Bunning

[quote name='mykevermin']i'd rather see more numbers and fewer words.[/QUOTE]

This. If we're just throwing around personal observations, I don't know anyone collecting unemployment right now. Also +1 to Koggit for telling us once again how much smarter he is then everyone else because he goes to a superawesome school.
 
The only ways i can see a person being happy to collect unemployment benefits instead of working would be if they had a large savings to fall back on, or their spouse makes enough to pick up the slack. If that isn't the case or if the person isn't married, i can't see the person sitting on their ass enjoying being unemployed.

There are always people who take advantage of government programs, my uncle cheats on his taxes to get food stamps, but that doesn't mean they should be taken away from everyone because a few people take advantage of them.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Also +1 to Koggit for telling us once again how much smarter he is then everyone else because he goes to a superawesome school.[/QUOTE]

it's pretty damn reasonable to mention what i'm doing with my life when someone else brings it up

this thread is quickly reminding me why i just troll and post nonsense... real discussion doesnt happen with anonymity
 
[quote name='JolietJake']The only ways i can see a person being happy to collect unemployment benefits instead of working would be if they had a large savings to fall back on, or their spouse makes enough to pick up the slack. If that isn't the case or if the person isn't married, i can't see the person sitting on their ass enjoying being unemployed.[/QUOTE]

"happy to sit on their ass" isn't part of the equation. happier is all that matters. is the laid off industrial engineer gonna go out and bag groceries for $300 a week when he can get an unemployment check for $400 a week? my argument is that he should only have that unemployment check as an option if he cannot get the job bagging groceries. exhaust all options, then consider yourself unemployed. it's easy to see the $400 a week option is a huge disincentive to ever consider the $300 a week entry level job.

[quote name='JolietJake'] that doesn't mean they should be taken away from everyone because a few people take advantage of them.[/QUOTE]

and the sky is blue and water is wet, nobody's denied any of that
 
Just so you know, if you find a job which pays less than your unemployment benefits, you still get the difference. Meaning that if you're getting $500 in unemployment benefits and have that job bagging groceries, you'll still the other $200 in unemployment. Not all the beneifts magically disappear because you got some new low paying job. The whole idea is that a person finds a new job similar in pay to their old one.

Maybe i'm reading between the lines too much but Sen. Kyl acts as though he'd like to see the program abolished. Then again, i doubt he's seen much unemployment in his life.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Just so you know, if you find a job which pays less than your unemployment benefits, you still get the difference. Meaning that if you're getting $500 in unemployment benefits and have that job bagging groceries, you'll still the other $200 in unemployment. Not all the beneifts magically disappear because you got some new low paying job. The whole idea is that a person finds a new job similar in pay to their old one.
.[/QUOTE]

actually doesn't that differ by state? I mean i'm not entirely sure since I've never drawn unemployment but everyone I have known in Kansas (which isn't alot of people *huk huk*). Only got to draw unemployment aslong as they had no job (but hey it's a red state so fuck entitlements :roll:).


then again I've known people who quit their job becuase they didn't like it so they could draw unemployment. So call me crazy =/
 
[quote name='Koggit']shut the fuck up, you dont know me[/QUOTE]

http://www.mauryshow.com/get_tickets.php

[quote name='Koggit']the crux of the issue isn't quantifiable, it's a matter of theory and belief, i'm just frustrated that people (the left) keep dismissing the argument without addressing it (read the comments). if it's such an irrational stance it should be easy to explain why, yet noone has. let's say there's an industrial engineer who loses his job and can't find work as industrial engineer. i would just like for someone to explain to me why that person shouldn't be applying to mcdonald's.[/quote]

Said engineer has an engineering job for $30/hour. He gets laid off. Said engineer takes a job at McDonald's for $7/hr. His engineering degree is worth $30/hr. He applies for an open position at another company or maybe the same company. His resume says McDonald's as his current employer. The firm realizes they can offer him $15/hr. Now, he is making half of what he made before.

I know YOU don't think something like this would happen, but that's OK because you ...

[quote name='Koggit']just troll and post nonsense[/quote]
 
mcdonald's looks worse than unemployed? maybe in modern america, yeah, because staying on unemployment while taking your sweet time looking for the perfect job is so commonplace, but if we about 1% of america on unemployment instead of 10% you could bet your ass recruiters would see a LOT more entry-level current jobs listed as people make ends meet during their job hunt and it wouldn't be viewed so negatively. in a world without such an enormous unemployment cushion, "unemployed" would look more desperate than anything else. you seem to think it's terrible that wages follow supply and demand...

let me ask you this. if there are people willing to do a comparable job for $15/hr, why should someone be paid $30/hr to do it? what's going on in your head when you say "his degree is worth $30/hr"? worth $30/hr to who? if he cant find work at $30/hr but can find work at $15/hr, well, sounds like he's worth $15/hr.
 
[quote name='Papa Neorev']actually doesn't that differ by state? I mean i'm not entirely sure since I've never drawn unemployment but everyone I have known in Kansas (which isn't alot of people *huk huk*). Only got to draw unemployment aslong as they had no job (but hey it's a red state so fuck entitlements :roll:).


then again I've known people who quit their job becuase they didn't like it so they could draw unemployment. So call me crazy =/[/QUOTE]
It may, i'm not sure. The people i know who have ever been on unemployment were still given benefits until they got a job which paid more than the benefits.
 
[quote name='Koggit']mcdonald's looks worse than unemployed? maybe in modern america, yeah, because staying on unemployment while taking your sweet time looking for the perfect job is so commonplace, but if we about 1% of america on unemployment instead of 10% you could bet your ass recruiters would see a LOT more entry-level current jobs listed as people make ends meet during their job hunt and it wouldn't be viewed so negatively. in a world without such an enormous unemployment cushion, "unemployed" would look more desperate than anything else. you seem to think it's terrible that wages follow supply and demand...

let me ask you this. if there are people willing to do a comparable job for $15/hr, why should someone be paid $30/hr to do it? what's going on in your head when you say "his degree is worth $30/hr"? worth $30/hr to who? if he cant find work at $30/hr but can find work at $15/hr, well, sounds like he's worth $15/hr.[/QUOTE]Because it could just as easily be that even though he's worth $30/hr no one can pay that much and he has to settle for $15/hr. Just because a person can't find a job that pays what they're worth doesn't mean their worth has gone down. If a PhD ends up working retail, it doesn't mean that their degree is suddenly only worth $8/hr.
 
The Huge Costs of Economic Inequality
By Nick Gier, New West Unfiltered 3-02-10
"Among the new objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, none struck me with greater force than the equality of conditions. I easily perceived the enormous influence that this primary fact exercises on the workings of the society."
--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Richard Wilkinson, professor emeritus at the University of Nottingham Medical School, and Kate Pickett, an epidemiologist at the York University, have just published a book entitled "The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger."
The authors studied levels of trust, mental illness, life expectancy, infant mortality, educational achievement, teen births, homicides, and incarceration rates. They found that the US performed the worst on all nine problems, and that the most consistent predictor of these problems is economic inequality.
Click to expand...

http://www.newwest.net/citjo/article/the_huge_costs_of_economic_inequality/C33/L33/

Here's some charts for those who like them:
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/where_has_all_the_income_gone_look_up/

Where have all the jobs gone?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/opinion/06Tonelson.html

I'm not saying protectionism or full-on Unions are the solution but we can't keep living in Horatio Alger fantasy world. How many more toxic asset meltdowns, Lehman Bro failures, Madoff scandals, skyrocketing healthcare costs, and Citigroup bonus seasons can we afford? And guys like Bmuls, Koggit and Bunning always want to stick it to the little guy. Disgusting.
 
Its always means testing for people with nothing or next to it and flip the money machine on for the top 1%.

I think I have this before but if the Democrats start doing some real work on jobs they deserve to lose big.
 
[quote name='jolietjake']because it could just as easily be that even though he's worth $30/hr no one can pay that much and he has to settle for $15/hr. Just because a person can't find a job that pays what they're worth doesn't mean their worth has gone down. If a phd ends up working retail, it doesn't mean that their degree is suddenly only worth $8/hr.[/quote]

yes, it does, god damn it!!! Rawr!!!!!!
 
wow...


okay.

quiz time: if i cook a burger and say it's worth $100, but nobody will pay me more than $10 for it, what's it worth?
 
[quote name='Koggit']wow...


okay.

quiz time: if i cook a burger and say it's worth $100, but nobody will pay me more than $10 for it, what's it worth?[/QUOTE]

How much did you spend on the burger to make it?
 
one dollar. one million dollars. what difference does it make? answer the question for both scenarios. is your answer different?
 
[quote name='Koggit']one dollar. one million dollars. what difference does it make?[/QUOTE]

Obviously, I'm not going to sell a burger for $100 if I spent a million dollars making it.
 
you'd just let it rot instead?

i guess a more apt analogy to the unemployed self-entitled american would be freeze it and wait for someone willing to pay $1 million for it...

but i think my point remains. it's worth $10. in a rational world, it is sold for $10 to the person willing to pay $10 and it therefore has an exchange value of $10, defining it's worth.
 
[quote name='Koggit']you'd just let it rot instead?[/QUOTE]

No, I'd work harder to find a buyer willing to cover expenses or I would eat it myself.

Here's a counter question:

If the government is willing to pay 60% of my wages for six to twelve months, why should I settle for a job paying 20% of my old wages?

Before you argue about improper mindset, do you understand that people are paid less because their employer is paying towards unemployment insurance in the event said employer can't or won't employ the people anymore?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If the government is willing to pay 60% of my wages for six to twelve months, why should I settle for a job paying 20% of my old wages?[/QUOTE]

what the fuck

you do realize that's been my argument for the past page or two, right? have you actually read the things i've typed at all or are you just a bot with good AI? do i need to post a captcha to make sure you even exist?
 
I am not sure if I would call decreasing wages (i.e. buying power) as something good for the economy is an argument kogg.

Which is part of the reason why I stated I ain't touching this shit with a ten foot pole.
 
then instead of giving 35 million unemployed $300 a week, give the bottom 35 million earners $300 a week

whatever

it's not like the money's going anywhere
 
You know i used to collect quite a few things, one thing that it helped me learn (and that koggit apparently hasn't) is that there is a difference between something's worth and how much people will pay for it.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Before you argue about improper mindset, do you understand that people are paid less because their employer is paying towards unemployment insurance in the event said employer can't or won't employ the people anymore?[/QUOTE]

It's exactly why employees should be paying for the insurance themselves, and it should be privatized. It allows the industry to not be used as a political tool. There's no reason to pay for the enormous, socialist bureaucracy called the Department of Labor to administer all of these programs as well as the States. You people obviously have no concept of the scope and range of the Department of Labor and all of it's programs that give away free money for sitting on your ass.

Anyone here buy catastrophic health insurance? Disability insurance? Personal and professional liability insurance? Hell, I'm sure most of you leftist slobs haven't yet purchased life insurance or home insurance, so you have no business offering socialized welfare programs for free with taxpayer money, i.e., MY money. You think this shit grows on trees and you can pluck it from the air. It doesn't and you can't.

It certainly doesn't take an intelligent brain to offer someone else's labor for free to those deemed more worthy. It takes a lazy, sociopathic brain to do that.
 
[quote name='Koggit']what the fuck

you do realize that's been my argument for the past page or two, right? have you actually read the things i've typed at all or are you just a bot with good AI? do i need to post a captcha to make sure you even exist?[/QUOTE]

Your argument is that people should do what it takes to maximize the money they make.

If I can make more money doing nothing other than applying to a few jobs a week, I'm doing the right thing.

People pay into the system for years or decades, and you're upset because people cash out a fraction of what they've put it.

Do you have the same stance on people collecting life insurance or disability insurance?

Have you ever shaken a new widow by the collar and screamed "How dare you?"

Have you ever kicked over a person in a wheelchair and screamed "Get a job and stop taking my money!"
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's exactly why employees should be paying for the insurance themselves, and it should be privatized. It allows the industry to not be used as a political tool. There's no reason to pay for the enormous, socialist bureaucracy called the Department of Labor to administer all of these programs as well as the States. You people obviously have no concept of the scope and range of the Department of Labor and all of it's programs that give away free money for sitting on your ass. [/QUOTE]

I honestly like your idea of private unemployment insurance. Then, Koggit and you could stop feeling so offended.

So, let's have two sets of questions.

How would you set up unemployment insurance? Pay 2% of your wages for a minimum of so many weeks and receive 80% of your wages for a maximum of so many weeks. Can you put any effort to fleshing out your idea other than the concept of letting the free market solve the problem?

What programs are funded solely with the proceeds of unemployment insurance that you have a problem with?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Your argument is that people should do what it takes to maximize the money they make.

If I can make more money doing nothing other than applying to a few jobs a week, I'm doing the right thing.[/QUOTE]

are you seriously going to make me repeat myself again?

the problem isn't people choosing unemployment over working -- the problem is that that choice is even an option for them. the unemployment program as it is is a huge disincentive to work. you yourself posted a few months back about planning your unemployment, calculating the difference in $$ you'd receive, painting it as a very favorable scenario. unemployment should NOT be enticing. never. end of fucking story. unemployment should be a safety net for those who legitimately CANNOT FIND ANY WORK, not a big cushion for anyone who can't find the job they want. there should never, ever, never be any scenario like the one you posted a few months ago about wanting to become unemployed so you could receive benefits and spend more time with your family. nobody should ever want unemployment. never.

how many more times do i have to keep going? i'm kinda sick of typing but if you want i can start copy-pasting my argument over and over again

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']People pay into the system for years or decades, and you're upset because people cash out a fraction of what they've put it.

Do you have the same stance on people collecting life insurance or disability insurance?[/QUOTE]

no, that's fucking stupid. how many people pay into unemployment and never file for benefits? about 60% of all americans. the 40% who collect benefits, and the few who flop through life on a never-ending cycle of slacker work and unemployment, are benefiting at the expense of those who never file for benefits -- those who never take advantage of the loose system.

it's very different than life insurance or disability. very few people plan to collect life insurance, and those who do go to jail. i'm not as familiar with disability insurance -- i'd imagine there are some people who get injured intentionally to collect benefits, but i doubt it's at all common.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Have you ever kicked over a person in a wheelchair and screamed "Get a job and stop taking my money!"[/QUOTE]

if they were capable of getting out of their wheelchair and running a marathon when they chose to, then yes, i'd wanna beat the shit out of them and tell them exactly that.

okay, i'm done with this thread for real now. i cant take this. too frustrating and not worth it. i feel like i'm shouting into a wall or something. if you honestly think the person who is legitimately on disability due to factors beyond their control is IN ANY WAY relevant to my objection with the unemployment system you haven't read a damn thing i've said. for the 50th and final time: i am 100% okay with those who legitimately cannot find work being on unemployment. the problem is that, for the vast majority, that does not seem to be the case. the fact that YOU YOURSELF gave serious contemplation to joining the "problem" group and still cant see it is absolutely mind boggling.
 
You have a hard time grasping how unemployment insurance is the same thing as life insurance or disability insurance. Here's a hint: they're all insurances.

[quote name='Koggit']i am 100% okay with those who legitimately cannot find work being on unemployment. [/quote]

And the only way somebody can't find work is if he or she has applied to every possible job and been rejected in your incredibly warped view of the world. If a PhD loses his or her job tomorrow, he or she better be trying to scrub toilets on Wednesday or he or she is terrible person.

[quote name='Koggit']the problem is that, for the vast majority, that does not seem to be the case. [/quote]

And you're basing this on anecdotal information unless you want to whip out some research. Your slacker roommate annoys you. We must destroy the unemployment system because of it.

[quote name='Koggit']the fact that YOU YOURSELF gave serious contemplation to joining the "problem" group and still cant see it is absolutely mind boggling.[/QUOTE]

Post when you can pass a pot test or, at least, review the referenced thread in full. I considered taking a job that paid nearly double what I make now, but might have been temporary. The plan wasn't to take a better paying job temporarily so I could take unemployment after being laid off. The thread was to determine how long I could survive after a temp to hire job turned into a temp to fire job.
 
[quote name='Koggit']. the problem is that, for the vast majority, that does not seem to be the case. [/QUOTE]

I guess my problem is how do you know this is the vast majority? You're kinda just shooting this out here without any kind of proof besides "my roommate doesn't deserve it."
 
[quote name='Koggit']its unprovable, i said that ten pages ago too

fuck cag[/QUOTE]

So you're mad because we're not agreeing with you because you're essentially just spouting bullshit? What kind of argument is that? Seriously, if you have that much of a problem with it, go yell at your roommate to get a damn job.
 
i'm pissed at idiots who are obviously either (a) not reading what i write at all or (b) reading what i write but failing to understand it, then having the nerve to tell me my stance is unreasonable

if you said "i'm glad we don't kill people who are too old to be useful" and ten pages of "so you hate old people just because your grandma's useless?" followed i bet you'd be pretty pissed too
 
[quote name='Koggit']i'm pissed at idiots who are obviously either (a) not reading what i write at all or (b) reading what i write but failing to understand it, then having the nerve to tell me my stance is unreasonable[/QUOTE]

Welcome to my world...
 
Koggit, you've had a lot to say. I'd like you to identify some estimates of the percentage of those on unemployment who "shouldn't be." The undeserving poor, so to speak.

Being upset that someone takes advantage of something is fine; but you've managed to extrapolate an anecdote into pages of pages of thousands of words - and even resurrected the tautological ineptitude of randian worshipper bumulligan in here. And you've not provided a single empirical, gimmie-some-numbers estimates w/ regard to unemployment benefit exploitation.

First, though, you have to define taking advantage of it; given your arguments thus far, however, I truly think you'll find it a much easier task to define how people would use it 'properly.'
 
You want me to prove my opinion?

Not gonna happen

The relevant data would be anything that could answer "how many of those receiving unemployment benefits could find work if they lowered their standards" -- how can you expect that to be answered?

Of the first few dozen words I wrote in this thread, 50 posts ago, someone (I forget who) said something along the lines of "those receiving the benefits need them" and my response was essentially "that's a possibility but one I consider unlikely based on personal observation" -- then 50 posts later I'm attacked for using an anecdotal argument? I fucking introduced it as an anecdotal argument. Even the unemployed Industrial Engineer has no idea whether or not he could get a job at McDonald's if he tried because he hasn't tried, how can you expect statistics on it when even the people we're discussing don't know which group they'd belong to? Statistics aren't gonna happen. My argument is anecdotal, just as any valid counter-argument will be.

My rationale has been clearly stated and no logical flaws have been pointed out. Yes, it's rooted in the assumption that many people who are unemployed could find work if they'd apply to less desirable jobs (entry level, in the worst cases) -- but that's not an assumption anyone has disagreed with so far. We've just had refutations (a) misrepresenting my argument, (b) attacking my character, and (c) claiming the unemployed should not lower their standards (the "worth" tangent).
 
Okay, sure, I'll shoot. From what I personally observe is that most people don't want to be on unemployment unless they absolutely have to, so I don't really think that unemployment benefits makes people NOT want to work. I would imagine there is a very small minority that thinks that they are owed something and wait until they find the perfect job while collecting unemployment, not like the vast majority that you think exists. Another issue is that McDonalds will not hire the Industrial Engineer because they know for sure that they will not stay for the long term, as they wouldn't expect someone with a degree to want to stay there. They are overqualified for the position, and both the hiring manager and the prospective employee know that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Koggit, you've had a lot to say. I'd like you to identify some estimates of the percentage of those on unemployment who "shouldn't be." The undeserving poor, so to speak.

Being upset that someone takes advantage of something is fine; but you've managed to extrapolate an anecdote into pages of pages of thousands of words - and even resurrected the tautological ineptitude of randian worshipper bumulligan in here. And you've not provided a single empirical, gimmie-some-numbers estimates w/ regard to unemployment benefit exploitation.

First, though, you have to define taking advantage of it; given your arguments thus far, however, I truly think you'll find it a much easier task to define how people would use it 'properly.'[/QUOTE]

I understand what Koggit is saying.

In Kentucky, you can work for 15 months and claim a full 6 months of unemployment (12 months and other extensions in some cases).

So, the person only needs to work 15 out of 21 months.

However, said person was contributing to unemployment the entire time.

Unemployment is just a glorified savings account except you lose your contribution (tax) after 15 months. For example, I've been plugging away at tech support for 53 months. 3 of the over 4 years' of contributions are gone.

If we as a society want to scale back the safety net (unemployment, HUD, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), I'm cool with that, but give me a 40% raise first.
 
I just don't see the average person being responsible enough to take that extra money and save it or do something otherwise responsible with it. Thats why things like unemployment are done for you, so the irresponsible dumbasses can't blow it on something. Sometimes, just sometimes, the government does know better than the people, at least when the people aren't responsible enough to do what is best for themselves.
 
[quote name='Koggit']You want me to prove my opinion?[/QUOTE]

You want something to change. I assume you want people to agree with you since we live in a voting society. If all you have is an opinion, then there is no reason for anybody to agree with you.

[quote name='Koggit'] Not gonna happen[/QUOTE]

So, you're conceding defeat?
 
[quote name='docvinh']Okay, sure, I'll shoot. From what I personally observe is that most people don't want to be on unemployment unless they absolutely have to, so I don't really think that unemployment benefits makes people NOT want to work. I would imagine there is a very small minority that thinks that they are owed something and wait until they find the perfect job while collecting unemployment, not like the vast majority that you think exists. Another issue is that McDonalds will not hire the Industrial Engineer because they know for sure that they will not stay for the long term, as they wouldn't expect someone with a degree to want to stay there. They are overqualified for the position, and both the hiring manager and the prospective employee know that.[/QUOTE]

Since you think they really don't want to be on unemployment, would it be fair to then assume they are trying hard to find work they are qualified for?

Then, would you support tightening the requirements for receiving benefits (i.e. having a case working review applications & approve each as reasonable, increasing the number from 3 applications per week to something more in line with a 40-hour-per-week job hunt)? That's what I really want.

If we had it, then it wouldn't matter which of us is right about the unemployed's view of unemployment -- if I were right, we'd see fewer getting unemployment checks and more working, and if you were right, we'd see no change in unemployment and just a little more paper work at the unemployment office.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I just don't see the average person being responsible enough to take that extra money and save it or do something otherwise responsible with it. Thats why things like unemployment are done for you, so the irresponsible dumbasses can't blow it on something. Sometimes, just sometimes, the government does know better than the people, at least when the people aren't responsible enough to do what is best for themselves.[/QUOTE]
Why is the Government's responsibility to make sure someone has their finances in order? The problem is that people have their priorities so out of whack that they spend their money on wants, then worry about needs.
I don't need the government to tell me "First, I need to set aside my rent/mortgage, money for bills and food. Now I have $X left to spend on health insurance, which leaves me with $Y to save. I'd like to put $Z towards that *fancy new toy* I've been wanting."

That's personal responsibility, not government responsibility. We don't need to expand the goverment to add a Department of Personal Fiscal Responsibility.
 
[quote name='myl0r']Why is the Government's responsibility to make sure someone has their finances in order? The problem is that people have their priorities so out of whack that they spend their money on wants, then worry about needs.
I don't need the government to tell me "First, I need to set aside my rent/mortgage, money for bills and food. Now I have $X left to spend on health insurance, which leaves me with $Y to save. I'd like to put $Z towards that *fancy new toy* I've been wanting."

That's personal responsibility, not government responsibility. We don't need to expand the goverment to add a Department of Personal Fiscal Responsibility.[/QUOTE]
I never said it should go any further than it does. Sometimes the government must do for the people what they can't do for themselves. I don't think it should be the government's responsibility, the inability of many people to do it for themselves is what makes the government have to do it for them. You get everyone in the country to be responsible with their money and i'd be all for the government doing away with unemployment and some other programs.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I never said it should go any further than it does. Sometimes the government must do for the people what they can't do for themselves. I don't think it should be the government's responsibility, the inability of many people to do it for themselves is what makes the government have to do it for them. You get everyone in the country to be responsible with their money and i'd be all for the government doing away with unemployment and some other programs.[/QUOTE]
Ok, but then you fall into a vicious circle. The Government will do it for the people until the people do it for themselves, but the people won't do it for themselves because they know the Government will do it for them.
 
Unemployment insurance, like all insurance, is less useful when you have more money. Everybody can get it, but it's most useful in cases where the individual couldn't possibly have saved up enough money to save themselves if they lost their job for 6 months and/or it would pretty much wipe out their savings, something like that.

You could have a private company do it rather than the government as long as you're content with the fact that their interests are the exact opposite of those who they're supposed to be helping. It works the same either way - people with more money subsidize those with less.
 
[quote name='Koggit']You want me to prove my opinion?[/QUOTE]

I want you to elaborate on how you identify people who are on employment yet do not deserve it. You've more or less put yourself into a corner where, as long there is a job opening somewhere, anywhere, sometime, that everybody on unemployment is undeserving. So yeah, refine it.

And prove it? No, support it. I support my opinions. Other people support theirs. Find data on employment, find something in the empirical world to bolster your claim.

Otherwise, it's no longer an opinion. It's just faith.
 
[quote name='myl0r']Ok, but then you fall into a vicious circle. The Government will do it for the people until the people do it for themselves, but the people won't do it for themselves because they know the Government will do it for them.[/QUOTE]

Too all-or-nothing. Unemployment insurance coverage should offer a basic way of living until the jobless can get back on their feet. Fact is, noone wants to see kids starving because daddy lost his job (well, besides resident social Darwinist Bmulligan) so IMO we might as well be upfront about the costs.

There's always going to be a few parasites, like Koggit's friend, that will take advantage of a program. Doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Psychologists have proven that most people crave meaningful employment - to the point that unemployment is a major contributor to mental illness.

The recession and continuing high unemployment are taking a psychological toll on individuals.
The number and urgency of calls to employee-assistance programs have risen substantially over the past couple of years, providers say. In particular, there's been a startling increase in the number of calls regarding violence, psychosis and dementia in the workplace, including calls about suicidal and homicidal threats, program directors say.
...
Mr. Lattarulo says the number of calls to Harris Rothenberg's programs rose every month in 2009 from the previous year, sometimes by as much as 40%. There was a jump of 400% or more some months in manager referrals for suicidal, homicidal, or otherwise dangerous employees.
At provider ComPsych, calls about financial problems outnumbered calls for relationship issues for the first time last year, a spokeswoman says.
Financial pressures -- home foreclosures, bankruptcies and prolonged spousal unemployment -- are straining marital and family life, and contributing to behavioral problems in children and teenagers, Mr. Lattarulo says.
Click to expand...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126791521518457525.html?mod=WSJ_PersonalFinance_PF4

Kicking people when they are down is not the answer.
 
[quote name='myl0r']Ok, but then you fall into a vicious circle. The Government will do it for the people until the people do it for themselves, but the people won't do it for themselves because they know the Government will do it for them.[/QUOTE]
The government never would have gotten involved if people could/would do it for themselves.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I want you to elaborate on how you identify people who are on employment yet do not deserve it. You've more or less put yourself into a corner where, as long there is a job opening somewhere, anywhere, sometime, that everybody on unemployment is undeserving. So yeah, refine it.[/QUOTE]

im reluctant to create a list of criteria because i'm not knowledgeable enough about a wide enough variety of fields and their hiring processes.

loosely, i'd say if someone is spending 7+ hours per day looking for work, not half-assing their applications, and is seeking work that they're qualified to do, then i would say they deserve unemployment benefits. people who aren't, don't.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
Then, would you support tightening the requirements for receiving benefits (i.e. having a case working review applications & approve each as reasonable, increasing the number from 3 applications per week to something more in line with a 40-hour-per-week job hunt)? That's what I really want.

If we had it, then it wouldn't matter which of us is right about the unemployed's view of unemployment -- if I were right, we'd see fewer getting unemployment checks and more working, and if you were right, we'd see no change in unemployment and just a little more paper work at the unemployment office.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I would definitely agree with having tighter requirements. One thing off the top of my head would be to have some kind of job fair every week at the unemployment office where it's mandatory to attend to receive your benefits, maybe requiring some training courses or something. I dunno, just throwing some ideas out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top