Unemnployment insurance increased to 99 weeks. Socialist Amerika :(

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
^ Oh, and I'm sure this won't delay the unemployed from looking for jobs and getting training in fields with actual futures. 20 hours a week can't possibly stop someone from accomplishing the exact same goals in the same amount of time as compared to an alternate scenario where they don't have to worry about trash.

after they have cleaned up all the trash we can have 50% of them dig a hole and 50% of them fill in a hole :D
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
It wouldn't be that hard to say "in order to get UE benefits you must sign up with Caltrans and do at least 2 days a week." The bodies are already in place to use people in order to pick up trash.

Substitute Caltrans for whatever it's called in your city/county/state.

You have to go through CDT to work for Caltrans as in pass a background check, and upon passing it then have to tell CDT to magically find the funds to pay for the expensive insurance that Caltrans requires for their employees, the administration necessary to coordinate their hours, as well as the training itself. Not to mention there's a bias for those that do not pass criminal background checks, so if the penalty is no UE benefits you're essentially reinforcing criminal activity in anyone with anything but a clean record.

Really, it's just a terrible idea if you've ever, well, worked.
 
Last edited:

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
First, you ignored my post about Caltrans and community service. We already have these systems in place for people all we have to do is couple it with unemployment benefits and we'll actually get them to do work for us while paying them. Kind of fucks up your whole argument about having to spend millions/billions to get it in place.

nvm you didn't ignore it for some reason it never appeared. Anyways, what the hell are you talking about having to go through a backroudn check to work for caltrans, motherfuckers are on the side of the freeway picking up trash or on the beach picking up trash because they have to do community service. People do Caltrans all the time as community service. I don't see how hard it would be to just get the people in there to do some community service.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I really don't understand how anyone can support paying someone NOT to work.

Here is an idea, you want help from the government? Go pick up trash on the freeway. Go do some job for the government that benefits the taxpayer.

Originally unemployment is a sort of enforced, government-operated insurance. Money is taken from your check while you are working to build a fund to pay you part of your income if you get laid off. It's only during an especially severe recession like this one that the funds dry up and it becomes a form of welfare. I support that completely, in both forms. it's also worth pointing out that there are almost no jobs in some areas, certainly not enough to make a dent in unemployment.

That said, I certainly support requiring community service (trash pick-up, child care, urban renewal, fence painting or whatever unskilled labor) for 20 hours a week in order to get your unemployment at least after a year if not sooner. I do know a few people whose 92 weeks have run out; they have been literally sitting home smoking cigarettes (NOT cheap!) and watching cable waiting for "the plant" to return from China or Mexico for more than two years. It's become their life. If nothing else, getting them out of the house for 20 hours a week would be good for them. And I certainly don't buy the idea that this will cut their chances of finding a job. I regularly work 20 hours or more a week of unpaid overtime, they could certainly spend the same giving back to those who pay their benefits beyond the program's self-funding.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
First, you ignored my post about Caltrans and community service. We already have these systems in place for people all we have to do is couple it with unemployment benefits and we'll actually get them to do work for us while paying them. Kind of fucks up your whole argument about having to spend millions/billions to get it in place.

nvm you didn't ignore it for some reason it never appeared. Anyways, what the hell are you talking about having to go through a backroudn check to work for caltrans, motherfuckers are on the side of the freeway picking up trash or on the beach picking up trash because they have to do community service. People do Caltrans all the time as community service. I don't see how hard it would be to just get the people in there to do some community service.

Look, if you're going to claim Caltrans employees don't get background checks then you're going to have to back up (because it is, indeed, nonsense). Fact is all state/municipal workers in CA (can't speak with certainty for other states) go through background checks.

And again, no, it's just an absurd statement that adding 14.7M workers to programs like Caltrans can be handled with no additional cost overhead. Who handles administration, paperwork, background checks, coordinating meeting times, hours and locations, bussing, etc? It would be absurdly expensive. It's 14.7M people, not 1400.
 

bullbert

Senior member
May 24, 2004
717
0
0
You just admitted you are silver spooner which negates every single post you make as 110% bullshit.

You missed his point entirely (he must have struck a nerve). If you are not responsible enough to maintain your own finances, then you do not deserve any sympathy or any help. Check yourself into a rubber room if you refuse to take care of yourself.

Live within your means, and maintain 6 months minimized living costs in a saving-type account. It can not get any simpler than that.

I am willing to "help those you help themselves", but I refuse to help those who refuse to help themselves.

A reduction to 13 weeks makes more fiscal sense than any increase.