"Why Work When Unemployment Pays Me?"

Great Debates
81

Here’s a more direct question: Is it unethical to collect the full 26 weeks of your unemployment insurance, or are you ethically mandated to work your ass off to get a new job and stop collecting those benefits before the 26 weeks are up?

Would it be unethical to collect unemployment for 26 weeks, not look too hard for a job, and then spend another 3 months living off your savings? What about if you lose your job, DON’T collect unemployment, and live off your savings for 3 months?

The guy’s attitude irritates me (as a person who works like a nut and despises such laziness), but I can’t argue that he’s really doing anything wrong–he (or his employer) paid the insurance, he’s collecting within the bounds of those rules. Is he somehow less ethical than some high-powered exec. who gets fired and takes a huge severance package? Both were terms of their job.

82

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think it’s an insurance plan – that is, there’s no specific policy for you that you are paying into. It’s a tax. Your rates don’t go up if you turn out to be a serial unemployment risk; my rates don’t go down after 20+ years of steady employment.

83

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t think it’s an insurance plan – that is, there’s no specific policy for you that you are paying into. It’s a tax. Your rates don’t go up if you turn out to be a serial unemployment risk; my rates don’t go down after 20+ years of steady employment.
[/QUOTE]
It’s been a while since I studied unemployment insurance, but it’s not really insurance the same way that social security isn’t insurance. It’s a welfare benefit produced from society’s tax collections.

I’m pretty sure that its intended beneficiaries are those who lost their job and have trouble finding a new one, and therefore need some cushion to make living life less painful, more or less. However, since there is no way to really distinguish those who absolutely need it versus those who don’t, people fill justified for working the system. I personally know two guys who do this. They work just enough at some job to go and quit and make unemployment. The key is to work at a wage high enough to be at the maximum payout.

Since like most government programs, there is no way to truly measure its effectiveness and efficiency, there is also no way to police its abusers as well. “Certifying” for unemployment can be done on-line or on the phone, so there is no need to even break up your day to go down to the unemployment office.

84

I hadn’t read the article until just now.

Did you see this part?!!

I’m sure he’s 1,000% serious! Somebody alert the FBI, DEA, ATF, FAA, and NSA immediately!

85

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Here at least it is in essence a form of tax, like an income tax, that is placed on both employer and employee and is contributed to by other tax revenues where needed. Rates of contribution are based on level of salary.

However, like an insurance plan, one is only entitled to benefits if you actually qualify - that is, if you are in need, were fired without fault, and are looking for a job.

It is no more an “entitlement” for everyone who merely wishes a bit of paid vacation, than claiming on an insurance policy because you have “whiplash” when in reality you are perfectly healthy. Sure you paid in. But that doesn’t mean you should get it all back with interest unless you actually need it - there are plenty of people who paid in their whole lives and are never in a position to make a claim. Should they demand a big cash settlement on retirement?

86

[QUOTE=toadspittle]
Here’s a more direct question: Is it unethical to collect the full 26 weeks of your unemployment insurance, or are you ethically mandated to work your ass off to get a new job and stop collecting those benefits before the 26 weeks are up?

Would it be unethical to collect unemployment for 26 weeks, not look too hard for a job, and then spend another 3 months living off your savings? What about if you lose your job, DON’T collect unemployment, and live off your savings for 3 months?

The guy’s attitude irritates me (as a person who works like a nut and despises such laziness), but I can’t argue that he’s really doing anything wrong–he (or his employer) paid the insurance, he’s collecting within the bounds of those rules. Is he somehow less ethical than some high-powered exec. who gets fired and takes a huge severance package? Both were terms of their job.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree. It is unethical in a way similar to faking a medical condition to collect on insurance. One is knowingly collecting cash when the actual need that the cash was intended for is not present.

A severance payment is different precisely because it is, in fact, a term of employment.

87

[QUOTE=Malthus]
Here at least it is in essence a form of tax, like an income tax, that is placed on both employer and employee and is contributed to by other tax revenues where needed. Rates of contribution are based on level of salary.

However, like an insurance plan, one is only entitled to benefits if you actually qualify - that is, if you are in need, were fired without fault, and are looking for a job.

It is no more an “entitlement” for everyone who merely wishes a bit of paid vacation, than claiming on an insurance policy because you have “whiplash” when in reality you are perfectly healthy. Sure you paid in. But that doesn’t mean you should get it all back with interest unless you actually need it - there are plenty of people who paid in their whole lives and are never in a position to make a claim. Should they demand a big cash settlement on retirement?
[/QUOTE]

Actually, here it is paid by both employer and employee and subsidizes other tax revenues where needed. The huge surplus in the Employment Insurance account (which originally was a separate account but is now lumped into the general government purse) has been condemned repeatedly by the Auditor General. Essentially, the government keeps the contribution rates up in order to use the surplus money for other things. Even if the plan was run on a less greedy basis, any shortfalls made up by the government are in the form of interest-bearing loans, to be repaid from the employer/employee future contributions.

88

[QUOTE=Bookkeeper]
Actually, here it is paid by both employer and employee and subsidizes other tax revenues where needed. The huge surplus in the Employment Insurance account (which originally was a separate account but is now lumped into the general government purse) has been condemned repeatedly by the Auditor General. Essentially, the government keeps the contribution rates up in order to use the surplus money for other things. Even if the plan was run on a less greedy basis, any shortfalls made up by the government are in the form of interest-bearing loans, to be repaid from the employer/employee future contributions.
[/QUOTE]
Dammit, it should be illegal (as in, politician-imprisoning illegal) to tap into funds that are designated to a specific purpose in order to fund irresponsible boondoggles (ie: anything they might want to fund with such skimmed money). :mad:

89

[QUOTE=Bookkeeper]
Actually, here it is paid by both employer and employee and subsidizes other tax revenues where needed. The huge surplus in the Employment Insurance account (which originally was a separate account but is now lumped into the general government purse) has been condemned repeatedly by the Auditor General. Essentially, the government keeps the contribution rates up in order to use the surplus money for other things. Even if the plan was run on a less greedy basis, any shortfalls made up by the government are in the form of interest-bearing loans, to be repaid from the employer/employee future contributions.
[/QUOTE]

I stand corrected. It does not change the point, however - this is in essence a form of tax (albeit I take it one with a rate set too high to balance outflows).

I do not see this additional bit of information as justifying making a claim where not actually necessary, any more than the fact that ‘insurers make huge profits’ would justify faking whiplash.

90

Good lord. Shouldn’t this section be a clue-stick for you?

While we’re at it, Jonathan Swift was not really suggesting that poor people should eat their young.

91

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]

While we’re at it, Jonathan Swift was not really suggesting that poor people should eat their young.
[/QUOTE]

Really? Crap. Let me go spit this out…

92

[QUOTE=Bricker]

Is HIS, individual, singular attitude reprehensible? Yes, says I. Not so much, say others. Discuss.
[/QUOTE]

Some might argue yes. Some might argue no. This attitude may be born from a mental illness. Maybe he could be a quadrapalegic. Maybe the reason he won’t find a job is that he weighs 600 lbs and moving around hurts. Or he’s ugly and sweats easily and can only work in the kitchen and he doesn’t want to drip on peoples food or the freshly cleaned dishes.

You must have an agenda. Why do you want to know what we think about the simple hypothetical attitude you denounce.

93

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Does learning this information cause you to change your mind? Or is Schneider creating an entire fictitious life out of everything he writes?
[/QUOTE]
I dunno. Has he actually made a “living” being on unemployment? Possibly, despite the pittance that unemployment actually suplies, its fairly short span of eligibility, and other factors? Would a person engaging in that behavior be reprehensible if it was true? I’ve already stipulated that point. Is it really a worse approach to the world than the slacker who has a job but finds ways to never actually contribute to his company or the manager who uses his direct reports to perform personal business for him on company time. Not that I can see. Theft is theft, regardless whether one is gaming the Employment Commission or one’s employer (or employees).

94

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Some might argue yes. Some might argue no. This attitude may be born from a mental illness. Maybe he could be a quadrapalegic. Maybe the reason he won’t find a job is that he weighs 600 lbs and moving around hurts. Or he’s ugly and sweats easily and can only work in the kitchen and he doesn’t want to drip on peoples food or the freshly cleaned dishes.

You must have an agenda. Why do you want to know what we think about the simple hypothetical attitude you denounce.
[/QUOTE]

Sure I have an agenda. I want to know if anyone can develop a convicning defense of this attitude, without pulling in ad-hoc assumptions that don’t have a shred of evidence for them, like, say, quadraplegia.

95

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Good lord. Shouldn’t this section be a clue-stick for you?

While we’re at it, Jonathan Swift was not really suggesting that poor people should eat their young.
[/QUOTE]

No doubt the piece is full of hyperbole and fantasy. This does not automatically mean that the attitude expressed is ungenuine; and indeed Swift’s satrire expressed a very real anger - at those uncaring of the Irish famine. It wasn’t simply a big laugh about baby-eating.

However, if you think this piece is a Swiftian satire, what exactly is it a satire of?

96

I found this article insulting. I am incensed on the behalf of slackers everywhere that this guy has the nerve to refer to his strategy as “creative”. Even welfare moms have a more creative strategy than this guy,at least they leverage their way into additional monies by breeding.

0% work shouldn’t always be the goal, while it may be possible to live on $400 a week it doesn’t go far towards helping fill up all that free time. While work may be a soul-sucking way to spend 40 hours a week, spending your days on the sofa eating Top Ramen and watching Peoples Court and Will and Grace reruns on an old 13" TV isn’t much better.

Get a job, one in “outside sales”, and make it clear that you prefer to work in your “home office”. That way you can take an occasional phone call and score some real money during commercials. Yes, you will have to leave the office to work, but you are in a field where sitting a restaurant sucking down pina coladas is considered work, and your company even picks up the tab. Really, why suckle at the scrawny saggy government teat when you can clamp your mouth on the nipple of the gloriously full Anna Nichole Smithlike corporate one?

97

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t think it’s an insurance plan – that is, there’s no specific policy for you that you are paying into. It’s a tax. Your rates don’t go up if you turn out to be a serial unemployment risk; my rates don’t go down after 20+ years of steady employment.
[/QUOTE]

Then the US system is different from the one in Japan. From each paycheck, there is a deduction labeled “unemployment insurance”. While the rates I pay don’t go down the longer I work, the coverage goes up. If I become unemployed, I’m entitled to 70% of my salary for a period that varies depending on my age and the length and consistency of my employment history, anywhere from 90 days (the minimum) up to (IIRC) something over three years (hypothetical lifetime employee getting downsized after 35 years at one company).

When I went through an extended unemployment about ten years ago (laid off after the company’s main client went bankrupt), I was eligible for 90 days and took it. It turned out to be a lifesaver, but at the time I felt no moral qualms whatsoever about using it. Using unemployment that I’d been paying into felt (and still feels) no more unethical than using my health insurance when I was hospitalized for three weeks even though I probably had enough in my savings to cover the cost myself.

98

[QUOTE=Malthus]
No doubt the piece is full of hyperbole and fantasy. This does not automatically mean that the attitude expressed is ungenuine; and indeed Swift’s satrire expressed a very real anger - at those uncaring of the Irish famine. It wasn’t simply a big laugh about baby-eating.

However, if you think this piece is a Swiftian satire, what exactly is it a satire of?
[/QUOTE]
I’m surely no expert, but I take Bricker’s reaction as illustrative. I think there really are many on the right who have played up, in their heads, the idea that there really are vast armies of people out there ready to bilk social support nets for all they are worth. As elucidator noted, the fictitious Cadillac Welfare Queen of the 80’s gained a lot of traction with this ever gullible crowd.

If you think it isn’t satire, and is thus supposed to be an effort at persuasive writing, you must also think that the author believes others would agree that a diet of brown rice and occasional fruits, that sleeping next to a washing machine, that shoplifting and subsisting on Reeses peanut butter cups, or that waiting patiently and listening to a roommate masturbate because there isn’t enough room for privacy are good things. Do you think these are good things? Do you think that many other people would find them to be good things?

99

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Unemployment in Mich is far below 50 %. It wont even pay for health insurance..It is a meager existence.
[/QUOTE]

Yea…and they tax you on unemployment. So, if you get layed off in the second half of the year, you have a nice tax bill waiting for you soon.

100

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sure I have an agenda. I want to know if anyone can develop a convicning defense of this attitude, without pulling in ad-hoc assumptions that don’t have a shred of evidence for them, like, say, quadraplegia.
[/QUOTE]

Okay then. Not that the issue of UI slackers has ever concerned me before. And having experienced every side of this issue, paying UI as a worker, drawing UI, paying UI as an employer, estimating contract bids with adjusted labour rates to include UI, competing for employment against others whose hourly rate will be subsidized by UI, I can find a lot more problems for society than some slackers who are milking the system.

I understand that there are differences with the UI program wherever you go, including here in Canada where we call it Emplyment Insurance, EI so lets consider that as I proceed.

First off, I wonder if you are required to pay UI for yourself. Are you self employed or a partner? The UI slackers certainly have. So you may not have a stake in this issue.

Furthermore, if a slacker decides to let his insurance run for the full term, he’s allowing someone else to take a job who really wants it. Two people are now happy. And it didn’t cost a cent to non contributors like perhaps you. In fact it may have helped you considering the lucky guy who took the job is now off welfare.

The system actually helps many employers of seasonal workers by securing their supply in the off season. By subsidizing worker slackness and annual income in these industries a major burden is incurred amongst all working people who are required to pay premiums, and that includes the slackers.

The slackers when they pay premiums are also supporting programs for reeducating other workers as well as society struggles with the impact of modernization and NAFTA.

The slackers when they are paying premiums are also subsidizing other workers to compete for their jobs so employers won’t have to raise labour rates to compete for them.

The bottom line is that the slackers may be getting even, but they do no harm to anyone else’s bottom line, and given that I’ve seen laziness just about everywhere and especially on the job, which does hurt the economy, I’m not going to judge them.