Disturbing conversation at work.

I agree man 100%. I am making less working than on UI. 50miles round trip with gas cuts $10hr down even more. Most people just can't understand why you would do it, but they are typically still living at home with mom and dad. If I wasn't married and had saved from deploying I would have been screwed because the Police job that I was working on got cut due to budget cuts.

Still wondering if I can get the seal of approval from the OP...

 

Fair enough. What you're saying makes complete sense and isn't something I had considered. And once again, you're ideology makes sense to me, just something I wouldn't necessarily do. It's your money you put in for 30 years, thus you should be able to use it whenever you think you need to. I guess everyone just has a different opinion and ideology on the situation as a whole.

 

*Stamp* OP's seal of approval.

 

The welfare situation is easy to solve. They're already receiving a "paycheck" from the public. So why not put them to work for the public? Filling potholes, picking up litter, managing forests, mowing & weeding parks, planting medians, etc.

Australia does it to great effect, starting off new recipients with (I believe it is) 6 months of benefits provided they avail themselves of the freely available job skills training opportunities, and are actively pursuing work. After the initial period, in order to keep receiving benefits, recipients are now assigned 10 hours a week of public work. Eventually it's bumped to 20 hours. Then 30. Finally full time.

Again, they're already receiving a "paycheck" so why not put them to work? We have plenty to do in this country, and literally millions of people who are already being paid. So why not mobilize that workforce?

Now for those who are not able bodied or are primary childcare providers, certainly exceptions can be made. But for those who flat out refuse to participate, you made your choice. You're cut off.

One thing that doesn't work .. drug testing recipients. With the exception of marijuana, every drug ... heroin, codeine, morphine, meth, cocaine, ecstacy, LSD ... is out of the blood & urine within 1-5 days. And the most abused intoxicant of all ... alcohol ... is out in a matter of hours. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars for states to pursue it. Just put them to work.

 

Did you just bring a welfare argument into a thread about unemployment? And, then .. did you try to compare the two and get them mixed up?

Yea, let's listen to this guys opinion.

 

Agreed... You are speaking of Welfare and not temporary unemployment right? Logistically it would be a waste of time to have a person on UI for a month to go mow lawns when they should be looking for jobs. Which actually does take a lot of time. I was amazed that I could be job searching for 6 hours a day just online.

 

And in no way was I trying to start a huge flamefest. I understand there are people who really need the unemployment system and I'm 100% ok with that. And then there are others, and I'm sure we all know one, who don't. That's what grinds my gears. But I am happy there's such a system in place to support hard working Americans trying to find a job. Now for the people who abuse that, that's a different story.
AMURICA

 

Heck, I drifted off onto the topic of welfare...nvmd.

 

You did nothing wrong, I let myself get worked up a bit because I get tired of uninformed ignorance. Not everyone on unemployment is lazy, some are and some aren't. Unfortunately, humans don't have a built in lazy detection. If we did, we would find ourselves wrong a lot of the times.

 

You'd be surprised how many who start out on temporary unemployment end up on long term (> 6 months) assistance. So bite me with your sarcastic attitude pal. How do you think people end up on welfare? They're linked.

 

Long term unemployment can last up to two years, more in some cases. That is still not even the same game as welfare. The two are not connected. Unemployment doesn't roll into welfare. One ends and the other may begin, that does not mean they are the same. You shouldn't try to spin them to be the same.

 

They both are public assistance. What are you missing here?

 

this angers me too...i think some are overlooking the fact that he was drinking on the job and got fired.

if making a decent living matters AT ALL to you, you don't do that dumb shit

if he got laid off for no reason, id be more willing to accept him taking unemployment

 

Over 4 years in the Army. Get out to go to school, try to get unemployment to help keep bills paid while getting settled into school before I get a job. Guess what DENIED. Why you ask "if you are able to fund school, we feel you should be able to meet the requirements to support yourself". I spend 4 year in service, 2 deployments, and because my GI bill is paying for school I am somehow less deserving than a crackhead who is too lazy to get a job.

 

Here's some psychology for you, Luke ...

When someone ends up on unemployment, it usually takes a few weeks to a month to regroup. It's very unsettling, and often leads to a period of depression. But most regroup quick enough and get back out there in earnest and try to find work, or job skills training (which most states provide some form of). Short term benefits are a godsend to these people

But work is like a muscle in the body. If not employed, it atrophies. After about a year, a lot of unemployment recipients begin to slip into an acceptance of their new state. Dejected and frustrated by constant rejection, they lose confidence in their abilites and the system. Without support, many will quickly fall back into resignation and depression.

And it's very difficult to get people to regroup once confidence is shot. Programs like the one I mentioned isn't meant to be punitive. It meant to keep people engaged, and energized, and connected with others.

There are a HUGE number of people in this country now on welfare that started out on unemployment, and never crawled out of the pit. Chronic depression is rampant with welfare recipients. It doesn't have to be that way if we create more ways for unemployment recipients to engage long before that 99 weeks of benefits is up. But right now, the fact is the closer people get to that 99 weeks, the greater the chance they'll end up on some form of welfare program. And it's not because they're lazy. It's because they're lost.

So yes... they're connected. Sorry if you don't see.

 

safety net is not an entitlement... just because "you can" doesn't mean "you should".... that is the key to having a sustainable safety net system... when i here some say they paid into it for X number of years, so they're "entitled" to XYZ, is what makes me cringe a little... it's good to have, but the noble thing to do is be virtuous about it and recognize it should be exercised only if the condition and the "need" for it persists...

...case in point: my somewhat lazy parents, ...who feel "entitled" to the medicare/etc... after all they "payed into it", right? ...so they think seeing doctors every week, taking a bazillion pills every day to combat their obesity and aches and pains, is much easier than taking the initative to exercise and use a little diet discipline... you can bet my parents aren't the only ones w/ this mentality - ...so you can see how we end up being bankrupted... in the grand scheme of things all of this stuff is a "tax" on my generation and successive generations to pay for those who take whether needed or not, because "entitled" to it...

 

Seems to be a misconception about unemployment insurance... The individual and the employer pay into it. It's you right to draw from it when you unemployed because you paid it! Now he should try a little harder to find a job, but it's his money... So why not.

 

Just like every other govt program just b/c you pay into it doesnt mean that they plan to give it to you, social security. And ins companies were also brought up, they wouldnt give out policies if they thought you were going to crash, house burn down, etc.

And just b/c the program exist doesnt mean that it should be used but then were to politics so ill leave with that

 

I don't disagree with the psychology but that's not my point. I also agree they're both public assistance programs ... but there are thousands of those. Are they all the same? I look at them differently. In my mind, which is a dangerous place, my employer and I pay into unemployment for me. We all pay into welfare for us. Can one lead to the other sure. Of course. But they are not the same and I still don't think they should be grouped together ... especially not the people.

 

Fair enough.

(and knowing your mind is a dangerous place is a great insight).