@Guest re: dividends - You won't find any tax slips for dividend payments because this is an insurance policy. Growth of cash values or investments components within insurance policies are tax-free, and (if you do a policy loan) are even tax-free upon "withdrawal".
And for the naysayers of whole life insurance, I agree that some policies are better than others and no two policies are the same. When I was in the financial planning business, I almost always recommended term insurance for actual life insurance needs, and only occasionally used whole life (I preferred Universal Life for its flexibility) for specialized investment needs in certain circumstances.
This article however, addresses insurance policies that have been invested in by parents for their kids, having paid premiums for decades. Once that much money has gone into a policy, you must really give it a close examination before canceling it on the premise that "whole life policies are horrible investments".
Spare change rolling around in purses, collected in jars or sitting on the dresser. Could spare change make a difference in our quality of life during these times? I think so. Spending to save makes sense to me. Gathering up loose change and spending it wisely could make a difference long term. If you found just ten dollars in spare change and bought compact florescent bulbs your savings could be long term. Or what if you spent that ten dollars on Forever Stamps now before the price goes up in May. Could just loose change make a diffrence?
AnnJo, you are correct in saying that when employers have to pay a lot of unemployment insurance premiums it is detrimental to job creation. Additionally, the current extra 20 weeks and expansion in unemployment benefits comes from the Federal stimulus bill, which is funded by income tax. So some kind of study on the effect of these benefits has to be done. The Obama economists say that each unemployment benefit dollar adds $1.63 to the economy, and that just sounds a bit dubious because when people are not working they are not really producing anything. Sure, they spend money, but that would be money they would have spent anyway on necessities. My article isn't meant to be an attack on the unemployed, but a look at the effects of policy on people.
Guest of comment 42, your comment just didn't make too much sense.
It reminded me of my first homework assignment in acting class: come in with one bad monologue. (We did! But we got better.)
The only thing that made me sweat a bit was the thought of sloppy work on hedge funds--no, please, no more! We've had enough of that, thank you very much.
Re #1 and #3, I would like to recommend www.lovefraud.com (how to recognize and deal with sociopaths); for the workplace, the best reference is the book "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work" by the leading researcher in the world (Robert Hare).
I like the World Series analogy, but I think it's a little bit flawed. Let's say a player has a contract to make $3 million dollars this year but the team has a horrible season and they wind up in last place, forcing the owner to go into debt to pay the salaries. Should the player give that money up?
An even better analogy is the one I was discussing with my wife: let's say you had a clause in your contract at work that said if you achieved this impossible goal, you'd be rewarded. And you work your tail off for a year or more and manage to achieve it. Great job! But then word comes down that Bob over in the other building messed up. Big time. So the company is still going to pay you your bonus. Would you feel compelled to give it back? And to go even further, how would you feel about the government forcing you to return the money?
I don't care much for this point of view, it reeks of elitism. To infer that collecting unemployment is a kin to mooching because getting laid off, fired, downsized, re-org'd is ALWAYS seen as an opportunity to bugger off. This opinion is provocative simply stirring up petty conflict and you should instead use that inquisitive mind to source out a solution! Only immature, irresponsible types would be able to live on unemployment as if it were an opportunity to beat the man, please find another outlet for your mischief and leave those struggling with ill fate alone, we have enough to deal with go sit down little girl.
I did not have luck with this recipe; however, I have never attempted homemade pizza before, so it could be a user error! I found the dough was incredibly wet and I had to add a lot of extra flour. The result was thick and dense without much flavor.
It is astonishing that people who were up in arms during the Bush administration about our supposed loss of civil liberties are cheering Obama on in the fastest, most extreme deterioration of our liberties we've seen since Franklin Roosevelt's wartime excesses.
As we prepare to release Guantanamo terrorists into our population so that they can enjoy our coming publicly controlled "universal" health care, Obama proposes to incarcerate and set up indoctrination camps for ALL American young people in his new mandatory "national service" army. Those who absorb the correct thoughts will no doubt be kept on in government funded political organizing posts, to teach the rest of us how to be proper 'global citizens' and make our proper, Obama-defined 'shared sacrifices for the common good.'
And the people who were appalled by Guantanamo have absolutely no problem with this much greater and less justified intrusion on personal freedom.
People who were appalled that the federal government might listen in on their phone calls to terrorists seem to have no problem with Obama requiring that ALL our medical records be an open book to that same federal government.
At least when Bush was eroding our civil liberties, he was trying to stop more 9/11 events. Obama's justification is - what? Oh, I forgot, he doesn't need one, because hardly anybody is willing to ask him for one, and if they do, he'll just stop calling on them at his press conferences. Once the Democratic Congress starts funding and controlling major newspapers as "non-profits," his propaganda will be the only thing most people will get to read.
For years I wanted to learn to play a particular musical instrument, and I wanted to write fiction. I was slow to start because I kept waiting for the right time, the right feeling, etc. Finally, I just started. Five years later I can play the instrument decently (and continue to get better) and I have written more than 200,000 words of fiction, some of it quite good. I am waaayyy ahead of where I would be if I had never started (and I doubt that at some point in the future I would have suddenly felt the perfect inspiration and instantly produced a work of shattering genius).
And, come to think of it, it worked for money management too. I used to think I could not start saving until I paid off all my debt. But, finally, I decided to start saving anyway, about 12 years ago. Ten years ago I bought my first house, and over the years I have steadily added to my retirement account, which is now in the healthly 6 figures. Meanwhile, I didn't get all my debt paid off until just this year (except the house - I still have a mortgage).
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.
Unemployment is a safety net, but there needs to be some kind of limit to how long and how big it is.
There IS a limit, as a poster pointed out above, it tends to vary with the severity of the crisis, as it well should.
I don't know how valid the studies you point to are, since the length of time unemployed, as well as the percentage of people unemployed, tends to be a measure of how the economy is doing. Have they corrected for that fact?
I'll accept that you didn't mean to insult people here, but you should show that you understand points of view that are from those who are not twenty-somethings with no responsibilities looking forward to their "unemployment vacation." Unemployment is very traumatic for most people.
I highly recommend reading "Down and Out In Paris and London" by George Orwell for a look at the life of an unemployed twenty-something during the depression, when there was no safety net.
Due to downsizing I lost my FT job in December 08 and I had a PT job which I ended up having to quit in February. Found out my PT employer is and has been denying my unemployment benefits since I applied back in December. I've been permently denied benefits and just had my appeal as my FT employer isn't appealing my benefits, it's the PT jerk who is which I nor anyone else can understand how he can do that. Can someone explain this to me???
BTW, I mentioned the religious couple not to open the thread to people who seek to convert anyone to any particular belief system. I am happy to read comments from people who feel that religion has reformed their lives in a positive way, but will delete any comment that being "REPENT AND YE SHALL BE HEALED." Thanks.
I like to write to promote discussion, and it's always interesting to see what different people think. The issue here is that there has been a lot of studies done that showed extended and generous unemployment benefits did increase the length people tend to go unemployed. It may not be a popular fact, but it is not condescending either. It just makes sense. Of course a lot of people are working hard to find another job, but 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. Unemployment is a safety net, but there needs to be some kind of limit to how long and how big it is. Some people that commented seem to not read beyond the first paragraph, and that's pretty sad.
Wow very deep and thorough post. I enjoy reading these from time to time especially when I feel a little unmotivated or need a kick in the butt. Usually they help get me back on my feet, but most often they make me realize that I have it pretty good. It's all about focusing on the good more than we get stuck on the bad.
It's refreshing to see someone bring this back into the public eye. I agree that people too many times think their way into deep periods of inaction. The key is to go out and do something even if you know the result isn't going to be 100%. I'd rather have a consistent 80% than weeks of 0% followed by a day of 100%...
that the last thing my unemployed friends need is to read the condescending comments of a snippy blogger. It is heart-breaking to see what they are going through daily in their efforts to find employment--but then, you'd have to actually have a heart to empathize.
Someone is not winning friends, nor influencing people.
This makes me think of people who like to say "Something worth doing is worth doing well" or "Try not. Do or do not. There is no try" (damn you, Yoda!).
I suppose those ideas are meant to push people to succeed or to avoid half-hearted efforts, but for me, they've always seemed harsh. Why bother if your potential failure means that your attempt wasn't worth anything?
Failing is always more instructive than succeeding. Expecting perfection is bound to lead to disappointment.
@Guest re: dividends - You won't find any tax slips for dividend payments because this is an insurance policy. Growth of cash values or investments components within insurance policies are tax-free, and (if you do a policy loan) are even tax-free upon "withdrawal".
And for the naysayers of whole life insurance, I agree that some policies are better than others and no two policies are the same. When I was in the financial planning business, I almost always recommended term insurance for actual life insurance needs, and only occasionally used whole life (I preferred Universal Life for its flexibility) for specialized investment needs in certain circumstances.
This article however, addresses insurance policies that have been invested in by parents for their kids, having paid premiums for decades. Once that much money has gone into a policy, you must really give it a close examination before canceling it on the premise that "whole life policies are horrible investments".
Spare change rolling around in purses, collected in jars or sitting on the dresser. Could spare change make a difference in our quality of life during these times? I think so. Spending to save makes sense to me. Gathering up loose change and spending it wisely could make a difference long term. If you found just ten dollars in spare change and bought compact florescent bulbs your savings could be long term. Or what if you spent that ten dollars on Forever Stamps now before the price goes up in May. Could just loose change make a diffrence?
AnnJo, you are correct in saying that when employers have to pay a lot of unemployment insurance premiums it is detrimental to job creation. Additionally, the current extra 20 weeks and expansion in unemployment benefits comes from the Federal stimulus bill, which is funded by income tax. So some kind of study on the effect of these benefits has to be done. The Obama economists say that each unemployment benefit dollar adds $1.63 to the economy, and that just sounds a bit dubious because when people are not working they are not really producing anything. Sure, they spend money, but that would be money they would have spent anyway on necessities. My article isn't meant to be an attack on the unemployed, but a look at the effects of policy on people.
Guest of comment 42, your comment just didn't make too much sense.
This is a really good list. I hope this works out for you and that other people start planning for the future like you have.
It reminded me of my first homework assignment in acting class: come in with one bad monologue. (We did! But we got better.)
The only thing that made me sweat a bit was the thought of sloppy work on hedge funds--no, please, no more! We've had enough of that, thank you very much.
Useful info!
Re #1 and #3, I would like to recommend www.lovefraud.com (how to recognize and deal with sociopaths); for the workplace, the best reference is the book "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work" by the leading researcher in the world (Robert Hare).
@Four Pillars
I like the World Series analogy, but I think it's a little bit flawed. Let's say a player has a contract to make $3 million dollars this year but the team has a horrible season and they wind up in last place, forcing the owner to go into debt to pay the salaries. Should the player give that money up?
An even better analogy is the one I was discussing with my wife: let's say you had a clause in your contract at work that said if you achieved this impossible goal, you'd be rewarded. And you work your tail off for a year or more and manage to achieve it. Great job! But then word comes down that Bob over in the other building messed up. Big time. So the company is still going to pay you your bonus. Would you feel compelled to give it back? And to go even further, how would you feel about the government forcing you to return the money?
I'd love to hear your feelings on that scenario.
The Writer's Coin | Follow me on Twitter
I don't care much for this point of view, it reeks of elitism. To infer that collecting unemployment is a kin to mooching because getting laid off, fired, downsized, re-org'd is ALWAYS seen as an opportunity to bugger off. This opinion is provocative simply stirring up petty conflict and you should instead use that inquisitive mind to source out a solution! Only immature, irresponsible types would be able to live on unemployment as if it were an opportunity to beat the man, please find another outlet for your mischief and leave those struggling with ill fate alone, we have enough to deal with go sit down little girl.
I did not have luck with this recipe; however, I have never attempted homemade pizza before, so it could be a user error! I found the dough was incredibly wet and I had to add a lot of extra flour. The result was thick and dense without much flavor.
Thanks for the piece on forgiveness. Contrary to popular understanding, it is really for the benefit of the victim, not so much of the wrong-doer.
It is astonishing that people who were up in arms during the Bush administration about our supposed loss of civil liberties are cheering Obama on in the fastest, most extreme deterioration of our liberties we've seen since Franklin Roosevelt's wartime excesses.
As we prepare to release Guantanamo terrorists into our population so that they can enjoy our coming publicly controlled "universal" health care, Obama proposes to incarcerate and set up indoctrination camps for ALL American young people in his new mandatory "national service" army. Those who absorb the correct thoughts will no doubt be kept on in government funded political organizing posts, to teach the rest of us how to be proper 'global citizens' and make our proper, Obama-defined 'shared sacrifices for the common good.'
And the people who were appalled by Guantanamo have absolutely no problem with this much greater and less justified intrusion on personal freedom.
People who were appalled that the federal government might listen in on their phone calls to terrorists seem to have no problem with Obama requiring that ALL our medical records be an open book to that same federal government.
At least when Bush was eroding our civil liberties, he was trying to stop more 9/11 events. Obama's justification is - what? Oh, I forgot, he doesn't need one, because hardly anybody is willing to ask him for one, and if they do, he'll just stop calling on them at his press conferences. Once the Democratic Congress starts funding and controlling major newspapers as "non-profits," his propaganda will be the only thing most people will get to read.
For years I wanted to learn to play a particular musical instrument, and I wanted to write fiction. I was slow to start because I kept waiting for the right time, the right feeling, etc. Finally, I just started. Five years later I can play the instrument decently (and continue to get better) and I have written more than 200,000 words of fiction, some of it quite good. I am waaayyy ahead of where I would be if I had never started (and I doubt that at some point in the future I would have suddenly felt the perfect inspiration and instantly produced a work of shattering genius).
And, come to think of it, it worked for money management too. I used to think I could not start saving until I paid off all my debt. But, finally, I decided to start saving anyway, about 12 years ago. Ten years ago I bought my first house, and over the years I have steadily added to my retirement account, which is now in the healthly 6 figures. Meanwhile, I didn't get all my debt paid off until just this year (except the house - I still have a mortgage).
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.
Unemployment is a safety net, but there needs to be some kind of limit to how long and how big it is.
There IS a limit, as a poster pointed out above, it tends to vary with the severity of the crisis, as it well should.
I don't know how valid the studies you point to are, since the length of time unemployed, as well as the percentage of people unemployed, tends to be a measure of how the economy is doing. Have they corrected for that fact?
I'll accept that you didn't mean to insult people here, but you should show that you understand points of view that are from those who are not twenty-somethings with no responsibilities looking forward to their "unemployment vacation." Unemployment is very traumatic for most people.
I highly recommend reading "Down and Out In Paris and London" by George Orwell for a look at the life of an unemployed twenty-something during the depression, when there was no safety net.
Due to downsizing I lost my FT job in December 08 and I had a PT job which I ended up having to quit in February. Found out my PT employer is and has been denying my unemployment benefits since I applied back in December. I've been permently denied benefits and just had my appeal as my FT employer isn't appealing my benefits, it's the PT jerk who is which I nor anyone else can understand how he can do that. Can someone explain this to me???
Great post, this came at the perfect time for me as well.
BTW, I mentioned the religious couple not to open the thread to people who seek to convert anyone to any particular belief system. I am happy to read comments from people who feel that religion has reformed their lives in a positive way, but will delete any comment that being "REPENT AND YE SHALL BE HEALED." Thanks.
... is "Something that's worth doing is worth doing badly."
Think about it.
I like to write to promote discussion, and it's always interesting to see what different people think. The issue here is that there has been a lot of studies done that showed extended and generous unemployment benefits did increase the length people tend to go unemployed. It may not be a popular fact, but it is not condescending either. It just makes sense. Of course a lot of people are working hard to find another job, but 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. Unemployment is a safety net, but there needs to be some kind of limit to how long and how big it is. Some people that commented seem to not read beyond the first paragraph, and that's pretty sad.
Amen to the drama elimination. Thought provoking article, girl.
Wow very deep and thorough post. I enjoy reading these from time to time especially when I feel a little unmotivated or need a kick in the butt. Usually they help get me back on my feet, but most often they make me realize that I have it pretty good. It's all about focusing on the good more than we get stuck on the bad.
Enjoy this very much!
Would a timer switch offer the same power savings as a "green Switch"?
It's refreshing to see someone bring this back into the public eye. I agree that people too many times think their way into deep periods of inaction. The key is to go out and do something even if you know the result isn't going to be 100%. I'd rather have a consistent 80% than weeks of 0% followed by a day of 100%...
that the last thing my unemployed friends need is to read the condescending comments of a snippy blogger. It is heart-breaking to see what they are going through daily in their efforts to find employment--but then, you'd have to actually have a heart to empathize.
Someone is not winning friends, nor influencing people.
This makes me think of people who like to say "Something worth doing is worth doing well" or "Try not. Do or do not. There is no try" (damn you, Yoda!).
I suppose those ideas are meant to push people to succeed or to avoid half-hearted efforts, but for me, they've always seemed harsh. Why bother if your potential failure means that your attempt wasn't worth anything?
Failing is always more instructive than succeeding. Expecting perfection is bound to lead to disappointment.