9 ms·
Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?
- beeboobaa3 2y ago[flagged]
- anotherhue 2y agoWhich is the greater moral hazard? Enabling couch-potatoes or enabling corps to have a 40 hour worker at below the poverty line cost?
- missedthecue 2y agoI don't think anyone in America is working 40 hours and staying below the poverty line unless they have like... 8 kids as a single parent. It's really just not possible. McDonald's for 40 hours puts you well above poverty line
- praccu 2y agoYou're very confused. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/poverty-awareness-month.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/poverty-awareness-mo...
- missedthecue 2y agoI'm not confused. It is not possible to have no dependents and be below the poverty line working 40 hours
- michaelt 2y agoIn my country, the easiest way to work 40 hours and still live in poverty is to move to the richest city in the country, get a job as a barista or cleaner or similar, and rent a small studio apartment.
- digging 2y ago> move to the richest city in the country, get a job as a barista or cleaner or similar, and rent a small studio apartment I'm not sure which way you feel about this, but I'll emphasize that everyone else in the city is completely dependent on people making this life choice (or a related one, where they live outside the city in a stifling suburb, pay for it with years of their life spent commuting, and simultaneously lower everyone's health and quality of life by driving a car).
- AdmiralAsshat 2y agohttps://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-walmart-mcdonalds-food-stamps-medicaid-minimum-wage-2020-11?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-walmart-mcdon... > Around 70% of people on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food stamps and Medicaid work full-time, the watchdog found, and the majority of these worked for larger companies with 100 or more staff. So no, you can be gainfully employed in the US and still be on food stamps.
- ketchupdebugger 2y agoShould get unemployment if you dont have a job and are actively looking for one.
- velcrovan 2y agoYes, this is how it works in many countries. There may be a waiting period if you resign, but you can still get unemployment benefits.
- ta1243 2y agoMeaningless for tech workers in the UK. You quit from a £100k a year job, your £90 a week isn't going to be noticable. Far more useful is if your employer lays you off (short of major disciplinary reasons), you get at least 1 weeks pay for every year you've worked there (1.5 weeks if you are older).
- velcrovan 2y agoIn the US when you quit it's $0.00. In other countries it's the same benefit as if you had been laid off. We probably agree the latter is the best policy. I'm just saying, other countries have done it. We don't have to guess what the results would be.
- ta1243 2y agoIn the UK you get laid off you get a lot of money up front and then a bit afterwards. You quit, you get nothing up front and then a bit afterwards.
- px43 2y agoIncluding taking classes in your desired field IMO, not just being actively engaged in two hiring processes at least once a week (which is what my state mandates for UEI).
- michaelmrose 2y agoThis actively looking for one is normally implemented by showing a job search log. It is however especially with indeed and LinkedIn to fulfill this requirement in 15 minutes per week if you really wanted to without any intention on working. For those that DO want to work this means that employers are looking at piles of fake applications from people that don't want to work and an increased chance of being filtered out.
- Molitor5901 2y agoYes, but with limits. How to prevent job hopping just to stay on benefits? Taking a paid vacation before the next job? I see opportunities for abuse. In the United States at least, AFAIK, employers pay for unemployment. Who pays when the employee voluntarily separates from an employer? It seems unfair to make the employer pay for an employee who left and no longer works there. I presume that cost will be paid by the state, which as a taxpayer I am curious how to prevent fraud and abuse. I see that states require a certain amount of employment before a person becomes eligible for benefits. Maybe changing that?
- ketchupdebugger 2y agoNo one is quitting their job to just be on unemployment. Unemployment benefit is funded by unemployment tax on both corporations and individuals. The unemployment benefit for CA is $40 to $450 per week. (You still have to pay income tax on that) Its much lower in conservative states. Its enough to smooth things out but not enough to live off of, you are still going to be digging into savings. Additionally you have to provide proof that you are looking for jobs ever week. Its not like I can take a holiday in europe and still collect.
- charlie0 2y agoYou're correct because technically, you can't get unemployment if you quit. You have to be let go or fired in order to apply.
- Molitor5901 2y agoNo one is quitting their job to just be on unemployment. I can understand someone who is unemployed and actively searching for a professional job to believe that, but I think that looks at the issue from a privileged position. No one is quitting their professional offices jobs just to be on unemployment, but I don't think the same can be said of lower income sh*t jobs. Such a declarative statement of "no one" cannot be accurate because there is probably someone doing just that. Working a low wage job - maybe day labor - just long enough to qualify for benefits, then quitting and coasting until they have to work again. It's possible, so how do you prevent it?
- madamelic 2y agoGenerally yes. I am not sure how UI works (which of course entitles me to spout my opinion), but a system where it draws from a pool based off work history could be the middle ground solution. If they are going to base your unemployment on your past pay, they might as well also base it on your past history. To get to my point: if you work for a long period then quit / fired, you should have a bigger pool you can tap into for any reason. If you work for short periods then quit, you should have a smaller pool which trends to near-zero if you never stay at a place for long. If you work for short periods then get laid off, you should have the standard pool (ie: you shouldn't be unfairly punished through no fault of your own besides maybe being unlucky / bad at picking jobs). I am paying into it regardless, I should be able to choose to be able to tap into it. It disincentives people jumping on and off UI constantly on their own free-will but it gives a cushion to those who are burnt or needing to transition to a new field.
- trosi 2y agoI don't know how it works in the US (and I assume it might be different state by state), but in many countries in Europe this is already the case. For example: if you get fired today you are entitled to a benefit if you have worked at least X months out of the last Y months. X and Y must be chosen carefully of course.
- dbspin 2y agoHard disagree - your entitlement should be based on need, not social status. So your previous employment shouldn't factor in at all.
- jtriangle 2y agoShould or shouldn't, it doesn't seem to matter to the state of California. Whomever is admining UI doesn't care. We've had people quit, fired with cause (and in legal proceedings), one who was literally incarcerated shortly after they quit, one who was arrested at work for fraud (and was wearing uniform in their mugshot to boot), and all of them got their claims accepted regardless of what we said. So, our policy is to not fight anything, ever. Not worth the time.
- dbspin 2y agoPerhaps - as in most developed countries - the point shouldn't be whether or not the applicant 'deserves' unemployment benefits. But rather, whether they can afford to live without them.
- jtriangle 2y agoYeah, I mean, it's not so much "deserving", it's "qualifies for", and those qualifications seem to be "can fill out the paperwork" which is probably fine. Living without income is a foregone conclusion in 99.9% of cases, of course they can't, which is why they were working in the first place. Realistically, the whole system would be best rebranded as Temp-UBI, run it like Alimony, where X years at a job = X UBI time, call it a day. You'd probably end up saving money not having to process paperwork and admin the entire thing. That last point is why it'd never happen of course, because you'd scrap a whole bunch of government workers, and, well, if you're the government, losing workers -does not spark joy-
- dbspin 2y agoNo I'm not with you at all. The point of social welfare should not be to ensure continuity of income. That's what private unemployment insurance is for. State mandate contributions towards that if you like. But social welfare different. It's what stands between the average person and a couple of unfortunate health or life events (say an arrest) resulting in destitution or homelessness. It might be normalised for this to be a fact of life in the US, but that does't make it civilised or rational.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y agoAs with everything in America, I assume it is a non-starter to make more universal benefits. Sure it would be fine if I got unemployment for quitting, but not those people. They would just squander the opportunity! Best we all suffer rather than someone I do not like getting the same benefit.
- jojobas 2y agoSupporting others works as long as the majority is prosperous, provides assistance (taxes) voluntarily, and receiving help is sort of shameful and still keeps you kinda needy. You don't those people to become a political force enough to demand more assistance, we know how that ends.
- derelicta 2y agoand how does it end?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- drewcoo 2y agoUbiquitous televisions and beer. Or smartphones and fentanyl in the 21st century.
- red-iron-pine 2y agoso you're saying we've hit that point already then?
- bitshiftfaced 2y agoSounds like a great incentive to start a job, work for the minimum length necessary, quit, and repeat.
- anonzzzies 2y agoI would kill myself in that life. I guess if people like that, just give them some money and don’t let them interfere too much with people who are less inclined to such a depressing lifestyle.
- ceejayoz 2y agoEven in blue states unemployment benefits aren't... super generous. As with abusing SSI I suspect most folks proposing this approach haven't tried living on it. The current setup has bad incentives, too; you can make someone miserable with the goal of forcing a quit instead of firing them.
- red-iron-pine 2y agothe main reason for the minimum timelimit is to, among other things, accumulate enough money to cover any unemployment costs if/when the employee leaves. as long as that minimum length necessary pays for the unemployment -- fine. work to live, don't live to work.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sturza 2y agoConflict of interest, wrong incentive.
- bunderbunder 2y agoThis debate, like so many other economic debates (welfare, health insurance, what to do about homelessness, taxation policy, school funding, etc.) seems to really be venues for proxy debates between consequentialist and deontological ethics. The two major positions inevitably end up being specific formulations of, "We think that this might be best for everyone on average," and, "We're worried some benefits might go to people who don't deserve it and/or be paid for by taking money away from other people." Both are legitimate ways of thinking about it, and centuries of moral philosophy have failed to adequately reconcile these two ways of approaching social issues. So I can't imagine this will ever be definitively settled. (Maybe it shouldn't be. Ursula K. LeGuin gets my respect for being author of both The Dispossessed and The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas.) But I think that failing to recognize that that's the core of the issue dooms people to endlessly, uselessly accomplish little more than talking past each other.
- jampekka 2y agoThe moral philosophy is not about trying to solve problems. It's about justifying the state of affairs. When a new state of affairs arises, a moral philosophy justifying it will get adopted. E.g. Lockean ethics making property a fundamental right (later implemented as a "self evident god given thruth") is just a semi-theological justification for priviliged classes holding their privileges. A bit like divine rights of kings, or superiority of certain ethnic groups, or intellecual and moral superiority of the noblesse.
- bux93 2y ago"We're worried some benefits might go to people who don't deserve it and/or be paid for by taking money away from other people." often translates to "you know, untrustworthy people from the out-group" and is a bit of a dog whistle. I don't think anyone in the "We think that this might be best for everyone on average" camp is unaware of or unconcerned with potential abuses. I for one am not unconcerned, but I feel that these can be dealt with pragmatically - allowing some slippage. On the other side of that debate are people calling for absolutist, heavy handed punishments. (Some, if not most, on the understanding that "honest mistakes" by "good people" will of course be dealt with leniently. Why's my dog barking? Did you hear anything?)
- oezi 2y agoGermany does pay 12 month of unemployment benefits (at 60% of previous salary with a cap). If you quit (rather than being fired), you don't get benefits for the first 12 weeks. This is an okay balance in my mind.
- gpvos 2y agoThat looks like a good way to solve the problem of taking a holiday on state expenses between jobs. One year is a bit on the short side though.
- teeray 2y agoYou’d have to figure out how to curtail abuses, but generally “yes.” This is a good counterbalance to companies that get “creative” with RTO mandates as backdoor layoffs to avoid paying out unemployment.
- ciabattabread 2y agoThis sounds like using the existing unemployment system to hack in UBI and universal healthcare.
- red-iron-pine 2y agohow else where you going to implement UBI?
- imzadi 2y agoYes. Employers should be incentivized to want to keep their employees. If employees are given some autonomy to leave poor working environments without bankrupting themselves, then employers will be motivated to improve the working environment.
- ajsnigrutin 2y agoI live in a former communist country, and much of the regulation is still unchanged. While employed you pay "unemployment insurance" (a small percentage of your paycheck), and when you lose your job (not quit!, so fired, or the company goes under, etc.), and if you worked for 6+ months, and depending on the time worked (months of paid insurance) and your age, you can get 2-25 months of unemployment benefits (80% of your paycheck for up to three months, then 60, then 50%). If you quit, you quit. You didn't suddenly lose your job and need help because of that, you planned it. No benefits. (except in cases where you quit due to special reasons, ie. you didn't receive your paycheck, employer did something illegal, etc.). You do get some social benefits if you're an unemployed job seeker, but that number is much lower. Not much abuse with the unemployment benefits (except a year or two before retirement in some cases), quite a lot of abuse of general social benefits (you get some money, free public transport, free kindergarden, some "extraodinary expenses" extra money yearly too, you have to send a few CVs every month, and you can work under the table and pay nothing.
- gpvos 2y agoThe system in the Netherlands (never been communist) is very similar, although you get 70% for up to two years, and you have to apply for jobs.
- losvedir 2y agoIt's not really "insurance" at that point then, is it? The system is set up with lots of people paying into it to cover the expenses of the relatively few that need to draw on it, in the relatively low probability event that you need to. Insurance lets you get bigger payouts with smaller premiums. If everyone can easily and frequently draw from it at will, I doubt it's sustainable as is. Either benefits will have to go down or premiums will have to go up. I didn't see the article address this aspect of it.
- digging 2y ago> It's not really "insurance" at that point then, is it? You've never had to or wanted to quit a horrible job, but been stuck because you needed the income/benefits?
- bitshiftfaced 2y agoYou've never searched for a new job while working at a job you don't like?
- digging 2y agoI have, and it sucks. Especially when the current job is seriously unhealthy. It's far preferable to quit first, but I no longer work in an industry and economy where that's a safe bet. Thus, insurance.
- madsbuch 2y agoWe have this in Denmark where you can get up to 2 years of unemployment benefit - also when you quit yourself (you will get a one-month quarantine, though). Denmark has a 2.9% unemployment rate: https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/arbejde-og-indkomst/beskaeftigelse-og-arbejdsloeshed/arbejdsloese https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/arbejde-og-indkomst/be... I don't entirely know how that compare to the US.
- WrongAssumption 2y agoThe government of Denmark does not provide unemployment insurance. Unemployment is voluntary and provided through privately owned insurance funds. The government does not pay out of unemployment benefits at all. To get the extended benefits, you have to pay more. Like any private insurance, pay more to get better benefits.
- madsbuch 2y agoThat is wrong - while you need the insurance to be eligible, the governments finances most of the unemployment payout. It is a hybrid model. The insurance premium is also entirely tax deductible and nowhere enough to cover the scheme - the scheme which is highly regulated, well, because the government pays for it.
- BitwiseFool 2y agoAs well intentioned as this may be, I suspect the ultimate result will be to make the hiring process even worse for applicants as employers will be incentivized to avoid people who have gaps in their employment history or seem to have a propensity to job-hop. Not only that, I suspect employers will also try to add even more tests and competency-checks to the interview process.
- osigurdson 2y agoI guess the main question is, will more money be paid out of the program. If so, who should pay it? If lots of people like the idea, a non-profit quitting insurance company could be created. It seems that it would largely end up being a savings account however. For instance, instead of retiring, simply quit.
- reify 2y agoOf course! Remember business thrives on there being a certain amount of unemployed people to create competition for jobs and keep wages low. If everyone was employed then employers would have to pay decent wages because we would all be employed elsewhere. Imagine being headhunted for a job at Mucky Dees for £25 per hour. Unemployed are called workshy and feckless here on Airstrip One. We have forced work clubs and the unemployed have to search for 40 hours each week for jobs, meaning that every local employer receives thousand of job applications that they throw in the bin. This is intentionally degrading and dehumanising. The nazi's degrading and dehumanising "Work will set you free" over the entrance to Auschwitz concentration camp comes to mind. I think it is everyones right to not work and be supported by the state. WORK does not set you free!
- charlie0 2y agoWorking smart, not hard, does set you free though.
- robust-cactus 2y agoI think people forget, it's literally your money. Yea it's theoretically subsidized but the amount of money you put into the system over 40 years is probably more than you'll ever get out of it. - You pay roughly 1-2% of your salary to it every year - The max weekly benefit in California is $450 for 26 weeks, so roughly $11k. But it's also a percentage of your salary - Unless you get fired/quit jobs every year it's probably very hard to get more out than you put in and even then there's probably other safeguards
- snapplebobapple 2y agoNo, of xourse not, thats the dumbest thing ever