> Should no one receive any benefits as long as there is an open job somewhere that they could potentially fill? Yes? The point is to make sure people aren't

> Should no one receive any benefits as long as there is an open job somewhere that they could potentially fill? Yes? The point is to make sure people aren't starving, not to preserve their ego and satisfy the "This isn't why I got a college degree" crowd. Obviously there's a good bit of frictional unemployment, which is really what unemployment is designed to handle. That may go up a bit during times of economic stagnation or contraction, but unemployment isn't supposed to handle the "I was making X dollars before and can't maintain my lifestyle if I take a lower-paying job" sort of situation. In this sort of environment, most people will experience a significant reduction in quality of life, and probably should, as there are fewer goods and services being produced. I guess that doesn't win votes, though, so the politicians are out here telling people they shouldn't have to. And I'll get to have my retirement taken in taxes to pay for it.