Unemployment benefits--you can get them for a long time.
The Senate recently failed to extend unemployment benefits--the Republicans blocked it and they went on break instead. Here's what Paul Krugman has to say about that:
There was a time when everyone took it for granted that unemployment insurance, which normally terminates after 26 weeks, would be extended in times of persistent joblessness. It was, most people agreed, the decent thing to do. But that was then. Today, American workers face the worst job market since the Great Depression, with five job seekers for every job opening, with the average spell of unemployment now at 35 weeks. Yet the Senate went home for the holiday weekend without extending benefits. How was that possible? The answer is that we’re facing a coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused. Nothing can be done about the first group, and probably not much about the second. But maybe it’s possible to clear up some of the confusion. [emphasis mine]
Now if you read that article, and beyond that excerpt Krugman didn't mention any numbers, you might think that unemployment was sitting at somewhere around 35 weeks. Or you might not, there's no way to know. Because Krugman never gives the actual top-end number: 99 weeks. At the top-end of the unemployment system (which not everyone qualifies for), you can remain unemployed for almost 2 years and still get benefits. You'd think that number would merit mention in Krugman's article.
His article is entitled "Punishing the Jobless". I'm not sure refusing to extend unemployment from 99 weeks to 103 weeks qualifies as punishing. But I'm obviously no Paul Krugman.
There was a time when everyone took it for granted that unemployment insurance, which normally terminates after 26 weeks, would be extended in times of persistent joblessness. It was, most people agreed, the decent thing to do. But that was then. Today, American workers face the worst job market since the Great Depression, with five job seekers for every job opening, with the average spell of unemployment now at 35 weeks. Yet the Senate went home for the holiday weekend without extending benefits. How was that possible? The answer is that we’re facing a coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused. Nothing can be done about the first group, and probably not much about the second. But maybe it’s possible to clear up some of the confusion. [emphasis mine]
Now if you read that article, and beyond that excerpt Krugman didn't mention any numbers, you might think that unemployment was sitting at somewhere around 35 weeks. Or you might not, there's no way to know. Because Krugman never gives the actual top-end number: 99 weeks. At the top-end of the unemployment system (which not everyone qualifies for), you can remain unemployed for almost 2 years and still get benefits. You'd think that number would merit mention in Krugman's article.
His article is entitled "Punishing the Jobless". I'm not sure refusing to extend unemployment from 99 weeks to 103 weeks qualifies as punishing. But I'm obviously no Paul Krugman.