4 ms·

First: Acting in your own fiscal self-interest shouldn't be considered rational? By making this choice, the woman has both more income and more free time to con

• noodle 17y ago
  you make the assumption that this is acting in your own fiscal self-interest, and i think that isn't necessarily the case. sure, she could make a little more money now, for another few months, and maybe find another job (or not). or she could have a job that will pay her a little less money for the long term. bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and such. unemployment isn't forever. it runs out, and sometimes it dies when it loses all its money. my father was on unemployment for one month before his state ran out of money. its intended purpose is to help you find a job. you've found a job but you decline it not because it isn't a good job, not because it can't support your lifestyle, but specifically because the government pays you better to not have a job. sounds like gaming to me. do you consider mothers on welfare who have more children specifically to get more income to also not be gaming the system because the system is set up to help mothers with children? no, taking a risk is not automatically irrational. for someone with a good plan and the means, its fine. if you have $1000 to spend, you can gamble with it and be fine. if you have no money and take out a loan to gamble with, you're taking a big risk and might get some broken kneecaps. if you're in the right position, a startup is a great idea. not everyone is in the right position.
  • kiba 17y ago
    The intentions of a government program is no excuse for unintended consequences, especially when it involves tax dollars. That tax dollars was taken either at the threat of gunpoint, jail-time, or confiscation of property. It is a far more serious matters than a private program of an ineffective nature, in which resources are donated or gained through voluntary measures. It is not just about individuals who game the system, but the whole enterprise of the system that enables these people that should be questioned.
  • crux_ 17y ago
    First: The purpose of unemployment insurance is to provide some income while you remain unemployed. That's why it's called "unemployment insurance" and not "get a job, any job, insurance." Second: It's a form of insurance. When you have a job, you (via your employer) pay into an unemployment insurance pool; when unemployed, you draw from it. It's not government money, it's your money, via a government program. This is why you get higher UI benefits if you had a higher salary. It's why when you're self employed and don't pay into the system, you get nothing if your business folds. Etc. Third: it sounds like you're the sort who has an issue with any government assistance period. That's fine, but it doesn't give you the right to expect others to martyr themselves in the name of your ideals. Fourth: the oft-repeated mythical welfare queen imagery leaves a very bad impression of you. Make your argument; don't bring up side issues, particularly "dog whistle" ones.
    • kiba 17y ago
      Third: it sounds like you're the sort who has an issue with any government assistance period. That's fine, but it doesn't give you the right to expect others to martyr themselves in the name of your ideals. The quotes "taxation is theft" applies here. People will work themselves up for no other reason that they felt being wronged by others. Nobody like their money goes to people who have not worked a single cent for it or have a need for it.
    • noodle 17y ago
      1) i never said any job. unemployment insurance is to make sure that you have the opportunity to find another job to maintain your standard of living. if you're living fine off unemployment payments and you're taking a bit of a pay cut in a prospective job, you're not taking a standard of living hit, just a pay cut. 2)form of insurance, yes, but it does not pay out forever. there are limits on it. if you get fired, you can't sit on unemployment until you die. hence, if you found a job that helps maintain your standard of living, you're more rational to take the job than not take it and possibly end up with no income, hungry children, a forclosure, reposessions, etc.. 3)ironically, i'm not. i'm quite pro assistance programs and mildly socialist. unemployment, welfare, etc. are all great programs if they are assisting the people who need them. people who don't need them shouldn't be drawing from them, though. 4) you don't think i made an argument? and if thats the way you feel, thats fine, you don't have to answer me. i don't appreciate shifting the focus to me instead of the argument, though. arguing by analogy is limited, but i think my inquiry is specific enough to fit inside the valid range.
  • omouse 17y ago
    The assumption holds. She is acting in her own fiscal self-interest, and she acted in that way earlier when she didn't complain about having some of her paycheck get dumped into EI (Employment Insurance). It was an invest made and holy shit is it paying off now. She's able to get money and search for a much better job instead of being broken down by shitty hours and a shitty wage.