It’s a possibility. There’s no “Lake Wobegon” either.
Couldn’t you just contact the Washington D.C. unemployment office and report the guy if it’s bothering you?
Valid point, but the evidence presented thus far tips the burden over to the people who are saying it’s fake to present some sort of rebuttal to show why they think it’s fake. In the case of “Lake Wobegon,” that evidence is an atlas. What are you relying upon here?
From what I can tell he isn’t doing anything illegal. Being jerkish isn’t always against the law.
If it is a humor column, it is a not very good one. It might be based on reality, but with a bunch of hyperbole. When I read the letters of S. J. Perelman, I discovered that while Westward Ha! was based on a real trip, he made up stuff if nothing funny happened that day.
Anyhow, I have a suggest for another GD thread: resolved Kenny from South Park is a foul-mouthed creep. 
Let’s examine this. AuntiePam has worked for 40 years. For ease of illustration, let’s assume that FUTA has been constant for those 40 years (I’m sure it hasn’t) and that she always made $25,000 / year, over the Federal minimum USD 7000 / annum. FUTA is 6% on that, so her employer, on her behalf, has put $420/year X 40 years, or a total of $16,800. 12 weeks at 50% of her $25,000 annual earnings is about $2,880 that she’s taken back out.
I’m ignoring the time value of money, etc. But that money went in for the purpose of her protection, should she need it, and it’s hardly theft to use it when it is needed. You could make the argument that it’s theft for the government to take it in the first place, but that’s a matter of politics. Or that individual unemployment insurance is more efficient, but frankly most people who actually use unemployment are least likely to buy their own, so in this case a state run version might be the best one could hope for. As a utility to society one could argue it keeps the ill-prepared from becoming criminals, ala Jean Valjean.
As to the OP, it’s a weekly paper written by young anarcho-socialist slackers. What did you expect?
Someone is taking advantage of a government program who doesn’t deserve to? I clutch my pearls, I swoon. This might iimply that such programs as agricultural support are not finding their way to the family farmer, but might underwrite the corporate health of Archer Daniels Midland, for instance. Maybe even those staunchly patriotic corporations like Exxon are getting a bit more than they should! Ya think, maybe?
What is to be done? Shall we hire several hundred thousand investigators, train them in the varied arcana of state unemployment laws, and loose them to ferret out the undeserving. And, of course, the mechanisms of appealing those decisions, etc. What do you think this might save, if anything?
Its like shoplifting. Its part of the expense of doing business. You write it off and adjust. Or, you could hire fifty security guards for each thousand square feet. Be simpler just to throw all the poor people into prison, we already know they’re up to no good, since they couldn’t possibly thrive on the pittance we accord them.
(Ya know, Bricker, you’re all about preventing government interference in people’s lives, but you seem rather selective in your ardor…)
What is irritating about the attitude of the parasite wannabe who wrote this piece isn’t simply the outrage at his bad attitude, but the fact that having such an attitude will, invariably, influence the attitudes of everyone who reads it or comes into contact with him or those like him - which ought to be of some concern to those who believe in some form of social welfare.
The problem with allowing social parasitism is that it undermines the committment to social support, not simply that it costs money. Businesses have to be in business, so they have to “write off” a certain amount of thievery. Citizens don’t have to vote for generous social programs or comprehensive mandatory unemployment insurance schemes, and convince them that there is a sizable population of slackers who view the hard working as suckers to be fleeced while they pursue “creative loafing”, many will not. Those who will be hurt in the long run will be the deserving, as the undeserving probably could get jobs if they had to.
This is true whether or not there are yet more expensive forms of public parasitism pursued by big agribusiness etc.
What are you talking about?
You Libertarians must know that the employee pays for the unemployment benefits. It is part of his wage package. If there were no unemploment ,they could in theory raise your pay. That is the kind of thinking Libs do. Actually they would keep it for themselves.
You know, I find it interesting that much of the talk here has turned to general discussion of the wisdom of unemployment payments. I don’t believe the facts of one case, no matter how positive or how negative, should inform public policy. Because Steve Smith and his family of nine virtuous and brave children were saved by unemployment insurance and went on to sure cancer, defeat Darth Vader, and rescue Michael Richards’ career is no reason to be in favor of it, and because Franklin Schneider uses it to perpetuate a slacker, unproductive lifestyle is no reason to be against it.
I wanted to focus on his attitude, specifically, not the general reach of social “safety nets,” which may well have valid arguments for or against them.
Is HIS, individual, singular attitude reprehensible? Yes, says I. Not so much, say others. Discuss.
Assuming that it is as advertised (i.e. not a satirical piece) then it’s certainly reprehensible to take out of a pool meant for people who need it with no better justification than that you want it.
Yes, absolutely proceeding from that assumption. I’m convinced that it is, but if I’m wrong and this was a print-media version of trolling, then obviously it’s meant to appear reprehensible and there’s not much debate to be had.
Hmm.
Let’s say we were discussing a scholarship set up for people in financial need, with a cut-off of, let’s say, $25,000 annual income. Is it less moral for someone with $24,950 income to apply for the scholarship knowing that there are people also applying who make $17,300?
Maybe that’s a bad analogy. I am uncomfortable with your “want vs need” formula but not sure why.
After reading those articles more thoroughly, I think it is a good thing that this guy stay out of the workforce as much as possible. He appears to be the kind of guy who is not only a worthless employee, but also the kind of guy who makes things difficult for people around him. I feel sorry for any business who is suckered into hiring him, as I bet they’re signing on for more headaches than they’ve bargained for.
So, it seems like a win-win situation: the slacker doesn’t have to work, and businesses don’t have to put up with a lame employee. In the broad scheme of things, government benefits are designed knowing that there’s going to be a certain number of freeloaders, so it isn’t like this guy – or many like him – are somehow upsetting the system. Businesses (and ultimately workers) pay the unemployment insurance, the cost of keeping this knucklehead and his ilk on beans and rice is merely decimal dust in terms of government spending, so I can’t find much to be outraged about there.
Nothing more than the assumption that anyone keen on keeping their unemployment benefits flowing isn’t likely to write lengthy newspaper columns about how they’re abusing the system.
But citing other articles by the same guy doesn’t necessarily constitute additional evidence that he’s being truthful, either. He may well have a whole series of articles devoted to how he’s sucking up unemployment. For all I know, he’s got a stand-up nightclub act as “Unemployment Guy.”
But what does he say that would actually jeopardize his benefits? Agencies can’t remove his benefits for an attitude. He complies with the mandate to look for a job; they can’t skewer him on that point without placing equal scrutiny on quality of applications on other recipients. What does he actually risk?
Does he?
My emphasis.
If that’s the case, then I’ve completely lost track of what the problem is supposed to be.
-FrL-
This is no more sucking on the government’s teat than cashing a life insurance benefit check after Aunt Tillie dies. When I was a working stiff, every week there was UI (Unemployment Insurance) withholding taken out of every paycheck, and now you are trying to shame me into thinking I am a louse for claiming benefits from a insurance plan I paid into? That’s some kind of fucked up.
Writing is hard work. If he was really such a slacker, he wouldn’t have spent the hours required to write such a long article (and get paid for it, no doubt.)
Nets catch fish, but they catch seaweed and dolphins also. You are always able to find some percentage of people abusing any system. No system is perfect. That the criminal justice system sometimes makes mistakes is not a reason to adopt vigilantism. So I don’t see what this article has to do with the social safety net either. And, as you said, it is not even clear he is abusing the system.
I really wonder how many people would be inspired to copy him, even if it turns out the article isn’t a spoof. Living in a rundown apartment at the risk of being evicted the moment the landlord figures out the rents are too low isn’t my idea of fun. Neither is living on a diet of beans. Sure processed food costs money, and should be avoided, but so do fresh vegetables and decent pieces of meat. Maybe his followup article will talk about the benefits of living in a box in an alley. (Plenty of fresh air! Low rent!)
Can they not? I admit unfamiliarity with how the unemployment system works. He states outright that he isn’t looking for a job, merely going through the motions of applying. Seriously, if I am collecting unemployment, and I write the agency declaring that I have zero intention of pursuing a job, they still can’t legally cancel those benefits so long as I keep filling applications? If that’s really true, then I agree that there should be a contingency to cancel benefits for people who publish such confessions in the newspaper.
Not that it matters, since the columnist isn’t being sincere to begin with. You see no trace of hyperbole in an article starting with the claim that job-seeking causes testicular retraction?
Why not submit a scathing letter to the editor, taking the column absolutely at face value, and vigorously denouncing the writer for his wastrel philosophy and un-American attitude? I think it might be inspiring.
But, he doesn’t, unless I have completely forgotten how to read. See the quote I bolded above.