Unemployed in FL may have to volunteer to get benefit checks

[Powermoloch]

sounds great, this gives incentives for people to look for a real job :thumbsup:. Plus for the meantime, it keeps people busy and help the local community.

 

[alkemyst]

He's not arguing semantics, he's arguing your ridiculous definition of slavery, which is somewhat amorphous now it seems. You call it slavery in one breath, and then you basically call it a job in another.

Define slavery for us before you continue, please, because PERFORMING LABOR in exchange for MONEY is called a job in just about every part of the world.



The employee, who is the one receiving the benefits, does not enter into any contract, does not pay any premiums, and otherwise has absolutely nothing invested in the process. It is a system set up between the State and employers, and despite it being termed "insurance", it is quite literally simply a welfare system. "Unemployment Compensation" is the official term, insurance is not mentioned.

If your claim is based on the premise that there cannot be any conditions placed upon receipt of benefits, then you're already on the losing side of the argument, since there are plenty of conditions already in the law.

The way the system is now, the unemployed person receives benefits for X weeks, and is only required to show that they are "looking" for work. When the number of unemployed keeps going up, benefits paid increases, while taxes collected decreases. When the government keeps extending the weeks paid out, that compounds the problem.

The solution is to either increase revenue, or decrease benefits. Increasing revenue would mean increasing taxes charged to employers, which would likely decrease the potential for new employment, compounding the problem more. Only logical solution would be to decrease benefits paid, either through a decrease in payment per individual, or number of individuals paid.

This proposal both allows for a period of time in which the unemployed person can receive benefits for free, as well as a period of time in which the unemployed person can essentially receive a part-time job from the state. This will encourage some people to look harder for a job, or to accept an adequate job that they otherwise may not, as well as improve the community through whatever service projects the unemployed participate in.

Despite your attempts to play word games and redefine concepts, that's exactly what is going on, and the argument cannot be broken.

it doesnt matter if the employer or employee paid for those 'hours', they were paid.

what's next having retirees working for the employer-covered portion of SS?

you do not understand the thing you are arguing and are probably of the mindset these people got something for nothing.

 

[PeshakJang]

it doesnt matter if the employer or employee paid for those 'hours', they were paid.

what's next having retirees working for the employer-covered portion of SS?

you do not understand the thing you are arguing and are probably of the mindset these people got something for nothing.

I asked several questions and made several points in my post, with reasoned arguments, and you failed to address any of them.

I understand perfectly well what I am arguing. You, on the other hand, keep redefining the argument and throwing out analogies which don't address the issue at all.

SS is structured completely different from UC, and serves a different purpose.

And your statement that the "hours were paid" is just flat out disingenuous. The amount paid by the employer was established based on numbers and trends that would lead to a sustainable system. That is no longer the case, so as I laid out the options in my previous post, the system needs to change.

And, as you failed to address, there is absolutely NOTHING different from the proposed changes, and a system that provided for a limited period of free benefits, and then a paid government part-time job. If that system had come first, nobody would have a problem, but to address your last sarcastic point, YES, these people are getting something for nothing, so it is not unreasonable AT ALL to place reasonable conditions upon that support so that the system is sustainable for others to take advantage of.

If you are going to continue to make one-line arguments that attempt to redefine the argument or otherwise evade logical debate, then there's nothing I can do to help you. My arguments cannot be broken, but you aren't even trying.

 

[alkemyst]

I asked several questions and made several points in my post, with reasoned arguments, and you failed to address any of them.

You are being too verbose and overly wordy which is part of the problem...throwing more or bigger words out doesn't make anyone more right. My reply came from my mobile device.

I understand perfectly well what I am arguing. You, on the other hand, keep redefining the argument and throwing out analogies which don't address the issue at all.

SS is structured completely different from UC, and serves a different purpose.

How so? Both are insurance policies where the pay in less than the pay out. With UI, the wages are covered through the premiums. If an employer is paying it, indirectly it comes out of either wages or passed on to the consumer which then is usually the same people.

And your statement that the "hours were paid" is just flat out disingenuous. The amount paid by the employer was established based on numbers and trends that would lead to a sustainable system. That is no longer the case, so as I laid out the options in my previous post, the system needs to change.

Then you would also be against SS. However, you cannot change the rules after someone as paid in. If they were to revamp SS they'd have to have all new hires to the workforce on a different system to be fair.

And, as you failed to address, there is absolutely NOTHING different from the proposed changes, and a system that provided for a limited period of free benefits, and then a paid government part-time job. If that system had come first, nobody would have a problem, but to address your last sarcastic point, YES, these people are getting something for nothing, so it is not unreasonable AT ALL to place reasonable conditions upon that support so that the system is sustainable for others to take advantage of.

You cannot force someone to be underemployed, the idea behind unemployment insurance is to find a replacement job not go down to the labor pool and thumb up odd jobs. A part time job does not replace a full time one. Also the whole idea of this policy is to give people time to find jobs as working and looking for a job at higher levels doesn't work to well.

If you are going to continue to make one-line arguments that attempt to redefine the argument or otherwise evade logical debate, then there's nothing I can do to help you. My arguments cannot be broken, but you aren't even trying.

Because you are being subjective instead of objective. You feel these people are milking something they are not.

This is why my SS analogy and Homeowner's Insurance one fits. The payouts are more than the pay in's usually for an affected individual. This is the 'socialist' nature of it and needed to make it work.

Why have UI if there are going to be guaranteed jobs for everyone? This is where your argument breaks down.

 

[PeshakJang]

You are being too verbose and overly wordy which is part of the problem...throwing more or bigger words out doesn't make anyone more right.

My arguments are sound. I'm sorry if I articulated them too well.

How so? Both are insurance policies where the pay in less than the pay out. With UI, the wages are covered through the premiums. If an employer is paying it, indirectly it comes out of either wages or passed on to the consumer which then is usually the same people.

NO. This is what you base the majority of your argument on, and as I pointed out, that's simply not the case. It's "insurance" only as it's been labeled by it's function. It's social welfare, NOT an insurance policy, and the "premiums" aren't premiums, it's a tax on employers, set aside for a specific purpose. Other than the function of the system, it is NOT in any way an insurance policy, and no contracts are involved.

Then you would also be against SS. However, you cannot change the rules after someone as paid in. If they were to revamp SS they'd have to have all new hires to the workforce on a different system to be fair.

I'm sure the changes would apply to new applicants only, as the turnover rate for filing claims is somewhat regular. I am against SS with respect to the age you can receive benefits not going up to account for increasingly long-living population.

You cannot force someone to be underemployed, the idea behind unemployment insurance is to find a replacement job not go down to the labor pool and thumb up odd jobs. A part time job does not replace a full time one. Also the whole idea of this policy is to give people time to find jobs as working and looking for a job at higher levels doesn't work to well.

So now you are arguing that people should not be forced to take a job they don't want. So you suggest that we should pay everyone until they find a job equal to what they used to get paid, in the field that they used to work in? What if real wages in that field have decreased significantly?

Because you are being subjective instead of objective. You feel these people are milking something they are not.

All of the arguments I have laid out are completely objective. That's why you haven't been able to break any of them, and you haven't answered any of my questions directly.

This is why my SS analogy and Homeowner's Insurance one fits. The payouts are more than the pay in's usually for an affected individual. This is the 'socialist' nature of it and needed to make it work.

NO. As I said, again, actual insurance contracts have a completely different basis and form than UC. UC is social welfare, and only functions as "insurance" through the fact that it is conditional on an unforeseen event.

Why have UI if there are going to be guaranteed jobs for everyone? This is where your argument breaks down.

No, my argument stands. There will ALWAYS be fewer jobs than there are workers in the labor pool. Do you suggest that we pay those who are unemployed indefinitely? That's welfare, not insurance.

The system is supposed to provide a limited period of support to allow an individual to seek reemployment. After a limited period of time, what is unreasonable with providing somebody with a temporary, part-time government job, at the same pay they were previously receiving for free? You continually fail to address that, and instead rely on false arguments of entitlement and contractual obligations.

 

[alkemyst]

My arguments are sound. I'm sorry if I articulated them too well.

It's not articulation, it's like approach by shotgun. Less is more on a forum...this is already getting far to long-winded.

NO. This is what you base the majority of your argument on, and as I pointed out, that's simply not the case. It's "insurance" only as it's been labeled by it's function. It's social welfare, NOT an insurance policy, and the "premiums" aren't premiums, it's a tax on employers, set aside for a specific purpose. Other than the function of the system, it is NOT in any way an insurance policy, and no contracts are involved.

There are no contracts? WHAT?!?!

Furthermore, they can't collect on something and then hold a carrot to get it back. It's not their money. It's a vested interest for the EMPLOYEE.

I'm sure the changes would apply to new applicants only, as the turnover rate for filing claims is somewhat regular. I am against SS with respect to the age you can receive benefits not going up to account for increasingly long-living population.

This is where it's clear your views. Let's just change the rules after our people have paid in a lifetime for a benefit.

So now you are arguing that people should not be forced to take a job they don't want. So you suggest that we should pay everyone until they find a job equal to what they used to get paid, in the field that they used to work in? What if real wages in that field have decreased significantly?

No that's not what I said at all. You cannot throw someone into underemployment and then say "they are ok now". This is why the payouts are capped and there is a time limit.

I guess in your model if a $100k/year employee could find a minimum wage job the same day they are laid off that they should get no benefits. It that minimum wage job dries up in a week or two, they are on their own.

All of the arguments I have laid out are completely objective. That's why you haven't been able to break any of them, and you haven't answered any of my questions directly.

I have broken them, you simply do not understand the argument like I have said. You thinking there is no contract in this shows this.

NO. As I said, again, actual insurance contracts have a completely different basis and form than UC. UC is social welfare, and only functions as "insurance" through the fact that it is conditional on an unforeseen event.

It's different in your eyes...not really how either works. Both are the same in reality.

No, my argument stands. There will ALWAYS be fewer jobs than there are workers in the labor pool. Do you suggest that we pay those who are unemployed indefinitely? That's welfare, not insurance.

There is a time limit in place on unemployment benefits, it's not life-time.

The system is supposed to provide a limited period of support to allow an individual to seek reemployment. After a limited period of time, what is unreasonable with providing somebody with a temporary, part-time government job, at the same pay they were previously receiving for free? You continually fail to address that, and instead rely on false arguments of entitlement and contractual obligations.

It is a limited period though. It's not perpetual.

 

[xj0hnx]

It's not articulation, it's like approach by shotgun. Less is more on a forum...this is already getting far to long-winded.

His argument is sound, and clear, you calling it "long winded" because you don't want to acknowledge it is silly.

I guess in your model if a $100k/year employee could find a minimum wage job the same day they are laid off that they should get no benefits. It that minimum wage job dries up in a week or two, they are on their own.

If that minimum wage job dries up then they look for more work, or go on unemployment.

 

[PeshakJang]

It's not articulation, it's like approach by shotgun. Less is more on a forum...this is already getting far to long-winded.

I'm not going to dumb-down my arguments so you can follow along. That's the problem. I am articulating my position, and you are simply stomping your feet and insisting on something that simply isn't so.

There are no contracts? WHAT?!?!

What contract is signed between the state and employer or employee which says that in the event of unemployment, you are guaranteed to receive benefits in X amount with Y conditions? Does the employee or employer have a written insurance policy with their name on it, stating the benefits they will receive for paying X premiums every month?

Furthermore, they can't collect on something and then hold a carrot to get it back. It's not their money. It's a vested interest for the EMPLOYEE.

If that is your argument, you are saying that the government can't collect ANY tax. That's what this is, it's a TAX. Those TAX revenues are used to support the unemployment compensation fund. It is NOT an insurance premium. Stop basing your entire argument on a premise that has been shown as false.

This is where it's clear your views. Let's just change the rules after our people have paid in a lifetime for a benefit.

The employee hasn't paid in a dime. If we change the rules now, or if we changed them 20 years ago, it would not IN ANY WAY affect new filers, since THEY NEVER PAID A DIME.

No that's not what I said at all. You cannot throw someone into underemployment and then say "they are ok now". This is why the payouts are capped and there is a time limit.

I guess in your model if a $100k/year employee could find a minimum wage job the same day they are laid off that they should get no benefits. It that minimum wage job dries up in a week or two, they are on their own.

I never made that argument, or anything like it... and FL law states that appropriate employment is at compensations levels up to X% below their previous compensation levels. (like 20% or something). Wold you argue that this is unfair too? If unemployment compensation is based on your previous salary, how would performing what amounts to a part-time job temporarily, based on the compensation that reflects you previous income, be unfair?

I have broken them, you simply do not understand the argument like I have said. You thinking there is no contract in this shows this.

Please show me the contract. I am tizzy with anticipation.

It's different in your eyes...not really how either works. Both are the same in reality.

Wrong in so many ways, as already clearly laid out.

There is a time limit in place on unemployment benefits, it's not life-time.

It is a limited period though. It's not perpetual.

And when that time period is continually extended without an appropriate increase in tax revenue to support it, it doesn't matter if it isn't indefinite... it's going to fail.

I expect your next reply to be a link to an unemployment insurance contract between an employee, employer, and the state.

 

[PeshakJang]

Here's in response to your claim that somebody working for $100,000 a year going to a job paying minimum wage would be worse off:

[SIZE=-1](a)1. Each otherwise eligible individual is entitled during any benefit year to a total amount of benefits equal to 25 percent of the total wages in his or her base period, not to exceed $7,150.
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

So in FL, the most any one person can receive in benefits for 1 year is $7,150. A minimum wage job in FL pays $7.25/hr. At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that is a little more than $15,000.

So basically, anybody receiving unemployment compensation would BENEFIT from a job paying minimum wage, even if they only worked 20 hours a week. Arguing that somebody should stay on UC until they find a comparable salary, no matter how long it takes, is factually ignorant.

EDIT: More statutes

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]
443.1115 Extended benefits.-- [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](1) DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section, the term: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](a) "Extended benefit period" means a period that: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]1. Begins with the third week after a week for which there is a state "on" indicator; and [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2. Ends with either of the following weeks, whichever occurs later: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]a. The third week after the first week for which there is a state "off" indicator; or [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]b. The 13th consecutive week of that period.

However, an extended benefit period may not begin by reason of a state "on" indicator before the 14th week after the end of a prior extended benefit period that was in effect for this state. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b) "State 'on' indicator" means the occurrence of a week in which the rate of insured unemployment under state law, not seasonally adjusted, for the period consisting of that week and the 12 weeks immediately preceding it:
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

So it looks like normal unemployment compensation provides for 13 weeks, and after that, it is extended benefits for 13 weeks. If you want to keep arguing that people paid their "premiums", I would argue that they paid premiums based on basic coverage, and the extended coverage is paid for by extraordinary sources, namely the general fund.

EDIT: final nail in your argument's coffin:

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1](6) TRUST FUND SOLE SOURCE FOR BENEFITS.--The Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund is the sole and exclusive source for paying unemployment benefits, and these benefits are due and payable only to the extent that contributions or reimbursements, with increments thereon, actually collected and credited to the fund and not otherwise appropriated or allocated, are available for payment. The state shall administer the fund without any liability on the part of the state beyond the amount of moneys received from the United States Department of Labor or other federal agency.
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

So extended benefits are reimbursed by federal tax dollars, and the state is ONLY LIABLE to pay out compensation if it has the money in the unemployment compensation fund. Once that fund runs out, the state has NO OBLIGATION to pay anyone a dime. Look at me with a straight face and tell me that this is still an insurance policy or a contractual agreement in any way.
[/SIZE]

 

[alkemyst]

Here's in response to your claim that somebody working for $100,000 a year going to a job paying minimum wage would be worse off:

[SIZE=-1]

So in FL, the most any one person can receive in benefits for 1 year is $7,150. A minimum wage job in FL pays $7.25/hr. At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that is a little more than $15,000.

So basically, anybody receiving unemployment compensation would BENEFIT from a job paying minimum wage, even if they only worked 20 hours a week. Arguing that somebody should stay on UC until they find a comparable salary, no matter how long it takes, is factually ignorant.

You realize the unemployment is paid out over 26 weeks right, not a full year. It's still less than minimum wage, however; not everyone can get a minimum wage job.

This is what people are missing. Chances are if you have multiple PH.D's and are applying at Target, they are going to not consider you because they know your aren't looking for long term work.

EDIT: More statutes

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

So it looks like normal unemployment compensation provides for 13 weeks, and after that, it is extended benefits for 13 weeks. If you want to keep arguing that people paid their "premiums", I would argue that they paid premiums based on basic coverage, and the extended coverage is paid for by extraordinary sources, namely the general fund.

No, the entire pool is covered under the same payments. After 13 years things change though so it's more of acknowleging things are dire than anything else.

EDIT: final nail in your argument's coffin:

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

So extended benefits are reimbursed by federal tax dollars, and the state is ONLY LIABLE to pay out compensation if it has the money in the unemployment compensation fund. Once that fund runs out, the state has NO OBLIGATION to pay anyone a dime. Look at me with a straight face and tell me that this is still an insurance policy or a contractual agreement in any way.
[/SIZE]

[/quote]

This is how much of insurance works. When Florida insurers were hit in our hurricanes they went to outside money.

 

[alkemyst]

His argument is sound, and clear, you calling it "long winded" because you don't want to acknowledge it is silly.



If that minimum wage job dries up then they look for more work, or go on unemployment.

The problem is you don't just turn back on the UI. It usually takes at least a pay period to get started again.

When you are down to living paycheck to paycheck and miss one, things sometimes aren't salvagable.

This is why there is a suitable work clause.

 

[alkemyst]

I'm not going to dumb-down my arguments so you can follow along. That's the problem. I am articulating my position, and you are simply stomping your feet and insisting on something that simply isn't so.

I can agree with that. I mean heck, it's up to the audience to understand their speaker. If they don't well they can just bob their heads along to the sounds. They better clap at certain pauses or I am just going to storm out. They should know I know how to eloquently use long words and articulate simple subject matter into tomes of text. I am the King of the Internet. Now you know.

What contract is signed between the state and employer or employee which says that in the event of unemployment, you are guaranteed to receive benefits in X amount with Y conditions? Does the employee or employer have a written insurance policy with their name on it, stating the benefits they will receive for paying X premiums every month?

Lolwut? There are tons of commerce law/rules that are not signed. Did you sign anything that states if you rob a bank, you are agreeing to serve time?

However, the rules for it all are very well listed and all the forms are out there.

If that is your argument, you are saying that the government can't collect ANY tax. That's what this is, it's a TAX. Those TAX revenues are used to support the unemployment compensation fund. It is NOT an insurance premium. Stop basing your entire argument on a premise that has been shown as false.

No, never said that. I said in the current system there is already an agreement on what's expected. They could change it going forward definitely. However, if they are going to gain free employment out of it (which if there was work to do then their shouldn't be all this unemployment to begin with) then they shouldn't require businesses to pay for that.

The employee hasn't paid in a dime. If we change the rules now, or if we changed them 20 years ago, it would not IN ANY WAY affect new filers, since THEY NEVER PAID A DIME.

I never paid a dime for much of my employee benefits, it's indeed part of my compensation footprint though when reviewed.

I never made that argument, or anything like it... and FL law states that appropriate employment is at compensations levels up to X% below their previous compensation levels. (like 20% or something). Wold you argue that this is unfair too? If unemployment compensation is based on your previous salary, how would performing what amounts to a part-time job temporarily, based on the compensation that reflects you previous income, be unfair?

I am not sure what you are ranting here. No one is saying it's a ton of money, but hitting the max thresholds isn't that hard.

The thing with doing short-term part time jobs is you can't just restart unemployment instantly. If that were the case it wouldn't be so bad. Maybe someone finds a 2 week job that pays a flat $750. Problem is they go off UI. When the job is done, then they can reapply. You are talking usually at least 2 weeks. Basically you lose a whole paycheck.

This is where Nerd CEOing fails, they don't understand anything about the core arguments and logistics involved in delivering them.

Please show me the contract. I am tizzy with anticipation.

You serious? Go to the any of the Unemployment webpages and download all the legalize to your heart's content.

Wrong in so many ways, as already clearly laid out.

Your rage that people are someone getting something for nothing has you blinded.

And when that time period is continually extended without an appropriate increase in tax revenue to support it, it doesn't matter if it isn't indefinite... it's going to fail.

I expect your next reply to be a link to an unemployment insurance contract between an employee, employer, and the state.

Normally it's not continually extended. In the past it was pretty impossible to go the full 26 weeks.

Are you from Florida? There is indeed a major problem in our state.

We put out a job offer on craigslist 2 years ago before it was as bad as now. The job was to pack boxes for a relocation of a large office. $10/hour 1099 pay and we'd provide lunch. It was a 3-4 weeks, but non-contract.

We had thousands of applications from people even willing to drive 2 hours for the fucking job.

In reviewing the apps who's going to be the best candidate to me? Mr. Berhard, ex-Vice President of Lending at one of the closed down banks here or Sonny G, who lists DJing and Burger King? I have a month to get my stuff packed. Chances are Sonny G may miss a day or two, but Mr. Berhard may call in the next day saying he no longer needs the position.

It's dire times for many.