Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
??? You have two kids and you're going to work and you're paying for child care and you get a second job (so now you're making $40K) and you're paying for more child care and oh look, you just lost EITC plus you went into a higher tax bracket...are you better off now that you got a second job?
If you are receiving welfare, you should take any job, otherwise you are lazy. I hated fast food too and it made me depressed but I did it because I refused to be a drain. Sorry but no one has the luxury to take only jobs they want, that is called being lazy.
So a PhD should take a fast food job otherwise they're lazy.
Should a person downsized from a $100K job (and receiving UI benefits) take a minimum wage job from a financially shaky employer?
So a PhD should take a fast food job otherwise they're lazy.
Should a person downsized from a $100K job (and receiving UI benefits) take a minimum wage job from a financially shaky employer?
If they have to, then they have to. I have a MA and a few years ago I applied at McDonald's. I got another job but yes I would have taken it if I had to. There is NO excuse not to work unless you are disabled. So what if someone has kids there is also free daycare.
Did you look at the size of people on welfare. Is there something to tell them to stop overeating.
I went to lurk at that food stamp forum someone posted and most of them are admitting they buy candy, soda and other junk food. One even admitted she always buys expensive steaks and lobsters. Lobster and steak isn't junk food but for the others, of course they don't care if they get fat. Why should they, we pay for their medical as well.
If they have to, then they have to. I have a MA and a few years ago I applied at McDonald's. I got another job but yes I would have taken it if I had to. There is NO excuse not to work unless you are disabled. So what if someone has kids there is also free daycare.
What if they do the math and decide it's too risky?
You're saying that in your world they would be required to take that job or lose UI benefits.
Let's say Jane Jones gets downsized from a $100K job, receives UI benefits, and is offered a $20K job with a financially shaky employer. She takes that job (as you would require her to do) and after three months her financially shaky employer goes out of business.
This time she goes back to the unemployment office and receives a FAR LOWER UI benefit than she received the first time (because that $20K job displaced some of her previously-qualifying $100K earnings causing her total qualifying earnings to fall dramatically).
If they have to, then they have to. I have a MA and a few years ago I applied at McDonald's. I got another job but yes I would have taken it if I had to. There is NO excuse not to work unless you are disabled. So what if someone has kids there is also free daycare.
Free daycare? Where? Oh you mean daycare vouchers that DONT make daycare free? Yeah those are just so easy to get.
I went to lurk at that food stamp forum someone posted and most of them are admitting they buy candy, soda and other junk food. One even admitted she always buys expensive steaks and lobsters. Lobster and steak isn't junk food but for the others, of course they don't care if they get fat. Why should they, we pay for their medical as well.
Something just hit me that probably should have hit me a long time ago.
The person buying steaks and lobster with food stamps is almost certainly gaming the system in other ways as well.
Food stamp recipients who are not gaming the system are not going to be able to afford to use their scarce food stamp resources on steak and lobster. (When I received food stamps my staple was boxed mac and cheese, I needed those food stamps to last the whole month.)
Common ways of such gaming include living unmarried with boyfriend (collecting other freebies, thus freeing up resources that can be used for food) and working under the table.
What if they do the math and decide it's too risky?
You're saying that in your world they would be required to take that job or lose UI benefits.
Let's say Jane Jones gets downsized from a $100K job, receives UI benefits, and is offered a $20K job with a financially shaky employer. She takes that job (as you would require her to do) and after three months her financially shaky employer goes out of business.
This time she goes back to the unemployment office and receives a FAR LOWER UI benefit than she received the first time (because that $20K job displaced some of her previously-qualifying $100K earnings causing her total qualifying earnings to fall dramatically).
What do you say to Jane?
I'd tell her to take that lower paying job. We aren't talking though about people on unemployment because they paid into that and it is temporary. When I did get unemployment I was told I would pretty much have to take any job.
Illinois has a program for free daycare so nice try.
so we all need to move to Illinois then?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
