4 ms·

Many (many) years ago, in Illinois, in order to collect unemployment, I had to visit a state employment office and meet a state employee and explain the circums

Many (many) years ago, in Illinois, in order to collect unemployment, I had to visit a state employment office and meet a state employee and explain the circumstances around how I'd become involuntarily unemployed. No big deal, the checks came. So I wonder: would the additional cost of employing humans to vet unemployment claims face to face cost less than the corruption of an automated system?

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Go look at how much toll booth collectors used to make and the various scandals (usually along the lines of politicians using their influence to hand out the jobs as favors) before they got automated. In a perfect world you'd be right. But in the real world it winds up hemorrhaging money at every turn.
- 11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
  I laughed. At least the booty would land in the bank accounts of Americans. But you're right
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  So it sounds like the fraud is far too small to care about.
whoknew1122 6y ago
The biggest assumption with this sort of solution is that all state governments will act in good faith. I've had people wait weeks just to get an appointment with the welfare office in Texas. Texas (and other states) routinely cut funding for departments that support social safety nets. Because the politicians in charge are diametrically opposed to the very idea of social safety nets. Instead of putting more effort into combating and preventing fraud, these politicians would rather push for further cuts. The argument being that by making it less profitable to commit fraud, there will be less fraud. All the while ignoring people who actually need the social safety neet.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  That doesn't really make sense because the problem were tryit to solve here is giving away too much money, which Texas gov would be on board with.
  - whoknew1122 6y ago
    It doesn't make sense to rational actors, no. But for people arguing from a position of bad faith--people disagree with the very idea of unemployment insurance or social welfare of any kind--it makes all the sense in the world. "Look at these people stealing all this money. We can't have that." Then they slash budgets further. People still talk about Reagan's imaginary welfare queen 4o years later to justify cutting social welfare programs. They'll use any excuse they can find.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Go look at how much toll booth collectors used to make and the various scandals (usually along the lines of politicians using their influence to hand out the jobs as favors) before they got automated. In a perfect world you'd be right. But in the real world it winds up hemorrhaging money at every turn.

11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
I laughed. At least the booty would land in the bank accounts of Americans. But you're right
alisonkisk 6y ago
So it sounds like the fraud is far too small to care about.

whoknew1122 6y ago

The biggest assumption with this sort of solution is that all state governments will act in good faith. I've had people wait weeks just to get an appointment with the welfare office in Texas. Texas (and other states) routinely cut funding for departments that support social safety nets. Because the politicians in charge are diametrically opposed to the very idea of social safety nets. Instead of putting more effort into combating and preventing fraud, these politicians would rather push for further cuts. The argument being that by making it less profitable to commit fraud, there will be less fraud. All the while ignoring people who actually need the social safety neet.

alisonkisk 6y ago
That doesn't really make sense because the problem were tryit to solve here is giving away too much money, which Texas gov would be on board with.
- whoknew1122 6y ago
  It doesn't make sense to rational actors, no. But for people arguing from a position of bad faith--people disagree with the very idea of unemployment insurance or social welfare of any kind--it makes all the sense in the world. "Look at these people stealing all this money. We can't have that." Then they slash budgets further. People still talk about Reagan's imaginary welfare queen 4o years later to justify cutting social welfare programs. They'll use any excuse they can find.