51–60 of 147 posts
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.
> Still have massive inflation
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
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.
Only anxieties cause toil - somebody who is at peace and relaxed, is going to rest and play just like children do when their basic food and care needs are met (possible to do with existing worldwide resources)
If everybody sat around doing “nothing”, we would be better off than we are with everybody out there trying to make their own little mini dictatorship, which is what the current state of the world mentality for success is
Your mentality is why the world is so terrible
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.
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 works? Shit's exhausting. Almost everyone I know would be likely to seek a more fulfilling/satisfying/enjoyable job if they could quit their current job and survive with unemployment as a stopgap.
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.
I'm not against higher corporate tax rates, but that's a separate problem.
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.
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…
And honestly, for the case of a construction worker, where working outside in the winter may not be feasible.... it makes sense.
Yes, some will work the winter. Some wont.
IMHO: Preventing abuse of UI is impossible, just like preventing piracy. All we can really do is make sure that the people who should get it, do.
Also, taking a severance package shouldn't impact UI. etc. All silly stuff. We want people with max incentive to apply to jobs and rejoin the workforce. The way we do that is keep them able to work (not homeless), and make them look for work... sounds like unemployment to me ;)
Should get unemployment if you dont have a job and are actively looking for one.
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.
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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A simpler solution to #2 would be to raise minimum wages.
In theory yes, in a global economy you're just dooming further sectors of the economy to painful death in competition with developing countries.
Which is the greater moral hazard? Enabling couch-potatoes or enabling corps to have a 40 hour worker at below the poverty line cost?