I have two siblings. Both have been laid off.
Sibling A decided not to accept unemployment benefits, despite having paid for them. He couldn't get past the idea that this was a kind of "welfare," and he was not going to go on welfare. He'd rather make sacrifices than accept money under a government program he does not support.
Sibling B has been on unemployment for over a year. He was offered a job that paid $30K per year. He turned it down, because unemployment pays him more. Now he is reaching the end of his coverage, and is hoping that he is covered under the unemployment extension bill.
I encouraged Sibling A to file for benefits while he looked for another job. I want to put my foot up Sibling B's ass.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Sibling A at least has the courage of his convictions. Even if he is being a donkey.
Maybe Sibling B is the reason for Sibling A's convictions.
Okay, let me get this straight. Republicans want to eliminate government social programs, because it's better to let thousands of people suffer during hard times rather than put up with a handful of jerks gaming the system like Sibling B is doing. Because if you're poor, it's your own fault, right? Only complete losers can't find a job, so if you're collecting unemployment, you're either lazy or dishonest, right? By the way, please let me know the location of this welfare heaven on earth that pays the equivalent of >$30K annually in unemployment benefits so I can move there right after breakfast, because that's about 40% more than I'm making at two jobs in the Socialist People's Republic of California.
Would Sibling A not accept a car insurance payout? A home insurance payout? Unemployment compensation is an insurance program, not "welfare."
Maybe you should point out to Sibling A that his employer pays into the unemployment fund. In other words, it's part of his benefits, just like vacation and sick time.
That's a little sad that Sibling A sees it that way. Unemployment benefits are a safety net that we as a society provide to each other. I mean, who is the "government" here, other than the entity that organizes this safety net? It's people like you and your brother (and me, and your other readers) who pay taxes so that someone like Sibling A can get by while trying to find another job.
@All - I did make these arguments to Sibling A. He is a very stubborn man and farther to the right politically than Pat Buchanan. He would rather work at Burger King than take the benefit. It makes no sense, I know.
@Evil Princess, Sibling B lives in Massachusetts.
"He would rather work at Burger King than take the benefit." I'm so far left that anyone in the States would probably be shocked, but that actually makes sense to me. Not taking the benefits at all does not, though, and Sibling B is a selfish ass.
Not that I think the system necessarily needs to be adjusted because of some selfish asses abusing it. There will always be selfish asses and in most cases it is cheaper and easier for everyone to let them be morons than to not have the safety nets or building a huge bureaucracy to try and (fail at) weed(ing) them out.
AP,
A friend of mine refused unemployment the first couple of times he was laid off. Eventually, he realized that he needed to take it. Good luck to them both.
Nah, I'm to the left of Marx somewhere, and I'd like to smack B upside the head.
Why do I suspect that this has nothing to do with the economics of the situation? To me, it sounds like you already ARE acting like a Republican. The reality is that you want the government to help Sibling A because you like him and he's "your people". You resent the government helping Sibling B because you don't like him and why should tax dollars go to the unworthy. Because, let me tell you, based on what you wrote here and removing the personalities, Sibling A is dumb as a doorknob - something like some of your thicker students dumb- and Sibling B is sharp and understands the system.
It's pure GOP; resenting those you don't like getting help and only wanting those you do like to benefit. I expect better from you, but when it's family, I understand it's hard which is why we have the frigging government to fill in the gaps in our compassion.
If sibling B turned down that job, sibling B is no longer eligible for unemployment payments.
Sibling B must be willing to accept "suitable" employment and I doubt the job he turned down would fit that description. There is no way he is receiving 30k in UI if his last employment was only paying 30k. I would be astounded if he didn't formerly make north (maybe way north) of 50k so I doubt a 30k job is "suitable" to his skills. Not just playing devil's advocate here; been there and done that with people who just don't understand that a 30k job far below your last one in pay and responsibility is not a "great career opportunity".
I don't really see what this has to do with the whole republican versus democrats thing. Being pissed off at an abuse of the system seems fairly apolitical. It's similar to being angry at those who file frivolous lawsuits, yes it is within their rights to do so, but it is still sleazy.
Only a non-economist academic could be in the least surprised by Sibling B. Pay people for not working and --- surprise! --- some of them won't work. Cut off the pay for not working and --- surprise again! --- they'll look for work. Sibling A is surprising only because we have so devalued self-reliance. Sure, unemployment comp is social insurance rather than welfare, but declining to use it provides A with an even stronger incentive to find a job, not to mention the satisfaction that comes from succeeding on his own.
Evil Princess: If B were to elaborate, I'd bet the explanation would not be that the actual payout from unemployment comp is more than the offered wage, but that the net benefit is greater, after considering taxes on wages, the costs associated with daily work, and the value B puts on her own time. Don't tell me you've never met anyone who has used UC to take a break or to extend a layoff.
Anonymous: B would no longer be legally entitled to UC if she turned down suitable employment, but that would be a problem only if she informed the employment security commission of the offer. You don't really believe she'd do that, do you?
Anonymous (11:35 pm)--
Both Sibling A and Sibling B are referred to as males in the Angry Professor's original post.
Anon @ 10:35am--
Clearly, earlier anon was using the pronouns generically...
"Unemployment compensation is an insurance program, not 'welfare.'"
Only if it turns a profit. If government unemployment insurance pays out more than it takes in then it is, at least partially, a welfare payment.
...which I'm pretty sure is the case.
If the program is turning a profit over the long run, then I'm mistaken.
If Sibling A has a wife and family, he is an ass, because his self-righteousness is impacting them, not just himself.
As has been pointed out, unemployment benefits are earned ( at least the first six months here in MD). So it's his money and frankly he should be able to receive and spend as he deems fit without government supervision.
You already are a Republican, because of the profound contempt you show to the cartoons you present as people. Being a Democrat is about at least a pretense of empathy.
My BIL is unemployed. He would accept happily a 20% pay cut despite his degrees, but no he will not flip burgers yet. He will probably stay at home and be a house-husband first. I respect him.
I always thought you were just having fun, but now I realize that you are genuinely hateful.
As a tenured person, I spend my days grateful for my choices and opportunities. I do not join you in condemning people who are in a pain we do not understand. I do not applaud you for your desire to cause them more.
Post a Comment