation on the Labor Market Histories of Displaced Workers," Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 108, No. 2 (2002), pp. 227-252;

--John T. Addison and Pedro Portugal, "How Does the Unemployment Insurance System Shape the Time Profile of Jobless Duration?" Economics Letters, Vol. 85, No. 2 (November 2004), pp. 229-234;

--Alan B. Krueger and Bruce D. Meyer, "Labor Supply Effects of Social Insurance," in A. J. Auerbach and M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Econom­ics, First Edition, Vol. 4 (2002), pp. 2327-2392; and

--Rafael Lalive, Jan Van Ours, and Josef Zweimüller, "How Changes in Financial Incentives Affect the Duration of Unemployment," Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 73, No. 4 (October 2006), pp. 1009-1038.

You could also look at the average duration of unemployment in OECD countries with more generous welfare/unemployment benefits, and I believe you will consistently find that the more generous the benefits, the longer the average unemployment duration, regardless of whether the country's economy is in recession or in growth mode.

People respond to incentives. This is elementary. Maybe all the unemployed people you know really do urgently want to get a job, and maybe they really are out looking 40 hours a week, but that only means that you travel in an unusual circle; the AVERAGE worker does not respond that way. The AVERAGE unemployed worker on UI benefits (at least historically) spends about 20 minutes a day looking for work in the earlier period of UI benefits, and about 70 minutes a day in the last few weeks before UI benefits run out.

Again, given human nature, the causation here is so obvious it is hard to understand why anyone would bother to argue about it. It is only one of several factors that need to be considered when deciding whether extending benefits is a good idea, but it does need to be considered and not ignored.

The generous employment benefit structure of many European countries (along with other government policies like mandated job tenure) has led to chronically higher unemployment rates than ours, longer duration of unemployment, lower growth rates, lower average net wages after taxes, and higher proportions of discouraged workers.

They may also have contributed to the dearth of children in some European countries and declining native populations, since "job security" also means you are locked into your job and risk much more by giving it up to stay home for a few years with young children, an option much more available to American families and much appreciated by many. In Germany, for instance, only 13.7% of the population is under 15 years old, and that group is disproportionately born to recent immigrants; in the U.S., it's 20.2%.

Germany, Sweden and other countries have been trying to reform their labor laws for several years now, tightening up benefits in order to increase productivity and lower unemployment rates, with limited success. It's ironic that we seem doomed to repeat their failed experiment, even as they are struggling to recover from it.

Unemployment is not welfare. It is an insurance system. Workers do not directly fund unemployment. SO poor people are not paying for the unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits are paid for by employer insurance. The insurance rate is directly impacted by the businesses unemployment rates.

The extension of unemployment benefits in the Obama stimulus package IS welfare, it is not being paid for through either state unemployment taxes or federal FUTA taxes; it is being "paid" for through general taxes and deficit spending. Regular unemployment insurance is indirectly paid for by employees, since it is part of the employer's labor cost which would otherwise have been paid to the employee.

It was a good run. For over three years, the number of unemployed in Germany had been dropping. But statistics for December show that the trend has come to an end as the economic crisis hits the labor market.

For years, Germany had seen its unemployment rate drop steadily, all the way down to a November total of less than 3 million. That downward trend, though, has now officially come to an end. According to a report released on Wednesday by the Federal Labor Agency, which tracks German unemployment statistics, the number of jobless rose by 114,000 in December, bringing the total to 3.102 million or 7.4 percent.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,599969,00.html

Originally posted by 'guest'
"And please don’t say it is because those making more than $250,000 will pay more in taxes. If this concerns you, you need to receive immediate psycho analysis into why your heart bleeds for the VERY fortunate and well-off more so than the less-fortunate."

First off... Quit with the fortunate/less fortunate crap! Is the CEO of a company that busted his ass through school while people his high school class mates immediately started banking at jobs fortunate? Was he fortunate when he busted his ass at an entry level job when he got out of school, dealing with all the BS that you have to to move up within a company, and working the 60+ hour weeks his entire career? No, that's called hard work. I wont say that were aren't many Amercans who work hard and do not make a lot of money; there are. I would suggest to them to try to make a career change: go to school, do whatever is necessary. But I am so sick of those who don't believe we all control our own fates to some degree. Those who are well off are not generally fortunate; they busted their asses to get there. Fortunate people are the ones who win the lottery... And guess what? 99% of these people blow that money within the 20 years it takes to receive it, if not much much faster (true, I made up the 99% number, but in general, that is the truth). People who busted their asses to make their money are not more fortunate; they just may have made some better decisions in life.

No, I don't make a lot of money.. But I damn sure plan to one day. Oh, and AnnJo, you are right on with everything youve said.

She's the next person I expect to see comment here, based on the general trend.

Guest 46 pointed out that the commenters who were very mad at this article could not write proper English. It seems like commenter 72 also belongs in the "can't spell" camp. AnnJo writes very well and she provided a lot of reasonable evidence to support her points, but it is impossible to convert idiots. I found her posts very educational, and I appreciate that she took the time to write her comments on this topic.

My question is...

Who is posting comments while they are at work getting paid right now??

Get back to work and mind your own business. And bite your tongues before you are faced with the same financial hardship that faces 5.5 million Americans right now.

And...don't forget to save your money!!

I totally disagree with your assumptions on people dealing with unemployment insurance. I do not know much about California criteria but in Kansas some of the rules are as follow:

1. To remain on UI you have to accept a position if it is 75% or greater than your last salary.

Ex. Someone who was making 40,000 in their last job must accept a job if it is greater than or even to 30,000. Otherwise, you lose benefits.

2. Attending school is forbidden unless you are on a WIA or TRA program in which you are allowed training while receiving UI benefits.

3. You must keep records of all resumes/applications submitted with any followup information such as interviews with names and date included.

Furthermore, I wonder if you have considered in times of high unemployment people are on extended benefits for longer amounts of time because of a smaller job pool instead of freeloading?

Dave--I don't think it's legitimate to collect while staying out of country. The point of unemployment is to give you money while you search for another job. Going away defeats that purpose. I don't know if you could get caught while being out of the country, but it would certainly be unethical.

During economic recessions, when unemployment rises, you sometimes have to extend benefits. Things take time. People need time to study or retrain. Businesses need time to figure out what will rescue the business, and then start hiring.

Do we really want all the unemployed people to become homeless while they readjust? Do companies want the labor force to be homeless?

@Andrew - if everyone worked 60 hours a week, you'd have to work 80 to get ahead. How would you like that?

See, me, I have a sense of proportion. I want the work week reduced to a nice-and-lazy 30 hours a week. Then, I could continue with my 40-45 hours a week of working (not including the 10-20 I put in studying outside of work) and say I'm a real hard worker.

@Annjo - if you can make enough money on 10 hours a week, great. If others will stop working because the taxes take too much, that's fine too. This creates opportunities for other people to try and do the work you are doing.

You should enjoy your fortunate situation. Just don't assume everyone else can do what you've done.

Remember this!... Unemployment funds, are my funds!!! I paid into the system and now I get back what I paid into!!

If someone is going to 'milk' the system for a measley $475 per week, they are considered losers. If someone plans of 'taking time off', re-evaluating what they want to do WHILE collecting $475 a week, they too are losers.
People that live with mommy and daddy and collect $475 from unemployment a week ARE indeed losers. Now, if someone is ACTUALLY TRYING to get a job while TEMPORARILY relying on unemployment, that's fine.

I'm a father of 2 and the sole breadwinner. I was earning nearly $200,000 annually and now would earn the same as someone that made $70,000 or $50,000 a year. $475 to me is a single car payment, or a single utility bill, and it does absolutely nothing to 'help' sustain (even within reason) my livlihood if things would change for the worst. This is why I have my OWN insurance plan that can carry me for an entire 2 year period WITHOUT touching savings. IF people had the same attitude, they would understand that NOTHING is guaranteed in this world, and they have to fend for themselves - plan ahead. Taking from your own 'stash' is greatly going to get you motivated, trust me....

IF you think that $475 is a lottery win, think again. For those of you that live with mommy and daddy and $475 IS a lot of money, you're a loser. GET A JOB!

It really hurt my head and eyes to read comment #86. GaBs, if you learned to write English better perhaps you would have a better chance at getting a job. Seriously, I hope you spellchecked your resume. Better yet, get some career counselor to edit your resume.

What I mean is, anecotal evidence may have been the starting point for this post but it wasn't the end.

Some people seem to forget that unemployment benefits are paid based on the previous income. I too just became unemployed for the first time in my 30 years of a working life. I paid insurance during those 30 years, and I receive the maximum benefit. It is a fraction of the income I had until recently. I'm lucky. I don't have a family to feed and am able to pay for housing and food with the unemployment benefit. So I will not lose the roof over my head right away, but it will be a major adjustment to my quality of life. And the benefits are not enough to keep health insurance coverage. With some big health problems in the past, I can lose my house over a medical bill in a heart beat. Do I like the "vacation time" on "free government money"? It's a lousy vacation worrying about how to pay the bills, and it's not free money, but the money I paid in insurance in the first place. From where I'm standing, I'd rather be gainfully employed!

So you are saying that someone like my wife that is a systems engineer and gets laid off should just get over it and do the following. Take the full time position at Wal-Mart for 22 an hour less than she was making, sell her home (in this economy?) get rid of her car and mine, move into a homeless shelter as now we can not afford rent for a home large enough for our family and feed them at the same time?

My wife and I relocated for work last year. We spent a ton of money to do it and thought it was an investment in our future. 91 days after we got here and got settled she lost her job. Now we have a house note, car note, medical bills, etc. that we can no longer afford. We lost over %50 of our income. That was last April. She has applied for every IT position that is posted in 150 mile radius from us and has not found any work anywhere for over a year. Should she take the job at Wal-Mart and lose over $1000 a month simply because you think she should.

Sounds to me like your idea of research is to ask a few people that you hang out with in the gym. Get out and read something substantial. Look at what is really going on. Then make a truly educated decision. Anyone that makes statements preceding them with "I asked a few friends of mine" is simply mouthing off and showing how truly uninformed they are. Right now over 5 million people have lost their jobs since Dec. 2007. That is according to the Department of Labor. This is expected to increase sharply. This issue is not going away anytime soon.

The bottom line is you need to get your fact straight before you go spouting off about things being too good for those unemployed people. We have lost everything in our savings and retirement and are in bankruptcy because of her unemployment. We fought for over a year to keep things going and even with the help of the benefits, we are going to lose our home and it has put her out of the running for many jobs since she needs secret clearance. I am not trying to whine here. We are one of millions of folks that are in the same boat. Your friends with the option to go back to school should really think long and hard about it. They are going to get their education on unemployment, have the state pay for it, and then what? In today's economy they are highly likely to be an unemployed grad school graduate working with my unemployed engineer wife at Wal-Mart.

$475 per week for 79 weeks means homelessness in the California Bay Area, if you are working alone. No body would pass up a job that they really want, even if they're receiving unemployment. If your paycheck is being deducted while you are working, it should be fair for you to collect as long as you can. It not like the economy is going to get better anytime soon, so pay attention. I rather see people collecting unemployment than committing crime, not like everyone would do just that, but there's a high chance.

I personally take offense to paying into your unemployment fund if you insist on carrying COBRA AND retaining your savings. As one poster stated, we are entitled to the pursuit of happiness but not everyone will reach it. This is so true. Life deals EVERYONE all kinds of blows. We are a country of whiners who feel they are 'entitled' to everyone. No, you aren't entitled to wait to find a job that you want. You go get a job that comes as close to paying your bills. You downsize. You tap into your savings. AFTER you have exhausted those avenues, THEN you should file for UI.

I totally agree with the above post, # 98. For those of you judging others, think about what would happen if you lost your job. If you have a job, be thankful. Your future of whether or not you have a job depends on others. You are dependent on your employer to run the business succesfully. If your employer fails, so do you. If you happen to work in an industry that is so far immune to the economy, then be grateful. Most people in the unemployment lines are where they are through no fault of their own. We were out there working and making a living just like you, but we either worked in an industry that was the first to be hit or we worked for companies that the big shots were not being frugal, either way, it was out of our hands, just like your job. Remember, you work FOR SOMEONE ELSE. Your future is in their hands. You could be a one decision away from being where we are. It`s up to your employer.

I am VERY grateful that we have the UI benefit to help my husband and I get through a very difficult time. He just lost his job and without the benefit we WILL be faced with losing our home and everything else we have worked so hard to build. Not a position I want to be in at age 55. We are ALL at the mercy of the big decision makers in the companies we work for and are just a decision away from poverty. Try walking in the shoes of Americans that have fell victim at no fault of their own and then talk smack about UI.

The ironic part is that a lot people are still employed because of government bailouts. Anyone employed in the banking,auto,financial industry,not to mention those that indirectly benefit from those institutions,still have jobs because they were bailed out by us (the people). Even people on UI have to pay taxes on that money. That is what`s so frustrating for me. MY tax money goes to bailout other people so they can keep their jobs,but nobody gave my company a bailout. Then to listen to people who were bailed out criticize the people who now have to take UI benefits is a joke.Maybe we wouldn`t have to take UI benefits if we got bailed out like you.

I was making 47,000 before I got laid off which was way more than $475 a week. So if you make minimum wage you get close to that for unemployment. The amount is calculated based on your wages that you earned within the last year. If you made less you get less. Imagine earning 80k a year and having to live on $475 a week!!!

I get the maximum amount for unemployment (which comes out to around $1850 a month after taxes) and I have to say it is a lot less than what I'm used to. After rent and utilities ($900/month), cobra premiums ($150/month), car payment gas and insurance ($400), and food and other necessities ($400/month) there is nothing left. And on a bad week when I need extra money to fill a prescription or buy contact lenses I'm eating ramen noodles to survive. And it is scary because if I were to have some sort of emergency or crisis then I would not have the means to financially take care of it. I really do appreciate that I have the money from unemployment so I can go without breaking my lease and pay my bills on time. But what needs to be understood is that unemployment pays a lot less than what I'm used to so I'm definitely looking for work ASAP and not lounging around. And I've worked since I was 16 years old (I'm 31 now) without ever having to use it before, so I feel that I do deserve to benefit from it now that I do need it. It is unfortunate that some people who may not have rent or bills abuse the benefit but it wouldn't be fair to deny people like me the benefit. And I'm lucky that I am single and I don't have kids to feed because even though I get the maximum amount it's a struggle to take care of just myself with that amount.

I'm in Illinois, 31 year old male and married. I was laid off a few months ago after working for close to five years at the same job. With overtime I my yearly salary was close to 60k. I'm collecting 365 plus 144 for my son plus 25 from stimulous per week electing to pay taxes later. My wife is employed and I get medical insurance through her company which also covers our son. For my situation, getting laid off was the best thing. To be honest I haven't been looking for a new position because to me the unemployment check over 1k every 2 weeks plus the time I spend with my 3 year old son is invaluable. We are definitly not scrambling and we even save money each paycheck. I know everybody situation is different, but I wanted to let you know mine.

How dare you people make comments of how long (you)comments makers, believe that a poverty stricken nation recieve Help! We are a people who have worked all of ours lives ,and our lively hood was taken from us not by mistake but by GREED! not due to the peons but the upper executives we are a people that awoke every morning, and was in the 2 to 3 hour l.a traffic coming home to get a few hours of rest before we had to rise again for another day. We are a people that made the best life we could to get our children through college and grad school to become well versed citizens that will give back to the communities. in order to bring our nation out of a selfish .greedy world. A world that is totally in a spinning cycle of being lost. We are grateful in the hopes that we would could have the opportunity to have 59/79 weeks to be retrained in a new job field. So we can stand as american again ,and not feel like we are a third world country.