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

101–110 of 147 posts

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

#101

Post by shrimp_emoji »

simonsarris wrote: post #88
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #15

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)

Too many people are on SSRIs.

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

#102

Post by missedthecue »

jononor wrote: post #71
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

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.

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

#103

Post by RIMR »

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…

>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.

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

#104

Post by michaelmrose »

ketchupdebugger wrote: post #7

Should get unemployment if you dont have a job and are actively looking for one.

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.

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

#105

Post by madsbuch »

WrongAssumption wrote: post #83
madsbuch wrote: post #56

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.

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.

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.

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

#106

Post by digging »

rnewme wrote: post #92
digging wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 w…

> 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…

> 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."

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

#107

Post by digging »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #89
digging wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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.

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

#108

Post by digging »

TeaBrain wrote: post #67
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.

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?

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

#109

Post by readthenotes1 »

derelicta wrote: post #45
jojobas wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

and how does it end?

Bread and circuses

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

#110

Post by readthenotes1 »

trosi wrote: post #22
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?

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

How's that working for California food workers, or delivery drivers on Seattle?
Post reply on HN