Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

In the US, unemployment is done by the state, not the feds, so it depends on who you are asking. In Pennsylvania, they make you sign up for their job site and put in a minimum number of applications per week, otherwise you lose your benefits. Unfortunately a lot of these are minimum wage jobs doing retail work, so if you are like me and lost your factory job that paid well, you made more on unemployment than you did working retail. I applied to my minimum of 2 places per week while I had a friend line up my current job, which can actually support my family.

Its similar in the Netherlands, to qualify you have to apply several times a week, as well as needing to have had a job for at least 40+ weeks in the last year etc. The bottom end of the job market really sucks for similar reasons over here. Part time is considered employed but when I did part time I got scaled back to 10 hours a week, which left me with 450 dollars a month in the end. You can't survive on that, but savings helped me manage until I got a much better paying one. If I didn't have that part time job at the time I could have gotten twice as much from unemployment, but well technically I was employed

 Just Tony wrote:

I think the issue with the program in Finland was the "no strings attached" portion of it.

Yeah. Thats why I feel ALL social welfare should always have strings attached.

Usually they have the wrong sort of strings attached where they make it worse off if you work some,

 skyth wrote:
Usually they have the wrong sort of strings attached where they make it worse off if you work some,

Those 'strings' attached all too frequently become hoops to jump through for the majority of honest people, as well as costing the state more money than just not having those strings. Bonus points for the strings being handled by a private third party company when it comes to waste.

 skyth wrote:
Usually they have the wrong sort of strings attached where they make it worse off if you work some,

Yeah, that's the big problem almost universally with that kind of stuff everywhere it seems. My sister is single and has two kids and recently lost her job because central Illinois is an inhospitable economic shithole unless you work for the state or in healthcare. As it stands, she can't find a job that would pay close to the one she had previously, and if she takes just any job she can find for the sake of having a job, she loses what little assistance she is getting.

Not only is there no economic incentive to try, there's an actual penalty. But hey, my family keeps voting Republican all the while because bootstraps, amirite?

Ouze wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I myself was on unemployment in '09 due to damn near everyone laying off at the time. I needed it, and took advantage when I needed it. I also got off of it the first second I could find work. There are some people in my local area that have been on it for years.

Isn't there a 26 week limit in Indiana? I know that was extended temporarily during the worst of the recession, but how does "years" happen?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I myself was on unemployment in '09 due to damn near everyone laying off at the time. I needed it, and took advantage when I needed it. I also got off of it the first second I could find work. There are some people in my local area that have been on it for years.

Isn't there a 26 week limit in Indiana? I know that was extended temporarily during the worst of the recession, but how does "years" happen?

They probably switched from unemployment to social security disability.

:You can apply for extensions. I'm not sure what the max is, but the 26 week thing is for each iteration of Unemployment. That rule actually went into effect AFTER I got off of Unemployment. I didn't have to apply for any extensions when I was on it, and I think I was pushing a year when I did it, or at least close to it. But I also was constantly looking and took the first job I could find that paid more than $11 an hour, and bode my time until I was called back to my previous job. Because "bootstraps" apparently.

The extensions were relaxed during the worst part of the recession, but the most extreme elements were all phased out in 2012. You can get extensions now but they are nowhere near for years, and they have all sorts of restrictions. The first level is like an additional 14 weeks, and after that it's like,6% unemployment is required. Pretty much only Alaska.

So far as "each iteration", I'm pretty sure most states require at least some work before you can get benefits again. You can't just get unemployment for the max, get an extension, burn it, and then apply over again and start anew. You need to have worked at least x quarters to be eligible again for a year and then have lost that job through no fault of your own.

I've never gotten unemployment so I could be mistaken, but I don't think people coasting for years on unemployment is really possible any more.

 daedalus wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Usually they have the wrong sort of strings attached where they make it worse off if you work some,

Yeah, that's the big problem almost universally with that kind of stuff everywhere it seems. My sister is single and has two kids and recently lost her job because central Illinois is an inhospitable economic shithole unless you work for the state or in healthcare. As it stands, she can't find a job that would pay close to the one she had previously, and if she takes just any job she can find for the sake of having a job, she loses what little assistance she is getting.

Not only is there no economic incentive to try, there's an actual penalty. But hey, my family keeps voting Republican all the while because bootstraps, amirite?

I sometimes wonder if those things are in there as a poison pill by certain parties to 'prove' they 'don't work' and should thus just be ended.

Some people are just convinced that there is a major epidemic of benefits cheats. Wanting to axe social services because some people cheat the system is like wanting to ban baseball because sometimes a player gets beaned.

Rather than simply being outraged that people stay on unemployment (and welfare in general) for "too long" we could ask why this is happening. Why are people willing to settle for low income while creating a resume gap that makes it even more difficult to find work in the future? Are they just hopelessly lazy, or could there be another reason? Could it have something to do with the alternative being working a job for wages, wages that are subsidized by taxpayers to keep corporate profit margins healthy, with little or no hope of advancement and a long-term outlook of being made permanently obsolete by a machine? Perhaps people look at these jobs, recognize that these "jobs" are soul-crushing destruction of humanity that adds nothing to society besides fueling our collective masturbation over the idea of "hard work" and "bootstraps", and don't want to participate? Nope, must be laziness.

Fix the broken capitalist system, stop allowing companies to pay poverty-level wages and leave taxpayers with the bill for welfare services to make up the difference, and maybe people will be less interested in staying on welfare. At least until guaranteed unemployment starts to become a significant percentage of the population, and the choice becomes universal basic income vs. the execution of the wealthy (and the politicians on their bribe lists) followed by universal basic income.

 Peregrine wrote:
Rather than simply being outraged that people stay on unemployment (and welfare in general) for "too long" we could ask why this is happening. Why are people willing to settle for low income while creating a resume gap that makes it even more difficult to find work in the future? Are they just hopelessly lazy, or could there be another reason? Could it have something to do with the alternative being working a job for wages, wages that are subsidized by taxpayers to keep corporate profit margins healthy, with little or no hope of advancement and a long-term outlook of being made permanently obsolete by a machine? Perhaps people look at these jobs, recognize that these "jobs" are soul-crushing destruction of humanity that adds nothing to society besides fueling our collective masturbation over the idea of "hard work" and "bootstraps", and don't want to participate? Nope, must be laziness.

Fix the broken capitalist system, stop allowing companies to pay poverty-level wages and leave taxpayers with the bill for welfare services to make up the difference, and maybe people will be less interested in staying on welfare. At least until guaranteed unemployment starts to become a significant percentage of the population, and the choice becomes universal basic income vs. the execution of the wealthy (and the politicians on their bribe lists) followed by universal basic income.

I mean, not wanting to do a job just because it is a "soul crushing destruction of humanity" (hyperbole much?) is kinda lazy, yeah.

It's not laziness, though. Taking that part time Walmart gig will likely cause your overall benefits to drop, though. It's survival.

 feeder wrote:
I mean, not wanting to do a job just because it is a "soul crushing destruction of humanity" (hyperbole much?) is kinda lazy, yeah.

I think there's a difference between "I don't want to do anything to help myself" and "I don't want to submit to torture for the sake of some smug billionaire getting to masturbate over 'hard work' every election season". One is a rejection of working at all, one is a recognition that throwing away one's life into a black hole of despair that provides zero benefit to society is not a good thing. Give most of these people a decent job and they'd probably take it. The problem is that we have allowed decent jobs to disappear in favor of borderline slavery, and many people have little or no hope of anything better.

And it's not really hyperbole. Look up stuff like Amazon's warehouses where the employees have GPS trackers monitoring their exact positions at all times and can be disciplined (including being fired!) for taking a route that is a few steps longer than optimal.

 Peregrine wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I mean, not wanting to do a job just because it is a "soul crushing destruction of humanity" (hyperbole much?) is kinda lazy, yeah.

I think there's a difference between "I don't want to do anything to help myself" and "I don't want to submit to torture for the sake of some smug billionaire getting to masturbate over 'hard work' every election season". One is a rejection of working at all, one is a recognition that throwing away one's life into a black hole of despair that provides zero benefit to society is not a good thing. Give most of these people a decent job and they'd probably take it. The problem is that we have allowed decent jobs to disappear in favor of borderline slavery, and many people have little or no hope of anything better.

And it's not really hyperbole. Look up stuff like Amazon's warehouses where the employees have GPS trackers monitoring their exact positions at all times and can be disciplined (including being fired!) for taking a route that is a few steps longer than optimal.

I suppose, if one defines their life around the job they do. But that's a Live to Work vs Work to Live mentality. I'm in the latter camp.

Yeah there are absolutely insane Amazon warehouse stories. From having timed bathroom breaks that for some stations means you can barely reach the bathroom and get back, let alone use it, to people fighting over who gets the smaller items, because smaller items=easier to pack and reach your absurd hourly package sorting goals.

 feeder wrote:
I suppose, if one defines their life around the job they do. But that's a Live to Work vs Work to Live mentality. I'm in the latter camp.

That's something you only get to do if you have the privilege of a decent job. If you're working multiple jobs (including spending time commuting between everything, often on slow and horrible public transportation) just to be able to eat every week you don't really have that option.

 feeder wrote:
I suppose, if one defines their life around the job they do. But that's a Live to Work vs Work to Live mentality. I'm in the latter camp.

From personal experience being in the latter camp, a 10-12 hour a day minimum wage job makes work significantly bleed into your life, from still being barely able to afford to do anything nice, to having little free time and just facing physical and mental exhaustion after work. I'm glad I got out before suffering a breakdown I was inches away from.

 feeder wrote:

I suppose, if one defines their life around the job they do. But that's a Live to Work vs Work to Live mentality. I'm in the latter camp.

That's the problem though: Some places you get the very real choice between "Live to Work" and "Don't Work", because it's a buyer's market on labor and everyone knows it. I listen to the insane expectations that friends/family have to deal with that work gak jobs in places like that, and I ask them why they put up with it, and the answer is usually "come find a better job around here."

And yeah, sure, you can ALWAYS move, soon as you figure out how to afford it on your $10/hour (if you're lucky). Especially when moving to some place that offers improved economic opportunity, which will almost always be more expensive, because improved economic opportunity.

Rural America is very much so an economic wasteland aside from anywhere within driving distance of a medium to large city. And I'm not so sure about those either.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Yeah there are absolutely insane Amazon warehouse stories. From having timed bathroom breaks that for some stations means you can barely reach the bathroom and get back, let alone use it, to people fighting over who gets the smaller items, because smaller items=easier to pack and reach your absurd hourly package sorting goals.

Yeah. Amazon do have a few horror stories.

One in UK was called before parliament as they often had ambulances called to the side, including someone giving birth I think....

feeder wrote:Some people are just convinced that there is a major epidemic of benefits cheats. Wanting to axe social services because some people cheat the system is like wanting to ban baseball because sometimes a player gets beaned.

Yeah, from what I read about social services those usually benefit more than they cost (as they reduce cost in other parts of society) and the rate of abuse (cheating) is usually rather low and insignificant in comparison to all the benefits. Per euro/dollar (or your local currency) it also benefits the economy much more than another tax cut for the rich. In the grand scheme of things a few lazy bums could technically be ignored but people would rather make things harder for everyone (and pay even more for that "feature") than just ignore a few cheaters.

Disciple of Fate wrote:Yeah there are absolutely insane Amazon warehouse stories. From having timed bathroom breaks that for some stations means you can barely reach the bathroom and get back, let alone use it, to people fighting over who gets the smaller items, because smaller items=easier to pack and reach your absurd hourly package sorting goals.

And those warehouse workers still need government benefits to survive while Amazon makes over $300000 per employee per year (and their shareholders benefit from that too). Go capitalism!

I remember on the bus one time my wife and I saw a lady reading a book the cover of which was something like 'getting every dollar you can out of welfare'. Looking over her shoulder we could read the blurb on the back, which argued that every person is entitled to using any trick they can to get everything possible out of welfare. It pissed me and my wife right off.

A day or two later we were telling friends about it, full of righteous anger, and a bell went off in my head, and I wondered how that the attitude in that book caused me to be outraged on a moral level, but the exact same attitude applied to tax avoidance didn't. Both were just people working with the rules they were given to try and get the most they could out of the system. But I accepted tax avoidance as just something people did, I even worked in a tax office that was pretty aggressive in creating tax avoidance set ups. And the reality is tax avoidance costs government far more than welfare manipulation ever could, so my different level of outrage wasn't based on the scale of each problem.

I actually still don't know the exact answer to this. The best I've been able to come up with was normalisation, everyone I knew paid taxes and wanted personally to pay less, but I knew barely anyone who'd ever been on welfare, not even on part welfare. So perhaps people who are familiar with life on welfare, because they're on welfare and/or grew up around people on welfare, perhaps to them it's just a normal thing to talk about working welfare to get a little more, and they are outraged that middle class people invent mechanisms to reduce their taxes?

Whatever it is, I think it showed to me I had some very moralistic ideas that actually didn't make a lot of sense when given some perspective. And while someone else's exact stance might be quite different, I still notice that those positions are often infused with their own kind of moralism, that also doesn't make a lot of sense when given some perspective.

That's the thing about UBI that's really good. It takes all the moralism out of it. It just makes sure everyone has enough to meet their basic needs.

 Just Tony wrote:
I think the issue with the program in Finland was the "no strings attached" portion of it.

The whole point of the Finland experiment was the 'no strings attached' portion. You get the money whether you try to find work or you don't. You get the money even if you get a job. It's a basic income you get no matter what else is going on in your life. This means it can't abused or defrauded, no-one would be getting it while someone else missed out. But that would only be if it was rolled out to everyone across the country. It's why the very limited experiment idea was so weird.

Ouze wrote:The extensions were relaxed during the worst part of the recession, but the most extreme elements were all phased out in 2012. You can get extensions now but they are nowhere near for years, and they have all sorts of restrictions. The first level is like an additional 14 weeks, and after that it's like,6% unemployment is required. Pretty much only Alaska.

So far as "each iteration", I'm pretty sure most states require at least some work before you can get benefits again. You can't just get unemployment for the max, get an extension, burn it, and then apply over again and start anew. You need to have worked at least x quarters to be eligible again for a year and then have lost that job through no fault of your own.

I've never gotten unemployment so I could be mistaken, but I don't think people coasting for years on unemployment is really possible any more.

You may be right, it could have changed since last I had to deal with it. The last time I applied for unemployment was during a layoff that lasted 29 days. In my "orientation" to that layoff session, the 26 weeks was outlined, as well as the extension process.

And yes, you have to work for X amount of time to qualify in the first place. 3-4 months at a temp job gets you that qualification. Seriously, if I didn't see this sort of stuff in person, I wouldn't rail about it. I think the resource is absolutely necessary, and goes a long way to helping people who are indeed in need, but at the same time I also am aware of the welfare crowd that goes out of their way to abuse that. It's the same group of people who leave the plasma donation clinic and buy a carton of smokes from the smoke shop in the same shopping center. The issue there isn't the resource, it's the people.

Peregrine wrote:Rather than simply being outraged that people stay on unemployment (and welfare in general) for "too long" we could ask why this is happening. Why are people willing to settle for low income while creating a resume gap that makes it even more difficult to find work in the future? Are they just hopelessly lazy, or could there be another reason? Could it have something to do with the alternative being working a job for wages, wages that are subsidized by taxpayers to keep corporate profit margins healthy, with little or no hope of advancement and a long-term outlook of being made permanently obsolete by a machine? Perhaps people look at these jobs, recognize that these "jobs" are soul-crushing destruction of humanity that adds nothing to society besides fueling our collective masturbation over the idea of "hard work" and "bootstraps", and don't want to participate? Nope, must be laziness.

Fix the broken capitalist system, stop allowing companies to pay poverty-level wages and leave taxpayers with the bill for welfare services to make up the difference, and maybe people will be less interested in staying on welfare. At least until guaranteed unemployment starts to become a significant percentage of the population, and the choice becomes universal basic income vs. the execution of the wealthy (and the politicians on their bribe lists) followed by universal basic income.

I have to give you credit, you definitely stick to your Marxist guns. Could it be possible that people can find work ABOVE minimum wage while attempting to find better employment? Half the minimum wage jobs in the US are jobs meant for high school and college students who are just starting out and need both small supplemental income as well as some work experience to demonstrate work ethic and schedule discipline for their resume, however you still have adults that work their entire life as a Sandwich Artist at Subway because of some distaste of manufacturing work (met 7 that think like this, so far). The other half are either low profit industry in the first place or are the catch all for people who make themselves unemployable elsewhere. Security guard comes to mind almost immediately there. The rest of the occupations are above that mark, and if Indiana is any sort of barometer, still looking for employees to fill vacancies.

Also, as far as the whole automation thing:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/16/elon-musk-humans-robots-slow-down-tesla-model-3-production

May not want to pin your hopes and dreams on automation replacing most jobs just yet.

sebster wrote:I remember on the bus one time my wife and I saw a lady reading a book the cover of which was something like 'getting every dollar you can out of welfare'. Looking over her shoulder we could read the blurb on the back, which argued that every person is entitled to using any trick they can to get everything possible out of welfare. It pissed me and my wife right off.

A day or two later we were telling friends about it, full of righteous anger, and a bell went off in my head, and I wondered how that the attitude in that book caused me to be outraged on a moral level, but the exact same attitude applied to tax avoidance didn't. Both were just people working with the rules they were given to try and get the most they could out of the system. But I accepted tax avoidance as just something people did, I even worked in a tax office that was pretty aggressive in creating tax avoidance set ups. And the reality is tax avoidance costs government far more than welfare manipulation ever could, so my different level of outrage wasn't based on the scale of each problem.

I actually still don't know the exact answer to this. The best I've been able to come up with was normalisation, everyone I knew paid taxes and wanted personally to pay less, but I knew barely anyone who'd ever been on welfare, not even on part welfare. So perhaps people who are familiar with life on welfare, because they're on welfare and/or grew up around people on welfare, perhaps to them it's just a normal thing to talk about working welfare to get a little more, and they are outraged that middle class people invent mechanisms to reduce their taxes?

Whatever it is, I think it showed to me I had some very moralistic ideas that actually didn't make a lot of sense when given some perspective. And while someone else's exact stance might be quite different, I still notice that those positions are often infused with their own kind of moralism, that also doesn't make a lot of sense when given some perspective.

That's the thing about UBI that's really good. It takes all the moralism out of it. It just makes sure everyone has enough to meet their basic needs.

As far as the morality question, I think that for the most part you have a stigma attached to being on welfare which elicits that visceral impulse reaction you mentioned. My family growing up had my mom's wire factory shut down and lay her off while the trucking company my dad drove for went out of business and the market was really bleak. We were forced to be on welfare and government assistance at the time, including the government food pantry hand outs at the time. Oh, the joys of going to the distribution center to pick up the oatmeal, cheese, peanut butter, puffed wheat, and other essentials. The distribution center, mind you, that was situated in the section of town near the doctors' office, smack in the middle of the most affluent houses with the most affluent families. It was literally a walk of shame. THAT sort of stigma is attached to welfare, and it affected me on a personal level growing up with it. I will shovel gak out of hog barns as a side job rather than take that sort of assistance again. As well as my company is doing now, I don't have to really worry about it. But just noting it now, if ever a time comes that I can't support every aspect of my family with my job, military service, and the benefits attached to them, then I will take on another 40 hour week job on top of what I do rather than take a hand out. Because "bootstraps", apparently.

sebster wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I think the issue with the program in Finland was the "no strings attached" portion of it.

The whole point of the Finland experiment was the 'no strings attached' portion. You get the money whether you try to find work or you don't. You get the money even if you get a job. It's a basic income you get no matter what else is going on in your life. This means it can't abused or defrauded, no-one would be getting it while someone else missed out. But that would only be if it was rolled out to everyone across the country. It's why the very limited experiment idea was so weird.

I questioned the limited scope of the "experiment", I questioned the source of the income for the experiment, but then I looked up tax rates in Finland and I got my answer. I also realize that part of the experiment was an attempt to see if losing benefits was the driving force for keeping people out of the job market, at least that's how I was understanding it. It may be, I don't know. I also don't live in Finland, so I don't have a finger on the pulse of the job market to say whether the work is simply not there in the first place. My thoughts are that they are reported in that article as replacing the experimental Universal Wage with something incentive based. I'm wondering if it's either far too few people actively looking for real work while on the program which might paint things in a poor light, or more that steering towards more taxable income to help pay for said benefit.

 Just Tony wrote:
Half the minimum wage jobs in the US are jobs meant for high school and college students who are just starting out and need both small supplemental income

There's no 'meant' involved in this. Jobs are created because a business has a task that needs doing, and the pay is set not at what it's 'meant' to be, but simply at the pay rate that gives the company enough labour of a sufficient skill level. It's an interesting thing that so many strong free marketeers presume an intent and meaning behind so much of the market's operations.

As far as the morality question, I think that for the most part you have a stigma attached to being on welfare which elicits that visceral impulse reaction you mentioned.

No, I have no issue with someone being on welfare, and I don't think any less of someone who needed help. That's life, it happens. That's why I found my reaction interesting - I have no issue with someone being on welfare, but I had a strong reaction against someone reading a book on how to work the system for the maximum gain.

My family growing up had my mom's wire factory shut down and lay her off while the trucking company my dad drove for went out of business and the market was really bleak. We were forced to be on welfare and government assistance at the time, including the government food pantry hand outs at the time. Oh, the joys of going to the distribution center to pick up the oatmeal, cheese, peanut butter, puffed wheat, and other essentials. The distribution center, mind you, that was situated in the section of town near the doctors' office, smack in the middle of the most affluent houses with the most affluent families. It was literally a walk of shame. THAT sort of stigma is attached to welfare, and it affected me on a personal level growing up with it. I will shovel gak out of hog barns as a side job rather than take that sort of assistance again. As well as my company is doing now, I don't have to really worry about it. But just noting it now, if ever a time comes that I can't support every aspect of my family with my job, military service, and the benefits attached to them, then I will take on another 40 hour week job on top of what I do rather than take a hand out. Because "bootstraps", apparently.

Interesting story, thanks for telling it. I've got a foot in both camps on the stigma of welfare. On the one hand people shouldn't be stigmatised for being in need, that's just not cool. On the other hand, I'm really not comfortable with the kind of mentality where everyone looks to government and policy as a way of getting paid as much as possible without regard for actual need.

There needs to be a stigma on people taking when they don't need to, and the same stigma for people who avoid paying what they ought to, without stigmatising people who have genuine reasons to draw on the system. Not an easy thing to achieve.

I questioned the limited scope of the "experiment", I questioned the source of the income for the experiment, but then I looked up tax rates in Finland and I got my answer.

It wasn't that much money. When you look at what gets paid in benefits, low income tax rebates, private/public pensions, rental assistance, and so on, the amount given was probably on the small end for what a UBI could pay.

[I also realize that part of the experiment was an attempt to see if losing benefits was the driving force for keeping people out of the job market, at least that's how I was understanding it.

That's a key part of UBI, yeah, the idea that having a government conditional on not working encourages some people to stay out of work. The other part, which they never got to, is that there might be a significant economic loss from people who are unable to take risks to try and start a new business or go back to school or whatever, because they have to keep their current job just to keep their heads above water. By paying UBI to literally everyone, it means people would be free to leave work for a short time to try a business or whatever.

I'm wondering if it's either far too few people actively looking for real work while on the program which might paint things in a poor light, or more that steering towards more taxable income to help pay for said benefit.

The people who ran the experiment were upset it was closed down, so I doubt that was it. It's more likely that the idea is probably a least a decade ahead of being seriously viable on either a cultural or economic level, and run as a limited experiment was weird and just kind of unfair. As such, this got shut down as soon as the political winds shifted even slightly.

 Just Tony wrote:
[And yes, you have to work for X amount of time to qualify in the first place. 3-4 months at a temp job gets you that qualification. Seriously, if I didn't see this sort of stuff in person, I wouldn't rail about it. I think the resource is absolutely necessary, and goes a long way to helping people who are indeed in need, but at the same time I also am aware of the welfare crowd that goes out of their way to abuse that. .

Pretty confident you can't qualify for unemployment for another 26 week cycle with a single quarter of work; and again, you need to lose that job through no fault of you own. These details matter because it's the difference between identifying an issue and inventing a narrative.

Also, why lump in unemployment with welfare? It's like attaching a stigma to workers comp; it's insurance that was paid into and earned.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Sorry, you misunderstand, perhaps because of my wording. It's extra money in the context of them keeping it if they get a job. But that extra money isn't going to pull long term unemployed people out of unemployment because those people are almost never unemployed because they wouldn't get enough money. These people are unemployed for reasons (skill set, age, job market demand) that go far beyond some extra numbers on a paycheck is what I'm saying, hence 'extra' money isn't going to help.

Your example is a great... example of the reasons beyond extra money. There are structural issues in the current day job market that need fixing before schemes like the extra money one would actually have some effect. Extra money won't magically create viable jobs for people who have already been unemployed for years.

Some of them might be unable but how many will turn down jobs because it's not PROFITABLE for them? Look at my example. I would have had to PAY to do money. With this sytem however I would have had no reason to not take the job.

This is not pouring new extra money for unemployed but give them incentive to take a job, ANY job. There's low pay/part-time jobs but as it is it's often not sensible to take. That's what this system would fight rather than just throwing more money(hell money they pay would be pretty much same anyway).

It's not about creating new jobs but making people take jobs already out there.

tneva82 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Sorry, you misunderstand, perhaps because of my wording. It's extra money in the context of them keeping it if they get a job. But that extra money isn't going to pull long term unemployed people out of unemployment because those people are almost never unemployed because they wouldn't get enough money. These people are unemployed for reasons (skill set, age, job market demand) that go far beyond some extra numbers on a paycheck is what I'm saying, hence 'extra' money isn't going to help.

Your example is a great... example of the reasons beyond extra money. There are structural issues in the current day job market that need fixing before schemes like the extra money one would actually have some effect. Extra money won't magically create viable jobs for people who have already been unemployed for years.

Some of them might be unable but how many will turn down jobs because it's not PROFITABLE for them? Look at my example. I would have had to PAY to do money. With this sytem however I would have had no reason to not take the job.

This is not pouring new extra money for unemployed but give them incentive to take a job, ANY job. There's low pay/part-time jobs but as it is it's often not sensible to take. That's what this system would fight rather than just throwing more money(hell money they pay would be pretty much same anyway).

It's not about creating new jobs but making people take jobs already out there.

You are a bad example for this UBI trial because you weren't LONG term unemployed, which is they key part in this consideration. I have no doubt that people without any significant gaps in their CV might more easily find work for which this UBI plan could help, but those people weren't the target in the first place.

And again, why would it incentivize you to take any job? Some jobs pay such trash wages for the work involved and the hit your personal life takes its not worth the effort. If the work needs doing, why not pay a wage for which people want to do it in the first place? That would be an ass backward way of approaching this, as the government would be basically subsidizing companies who don't deem it necesarry to offer a job a person could live on. By all means employ UBI, but don't do it to help exploitative business practices. If you can't find people to do your job, maybe consider why people don't take it first, instead of expecting the government to subsidize your workers.

 Just Tony wrote:
Assuming, of course, that everyone on long term unemployment is on it because of those reasons, and not to collect benefits. I think it's the nature of any entitlement that there will always be people to abuse it.

Even if people (which I doubt happens a lot, but there will always be some) initially 'go' into longterm unemployment just to get the benefits, if they stay there long enough, chances are they will lose the skills needed to be a good employee even if they had them before. Their knowledge becomes outdated, many of them become socially isolated which generally does not improve your people skills, they may lose the discipline to get up early enough for work every morning.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You are a bad example for this UBI trial because you weren't LONG term unemployed, which is they key part in this consideration. I have no doubt that people without any significant gaps in their CV might more easily find work for which this UBI plan could help, but those people weren't the target in the first place.

And again, why would it incentivize you to take any job? Some jobs pay such trash wages for the work involved and the hit your personal life takes its not worth the effort. If the work needs doing, why not pay a wage for which people want to do it in the first place? That would be an ass backward way of approaching this, as the government would be basically subsidizing companies who don't deem it necesarry to offer a job a person could live on. By all means employ UBI, but don't do it to help exploitative business practices. If you can't find people to do your job, maybe consider why people don't take it first, instead of expecting the government to subsidize your workers.

At that point I had zero entries in my CV besides summer jobs so...Not sure how you figure I was not long term unemployed. And I would have had to literally turn the job task down(or at least do it unofficially for free as a favour for the company). With this system I wouldn't have had to. And the "work costing money" isn't that unusual situation...

And why? Maybe because I figure 4 hours a week wouldn't be that bad for extra cash wouldn't be bad idea...Simple matter of life there's plenty of jobs out there but they aren't 40h/week type of gigs with certain work hours. At times you might get decent hours, then another month barely anything. If you take that you risk losing enough benefits that you lose money. With this it's simple case of do you want more money or not.

Whenever you need to actively calculate whether you can AFFORD to take a job you know there's situation where people don't have incentive to take a job financially. Job could be fun, might be quite reasonable hourly wage with reasonable work hours but because amount of hours per month isn't going to be beyond treshold X or even set(so having another job at the same time would be tricky) but you would have to REALLY want something to CV to literally pay to do the job.

tneva82 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You are a bad example for this UBI trial because you weren't LONG term unemployed, which is they key part in this consideration. I have no doubt that people without any significant gaps in their CV might more easily find work for which this UBI plan could help, but those people weren't the target in the first place.

And again, why would it incentivize you to take any job? Some jobs pay such trash wages for the work involved and the hit your personal life takes its not worth the effort. If the work needs doing, why not pay a wage for which people want to do it in the first place? That would be an ass backward way of approaching this, as the government would be basically subsidizing companies who don't deem it necesarry to offer a job a person could live on. By all means employ UBI, but don't do it to help exploitative business practices. If you can't find people to do your job, maybe consider why people don't take it first, instead of expecting the government to subsidize your workers.

At that point I had zero entries in my CV besides summer jobs so...Not sure how you figure I was not long term unemployed.

And why? Maybe because I figure 4 hours a week wouldn't be that bad for extra cash wouldn't be bad idea...Simple matter of life there's plenty of jobs out there but they aren't 40h/week type of gigs with certain work hours. At times you might get decent hours, then another month barely anything. If you take that you risk losing enough benefits that you lose money. With this it's simple case of do you want more money or not.

Whenever you need to actively calculate whether you can AFFORD to take a job you know there's situation where people don't have incentive to take a job financially. Job could be fun, might be quite reasonable hourly wage with reasonable work hours but because amount of hours per month isn't going to be beyond treshold X or even set(so having another job at the same time would be tricky) but you would have to REALLY want something to CV to literally pay to do the job.

How can you be long term unemployed if you hadn't even had your first full job? From summer jobs I assume you're young, maybe in your late teens at the time? We don't consider children who haven't had a job unemployed. You better be joking, because else you just made yourself an even worse example for this UBI trial as you would be as far off the mark for it as possible.

You had a little job to make some money on the side, this isn't about money on the side. This is about adults that need a job to survive because else they have no income. When a job isn't worth taking financially that is a company problem, not a government problem!

What you're advocating is basically government subsidies for for profit companies. I will be damned before I give my taxes to a UBI scheme that is nothing more than a glorified method of saving profit driven companies a bunch of money by providing cheap labor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I did the 'part' time work. Let me give you this example. Everyone that worked for the company had part time contracts, because the part time minimum wage is lower. Yet almost everyone consistently made around 50 hours a week. If you complained or wanted a day off you would be looking at perhaps 10 hours next month while other worked more to cover for you, "because that will show you with your time off!" At minimum wage the boss kept complaining that the company couldn't attract better employees and that everybody left as soon as possible. This while the company made a profit of millions and the year in which I left and had a record expansion. That is the kind of gakky business that would benefit from attracting staff by your supplemental UBI plan, while they should be attracting staff by improving conditions.

I'm not against UBI as a concept, I'm against UBI that just enables bad business practices.

I have a major issue with the way unemployment benefits sometimes work in the UK.

A few years ago my now-wife was unemployed and on Jobseeker's Allowance here. She was actively dissuaded from taking part-time or short-term jobs by the staff in the Job Centre because taking them would stop/reduce her benefit. Obviously she ignored them, and one of the jobs lead onto a full-time proper job, paying a proper wage way above the benefits she was receiving. I just don't think the Job Centre is set up properly to get people off of benefits and into proper full-time employment.

I do however think UBI would work - but it would need a whole load of changes across multiple areas of government and society in general. The first of Ed Milibands 'Reasons to be Cheerful' podcast was on the subject - it was very interesting: https://cheerful.libsyn.com/episode-1-free-money-for-all-the-universal-basic-income

 Just Tony wrote:
Half the minimum wage jobs in the US are jobs meant for high school and college students who are just starting out and need both small supplemental income as well as some work experience to demonstrate work ethic and schedule discipline for their resume, however you still have adults that work their entire life as a Sandwich Artist at Subway because of some distaste of manufacturing work (met 7 that think like this, so far).

This is utter nonsense. These jobs are not "meant" for students because places like Subway are open during the hours that students are in class or asleep. The majority of fast food jobs are going to adults using them as normal jobs, and it's absurd to suggest otherwise.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/16/elon-musk-humans-robots-slow-down-tesla-model-3-production

May not want to pin your hopes and dreams on automation replacing most jobs just yet.

As seems to be the theme in these discussions, you're missing the point. Automation is not taking over all jobs right now. But automation is only going to get better, and as it gets better it will continue to replace human jobs with machines. We already have problems with this, and it's only going to get worse. And well short of near-total elimination of human labor we will have the social conflicts that will make socialism inevitable. If 25% of the population is literally unemployable in any meaningful capacity do you think they're going to passively accept their fate and starve to death? Of course not. If the state doesn't voluntarily step in to fix the problem then they're going to exercise their second amendment rights and start lining the wealthy up against the wall until the survivors accept that socialism is the next step.