Unemployed? Tough ѕhit

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Indeed and we do, but I am not speaking about my self here. I am offering an example of a guy that was recently laid off. If UI is available and given the premiums paid by their employer, they should be able to collect, preserving the nest egg to an extent.

and no one is arguing that. That's why you and your employer pay into that every paycheck.

The problem is that it keeps getting extended and the government is raising rates on already cash strapped employers at the same time, causing even more people to lose their jobs in essence.. It's a crappy cycle right now :/

[William33 110]

and no one is arguing that. That's why you and your employer pay into that every paycheck.

The problem is that it keeps getting extended and the government is raising rates on already cash strapped employers at the same time, causing even more people to lose their jobs in essence.. It's a crappy cycle right now :/

Agreed Bro. I have been hit and miss on this thread all day, having seen it circle the world...... At the end of the day, UI for hard working, yet unemployed people makes good sense. The federal extension covering over 1 million people, is quite costly to our federal budget. Scumbags are sure to be capitalizing....Perhaps the majority....Who knows....

Given that I have had the displeasure of laying people off, this is a touchy subject for me.

[Ali G. 37]

Seriously? As you sit back, comfortably in your job, you talk this nonsense. If you were suddenly unemployed, you would think quite differently.... I know quite a few "hard working" people unemployed at the moment and I support their ability to collect the UI benefits until something better comes along.

Comment to all in disagreement with UI: You are clearly out of touch with the unemployment situation plaguing this country. I have seen mass layoffs in my company alone, given the state of the economy. Anyone that disagrees with UI, is obviously shielded from the fallout of unemployment......

Edit too add: William33 comment, not moderation.

Spot on there. Unemployed folks down under get about $839 a month, $1,512 for families (with both unemployed) indefinitely while they are looking for work. They basically sign up to a private job search agency and then must search for 14 jobs every two weeks; which is logged. On top of that they have a range of activities they must attend to increase their chances of finding work. Obviously medical expenses are not an issue.

This is more than fair enough for people to get back on their feet. This is also asset and means tested so folks don't game the system. While yes there is a small percentage who try to work the system, the rest use it responsibly and are able to get back on their feet; without fear of being kicked on the street.

Unemployment benefits there are basically a national insurance program.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Booyah

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The only thing Toyota did wrong was not alert the US Government 'right away' like they want to be alerted.

Sometimes our government acts like pompous jack asses and this is a case of that.

If you're a business and a 'problem' arises, it's in your best interest to assess the problem to see how 'big' it is before investing a ####### ton of money into fixing the problem. Toyota knew there was a problem, but didn't know how 'big' it was.... when they figured out how big it was, they came out and did the recall. If they could have saved extra $$$ by not doing a recall, then more power to them.

All that matters at this point is that they do what they say they're going to do and that's that.

The lives lost didn't matter, just the money. Until they got caught. My sole point has been that they very same people who are defending Toyota would be leading the lynch mob if was one of the Big Three. If it happened to you once with a GM, you'd never consider them again, but if it was Toyota, it's ok, they're a good company and just made a mistake. People are brainwashed.

[William33 110]

Hey William, I actually was saying that sarcastically in response to the suggestion that the minimum wage be dropped. IE. if you drop the minimum wage people will actually work for 2 dollars an hour if they have no UI and are suffering. That's not a good thing!

I completely agree that UI is very important at the moment. I think you picked up on this post without the context of my other posts.

like this: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3750127

or this: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3750127

I understand your underlying points. All is good.

[scandal 951]

I understand your underlying points. All is good.

There was a good profile on the toll of long term unemployment on the Newshour tonight. It is qualitatively different than "normal" short-term unemployment encountered as part of a functioning economy. When the economy goes through a major contraction as it did during the Great Depression, or it has done in this recent cycle, the effect on long-term unemployed is permanent and devastating.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/ja...jobs_02-26.html

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The lives lost didn't matter, just the money. Until they got caught. My sole point has been that they very same people who are defending Toyota would be leading the lynch mob if was one of the Big Three. If it happened to you once with a GM, you'd never consider them again, but if it was Toyota, it's ok, they're a good company and just made a mistake. People are brainwashed.

I'd defend the big 3 in the same instances.

I don't consider a 'few' lives worth the time/effort/expense.... However if it's certain that more lives will be lost, then yes a recall is needed.

It's the same thing with ridiculous mass recalls because of salmonella poisoning where 5 people out of 100,000 people who bought it, got sick...

Sometimes things have to be looked at in sheer numbers.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I'd defend the big 3 in the same instances.

I don't consider a 'few' lives worth the time/effort/expense.... However if it's certain that more lives will be lost, then yes a recall is needed.

It's the same thing with ridiculous mass recalls because of salmonella poisoning where 5 people out of 100,000 people who bought it, got sick...

Sometimes things have to be looked at in sheer numbers.

One life is too many. What if it was your wife, or son, or daughter?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

One life is too many. What if it was your wife, or son, or daughter?

Not saying it doesn't suck for those involved, but sometimes you have to be realistic....

[scandal 951]

One life is too many. What if it was your wife, or son, or daughter?

Big companies (drug companies, automakers , etc.) do this all the time. They look at the liability costs of settling wrongful death suits caused by their negligence, versus what it would cost to rectify the underlying problem. If it's cheaper to pay off some settlements to a few plaintiffs, that's a better deal for the bottom line and that's what they often do.

Remember Erin Brockovich? The real person, as well as the movie with Julia Roberts? That's essentially what happened in that case with PG&E.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

9-kjIfx1aQo

[William33 110]

Actuarial analysts are no good....

[Ali G. 37]

Big companies (drug companies, automakers , etc.) do this all the time. They look at the liability costs of settling wrongful death suits caused by their negligence, versus what it would cost to rectify the underlying problem. If it's cheaper to pay off some settlements to a few plaintiffs, that's a better deal for the bottom line and that's what they often do.

Remember Erin Brockovich? The real person, as well as the movie with Julia Roberts? That's essentially what happened in that case with PG&E.

Well if the government had the authority to do their job, this would not be an issue. An Erin Brockovich type 'scandal' in numerous other countries would result in prison time and probably the bankruptcy of the company. Much like the use of illegal aliens, the punishment and fines are ridiculously low and do little monetarily to affect those abusing the system. Realistically, the fine should be means tested. For example, like the guy in Europe who is a multi-million and received a $200K fine for driving recklessly. Whereas, he would have laughed off the usual $150

Fining an Exxon even a $100 million is a joke. Whereas, jailing their directors and fining the company 10% of their worth would definitely send a message. For an uber-capitalistic society, we seem to have the most lenient fines out there.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Booyah

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well if the government had the authority to do their job, this would not be an issue. An Erin Brockovich type 'scandal' in numerous other countries would result in prison time and probably the bankruptcy of the company. Much like the use of illegal aliens, the punishment and fines are ridiculously low and do little monetarily to affect those abusing the system. Realistically, the fine should be means tested. For example, like the guy in Europe who is a multi-million and received a $200K fine for driving recklessly. Whereas, he would have laughed off the usual $150

Fining an Exxon even a $100 million is a joke. Whereas, jailing their directors and fining the company 10% of their worth would definitely send a message. For an uber-capitalistic society, we seem to have the most lenient fines out there.

That's because consumers ultimately pay the price for excessive fines. Be it in a lower quality of product being made/part used somewhere in the product or excess fees/costs passed down. Most companies won't just 'eat' that.... ExxonMobil might be able to mind you, but not everyone can.

Sometimes accidents happen and something goes wrong, but you don't issue a recall when you have millions of cars on the road and the problem only happens to 4 people. Or if 4 people get sick out of 100,000 packages of meat sold. Those situation could very well be anomalies in the production line or processing plant.

A good company takes notice of the problems, starts an investigations, tries to see if the problem can be solved easy enough, and if what they can't do on their level is good enough and if it's bigger than they think, they'll issue a recall.

Not all companies are evil as some would lead you to believe. Toyota's motives are profit driven, but they're profit driven through quality. The moment Toyota realized the problem was something bigger than they could handle, they issues the recall on their own. Not many companies would do that without a mandate from the government. There's a rational way to look at things and those who think a recall should be issued the minute one or two people die without actually looking at the overall numbers, are being ridiculous. It's like a bottle of beer, sometimes you open one in your case that just doesn't taste the exact same as the others. It doesn't mean the entire case was bad, just that one beer. You're not going to go ask for a refund because of that though. You'll open a new one or muster through.

People die, it's tragic and it sucks, but it's not always a 'major' issue in every part of the products out there.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

That's because consumers ultimately pay the price for excessive fines. Be it in a lower quality of product being made/part used somewhere in the product or excess fees/costs passed down. Most companies won't just 'eat' that.... ExxonMobil might be able to mind you, but not everyone can.

Sometimes accidents happen and something goes wrong, but you don't issue a recall when you have millions of cars on the road and the problem only happens to 4 people. Or if 4 people get sick out of 100,000 packages of meat sold. Those situation could very well be anomalies in the production line or processing plant.

A good company takes notice of the problems, starts an investigations, tries to see if the problem can be solved easy enough, and if what they can't do on their level is good enough and if it's bigger than they think, they'll issue a recall.

Not all companies are evil as some would lead you to believe. Toyota's motives are profit driven, but they're profit driven through quality. The moment Toyota realized the problem was something bigger than they could handle, they issues the recall on their own. Not many companies would do that without a mandate from the government. There's a rational way to look at things and those who think a recall should be issued the minute one or two people die without actually looking at the overall numbers, are being ridiculous. It's like a bottle of beer, sometimes you open one in your case that just doesn't taste the exact same as the others. It doesn't mean the entire case was bad, just that one beer. You're not going to go ask for a refund because of that though. You'll open a new one or muster through.

People die, it's tragic and it sucks, but it's not always a 'major' issue in every part of the products out there.

Toyota issued the recall because they got caught. And pressured.