4 ms·

I wish we could switch to not tying unemployment benefits so much to employment. I know that sounds funky, but the reason why they don't want your minimum wage

by diob 5y ago

I wish we could switch to not tying unemployment benefits so much to employment. I know that sounds funky, but the reason why they don't want your minimum wage job is then they lose the benefits (not just money, but things like food stamps, etc.). If they didn't lose their benefits, they'd work to gain some extra cash in addition to them. This is just cruel.

praptak 5y ago
That's universal basic income.
- awb 5y ago
  No, OC is talking about benefits like food stamps, discount electricity, discount health insurance, etc. You would still have to work to earn money, you just wouldn’t lose your non-monetary benefits. It’s more like a universal social safety net.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    You didn't read the OPs comment well. He said "not just money".
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    This is just the government subsidising underwater businesses then? I feel like there’s this irrational impulse that work, any work is better than looking after someone until they can find good employment. If jobs are so poorly paid they can’t sustain the unfortunate person who has to take them perhaps they shouldn’t exist or at least be nationalised so society gets the benefits they are paying for rather than having them funnelled into the pockets of private individuals.
    - jonnycomputer 5y ago
      Yes. But that's why you also need a mandatory floor (a generous minimum wage), and strong labor institutions, so that companies don't just get to take advantage of the social support programs to support their exploitative business models.
      - meheleventyone 5y ago
        Agreed there!
      - calvano915 5y ago
        See this article https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-... as the most previously quantified and discussed example. Article title: Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

by diob 5y ago

praptak 5y ago

That's universal basic income.

awb 5y ago
No, OC is talking about benefits like food stamps, discount electricity, discount health insurance, etc. You would still have to work to earn money, you just wouldn’t lose your non-monetary benefits. It’s more like a universal social safety net.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  You didn't read the OPs comment well. He said "not just money".
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  This is just the government subsidising underwater businesses then? I feel like there’s this irrational impulse that work, any work is better than looking after someone until they can find good employment. If jobs are so poorly paid they can’t sustain the unfortunate person who has to take them perhaps they shouldn’t exist or at least be nationalised so society gets the benefits they are paying for rather than having them funnelled into the pockets of private individuals.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    Yes. But that's why you also need a mandatory floor (a generous minimum wage), and strong labor institutions, so that companies don't just get to take advantage of the social support programs to support their exploitative business models.
    - meheleventyone 5y ago
      Agreed there!
    - calvano915 5y ago
      See this article https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-... as the most previously quantified and discussed example. Article title: Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance