OO - I can, for one. But maybe that's because I have a family to support, but have occasionally found myself on unemployment when one contract runs out but I don't immediately find another one.
I don't know what that one man was talking about, but in my case, I'm at the top of the max unemployment compensation allowed in my state (due to how much I earn in the quarters prior to going on unemployment), and in my most recent "time off," I only pulled down $378 per week (pre-tax). So I don't know how anyone can say that unemployment replaces good salaries, unless you're earning minimum wage.* And if you were earning minimum wage previously, then your unemployment check would have been smaller than what I earned.
* (I slightly amend this statement lower down, but given the data it presents, I still find that statement hard to accept unless you're in one of a couple lucky states.)
$378 per week is not bad for many, but comes nowhere close to replacing what I previously earned. But it's also a disincentive to find a temporary, lower paying job in the interim, because there's a 1:1 dollar loss if I earn something during the week. And instead I'm giving up possibly up to 40 hours per week that I could spend on looking for a job more commensurate to my actual skills or doing projects around the house. (Yes, the honey-do list comes into play.)
Also, right now, unemployment doesn't last 5 years. With emergency action by Congress last year, unemployment now pays up to 99 weeks, depending on the state you're in and whether unemployment is really bad. See the site below that breaks down some of the statistics. Before the emergency action, the longest duration in some states was 79 weeks, though some allowed as little as 46 weeks.
http://fileunemployment.org/unemployment...n-by-state
I do see from this that only 2 states payed a max of more than $600 per week. Must be nice to go on unemployment in Massachusetts. Then again, I'd get taxed pretty hard there, too.