How do I get... yes, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION?

[David Floyd]

Me think you don't know what 'specific' means.

Then explain to me how you can be owed a job if no one specifically owes you one.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then explain to me how you can be owed a job if no one specifically owes you one.

If there is no job for me, then I should be compensated.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by monkspider
Pretty ****ty, it was back in my fast food days. Like 6 somethin.

Uh, that is above minimum wage. On what grounds would you be eligible for it?

[David Floyd]

If there is no job for me, then I should be compensated.

So, then, people don't actually owe you a job, they just owe you money, right?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Chegitz, that's Florida, and everyone knows Florida Unemployment sucks.

Well, I've only lived and worked in ****ing "right-to-work" states (IL & FL), which is really a misnomer, since what they mean is you have NO right-to-work.

[David Floyd]

No, it means you have a right to work if someone will employ you. I love Texas BECAUSE we're a right to work state, I only wish my companies HR policies reflected that a little more.

[Hurricane]

So David, what do you think should be done then about the people that can't find a job (if the state doesn't do anything to find a job for them, and neither pay them any unemployment compensations)?

[David Floyd]

What should be done? Well, those people have a responsibility to themselves - I don't have a responsibility to them (except to refrain from harming them). What they should do is find a job - and believe me, there are jobs available, such as flipping burgers at McDonald's and unloading trucks at Walmart. They may not want the jobs, but that's no reason for me to pay them not to work.

Ultimately, though, my answer is going to come down to "Let them starve" rather than force others to pay them for doing nothing - let's be crystal clear about that.

[Hurricane]

A more PC answer would probably be "let their families take care of them". That, however, doesn't ring too well with the ultra-individualism so in fashion in USA (and most of Western Europe) today.

[Ben Kenobi]

What do you mean?

For most those are the options, state support versus filial support.

Seems to me, there are very few individualists that will insist that the family should not play a role in supporting their members.

[The Mad Monk]

Except, of course, for Krazyhorse.

[Hurricane]

I don't really agree. The culture today is saturated with individualism - everybody for themselves. How else could you explain the multi-million paychecks of CEO's or the absurd interest in all kinds of reality shows. This is a far cry from the traditional family role, where better-off relatives support their less fortunate ones. And now I'm not talking only about the core family (parents and their children), but also cousins, uncles and so on.

[Ben Kenobi]

I agree with you, Hurricane, but the problem with this individualism is that most people who espouse this view, in rejecting the traditional family, rely upon the state.

How many of these individualists reject welfare?

[Hurricane]

Good question.

[Al B. Sure!]

flipping burgers at McDonald's

no flipping takes place anymore. they use a double grill that cooks both sides simultaneously