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

111–120 of 147 posts

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

#111

Post by ta1243 »

velcrovan wrote: post #77
ta1243 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#112

Post by TeaBrain »

digging wrote: post #108
TeaBrain wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article is several years old and out of date.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.

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

#113

Post by Molitor5901 »

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.

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.

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

#114

Post by jononor »

missedthecue wrote: post #102
jononor wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#115

Post by Molitor5901 »

RIMR wrote: post #103
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.

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.

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

#116

Post by jtriangle »

dbspin wrote: post #21
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.

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-

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

#118

Post by red-iron-pine »

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

> McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line

where the hell in America is that true? "well above" -- definitely not.

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

#119

Post by red-iron-pine »

missedthecue wrote: post #100
RIMR wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 categ…

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.

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

#120

Post by red-iron-pine »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #16

Sounds like a great incentive to start a job, work for the minimum length necessary, quit, and repeat.

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.

Post reply on HN