Unemployed in FL may have to volunteer to get benefit checks

Page 9 - 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.

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
26 weeks of unemployment insurance was paid for. Republican big government should not require people to work for insurance benefits that were already paid for by their employer.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
26 weeks of unemployment insurance was paid for. Republican big government should not require people to work for insurance benefits that were already paid for by their employer.

So, the team is now suggesting that after 12 weeks, the unemployed must start community service before they can get a check.

So now that your argument has fallen apart, you base your new false premise on the literal use of "insurance", when it is in reality no different than welfare.

Please quote me the law that says, "You are guaranteed 26 weeks of pay once you become eligible for this program."

If a program isn't sustainable in it's current form, realists modify the program to make it sustainable, liberals insist reality is wrong.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
The problem in this country with our social welfare system is when things you aspired to became rights.

I have no problem with the state helping people who show ambition and gumption but when it's taken for granted it wreaks things.

Education - grade inflation and semi poor schools since professors and teachers are pressured to get everyone through because after all they have a right to education.

Housing Bust - wanting every American to own a home at whatever crdit rating whatever down even no down.

Welfare and unemployment. Both doing nothing for something degrading job skills and teaching entitlement and sloth.

Aspiration all gone for rights.

I'd pretty much revamp everything. Student aid should require Bs. Welfare should require work. Housing should require 20% down.


Then again I think income and unions should be stronger to get that 20%.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
So now that your argument has fallen apart, you base your new false premise on the literal use of "insurance", when it is in reality no different than welfare.

Please quote me the law that says, "You are guaranteed 26 weeks of pay once you become eligible for this program."

If a program isn't sustainable in it's current form, realists modify the program to make it sustainable, liberals insist reality is wrong.

Again, if Floridians are so stupid as to allow their big Republican government to force them to work for free in order to qualify for the 26 weeks of unemployment benefits their employer already paid for, they are free to bend over, grab their ankles and take it.
 
Last edited:

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
I'd pretty much revamp everything. Student aid should require Bs. Welfare should require work. Housing should require 20% down.


Then again I think income and unions should be stronger to get that 20%.
If houses required 20% down, nobody would be able to buy one, then the prices would drop, then people would be able to buy one. It would work itself out. You wouldn't need a wage increase ;)

It's pretty much a fact that credit causes price inflation. If you take your mortgage over 20 years instead of 10 years, you can buy a house 50% more expensive (give or take) and still be able to make the monthly payments! So now everyone can afford a $300,000 house. 30 year mortgage? Now we can afford a $500,000 house. Of course there's still a limited number of houses on the market so all that really does is drive the price up and people become slaves who never get out of debt their whole lives.


To you guys arguing about how it's illegal to hand out pay cuts to cover the cost of insurance. The way around that is to lay down a pay freeze. Right now my friend is working at a place that has had frozen wages for the past 2 years now. To give everyone a pay cut without actually cutting their pay, all you need to do is freeze the wages until their effective wage drops due to inflation. Inflation in generally somewhere around 1-5% ballpark, so you can effectively slash wages by about 5% per year through inflation.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
The employees didn't pay it, and it is becoming Unemployment Welfare. How long can you draw UI? If someone can't find a job inside a fucking year they are a failure at life.

You serious? Maybe as a 18-23 year old kid, but all the 55-65 year olds that have been laid off are having hard times finding adequate employment. Being underemployed is almost as bad as unemployed.

There have been people actively looking for work in our area for over 3 years.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
If houses required 20% down, nobody would be able to buy one, then the prices would drop, then people would be able to buy one. It would work itself out. You wouldn't need a wage increase ;)

It's pretty much a fact that credit causes price inflation. If you take your mortgage over 20 years instead of 10 years, you can buy a house 50% more expensive (give or take) and still be able to make the monthly payments! So now everyone can afford a $300,000 house. 30 year mortgage? Now we can afford a $500,000 house. Of course there's still a limited number of houses on the market so all that really does is drive the price up and people become slaves who never get out of debt their whole lives.


To you guys arguing about how it's illegal to hand out pay cuts to cover the cost of insurance. The way around that is to lay down a pay freeze. Right now my friend is working at a place that has had frozen wages for the past 2 years now. To give everyone a pay cut without actually cutting their pay, all you need to do is freeze the wages until their effective wage drops due to inflation. Inflation in generally somewhere around 1-5% ballpark, so you can effectively slash wages by about 5% per year through inflation.

Excellent point Shawn. I think we saw what easy money did to house prices last 10 years... In some places they went up 25% a year.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
The problem in this country with our social welfare system is when things you aspired to became rights.

I have no problem with the state helping people who show ambition and gumption but when it's taken for granted it wreaks things.

Education - grade inflation and semi poor schools since professors and teachers are pressured to get everyone through because after all they have a right to education.

Housing Bust - wanting every American to own a home at whatever crdit rating whatever down even no down.

Welfare and unemployment. Both doing nothing for something degrading job skills and teaching entitlement and sloth.

Aspiration all gone for rights.

I'd pretty much revamp everything. Student aid should require Bs. Welfare should require work. Housing should require 20% down.


Then again I think income and unions should be stronger to get that 20%.

Zebo it's clear you live in cowtown where property is just about valueless. Aren't you on disability or something to that affect where you don't work?

The housing problem wasn't really just no money down as the problem. The main problem was qualifying the borrower at only the 'teaser' rate as well as not verifying their income. On top of that never verifying they weren't doing simultaneous closings.

What you had is flippers that worked at TGI Fridays saying they made $120k+ a year and then buying 4-5 houses the same week. In their minds they would unload them within a month or two.

That was the main issue as far as the private citizen. However, home builders got greedy and inflated prices by offering money back, free pools/cars/SUV's, trips, etc...it artificially bloated the market. You also had investor groups selling homes to each other boosting the prices with each sale. They'd do a couple spec homes and get the market up another 10-30% then sell everything to Joe Public.

You even had landlords turning shitty rental apartments into condos during this.

The main people that paid the price are those trying to keep their homes like myself that are now 2-3x+ underwater. My house is valued at $96k today. I bought only 2 years ago after the 'bubble' was supposedly done at $265k. If I sold today I'd have to stroke a check for close to $200k just to move. If I did have 20% into it, it'd be gone and if I was going to walk it wouldn't make a difference at that point.

Your life in the boonies is nothing like what most of corporate america have to deal with even when they are willing to subject themselves to 1hour+ commutes.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Zebo it's clear you live in cowtown where property is just about valueless. Aren't you on disability or something to that affect where you don't work?

The housing problem wasn't really just no money down as the problem. The main problem was qualifying the borrower at only the 'teaser' rate as well as not verifying their income. On top of that never verifying they weren't doing simultaneous closings.

What you had is flippers that worked at TGI Fridays saying they made $120k+ a year and then buying 4-5 houses the same week. In their minds they would unload them within a month or two.

That was the main issue as far as the private citizen. However, home builders got greedy and inflated prices by offering money back, free pools/cars/SUV's, trips, etc...it artificially bloated the market. You also had investor groups selling homes to each other boosting the prices with each sale. They'd do a couple spec homes and get the market up another 10-30% then sell everything to Joe Public.

You even had landlords turning shitty rental apartments into condos during this.

The main people that paid the price are those trying to keep their homes like myself that are now 2-3x+ underwater. My house is valued at $96k today. I bought only 2 years ago after the 'bubble' was supposedly done at $265k. If I sold today I'd have to stroke a check for close to $200k just to move. If I did have 20% into it, it'd be gone and if I was going to walk it wouldn't make a difference at that point.

Your life in the boonies is nothing like what most of corporate america have to deal with even when they are willing to subject themselves to 1hour+ commutes.

Disabled? where'd you get that? Anyway you got some of the housing stuff correct main thing is easy money like no income verification blowed up RE prices. 20% down is another facet of that since less people have 20%, less would have been able to buy and house price would be fairly stable and more importantly those that did buy would have skin in the game and not walk away in what's called a strategic default. With so many walking away this lowers prices more exacerbating fall causing more to walk and so on. You have not seen end yet due to this snowballing. Easy in easy out causes a harmful bubble. With skin in game on front end and back this is much less likely.

I live sorta rural but my house is still ~550K and mostly paid for since I built it.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
but any deduction would have happened years ago. and that change happened slowly and organically, not through overt changes. now? there's nothing to prosecute. wages/benefits have already become what they've become.

Only Alaska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania levy Unemployment Insurance taxes on workers. The tax base is that applicable to employers except in Pennsylvania where employee contributions are calculated on total gross covered wages paid for employment. Worker taxes are deducted by the employer from the worker’s pay and forwarded with the employer’s taxes to the state agency. In Alaska, the tax rate is equal to 20% of the average benefit cost rate, but not less than 0.5% or more than 1.0%. In New Jersey, the tax rate is 0.3825% effective July 1, 2004 and thereafter. Depending on the adequacy of the fund balance in a given year, Pennsylvania employees pay contributions ranging from 0.0% to 0.09% on total gross covered wages paid for employment.


A company that has a good accounting system can show the costs associated with each employee from salary to benefits and anything else.

You can't play both sides of the fence and claim on one hand a company with a good and proper accounting system somehow passes unemployment costs to the employee through lower wages which is against the law in 47 states and then claim you can't account for it in any manner so it must be taken on faith.

It is a feel good logical fallacy that is just as bad as believing that if a company is given a tax cut it will translate to better pay and higher employment also known as the trickle down theory.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Again, if Floridians are so stupid as to allow their big Republican government to force them to work for free in order to qualify for the 26 weeks of unemployment benefits their employer already paid for, they are free to bend over, grab their ankles and take it.

I can't believe you could form a statement so devoid of logic.

First of all, you keep making the ridiculously stupid statement, "force them to work for free"... in order to get paid. God damn the state forcing them to work for free to get paid. How is this any different from giving people jobs? Seeing as how it's extremely unlikely they would be performing any sort of hard labor, or putting in any substantial hours, and it'd be only after 12 free weeks, it's substantially better than a regular job. But in you wacky-libworld, free handouts help the community more than productive labor.

What happened to the Obama-Democrat Service Army? I thought it was every citizen's duty to volunteer for their community? Since we're PAYING people to do it, does that somehow make it a terrible idea now?


You just said yourself... the EMPLOYER pays the benefits, because the STATE thinks it is a good idea to provide relief to those out of work. The EMPLOYEE has absolutely no skin in the game. It's been a completely free benefit, in the general interest of the community. If the STATE and the EMPLOYERS see a problem with the system, it's their prerogative to fix it, so the system is sustainable. Requiring some sort of community service in exchange for payment (aka - A JOB), provides benefit to the community, and provides a disincentive for people who would otherwise put in minimal effort to finding a real job.

Look at it this way: you get 12 weeks free, after that, the state will give you a part-time job at equal pay until you choose to find another job. What's wrong with that?

I'll say again: When a system becomes unsustainable, realists find a way to modify the system to make it sustainable, while liberals scream and shout and offer no real solutions. Fact.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
What happened to the Obama-Democrat Service Army? I thought it was every citizen's duty to volunteer for their community? Since we're PAYING people to do it, does that somehow make it a terrible idea now?

Basically. Volunteering at the soup kitchen is good. Getting paid to help people means you're worse than Hitler.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Basically. Volunteering at the soup kitchen is good. Getting paid to help people means you're worse than Hitler.

So then to make this more appealing to folk like senseamp, we should simply implement the required community service part, and eliminate the unemployment insurance payments that go with it.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
So then to make this more appealing to folk like senseamp, we should simply implement the required community service part, and eliminate the unemployment insurance payments that go with it.

Forcing people to volunteer is called slavery :p
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
I've got no problem with that... it annoys the hell out of me that my cousin moved to Finland for a woodworking apprenticeship last year and has been collecting unemployment from the US the entire time.

i thought you can't collect UI if you leave the country, even for vacation.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
Most people like working and it gives the person something to keep them busy. However, many states have people with mental disabilities doing a lot of busy work already. Still there are a lot of things mentally deficient people just cant do because they are dangerous jobs.

All you have to do is round up all the illegal workers and replace them with out of work people. Then if they dont show up, you just cut all their state and federal aid off for a few months and see if they like that better. Nothing like an incentive. Let them either work or starve. Maybe they will find a job if you cut off their money. Let them go hunt alligators. Or give them $100.00 for every illegal they turn in. The Illegals will leave the state and you will have more jobs.



love it!
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Forcing people to volunteer is called slavery :p

What's crazy is how quick everyone is to recommend it. I am in Florida and this is being talked about a lot here and how a lot of our "dirtier" people as I call them think these unemployed folks are living high on the hog and not having to work ever again.

There is a lot of ignorance out there.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
i thought you can't collect UI if you leave the country, even for vacation.
How do they know he left the country?

Gubment departments don't talk to each other. The guys handing out money do not talk to the guys double fisting you at the airport.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
What's crazy is how quick everyone is to recommend it. I am in Florida and this is being talked about a lot here and how a lot of our "dirtier" people as I call them think these unemployed folks are living high on the hog and not having to work ever again.

There is a lot of ignorance out there.

I've never heard of forced-paid-volunteering. The rest of the world calls it a job.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
How do they know he left the country?

Gubment departments don't talk to each other. The guys handing out money do not talk to the guys double fisting you at the airport.

well, another inefficiency in our excellent govt.



My understanding is that detailed intercommunication between agencys is actually prohibited by law, to protect people from 'Big Brother'.

http://www.justice.gov/opcl/privacyact1974.htm

The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of information from a system of records absent the written consent of the subject individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions. The Act also provides individuals with a means by which to seek access to and amendment of their records, and sets forth various agency record-keeping requirements.


This is the means/reason why (to pick a contentious example) Immigration and IRS records cannot be cross matched. They can't do that to you without your permission.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
My understanding is that detailed intercommunication between agencys is actually prohibited by law, to protect people from 'Big Brother'.

It's also to prevents issues like that movie The Net with that girl from the bus. If all of the data is centralized, it's a lot easier to steal all of it.

I don't really follow the news, but I think that's what that wikileaks thing was all about. Several government systems were talking to each other, so some army guy somehow had access to hardcore confidential files.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
You serious? Maybe as a 18-23 year old kid, but all the 55-65 year olds that have been laid off are having hard times finding adequate employment. Being underemployed is almost as bad as unemployed.

There have been people actively looking for work in our area for over 3 years.

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.