6 ms·

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 benefi

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.

bluedino 5y ago
It’s just cutting off the $600 extra from the federal government
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Business owners are still getting over their low wage entitlement complex and adapting to new market conditions.
SubiculumCode 5y ago
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.
- SubiculumCode 5y ago
  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.
- imtringued 5y ago
  You can't fund a UBI with income taxes though. It only works if you fund the UBI with taxes on regressive behavior.
lapetitejort 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
  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.
  - haswell 5y ago
    The difference in risk profile from other types of insurance doesn't necessarily mean it's not insurance.
    - chmod600 5y ago
      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.
  - didibus 5y ago
    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.
- jollybean 5y ago
  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.
ChrisLTD 5y ago
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.
- drstewart 5y ago
  So cruel that 1.8m are living off government payments for a year while being able to turn down offers of work.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    Yeah those employers managed to pull wages down so much they cant even compete with unemployment benefits.
    - drstewart 5y ago
      Government benefits are so good they're better than working for a living
- merpnderp 5y ago
  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?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jtbayly 5y ago
    Perhaps because the cost/benefit analysis of universities continues to go in the wrong direction?
  - imtringued 5y ago
    >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.
sonotathrowaway 5y ago
It’s harder to exploit people with options, so it’s necessary to remove those options.

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.

bluedino 5y ago

It’s just cutting off the $600 extra from the federal government

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Business owners are still getting over their low wage entitlement complex and adapting to new market conditions.

SubiculumCode 5y ago

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.

SubiculumCode 5y ago
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.
imtringued 5y ago
You can't fund a UBI with income taxes though. It only works if you fund the UBI with taxes on regressive behavior.

lapetitejort 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
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.
- haswell 5y ago
  The difference in risk profile from other types of insurance doesn't necessarily mean it's not insurance.
  - chmod600 5y ago
    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.
- didibus 5y ago
  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.
jollybean 5y ago
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.

ChrisLTD 5y ago

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.

drstewart 5y ago
So cruel that 1.8m are living off government payments for a year while being able to turn down offers of work.
- imtringued 5y ago
  Yeah those employers managed to pull wages down so much they cant even compete with unemployment benefits.
  - drstewart 5y ago
    Government benefits are so good they're better than working for a living
merpnderp 5y ago
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?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jtbayly 5y ago
  Perhaps because the cost/benefit analysis of universities continues to go in the wrong direction?
- imtringued 5y ago
  >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.

sonotathrowaway 5y ago

It’s harder to exploit people with options, so it’s necessary to remove those options.