5 ms·

Yes, 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 Un

Yes, 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 ago
No 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 ago
  You'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 ago
  No 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?
  - ketchupdebugger 2y ago
    Low wage jobs only net you $40 a week. Thats $160 a month. Even if you pay no income tax, try living on $160 a month in any where America. Thats barely enough to pay for groceries for a single person for a month.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      $40 a week? A full day at federal minimum wage is $58/day. FICA on that would be $8.87. That's $49/day. $49 * 7 > $40. Even if you cut that in half that's still way more than $40/week. And no, you're not paying federal income taxes on that low wage income.
      - ketchupdebugger 2y ago
        40 a week on unemployment for low wage in CA
        vel0city 2y ago
        Ah ok you're saying UI after a low wage job is $40/wk. Understood.
      - Molitor5901 2y ago
        There's also the benefit of food stamps, and housing assistance at that income level. Actual fraud may be rare. I cannot find a good study on fraud in benefits, but I don't think that detracts that safeguards should be put in place.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      Food banks and SNAP/EBT and dumpster diving and community living. It's a lower standard of living in some ways, for sure, but you don't have to go to work and get to do art all day long. What's that worth to you?
- trosi 2y ago
  > Its not like I can take a holiday in europe and still collect. Last year I was vacationing in Sicily and I met a French girl who was doing just that: traveling Europe while collecting unemployment from her home country. I am in favor of generous unemployment welfare, but there should be controls in place.
- fragmede 2y ago
  > Its not like I can take a holiday in europe and still collect. Legally, ethically, or morally? In the history of the world, there are definitely people who've done this, though the smarter move is to take a holiday in East Asia like the Philippines or somewhere else super LCOL rather than Europe.
ilc 2y ago
This is already done by the construction and other seasonal industries. And honestly, for the case of a construction worker, where working outside in the winter may not be feasible.... it makes sense. Yes, some will work the winter. Some wont. IMHO: Preventing abuse of UI is impossible, just like preventing piracy. All we can really do is make sure that the people who should get it, do. Also, taking a severance package shouldn't impact UI. etc. All silly stuff. We want people with max incentive to apply to jobs and rejoin the workforce. The way we do that is keep them able to work (not homeless), and make them look for work... sounds like unemployment to me ;)
michaelt 2y ago
> How to prevent job hopping just to stay on benefits? Taking a paid vacation before the next job? In my country, the weekly "jobseeker's allowance" is equivalent to working 8 hours at minimum wage, or working about 90 minutes at a computer programmer's salary. You could use it as a "paid vacation" but it'd have to be an extremely austere vacation.
RIMR 2y ago
>I see opportunities for abuse. Let's cross that bridge when we get to it. I really hate when "but what if someone benefits too much?" worries when families are facing homelessness. I'll take some abuse of the system if it gets these Americas off the street and back in the workforce.
- Molitor5901 2y ago
  I am 100% in favor of housing first. No disagreement on that point. Then at least the money spent can be applied and accounted for directly, with someone in the program, than a random person.

ketchupdebugger 2y ago

No 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 ago
You'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 ago
No 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?
- ketchupdebugger 2y ago
  Low wage jobs only net you $40 a week. Thats $160 a month. Even if you pay no income tax, try living on $160 a month in any where America. Thats barely enough to pay for groceries for a single person for a month.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    $40 a week? A full day at federal minimum wage is $58/day. FICA on that would be $8.87. That's $49/day. $49 * 7 > $40. Even if you cut that in half that's still way more than $40/week. And no, you're not paying federal income taxes on that low wage income.
    - ketchupdebugger 2y ago
      40 a week on unemployment for low wage in CA
      - vel0city 2y ago
        Ah ok you're saying UI after a low wage job is $40/wk. Understood.
    - Molitor5901 2y ago
      There's also the benefit of food stamps, and housing assistance at that income level. Actual fraud may be rare. I cannot find a good study on fraud in benefits, but I don't think that detracts that safeguards should be put in place.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Food banks and SNAP/EBT and dumpster diving and community living. It's a lower standard of living in some ways, for sure, but you don't have to go to work and get to do art all day long. What's that worth to you?
trosi 2y ago
> Its not like I can take a holiday in europe and still collect. Last year I was vacationing in Sicily and I met a French girl who was doing just that: traveling Europe while collecting unemployment from her home country. I am in favor of generous unemployment welfare, but there should be controls in place.
fragmede 2y ago
> Its not like I can take a holiday in europe and still collect. Legally, ethically, or morally? In the history of the world, there are definitely people who've done this, though the smarter move is to take a holiday in East Asia like the Philippines or somewhere else super LCOL rather than Europe.

ilc 2y ago

This is already done by the construction and other seasonal industries. And honestly, for the case of a construction worker, where working outside in the winter may not be feasible.... it makes sense. Yes, some will work the winter. Some wont. IMHO: Preventing abuse of UI is impossible, just like preventing piracy. All we can really do is make sure that the people who should get it, do. Also, taking a severance package shouldn't impact UI. etc. All silly stuff. We want people with max incentive to apply to jobs and rejoin the workforce. The way we do that is keep them able to work (not homeless), and make them look for work... sounds like unemployment to me ;)

michaelt 2y ago

> How to prevent job hopping just to stay on benefits? Taking a paid vacation before the next job? In my country, the weekly "jobseeker's allowance" is equivalent to working 8 hours at minimum wage, or working about 90 minutes at a computer programmer's salary. You could use it as a "paid vacation" but it'd have to be an extremely austere vacation.

RIMR 2y ago

>I see opportunities for abuse. Let's cross that bridge when we get to it. I really hate when "but what if someone benefits too much?" worries when families are facing homelessness. I'll take some abuse of the system if it gets these Americas off the street and back in the workforce.

Molitor5901 2y ago
I am 100% in favor of housing first. No disagreement on that point. Then at least the money spent can be applied and accounted for directly, with someone in the program, than a random person.