this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
175 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4312 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In one hand, voluntary unemployment funded by taxes seems unfair.

On the other, fuck the man. The wealth imbalance needs to be fixed and this is a step in the correct direction.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Unfair how? It's paid by employers, so kinda makes sense to me, i.e. employer caused the loss of livelihood, so they pay for the benefit to the recently unemployed.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago

The employer is, presumably, willing to pay them to work, just not at the rate the workers want.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm not in or from the US, but I'm guessing unemployment doesn't pay enough to live the good life? Should just be enough to keep you alive?

If you want to leave you shouldn't worry about starving in the pursuit of better employment imo

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unemployment probably won't even cover your bills, but will let you hemorrhage money slower

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Then I really don't see the issue. Not like people would willingly put themselves in that kind of situation without a reason

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

In the US if you want to leave your job, you won’t get unemployment. If you’re laid off you can.

I agree with you that it’s wrong, but that’s how it currently works in the US.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

Unemployment is not for when people decide to leave a job. It’s for when your employer lays you off. Going on strike is much different than being laid off.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is he gonna drop the ball on this like he did on universal healthcare?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Let's wait and see

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

SB-799 give Strikers the right to receive unemployment

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What the hell is that website? It screams very anti-choice.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

You would think? Shockingly nothing in this site talks about pro or anti choice. Mostly talks about anti austery, paid leave, yimby stuff, WFH, etc

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This user always posts from that website. It seems primarily aimed at criticizing austerity measures but it’s super bizarre. No mention of who is actually putting this research together.

Like I agree that austerity measures suck and that if you want a family you should be able to afford one, but phrasing it as “stop population decline” is just… weird? Like the examples aren’t bad exactly but the entire presentation and motivations behind the website sets off some serious red flags.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Saw it on Reddit and Google News, and ended up finding my self posting from it over and over

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Totally fine not trying to say you’re up to something nefarious haha. Just saying that a source I only see from one user that itself is pretty opaque about sourcing and intent makes me approach it cautiously.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Don't get me wrong, I like posting from this site in part the name raise eyebrows despite the articles being shocking reliable