[lapetitejort]

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.

[treis]

Right it's supposed to protect you from an unforseen/unpreventable job loss. It's not supposed to encourage/allow you to not work.

[chmod600]

Did they really pay for it, though?

It seems like the people that have the highest risk of unemployment payouts pay the least (in taxes or premiums), which is not how insurance works.

[didibus]

They also receive the least benefits.

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.

[haswell]

The difference in risk profile from other types of insurance doesn't necessarily mean it's not insurance.

[chmod600]

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.

[jollybean]

Definitely not.

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.

[didibus]

You don't consider being laid off "a must" ?

[anthonygd]

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".

[didibus]

What would be your threshold in this case?

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.

[nybble41]

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.