Yeah honestly it's a bit wild to me that this is a controversial take, and the proposals to "solve" this problem have largely been to cut people off from benefits.
I wonder if somewhat incorrectly calling it a benefit is part of the reason it's so controversial. It's insurance, not a handout. Are people not going to call their car insurance if in a wreck? Are people not going to use their home insurance if someone breaks in and robs some expensive item? Use what you pay for, people! This goes for public utilities. Go to your library. Call your representative. Sign up for food stamps. Demand better roads. This is your stuff you pay for.
But I think it's reasonable to assume (though I'd be interested in a study on this), that over a lifetime a person will have paid for all of its unemployment benefits.
You can't be on unemployment forever, and you can't just go on it year over year, because there is a minimum amount of wage/work-hour you'll need to meet to be able to go back on unemployment if you're laid off again and have expired your allocated benefits (as I understand).
That means that any worker going on unemployment can only get so much benefits per amount of time working or wages accrued.
That's why I think over a lifetime, most people pay-back all of their benefits.
The parent wants it both ways: the connotation of entitlement in collecting a product that was paid for (by calling it "insurance"), but without actually paying for it.
The answer to the question makes it clear that the money is a disincentive to work, which is not what the 'insurance' is for.
It's not a pool you pay into and claim from 'because you can' - you claim it 'if you must'.
If someone claimed insurance 'because they could, not because they must' in most scenarios we'd call it fraud.
So yes - collect if you must, but then the answer to the question should be 0% for those implying that the benefit is a disincentive to return to work.
Of course being laid off is a must. The question is how long, before you find a new job, does it remain a must? An individual's reasons for passing on a new job sometimes stretch the idea of "must".
Would you take any job even if it pays less and has worse conditions then the one your were laid off from?
Would you take any job no matter what? Even it it has terrible work conditions and doesn't even pay as much as your employment insurance?
Would you take any job that pays more then your current unemployment even if it doesn't interest you in the slightest or seems to have bad conditions?
Would you take any job that seems a good fit for you long term, that interests you, seem to offer conditions you find reasonable, and pays better than your current unemployment?
Would you take the opportunity to train yourself in something new so that you can find work in new domains that might pay better and have less chance of being laid off again in the future?
Which of these would you consider "cheating" the unemployment insurance and which would you say is "in the spirit" of what it's suppose to afford you as a person recently laid off?
Also, on the topic of how long, the benefits in most state end after around 26 weeks, so there is a hard cut off that was chosen for some reason. I guess you could argue to make it shorter or longer, but I think that needs answering my previous question about what is "in spirit" and what isn't so we can set the right length of time given that.
Being laid off is a reasonable basis for claiming unemployment benefits for a short time—long enough to find another job. It's not a reason to stay on unemployment indefinitely when there are jobs available comparable to the one you had before.
The United States is a cruel place to live if you’re poor. Businesses think they are entitled to desperate labor at rock bottom prices, and a large part of the country’s leadership is happy to help.
And yet university enrollment is down 25% at my local uni. If you’re poor and have nothing to do for months and aren’t making your labor worth more by gaining skills, why should people have sympathy. Are people born entitled to live off society without contributing if they can?
>Are people born entitled to live off society without contributing if they can?
If that is what the current state of society demands. Yes, absolutely. We could change it but there is a reason why things are the way they are and they have absolutely nothing to do with calm and rational thinking.
> And yet university enrollment is down 25% at my local uni. If you’re poor and have nothing to do for months and aren’t making your labor worth more by gaining skills, why should people have sympathy
Doesn't that mean taking on serious debt? Maybe people are reluctant to do that in a difficult economic situation. Not to mention there are other ways to gain skills other than going to a university.
Suddenly workers have leverage and corps don't know what to do about it. That's why I think a UBI would be a good idea. It would give leverage to individual workers without a union, now that unions are so weak.
The moderation on HackerNews has gotten worse over the last five years. Reflexive downvoting for simple disagreement without the effort of a written response is the go-to short circuited brain-dead, ideological response I came to HN to avoid. Now down vote this as off-topic.