Unemployed in FL may have to volunteer to get benefit checks

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Is this a good idea?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Being underemployed is almost as bad as unemployed.

That depends on how much you are willing to change your lifestyle. If you got used to living on $60,000 a year, and suddenly you find a new job that only pays $50,000, don't act like it's the end of the world. Lifestyle is dependent on income, not the other way around, which is what many people want to think.

Yeah, $30,000 a year from $100,000 previously is going to hurt, but most people who are willing to live a more frugal lifestyle are more than capable of taking a small to moderate pay cut.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Ditto. I think you should probably be entitled to whatever the original unemployment was (26 weeks?) since your employer paid that benefit, but any extension beyond that should require you to work in some form.
Well said. The unemployed deserve the benefit of the contractual period (I believe you are correct that it is 26 weeks) as that is part of your compensation (i.e. part of the cost of employing you.) After that, put them to work for maybe 10 to 20 hours a week, still leaves lots of time for job hunting and gets some productive work done as well. Anyone who can't be bothered to find a baby sitter for 10 to 20 hours a week probably can't be bothered to look for a job either, but some of the people doing their "benefits service" can serve as day care. That would also be true for children of those not currently doing their "benefits service" but actually job hunting.
 

Trell

Member
Oct 28, 2003
170
38
101
I have said this for years. Make people work a minimal amount doing projects for the community (if possible within their fields), but still leave them time to look for jobs.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
I have said this for years. Make people work a minimal amount doing projects for the community (if possible within their fields), but still leave them time to look for jobs.



I'm trying to resist the temptation to make an (unhelpful) comment regarding the abundance of volunteers on Tuesdays, (when the World of Warcraft servers are down for maintenance), and increased sales of Hot Pockets and Red Bull.


But I think I ended up doing so anyhow... :whiste:
 

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,917
23
81
Yes, dead serious. You've had people "actively looking for work" for three years in your area? Maybe they should try what a rational person would do and try another area. Three fucking years? You could walk across the country in three years, Hell you could go to school and learn a new skill and get another job in three years. It's absurd that people are taking three years to find a job, I don't care how old you are. Waiting around for your dream job is bullshit, take what you can get until something better comes along.

God, you're dumb.


---------------------------
Both now have gotten PMs regarding this trolling/insulting/crapping/etc.

Cease before it turns into a vacation

Common Courtesy
AT Admin
 
Last edited by a moderator:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Are you another poster who's responses typically include, and are totally comprised of, "Fail"? Just wondering....
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
God, you're dumb.

God you're dumb too, but you being stupid doesn't change the fact that if you can't find a job in three years you are fail, maybe that's why you so mad, fail at finding a job?

Are you another poster who's responses typically include, and are totally comprised of, "Fail"? Just wondering....

Yea, just another troll dropping simple sentences because it's easier than actually forming an argument.
 

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,917
23
81
God you're dumb too, but you being stupid doesn't change the fact that if you can't find a job in three years you are fail, maybe that's why you so mad, fail at finding a job?



Yea, just another troll dropping simple sentences because it's easier than actually forming an argument.

Oh, you're from Texas.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I'm trying to resist the temptation to make an (unhelpful) comment regarding the abundance of volunteers on Tuesdays, (when the World of Warcraft servers are down for maintenance), and increased sales of Hot Pockets and Red Bull.


But I think I ended up doing so anyhow... :whiste:
LOL!

I too know people who have been unemployed for two to three years, supposedly waiting on a plant to return which is never going to happen. I can guarantee that if those people were forced to pick up trash or paint a school or something similar, then they would actually look for a job rather than just asserting that a job is not out there. That doesn't necessarily mean they would find one though; there are honestly fewer jobs available than there are unemployed, and personally I wouldn't hire someone who had been unemployed for two years unless he/she had a spectacular explanation.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Yea, just another troll dropping simple sentences because it's easier than actually forming an argument.

I know, it reminded me so much of the one we're both thinking of, that I had to ask. I know P&N has very relaxed rules, but I do wish the more trollish posters would at least get a public warning to include a sentence or two in a post. "Fail", or what this troll is doing, just derails threads even more...and I can understand someone posting it once in a while, or it being posted frequently be different members, but when such a high % of the time it's stuff like this, by one poster, something needs to be done. I seriously don't know if this is the same poster by another account, or, truly someone different....

Chuck
 
Last edited:

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,960
140
106
good way to fend off complacency and stay in the behavior of "work".
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
I know, it reminded me so much of the one we're both thinking of, that I had to ask. I know P&N has very relaxed rules, but I do wish the more trollish posters would at least get a public warning to include a sentence or two in a post. "Fail", or what this troll is doing, just derails threads even more...and I can understand someone posting it once in a while, or it being posted frequently be different members, but when such a high % of the time it's stuff like this, by one poster, something needs to be done. I seriously don't know if this is the same poster by another account, or, truly someone different....

Chuck

More than likely his sock account.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
I don't think it's the same person xj0hnx, there's not enough capital letters inappropriately used to be the same person. Is having another one like him, instead of it being the same person, better or worse? Not sure...
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Lets get this thread back on track or it will be locked.

Common Courtesy
At Admin
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
I have said this for years. Make people work a minimal amount doing projects for the community (if possible within their fields), but still leave them time to look for jobs.

that's slavery still. The current system would need to be entirely changed.

You would have to create enough government jobs then so each person can volunteer to be paid.

This would be called part-time employment at that point.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
that's slavery still. The current system would need to be entirely changed.

You would have to create enough government jobs then so each person can volunteer to be paid.

This would be called part-time employment at that point.

Slavery is defined as forced to work and you are property of someone.. neither condition is meet by requiring work for unemployment benefits. You have choice not to take benefit as well as not owned by anyone.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
LOL!

I too know people who have been unemployed for two to three years, supposedly waiting on a plant to return which is never going to happen. I can guarantee that if those people were forced to pick up trash or paint a school or something similar, then they would actually look for a job rather than just asserting that a job is not out there. That doesn't necessarily mean they would find one though; there are honestly fewer jobs available than there are unemployed, and personally I wouldn't hire someone who had been unemployed for two years unless he/she had a spectacular explanation.

Me neither. I would not hire fat people either since if you can't respect your body how you gonna respect my bottom line? Smokers either who waste time smoking not to mention stinking up the place and goes to respect for yourself.
 
Last edited:

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
You would have to create enough government jobs then so each person can volunteer to be paid.

You could always join the army. A couple weeks ago we had a thread in ATOT where numerous people said that assholes in the military kept calling them and offering jobs. Like wtf. No I don't want a job, leave me the fuck alone!

Amerika is so broken that I can't even sit on my parents couch and smoke a bowl without some dick begging me to work for him :colbert:
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Slavery is defined as forced to work and you are property of someone.. neither condition is meet by requiring work for unemployment benefits. You have choice not to take benefit as well as not owned by anyone.

You are speaking on semantics now. I don't think anyone is literally meaning those people would be reclassified as slaves.

However, it's illegal to make someone work for no wages. You can't say I will give you a day off during the week if you work both saturday and sunday for free.

It'd be like a homeowner's insurance company saying we will pay your claim, but you have to work off the payment by volunteering in the office.

They can't change the contractual agreement at a whim.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
You could always join the army. A couple weeks ago we had a thread in ATOT where numerous people said that assholes in the military kept calling them and offering jobs. Like wtf. No I don't want a job, leave me the fuck alone!

Amerika is so broken that I can't even sit on my parents couch and smoke a bowl without some dick begging me to work for him :colbert:

How do you handle the majority of 30+ year olds with families? How about 40+, 50+?
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
However, it's illegal to make someone work for no wages. You can't say I will give you a day off during the week if you work both saturday and sunday for free.

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.

It'd be like a homeowner's insurance company saying we will pay your claim, but you have to work off the payment by volunteering in the office.

They can't change the contractual agreement at a whim.

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.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
How do you handle the majority of 30+ year olds with families? How about 40+, 50+?

Short of joining the Army, which I believe he was being facetious about, there is nothing about the proposed program that negatively affects anybody.

If you are 30+, 40+, or 50+ with a family, and claim you cannot take a part-time job because it would put too much strain on your family, then you are already disqualified from receiving benefits, since you are unable to currently accept employment. I'll say again, there is absolutely NOTHING different between the proposed changes, and taking a regular part-time job.