Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 147 posts

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#21

Post by dbspin »

jtriangle wrote: post #12

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…

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.

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#23

Post by AdmiralAsshat »

missedthecue wrote: post #17
anotherhue wrote: post #6

Which is the greater moral hazard? Enabling couch-potatoes or enabling corps to have a 40 hour worker at below the poverty line cost?

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.

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#24

Post by bunderbunder »

This debate, like so many other economic debates (welfare, health insurance, what to do about homelessness, taxation policy, school funding, etc.) seems to really be venues for proxy debates between consequentialist and deontological ethics. The two major positions inevitably end up being specific formulations of, "We think that this might be best for everyone on average," and, "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."

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.

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#25

Post by dbspin »

trosi wrote: post #19
madamelic wrote: post #11

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…

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.

Hard disagree - your entitlement should be based on need, not social status. So your previous employment shouldn't factor in at all.

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#26

Post by rnewme »

anotherhue wrote: post #6

Which is the greater moral hazard? Enabling couch-potatoes or enabling corps to have a 40 hour worker at below the poverty line cost?

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.

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#27

Post by praccu »

missedthecue wrote: post #17
anotherhue wrote: post #6

Which is the greater moral hazard? Enabling couch-potatoes or enabling corps to have a 40 hour worker at below the poverty line cost?

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

You're very confused.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/poverty-awareness-mo...

Post reply on HN