[BitwiseFool]

This is anecdotal, but I have a friend currently on unemployment benefits and he's enjoying his 'time off' while looking for a more permanent job. He wants a good job, not just any job. So for him it makes sense to be choosy rather than just start working at some place with a help-wanted sign and lose his benefits while also losing his free time to search for something better.

[xzit]

Wow they must make a LOT in unemployment! That doesn't make sense at all to me, unemployment insurance didn't even cover half of my rent, and comes with a stigma.

But like you said, it's a worthless anecdote.

[throwaway_kufu]

> and comes with a stigma.

So does taking a shit job and that being in your employment history.

From the employee perspective it is a lot easier to monitor the job market and actively seek out employment while not employed.

It’s true unemployment is not enough for most people to pay their bills, but that is also true of a lot of full time employment...employers can blame unemployment for being unable to fill positions but if your full time position can’t compete with unemployment benefits the answer isn’t to take away a minimal safety net so employers can force shit wages and no benefits on workers...at best the employer gets the employee they wanted below a living wage and it’s left society as a whole with a significant number of unemployed works with absolutely nothing and not even enough shit jobs with shit wages to employ them all.

[xzit]

Having an unbroken employment history does not have the stigma that having gaps in your resumé does. Thank you for agreeing with me though.

[throwaway_kufu]

It’s not black and white. If you have a gap and the reason is because you got pregnant and gave birth there is likely no stigma at all. Meanwhile if you were working for Google and took a job driving for Uber you might not ever get the opportunity to address it in a future interview because the stigma.

There is a reason your comment was downvoted, hint it’s not because people agree with you, and acknowledging a premises is correct while the conclusion is wrong is not the same as agreeing with you (but you knew that).

[octernion]

"thank you for agreeing with me" has to be one of the most-annoying neckbeard phrases in the english language.

[dragonwriter]

The $600 increase (later dropped to $300 which obviously fell short of the same effect but worked in the same direction) brought the average unemployment check to about 100% of pre-unemployment wages (which was why that level waa chosen, as a flat amount in part because its easier for states to implement but also because it does more for those at the lower end of the income distribution.) And the pandemic reduced the stigma somewhat.

[Izkata]

You're underselling it - at an extra $600, about 40% of workers would make more on unemployment than at their job: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/employers-struggle-compete-6...

[dragonwriter]

> You're underselling it

Your quantitative claim contradicts that characterization.

> - at an extra $600, about 40% of workers would make more on unemployment than at their job

Since what I reported was the rough policy target was that the average worker would be making the same with the boost, only 40% and not approximately 50% making more with the boost isn’t me overselling, if anything, it is the opposite.