Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too? • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by trosi » Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 2:17 PM UTC

ketchupdebugger wrote: post #18

Molitor5901 wrote: post #10

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…

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…

> 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.

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

#62

Post by ilc » Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 2:18 PM UTC

throwadobe wrote: post #36

trosi wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A simpler solution to #2 would be to raise minimum wages.

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.

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.

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

#63

Post by RIMR » Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 2:18 PM UTC

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

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:

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

#64

Post by BitwiseFool » Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 2:18 PM UTC

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.

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

#65

Post by jampekka » Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 2:19 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #24

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 t…

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.

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

#66

Post by osigurdson » Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 2:19 PM UTC

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.

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

#67

Post by TeaBrain » Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 2:20 PM UTC

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #23

missedthecue wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#68

Post by vel0city » Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 2:20 PM UTC

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #23

missedthecue wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

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

#69

Post by reify » Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 2:22 PM UTC

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!

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

#70

Post by bunderbunder » Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 2:22 PM UTC

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #23

missedthecue wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.