why don't we make people work for unemployment checks

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: darkxshade
It's called unemployment insurance right? Except this business is run by the gov't, and your employer is paying the premiums in the form of taxes. I'm under the assumption that the gov't is profiting from this since if you think about it, if the umemployment rate is 5% that means employers are paying out premiums for the other 95% of the workforce. That's where the entitlement comes in as others has mentioned. Whether it comes out of your paycheck or the employer, a premium is paid to insure you from a job loss. You didn't ask to get let go, it unfortunately happened so you're entitled to that claim. That's why you don't get these checks if you quit.

edit: Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there's a deficit in the unemployment pool. So I don't see how any of this is coming from anyone's tax dollars per se.

even if you are right and there is not drain on tax dollars then why shouldn't there be an additional stipulation of community service.

Heck for that matter why shouldn't there be one on your income tax rebate? I mean all these lazy people working a measly 40 hours a week when people like me work 60+ hours.
We could make them 'volunteer' 5-15 hours on weekends for the community to get those tax refunds, and they would still be working less hours then me.

 

[darkxshade]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Lets use a different example completely. Lets say this was about the speed limit. I'm suggesting why can't the speed limit be 60 in stead of 55. Your reasoning is.....BECAUSE THE LIMIT IS 55!!!

YES I KNOW ITS 55 but we can change that.

YES I KNOW TODAY the concept of earned means you have to do nothing in addition to collecting your check. BUT WE CAN CHANGE THAT.

I don't think you comprehend the meaning of earned. To require somone to do additional work to claim something they've earned is essentially blackmail.

 

[rudeguy]

OP: Do you have auto insurance? Health insurance? Ever made a claim on either?

Its the same thing with unemployment. There is no difference.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Lets use a different example completely. Lets say this was about the speed limit. I'm suggesting why can't the speed limit be 60 in stead of 55. Your reasoning is.....BECAUSE THE LIMIT IS 55!!!

YES I KNOW ITS 55 but we can change that.

YES I KNOW TODAY the concept of earned means you have to do nothing in addition to collecting your check. BUT WE CAN CHANGE THAT.

That's exactly nothing like the situation with unemployment insurance.

as prefaced thanks.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: darkxshade
It's called unemployment insurance right? Except this business is run by the gov't, and your employer is paying the premiums in the form of taxes. I'm under the assumption that the gov't is profiting from this since if you think about it, if the umemployment rate is 5% that means employers are paying out premiums for the other 95% of the workforce. That's where the entitlement comes in as others has mentioned. Whether it comes out of your paycheck or the employer, a premium is paid to insure you from a job loss. You didn't ask to get let go, it unfortunately happened so you're entitled to that claim. That's why you don't get these checks if you quit.

edit: Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there's a deficit in the unemployment pool. So I don't see how any of this is coming from anyone's tax dollars per se.

even if you are right and there is not drain on tax dollars then why shouldn't there be an additional stipulation of community service.

Heck for that matter why shouldn't there be one on your income tax rebate? I mean all these lazy people working a measly 40 hours a week when people like me work 60+ hours.
We could make them 'volunteer' 5-15 hours on weekends for the community to get those tax refunds, and they would still be working less hours then me.

But unemployed people aren't working so they have free hours to burn. I can't imagine anyone is applying and interviewing 40 hours per week month after month.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: NSFW
OP: Do you have auto insurance? Health insurance? Ever made a claim on either?

Its the same thing with unemployment. There is no difference.

I have deductibles/co-pay on both of those items. THink of the community service as your "deductible"

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Lets use a different example completely. Lets say this was about the speed limit. I'm suggesting why can't the speed limit be 60 in stead of 55. Your reasoning is.....BECAUSE THE LIMIT IS 55!!!

YES I KNOW ITS 55 but we can change that.

YES I KNOW TODAY the concept of earned means you have to do nothing in addition to collecting your check. BUT WE CAN CHANGE THAT.

That's exactly nothing like the situation with unemployment insurance.

as prefaced thanks.

Well, let's use another great example then. Oranges are orange, we should call them windlybobs.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: NSFW
OP: Do you have auto insurance? Health insurance? Ever made a claim on either?

Its the same thing with unemployment. There is no difference.

I have deductibles/co-pay on both of those items. THink of the community service as your "deductible"

...or think of the deductible as all of that insurance you were working for over the many years only to make a small claim consisting of a few months tops followed by many additional years of working afterward. Unlike auto insurance and health insurance, there is little to no risk of some major expensive client that takes more than what they gave.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: NSFW
OP: Do you have auto insurance? Health insurance? Ever made a claim on either?

Its the same thing with unemployment. There is no difference.

I have deductibles/co-pay on both of those items. THink of the community service as your "deductible"

I take it money is tight for you right now?

 

[xochi]

As many others have said, people on Unemployment Insurance are not leeches on society; the reason they qualify for the Insurance is because they were separated from the job at no fault of their own.

People on TANF, (Welfare) are already bound to mandatory participation in community service, work and many other hoops to get a check since Clinton was in office. In addition to that, there has been a 5-year lifetime limit on benefits. The number of people on TANF over the last 10 years has plummeted; i would expect it to increase in the next year due to the economy though.

TANF rules are complicated here is a quick look


TANF Rules

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

but your reasoning behind why it is already earned is "because its been already earned"

Yes. Here let me pick another item already earned and act it out for you.

"How did you get that check?"

"I earned it."

"Hmm..I think you should have to do some community service before you can cash it."

"But why? I earned it!"

"Because.....then you won't be lazy."

Lets use a different example completely. Lets say this was about the speed limit. I'm suggesting why can't the speed limit be 60 in stead of 55. Your reasoning is.....BECAUSE THE LIMIT IS 55!!!

YES I KNOW ITS 55 but we can change that.

YES I KNOW TODAY the concept of earned means you have to do nothing in addition to collecting your check. BUT WE CAN CHANGE THAT.

Except your example doesn't make any sense.

Its not a concept it is a fact. By your earlier logic you have no reason to care how your tax money gets spent, because you obviously aren't going to see any of it so why care where it goes, right?

What you are proposing is devaluing the cost of labor (by now saying that you will have to do more to earn what you did before, you decrease the effective wage). You're basically proposing a tax on people for being laid off. This in turn will actually lead to less people willing to work. It actually gives people less incentive to work, as they can be penalized for something they have little to no control over.

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

But unemployed people aren't working so they have free hours to burn. I can't imagine anyone is applying and interviewing 40 hours per week month after month.

Plenty of employed people have free hours to burn as well, what's your point?

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

That's exactly nothing like the situation with unemployment insurance.

as prefaced thanks.

So, in other words you put in an example that has nothing to do with what you're talking about (its not applicable).

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: NSFW
OP: Do you have auto insurance? Health insurance? Ever made a claim on either?

Its the same thing with unemployment. There is no difference.

I have deductibles/co-pay on both of those items. THink of the community service as your "deductible"

I take it money is tight for you right now?

My money comes in large chunks and heavy stacks.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: NSFW
OP: Do you have auto insurance? Health insurance? Ever made a claim on either?

Its the same thing with unemployment. There is no difference.

I have deductibles/co-pay on both of those items. THink of the community service as your "deductible"

Some people have insurance with no deductibles. But that's not even the point. The point is what is the ultimate goal of forcing someone to work MORE for something they've already worked to earn? If the issue is motivation, then the fact that unemployment is such a pittance should motivate someone to find work. For the small minority that still can't (or don't want to) find work, then there is a time limit on benefits.

In other words, there is no critical issue with the current system (except in your head). And if you focused more energy on your problems and less on some other guy's, then you would see that.

At this point you're being intentionally dense or trolling. This thread = uberfail

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
If they were working they wouldn't be able to look for work.

15 - 20 hours per week seems reasonable. You can knock that out in 2-3 days then have the rest of the week for job search.

one of my tenants was laid off 2 months ago. He's been riding the unemployment gravy train for 2 months. been on 1 interview. If he was doing 15-20 hours of mandatory volunteer work he'd prob have more incentive not to be such a degenerate.

yeah, well my GF has applied to some ~200 jobs (no joke) over the previous 5 months. She's gotten maybe 3 interviews out of that. Her problem? Overqualified.

If you had any clue as to what was going on in the job market over the previous year you wouldn't be complaining about your tenant's 2-month unemployment. Is he still paying rent? Why do you care?

For some reason he believes they're being paid out of his pocket.

where does the difference come from? if someone "paid" x into the system and recieved y but y is greater than x? The extra comes from where?

/facepalm.

 

[BabaBooey]

What jobs ...

 

[Gand1]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Lets use a different example completely. Lets say this was about the speed limit. I'm suggesting why can't the speed limit be 60 in stead of 55. Your reasoning is.....BECAUSE THE LIMIT IS 55!!!

YES I KNOW ITS 55 but we can change that.

YES I KNOW TODAY the concept of earned means you have to do nothing in addition to collecting your check. BUT WE CAN CHANGE THAT.

That's exactly nothing like the situation with unemployment insurance.

as prefaced thanks.

Well, let's use another great example then. Oranges are orange, we should call them windlybobs.

Hey...when you're done with those windlybobs, can I get one?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
But unemployed people aren't working so they have free hours to burn. I can't imagine anyone is applying and interviewing 40 hours per week month after month.

People that only work 40 hours have 128 free hours to burn. Assuming they sleep 6 hours a day (bums!) then they still have 86 hours that they are not being productive. We can make them use that time for something.

I can't really see how this argument is qualitative different from the one you are making. The argument is basically that people are not being productive enough for you and it is the government?s job to decide how productive someone must be.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
If they were working they wouldn't be able to look for work.

15 - 20 hours per week seems reasonable. You can knock that out in 2-3 days then have the rest of the week for job search.

one of my tenants was laid off 2 months ago. He's been riding the unemployment gravy train for 2 months. been on 1 interview. If he was doing 15-20 hours of mandatory volunteer work he'd prob have more incentive not to be such a degenerate.

yeah, well my GF has applied to some ~200 jobs (no joke) over the previous 5 months. She's gotten maybe 3 interviews out of that. Her problem? Overqualified.

If you had any clue as to what was going on in the job market over the previous year you wouldn't be complaining about your tenant's 2-month unemployment. Is he still paying rent? Why do you care?

For some reason he believes they're being paid out of his pocket.

where does the difference come from? if someone "paid" x into the system and recieved y but y is greater than x? The extra comes from where?

/facepalm.

i found the answer never mind.

http://www.bizjournals.com/bal...2008/10/27/story3.html

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Gand1

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Lets use a different example completely. Lets say this was about the speed limit. I'm suggesting why can't the speed limit be 60 in stead of 55. Your reasoning is.....BECAUSE THE LIMIT IS 55!!!

YES I KNOW ITS 55 but we can change that.

YES I KNOW TODAY the concept of earned means you have to do nothing in addition to collecting your check. BUT WE CAN CHANGE THAT.

That's exactly nothing like the situation with unemployment insurance.

as prefaced thanks.

Well, let's use another great example then. Oranges are orange, we should call them windlybobs.

Hey...when you're done with those windlybobs, can I get one?

they sound fantastic

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
But unemployed people aren't working so they have free hours to burn. I can't imagine anyone is applying and interviewing 40 hours per week month after month.

People that only work 40 hours have 128 free hours to burn. Assuming they sleep 6 hours a day (bums!) then they still have 86 hours that they are not being productive. We can make them use that time for something.

I can't really see how this argument is qualitative different from the one you are making. The argument is basically that people are not being productive enough (not enough, more like at all) for you and it is the government?s job to decide how productive someone must be. Yes why can't they say hey we've been paying you in blind faith for 2 months now in order to still recieve benefits you have to volunteer x hours per week

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

GF has applied to some ~200 jobs (no joke) over the previous 5 months. She's gotten maybe 3 interviews out of that. Her problem? Overqualified.

well, I would say that is time to take a step back and see what the fuck she is doing wrong to present herself as "over qualified"...perhaps dial back the resume for starters...200 applications and all state she is "over qualified"?....see, there is a common denominator here....YOUR GF.... she better learn what her mistakes are and figure out how to fix it or she'll never get a job.

Oh yeah, she's trying to scale back the resume. Apparently, administrative assistant and project management positions don't like someone showing up with experience proposing, organizing, and funding projects from the EU, US Dept of State, and UN....
Her being an international citizen doesn't help (she has her green card, though).

She's taking the actuarial qualification exams, though, in the meantime. Basically teaching herself all of the required high-level stats, and recently passed the first exam which, if anyone is familiar, has some 70% failure rate and takes about 5 attempts to pass on ave. She passed on the 2nd go; missed on first attempt by 1 problem.

Oh, and she's NOT collecting unemployment all this time; (neither was I for the 4 months of unemployment). Though it would be nice if Iceberg Slim would be willing to mail a monthly cheque.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Gand1

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Well, let's use another great example then. Oranges are orange, we should call them windlybobs.

Hey...when you're done with those windlybobs, can I get one?

Help yourself, there's plenty of windlybobs for everyone!

 

[darkxshade]

To break it down further, the checks being received now is earned... if the gov't were to include a stipulation of community service then logically these checks would have to be adjusted higher to include the hours worked above what is already earned. Either that or extend the claim period for unemployment. In either case, it is counter-productive to what is desirable from the unemployed because in the first case, the gov't is just simply paying more for what amounts to be cheap labor(since the amt paid is based on previous salary prior to being unemployed), and in the second case, it just gives those who are lazy more of a reason to stay unemployed since all they have to do is work 20 hours of community service and get a nice big check longer period of time. And in either case, this will ultimately give incentive to employers to lay off workers.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
But unemployed people aren't working so they have free hours to burn. I can't imagine anyone is applying and interviewing 40 hours per week month after month.

People that only work 40 hours have 128 free hours to burn. Assuming they sleep 6 hours a day (bums!) then they still have 86 hours that they are not being productive. We can make them use that time for something.

I can't really see how this argument is qualitative different from the one you are making. The argument is basically that people are not being productive enough (not enough, more like at all) for you and it is the government?s job to decide how productive someone must be. Yes why can't they say hey we've been paying you in blind faith for 2 months now in order to still recieve benefits you have to volunteer x hours per week

The question is not why can't it. It is obvious that if it is the will of the people it can.
The question must be why should it.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Gand1

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Well, let's use another great example then. Oranges are orange, we should call them windlybobs.

Hey...when you're done with those windlybobs, can I get one?

Help yourself, there's plenty of windlybobs for everyone!

You are required to volunteer 15-20 hours per week to have one though...


Hmmm, if you're forced to do it, does it still qualify as "Volunteering?"