The answer is found at the Urban Institute. They are people in need, struggling, and requiring assistance.
- "Long-term unemployed workers are much less educated than employed workers but actually
somewhat more educated than newly unemployed and discouraged workers.
- Overall, the long-term unemployed are spread fairly evenly across the entire age distribution in contrast to the newly unemployed, where 40.5 percent of those job seekers are age 16 to 25. This suggests that the youngest job seekers are 4 The Urban Institute likely to experience shorter official spells of unemployment; if they cannot secure a job, then they drop out of the labor force, either as a discouraged worker or possibly to return to school.
- Turning to racial/ethnic differences, we see that blacks, relative to other groups, are disproportionately represented among long-term unemployed and discouraged workers. They make up 22.6 percent of the long-term unemployed, 10.5 percent of the employed, 25.9 percent of discouraged workers, and 15.0 percent of newly unemployed workers. Hispanics make up a somewhat smaller share of the long-term unemployed (19.0 percent), the employed (15.7 percent), and the discouraged (20.2 percent) than of the newly unemployed (23.1 percent)
- Single parents are disproportionately likely to be long-term unemployed.
- Health limitations are an important potential obstacle to reemployment.
- A final household characteristic and consequence of long-term unemployment is poverty. Among
the long-term unemployed, 34.1 percent live in households that are below the poverty line, starkly
higher than the 6.9 percent rate for the employed."
"Who Are the Long-Term Unemployed?
More than three and a half years since the official end of the Great Recession, the labor market
remains severely depressed. As of December 2012, 12.2 million people were unemployed: 7.8
percent of the 155.5-million-person labor force. Even more concerning, 4.7 million, 39 percent of all
unemployed workers, have been actively searching for a job for 27 weeks or longer. These long-term
unemployed workers are a particular focus of policymakers."
The Club for Growth believes that jobless benefits should not be extended to 4 million Americans who are unemployed. What is the basis for their belief?
- Those lackey unemployed persons need to take any job they can find and get of unemployment
- They can find work if they want to, but they don’t
- They are freeloaders
The Club for Growth has a mission.
“Our Mission is Economic Freedom
Club for Growth is a national network of thousands of pro-growth Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that encourage a high growth economy and a swift return to America's founding principles primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity.”
Encouraging “high growth” sounds good, and if their approach is successful, people would not be out of work, would they?
The Club for Growth policy goals include:
- "Reduce income tax rates
- Death tax repeal
- Limited government through limited spending and budget reform, including a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts for younger workers
- Expanding trade freedom (free trade)
- End abusive lawsuits through medical malpractice and tort reform
- Replacing the current tax code (flat tax, fair tax)
- School choice
- Regulatory reform and deregulation”
So, basically, none of these things address the problem facing unemployed persons because wealthy Americans and corporations have already gotten their way for a long time. If that is all they have, that is the problem.
“Club for Growth urges no vote on extension of jobless benefits
By Vicki Needham
The conservative Club for Growth is urging lawmakers to oppose a reauthorization of federal unemployment benefits unless the $6 billion program is paid for by other spending cuts.
The group argued that unemployment should no longer be considered an emergency nearly six years after the federal benefits were first offered by President George W. Bush.
The benefits kick in after an unemployed worker has exhausted state unemployment benefits, and go to people who have been unemployed for months.
“Congress should end the federal unemployment insurance program and return the authority back to the states, which already have programs in place,” Andy Roth, Club for Growth's vice president of government affairs, wrote to senators on Monday.
“Absent this, Congress should pay for this extension by cutting spending elsewhere in the budget.
“After six years, an extension can no longer be called an "emergency" with any credibility,” Roth wrote. “There is plenty of waste in the federal budget from which to find an offset.”