4 ms·

"Getting people to move from relying on unemployment insurance to wage income doesn't just automatically happen," The luxury of not working and able to decline

"Getting people to move from relying on unemployment insurance to wage income doesn't just automatically happen," The luxury of not working and able to decline jobs must be really great. In my twenty five years of work, I don’t think I’ve be ever been so privileged. To other people have this flexibility? Between kids and health insurance I’ve fought like hell to minimize time between jobs.

jacob2484 5y ago
Same here - you've paid for other to have this privilege. There is no free lunch.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  I've paid all my life into the tax system and never taken unemployment or other benefits except during the long vacation when at university more than forty years ago. I am pleased that this money supports others who are less lucky than I was.
  - txsoftwaredev 5y ago
    Wouldn't you rather have kept that money instead of paying for others not to work? I know I'd rather have more in my paycheck if I had the option.
    - kwhitefoot 5y ago
      No because then I would be living in a society where I would be surrounded by poor and unhealthy people. I enjoy living in a society where most people are adequately paid without having to work excessive hours, where medical care is easy, simple, and cheap to access, where losing one's job does not turn one into a second class citizen. Excessive hours, more than 50 hours a week for more than a few weeks, are in fact illegal. I enjoy it when the person selling me smiles simply because they are happy instead of because it is a requirement of the job. In case you are wondering the society in question is Norway. No it's not paradise, just a bit closer than some places and that is to a significant extent because of a greater degree of solidarity.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  The same way I've paid for others to have life saving surgery I haven't needed.
- newsiehey 5y ago
  How about the $300 free lunch I just paid for his kids?
  - charwalker 5y ago
    Your opinion on the tax credit is not unique but also disheartening.
    - newsiehey 5y ago
      Zero explanation just calling it disheartening... I can say the exact same thing about his position or yours except you don't have one All these guys throwing around terms like "free lunch" and "they're so privileged", but turn the tables slightly and it's all just so disheartening?
      - quantumBerry 5y ago
        I want to preface saying I do not believe in taxes, nor the child tax credit. And that I think both the child tax credit and unemployment (other than voluntarily unemployment insurance) are essentially armed robbery. But it is asinine to compare a $300/mo tax credit towards an investment that will pay rich dividends (kids grow up and pay taxes to fund your public benefits in old age and contribute to scientific and medicinal advancement that benefit you after you're old enough to be a net burden on society) vs $1200+ a month in unemployment for an adult who is now disincentivized to do anything productive and could always just go live in the wilderness if they couldn't earn currency.
        newsiehey 5y ago
        It's not asinine because it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. No one is saying these two things were equal... obviously. This is just one example of a tax benefit that the OP clearly has benefited from which reaches his definition of a "free lunch" His interpretation was outrageous so my response was a bit flippant. There are plenty of legitimate arguments for or against these benefits, but calling it a free lunch and saying you work hard and have kids so this needs to stop is just stupid, how does having kids and you not having the flexibility you wanted matter? That is exactly what he said...
moate 5y ago
Yes. As a single man in my 20's, when I would get laid off from restaurant jobs (I worked in an area with a large share of summer tourism and september layoffs were common) I would spend the full time on unemployment because the wage difference was pretty minimal. Even now in my mid-30s, when I was laid off for covid I waited until the expanded benefits were almost exhausted for the exact same reason (I actually made about 20 dollars more per paycheck on unemployment during the pandemic than I did at the Digital PM job I was let go from). The term "fun-employment" is frequently used for people who have negligible difference in quality of life between employment/unemployment.
mindslight 5y ago
Yes, people do. And many more should. Your treadmill existence is the polar opposite of rational actors with bargaining power as invoked by economists.
newsiehey 5y ago
Uhh wait are you actually complaining about having kids and a job? Wasn't that all your choice?! Didn't a $300 tax break per child just get sent out directly to you? Isn't that paid for by everyone even people without kids? Aren't you getting a free lunch? I demand you send me your $$ or stop your whining
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  It isn't a free lunch, because the $300 is going towards the start-up cost of the future tax-base. The cost to raise a child is estimated to be about $250,000, and the average amount a person will pay in taxes is $340,000. By my calculation that is a $90,000 "free lunch" to society with the investment to make that largely born by the parent. The people actually getting the "free lunch" are those who don't have children, but benefit from the investment made by parents.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bestiezone 5y ago
    The free lunch means that it's coming from people who do not directly benefit from the result. It benefits the families with children and hypothetically should go straight to just children. The fact that you think it will result in more taxes for the community in the future does not change the fact that it comes from people without children and is still a "free lunch". Nevermind that people w/o children would only partially POSSIBLY benefit from this in the future, while parents get the direct aid now and possible future benefits... you're wrong twice.
  - jayrice257 5y ago
    What? The free lunch means that it's coming from people who do not directly benefit from the result. It benefits the families with children and hypothetically should go straight to just children. The fact that you think it will result in more taxes for the community in the future does not change the fact that it comes from people without children and is still a "free lunch". Nevermind that people w/o children would only partially POSSIBLY benefit from this in the future, while parents get the direct aid now and possible future benefits... you're wrong twice.

jacob2484 5y ago

Same here - you've paid for other to have this privilege. There is no free lunch.

kwhitefoot 5y ago
I've paid all my life into the tax system and never taken unemployment or other benefits except during the long vacation when at university more than forty years ago. I am pleased that this money supports others who are less lucky than I was.
- txsoftwaredev 5y ago
  Wouldn't you rather have kept that money instead of paying for others not to work? I know I'd rather have more in my paycheck if I had the option.
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    No because then I would be living in a society where I would be surrounded by poor and unhealthy people. I enjoy living in a society where most people are adequately paid without having to work excessive hours, where medical care is easy, simple, and cheap to access, where losing one's job does not turn one into a second class citizen. Excessive hours, more than 50 hours a week for more than a few weeks, are in fact illegal. I enjoy it when the person selling me smiles simply because they are happy instead of because it is a requirement of the job. In case you are wondering the society in question is Norway. No it's not paradise, just a bit closer than some places and that is to a significant extent because of a greater degree of solidarity.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
The same way I've paid for others to have life saving surgery I haven't needed.
newsiehey 5y ago
How about the $300 free lunch I just paid for his kids?
- charwalker 5y ago
  Your opinion on the tax credit is not unique but also disheartening.
  - newsiehey 5y ago
    Zero explanation just calling it disheartening... I can say the exact same thing about his position or yours except you don't have one All these guys throwing around terms like "free lunch" and "they're so privileged", but turn the tables slightly and it's all just so disheartening?
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      I want to preface saying I do not believe in taxes, nor the child tax credit. And that I think both the child tax credit and unemployment (other than voluntarily unemployment insurance) are essentially armed robbery. But it is asinine to compare a $300/mo tax credit towards an investment that will pay rich dividends (kids grow up and pay taxes to fund your public benefits in old age and contribute to scientific and medicinal advancement that benefit you after you're old enough to be a net burden on society) vs $1200+ a month in unemployment for an adult who is now disincentivized to do anything productive and could always just go live in the wilderness if they couldn't earn currency.
      - newsiehey 5y ago
        It's not asinine because it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. No one is saying these two things were equal... obviously. This is just one example of a tax benefit that the OP clearly has benefited from which reaches his definition of a "free lunch" His interpretation was outrageous so my response was a bit flippant. There are plenty of legitimate arguments for or against these benefits, but calling it a free lunch and saying you work hard and have kids so this needs to stop is just stupid, how does having kids and you not having the flexibility you wanted matter? That is exactly what he said...

moate 5y ago

Yes. As a single man in my 20's, when I would get laid off from restaurant jobs (I worked in an area with a large share of summer tourism and september layoffs were common) I would spend the full time on unemployment because the wage difference was pretty minimal. Even now in my mid-30s, when I was laid off for covid I waited until the expanded benefits were almost exhausted for the exact same reason (I actually made about 20 dollars more per paycheck on unemployment during the pandemic than I did at the Digital PM job I was let go from). The term "fun-employment" is frequently used for people who have negligible difference in quality of life between employment/unemployment.

mindslight 5y ago

Yes, people do. And many more should. Your treadmill existence is the polar opposite of rational actors with bargaining power as invoked by economists.

newsiehey 5y ago

Uhh wait are you actually complaining about having kids and a job? Wasn't that all your choice?! Didn't a $300 tax break per child just get sent out directly to you? Isn't that paid for by everyone even people without kids? Aren't you getting a free lunch? I demand you send me your $$ or stop your whining

quantumBerry 5y ago
It isn't a free lunch, because the $300 is going towards the start-up cost of the future tax-base. The cost to raise a child is estimated to be about $250,000, and the average amount a person will pay in taxes is $340,000. By my calculation that is a $90,000 "free lunch" to society with the investment to make that largely born by the parent. The people actually getting the "free lunch" are those who don't have children, but benefit from the investment made by parents.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bestiezone 5y ago
  The free lunch means that it's coming from people who do not directly benefit from the result. It benefits the families with children and hypothetically should go straight to just children. The fact that you think it will result in more taxes for the community in the future does not change the fact that it comes from people without children and is still a "free lunch". Nevermind that people w/o children would only partially POSSIBLY benefit from this in the future, while parents get the direct aid now and possible future benefits... you're wrong twice.
- jayrice257 5y ago
  What? The free lunch means that it's coming from people who do not directly benefit from the result. It benefits the families with children and hypothetically should go straight to just children. The fact that you think it will result in more taxes for the community in the future does not change the fact that it comes from people without children and is still a "free lunch". Nevermind that people w/o children would only partially POSSIBLY benefit from this in the future, while parents get the direct aid now and possible future benefits... you're wrong twice.