Here is an article from our local newspaper that narrates the stories of all the deadbeats in Northeastern Ohio who could perfectly well work if they weren't so lazy and didn't enjoy sitting around at home and doing nothing while taking the money of good, honest taxpayers.
Rolls of Needy Swell
For those who don't know me, I assure you that I am being facetious.
There is a recession on, people. There but for the grace of God go you and I. Pretending that "my" get-up-and-go in contrast to "their" laziness will keep me in a job is just a form of magical thinking.
About Me
- PamBG
- I am Pam Berardinelli Garrud (PamBG), a 54 year old wife, daughter and beloved child of God. Ordained as a minister (pastor) in the Methodist Church of Great Britain, in 2009 I re-immigrated back to Northeast Ohio with my London-born husband after 20 years residence in the UK. I am seeking to serve God by loving God and my neighbor in the ministry of hospital chaplaincy. Prior to becoming a minister, I worked in the pensions industry. The views expressed in this Blog are purely my own and do not represent the official views of any denomination, group or organization.
9 comments:
Ah, you may be joking but others espouse that view.
Yeah, I know they do. Hence my post.
It is hard not to wish that such people lose their jobs and their benefits and then come here - or even better go to Michigan with 13% unemployment - and try to find jobs.
Pam,
Let me push back a little.
I agree that there are many people out of work and who are not lazy in looking for work. I know more than a few of them personally. However, there is evidence to suggest that a certain percentage of people do indeed put off looking for a job if they know they are getting benefits. I recently listened to an interview on the radio with a guy in middle management who was laid off and was receiving benefits. He was clear in no uncertain terms that he was not going to look for a job as long as he was getting benefits because his wife had a decent job and they were saving money on childcare while he was at home.
Now I am not suggesting for a moment that everyone falls into that category and those who suggest as much have no clue. But let us not go too far the other way. We human beings are sinners, and for some that sin is manifest in some people living on the dole as long as they can.
At some point the government does need to ask when it is time to stop unemployment benefits If not now... then fair enough... but when?
I do not say this as an unfeeling person. I am a pastor and I have people out of work, without health insurance, etc. I do not want them in that situation, and we have endeavored to assist them.
I also say this having a close relative who is glad to collect unemployment benefits for the rest of his life.
The truth, it seems to me, is somewhere between the two extremes.
It is complex and you are right... people are indeed hurting. That motivates me to ask what more can I do to assist those in need.
My response would be that I think that people who are structurally unemployed will probably always be with us and they probably need a variety of individualized help in getting into the workforce.
When the economy was booming, I don't remember anyone who was too worried about these folk but now we are all up in arms about them.
The very fact that the unemployment rates are low when the economy is booming suggests to me evidence of what I feel I already know as a person: that given the chance to be an independent and contributing part of society, the vast majority of people will take that opportunity.
In areas like this one where a lot of the employment is skilled industrial jobs it just seems adding insult to injury to call folk deadbeats. And what are people to do if there are just no jobs going?
OK... so when the ecomony was booming, no one was asking about these folks.
Fair enough, so should the government extended unemployment benefits for an unlimited amount of time no matter whether the ecomony is good or bad?
Let me echo again, I think simply to label all the unemployed as deadbeats is not fair and uncalled for.
Pam,
Interestingly enough, Michael Kruse posted something on unemplyment, and I asked him to offer his thoughts on that and benefits. Here is his response:
Michael W. Kruse said...
As this suggests, there is something well beyond the normal churn of the economy at work. I think extension of unemployment benefits is a just response.
My major critique lies in another direction:
Q: What would solve this problem?
A: More jobs.
Q: Who creates jobs?
A: Businesses.
Q: Why aren't businesses creating more jobs?
A: Partly because they are anxious about what the government is going to do in the business sector and are therefore unwilling to take the risk of expansion.
Q: What does the government need to do?
A: Create a predictable business environment where businesses can have confidence about making costly investments that end up employing people.
Things like the health care bill, energy taxes, some regulation changes, increased taxes, etc., all work against the emergence of this environment.
You can't be pro-labor without also being pro-business and I don't think this administration has figured that out.
Allan: What I want, mainly, is for the name-calling to stop.
Actually, if I'm being brutally honest, I'd like the those who are calling honest, hard-working people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own to lose their jobs and their benefits and then try to find a job themselves. Not very Christian of me, I know.
This post isn't an apology for unlimited unemployment benefits. (It would be a pretty bad apologia, actually.) It's a plea for the name-callers to stop being so arrogant.
I'd be lying if I said I know "what to do". Here are random thoughts, in no particular order:
* This is a crisis of international proportions and I don't think governments actually have the power to make confidence return. They do have the power to avoid making confidence worse. One of the things which I'm sure is going to make things worse internationally is the conviction - fed by political opponents of any stripe - that this crisis can be solved in a few years and that it's governments' fault that it isn't going away. What would be an 8 to 10 year economic restructuring will be a 10 to 15 year restructuring as voters constantly vote in new parties in the search for a quick fix that the opposition is promising them.
* With apologies to my leftie friends, I think that US Federal taxes probably have to go up across the board. Including for the working person and for the rich. (N.b. to my UK friends, the tax threashold in the US is much higher than in the UK; I'm not advocating this as a universal principle but from what I see in the US.)
* How about restricting unemployment benefits to people who really need it? E.g. people whose spousal/live-in partner income pays the bills or who have X amount of savings are not instantly entitled to full unemployment benefits. Try to allocate benefits in the direction of those who really need them.
* In terms of the healthcare bill, I find it strange that those who insist that we must have a private health system then scream when small business has to bear the brunt of the cost. Of course it does, because small business accounts for a significant amount of job creation in the US. Maybe they want to try to tell me that if entrepreneurs didn't have to worry about healthcare costs, then they wouldn't start up small businesses?
Allan: What I want, mainly, is for the name-calling to stop.
Actually, if I'm being brutally honest, I'd like the those who are calling honest, hard-working people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own to lose their jobs and their benefits and then try to find a job themselves. Not very Christian of me, I know.
This post isn't an apology for unlimited unemployment benefits. (It would be a pretty bad apologia, actually.) It's a plea for the name-callers to stop being so arrogant.
I'd be lying if I said I know "what to do". Here are random thoughts, in no particular order:
* This is a crisis of international proportions and I don't think governments actually have the power to make confidence return. They do have the power to avoid making confidence worse. One of the things which I'm sure is going to make things worse internationally is the conviction - fed by political opponents of any stripe - that this crisis can be solved in a few years and that it's governments' fault that it isn't going away. What would be an 8 to 10 year economic restructuring will be a 10 to 15 year restructuring as voters constantly vote in new parties in the search for a quick fix that the opposition is promising them.
* With apologies to my leftie friends, I think that US Federal taxes probably have to go up across the board. Including for the working person and for the rich. (N.b. to my UK friends, the tax threashold in the US is much higher than in the UK; I'm not advocating this as a universal principle but from what I see in the US.)
* How about restricting unemployment benefits to people who really need it? E.g. people whose spousal/live-in partner income pays the bills or who have X amount of savings are not instantly entitled to full unemployment benefits. Try to allocate benefits in the direction of those who really need them.
* In terms of the healthcare bill, I find it strange that those who insist that we must have a private health system then scream when small business has to bear the brunt of the cost. Of course it does, because small business accounts for a significant amount of job creation in the US. Maybe they want to try to tell me that if entrepreneurs didn't have to worry about healthcare costs, then they wouldn't start up small businesses?
Pam,
Much of what you say I agree with and find appealing.
I think in reference to healthcare and small business, it just depends on the business. Small grocery stores and small restaurants in the US have such a narrow profit margin, they may find themselves in difficulty. Other small businesses should be able to absorb the cost. The thing that concerns me is not healthcare per se, but my skepticism about cost containment once it goes into effect.
As far as unemployment benefits, I only have a question for which I do not have an answer. It may not be legally possible to deny unemployment to someone based on other household income since that person has paid into it. I know some are also suggesting the same with SS, but that too may not be possible without a change in the law. Payment for eventual services implies a contract.
I am not questioning the morality of it, but its legality.
Post a Comment