In debates on executive pay, and taxation, some on the right say that giant bonuses for CEOs are good things because they can’t be expected to work hard for a measly $5 million or so. Ditto for taxes - raising tax rates to back to what they were during the Clinton boom. These same people are now saying that more money from getting a real jobs doesn’t give any incentive to get off unemployment.
That’s a nice caricature, but who, exactly, is saying that?
Cite of prominent (or at least known) right leaning person making all of these claims?
I said debate, which means GD. Even prominent Republicans are not so stupid as to kiss the asses of Wall Street execs in this way.
That was my reaction too - I always had the impression that the US was relatively ungenerous with that sort of thing. I’m guessing that maybe those are total payments available, whereas here there’s additional assistance available with mortgage interest, free healthcare etc.
So, can you cite those posters here who are saying all those things?
Mr. DeLay has a right to not have people express the opinion that he’s a crook?
I can’t seem to find that one in my copy of the Constitution, but then my Penumbral Emanation Spectacles are at the shop being converted to bifocals…
Given the current market, I suspect many employers would not want to hire someone absurdly over-qualified, knowing full well that he or she will quit as soon as the economy improves. For the sake of economic efficiency, it makes sense to have a system which best matches jobs and skills - which a system encouraging PhDs to sling burgers does not.
In addition, if over-skilled person A takes the job of appropriately skilled person B, that person takes the job of less skilled person C, and so on down the line until we get the the poor guy on the bottom, who is going to get less unemployment and will no doubt be out of work longer. Ignoring the unfairness, unemployment pay also serves as a stimulus.
How about this one?
My friends roommate is unemployed because he wants to be. All the jobs he’s interviewed for in the last couple of months were offering less than unemployment was giving him so he elected to stay home and play World of Warcraft all day.
Call me crazy, but I don’t think that wanting to make more money than unemployment offers is unreasonable, given that unemployment generally only pays, at most, half of whatever your salary was. I turned down jobs that paid less than unemployment. I was struggling to pay my bills on unemployment, I certainly couldn’t afford to pay them on less than that, so I decided my time was better spent looking for a job that would actually, you know, pay my bills, which is, after all, kind of the point of having a job.
New York’s maximum weekly benefit amount is $405, says mrsmith. that’s $21 grand a year. Can your friend live on 21 fucking grand, Tahssa?
Which, of course, is not the fault of the unemployment benefit being too high, but rather that politicans (usually the libertarians and some of the consies) block laws for minimum wage, so that the companies can pay fuck-you low wages and let the taxpayer make up the difference so that the hard-working employees don’t starve.
And, as someone that hires people, I don’t like it when someone takes a job in a temporary fashion until they can get the career job they are looking for. It makes me wonder if they are doing that here for the job that I am hiring for, and how much that is going to cost me.
Thats a big consideration.
I know!
Fuck them for trying to pay the rent and put food on the table. Assholes.
Man, do I know it! I was just finishing my work for a Master’s in Typewriter Repair, and I remember reading an article and saying “Harumph! ‘Word processors’, eh? Passing fad, will never catch on…”
Well considering it takes several thousand dollars to hire someone when we have zero budget money because we get paid in tax revenue and state allocations, yeah, its a big deal.
We just hired someone that bounced six weeks later, and I can’t hire anyone to replace her until September when our budget is allocated again for the next year. Since I am also losing someone to maternity leave in a week when they induce her, everyone is going to be doing twice the work in a production based environment for which they will not be compensated anything extra. If we can’t cover everything and stay current with the record workload with two bodies missing, we all get laid off and the office gets outsourced to a consulting agency.
Yeah, I have to consider the people that are already working here and keeping their employment going versus the immediate needs of someone that we are hiring. I know, complete asshole maneuver. :dubious:
Do you mean you think the intersection of those claiming that tax breaks for the rich are required as incentives and those against unemployment payments (and against the minimum wage) is null?
Neither of these positions is way out there these days. I’m not claiming anyone said this in one post - I’ll have to do some heavy searching for examples.
sigh Not only does ** Translucent Daydream**'s department have to pay full wages for someone who is on the learning curve during the entire term of employment, and thus not efficient, the efficiency of others suffers also since they need to train this person and no doubt correct errors. He gave an excellent example of the inefficiency I mentioned before. It makes a lot more sense for the former employer and the government to pay, and not screw an uninvolved company.
I don’t know what kind of world you guys live in, but here in Silicon Valley, it’s SOP to always be looking for a better job somewhere else.
The fact is, there is no reason why most unemployed people can’t take a less optimal job while waiting for the optimal one to come along. You can always come up with any number of excuses not to, but I simply don’t accept the assertion that extending unemployment benefits is necessarily a requirement to finding an optimal job when a sub-optimal one is available. That was the assertion made.