Just Pondering: I have questions about jobs/unemployment.

[ErinE]

Periods of short term work. No good permanent jobs. The job search is in all parts of the country.

 

There have been offers in extremely high-COL regions, but between housing, transit, and taxes, we would be in poorer financial condition. Through the grapevine, it appears these jobs are slow to fill. Very few people want to move to expensive areas.

 

Right now, we're doing okay with our jobs, but I'm hoping we can find a more steady source of income.

[AimeeM]

Periods of short term work. No good permanent jobs. The job search is in all parts of the country.

 

There have been offers in extremely high-COL regions, but between housing, transit, and taxes, we would be in poorer financial condition. Through the grapevine, it appears these jobs are slow to fill. Very few people want to move to expensive areas.

 

Right now, we're doing okay with our jobs, but I'm hoping we can find a more steady source of income.

Yep. We would love to live closer to my FIL, but he lives in an incredibly high COL area. The small three bedroom cottage we have now, where we live, would cost over half a million where he lives. My husband would have to almost triple his current salary to live comparable to how we live now. High COL is no joke and can seriously hinder a person's job prospects.

[saw]

What I'm finding is that, for professional jobs in my field, there is a mismatch between jobseekers, recruiters and company HR. If you don't tick all the boxes with your cv the recruiter/HR won't even consider it. I've spoken with several people in my situation who've said the same thing. The two interviews I've had in six months of looking came first from a recruiter with whom I had a connection (so she was motivated to help me) and second with a major investment bank for a job for which I am qualified (maybe not the best qualified, but qualified enough to interview). The only reason I got the interview at the investment bank is that the hiring MD sent her secretary to retrieve submitted cvs from HR and screen them herself. I never would have gotten the interview if HR had vetted my cv first. It irritates me because it suggests that there is are major inefficiencies in the system that are preventing many qualified individuals (not just me but many more qualified individuals) from finding quality work with firms who are looking for them but are often relying on the recruiters.

[Carrie12345]

I hope those passing jobs by that are unworthy of them aren't drawing unemployment while doing that. It isn't just about having a good resume; it's also about putting food on the table.

 

That really depends on what a person's maximum unemployment benefit is and what hourly rate the "unworthy" jobs are offering. Unemployment wouldn't cover all our bills, but it would put more food on the table than a $10/hr job with overtime.

[elegantlion]

My ex took one of those "put food on the table jobs" for a while. We figured after gas, he was making almost no money. He also didn't get the criteria they promised when he took the job, not the days off, not the promised increase, this was for work that was very physically demanding (which he was used too). The last straw was when they wanted them to give up their flex time (or some sort of off time they were earning each week). We figured that after that increase of hours (he was salary), he was making about $3.00 an hour. That was the week he went back to work after having a mild heart attack at work. Yeah, he walked off the job that day with my blessing. 

[BrookValley.]

I hope those passing jobs by that are unworthy of them aren't drawing unemployment while doing that. It isn't just about having a good resume; it's also about putting food on the table.

 

My, bless your heart. That's an incredibly myopic and judgmental view.

 

Let's think about this. I'll go slowly.

 

Most people aren't passing up jobs because the jobs are "unworthy," for starters. Most people want to work. It's not quite so black and white.

 

About putting food on the table. Unemployment does that. That's what it's for. And see, when you've been working at a job for many years, one in your field and applicable to your experience and education, you've probably built up to a certain standard of living. Meaning, you have bills. And even if you're willing, as most people would be, to live someplace with a smaller mortgage/rent and drive a cheaper car or ditch it for public transportation--that won't happen overnight. So when that job goes away and you're left without a paycheck, no. Heading down the home improvement store or walmart for $10/hour is not necessarily going to put food on the table.

 

When my husband was laid off from his job of 15 years (in IT), it took him six months to find another job in his area of expertise. Yes, he did draw unemployment rather than taking a job making slightly more than minimum wage, despite your best hopes that we wouldn't do that, thanks. Why? Because it would not have paid the bills and put food on the table, that's why. It would have been worse. With unemployment, my income, our savings, and my mad frugal skills, we were able to keep our heads above water--barely, but that's just fine--until he found something comparable. The system worked. Imagine that.

 

It's not as simple as you would make it seem, and the stigma and shame about those who do need social welfare benefits isn't helping anybody. Not that it's anybody's business, but my husband would have *gladly* taken a job that was "unworthy" of him and would have busted his tail doing it, too. He did look into, and applied for, jobs that were not white-collar desk jobs--lots of them. However, he made the choice that was best for the entire family, and that was drawing unemployment while continuing to job search and interview until he found a position in his field making a comparable salary.

[poppy]

Like almost half our county, dh commutes to a high COL area. He's been steadily employed because the costs are so high that people from other areas won't take the job as they aren't used to long commutes and don't want to size down. He still makes more than people who work in the area in nongovernmental jobs and commute, due to the huge pay scale difference between city and rural.

 

"Well, just move" isn't really a viable argument for a lot of people- people who live in the area to be close to family that watches kids, or for the school district, or because they're stuck underwater in a mortgage, or a whole host of other reasons.

 

I also want to point out that for all the people lucky enough to have the best of both worlds (HCOL paycheck, LCOL housing), if everyone tried to do it, no one would be able to ......................

[ktgrok]

For a majority of people, moving isn't an option. They are underwater in their mortgage. I know we are. 

[Crimson Wife]

Another obstacle to the "just move" attitude is that often employers won't even look at non-local applicants. We've been trying to get out of the S.F. Bay Area for years and even when DH puts in his cover letter that we have family in the area where the job is located, he'd be willing to fly out to interview etc. the "hit" rate for even just a screening phone call has been significantly lower for non-local positions.

[Laura Corin]

Another obstacle to the "just move" attitude is that often employers won't even look at non-local applicants. We've been trying to get out of the S.F. Bay Area for years and even when DH puts in his cover letter that we have family in the area where the job is located, he'd be willing to fly out to interview etc. the "hit" rate for even just a screening phone call has been significantly lower for non-local positions.

 

When Husband was looking for work in London, he never mentioned that the family was in Scotland.  He used his mobile phone, and kept a room in London (in our rental flat) so that he had an address there.  Companies want simple-to-hire candidates.  Some of his consultancy clients still don't know he is in Scotland most of the time.

 

L

[Crimson Wife]

When Husband was looking for work in London, he never mentioned that the family was in Scotland.  He used his mobile phone, and kept a room in London (in our rental flat) so that he had an address there.  Companies want simple-to-hire candidates.  Some of his consultancy clients still don't know he is in Scotland most of the time.

 

L

 

If the person's current or very recent job is in a company well-known to be in a particular location and the hoped-for position is 3,000 miles away, then that kind of strategy wouldn't work. I'm not saying it's a bad one, but many jobhunters aren't going to be able to take advantage of it.

[Laura Corin]

If the person's current or very recent job is in a company well-known to be in a particular location and the hoped-for position is 3,000 miles away, then that kind of strategy wouldn't work. I'm not saying it's a bad one, but many jobhunters aren't going to be able to take advantage of it.

 

Husband was in exactly that position - his previous company was in Scotland, so he had to provide contact details to 'look like London'.  He didn't say that he had moved to London, but he let it be inferred from his contact details.

 

L

[Jenny in Florida]

As far as unemployment goes, don't forget the overqualified, done bits of work here and there, have one long ago degree home schooling mama seeking to return to work after two decades at home,  often without the safety net of a working husband.

 

 

[Crimson Wife]

Is it the nonlocal or the lack of having a contact at the prospective employer?

 

It's the geography because the opening was generally discovered via his network (most positions at DH's level are never advertised publicly). If someone normally has let's say a 40% hit rate for an initial phone screening at local jobs but a 4% hit rate at non-local ones, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on.

 

[Tap]

Another obstacle to the "just move" attitude is that often employers won't even look at non-local applicants. We've been trying to get out of the S.F. Bay Area for years and even when DH puts in his cover letter that we have family in the area where the job is located, he'd be willing to fly out to interview etc. the "hit" rate for even just a screening phone call has been significantly lower for non-local positions.

Dh faced this when we relocated from Southern Oregon to Northern Oregon....a big whopping 2.5 hour drive.  LOL

 

The employer interview my husband, loved him (my BIL was good friend with the hiring person) but they had a set policy of not hiring anyone more than  about a 30 minute drive from the office.  They wanted us to relocate with zero notice on our other jobs, officially move the entire family, and then notify them, and then they would make a decision on whether to hire him or not.  :banghead:   They said they had had troubles of waiting for someone to move and then having them turn down the job offer at the very last minute because something didn't work out with the move.  (wife didn't find job, kids didn't want to move, etc)

 

 

Since we knew that we were moving no matter what, Dh relocated ahead of us. We rented a 3 bedroom apartment (obvious family sized) in the new area and still had a rental house in the old area (we had sold our home ahead of the move). We lived apart for 3 months while ds finished his school year and I helped my mom after my fathers death, and then followed dh. Dh tried to apply again and the prospective employer said it wasn't good enough for just him to relocate (without the family), so not to bother reapply because they couldn't trust him any longer?  They though he was faking the move just to get the job. 

[mommymilkies]

Another obstacle to the "just move" attitude is that often employers won't even look at non-local applicants. We've been trying to get out of the S.F. Bay Area for years and even when DH puts in his cover letter that we have family in the area where the job is located, he'd be willing to fly out to interview etc. the "hit" rate for even just a screening phone call has been significantly lower for non-local positions.

Yup.  People make it sound so easy.  Dh is a college instructor.  Not exactly easy to find jobs right now.  But most won't even consider a distant applicant.  When there's about 10 positions he's qualified for open in the entire country every year, we can't be too picky about location.  But the ones we've found that do consider distant applicants won't pay reimbursement for travel or relocation. 

[ErinE]

What I'm finding is that, for professional jobs in my field, there is a mismatch between jobseekers, recruiters and company HR. If you don't tick all the boxes with your cv the recruiter/HR won't even consider it. I've spoken with several people in my situation who've said the same thing. The two interviews I've had in six months of looking came first from a recruiter with whom I had a connection (so she was motivated to help me) and second with a major investment bank for a job for which I am qualified (maybe not the best qualified, but qualified enough to interview). The only reason I got the interview at the investment bank is that the hiring MD sent her secretary to retrieve submitted cvs from HR and screen them herself. I never would have gotten the interview if HR had vetted my cv first. It irritates me because it suggests that there is are major inefficiencies in the system that are preventing many qualified individuals (not just me but many more qualified individuals) from finding quality work with firms who are looking for them but are often relying on the recruiters.

I see this as well. HR knows the quantitative skills wanted (correct degree, years worked, systems experience), but not the qualitative. DH and I have degrees different from the fields we work in, so we wouldn't make a HR first pass. However, we know a lot about our respective areas and once we talk to the hiring manager, the degree doesn't matter. I suspect this is why our job leads have come from business contacts as opposed to job listings.

[ErinE]

HCOL paycheck, LCOL housing is not what we have. Our housing is just as expensive as if our home was in Westchester, both in cost and in taxes. However, for people coming from states where $250,000 buys a huge home with acreage enough to farm...its not attractive to give up the lifestyle to come here and live in a starter home on a small lot for $350000 plus pay about triple the taxes. Its a whole different lifestyle, and they'd rather stay where they are taking a lower salary in a different job, or farm enough to make the taxes.

In the certain areas where I've seen job listings, it's more than half a million for a home 20-30+ years old, with major renovations required to bring it up to code, more than an hour from work, in a marginally safe area. The housing price expectations in certain parts of the country aren't just unattractive, they're unreasonable. Ten years ago in NYC, a co-worker was advocating for DH and I to purchase a one-bedroom at a leverage of 6-7 our combined income. We wouldn't have fared much better an hour outside the city. That is insane.

[Loowit]

Another obstacle to the "just move" attitude is that often employers won't even look at non-local applicants. We've been trying to get out of the S.F. Bay Area for years and even when DH puts in his cover letter that we have family in the area where the job is located, he'd be willing to fly out to interview etc. the "hit" rate for even just a screening phone call has been significantly lower for non-local positions.

 

DH had this problem.  When our current address was on his resume he got maybe a couple calls a week.  When he finally got a job, he had to live where the job was which was about 3 hours from home.  He put his out of town room rent address on his resume and started getting calls several times a day.  It made a huge difference just changing addresses.

[Evan]

I hope those passing jobs by that are unworthy of them aren't drawing unemployment while doing that. It isn't just about having a good resume; it's also about putting food on the table.

 

I think it is very reasonable for someone who was laid off from a position and is eligible to collect unemployment payments to take advantage of them while they seek a new job in their field. This is the intent of the program.  It was designed to be a stop gap safety net for laid off individuals who are job seeking.  I also agree with others who have stated that it is unlikely that a minimum wage job in food service or retail will help a professional get a new job in their career.  If they opt to leave it off their CV because they fear it will be view unfavorably by potential employers then they still have the employment gap on their CV and if they list it then many employers will not view it favorably. 

 

 

 

Wow, Either I am reading this as incredibly harsh or that was a really rude comment.

 

People pay into unemployment evey day that they work.  It is a benefit of living in this country.  

 

 

 My husband paid into unemployment for over 20 years. If he needs to dip into it for a period of time, we have no qualms about doing so.

 

 

I probably wouldn't have worked the retail jobs if I was eligible for unemployment.  The maximum benefit for unemployment works out to be $11-something an hour so definitely more than minimum wage.  And you are only eligible if you've been paying into it so I would certainly not feel at all bad about claiming.

 

 

 

Although I have no problem with those eligible for unemployment payments claiming them I think many of you are confused about where the money for this program actually come from. Federal Unemployment contributions are 100% employer based.  Employees never have money withheld for Federal Unemployment.  Two (NJ and AK) out of fifty states routinely collect a small percentage of employee wages directly from the employees. They also collect a (usually larger) percentage of the employee wages from the employer.  A third state (PA) collects from employees based on the solvency percentage of the unemployment fund.  If the fund is solvent then nothing is collected from employees (0% set as the collection rate).

[Tap]

I think it is very reasonable for someone who was laid off from a position and is eligible to collect unemployment payments to take advantage of them while they seek a new job in their field. This is the intent of the program.  It was designed to be a stop gap safety net for laid off individuals who are job seeking.  I also agree with others who have stated that it is unlikely that a minimum wage job in food service or retail will help a professional get a new job in their career.  If they opt to leave it off their CV because they fear it will be view unfavorably by potential employers then they still have the employment gap on their CV and if they list it then many employers will not view it favorably. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although I have no problem with those eligible for unemployment payments claiming them I think many of you are confused about where the money for this program actually come from. Federal Unemployment contributions are 100% employer based.  Employees never have money withheld for Federal Unemployment.  Two (NJ and AK) out of fifty states routinely collect a small percentage of employee wages directly from the employees. They also collect a (usually larger) percentage of the employee wages from the employer.  A third state (PA) collects from employees based on the solvency percentage of the unemployment fund.  If the fund is solvent then nothing is collected from employees (0% set as the collection rate).

To me, every penny an employer spends on employees are part of the employees compensation.  From taxes, to benefits like medical and sick leave, pensions, wages and even the coffee in the break room....all are part of the cost to the employer and the benefit of the employee. I know for a fact, that my employer pays more that double my wages in just my benefits and other costs of having employees.  

 

In many states, there are advantages to employers hiring contracted employees to do a job because of these costs, but then the employer also looses some control of the employee that makes it unsavory to most employers. 

 

You are right that hey employee isn't the one writing the check, but the employer is definitely taking it into consideration when setting the wages for the position. 

[Crimson Wife]

 

Although I have no problem with those eligible for unemployment payments claiming them I think many of you are confused about where the money for this program actually come from. Federal Unemployment contributions are 100% employer based.  Employees never have money withheld for Federal Unemployment.  Two (NJ and AK) out of fifty states routinely collect a small percentage of employee wages directly from the employees. They also collect a (usually larger) percentage of the employee wages from the employer.  A third state (PA) collects from employees based on the solvency percentage of the unemployment fund.  If the fund is solvent then nothing is collected from employees (0% set as the collection rate).

 

Then why does my DH's pay stub list UI as a debit against his income? It's right under FICA & Medicare and above the SDI (state disability) line. Is this just a CA thing?

[Evan]

To me, every penny an employer spends on employees are part of the employees compensation.  From taxes, to benefits like medical and sick leave, pensions, wages and even the coffee in the break room....all are part of the cost to the employer and the benefit of the employee. I know for a fact, that my employer pays more that double my wages in just my benefits and other costs of having employees.  

 

In many states, there are advantages to employers hiring contracted employees to do a job because of these costs, but then the employer also looses some control of the employee that makes it unsavory to most employers. 

 

You are right that hey employee isn't the one writing the check, but the employer is definitely taking it into consideration when setting the wages for the position. 

 

As an employer, I find it a bit refreshing when an employee does grasp that we do pay a fair amount, on top of wages or salary, just for the privilege of hiring someone. However, as an employer, I also pay wages and salaries that I feel are appropriate for the expectations, requirements, and responsibility of the position. I do not reduce the salary of my employees to subsidize my required employer payments to FICA, FUTA, etc.  I view these (and other) payments as a cost of doing business. In contrast, I frequently come across individuals who insist that money is being deducted from their paychecks to "pay into" unemployment. In reality, this just is not the case. 

[Evan]

Then why does my DH's pay stub list UI as a debit against his income? It's right under FICA & Medicare and above the SDI (state disability) line. Is this just a CA thing?

 

Is it actually being debited from his gross? Or is it possible that the employer contribution is showing up on the pay draft?  One of the programs I looked at (but did not end up purchasing) seemed to do something like this.  I am not in California but as far as I know all UI payments there are employer contributions. Perhaps this has changed recently or perhaps your husband's employer's payroll department is wrong and you should look into this further and have it corrected.

 

I do believe that California does have a mandatory employee contribution to their state non occupational disability fund.  We have something similar in our state and the amount my wife pays into that we can deduct on our federal return along with our state income taxes paid.  If you look on last year's W-2 this amount should be listed.

[katilac]

 

<snip>  Work is somewhat seasonal with both companies, but at the moment I can work as many hours as I want, and there is more work available than I can take.  

 

<snip>

I make significantly less per hour than I did in my last full-time position, but my average is enough for a single person to live on if I worked full-time hours according to that admittedly flawed living wage calculator we were discussing here a few weeks ago.

 

<snip>

 

So, yes, I do have the luxury of not having to really worry about making a living, but even as one of those overqualified-haven't-worked-for-real-in-two-decades moms, I "could" support myself if I had to do so. 

 

 <snip>

 

Have you crunched the numbers for your actual situation, and not a theoretical situation? In other words, if your dh was suddenly unemployed, you could pay the mortgage, buy the groceries, provide the insurance, pay your son's tuition?

 

Or do you just mean you could hypothetically support yourself alone, if you didn't have existing obligations? 

[bzymom]

As an employer, I find it a bit refreshing when an employee does grasp that we do pay a fair amount, on top of wages or salary, just for the privilege of hiring someone. However, as an employer, I also pay wages and salaries that I feel are appropriate for the expectations, requirements, and responsibility of the position. I do not reduce the salary of my employees to subsidize my required employer payments to FICA, FUTA, etc. I view these (and other) payments as a cost of doing business. In contrast, I frequently come across individuals who insist that money is being deducted from their paychecks to "pay into" unemployment. In reality, this just is not the case.

I know this is not directed at me or any single poster, but as it is we do live in NJ.

And have been self-employed over the years. So yes, we did pay into it ourselves.

But it wouldn't matter to me if the payments were made by our employers as part of our pay structure. I would still be very comfortable accepting it under the circumstance of losing a job through no fault of your own.

[Evan]

I know this is not directed at me or any single poster, but as it is we do live in NJ.

And have been self-employed over the years. So yes, we did pay into it ourselves.

But it wouldn't matter to me if the payments were made by our employers as part of our pay structure. I would still be very comfortable accepting it under the circumstance of losing a job through no fault of your own.

 

You are correct that I posted purely to clarify what is often a common misconception among people I interact with offline. I have no idea where everyone on the forum is from, so I figured it was possible that everyone who was asserting they were paying into the fund themselves truly was. This was why I specified that NJ and AK do withhold from employees, and that PA does when the fund isn't sufficiently solvent (which it isn't in 2014).  

 

I am curious about paying into unemployment if you are self employed. If you are self employed there is not the danger of lay off or position elimination and generally you would not be eligible for unemployment payments. Are you actually classified as an employee of a family owned small business?  Or are you a small business owner with employees and you are referring to your employer contribution on their wages?

 

I also have no problem with people using the unemployment benefits they are eligible for in the event of job loss due to lay off, position elimination, etc.  As I stated in my first reply to this thread, this is exactly what the program is for.

[poppy]

 

 

. I do not reduce the salary of my employees to subsidize my required employer payments to FICA, FUTA, etc.  I view these (and other) payments as a cost of doing business. In contrast, I frequently come across individuals who insist that money is being deducted from their paychecks to "pay into" unemployment. In reality, this just is not the case.

That's a bit of a self serving way of phrasing it. If you reduced your salaries, you'd quickly find yourself without well qualified employees.

[Crimson Wife]

Self-employed can definitely get unemployment if the contract the individual was working on ended and he/she can document a legitimate search for a new contract position. A number of people I know work on contract (consultants, tech workers, etc.) and so long as they met the hours worked requirement, they can receive unemployment.

[Tap]

As an employer, I find it a bit refreshing when an employee does grasp that we do pay a fair amount, on top of wages or salary, just for the privilege of hiring someone. However, as an employer, I also pay wages and salaries that I feel are appropriate for the expectations, requirements, and responsibility of the position. I do not reduce the salary of my employees to subsidize my required employer payments to FICA, FUTA, etc.  I view these (and other) payments as a cost of doing business. In contrast, I frequently come across individuals who insist that money is being deducted from their paychecks to "pay into" unemployment. In reality, this just is not the case. 

Maybe it is just a matter of perspective since dh and I both helped with bookkeeping and managing businesses before we owned our own small business.  

 

We started off our business with just dh running the company and then hired employees as we needed to.  We absolutely considered all of the expenses of having an employee as part of their cost to the company.  If they didn't have benefits/taxes etc, we would have paid them the money outright instead. I guess it is just a way of categorizing it in my own head.  Without employees, we didn't have to pay those expenses, so it was part of having employees, not part of the business.  

 

When we decided to hire an employee, the discussion wasn't 'can we afford $15hr to pay this person'.  It was 'can we afford $50,000 per year' because that is the real cost of having them.  The discussion obviously revolved around what they person could do for the company also, but the reality was, that whether or not the employee helped to grow the company, they had to be paid and it was wayyy more than just their wage.

[Wheres Toto]

I think it is very reasonable for someone who was laid off from a position and is eligible to collect unemployment payments to take advantage of them while they seek a new job in their field. This is the intent of the program.  It was designed to be a stop gap safety net for laid off individuals who are job seeking.  I also agree with others who have stated that it is unlikely that a minimum wage job in food service or retail will help a professional get a new job in their career.  If they opt to leave it off their CV because they fear it will be view unfavorably by potential employers then they still have the employment gap on their CV and if they list it then many employers will not view it favorably. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although I have no problem with those eligible for unemployment payments claiming them I think many of you are confused about where the money for this program actually come from. Federal Unemployment contributions are 100% employer based.  Employees never have money withheld for Federal Unemployment.  Two (NJ and AK) out of fifty states routinely collect a small percentage of employee wages directly from the employees. They also collect a (usually larger) percentage of the employee wages from the employer.  A third state (PA) collects from employees based on the solvency percentage of the unemployment fund.  If the fund is solvent then nothing is collected from employees (0% set as the collection rate).

 

I'm in NJ.  It's the only state I've ever worked and the only state I've ever collected unemployment so the only one I'm familiar with.  There is a deduction from my paycheck for unemployment insurance.

 

[Jenny in Florida]

 

[Jenny in Florida]

 

[Evan]

Self-employed can definitely get unemployment if the contract the individual was working on ended and he/she can document a legitimate search for a new contract position. A number of people I know work on contract (consultants, tech workers, etc.) and so long as they met the hours worked requirement, they can receive unemployment.

 

This is a little complicated. I believe that in CA specifically self employed individuals can elect to pay into IU and thus be eligible for coverage. They do need to show that they are truly unemployed as self employed individuals but there is case law that is starting to define this.  

 

Beyond CA, and nationally, there is an effort to evaluate self employed independent contractors status. As you can imagine, there is a financial incentive for companies to classify their workers as independent contractors rather than employees but there are certain criteria that have to be met and there is clearly some willful misclassification.  If someone can show that they should have really been classified as an employee then they may be eligible for unemployment compensation. This is becoming more of a priority issue for the IRS and many state departments of labor now so we will see more of this in the future.  On the other hand, individuals who are truly self employed and have not opted into IU will be unlikely to be eligible to collect unemployment benefits. 

[Mommyof4ks]

In my area we have lots of jobs, but we are a smaller town where some headquarters of larger companies are, and no one wants to move here. They want to work in big cities, so IME the jobs are there but people are not willing to come to where they are located. We are talking good paying IT jobs with great benefits in companies who are debt free so lay offs are not a thing. We need doctors and nurses too.

[VeritasMama]

Many employers will not hire someone who is not currently employed. There is especially a stigma against those who have been out for 6+ months. It is super-frustrating when the headhunters' calls come pouring in when the individual is employed but then dry up when the individual is actually looking for a new position. It's like the old stereotype that having a girlfriend/wife makes the guy more attractive to other ladies.

The headhunter that recruited my husband to his current job, which he landed while still employed, told dh that companies prefer individuals who were willing to take low paying jobs rather than take unemployment. He said it is better to work at Pizza Hut while you search for a better job than to just collect unemployment.

 

I don't know if that is fair, but that is what the employers were telling this particular head hunter.

 

My hubby is an engineer in a very high demand field. He'll always be able to find a job, but that may also entail having to move across the country. Manufacturing has become more sparse, fewer and fewer factories spread further and further apart.

 

Which reminds me, please support the American paper industry. It is one of the last things we still make here, it provides excellent working class jobs, and the industry relies on recycled paper products for the most part now. Please buy American made toilet paper (yes, there is Chinese TP sold in America now) :)

[Serenade]

This is such a depressing thread. Ugh.

[kiwik]

I have, out of curiosity, crunched the numbers to see if I could support myself on a bare bones basis, and I could. We already rent. So, if I were suddenly on my own and needed to support myself, I could move to a smaller, less expensive place. (My husband and I are already discussing that possibility, anyway, since neither kid is here full time any longer.)

 

I could certainly buy groceries, pay rent, put gas in my car to get to and from work, keep the lights on in my apartment and those sorts of normal things on what I now make, yes.

 

I could not support two people, but notice that isn't what I said. I specifically said I was making more than the living wage calculator says I would need to support a single person.

 

No, I could not pay my son's tuition. However, he currently receives no need-based aid. So, if my income dropped drastically, he would be eligible for more assistance. Also, at the moment, we are paying out of pocket for some expenses that could be covered by a parent loan if necessary as a stop-gap until more aid kicked in.

 

Again, I am in no way saying that I could immediately take over and maintain our family's current lifestyle. I was responding specifically to Sadie's comment about a mom returning to the workplace without the safety net of a husband.

 

Edit: I feel like I should say here, again, that I'm not at all saying or suggesting anything negative about other folks who are struggling with un- and under-employment. Been there, done that, and it sucked. It's possible -- probable -- that my luck in finding a combination of jobs that works for me is a function of all kinds of factors that are not typical. I've just been thinking about these questions and wondering what's going on with other people, which is why I asked. My heart completely goes out to those who are still looking.

I am in NZ so it may be different but my experience is that moving house is very experience (4 weeks bond and two weeks rent up front, paying rent on two places for a week, getting all the carpets steam cleaned (standard is professionally cleaned and show receipt)). It would have to be a lot cheaper in most cases to pay off in less than a year or two. Also the cheaper rent you agreed to has a habit of going up and you can't afford to move again. If you are paying a high rent now and can move to a low rent area it would work though.

 

The problem with taking low paid jobs is that looking for work is a full time job. I work in a lowish paid job but I didn't have a lifestyle set up for a high paid job.

[Wheres Toto]

I know I can get by on my current salary alone because I've done it, when I was a single mom.  It would entail moving into a rental, probably in an area with a longer commute to work. 

 

We could get by on my salary and dh working a part time retail job where we are now if he homeschooled the kids or we put them in school.  It wouldn't be pretty but we could do it.

[MSNative]

As of tomorrow, dh will be unemployed for 3 months. Man, that hurts to type. He will never have another job at what he was making--it was county and he's too old. I haven't worked in 30 years for pay and that was at the ps. They aren't going to hire me after 27 years of hsing. Dh is willing to take pushing carts at the grocery store, but can't get hired. We're hoping he can get SOMETHING once the ski area opens, but it's not going to be enough to live on. Commuting? Here that would mean driving 6 hours a day over two major passes. We can't move--ya' can't just move a cattle ranch. We had a decent hay crop, but that's ranch income--nothing for us. We've already sold most of the cows. We have 5 of us in school this year. We're limping by with some construction work, but that will dry up once winter hits. It's already snowing. He came home wet, frozen and exhausted today, from digging post holes all day. Only to be greeted by another $2000 doctor's bill, for the kid that needs yet another hip surgery. Insurance is costing us $2000 a month. There is no work here.

:(. Hugs!

 

I appreciate this thread. We went through a couple of huge layoff scares and know several people who have been out of work long term. It's so stressful!

[creekland]

I mainly lurk on these threads as we live in an area that is rarely hit by recessions.  It is not difficult to find a job here, but the pay may not be what many would like.  Rural areas pay less than city areas.  The COL is less too, so that makes up for a bit of it.  There are help wanted signs everywhere, but I suspect those are essentially minimum wage (or close to it) jobs.  There are quite a few other jobs listed in the paper, but they require appropriate experience.

 

Yesterday we were talking with friends in Wally World... where they work they couldn't get enough people in.  They wanted roughly 80 per day and would get 30 - 50.  Of those 30 - 50, many weren't actually interested in WORKING, so they didn't last long.  I'll admit to wondering what pay they were offering to be that understaffed, but I didn't actually ask.  My guess is it wasn't enough.

 

For our family... hubby is self-employed as a professional Civil Engineer.  We're absolutely happy with self-employment, so have no desire to change.  If he wanted to though, I suspect he could have a "job" in his field within a week or two.  We might have to relocate - not sure.  Headhunters still contact him fairly frequently.  He no longer hires anyone directly.  Hubby subcontracts instead.  It's far easier for him.

 

I have a standing offer of a full time job at school should I ever want to go full time.  I don't.  But for those who haven't worked there for the past 15 years, when they have openings, there are often 10 applicants (or more - pending subject) for the job.

 

Oldest graduated from college last May and had a job in his field (business) before graduation.  He got it by networking through a college peer.

 

Someone I know quite well is currently out of a job.  Her problem is people skills.  She can get jobs, but she can't keep them for more than a few months due to her poor people skills.  It's frustrating to all who know her, but none of us can teach her anything about jobs and getting along with others.  We have tried.  Many, many have tried.  (sigh)

[katilac]

I am in NZ so it may be different but my experience is that moving house is very experience (4 weeks bond and two weeks rent up front, paying rent on two places for a week, getting all the carpets steam cleaned (standard is professionally cleaned and show receipt)). <snip>

 

Yes, those are some of the complications I was thinking of as well.

 

Plus, if you have a lease (which most renters do in the states), you can't just pick up and move, you have to wait till your lease ends. With unfortunate timing, that could be months upon months of rent you can no longer afford. 

[ErinE]

 

When we decided to hire an employee, the discussion wasn't 'can we afford $15hr to pay this person'. It was 'can we afford $50,000 per year' because that is the real cost of having them. The discussion obviously revolved around what they person could do for the company also, but the reality was, that whether or not the employee helped to grow the company, they had to be paid and it was wayyy more than just their wage.

Agreed. Every company I've ever worked for budgets all employee costs, not just salary. I often wish there was more clarity to employees just how much of their "compensation" is taxes and benefits.

[LucyStoner]

I view all of the payments my husband's employer makes on account of his employment- from UI to medical insurance to his annual bus pass and bike repair allotment to his retirement contribution match to their part of his SS tax to be part of his compensation package and I am fully aware that the non-wages sum spent on his employment is nearly 40% of his annual pay. I think most employees with employers who don't skimp on benefits know this.

[LucyStoner]

I have, out of curiosity, crunched the numbers to see if I could support myself on a bare bones basis, and I could. We already rent. So, if I were suddenly on my own and needed to support myself, I could move to a smaller, less expensive place. (My husband and I are already discussing that possibility, anyway, since neither kid is here full time any longer.)

 

I could certainly buy groceries, pay rent, put gas in my car to get to and from work, keep the lights on in my apartment and those sorts of normal things on what I now make, yes.

 

I could not support two people, but notice that isn't what I said. I specifically said I was making more than the living wage calculator says I would need to support a single person.

 

No, I could not pay my son's tuition. However, he currently receives no need-based aid. So, if my income dropped drastically, he would be eligible for more assistance. Also, at the moment, we are paying out of pocket for some expenses that could be covered by a parent loan if necessary as a stop-gap until more aid kicked in.

 

Again, I am in no way saying that I could immediately take over and maintain our family's current lifestyle. I was responding specifically to Sadie's comment about a mom returning to the workplace without the safety net of a husband.

 

 

But the hypothetical situation of being able to support oneself doesn't really mean that much as long as moms have kids to feed and support. You are practically an empty nester if I understand it correctly- one child out of college and living out of state on her own work and one son in college and living at home. Many of us have very young kids still.

 

I am in a somewhat unusual situation for SAHMs in that I could find a job, in a reasonable length of time, making more than my husband makes. That is only because:

 

-I worked FT for nearly 9 years after I had my older son.

-I have kept in contact with my field with contract work for the time I have been home.

-I would be seeking work in the same area I have a strong reputation. (All bets off if I move.

-My skill set lies in an area where the demand for workers exceeds the supply of highly qualified workers. In other words because the job is rather undesirable, lol.

-I could now probably obtain medical insurance for my kids by buying into the state plan.

 

 

This could support us because we have a relatively modest standard of living. This is only a few years out of the FT job market. If instead I had just quit and not done contract work, if I moved or if I were 15 years out instead of 3, I would not expect to be able to find work with a high enough salary level to support my family.

 

As it is though, I am in school now to ensure that when my nest is emptying, I can go back to work in an area I will enjoy more and that will be more lucrative than my past profession. I honestly don't know how it will turn out but I feel I will be well prepared to return to work because I have made it a priority to be able to do so. My motivation is partially because I enjoy work but largely because I grew up too poor not to have plans B through Z on tap if the unforeseen happens. Even with all my best laid plans though, I am fully aware it could all just plain not work out as I would like. Maybe the market for my intended degree will bottom out, maybe I will become disabled, who knows?

[Jenny in Florida]

 

[Jenny in Florida]

But the hypothetical situation of being able to support oneself doesn't really mean that much as long as moms have kids to feed and support. You are practically an empty nester if I understand it correctly- one child out of college and living out of state on her own work and one son in college and living at home. Many of us have very young kids still.

 

[Spryte]

I view all of the payments my husband's employer makes on account of his employment- from UI to medical insurance to his annual bus pass and bike repair allotment to his retirement contribution match to their part of his SS tax to be part of his compensation package and I am fully aware that the non-wages sum spent on his employment is nearly 40% of his annual pay. I think most employees with employers who don't skimp on benefits know this.

 

Completely agree with this.  Employees appreciate and value excellent benefits.  We absolutely consider every part of the above to be part of the package.

[LucyStoner]

Of course, which is why I've repeatedly made it a point to say that I recognize that my specific situation is the result of all kinds of factors that are not universal. I've said from the very first post in which I responded to Sadie's comment that I would be able to support only me and that it wouldn't be comfortable. In fact, I think I used the word "suck" at least once.

 

I was just struck by the comment about a mom returning to work after a couple of decades, because it is exactly what I have recently done. And the hypothetical caught my attention, and I shared my thoughts.

 

I actually don't think my situation regarding my kids is or would be unusual for a mom who had been out of the workforce for 20 years. According to the most recent stats I could find, the average woman in the U.S. has two kids. Assuming she left her last full-time job when her first child was born or -- as is more typical, statistically -- when she had her second, her children would likely be at least in their late teens by the time she returned to work 20 years later. It seems to me that it would be somewhat unusual -- although less so on these boards, where larger families are more common than in the general population -- for a woman to have been out of the workforce for 20 years and still have "very young kids." Yes, I know there are women who have 10+ kids and have some moving out while they, themselves, are still having babies. And, yes, there are women who have a larger spread of time between children. But, on average, I would be willing to bet that most families have between one and three kids and that those children are each within two or three years of each other in age.

 

But, again, I'm not in any way suggesting that, just because I could theoretically support myself in a bare bones way if I had to do so, everyone or even anyone else should be able to do the same thing. I was simply pondering in response to Sadie's hypothetical situation.

Quite a lot of women find themselves in marriages that didn't last until the kids were grown and are returning to work with kids still at home. Most women with 2-3 kids are also actually back to work by the time their youngest kid is 2-5 years old. This is largely because staying home is financially tenuous even for married women. I did it backwards-worked until the kids were 3 and 8

and then left.

 

Most women I know who have returned to work after a decade or two have done so at a huge economic disadvantage. The ones I know who have fared the best have obtained new credentials. I did an interview as part of a research project with an end of career executive when I was getting a professional certification about 6 years ago. I previously had worked for her at a different organization. One of the things she said was that when she found herself divorced with 2 nearly grown kids after a decade plus as a suburban housewife was that she knew her BA in sociology and prior work years as a social worker were worth $3/hr at a bookstore and that $3/hr got her exactly nowhere. She took the $3/hr job at a bookstore and went and got her masters at night. Then she took a job in her new field and got a PhD while she worked. She was looking at retirement a whole lot more secure than someone in her shoes who didn't advance her skill set. That stuck with me and is a lot of why I have shaped my post-quitting to stay home choices the way I have.

 

American women returning to work aren't just needing to support themselves. If our kids are grown, we will be making up for the lost SS credits and retirement savings (and if not, we will be feeling it later, with our longer lifespans and living in a country that offers few real benefits to caregivers).

[Jenny in Florida]