3 ms·

Should 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

Should 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 ago
Perhaps - 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 ago
  Yeah, 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 ago
    No 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.

dbspin 2y ago

Perhaps - 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 ago
Yeah, 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 ago
  No 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.