Unemployment in the United States

Public programs that provide provisional income maintenance in periods during unemployment can ease the anxieties and concerns about joblessness. However, these programs themselves lead to other worries such as the sufficiency of these benefits, the costs of management, the extent of its coverage and the possibility of dependency on it. In the United States, there is a rising problem of unemployment, which owes its existence to the presence of several factors, which include unemployment benefits. As a result, the United States Government needs to add more restrictions to unemployment benefits to prevent abuse.

The term unemployment benefits is used to refer to the partial, temporary income given to workers who lose their jobs as a result of no fault of their own, and are able and available to work (Florida Department of Revenue). The funds are aimed at improving personal welfare and social security during the given period, and unemployment, in this case, means temporary lack of work (Baicker, Goldin and Katz 228). Unemployment benefits help individuals to level expenditure when affected with loss of jobs, and give those unemployed a chance to get a new, well-matched job. It can be argued that unemployment benefits are providing a vital but often disregarded purpose by reducing the insecurity connected with modern labor markets. Because job insecurity is connected with concerns about potential economic safety, economic support during unemployment may lessen the negative effects of job insecurity on employed individuals' well-being. However, unemployment benefit systems have two main drawbacks: they are often costly to employers, employees, and the state; and while they reduce the hardship of unemployment, they also tend to increase the underlying unemployment problem.

Abuse of unemployment benefits comes in various forms that affect almost every person receiving the benefits. It also affects those that are in employment since it is taxes, which are used by the state and federal governments in order to raise the funds required to pay the said benefits. One of the causes of unemployment in the United States is the high cost of doing business; in a way, those companies and other stakeholders in the job-creation market cannot sustain a large number of employees. In this regard, businesses are not in a position to have all necessary members of staff to cater for their needs and operate various posts in different capacities. This is because all businesses are out to cut the costs of operation and the even higher costs of having a skilled worked force (Poftak ).

In addition, some businesses suffer from slow growth and development leading to economic slumps. In such cases, employees are likely to do without employment, as there are no salaries for them. This is because the businesses in most cases operate at a loss creating uncertainty. Another cause of unemployment is the implementation of technology in a business leading to the elimination of certain job posts. Automation is one such case that cuts back on jobs leading to high rates of unemployment whereby human labor are taken over by machines and automated systems (Beranek, 800).

In addition, job outsourcing can lead to unemployment as a business seeks better solutions from other business. This is rather than having one’s own resources to cater the needs of the business, referring to have another company charge for the same services. In addition, consumer demand plays a crucial role in bringing about unemployment. This is in terms of businesses losing profits at a higher rate than that which they are generated leading to laying off workers due to recession in business. Other factors leading to unemployment are those that involve the employee as an individual. This is concerning the attitude of the employee, perception, discrimination, employee values, ability to look for employment, disability and the willingness to work (Lauringson, 21 - 49). The issue of the ability to look for employment plays a significant role in the issuance of unemployment benefits in a number of ways.

Studies done have revealed that unemployment benefits inhibit the people receiving benefits from looking for jobs (U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee 2). This is because it provides a safety net for employees to fall back on once they lose their jobs. In such cases, unemployment benefits reduce the probability of an unemployed person from working vigorously towards seeking a new job that ensures their day-to-day upkeep. Over the past two decades there has been increasing concern that the unemployment compensation programs established in the large majority of industrialized countries may have unfavorable effects on their labor markets. Unemployment benefits would be considered to decrease the incentives of the unemployed to look for and take jobs, thereby increasing the in which they remain unemployed. It also allows people drop off employment by allowing an enormous form of social security that provides daily upkeep for an unemployed person. This is in addition to this, despite the lack of generosity in unemployment benefits, they do ensure that one lives a decent life that is just above the poverty line (U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee 2). As a result, abuse comes in the form of lazing and staying off the job market. This is in spite of unemployment benefits being much lower than the least paying job can offer. In order to counter this issue, of not looking for a job, the government should create a limit to what a jobless individual can get and for what period. Through this way, it will put the person back on the job market instead of waiting to survive unemployment benefits. In addition, the department of labor should also put in place measures that ensure one does not remain to be unemployed for a long time. Through this, the government can ensure that stiff penalties are applied to those that remain unemployed voluntarily and depend on unemployment benefits for a living. This is by having such individuals take aptitude tests to ensure that they are still competent in the fields they specialize. This is, in addition to the current unemployment status, where unemployed people find it difficult to find jobs without any form of social assistance.

The standard for one to be eligible for unemployment benefits, which require those who receive it to actively look for jobs, take up appropriate job offers or take part in active labor market programs, or risk benefit sanctions, can play a crucial part in counterbalancing the depressing influence of generous unemployment benefits on employment incentives (Venn). Because many unemployed people tend not to work hard enough to look for new jobs once they receive benefits, then it is only right for the government to give preference to those with a history of finding new jobs as quickly as possible. These are more eligible because they do not rely on the taxpayer’s money for too long a time hence they do not abuse the system. Those who have a tendency of not looking for work should be removed from the program after a certain period because they will have been proven to be taking advantage of the system. Furthermore, if it is proven beyond doubt that such people are not looking for work and that they are only taking advantage of the system, then the government should consider taking legal action against them as a way to deter others from doing the same.

The other form through which the issue of abuse can be curbed is through having he said people reimburse the government. This is by having the unemployed find jobs through alternative social programs at a cost to the government (U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee 2). This is in the case where individuals receive aid in finding employment and later paying the government for funds that they lived on in times of unemployment, in the form unemployment benefits. In addition, unemployment benefits coupled with disability benefits creates quite a handsome package on which the unemployed can thrive. In this case, the above measure can cut on this blatant of the kitty.

Concerning the abuse of unemployment benefits, it is common for employees to participate in substance abuse. This is in terms of using substances to the point that they become harmful to one’s health and affect productivity at work. In such cases, an employee may lose his or her job once such a case is figured out, which affects employers and their businesses negatively to the point of making losses and losing clients. It is for this reason that there exists a qualification procedure through which one must go to ascertain their suitability to receive unemployment benefits. For employees who lose their jobs because of drug and substance abuse, lean back and depend solely on unemployment benefits for survival and funding of their vices. Because of such events and occurrences, those that are found to be substance abusers in the work place and lose their jobs consequently, should not be eligible. In such cases, the government should revise the eligibility standards in order to deprive those that intentionally lose their jobs because of substance abuse from using taxpayers’ monies to fund their own vices (Grobe 1). This can be done by having employers submit information on their employees and having a vetting body determine who qualifies and who does not. This is concerning employment protocols and risk of mismanagement of funds. Since this is also open to abuse by employers by providing falsified information to the vetting board, hence, employees should be warned of the consequences of substance abuse and its potential impact on unemployment benefits (Grobe 2). In addition, the government could cut back on the unemployment benefits due to an individual following violation of substance abuse policies (Grobe 2). The funds taken from the individual can then be used to compensate others, particularly in cases where accidents occur because of negligence stemming from substance abuse.

Resetting the benefit duration for unemployed individuals could play a crucial role towards reducing the abuse of unemployment benefits (Poftak 3). This is from the normal period, which is long, and cutting to a more manageable duration. This will work towards cutting back on the duration of dependency and increase the possibility of an individual looking for a job to sustain him or herself. Through this all would benefit, including the government and employers, as the amount of unemployment insurance tax would reduce. This way, all unemployed persons, would be in a position to assess the impact that their reliance on the benefits has on the rest of society. The other way through which abuse of unemployment benefits can be cut by the government is through the application and provision of labor incentives (Standing 7). This can be done by implementing a labor regulation aimed at rewarding labor by giving social protection and punishing slothful workers by denying them the crucial benefits.

The government can also make amendments on the contribution schemes in unemployment benefits. Through such an amendment, employees, while still at work can be made to contribute a larger percentage than that which the employer and the government provide. This is towards the funds that an individual later receives as unemployment benefits (Standing 9). However, if members of the public are made to contribute towards their own benefits, then the possibility of abuse is lowered by a substantial amount, as these are one’s own funds in embezzlement.

The government should not just give benefits to unemployed individuals just because they have no jobs or that they have been laid off, but should also investigate and consider the real cause of unemployment. Some people may choose to leave their jobs just because they have the unemployment benefits to fall back on. Others may lose their jobs because of a case of professional misconduct which their employer finds unacceptable. In such cases, the government should set up measures to ensure that the people involved are not eligible for the reception of unemployment benefits. Furthermore, people with such a history should be permanently not considered for any kind of benefits because they would only end up being a burden on the employed people on whose taxes they depend for their unemployment benefits.

Another step which the government should take to curb the abuse of unemployment benefits is by taking a very active role in finding jobs for those who are unemployed. It should set up requirements which oblige all those people who are unemployed and are beneficiaries of the unemployment benefits program to register with the government. After doing this, the government should then ask all potential employees to inform it if there are any places for those unemployed people who have registered with it. Once such job positions have been secured for these individuals, the government should immediately inform them and stop any more benefits going to them. In this case, the job does not necessarily have to be to the liking of an unemployed person as long as it provides him with an income, and if he is not able to keep that job from some fault of his own, then he government should not be obliged to provide him with any more unemployment benefits. The government should not tolerate the refusal by individuals of any type of job it has found for them, and if any refusal occurs, then the individual involved should be permanently removed from the unemployment benefit program. Through its finding jobs for individuals, the government will also be able to reduce the unemployment rate all over the country meaning that there will also be a great reduction in the dependency on unemployment benefits by individuals to make ends meet.

The government should work towards reducing the amount of benefits that the unemployed people receive instead of increasing it. An increase in benefits to members of the unemployment group will tend to induce them to narrow their list of job targets. The reason for this claim is that, after considering all possible job opportunities in accordance to preferences, and because of the additional unemployment benefits, the unemployed person will give up exploring inferior openings in favor of relatively more attractive ones. The increase in the benefits will also ensure that the unemployed demand higher wages as a condition for employment because thy will feel entitled to it. A reduction of benefits will therefore ensure a decrease in such behavior (Spiezia, 73 – 90).

The unemployment benefit scheme may raise the number of people who voluntarily quit their work and as a result increase the inflow of people into unemployment. These people would comprise those who prefer a spell of unemployment to work on their own personal projects and those who choose to look for new work while unemployed rather than while in employment. It has been found that if there is an extended waiting period before benefit is paid to the unemployed, then the incentive to stop working voluntarily would be correspondingly reduced. Furthermore, in many countries those who leave employment voluntarily are either disqualified from the benefit program or only obtain benefit after an extended waiting period so as to discourage this behavior (Norris, 38 – 45).

The length of time in which the unemployment benefits towards an individual should be greatly reduced to ensure that individuals do not abuse the system. The length of benefit in the United States should be reduced from six months to about half that time so that if one has not found a job by that time, then he or she will be discontinued from the program (Portugal, & Addison, 24 - 30). This will not only serve as an incentive to find a new job quickly but it will also discourage those who would seek to abuse the system from doing so. It is therefore important to put a limit on the length of time in which unemployed people can receive benefits so that the rate of unemployment can be reduced as well as the tendency towards voluntary unemployment.

In addition to the case of lowering the amount of benefits, employment, passed on to an individual, increasing the amount only works in contradiction. This is because, studies prove that the higher the amount of benefits, the higher the rate of unemployment (Smith and Zhang 1). This means that reducing the size and generosity of the unemployment benefits package translates to higher employment rates. Another way to curtail the case of abuse of unemployment benefits is having strict, punitive measure against fraudsters of the fund. This is particularly so in cases where one falsifies or withholds information voluntarily to obtain the benefits (Pennsylvania Bar Association 2). In such an event, the measures should be deterrent and punitive rather than the remorseful penalty requiring one to refund the full amount, a fine and a couple of days in jail. To deter abuse and fraud, harsh measures should be implemented, in a manner punitive enough.

In conclusion, and in relation to all the facts presented herein, the government needs to add more restrictions to unemployment benefits. The key to achieving all of the above would be ensure that the unemployment levels remain low and that benefits are only made available to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Stricter measures have to be put in place to ensure that only the most eligible unemployed people are beneficiaries of the system. Those who voluntarily quit their jobs should not even be considered in this scheme because if they continue to be allowed to get these benefits, then it will only encourage more people to quit their jobs in expectation that they will receive unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits should no longer be considered the right of all the unemployed and should instead be considered to be privilege with should only be available for those who genuinely need it so that those who would abuse this system would not be able to do it. It is therefore necessary for stricter measures to be put in place not only to protect the American taxpayer from the waste of his money but this should also be done in order to curb, deter and punish the abuse of the said benefits.