Isn't it hypocritical to force people to take jobs while unemployed?

[Hayato213]

yes when you already in a precarious situation, let's kick you down the flight of stairs (choosing not to take the job) instead of kicking you in the face(taking the job).
got it.

Lol I got a job and you don't so who is the idiot here.

 

[Creamu]

Seriously no one should pity OP, unemployment insurance would only help him/her for six month after that it is over, what they suppose to do feed OP for life. If they find $8.25 is too little then find something that pay more than that. Actually you get less than 8 dollars from unemployment, you get about 400 before tax, so you get about 287, if you divide that by 40 you only get $7.17

I think alot of people in america find themselves in incredibly unfortunate situation. The oxycontin pandamic, with the heads of this evil occurance joking about the death of these "pill-billies". The death of despair statistic is rising exponetially. I feel very sorry. Take care us americans.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

They ain't forcing you if you don't want to take the job then you will be unemployed for real there are plenty of jobs out there that pay atleast 2x of $8.25

Nice edit. Again, no. I live in North Dakota, I also lived in Arizona, and Nevada in the past. I consistantly have seen jobs paying below 10.00. Up until perhaps 1 and a half years ago. But that's after food and rent already priced hiked by over 200 dollars. The issue isn't just pay. While you want to keep believing that I somehow don't have a job. (How do I pay for the internet here to ramble if I don't have a job) The primary issue is again, Captalists claiming that they won't force workers into taking a job. While citing Communists/Socialists would. That's my original argument. And my argument is that the United States government is essentially doing the same thing.
If people are going to claim/cite (in this case the USSR) starving people intentionally because they didn't want to work the jobs the government wanted to. How on earth is this no different? You are choosing no to a specific job because it doesn't pay enough for living standards.

What's more supportive? giving 24 weeks for someone to get a working job in order?
Or if they deny the first job in that time period, kick them onto the streets, and end it.

 

[Creamu]

Nice edit. Again, no. I live in North Dakota, I also lived in Arizona, and Nevada in the past. I consistantly have seen jobs paying below 10.00. Up until perhaps 1 and a half years ago. But that's after food and rent already priced hiked by over 200 dollars. The issue isn't just pay. While you want to keep believing that I somehow don't have a job. (How do I pay for the internet here to ramble if I don't have a job) The primary issue is again, Captalists claiming that they won't force workers into taking a job. While citing Communists/Socialists would. That's my original argument. And my argument is that the United States government is essentially doing the same thing.
If people are going to claim/cite (in this case the USSR) starving people intentionally because they didn't want to work the jobs the government wanted to. How on earth is this no different?

What OP is getting at in my view, and why this is relevant to this topic is that the bolshevik regime is now a global power, that has learned not to use hard power, like causing planned famine and mass starvation, mass shootings etc switching to softpower, since now they know what a terribel look that is. They use softpower instead of hardpower, and that is what OP describes. The differances are the mechanisms and how they are percieved, while being in essence the same. Same people, motives, goals different mechanisms. Hope that clarifies things for OP.

For furhter reading I recommend this:

 

[Hayato213]

Nice edit. Again, no. I live in North Dakota, I also lived in Arizona, and Nevada in the past. I consistantly have seen jobs paying below 10.00. Up until perhaps 1 and a half years ago. But that's after food and rent already priced hiked by over 200 dollars. The issue isn't just pay. While you want to keep believing that I somehow don't have a job. (How do I pay for the internet here to ramble if I don't have a job) The primary issue is again, Captalists claiming that they won't force workers into taking a job. While citing Communists/Socialists would. That's my original argument. And my argument is that the United States government is essentially doing the same thing.
If people are going to claim/cite (in this case the USSR) starving people intentionally because they didn't want to work the jobs the government wanted to. How on earth is this no different? You are choosing no to a specific job because it doesn't pay enough for living standards.

What's more supportive? giving 24 weeks for someone to get a working job in order?
Or if they deny the first job in that time period, kick them onto the streets, and end it.

Well it is your choice after 6 months they ain't going to give you unemployment benefit like it or not, if you get a job offer if you don't take it then it is on you, regardless on how much the minimum wage in your state is, you can get a job that pay more than the minimum wage.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Well it is your choice after 6 months they ain't going to give you unemployment benefit like it or not, if you get a job offer if you don't take it then it is on you, regardless on how much the minimum wage in your state is, you can get a job that pay more than the minimum wage.

that's not my point. If you don't remember Biden has put an excutive order that requires you to take the first job. If you don't, benefits end immediately afterword. I'm not stating what happens after 6 months. I'm talking specifically within that time period and the changes that have happened to it.

 

[Hayato213]

that's not my point. If you don't remember Biden has put an excutive order that requires you to take the first job. If you don't, benefits end immediately afterword. I'm not stating what happens after 6 months. I'm talking specifically within that time period and the changes that have happened to it.

I don't see any difference though, a job is a job, you lose your unemployment benefit when you refuse to work since an employer made an offer to you.

 

[Nightwish]

"Isn't it hypocritical to force people to take jobs while unemployed?"

Why hypocritical? But, no, not really. Someone has to make the real stuff that you consume. Maybe if you can trust people do produce something that is needed by someone else (even if delivering purchases or cleaning the street), but it's a tall order to expect people to be motivated and find the useful niche.
But it's not really the real complaint. Yes, it's hypocritical to speak of opportunities and prosperity when you're forced to accept anything at all, work conditions and wage be damned, effectively subsidizing uncompetitive companies with social programs, means testing and more policing, all while also making sure they collect rents and pay little to nothing back - it's hugely inefective, other than to create a lower class that workers are scared of being part of. Or, and here we ago again, the responsible thing to the economy sneezing is vastly increasing unemployment to cut the wage share of those who produce the value.

Those are not the same thing. And it's coming home to roost.

 

[smf]

I don't see any difference though, a job is a job, you lose your unemployment benefit when you refuse to work since an employer made an offer to you.

That is fine until you factor in why people are unemployed in the first place.

A friend of mine worked at Virgin Games when they shut down, so many software houses in the UK went under at that point that all of the programmers swamped any available positions at other companies. For years afterwards there were no positions available for the existing programmers let alone people who graduated from university.

A friend of mine ended up unemployed and if he'd been forced to take the first zero hours contract he was offered or lose benefits, then his skills would essentially be pointless. A zero hours contract guarantees you no hours at all, your employer can tell you on the day whether you are required.

They trialed this in the UK and it forced people with first class degrees to do seasonal shop work, or starve. The employers knew they could treat the staff badly & the people who normally relied on working in shops at xmas etc were then unable to find employment. It is bad for the UK economy as people borrow money from the government to go to university and they only pay it back if they attain a certain level of salary, which they aren't going to do if you force them to abandon their career.

There is a problem in some deprived areas, where the people are so traumatized by deprivation that they don't aspire to anything and that does need to be addressed. However you don't fix that by giving ever bigger sticks to the people who were lucky that they didn't have that hurdle to overcome. Some people can overcome it, but not all.

 

[Youkai]

Not sure about America but I think with some exceptions its the right thing.
While you don't work you kinda force everyone else to work for you so that you won't starve or whatever which also isn't fair.
Might sound rude but even as I have at least one friend who never worked in his life I think if you don't work even if you could you don't deserve much help at all.

But I can understand why people wouldn't want to do just every Job especially when they aren't stupid and would be able to do something better ... then again not every slacker who dropped out of school can become top manager at apple or whatever big company and earn like 10 million a day.

 

[Zonark]

I wouldn’t say the governments forcing you to find a job. However I don’t think people should rely on unemployment. When someone is stuck on unemployment that’s a choice that person makes in all honesty even if the government requires you to attempt to find a job to stay on unemployment if you get hired by Said job and quit you terminate your unemployment benefits. People shouldn’t rely on someone else or handouts. You won’t be able to grow as a country when no one works towards a common goal. I do say that minimum wage needs to be raised but I also say that people need to maintain a job.

 

[dragonmaster]

ok i ve finished university and got my first job at minimum wage cause nobody was interested to offer me more than that, i knew that in this situation i had no opportunity to support myself by my income. i did take some exams for gonvernment in my country and i sucessfully got in. what i see though is people of my age are forced to live with a low income job, most of them with no abillity to support a familly now or in the near future while gonvernment of my country is whistling promises that dont fix a thing. it is for me so much angering that the system toss aside most of us to low income jobs or forces us to live alone as we cant support kids or familly

 

[Creamu]

However you don't fix that by giving ever bigger sticks to the people who were lucky that they didn't have that hurdle to overcome.

Maybe it is a solution, it could be a motivator to change thing bottom to top.

 

[smf]

Maybe it is a solution, it could be a motivator to change thing bottom to top.

You're talking as if this is a new idea, rather than something that consistently fails.

 

[Creamu]

You're talking as if this is a new idea, rather than something that consistently fails.

There are historical examples that this has worked.

 

[smf]

There are historical examples that this has worked.

Where exactly? Without descending into a crime spree or civil uprising,

 

[Creamu]

Where exactly? Without descending into a crime spree or civil uprising,

Study the italian german history of the early 20th century.

 

[AncientBoi]

Back to the main question, It is equally Incomprehensible when the employers keepyou for just less than a month, then send you on your merry way. Especially when you have done Exactly what they wanted done. smh

 

[smf]

Study the italian german history of the early 20th century.

No, if you want to make a point about something then you have to actually make a point.

 

[Creamu]

No, if you want to make a point about something then you have to actually make a point.

EDIT: Unfortunatly I don't feel at liberty to make my point. It may or may not be within the bounds of valid free speech and I'm just going to assume that a discussion like this would not welcome on this plattform. I hate to do this, but if you want to know about this subject just look at the crude realities of italian and german history of the early 20th century.