Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

This debate, like so many other economic debates (welfare, health insurance, what to do about homelessness, taxation policy, school funding, etc.) seems to really be venues for proxy debates between consequentialist and deontological ethics. The two major positions inevitably end up being specific formulations of, "We think that this might be best for everyone on average," and, "We're worried some benefits might go to people who don't deserve it and/or be paid for by taking money away from other people."

Both are legitimate ways of thinking about it, and centuries of moral philosophy have failed to adequately reconcile these two ways of approaching social issues. So I can't imagine this will ever be definitively settled. (Maybe it shouldn't be. Ursula K. LeGuin gets my respect for being author of both The Dispossessed and The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas.) But I think that failing to recognize that that's the core of the issue dooms people to endlessly, uselessly accomplish little more than talking past each other.

Germany does pay 12 month of unemployment benefits (at 60% of previous salary with a cap).

If you quit (rather than being fired), you don't get benefits for the first 12 weeks.

This is an okay balance in my mind.

Yes, but with limits. How to prevent job hopping just to stay on benefits? Taking a paid vacation before the next job? I see opportunities for abuse.

In the United States at least, AFAIK, employers pay for unemployment. Who pays when the employee voluntarily separates from an employer? It seems unfair to make the employer pay for an employee who left and no longer works there. I presume that cost will be paid by the state, which as a taxpayer I am curious how to prevent fraud and abuse.

I see that states require a certain amount of employment before a person becomes eligible for benefits. Maybe changing that?

I think people forget, it's literally your money. Yea it's theoretically subsidized but the amount of money you put into the system over 40 years is probably more than you'll ever get out of it.

- You pay roughly 1-2% of your salary to it every year

- The max weekly benefit in California is $450 for 26 weeks, so roughly $11k. But it's also a percentage of your salary

- Unless you get fired/quit jobs every year it's probably very hard to get more out than you put in and even then there's probably other safeguards

Should or shouldn't, it doesn't seem to matter to the state of California. Whomever is admining UI doesn't care. We've had people quit, fired with cause (and in legal proceedings), one who was literally incarcerated shortly after they quit, one who was arrested at work for fraud (and was wearing uniform in their mugshot to boot), and all of them got their claims accepted regardless of what we said.

So, our policy is to not fight anything, ever. Not worth the time.

Yes. Employers should be incentivized to want to keep their employees. If employees are given some autonomy to leave poor working environments without bankrupting themselves, then employers will be motivated to improve the working environment.

You’d have to figure out how to curtail abuses, but generally “yes.”

This is a good counterbalance to companies that get “creative” with RTO mandates as backdoor layoffs to avoid paying out unemployment.

As well intentioned as this may be, I suspect the ultimate result will be to make the hiring process even worse for applicants as employers will be incentivized to avoid people who have gaps in their employment history or seem to have a propensity to job-hop. Not only that, I suspect employers will also try to add even more tests and competency-checks to the interview process.

Should get unemployment if you dont have a job and are actively looking for one.

Of course!

Remember business thrives on there being a certain amount of unemployed people to create competition for jobs and keep wages low.

If everyone was employed then employers would have to pay decent wages because we would all be employed elsewhere.

Imagine being headhunted for a job at Mucky Dees for £25 per hour.

Unemployed are called workshy and feckless here on Airstrip One.

We have forced work clubs and the unemployed have to search for 40 hours each week for jobs, meaning that every local employer receives thousand of job applications that they throw in the bin. This is intentionally degrading and dehumanising.

The nazi's degrading and dehumanising "Work will set you free" over the entrance to Auschwitz concentration camp comes to mind.

I think it is everyones right to not work and be supported by the state.

WORK does not set you free!

We have this in Denmark where you can get up to 2 years of unemployment benefit - also when you quit yourself (you will get a one-month quarantine, though).

Denmark has a 2.9% unemployment rate: https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/arbejde-og-indkomst/be...

I don't entirely know how that compare to the US.

Sounds like a great incentive to start a job, work for the minimum length necessary, quit, and repeat.

This sounds like using the existing unemployment system to hack in UBI and universal healthcare.

It's not really "insurance" at that point then, is it? The system is set up with lots of people paying into it to cover the expenses of the relatively few that need to draw on it, in the relatively low probability event that you need to. Insurance lets you get bigger payouts with smaller premiums.

If everyone can easily and frequently draw from it at will, I doubt it's sustainable as is. Either benefits will have to go down or premiums will have to go up.

I didn't see the article address this aspect of it.

I guess the main question is, will more money be paid out of the program. If so, who should pay it?

If lots of people like the idea, a non-profit quitting insurance company could be created. It seems that it would largely end up being a savings account however. For instance, instead of retiring, simply quit.

No, of xourse not, thats the dumbest thing ever

I live in a former communist country, and much of the regulation is still unchanged.

While employed you pay "unemployment insurance" (a small percentage of your paycheck), and when you lose your job (not quit!, so fired, or the company goes under, etc.), and if you worked for 6+ months, and depending on the time worked (months of paid insurance) and your age, you can get 2-25 months of unemployment benefits (80% of your paycheck for up to three months, then 60, then 50%).

If you quit, you quit. You didn't suddenly lose your job and need help because of that, you planned it. No benefits. (except in cases where you quit due to special reasons, ie. you didn't receive your paycheck, employer did something illegal, etc.).

You do get some social benefits if you're an unemployed job seeker, but that number is much lower.

Not much abuse with the unemployment benefits (except a year or two before retirement in some cases), quite a lot of abuse of general social benefits (you get some money, free public transport, free kindergarden, some "extraodinary expenses" extra money yearly too, you have to send a few CVs every month, and you can work under the table and pay nothing.

Which is the greater moral hazard? Enabling couch-potatoes or enabling corps to have a 40 hour worker at below the poverty line cost?

As with everything in America, I assume it is a non-starter to make more universal benefits. Sure it would be fine if I got unemployment for quitting, but not those people. They would just squander the opportunity! Best we all suffer rather than someone I do not like getting the same benefit.

Generally yes.

I am not sure how UI works (which of course entitles me to spout my opinion), but a system where it draws from a pool based off work history could be the middle ground solution.

If they are going to base your unemployment on your past pay, they might as well also base it on your past history.

To get to my point: if you work for a long period then quit / fired, you should have a bigger pool you can tap into for any reason. If you work for short periods then quit, you should have a smaller pool which trends to near-zero if you never stay at a place for long. If you work for short periods then get laid off, you should have the standard pool (ie: you shouldn't be unfairly punished through no fault of your own besides maybe being unlucky / bad at picking jobs).

I am paying into it regardless, I should be able to choose to be able to tap into it.

It disincentives people jumping on and off UI constantly on their own free-will but it gives a cushion to those who are burnt or needing to transition to a new field.

Conflict of interest, wrong incentive.