Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?(vox.com)
vox.com
Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/356461/unemployment-benefits-insurance-quitting-capitalism-economy
146 comments
The moral philosophy is not about trying to solve problems. It's about justifying the state of affairs. When a new state of affairs arises, a moral philosophy justifying it will get adopted.
E.g. Lockean ethics making property a fundamental right (later implemented as a "self evident god given thruth") is just a semi-theological justification for priviliged classes holding their privileges.
A bit like divine rights of kings, or superiority of certain ethnic groups, or intellecual and moral superiority of the noblesse.
E.g. Lockean ethics making property a fundamental right (later implemented as a "self evident god given thruth") is just a semi-theological justification for priviliged classes holding their privileges.
A bit like divine rights of kings, or superiority of certain ethnic groups, or intellecual and moral superiority of the noblesse.
"We're worried some benefits might go to people who don't deserve it and/or be paid for by taking money away from other people." often translates to "you know, untrustworthy people from the out-group" and is a bit of a dog whistle.
I don't think anyone in the "We think that this might be best for everyone on average" camp is unaware of or unconcerned with potential abuses. I for one am not unconcerned, but I feel that these can be dealt with pragmatically - allowing some slippage. On the other side of that debate are people calling for absolutist, heavy handed punishments. (Some, if not most, on the understanding that "honest mistakes" by "good people" will of course be dealt with leniently. Why's my dog barking? Did you hear anything?)
I don't think anyone in the "We think that this might be best for everyone on average" camp is unaware of or unconcerned with potential abuses. I for one am not unconcerned, but I feel that these can be dealt with pragmatically - allowing some slippage. On the other side of that debate are people calling for absolutist, heavy handed punishments. (Some, if not most, on the understanding that "honest mistakes" by "good people" will of course be dealt with leniently. Why's my dog barking? Did you hear anything?)
Germany does pay 12 month of unemployment benefits (at 60% of previous salary with a cap).
If you quit (rather than being fired), you don't get benefits for the first 12 weeks.
This is an okay balance in my mind.
If you quit (rather than being fired), you don't get benefits for the first 12 weeks.
This is an okay balance in my mind.
That looks like a good way to solve the problem of taking a holiday on state expenses between jobs. One year is a bit on the short side though.
Yes, but with limits. How to prevent job hopping just to stay on benefits? Taking a paid vacation before the next job? I see opportunities for abuse.
In the United States at least, AFAIK, employers pay for unemployment. Who pays when the employee voluntarily separates from an employer? It seems unfair to make the employer pay for an employee who left and no longer works there. I presume that cost will be paid by the state, which as a taxpayer I am curious how to prevent fraud and abuse.
I see that states require a certain amount of employment before a person becomes eligible for benefits. Maybe changing that?
In the United States at least, AFAIK, employers pay for unemployment. Who pays when the employee voluntarily separates from an employer? It seems unfair to make the employer pay for an employee who left and no longer works there. I presume that cost will be paid by the state, which as a taxpayer I am curious how to prevent fraud and abuse.
I see that states require a certain amount of employment before a person becomes eligible for benefits. Maybe changing that?
No one is quitting their job to just be on unemployment. Unemployment benefit is funded by unemployment tax on both corporations and individuals. The unemployment benefit for CA is $40 to $450 per week. (You still have to pay income tax on that) Its much lower in conservative states. Its enough to smooth things out but not enough to live off of, you are still going to be digging into savings. Additionally you have to provide proof that you are looking for jobs ever week. Its not like I can take a holiday in europe and still collect.
No one is quitting their job to just be on unemployment.
I can understand someone who is unemployed and actively searching for a professional job to believe that, but I think that looks at the issue from a privileged position. No one is quitting their professional offices jobs just to be on unemployment, but I don't think the same can be said of lower income sh*t jobs.
Such a declarative statement of "no one" cannot be accurate because there is probably someone doing just that. Working a low wage job - maybe day labor - just long enough to qualify for benefits, then quitting and coasting until they have to work again.
It's possible, so how do you prevent it?
I can understand someone who is unemployed and actively searching for a professional job to believe that, but I think that looks at the issue from a privileged position. No one is quitting their professional offices jobs just to be on unemployment, but I don't think the same can be said of lower income sh*t jobs.
Such a declarative statement of "no one" cannot be accurate because there is probably someone doing just that. Working a low wage job - maybe day labor - just long enough to qualify for benefits, then quitting and coasting until they have to work again.
It's possible, so how do you prevent it?
Low wage jobs only net you $40 a week. Thats $160 a month. Even if you pay no income tax, try living on $160 a month in any where America. Thats barely enough to pay for groceries for a single person for a month.
$40 a week? A full day at federal minimum wage is $58/day. FICA on that would be $8.87. That's $49/day. $49 * 7 > $40.
Even if you cut that in half that's still way more than $40/week.
And no, you're not paying federal income taxes on that low wage income.
Even if you cut that in half that's still way more than $40/week.
And no, you're not paying federal income taxes on that low wage income.
There's also the benefit of food stamps, and housing assistance at that income level. Actual fraud may be rare. I cannot find a good study on fraud in benefits, but I don't think that detracts that safeguards should be put in place.
40 a week on unemployment for low wage in CA
Ah ok you're saying UI after a low wage job is $40/wk. Understood.
Food banks and SNAP/EBT and dumpster diving and community living. It's a lower standard of living in some ways, for sure, but you don't have to go to work and get to do art all day long. What's that worth to you?
> Its not like I can take a holiday in europe and still collect.
Legally, ethically, or morally? In the history of the world, there are definitely people who've done this, though the smarter move is to take a holiday in East Asia like the Philippines or somewhere else super LCOL rather than Europe.
Legally, ethically, or morally? In the history of the world, there are definitely people who've done this, though the smarter move is to take a holiday in East Asia like the Philippines or somewhere else super LCOL rather than Europe.
> Its not like I can take a holiday in europe and still collect.
Last year I was vacationing in Sicily and I met a French girl who was doing just that: traveling Europe while collecting unemployment from her home country. I am in favor of generous unemployment welfare, but there should be controls in place.
Last year I was vacationing in Sicily and I met a French girl who was doing just that: traveling Europe while collecting unemployment from her home country. I am in favor of generous unemployment welfare, but there should be controls in place.
You're correct because technically, you can't get unemployment if you quit. You have to be let go or fired in order to apply.
This is already done by the construction and other seasonal industries.
And honestly, for the case of a construction worker, where working outside in the winter may not be feasible.... it makes sense.
Yes, some will work the winter. Some wont.
IMHO: Preventing abuse of UI is impossible, just like preventing piracy. All we can really do is make sure that the people who should get it, do.
Also, taking a severance package shouldn't impact UI. etc. All silly stuff. We want people with max incentive to apply to jobs and rejoin the workforce. The way we do that is keep them able to work (not homeless), and make them look for work... sounds like unemployment to me ;)
And honestly, for the case of a construction worker, where working outside in the winter may not be feasible.... it makes sense.
Yes, some will work the winter. Some wont.
IMHO: Preventing abuse of UI is impossible, just like preventing piracy. All we can really do is make sure that the people who should get it, do.
Also, taking a severance package shouldn't impact UI. etc. All silly stuff. We want people with max incentive to apply to jobs and rejoin the workforce. The way we do that is keep them able to work (not homeless), and make them look for work... sounds like unemployment to me ;)
> How to prevent job hopping just to stay on benefits? Taking a paid vacation before the next job?
In my country, the weekly "jobseeker's allowance" is equivalent to working 8 hours at minimum wage, or working about 90 minutes at a computer programmer's salary.
You could use it as a "paid vacation" but it'd have to be an extremely austere vacation.
In my country, the weekly "jobseeker's allowance" is equivalent to working 8 hours at minimum wage, or working about 90 minutes at a computer programmer's salary.
You could use it as a "paid vacation" but it'd have to be an extremely austere vacation.
>I see opportunities for abuse.
Let's cross that bridge when we get to it. I really hate when "but what if someone benefits too much?" worries when families are facing homelessness. I'll take some abuse of the system if it gets these Americas off the street and back in the workforce.
Let's cross that bridge when we get to it. I really hate when "but what if someone benefits too much?" worries when families are facing homelessness. I'll take some abuse of the system if it gets these Americas off the street and back in the workforce.
I am 100% in favor of housing first. No disagreement on that point. Then at least the money spent can be applied and accounted for directly, with someone in the program, than a random person.
I think people forget, it's literally your money. Yea it's theoretically subsidized but the amount of money you put into the system over 40 years is probably more than you'll ever get out of it.
- You pay roughly 1-2% of your salary to it every year
- The max weekly benefit in California is $450 for 26 weeks, so roughly $11k. But it's also a percentage of your salary
- Unless you get fired/quit jobs every year it's probably very hard to get more out than you put in and even then there's probably other safeguards
- You pay roughly 1-2% of your salary to it every year
- The max weekly benefit in California is $450 for 26 weeks, so roughly $11k. But it's also a percentage of your salary
- Unless you get fired/quit jobs every year it's probably very hard to get more out than you put in and even then there's probably other safeguards
Should or shouldn't, it doesn't seem to matter to the state of California. Whomever is admining UI doesn't care. We've had people quit, fired with cause (and in legal proceedings), one who was literally incarcerated shortly after they quit, one who was arrested at work for fraud (and was wearing uniform in their mugshot to boot), and all of them got their claims accepted regardless of what we said.
So, our policy is to not fight anything, ever. Not worth the time.
So, our policy is to not fight anything, ever. Not worth the time.
Perhaps - as in most developed countries - the point shouldn't be whether or not the applicant 'deserves' unemployment benefits. But rather, whether they can afford to live without them.
Yeah, I mean, it's not so much "deserving", it's "qualifies for", and those qualifications seem to be "can fill out the paperwork" which is probably fine.
Living without income is a foregone conclusion in 99.9% of cases, of course they can't, which is why they were working in the first place. Realistically, the whole system would be best rebranded as Temp-UBI, run it like Alimony, where X years at a job = X UBI time, call it a day. You'd probably end up saving money not having to process paperwork and admin the entire thing.
That last point is why it'd never happen of course, because you'd scrap a whole bunch of government workers, and, well, if you're the government, losing workers -does not spark joy-
Living without income is a foregone conclusion in 99.9% of cases, of course they can't, which is why they were working in the first place. Realistically, the whole system would be best rebranded as Temp-UBI, run it like Alimony, where X years at a job = X UBI time, call it a day. You'd probably end up saving money not having to process paperwork and admin the entire thing.
That last point is why it'd never happen of course, because you'd scrap a whole bunch of government workers, and, well, if you're the government, losing workers -does not spark joy-
No I'm not with you at all. The point of social welfare should not be to ensure continuity of income. That's what private unemployment insurance is for. State mandate contributions towards that if you like. But social welfare different. It's what stands between the average person and a couple of unfortunate health or life events (say an arrest) resulting in destitution or homelessness. It might be normalised for this to be a fact of life in the US, but that does't make it civilised or rational.
Yes. Employers should be incentivized to want to keep their employees. If employees are given some autonomy to leave poor working environments without bankrupting themselves, then employers will be motivated to improve the working environment.
You’d have to figure out how to curtail abuses, but generally “yes.”
This is a good counterbalance to companies that get “creative” with RTO mandates as backdoor layoffs to avoid paying out unemployment.
This is a good counterbalance to companies that get “creative” with RTO mandates as backdoor layoffs to avoid paying out unemployment.
As well intentioned as this may be, I suspect the ultimate result will be to make the hiring process even worse for applicants as employers will be incentivized to avoid people who have gaps in their employment history or seem to have a propensity to job-hop. Not only that, I suspect employers will also try to add even more tests and competency-checks to the interview process.
Should get unemployment if you dont have a job and are actively looking for one.
Yes, this is how it works in many countries. There may be a waiting period if you resign, but you can still get unemployment benefits.
Meaningless for tech workers in the UK. You quit from a £100k a year job, your £90 a week isn't going to be noticable.
Far more useful is if your employer lays you off (short of major disciplinary reasons), you get at least 1 weeks pay for every year you've worked there (1.5 weeks if you are older).
Far more useful is if your employer lays you off (short of major disciplinary reasons), you get at least 1 weeks pay for every year you've worked there (1.5 weeks if you are older).
In the US when you quit it's $0.00. In other countries it's the same benefit as if you had been laid off. We probably agree the latter is the best policy. I'm just saying, other countries have done it. We don't have to guess what the results would be.
In the UK you get laid off you get a lot of money up front and then a bit afterwards. You quit, you get nothing up front and then a bit afterwards.
Including taking classes in your desired field IMO, not just being actively engaged in two hiring processes at least once a week (which is what my state mandates for UEI).
This actively looking for one is normally implemented by showing a job search log. It is however especially with indeed and LinkedIn to fulfill this requirement in 15 minutes per week if you really wanted to without any intention on working.
For those that DO want to work this means that employers are looking at piles of fake applications from people that don't want to work and an increased chance of being filtered out.
For those that DO want to work this means that employers are looking at piles of fake applications from people that don't want to work and an increased chance of being filtered out.
Of course!
Remember business thrives on there being a certain amount of unemployed people to create competition for jobs and keep wages low.
If everyone was employed then employers would have to pay decent wages because we would all be employed elsewhere.
Imagine being headhunted for a job at Mucky Dees for £25 per hour.
Unemployed are called workshy and feckless here on Airstrip One.
We have forced work clubs and the unemployed have to search for 40 hours each week for jobs, meaning that every local employer receives thousand of job applications that they throw in the bin. This is intentionally degrading and dehumanising.
The nazi's degrading and dehumanising "Work will set you free" over the entrance to Auschwitz concentration camp comes to mind.
I think it is everyones right to not work and be supported by the state.
WORK does not set you free!
Remember business thrives on there being a certain amount of unemployed people to create competition for jobs and keep wages low.
If everyone was employed then employers would have to pay decent wages because we would all be employed elsewhere.
Imagine being headhunted for a job at Mucky Dees for £25 per hour.
Unemployed are called workshy and feckless here on Airstrip One.
We have forced work clubs and the unemployed have to search for 40 hours each week for jobs, meaning that every local employer receives thousand of job applications that they throw in the bin. This is intentionally degrading and dehumanising.
The nazi's degrading and dehumanising "Work will set you free" over the entrance to Auschwitz concentration camp comes to mind.
I think it is everyones right to not work and be supported by the state.
WORK does not set you free!
Working smart, not hard, does set you free though.
We have this in Denmark where you can get up to 2 years of unemployment benefit - also when you quit yourself (you will get a one-month quarantine, though).
Denmark has a 2.9% unemployment rate: https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/arbejde-og-indkomst/be...
I don't entirely know how that compare to the US.
Denmark has a 2.9% unemployment rate: https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/arbejde-og-indkomst/be...
I don't entirely know how that compare to the US.
The government of Denmark does not provide unemployment insurance. Unemployment is voluntary and provided through privately owned insurance funds. The government does not pay out of unemployment benefits at all.
To get the extended benefits, you have to pay more. Like any private insurance, pay more to get better benefits.
To get the extended benefits, you have to pay more. Like any private insurance, pay more to get better benefits.
That is wrong - while you need the insurance to be eligible, the governments finances most of the unemployment payout. It is a hybrid model.
The insurance premium is also entirely tax deductible and nowhere enough to cover the scheme - the scheme which is highly regulated, well, because the government pays for it.
The insurance premium is also entirely tax deductible and nowhere enough to cover the scheme - the scheme which is highly regulated, well, because the government pays for it.
Sounds like a great incentive to start a job, work for the minimum length necessary, quit, and repeat.
I would kill myself in that life. I guess if people like that, just give them some money and don’t let them interfere too much with people who are less inclined to such a depressing lifestyle.
Even in blue states unemployment benefits aren't... super generous. As with abusing SSI I suspect most folks proposing this approach haven't tried living on it.
The current setup has bad incentives, too; you can make someone miserable with the goal of forcing a quit instead of firing them.
The current setup has bad incentives, too; you can make someone miserable with the goal of forcing a quit instead of firing them.
the main reason for the minimum timelimit is to, among other things, accumulate enough money to cover any unemployment costs if/when the employee leaves.
as long as that minimum length necessary pays for the unemployment -- fine.
work to live, don't live to work.
as long as that minimum length necessary pays for the unemployment -- fine.
work to live, don't live to work.
This sounds like using the existing unemployment system to hack in UBI and universal healthcare.
how else where you going to implement UBI?
It's not really "insurance" at that point then, is it? The system is set up with lots of people paying into it to cover the expenses of the relatively few that need to draw on it, in the relatively low probability event that you need to. Insurance lets you get bigger payouts with smaller premiums.
If everyone can easily and frequently draw from it at will, I doubt it's sustainable as is. Either benefits will have to go down or premiums will have to go up.
I didn't see the article address this aspect of it.
If everyone can easily and frequently draw from it at will, I doubt it's sustainable as is. Either benefits will have to go down or premiums will have to go up.
I didn't see the article address this aspect of it.
> It's not really "insurance" at that point then, is it?
You've never had to or wanted to quit a horrible job, but been stuck because you needed the income/benefits?
You've never had to or wanted to quit a horrible job, but been stuck because you needed the income/benefits?
You've never searched for a new job while working at a job you don't like?
I have, and it sucks. Especially when the current job is seriously unhealthy. It's far preferable to quit first, but I no longer work in an industry and economy where that's a safe bet. Thus, insurance.
I guess the main question is, will more money be paid out of the program. If so, who should pay it?
If lots of people like the idea, a non-profit quitting insurance company could be created. It seems that it would largely end up being a savings account however. For instance, instead of retiring, simply quit.
If lots of people like the idea, a non-profit quitting insurance company could be created. It seems that it would largely end up being a savings account however. For instance, instead of retiring, simply quit.
No, of xourse not, thats the dumbest thing ever
[deleted]
I live in a former communist country, and much of the regulation is still unchanged.
While employed you pay "unemployment insurance" (a small percentage of your paycheck), and when you lose your job (not quit!, so fired, or the company goes under, etc.), and if you worked for 6+ months, and depending on the time worked (months of paid insurance) and your age, you can get 2-25 months of unemployment benefits (80% of your paycheck for up to three months, then 60, then 50%).
If you quit, you quit. You didn't suddenly lose your job and need help because of that, you planned it. No benefits. (except in cases where you quit due to special reasons, ie. you didn't receive your paycheck, employer did something illegal, etc.).
You do get some social benefits if you're an unemployed job seeker, but that number is much lower.
Not much abuse with the unemployment benefits (except a year or two before retirement in some cases), quite a lot of abuse of general social benefits (you get some money, free public transport, free kindergarden, some "extraodinary expenses" extra money yearly too, you have to send a few CVs every month, and you can work under the table and pay nothing.
While employed you pay "unemployment insurance" (a small percentage of your paycheck), and when you lose your job (not quit!, so fired, or the company goes under, etc.), and if you worked for 6+ months, and depending on the time worked (months of paid insurance) and your age, you can get 2-25 months of unemployment benefits (80% of your paycheck for up to three months, then 60, then 50%).
If you quit, you quit. You didn't suddenly lose your job and need help because of that, you planned it. No benefits. (except in cases where you quit due to special reasons, ie. you didn't receive your paycheck, employer did something illegal, etc.).
You do get some social benefits if you're an unemployed job seeker, but that number is much lower.
Not much abuse with the unemployment benefits (except a year or two before retirement in some cases), quite a lot of abuse of general social benefits (you get some money, free public transport, free kindergarden, some "extraodinary expenses" extra money yearly too, you have to send a few CVs every month, and you can work under the table and pay nothing.
The system in the Netherlands (never been communist) is very similar, although you get 70% for up to two years, and you have to apply for jobs.
Which is the greater moral hazard? Enabling couch-potatoes or enabling corps to have a 40 hour worker at below the poverty line cost?
How would increased unemployment benefits assist a worker below the poverty line? Unemployment payments are below minimum wage, and by definition cannot be supplemental income.
It would allow the worker to quit and search for new work, which can be difficult to do while holding down many jobs (strict absence policies, etc.)
A simpler solution to #2 would be to raise minimum wages.
Health care seems like the bigger root problem. It limits job mobility because people get tied to their employer’s coverage.
Cue inflation.
A better solution is to tax capital gains and corporate income at a rate that is closer to personal income taxes so that everyone pays their fair share.
A better solution is to tax capital gains and corporate income at a rate that is closer to personal income taxes so that everyone pays their fair share.
Adjust the wages by inflation every year, it's pretty simple.
I'm not against higher corporate tax rates, but that's a separate problem.
I'm not against higher corporate tax rates, but that's a separate problem.
And devalue our currency against every other nation? No, thanks. Input costs to business are often priced in the international market. You'd just have a weaker economy. There's no such thing as good inflation
I think the US has enough tax money it just needs to use it more efficiently. If you look at the government revenue per capita of the US it isn't that far off from Germany or Japan. Construction in Japan certainly has a higher price floor than in the US so there is no excuse there, and the various government offices in Japan operate quickly and efficiently despite offering much lower pay and worse hours, in a much stricter work environment.
Basically, I think its a culture problem. You could give the US 10 trillion a year in Taxes rather than 3 but the dmv is still going to have a line, take 3 hours to get through and have a rude morbidly obese woman behind the counter.
Basically, I think its a culture problem. You could give the US 10 trillion a year in Taxes rather than 3 but the dmv is still going to have a line, take 3 hours to get through and have a rude morbidly obese woman behind the counter.
I agree that there's a culture problem, if the line at the DMV (which, who goes there these days, so much can be pre-handled online) is the worst government interaction you can think of, you're doing pretty well for yourself.
It is not, and was not intended to be an example of the worst. Actually the exact opposite.
The DMV is intended as an example of a low complexity, low risk task that should be easily done well, and despite that, is usually done horribly. Thats my point.
If the government cant get a dmv right, why would I expect them to be able to handle anything else.
The DMV is intended as an example of a low complexity, low risk task that should be easily done well, and despite that, is usually done horribly. Thats my point.
If the government cant get a dmv right, why would I expect them to be able to handle anything else.
That's ok, they'll just find another tax carve out.
VAT is the real answer. If people had to pay consumption taxes, the issue would go away. You have to spend the money somewhere.
VAT is the real answer. If people had to pay consumption taxes, the issue would go away. You have to spend the money somewhere.
People cannot live on $7.25 an hour in the US, and the government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare. Inflation skyrocketed in the past 5 years; minimum wage has not changed for 15 years. So, no correlation there.
The corporate tax rate should be increased, as well as taxes on high-earners, as well as the minimum wage. Capital gains taxes for individuals with 1M+ of assets may be considered, but is unprecedented in US tax history, no?
The corporate tax rate should be increased, as well as taxes on high-earners, as well as the minimum wage. Capital gains taxes for individuals with 1M+ of assets may be considered, but is unprecedented in US tax history, no?
It's always interesting to watch how so many people oppose increasing the minimum wage (which stagnates since decades) while at the same time opposing increasing the taxation of corporations and billionaires (which goes down since decades). It's like, the society was created for corporations, not for regular people... and no, billionaires are in reality not taxed like regular people so let's not even try this theoretical argument.
[deleted]
It's called capitalism, not laborism. What's weird is you'd think that labor would vote a bit differently.
too many temporarily embarrassed millionaires in the US.
(or rather, not that people on the bottom think they’ll be on the top someday, but they’ve come to identify with the ruling class, and bought into the arguments that we can’t have nice things because of inflation or moral hazard or whatever else.)
(or rather, not that people on the bottom think they’ll be on the top someday, but they’ve come to identify with the ruling class, and bought into the arguments that we can’t have nice things because of inflation or moral hazard or whatever else.)
> Doesn't raise minimum wage
> Still have massive inflation
> Still have massive inflation
That's a logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
In theory yes, in a global economy you're just dooming further sectors of the economy to painful death in competition with developing countries.
I guess? Corporations now throw hissy-fits in response to this and pass on the costs as loudly as possible to the consumer-voters.
How's that working for California food workers, or delivery drivers on Seattle?
I would say couch potato. a body at rest tends to stay at rest, and a body in motion tends to stay in motion, so I think someone already working is more likely to change jobs, put pressure on the employer etc. Couch potato IMHO is much less likely over time to change his situation, let alone join union, be part of some change etc.
People who sit at home doing nothing tend to get very depressed and ‘self medicate’ (drink, smoke, eat, etc) to fight that depression. I like to believe that most people really don’t want to get to that point and the reason they quit is not to basically slow-suicide. I don’t know about the numbers, but as I saw in my life, most people want to keep busy as they don’t know what to do with themselves. Sure there are exceptions and it might be different per country; would be interesting to see stats if there are any.
It's all terrible working conditions and awful bosses until you have too much free time and have to start contemplating the meaning of your own life. Then you REALLY have hard work to do or succumb to the impending nihilism.
Yeah, that's why I said, with hesitation, that it's worse to be couch potato, than doing a perhaps pointless job. At least something is taking up part of your day and you're putting in the effort. I experienced it myself, I saw it in people around me, of you're out of the workforce for a long time you will have very thought time going back. And if you're in bad place financially, mentally, or both, you will absolutely sink sitting at home...
> a body at rest tends to stay at rest, and a body in motion tends to stay in motion
This is not a description of human behavior, but of inanimate objects in Newtonian physics. I'm sure we could find a way to make a description of stellar evolution sound applicable here too, but that doesn't make it so.
> someone already working is more likely to change jobs, put pressure on the employer etc
Have you met anyone who works? Shit's exhausting. Almost everyone I know would be likely to seek a more fulfilling/satisfying/enjoyable job if they could quit their current job and survive with unemployment as a stopgap.
This is not a description of human behavior, but of inanimate objects in Newtonian physics. I'm sure we could find a way to make a description of stellar evolution sound applicable here too, but that doesn't make it so.
> someone already working is more likely to change jobs, put pressure on the employer etc
Have you met anyone who works? Shit's exhausting. Almost everyone I know would be likely to seek a more fulfilling/satisfying/enjoyable job if they could quit their current job and survive with unemployment as a stopgap.
> This is not a description of human behavior, but of inanimate objects in Newtonian physics. I'm sure we could find a way to make a description of stellar evolution sound applicable here too, but that doesn't make it so.
It was always easier for me, and all friends I know, to change jobs and upgrade while you're already in the workforce. After university, layoffs, sabaticals, even long vacations, it's kinda hard to get back "into it".
> Have you met anyone who works? Shit's exhausting. Almost everyone I know would be likely to seek a more fulfilling/satisfying/enjoyable job if they could quit their current job and survive with unemployment as a stopgap.
Yea but question was couch potato vs underpaid worker, not a temporarily unemployed person. Definition of couch potato in popular culture is a lazy person that watches TV, not concerned with much. I know more people who lived on CC between jobs, but still moved to new positions, than couch potatoes who got an actual job after that.
It was always easier for me, and all friends I know, to change jobs and upgrade while you're already in the workforce. After university, layoffs, sabaticals, even long vacations, it's kinda hard to get back "into it".
> Have you met anyone who works? Shit's exhausting. Almost everyone I know would be likely to seek a more fulfilling/satisfying/enjoyable job if they could quit their current job and survive with unemployment as a stopgap.
Yea but question was couch potato vs underpaid worker, not a temporarily unemployed person. Definition of couch potato in popular culture is a lazy person that watches TV, not concerned with much. I know more people who lived on CC between jobs, but still moved to new positions, than couch potatoes who got an actual job after that.
> Yea but question was couch potato vs underpaid worker, not a temporarily unemployed person. Definition of couch potato in popular culture is a lazy person that watches TV, not concerned with much. I know more people who lived on CC between jobs, but still moved to new positions, than couch potatoes who got an actual job after that.
I don't understand your disagreement with what I said, while simultaneously agreeing with the other comment:
> There is also the in-between where these benefits allow you to quit and then look for another job. Something that can be hard to do if you are working long hours as you'd need to take days off that may or may not be approved depending on the company you are working for.
We're saying the same thing, I think. Only I'm not concerned with the supposed existence of "couch potatoes."
I don't understand your disagreement with what I said, while simultaneously agreeing with the other comment:
> There is also the in-between where these benefits allow you to quit and then look for another job. Something that can be hard to do if you are working long hours as you'd need to take days off that may or may not be approved depending on the company you are working for.
We're saying the same thing, I think. Only I'm not concerned with the supposed existence of "couch potatoes."
I'm not concerned about any of the above, it's just how things are.
There is also the in-between where these benefits allow you to quit and then look for another job. Something that can be hard to do if you are working long hours as you'd need to take days off that may or may not be approved depending on the company you are working for.
Exactly, I think that situation should be better handled and would make the playfield much more level.
You seem to be assuming that action is beneficial when in fact, that is the polar opposite.
Only anxieties cause toil - somebody who is at peace and relaxed, is going to rest and play just like children do when their basic food and care needs are met (possible to do with existing worldwide resources)
If everybody sat around doing “nothing”, we would be better off than we are with everybody out there trying to make their own little mini dictatorship, which is what the current state of the world mentality for success is
Your mentality is why the world is so terrible
Only anxieties cause toil - somebody who is at peace and relaxed, is going to rest and play just like children do when their basic food and care needs are met (possible to do with existing worldwide resources)
If everybody sat around doing “nothing”, we would be better off than we are with everybody out there trying to make their own little mini dictatorship, which is what the current state of the world mentality for success is
Your mentality is why the world is so terrible
How is action not beneficial? It's about what you have your focus on. If you're in 2 week long binge watching session of latest Netflix show, you won't be grinding leetcode.
I agree, and for someone who is on couch watching TV whole day every day, thought of stopping that and finding new soul sucking job is bound to cause more anexity, than for the person replacing one trash job with the other...
I agree it would be better doing nothing than doing wrong things, but you can't have progress without actually doing something. And if you're doing something you will also do mistakes. I absolutely do not approve greedy employees and people leaving their best life years for someone's latest BMW, but I also understand that it is inevitable there will be players like that in the market. What we need to do is keep going - acquire wealth we need for our day to day life and family, secure our future, both financially, but also through activism in form of rights and benefits for working class.
You seem to deduce quite a lot about me from a comment that you read and understood in light of your own frustration.
I agree, and for someone who is on couch watching TV whole day every day, thought of stopping that and finding new soul sucking job is bound to cause more anexity, than for the person replacing one trash job with the other...
I agree it would be better doing nothing than doing wrong things, but you can't have progress without actually doing something. And if you're doing something you will also do mistakes. I absolutely do not approve greedy employees and people leaving their best life years for someone's latest BMW, but I also understand that it is inevitable there will be players like that in the market. What we need to do is keep going - acquire wealth we need for our day to day life and family, secure our future, both financially, but also through activism in form of rights and benefits for working class.
You seem to deduce quite a lot about me from a comment that you read and understood in light of your own frustration.
I just consider it lesser of two evils, never said it's better or should be that way ¯\_(:/)_/¯
Well, if the "couch potatoes" live better than the exploited worker, then the corps are a greater negative for society. They would be somehow gaslighting people into having worst lives than they can have.
If an overexploited worker has a better life than someone unemployed, then the only moral problem is calling them "couch potatoes" in the first place :)
If an overexploited worker has a better life than someone unemployed, then the only moral problem is calling them "couch potatoes" in the first place :)
I don't think anyone in America is working 40 hours and staying below the poverty line unless they have like... 8 kids as a single parent. It's really just not possible. McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line
https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-walmart-mcdon...
> Around 70% of people on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food stamps and Medicaid work full-time, the watchdog found, and the majority of these worked for larger companies with 100 or more staff.
So no, you can be gainfully employed in the US and still be on food stamps.
> Around 70% of people on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food stamps and Medicaid work full-time, the watchdog found, and the majority of these worked for larger companies with 100 or more staff.
So no, you can be gainfully employed in the US and still be on food stamps.
And, as far as things go for the other 30%, I've known people on SNAP and Medicaid who need to very carefully limit how many hours they get, and even decline raises, for fear of edging over a threshold that causes them to lose support and end up even worse off, economically.
It strikes me as a great example of a policy incentivizing (enforcing, really) the very thing it's ostensibly supposed to discourage. These folks have dreams and want better jobs, and they're often deeply ashamed of being on welfare, but if you're supporting a family your overriding moral imperative is to make sure everyone is fed and healthy and that trumps everything else.
It's so incredibly stressful to live in a society where people have been raised on a Calvinist worldview that teaches that it's immoral to be unwealthy.
It strikes me as a great example of a policy incentivizing (enforcing, really) the very thing it's ostensibly supposed to discourage. These folks have dreams and want better jobs, and they're often deeply ashamed of being on welfare, but if you're supporting a family your overriding moral imperative is to make sure everyone is fed and healthy and that trumps everything else.
It's so incredibly stressful to live in a society where people have been raised on a Calvinist worldview that teaches that it's immoral to be unwealthy.
That article is several years old and out of date. The poster you replied to would have been referring to current wages. Low income wages have made the largest percentage gains of any bracket since 2020.
I don't think anything you're saying supports the argument "I don't think anyone in America is working 40 hours and staying below the poverty line unless they have like... 8 kids as a single parent." So what's the point?
It is true that the parent comment was not nuanced and very likely not true. I think it's also true that linking an article from 2020 is a possibly misleading response, since low-income wages have made a sizable jump since then.
Pedantic point but you can be above the federal poverty level while still qualifying for Medicaid/SNAP.
The Federal Povery Level for 2024 is $15,060. Assuming 1,720 hours a year for full-time employment, that's just under $8.76/hr.
The federal minimum wage is still $7.25/hr. So, the ultimate takeaway is in most states in the US working full time employment at the minimum wage of the state you will be below the FPL.
One important thing to think about though is what percentage of low wage full-time jobs are actually still at the federal minimum wage?
The Federal Povery Level for 2024 is $15,060. Assuming 1,720 hours a year for full-time employment, that's just under $8.76/hr.
The federal minimum wage is still $7.25/hr. So, the ultimate takeaway is in most states in the US working full time employment at the minimum wage of the state you will be below the FPL.
One important thing to think about though is what percentage of low wage full-time jobs are actually still at the federal minimum wage?
Add a couple of kids (single parent) and the picture looks much worse.
A single parent of three kids is considered a household size of 4, with a poverty line at 30k. That is basically the median full time salary in several professions in the retail and food industry.
Right. Exactly my point. You've got to have several dependents as a single parent to go back below the poverty line. With one or no dependents, it's virtually impossible.
Your original claim was that it requires an absurd amount of dependents. Having 2 dependents is rather common, and 3 not unheard of either. There are 10 million single parent households in the US, and 36% of them are in poverty. I am pretty sure that at least 1/3 of these parents work full time. So the number of single parent households at poverty line where parent works full time is probably 1 million or more.
I think you are speaking of the federal poverty line and they are talking about the ordinary definition of poverty. Nobody making the actual federal poverty line is surviving without help most places.
Plenty of people are living in poverty whilest working full time.
Plenty of people are living in poverty whilest working full time.
I am curious about how you think a $290/week (minimum wage) budget works.
Can you give me a breakdown of how a family of three can survive off of this? I figure if you can't see how anyone in America could be below water on a minimum wage salary, you must have a good idea of how to survive on a shoestring budget.
Here, I'll make it simple.
At approximately $1,260/month, how would much would you allocate to each category?
Rent/Mortgage:
Groceries:
Transportation:
Utilities:
Healthcare:
Personal / Misc:
Entertainment:
Debt repayment:
Savings:
Can you give me a breakdown of how a family of three can survive off of this? I figure if you can't see how anyone in America could be below water on a minimum wage salary, you must have a good idea of how to survive on a shoestring budget.
Here, I'll make it simple.
At approximately $1,260/month, how would much would you allocate to each category?
Rent/Mortgage:
Groceries:
Transportation:
Utilities:
Healthcare:
Personal / Misc:
Entertainment:
Debt repayment:
Savings:
Who pays $7.25? People quote that antiquated law as if it's a mandated wage. Fast food pays $15-20
Five states have not adopted a state minimum wage: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee.
Two states, Georgia and Wyoming, have a minimum wage below $7.25 per hour. In all seven of these states, the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour applies.
Most other states have higher minimums, but those in most cases have not kept up with inflation.
But in virtually all states you're broke af working for minimum.
Two states, Georgia and Wyoming, have a minimum wage below $7.25 per hour. In all seven of these states, the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour applies.
Most other states have higher minimums, but those in most cases have not kept up with inflation.
But in virtually all states you're broke af working for minimum.
You can look here at McDonalds jobs in small towns across Louisiana (randomly taken from your list). Avoiding cities because pay is higher there. Even in places like Pineville LA (pop 14k), they are starting fry cooks at double the federal minimum.
https://www.indeed.com/q-mcdonalds-application-l-louisiana-j...
https://www.indeed.com/q-mcdonalds-application-l-louisiana-j...
You're very confused.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/poverty-awareness-mo...
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/poverty-awareness-mo...
I'm not confused. It is not possible to have no dependents and be below the poverty line working 40 hours
In my country, the easiest way to work 40 hours and still live in poverty is to move to the richest city in the country, get a job as a barista or cleaner or similar, and rent a small studio apartment.
> move to the richest city in the country, get a job as a barista or cleaner or similar, and rent a small studio apartment
I'm not sure which way you feel about this, but I'll emphasize that everyone else in the city is completely dependent on people making this life choice (or a related one, where they live outside the city in a stifling suburb, pay for it with years of their life spent commuting, and simultaneously lower everyone's health and quality of life by driving a car).
I'm not sure which way you feel about this, but I'll emphasize that everyone else in the city is completely dependent on people making this life choice (or a related one, where they live outside the city in a stifling suburb, pay for it with years of their life spent commuting, and simultaneously lower everyone's health and quality of life by driving a car).
> McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line
where the hell in America is that true? "well above" -- definitely not.
where the hell in America is that true? "well above" -- definitely not.
Federal minimum wage : $7.25 per hour
40h work week: $290 per week
52 weeks per year: $15,080.00
Federal Poverty level for 2024(family of 1): $15,060
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-fp...
McDonalds average pay(Crew Member): $13.03 per hour
https://www.indeed.com/cmp/McDonald's/salaries/Crew-Member
40 hour work week: $521.2 per week
52 weeks per year: $27.102.40
Average McDonalds pay for crew member puts you above Federal Poverty Level for a family of 3 ($25,820).
If you take the family of 1 numbers, you are $12,042.4 above poverty. Almost double. I think that qualifies for well above.
I also don't think it is good living but take it up with the federal government if you want to talk about where the Poverty Line and Inflation numbers come from, since they are the ones who like to screw with it to make themselves look good.
Edit: I missed the part about requiring an absurd number of dependents, that isn't true. With one dependent, numbers don't look that bad but having 2(family of 3) you are basically living hand to mouth with no savings.
40h work week: $290 per week
52 weeks per year: $15,080.00
Federal Poverty level for 2024(family of 1): $15,060
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-fp...
McDonalds average pay(Crew Member): $13.03 per hour
https://www.indeed.com/cmp/McDonald's/salaries/Crew-Member
40 hour work week: $521.2 per week
52 weeks per year: $27.102.40
Average McDonalds pay for crew member puts you above Federal Poverty Level for a family of 3 ($25,820).
If you take the family of 1 numbers, you are $12,042.4 above poverty. Almost double. I think that qualifies for well above.
I also don't think it is good living but take it up with the federal government if you want to talk about where the Poverty Line and Inflation numbers come from, since they are the ones who like to screw with it to make themselves look good.
Edit: I missed the part about requiring an absurd number of dependents, that isn't true. With one dependent, numbers don't look that bad but having 2(family of 3) you are basically living hand to mouth with no savings.
Spotted the person who's never been a retail/fast food wage slave. You don't get 40 hours. At best you'll get 34 or whatever makes it so you aren't classified as full time. And that's a good week. If corporate is trying to save hours, you might get 8 or 10 that week. You'll need a second job, obviously, but given that there's no set schedule, you'll spend even more time trying to coordinate the two.
I have, worked as a cashier for a couple years. I know they never let you get to 40 hours, if you do then they have to start offering benefits.
However, that wasn't part of the exercise. Grandparent stated that: > McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line
I decided to run the numbers rather than go with gut feeling of no way. Figured I would share since I did the work.
Grandparent was only haft right since they also state you would need a crazy amount of dependents to put you at Federal Poverty Level. If you had 2 dependents, you are above but living hand to mouth and one accident away from povert.
However, that wasn't part of the exercise. Grandparent stated that: > McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line
I decided to run the numbers rather than go with gut feeling of no way. Figured I would share since I did the work.
Grandparent was only haft right since they also state you would need a crazy amount of dependents to put you at Federal Poverty Level. If you had 2 dependents, you are above but living hand to mouth and one accident away from povert.
That’s a fair point about it merely mirroring the grandparent’s exercise, and looking back on it my post had an unnecessarily antagonistic start. But I do believe it’s worth telling people that crappy jobs are crappy for reasons besides pure hourly pay; they have other features that are both demeaning and austere.
As with everything in America, I assume it is a non-starter to make more universal benefits. Sure it would be fine if I got unemployment for quitting, but not those people. They would just squander the opportunity! Best we all suffer rather than someone I do not like getting the same benefit.
> As with everything in America
Who do you think the 7.5 million on SSI are, if not those people? We already have Basic Income scheme for people we deem unfit for doing any kind of work.
(Note this is different from the 7.3 million on SSDI, though people sometimes confuse the two, or simply don't know SSI exists)
Who do you think the 7.5 million on SSI are, if not those people? We already have Basic Income scheme for people we deem unfit for doing any kind of work.
(Note this is different from the 7.3 million on SSDI, though people sometimes confuse the two, or simply don't know SSI exists)
Is it your argument that it's good that we make it complicated and spend resources making decisions?
Because typically the argument for a universal benefit is that it's simpler and reduces administrative overhead.
Because typically the argument for a universal benefit is that it's simpler and reduces administrative overhead.
No, its that "As with everything in America" is either extremely uninformed or a lie. The US spends an extraordinary amount on poverty reduction schemes of all kinds. It is not an outlier.
[deleted]
Too many people are on SSRIs.
Supporting others works as long as the majority is prosperous, provides assistance (taxes) voluntarily, and receiving help is sort of shameful and still keeps you kinda needy.
You don't those people to become a political force enough to demand more assistance, we know how that ends.
You don't those people to become a political force enough to demand more assistance, we know how that ends.
and how does it end?
[deleted]
Ubiquitous televisions and beer. Or smartphones and fentanyl in the 21st century.
so you're saying we've hit that point already then?
Bread and circuses
Generally yes.
I am not sure how UI works (which of course entitles me to spout my opinion), but a system where it draws from a pool based off work history could be the middle ground solution.
If they are going to base your unemployment on your past pay, they might as well also base it on your past history.
To get to my point: if you work for a long period then quit / fired, you should have a bigger pool you can tap into for any reason. If you work for short periods then quit, you should have a smaller pool which trends to near-zero if you never stay at a place for long. If you work for short periods then get laid off, you should have the standard pool (ie: you shouldn't be unfairly punished through no fault of your own besides maybe being unlucky / bad at picking jobs).
I am paying into it regardless, I should be able to choose to be able to tap into it.
It disincentives people jumping on and off UI constantly on their own free-will but it gives a cushion to those who are burnt or needing to transition to a new field.
I am not sure how UI works (which of course entitles me to spout my opinion), but a system where it draws from a pool based off work history could be the middle ground solution.
If they are going to base your unemployment on your past pay, they might as well also base it on your past history.
To get to my point: if you work for a long period then quit / fired, you should have a bigger pool you can tap into for any reason. If you work for short periods then quit, you should have a smaller pool which trends to near-zero if you never stay at a place for long. If you work for short periods then get laid off, you should have the standard pool (ie: you shouldn't be unfairly punished through no fault of your own besides maybe being unlucky / bad at picking jobs).
I am paying into it regardless, I should be able to choose to be able to tap into it.
It disincentives people jumping on and off UI constantly on their own free-will but it gives a cushion to those who are burnt or needing to transition to a new field.
I don't know how it works in the US (and I assume it might be different state by state), but in many countries in Europe this is already the case.
For example: if you get fired today you are entitled to a benefit if you have worked at least X months out of the last Y months. X and Y must be chosen carefully of course.
For example: if you get fired today you are entitled to a benefit if you have worked at least X months out of the last Y months. X and Y must be chosen carefully of course.
Hard disagree - your entitlement should be based on need, not social status. So your previous employment shouldn't factor in at all.
Conflict of interest, wrong incentive.
beeboobaa3(3)
Both are legitimate ways of thinking about it, and centuries of moral philosophy have failed to adequately reconcile these two ways of approaching social issues. So I can't imagine this will ever be definitively settled. (Maybe it shouldn't be. Ursula K. LeGuin gets my respect for being author of both The Dispossessed and The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas.) But I think that failing to recognize that that's the core of the issue dooms people to endlessly, uselessly accomplish little more than talking past each other.