• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama Pushes States to Cover More Unemployed

Originally posted by: TheoPetro
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123125893419357707.html

Ive got a great idea... lets take money away from the things that create jobs (businesses) and create an incentive for people to stay out of work longer! I sure hope this is a huge F-ing joke.
Click to expand...

This is quite possibly the worst idea ever. What kind of crackpot economic advisor recommended this to him?

Obama plans to offer states $7 billion as incentive to permanently change their unemployment-insurance laws to cover part-time workers and prevent other laid-off workers from falling through cracks in the coverage.
Click to expand...
 
I am a Democrat and I think Obama will be the biggest douchebag President ever. He will make it so that the crackheads and poor in this country live better than the people who work for a living.

I swear, sometimes I think Democrats do nothing more than try to keep the poor [people] stupid and happy, while punishing the working class.
 
Originally posted by: amdhunter
I am a Democrat and I think Obama will be the biggest douchebag President ever. He will make it so that the crackheads and poor in this country live better than the people who work for a living.

I swear, sometimes I think Democrats do nothing more than try to keep the poor [people] stupid and happy, while punishing the working class.
Click to expand...

How else would they stay in power? They need the "poor" to get elected.
 
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123125893419357707.html

Ive got a great idea... lets take money away from the things that create jobs (businesses) and create an incentive for people to stay out of work longer! I sure hope this is a huge F-ing joke.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those huuuuuuge unemployment checks are a big incentive to stay out of work. :laugh: It varies by state, but here in NJ unemployment covers 60% of your previous pay, up to a maximum of $584/week (equivalent to roughly $30k salary).

So if you were poor before you were on unemployment, you're even more poor on it. If you made plenty of money before you were on unemployment, unemployment pays a small fraction of what you previously made. Unemployment is not an incentive to not work. It keeps your head above water long enough to find another job.

The problem is that there are many adults who rely on income from part-time jobs just as much as people with full-time jobs rely on their income. They need unemployment benefits just as much as anyone else.
 
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123125893419357707.html

Ive got a great idea... lets take money away from the things that create jobs (businesses) and create an incentive for people to stay out of work longer! I sure hope this is a huge F-ing joke.
Click to expand...

That would be true, IF businesses were there to provide decent jobs. But they're not. They've become a vessel to make the rich richer for doing next to nothing, and hire as few people as possible at the lowest wages allowed by law with a complete lack of meaningful benefits. Until businesses start caring about the employees they don't deserve any support.
 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123125893419357707.html

Ive got a great idea... lets take money away from the things that create jobs (businesses) and create an incentive for people to stay out of work longer! I sure hope this is a huge F-ing joke.
Click to expand...

That would be true, IF businesses were there to provide decent jobs. But they're not. They've become a vessel to make the rich richer for doing next to nothing, and hire as few people as possible at the lowest wages allowed by law with a complete lack of meaningful benefits. Until businesses start caring about the employees they don't deserve any support.
Click to expand...


This post makes me seriously believe you've never even had a job. Really, thats how fucking dumb it is.
 
Why does state-funded "unemployment insurance" exist? Why should the state care if I lose my job? I think this is the fundamental problem here. If I lose my job, not having any income is the best motivator for me to actively seek one. If people are really destitute, private charities can pick up the slack to help them make ends meet. I've been working with such charities since childhood. There's a huge difference between paying someone's electric bill for them when you have it in your hand and simply handing over a check for some blanket amount because someone says they just lost their job. Private charity accomplishes the former while the government approach is the latter. No wonder we have trillion-dollar deficits.
 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123125893419357707.html

Ive got a great idea... lets take money away from the things that create jobs (businesses) and create an incentive for people to stay out of work longer! I sure hope this is a huge F-ing joke.
Click to expand...

That would be true, IF businesses were there to provide decent jobs. But they're not. They've become a vessel to make the rich richer for doing next to nothing, and hire as few people as possible at the lowest wages allowed by law with a complete lack of meaningful benefits. Until businesses start caring about the employees they don't deserve any support.
Click to expand...
The only flaw in your reasoning is that you neglect to mention that ANYONE can start their own company, and all employment is voluntary. Employees are truly the ones in power, not the other way around. There is no basis to have sympathy when both parties are operating voluntarily.
 
Originally posted by: amdhunter
I am a Democrat and I think Obama will be the biggest douchebag President ever. He will make it so that the crackheads and poor in this country live better than the people who work for a living.

I swear, sometimes I think Democrats do nothing more than try to keep the poor [people] stupid and happy, while punishing the working class.
Click to expand...

How is this punishing the working class?

100% of unemployment benefits go to the working class.
 
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: amdhunter
I am a Democrat and I think Obama will be the biggest douchebag President ever. He will make it so that the crackheads and poor in this country live better than the people who work for a living.

I swear, sometimes I think Democrats do nothing more than try to keep the poor [people] stupid and happy, while punishing the working class.
Click to expand...

How is this punishing the working class?

100% of unemployment benefits go to the working class.
Click to expand...
Yeah that had me scratching my head. The poor on the dole don't have jobs to begin with so they are eligible for Unemployment benefits.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why does state-funded "unemployment insurance" exist? Why should the state care if I lose my job? I think this is the fundamental problem here. If I lose my job, not having any income is the best motivator for me to actively seek one.-snip-
Click to expand...

Unemployment is meant to just be a financial 'bridge' to help for a short period until you land a new job.

And if you were fired for cause, you can't get unemployment.

Please also realize that it is an insurance product. Employers pay a small portion of their payroll as an insurance premium, when you get laid off/fired without cause you apply for it. Employers who have a habit of doing so (firing people) get their (insurance) rates raised.

Why should states do it? A lot of people have always been on tight budgets, being out of work even temporarily could lead to all kinds of problems (foreclosures/bankrupties/ Medicaid/ Welfare etc). A little money now may help prevent the state from spending a whole lot more in the future.

Edit: Just wanted to add my state already covers part-time people. I don't know why other states don't, but seems more like a state issue than something the fed gov oughtta be fooling around with.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why does state-funded "unemployment insurance" exist? Why should the state care if I lose my job? I think this is the fundamental problem here. If I lose my job, not having any income is the best motivator for me to actively seek one. If people are really destitute, private charities can pick up the slack to help them make ends meet. I've been working with such charities since childhood. There's a huge difference between paying someone's electric bill for them when you have it in your hand and simply handing over a check for some blanket amount because someone says they just lost their job. Private charity accomplishes the former while the government approach is the latter. No wonder we have trillion-dollar deficits.
Click to expand...

Why? because for the most part, the state pulls in more from the tax then they hand out. That doesn't include the interest they earn on the investment of that tax either.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why does state-funded "unemployment insurance" exist? Why should the state care if I lose my job? I think this is the fundamental problem here. If I lose my job, not having any income is the best motivator for me to actively seek one.-snip-
Click to expand...

Unemployment is meant to just be a financial 'bridge' to help for a short period until you land a new job.

And if you were fired for cause, you can't get unemployment.

Please also realize that it is an insurance product. Employers pay a small portion of their payroll as an insurance premium, when you get laid off/fired without cause you apply for it. Employers who have a habit of doing so (firing people) get their (insurance) rates raised.

Why should states do it? A lot of people have always been on tight budgets, being out of work even temporarily could lead to all kinds of problems (foreclosures/bankrupties/ Medicaid/ Welfare etc). A little money now may help prevent the state from spending a whole lot more in the future.

Edit: Just wanted to add my state already covers part-time people. I don't know why other states don't, but seems more like a state issue than something the fed gov oughtta be fooling around with.

Fern
Click to expand...

In addition you have to be actively seeking work in your field to collect it. Even if you are Union, you have to sign up down at the Union Hall for any work available.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why does state-funded "unemployment insurance" exist? Why should the state care if I lose my job? I think this is the fundamental problem here. If I lose my job, not having any income is the best motivator for me to actively seek one. If people are really destitute, private charities can pick up the slack to help them make ends meet. I've been working with such charities since childhood. There's a huge difference between paying someone's electric bill for them when you have it in your hand and simply handing over a check for some blanket amount because someone says they just lost their job. Private charity accomplishes the former while the government approach is the latter. No wonder we have trillion-dollar deficits.
Click to expand...

The government doesn't simply hand over a check for some blanket amount because someone says they just lost their job. The government gives you a check for a specific amount based on your verified previous income (that amount being less than your previous income), and it does it for only a limited amount of time.

If you ever lose your job, I think you'll find that the meager compensation you get from unemployment won't be a demotivator. You'll be amply motivated to get a job that pays real money.
 
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123125893419357707.html

Ive got a great idea... lets take money away from the things that create jobs (businesses) and create an incentive for people to stay out of work longer! I sure hope this is a huge F-ing joke.
Click to expand...

That would be true, IF businesses were there to provide decent jobs. But they're not. They've become a vessel to make the rich richer for doing next to nothing, and hire as few people as possible at the lowest wages allowed by law with a complete lack of meaningful benefits. Until businesses start caring about the employees they don't deserve any support.
Click to expand...


This post makes me seriously believe you've never even had a job. Really, thats how fucking dumb it is.
Click to expand...

Had many, and in general they support my statement. Maybe it's just unlucky, but that's what I've found.
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123125893419357707.html

Ive got a great idea... lets take money away from the things that create jobs (businesses) and create an incentive for people to stay out of work longer! I sure hope this is a huge F-ing joke.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those huuuuuuge unemployment checks are a big incentive to stay out of work. :laugh: It varies by state, but here in NJ unemployment covers 60% of your previous pay, up to a maximum of $584/week (equivalent to roughly $30k salary).

So if you were poor before you were on unemployment, you're even more poor on it. If you made plenty of money before you were on unemployment, unemployment pays a small fraction of what you previously made. Unemployment is not an incentive to not work. It keeps your head above water long enough to find another job.

The problem is that there are many adults who rely on income from part-time jobs just as much as people with full-time jobs rely on their income. They need unemployment benefits just as much as anyone else.
Click to expand...

you have got to be kidding me. Heres a story from experience. A plumber's assistant here earns about $15/hr so he brings home about 480 a week. He QUITS (not fired) and applies for unemployment compensation. He gets it and gets about $360 for sitting on his ass when theres work available.

There is another lady who worked as a secretary for about 4 months before we couldnt take any more of her and let her go. She applied for unemployment. Understandable, she was fired. Looking back through her resume her past jobs were all for about 4-6 months with a month gap between of all of them. She had about 4 jobs on there.

Were a small ass company and I know of 2 other examples just off of the top of my head. Out of ~20 people who have been involved with the company there were at least 4 of them who got unemployment benefits and didnt need them. Thats a pretty large percentage if you ask me.

I guess my point is that its a broken system that is an incentive for people to stay unemployed. The economic fundamentals of this plan are just retarded.
 
Hmmmm, ya know I could have taken unemployment a number of times. Never did. Now that I can't get a job - NOW... I kind of wish I did. So.... Will they just hand it out to you if you've been working for the past 25 years and never taken it out but you still can't find a job? What the hell.... What if NO one will hire you then what do you do?

 
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123125893419357707.html

Ive got a great idea... lets take money away from the things that create jobs (businesses) and create an incentive for people to stay out of work longer! I sure hope this is a huge F-ing joke.
Click to expand...

That would be true, IF businesses were there to provide decent jobs. But they're not. They've become a vessel to make the rich richer for doing next to nothing, and hire as few people as possible at the lowest wages allowed by law with a complete lack of meaningful benefits. Until businesses start caring about the employees they don't deserve any support.
Click to expand...
The only flaw in your reasoning is that you neglect to mention that ANYONE can start their own company, and all employment is voluntary. Employees are truly the ones in power, not the other way around. There is no basis to have sympathy when both parties are operating voluntarily.
Click to expand...

Employment is voluntary just like taking a shit is voluntary. Sure you make a voluntary decision to do it, but good luck trying to live your life without shitting.
 
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123125893419357707.html

Ive got a great idea... lets take money away from the things that create jobs (businesses) and create an incentive for people to stay out of work longer! I sure hope this is a huge F-ing joke.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those huuuuuuge unemployment checks are a big incentive to stay out of work. :laugh: It varies by state, but here in NJ unemployment covers 60% of your previous pay, up to a maximum of $584/week (equivalent to roughly $30k salary).

So if you were poor before you were on unemployment, you're even more poor on it. If you made plenty of money before you were on unemployment, unemployment pays a small fraction of what you previously made. Unemployment is not an incentive to not work. It keeps your head above water long enough to find another job.

The problem is that there are many adults who rely on income from part-time jobs just as much as people with full-time jobs rely on their income. They need unemployment benefits just as much as anyone else.
Click to expand...

you have got to be kidding me. Heres a story from experience. A plumber's assistant here earns about $15/hr so he brings home about 480 a week. He QUITS (not fired) and applies for unemployment compensation. He gets it and gets about $360 for sitting on his ass when theres work available.
Click to expand...

Should not have even received unemployment. States make it worthwhile for companies to contest invalid unemployment claims. I have no idea why the plumber didn't contest it.

There is another lady who worked as a secretary for about 4 months before we couldnt take any more of her and let her go. She applied for unemployment. Understandable, she was fired. Looking back through her resume her past jobs were all for about 4-6 months with a month gap between of all of them. She had about 4 jobs on there.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're point is here. 1 month is a reasonable amount of time to find a job. If she wanted to milk unemployment, she would have waited until the end of the second month to start looking. I don't think I've ever even had a job where there was less than a month between my first interview and the offer.

Were a small ass company and I know of 2 other examples just off of the top of my head. Out of ~20 people who have been involved with the company there were at least 4 of them who got unemployment benefits and didnt need them. Thats a pretty large percentage if you ask me.
Click to expand...

What is your basis for saying they "didn't need" unemployment benefits?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top