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

71–80 of 147 posts

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

#71

Post by jononor »

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

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.

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

#72

Post by digging »

michaelt wrote: post #52
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

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).

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

#73

Post by otikik »

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?

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 :)

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

#74

Post by jononor »

vel0city wrote: post #68
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. O…

Add a couple of kids (single parent) and the picture looks much worse.

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

#75

Post by michaelt »

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…

> 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.

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

#76

Post by vel0city »

ketchupdebugger wrote: post #46
Molitor5901 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

#77

Post by velcrovan »

ta1243 wrote: post #58
velcrovan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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.

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

#78

Post by digging »

losvedir wrote: post #50

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…

> 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?

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

#79

Post by ketchupdebugger »

vel0city wrote: post #76
ketchupdebugger wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

40 a week on unemployment for low wage in CA

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

#80

Post by boston_clone »

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.

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?

Post reply on HN