Anyone switching to a credit union with what's going on?

[J T]

Using Unemployment Benefits as an example, I would cite that the number of people who are staying on unemployment for long periods of time (over 27 weeks) have gone up drastically and (opinion) that can be attributed to an entitlement mentality. (Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, from Haver Analytics. aned http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753066246235811.html)

Entitlement mentality may play a part, but as the economy has tanked recently, there are legitimately fewer jobs available, which seems the more probable explanation for the increase in longer term unemployment. "Entitlement" and "Availability of Jobs" would have to be measured and accounted for in a study for us to truly know the answer.

[Jmustang1968]

A lot of it is also based on general logic and knowing or observing human tendencies. It is a fall back plan where even I can think 'well I will be ok here and here because I am guaranteed government assistance'. I think I would be a bit more careful if I didn't know I had this gauranteed income, fixed as it may be.

You can make statistics support you almost any way you want. So much is left up to interpretation and conclusions from the same piece of stats or citation can and will vary wildly from person to person.

[MrPopo]

Using Unemployment Benefits as an example, I would cite that the number of people who are staying on unemployment for long periods of time (over 27 weeks) have gone up drastically and (opinion) that can be attributed to an entitlement mentality. (Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, from Haver Analytics. aned http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753066246235811.html)

Entitlement mentality may play a part, but as the economy has tanked recently, there are legitimately fewer jobs available, which seems the more probable explanation for the increase in longer term unemployment. "Entitlement" and "Availability of Jobs" would have to be measured and accounted for in a study for us to truly know the answer.

Very true, JT, but speaking anecdotally, most of the people I know who are pulling unemployment are sitting on it and not looking for a job, instead of using it to support themselves while they search for a new job. From Stark's link, 1.4 million haven't searched for a job in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. 4 weeks seems like a long time to not spend any time searching for a job to me.

[Jmustang1968]

Using Unemployment Benefits as an example, I would cite that the number of people who are staying on unemployment for long periods of time (over 27 weeks) have gone up drastically and (opinion) that can be attributed to an entitlement mentality. (Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, from Haver Analytics. aned http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753066246235811.html)

Entitlement mentality may play a part, but as the economy has tanked recently, there are legitimately fewer jobs available, which seems the more probable explanation for the increase in longer term unemployment. "Entitlement" and "Availability of Jobs" would have to be measured and accounted for in a study for us to truly know the answer.

That's too cut and dry... I would say it is a combination of both. And I just wasn't speaking of length of unemployment but general financial preparedness if it does come to pass.

I have a friend who was laid off who purposely kept only applying for jobs she wasn't qualified for so she could continue to receive benefits and not get a job.

I am not saying there are those out there who aren't legitamitely trying to fnd a job. But these entitlement programs create some troubling tendencies and habits

[Zing]

I agree with this, but the blame still falls on both sides. Corporations always bitch and moan about government regulation and oversight because they add cost and time to doing business, which inihibits their ability to be profitable. But then when we have something like the subprime mortgage loan crisis, they say "don't blame us. We're just trying to make a profit. Blame the government for not regulating us better." They are against regulation when it's best for them, and for it when it's a convenient way for them to shift blame away from themselves for hurting the economy.

This sounds like an argument for complete de-regulation. Let's do it!

[Flake]

There has to be some degree of regulation, otherwise you get situations like Dickensian England. A balance has to be found.

[J T]

This sounds like an argument for complete de-regulation. Let's do it!

It's not. And let's not.

While I often support deregulation when there is reason to believe the free market has natural checks and balances to keep it in line, there are too many areas where consumers, workers, and taxpayers can be exploited. We need ways to protect them when Adam Smith's "invisible hand" will not. Even Ayn Rand has limits in her "greed is good" philosophy, which require some rationally minded ethics on the part of people acting in their own self interest.

[Hatta]

Deregulation for the rich. Law and order for the poor. Yet another double standard.

Concerning unemployment, there have to be jobs for people to get off of unemployment. Nobody can create jobs if there's no demand to fill. If people are afraid of losing their jobs with no safety net, they'll be saving and not spending decreasing demand. Therefore financing unemployment insurance creates jobs. If employers don't like paying for people who aren't working, they should hire them and get something in return for their money.

[MrPopo]

There has to be some degree of regulation, otherwise you get situations like Dickensian England. A balance has to be found.

You mean adorable cockney chimney-sweeps? That doesn't sound too bad.

Concerning unemployment, there have to be jobs for people to get off of unemployment. Nobody can create jobs if there's no demand to fill. If people are afraid of losing their jobs with no safety net, they'll be saving and not spending decreasing demand. Therefore financing unemployment insurance creates jobs. If employers don't like paying for people who aren't working, they should hire them and get something in return for their money.

A somewhat simplistic assertion. There's a few problems. The first is that not every unemployed person is qualified for every open job position. Second is geographic distribution; the open jobs could be in areas with low unemployment, while areas of high unemployment might have few jobs. The third is that there are classes of jobs that people seem to have decided they won't "stoop too". Off the top of my head I remember reports of fruit rotting on the vine because no local people were willing to take the job of picking the fruit.

The problem with the social safety net is that it is very hard to craft a system that serves the intended purpose of helping people going through a temporary job transition without allowing people to game the system (either through long term unemployment or a on-again, off-again situation).

[Zing]

If employers don't like paying for people who aren't working, they should hire them and get something in return for their money.

Maybe they would like to, but minimum wage laws force them to pay more than the person's labour is worth?