Meghan Noecker wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>The simplist approach would seem to be to reduce benefit payments by
>>$0.50 for every earned $1.00. It means any attempt at work that
>>produces pay helps the recpient. Even a minimum wage job improves their
>>life. I've never quite gotten why that's not the standard practice.
>
> Since a lot of people on welfare are not likely to get hired at a full
> time good paying job, it is simply not realistic to expect them to
> start off with a job that pays higher than welfare. That works for
> people who had a good job, lost it, and can get a new good job. But
> for the tons of people with no specialized skills, it is not
> practical.

In a down economy it is not practical for people on unemployment either.
There's a conundrum in the design of unemployment - It's intended that
people on unemployment take jobs similar to the one they lost but for
many there are no such jobs anywhere.

> It is also the reason than many people will accept unemployment until
> it almost runs out. They won't bother to apply for lower paying jobs
> because they can get more via unemployment. So, they only accept the
> lower job when it is financially better than the welfare or
> unemployment payments.

When you've spent decades building your career I sympathize. By the
time the unemployment runs out the choice becomes go into business for
yourself or take any job you can find. When the times turn bad tons of
people start businesses out of desparation. Some go completely bust
others thrive and fuel the growth in the cycle economic cycle.