A 99'er Says Goodbye

Zero Hedge reports on a 99'er (someone who's been drawing Federal unemployment benefits for the maximum allowable period of 99 weeks) who decided to commit suicide rather than struggle on after his benefits expired. He gives his name as 'Mark'. Here's an extract from his letter.

I am college educated and worked 35 years in management, receiving written references and praise from every boss for whom I worked. Yet, after thousands of resumes, applications, e-mails, phone calls, and drop ins, I've failed to get a job even at McDonalds. I've discovered there are three strikes against me -- most 99ers will understand. Strike one -- businesses are not hiring long-term unemployed -- in fact many job ads now underline "the unemployed need not apply." Strike two -- I am almost 60 years old. Employers prefer hiring younger workers who demand less and are better pack mules. Strike three -- for every job opening I've applied, there are over 300 applicants according to each business who allow a follow up call. With the U3 unemployment holding steady at 9.6 percent and U6 at 17 percent for the past 18 months, the chances of me or any 99er landing a job is less than winning the Mega Million Jackpot. On top of that, even the most conservative economists admit unemployment will not start to fall before 2012 and most predict up to seven years of this crap.

I believe the Congress and President have no intention of really aiding the unemployed -- due to various political reasons and their total removal from the suffering of most Americans, their cold-hearted, self-serving natures. Had they really wanted to help us, they could have used unspent stimulus monies or cut foolish costs like the failed wars or foreign aid, and farm subsidies. The unspent stimulus money alone cold have taken care of ALL unemployed persons for five years or until the unemployment rate reached 7 percent if Congress and the President really wanted to help us -- and not string us all along with a meager safety net that fails every few months. In any case, if I were to survive homelessness (would be like winning the mega-millions) and with those three strikes against me, in seven more years, I'll be near 70 with the new retirement age at 70 -- now who will hire an old homeless guy out of work for nine years with just a few years until retirement?

So, here I am. Long term unemployed, older man, with chronic health problems, now totally broke, hungry, facing eviction. My landlady should really be an advocate for the unemployed -- she bangs on my door demanding I take action. A phone call and a "please" are not enough for her -- she is angry. She is right to be angry with me, I am unemployed -- as apparently everyone is now angry with us unemployed.

. . .

So I have the "freedom" to be homeless and destitute and "pursue happiness" in garbage cans and then die -- yay for America huh? It's the end of November and cold. A diabetic homeless older person will experience amputations in the winter months. So I will be raiding garbage cans for food, as my body literally falls apart, a foot here, a finger there. I have experienced and even worked with pain from my diseases -- hardship I can face. I just cannot muster the courage to slowly die in agony and humiliation in the gutter.

I have no family, I have no friends. For the past two years, I've had nobody to talk with as people who knew me react to the "unemployed" label as if it were leprosy and contagious. I am not a bad person, in fact people really like me. But everyone seems to be on a tight budget these days and living in incredible fear. It is hopeless since we all are hearing more and more that we unemployed are to blame for unemployment, that we are just lazy, that we are no good, that we are sinners, that we are druggies, yet we are the victims who suffer and are punished while the robber baron banksters and tycoons become senators, congress, presidents and petty kings. So the only option left for me is merciful self euthanasia.

There's more at the link. Recommended reading.

I'm in two minds over this letter. Part of me agrees with the writer that the State could do more to help the unemployed, as he points out. Enormous sums are being wasted that could be more profitably diverted to helping the long-term unemployed.

On the other hand, however, should the State be helping - even more than it is already? I ask this, not because I'm heartless or unfeeling, but because I don't see it as the State's obligation to take care of most citizens from cradle to grave. That's a socialist, statist perspective that I cannot and do not share. I agree that it's society's collective responsibility, from a moral perspective, to help those among us who are in need; but how should that help be provided? Can private organizations not provide it more efficiently and effectively than the State? Furthermore, a government-sponsored 'safety net' may be a good and worthwhile thing, up to a point; but not if it permanently replaces the need for a normal individual to support himself. (Obviously, I exclude those who are unable to provide for themselves due to chronic illness or disability. I do believe there should be a 'safety net' for them. Others may disagree with me about that - which is their right, of course.)

I also have to question Mark's approach. If I were in his shoes, I can think of several organizations I could - and would - approach for assistance. The Salvation Army does great work with those who lack any resources of their own. The Red Cross is there. There are numerous local church-sponsored assistance programs. I could go on . . . but I think it's clear that if one doesn't want to live on the streets, one doesn't necessarily have to. If one reaches out for help, it's available. If he has skills he can offer such organizations in exchange for their assistance, he can keep body and soul together while helping others who are as badly off as himself. I don't see the need to despair, as he seems to be doing.

Finally, I also have to ask what Mark was doing during his working career. If he's almost 60 now, and has 'worked 35 years in management', as he claims, what provision did he make for his own retirement? There are pension plans for private citizens. There's disability insurance. There's long term care insurance. If he'd invested in these things, the health problems of which he complains would be covered, and he'd be taken care of now. He could afford to retire, if not in great luxury, then at least with enough income to keep the wolf from the door. These are all things we should be providing for ourselves - but clearly, he didn't.

What say you, readers? What do you think of Mark's perspective - and mine? How would you approach someone in his position? How would you help them? Let us know in Comments.

Peter