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

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


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

Oh you are really being ridiculous now. If someone invades your privacy what do they owe you? Money. Money is used to pay debts in the case where it is most appropriate. If everyone deserves a job, and there aren't enough jobs for everyone, the people without jobs should be compensated enough for them to survive.

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).

You wouldn't have responsibility for them if you didn't share in the benefits of society with them. If you don't want to share in the costs and benefits of society then you can go isolate yourself no an deserted island. Unemployment insurance is just one benefit of society. You don't just enjoy it while recieving it. You always enjoy it, because it's there for you when you need it.

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.

This is just ignorant. You don't have any idea about the job market.

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.

There it is. To win a debate with you is simply waiting for you to shoot yourself in the foot with your honesty. You can always depend on libertarians to be honest.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, it means you have a right to work if someone will employ you.

In other words, you have no right to work.

[Solomwi]

Right to work doesn't equal right to a job.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That depends on why you quit. If you're being treated like **** you should get benefits too. Most people don't just quit for no reason. Don't pull a Ronald Reagan on me and tell me people want to be unemployed.

While I don't say that "people" want to be unemployed as that is too broad a group, there are some people that do want to be unemployed when the benefits from unemployment can provide a reasonable standard of living. This is evidenced by the fact that they are unemployed year after year after year

I grew up in Newfoundland Canada where the unemployment rate is 20% or more in many communities and unemployment benefits were a anticipated and expected part of people's incomes. people would work the required 10 or 14 weeks (in fact , many people wouldn't work them but the fraud issue is a separate rant) and then go on benefits. people would face social pressure not to work beyond the benefits qualification period as that might deny another person the rights to qualify.

So don't even pretend that all people have the feeling that work is noble. If you create a system there will be some . .. . note some that abuse it.

The result was hundreds of people staying in small rural communities where there was no economic reason to be since the unemployment system subsidized it. heck, the provincial government was even a participant in the scam since they would provide short term make work projects whose sole purpose was to qualify people for Uniemployment insurance. Why? UI is paid by the feds in Canada while the province picks up the tab for welfare.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Unemployment is not charity, it is insurance. You pay into the system, and and get benefits when conditions are met, for a limited time, and based on what you put into the system.

.

Nice theory but in practice most systems are social welfare and not insurance. Consider . .. if a person uses benefits in 5 years of the last five (qualifying with short stints of employment each year), are their benefits reduced? Oh then their premiums must be radically increased? hmm no??


Or how about a person that has been employed for 20 years and pay in and then take a 1 year course ( which they can collect no benefits while taking)-- Then the person can't find a new job for a few weeeks but guess what? no benefits for them as they didn't "work" in the previous 52 weeks. TWENTY YEARS of paying in would entitle you to nothing

[Flubber]

Ooh and Speer


While I condemn the manager's actions in firing innocent parties, I can understand his fears if a beating is anticipated. heck you seem to think that a beating for him will almost surely happen. Must be tough to keep managers in that situation.

[pchang]

I don't see how this is different from regular insurance. If you pay for life insurance for 20 years, then stop paying for 1 year, your policy is over. If you die, you don't get anything, despite the fact that you did pay for 20 years.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by pchang
I don't see how this is different from regular insurance. If you pay for life insurance for 20 years, then stop paying for 1 year, your policy is over. If you die, you don't get anything, despite the fact that you did pay for 20 years.

The difference is that a student period is one where there is no risk of "unemployment" at all. So they had to "pay in" for a year of coverage they didn't get.

Also if you want to use life insurance as an analogy, why doesn't the person that has used unemployment insurance 20 times in 20 years have to pay higher premiums?

I have never gotten UI benefits ever, shouldn't my premiums go down ??

[pchang]

In America they do have to pay higher premiums. However, premiums are payed by the employer. Employers pay more when they have more former employees collecting. Unemployment offices find out who your last employer was before they give any benefits. This is why many employers will try to find "cause" if possible for firing people.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious



This is just ignorant. You don't have any idea about the job market.

.

Its interesting though that in TOUGH job markets, people who want "a job" seem to find them. I grew up in Newfoundland, Canada and the lowest unemployment rate in any community I lived was somewhere around 11%. But guess what, we always found jobs. Now working until 5 a.m. at a pizzeria on a Friday night was not my idea of fun but people should be willing to take those types of jobs. Its funny how the unemployed crowd never seemed able to find anything

Kid why should I work and someone else not work and get similar money. I think I am feeling exploited by those non-working freeloaders.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by pchang
In America they do have to pay higher premiums. However, premiums are payed by the employer. Employers pay more when they have more former employees collecting. Unemployment offices find out who your last employer was before they give any benefits. This is why many employers will try to find "cause" if possible for firing people.

So an industry facing a downturn and forced to lay people off is hit with higher government premiums. Harsh.

[pchang]

From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs. You should feel priviledged to be able to subsidize your fellow men who are not as capable as yourself.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by pchang
From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs. You should feel priviledged to be able to subsidize your fellow men who are not as capable as yourself.

Thats standard communist doctrine for the past. Kid has some variations that I believe involved standardization of abilities and needs. For example my wife would not be allowed to choose not to work in KIDLAND even if our family unit was willing to forgo the additional income

[pchang]

standard commie doctrine called that "reeducation"

[Flubber]

Originally posted by pchang
In America they do have to pay higher premiums. However, premiums are payed by the employer. Employers pay more when they have more former employees collecting. Unemployment offices find out who your last employer was before they give any benefits. This is why many employers will try to find "cause" if possible for firing people.

How does this work in practice? It would seem to encourage segregating out your businesses into separate corps so if you have to close one down, that corp can go bankrupt and avoid paying this. Do employers have to do anything to secure this obligation?