GOP to deny unemployment benefits without a HS diploma

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

I thought this was an interesting article that I am sure will garner many reasonable responses.

GOP plan: No HS diploma? No unemployment check
By John W. Schoen, Senior Producer

Out of work and without a high school diploma? If you’re collecting unemployment insurance, you may soon be out of luck.

As Congress returns from the holiday recess, one of the most pressing items on its agenda will the two-month extension of jobless benefits enacted late last month. The compromise deal, part of a two-month extension of a payroll tax cut, tabled debate on wider reforms to the unemployment insurance program.

Those reforms include shortening the length of time jobless workers can collect benefits and a provision that would require anyone collecting them to have a high school diploma or be enrolled in an adult education program working toward a General Educational Development, or GED, certificate.

Sponsors of the measures, contained in H.R. 3630, argue that the current unemployment insurance program has been ineffective in getting long-term jobless workers back work. Some, including Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., have argued that extending unemployment benefits "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work."

Opponents of the GOP proposals argue that jobless benefits are an insurance policy, into which workers pay premiums regardless of their educational background. They dispute the argument that benefits are a disincentive to work, noting that even as the job market has improved, there still aren't enough jobs to go around. There were 3.3 million job openings in October, the latest data available, and roughly 13.8 million people out of work that month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Some opponents of H.R. 3630 agree that unemployment insurance programs are due for reform especially in a job market with stubbornly high levels of long-term unemployment. In the past, state unemployment offices typically offered services beyond simply distributing checks, including job counseling, resume writing and job referrals. Those programs have been largely phased out, according to Judy Conti, who is following the issue for the National Employment Law Project.

“That’s taken away that human contact every couple of weeks and decimated these employment services,” she said. “There really aren’t a lot of people out there who are working with the unemployed to make sure their job search strategies are effective as possible, especially in this economy.”

Job training and high school equivalency programs are also underfunded, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. State and federal budget cuts have stretched adult education programs, producing waiting lists in 50 of the 51 states and the District of Columbia. The number of people on those waiting lists doubled between 2008 and 2010, to 160,000. According to the most recent survey by the National Council of State Directors of Adult Education.

So far, there have been no talks on reaching a compromise measure to renew long-term jobless benefits beyond the two-month extension and none are schedule, according to a spokesman for the House Ways and Means Committee. The group estimates that it would cost about $160 million to eliminate that waiting list.

If the requirement is implemented, the provision would hit older, laid-off workers hardest. Nearly half of UI recipients without a high school diploma or GED are over age 45, and 35 percent are age 50 or over, the CBPP said, citing Census data. In 2010, half a million workers age 50 or over who received unemployment insurance lacked a high school diploma. By contrast, less than a fifth of those collecting jobless benefits without a high school diploma or the equivalent are under age 30.

source

**Andrew1975**

If they were to grandfather this, I might not have a problem with it. I don't like how it would effect some of the older generations that did not require said degrees. It's 2012 there is no reason to not have a HS diploma or a GED and they are free to boot. By not applying yourself hard enough to attain a minimum education you are not preparing yourself to properly get a job.

However aren't unemployment benefits earned by actually working? You can't just get the benefits if you have never worked can you? I mean if you paid into the system without an education you should be able to get that money back shouldn"t you?

I'd be fine if they implemented this for other government aid programs though.

I guess I need someone who knows more about this to post.

I have a college degree so it wouldn't effect me either way.

**Ouze**

Andrew1975 wrote:I However aren't unemployment benefits earned by actually working? You can't just get the benefits if you have never worked can you? I mean if you paid into the system without an education you should be able to get that money back shouldn"t you?

Yes, unemployment is more properly "unemployment insurance", which is funded by employers via payroll taxes. Employees don't directly pay into it (although it's probably a reasonable leap to say that the cost of UI would lower wages proportionately, so employees "pay into it" by not getting as much money... but I digress). To be eligible, you need to have worked for a certain stretch of time previous to filing, and have lost your job through no fault of your own. That's all I really know, I've never actually received it, but I have a friend on it. Seems like a hassle, and he doesn't get very much.

**dogma**

Ouze wrote:I thought this was an interesting article that I am sure will garner many reasonable responses.

The snark is strong in this one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

article wrote:Some, including Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., have argued that extending unemployment benefits "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work."

He is right, of course if we're balancing disincentives and incentives I suspect that unemployment recipients, people with a proven work record, have greater incentives to find work.

I could be wrong though, I don't know the structure of unemployment payments off the top of my head.

**Kilkrazy**

Does anyone have any info on the proportion of unemployed that does not hold a High School diploma?

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:Does anyone have any info on the proportion of unemployed that does not hold a High School diploma?

I'm not confident I'm reading this right, but it looks like 13.8% in Dec 2011. You can get the data here. I looked at Most Requested, and read it off "Unemployment Rate - 25 Yrs. & Over, Less than a High School Diploma - LNS14027659 "

**Kilkrazy**

So roughly seven of eight unemployed people have got diplomas or higher qualifications and are still out of work.

That might suggest there is a problem with lack of work generally, rather than a problem with unemployed people having poor qualifications.

I am all in favour of up-skilling the labour force, but it will not get people into jobs if the jobs are not there to be had.

**Frazzled**

Yes, yes Republicans are evil. Yes I know.

I like it. Here's the important part:

Those reforms include shortening the length of time jobless workers can collect benefits and a provision that would require anyone collecting them to have a high school diploma or be enrolled in an adult education program working toward a General Educational Development, or GED, certificate.

**biccat**

Ouze wrote:Yes, unemployment is more properly "unemployment insurance", which is funded by employers via payroll taxes. Employees don't directly pay into it (although it's probably a reasonable leap to say that the cost of UI would lower wages proportionately, so employees "pay into it" by not getting as much money... but I digress). To be eligible, you need to have worked for a certain stretch of time previous to filing, and have lost your job through no fault of your own. That's all I really know, I've never actually received it, but I have a friend on it. Seems like a hassle, and he doesn't get very much.

Depends on if you're talking about state or federal unemployment. State unemployment is insurance that is paid by employers and comes from a fund dedicated for that purpose. A case could be made that this is really a tax and redistribution scheme, but it's close enough.

Federal unemployment compensation is not funded by employers or employees and instead comes out of the general fund, and therefore isn't 'insurance.'

**Kilkrazy**

If your parents had jobs all their lives and you could not find a job on leaving full time education, could it be said that your parents had already paid into the general fund to cover your unemployment benefit?

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:Yes, yes Republicans are evil. Yes I know.

I like it.

Actually, I'm not opposed to the premise of the idea, assuming the premise is "Lets better educate our workforce so they can have new opportunities" rather than "lets try and knock down entitlement spending for the most vulnerable so we can provide it as tax breaks for the wealthy" - funny how raising taxes on the rich to a level thought appropriate by Saint Reagan are "class warfare", but cutting social programs are "shared sacrifice", right?... But I digress. As I was saying, assuming the premise is the former rather than the latter, I don't oppose it, but I'd prefer it to be more carrot and less stick. Ideally only carrot - Perhaps enhanced benefits, something like that, but the stated goal of unemployment insurance is not to be a truncheon for education and I loathe mission creep of that sort - especially for money already taken for a stated purpose, a sunk cost. It's terrible perfidy. If 87% of the unemployed already have HS+ degrees this really is not a factor in addressing unemployment challenges.

As a side thought, who do you think will be doing the teaching? Isn't this, in a way, a redistributive scheme to siphon off money from private industry (employers via payroll taxes) and funnel it into the pockets of government employees (teachers)? I thought Republicans didn't like that.

**biccat**

Kilkrazy wrote:If your parents had jobs all their lives and you could not find a job on leaving full time education, could it be said that your parents had already paid into the general fund to cover your unemployment benefit?

I'm pretty sure that you would not get unemployment benefits under these circumstances. You certainly wouldn't get state benefits.

But that doesn't mean that the benefit is insurance, it simply means that there are preconditions to receiving the benefit.

**TheHammer**

I'm impressed at the level of passive aggression the resident group of reactionaries have in defending this terrible idea.

Good job, lads!

**Frazzled**

TheHammer wrote:I'm impressed at the level of passive aggression the resident group of reactionaries have in defending this terrible idea.

Good job, lads!

Who are you talking about?

**Rented Tritium**

The problem is not that the people are lazy or something, the problem is that there are not jobs for them to have yet.

**Ahtman**

Rented Tritium wrote:The problem is not that the people are lazy or something, the problem is that there are not jobs for them to have yet.

You get more votes attacking the 13.8% then coming up with and presenting a comprehensive plan to solve the problem of the getting the 85.2% meaningful employment. For the 85.2% you get more votes making your platform yelling at them to "stop being lazy and to get a job". If keeping the job is more important than the issue, it is more practical to keep the status quo and use it to gather votes than it is to solve it.

**d-usa**

It is just easier to believe that 10% of Americans are too lazy to work than it is to believe that there is a fundamental problem in the economy.

**Redbeard**

Because if there's one thing that will reduce crime, it's stopping those without enough education from being able to feed their families.

Social security isn't just insurance for the poor, it's insurance for the society.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:It is just easier to believe that 10% of Americans are too lazy to work than it is to believe that there is a fundamental problem in the economy.

Whats interesting is how none of this is in the article, just supposition by the usual suspects. Oh well.

Perhaps we should just have two running stickies: Sticky 1: Republicans are icky and eat babies; Sticky 2: Creationists are icky and eat babies.

I suppose we could have thread 3 also: Obama is icky and eats babies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:Because if there's one thing that will reduce crime, it's stopping those without enough education from being able to feed their families.

Social security isn't just insurance for the poor, it's insurance for the society.

This isn't social security. Its unemployment benefits.

Whats wrong with saying: dude like you're uneducated, step it up? If you're unemployed and can't find a job you should be doing that anyway. Its time honored Frazzled tradition.

**Melissia**

Kilkrazy wrote:I am all in favour of up-skilling the labour force, but it will not get people into jobs if the jobs are not there to be had.

Pretty much this. So instaed of a lot of unskilled unemployed, you have a lot of skilled unemployed. Like we do right now, but moreso.

**Ouze**

TheHammer wrote:I'm impressed at the level of passive aggression the resident group of reactionaries have in defending this terrible idea.

Good job, lads!

Frazzled wrote:Who are you talking about?

**Kilkrazy**

It would probably be more cost-effective to have good quality education from primary level, though of course that does not solve the issue of the current unemployables.

**Redbeard**

Frazzled wrote:
Whats wrong with saying: dude like you're uneducated, step it up? If you're unemployed and can't find a job you should be doing that anyway. Its time honored Frazzled tradition.

Do you teach them for free? Schooling costs money, I think the teachers want to eat too for some reason. Unless the adult education classes are state funded, I find it of dubious logic to believe that someone unemployed, and requiring unemployment assistance, will have the money to enroll in classes.

**Melissia**

Kilkrazy wrote:It would probably be more cost-effective to have good quality education from primary level, though of course that does not solve the issue of the current unemployables.

Effectively, we'd have to fix capitalism (IE make it start working again, assuming you believe that capitalism itself was the solution to begin with) to get rid of the unemployment problem.

**d-usa**

Frazzled: I thought all Republicans are Creationists, so why do they get two threads?

I do think that the motivation behind this is less of a "let us help people better themselves" and more of a thinly disguised accusation that "the jobless are lazy and don't want to do anything to help themselves." No empirical proof of this, just a feeling.

I do think that combining unemployment benefits with education is a good idea. If you are not working you would have the perfect opportunity to further your education, as everyone who has gone to college and worked full time can attest to. So if we pass this "you have to work on your GED to get benefits" idea, why not go further and make a "we will help you get a degree while unemployed" bill?

Although it would probably make us to much like the socialist countries that long figured out that a free education pays back in the form of higher tax brackets after education is complete and less reliance on social safety nets.

**biccat**

Kilkrazy wrote:It would probably be more cost-effective to have good quality education from primary level, though of course that does not solve the issue of the current unemployables.

I am confused by your use of the words "cost-effective" and "education" in the same sentence. Shouldn't we just throw more money at the problem, then demand more money be thrown at the problem when it isn't solved?

**Frazzled**

Redbeard wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Whats wrong with saying: dude like you're uneducated, step it up? If you're unemployed and can't find a job you should be doing that anyway. Its time honored Frazzled tradition.

Do you teach them for free? Schooling costs money, I think the teachers want to eat too for some reason. Unless the adult education classes are state funded, I find it of dubious logic to believe that someone unemployed, and requiring unemployment assistance, will have the money to enroll in classes.

Usually GED classes are in fact state funded. I know my neighbor's kid had free classes to do so.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:It is just easier to believe that 10% of Americans are too lazy to work than it is to believe that there is a fundamental problem in the economy.

Whats interesting is how none of this is in the article, just supposition by the usual suspects. Oh well.

The article says there are 3.3 million job openings for 13.8 million unemployed. Fill every job and there are still 10.5 million unemployed.

Jobs are available for just under 24% of applicants.
Banning non-HS diploma holders from welfare will not force them into jobs which do not exist
It also will not educate them to the required level even if the jobs did exist.

It's obvious that the proposal is nothing to do with reducing unemployment, especially of low qualified people. That creates the impression that the purpose is something else.

Are people not allowed to draw inferences from articles?

**biccat**

Kilkrazy wrote:It's obvious that the proposal is nothing to do with reducing unemployment, especially of low qualified people. That creates the impression that the purpose is something else.

Perhaps the purpose is to increase the qualifications of the "low qualified people"?

Isn't that the reasoning behind improving school standards, increasing the affordability of college (via student loans) and work-training programs?

Why assume some malicious purpose? (Aside from the fact that it's a Republican proposal)

**Frazzled**

Unemployment for college educated is 4 %. It rises dramatically thereafter. I think that makes the issue clear. Improve yourself.

Is there an unemployment problem? You betcha! Thats kind of the point of the Republicans right now when they do that whole "this is where Reagan was at the same time - hire us and we'll do better!" thing going on right now.