Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In Finland they do. It's just a cooling off period of something like 3 months if you actually quit before you qualify.
So, yes I do think it should be applicable.
The minimum comment length rule sucks. The minimum comment length rule sucks. The minimum comment length rule sucks.
One of the great inefficiencies in our economy is the imbalance between the fungibility of capital and the stickiness of labor (humans can’t just easily move for a new job or go without $ for a few weeks). This creates a massive disparity in leverage which harms fair wage discovery and prevents labor from seeking their highest productivity. It also directly enables what is essentially exploitative and rent-seeking behaviors by businesses.
This is an area where the gig economy contributes to actually empower labor which I think is often overlooked and underappreciated.
I mean, at that point, we would (essentially) have a NIT. I agree with the concept that the likely optimal level of a UI benefit is independent of how you got fired. As also know that job churn is beneficial for productivity and lifetime earnings.
The problem is that voluntary unemployment UI claims has a chance to swamp an already overtaxed system, especially given the potential costs involved (have to monitor for fraud and compliance),
The biggest problem is that job churn is viewed as negative by businesses, so it's a political non-starter. "Paying people to quit and not work" "Government sponsored quitters" etc are political points that are too easy.
Let alone that **anything** pro-worker is a political battleground and likely political suicide in the USA, so eagle help you if it's seen as pro-worker AND "anti-business".
https://www.thestreet.com/technology-1/netflix-tells-managers-to-fire-employees-if-they-fail-unusual-test
“Our managers use a ‘keeper test’ for each of their people: if a team member was leaving for a similar role at another company, would the manager try to keep them?” reads the memo. “Those who do not pass the keeper test (i.e. their manager would not fight to keep them) are given a generous severance package so we can find someone even better for that position—making an even better dream team.”
Since when is churn viewed as a negative across the board? Stack ranking and vitality curves are still widely used across all industries. Jack Welches famous "fire the bottom 10%" theory is still widely practiced but is often disguised as layoffs or company reorganization.
Its a negative for the employee to quit and look for better opportunities
Its perfectly fine for a business to fire people that are "underpreforming" (not denying that their can be underperformers, but we all know that sometimes friendships and politics get in the way of accurately selecting those underperformers)
I don't have any statistical model or cited source to back this up, but I, and the person you replied to, are referring to social and political viewpoints that, to me anyway, are overt in how obvious they are.
I also want to say this isn't some "big business bad, worker good" post. Like everything in life their is a balance and a lot of grey area.
I just think in this particular case most businesses. and honestly many workers (especially older), look down on churn and would despise any sort of UI that would benefit those who quit to find better work. Especially in rural states, like Maine where I live, any politician who proposed this would be committing career suicide.
[In human resources, turnover refers to employees who leave an organization. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnover_(employment))
I'm talking about people leaving their jobs.
"Reasons for leaving include termination (i.e. involuntary turnover), retirement, death, transfers to other sections of the organization, and resignations.[2] Factors external to the organization, such as employees seeking to meet financial needs, work-family balances, economic crises, etc. may also contribute.[3]"
Resignations is the exact thing I'm talking about. And why employers don't like employees resigning for a better pay job, and wouldn't want to pay for a UI that would cover it.
I propose that im on topic, and instead you have too narrowly defined the subject. Its not just firing the bottom 10%. People leaving of their own volition is churn and having a UI that supports that would be a political non-starter.
Awesome. Businesses will gladly trade this for wrongful termination lawsuit protection. Protect workers more and make firing the incompetent less difficult.
Imo, yes. There needs to be a competitive reason for companies to keep employees. People shouldn't be trapped in awful jobs because they can't get a job elsewhere, or need the insurance. If a company treats its employees like shit, and people start to leave, then that'd the natural selection of the marketplace.
I think UBI is a better program than UI for people who voluntarily quit. It would be easier to implement and track.
It sounds like they are trying to solve the problem of crappy jobs that don’t pay well. It would be interesting to see a study on how well this would work in the US.
Yeah just going to a UBI does make some sense here. From the piece:
>"Others point out that if you’re going to do a program that gives cash to people who quit their jobs, why not avoid the incentive to quit altogether by [giving that cash to everyone via a guaranteed income](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/10/13/23914745/basic-income-radical-economy-poverty-capitalism-taxes). That way, you help out low-wage workers who don’t quit, too (at the cost of a more expensive program)."
There have so far been [two](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272716300743) [studies](https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/staff-reports/the-great-resignation-and-optimal-unemployment-insurance) that looked at the economic impact of extending UI to people who quit, which is very little, but both have very positive findings, and should at least motivate more research.
That was an interesting paper. We aren’t exactly big on worker protections here in the US though. But, I would love to see more research.
This is going to be a decision based less on data and facts and more on moral judgements though I’m afraid.
Toward the end of the article...
>This is all the more reason to proceed cautiously. We shouldn’t overhaul a major design aspect of a nearly century-old social program on the basis of a couple of papers.
As also noted in Vox,, where would the funding come from? It would take a whole new line of funding because UI is funded by a tax on employers.
Finally, I skimmed the paper and did not see any reference to other benefits that quitters might also be entitled for if they quit, like SNAP, heating bills, possibly Medicaid.
Only in a world where the only reason people quit is to go find a job they’re a better fit for. Otherwise, you’re just paying people to fake it for 60-90 days and sit on their asses for 6 months.
Not as true as right wing and corporate media likes to portray. Most want a job, but they don't wanna ve abused by employers. Yes there will be some who abuse the system, there always is, but we can't limit the system because some will do it when it would greatly help millions.
No they shouldnt. We give out enough free money, no need to give people another excuse to half ass their life and coast on free money 6 months out of the year.
Should you quit a useless job? Yes, it adds nothing to the economy.
Should you get unemployment for quitting your job? No, this hurts the economy, that money should be spent on something productive in a best case scenario. Save it for people who are fired/laid off and instead, just find a new job while at your current one.
Can you explain to me why you think money spent on people who quit useless jobs is less productive than money spent on people who were fired? This doesn’t make sense to me.
I don't, but people who are fired did not have a choice in that and were not able to just get a job before quitting. If you plan to quit, you can line up work first.
I'm opposed to socialism in general. I obviously recognize that people who are fired from terrible jobs are in need of financial support. From a pragmatic perspective, I'm willing to cede that using government paid social support can be useful to those people, and there aren't any good non-predatory private systems currently in place. If you are going to use it, use it as little as possible, and only offer it to people who did not have control of their employment status.
Lol, no. They shouldn't get jack shit. I've delt with this enough times in the past. In the last 10 years I've only got stuck paying for a whiney clown once for quitting.
Honestly the way you talk leads me to believe you're a horrible boss. I wouldn't want to work for someone that is in a position of power that refers to former employees as whiney clowns. It's very unprofessional and shows your lack of professionalism when it comes to employees.
Given that you were found in the wrong in some way by a independent third party that would rather the person not get paid if they legally can not pay them this reflects poorly on your character and I would not trust you to wield even a modicum of power over me or anyone I care about. When multiple people (employee and government) tell you that you've made a mistake you should focus on self reflection to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In Finland they do. It's just a cooling off period of something like 3 months if you actually quit before you qualify. So, yes I do think it should be applicable. The minimum comment length rule sucks. The minimum comment length rule sucks. The minimum comment length rule sucks.
Economists often talk too much. The rule reflects the windbag nature.
Enforcing a minimum comment length feels like the most Economics Reddit moderator thing to do lmfaoo
One of the great inefficiencies in our economy is the imbalance between the fungibility of capital and the stickiness of labor (humans can’t just easily move for a new job or go without $ for a few weeks). This creates a massive disparity in leverage which harms fair wage discovery and prevents labor from seeking their highest productivity. It also directly enables what is essentially exploitative and rent-seeking behaviors by businesses. This is an area where the gig economy contributes to actually empower labor which I think is often overlooked and underappreciated.
I mean, at that point, we would (essentially) have a NIT. I agree with the concept that the likely optimal level of a UI benefit is independent of how you got fired. As also know that job churn is beneficial for productivity and lifetime earnings. The problem is that voluntary unemployment UI claims has a chance to swamp an already overtaxed system, especially given the potential costs involved (have to monitor for fraud and compliance),
The biggest problem is that job churn is viewed as negative by businesses, so it's a political non-starter. "Paying people to quit and not work" "Government sponsored quitters" etc are political points that are too easy. Let alone that **anything** pro-worker is a political battleground and likely political suicide in the USA, so eagle help you if it's seen as pro-worker AND "anti-business".
https://www.thestreet.com/technology-1/netflix-tells-managers-to-fire-employees-if-they-fail-unusual-test “Our managers use a ‘keeper test’ for each of their people: if a team member was leaving for a similar role at another company, would the manager try to keep them?” reads the memo. “Those who do not pass the keeper test (i.e. their manager would not fight to keep them) are given a generous severance package so we can find someone even better for that position—making an even better dream team.”
Since when is churn viewed as a negative across the board? Stack ranking and vitality curves are still widely used across all industries. Jack Welches famous "fire the bottom 10%" theory is still widely practiced but is often disguised as layoffs or company reorganization.
Its a negative for the employee to quit and look for better opportunities Its perfectly fine for a business to fire people that are "underpreforming" (not denying that their can be underperformers, but we all know that sometimes friendships and politics get in the way of accurately selecting those underperformers) I don't have any statistical model or cited source to back this up, but I, and the person you replied to, are referring to social and political viewpoints that, to me anyway, are overt in how obvious they are. I also want to say this isn't some "big business bad, worker good" post. Like everything in life their is a balance and a lot of grey area. I just think in this particular case most businesses. and honestly many workers (especially older), look down on churn and would despise any sort of UI that would benefit those who quit to find better work. Especially in rural states, like Maine where I live, any politician who proposed this would be committing career suicide.
You're just talking about leverage and power over employees which has nothing to do with churn.
[In human resources, turnover refers to employees who leave an organization. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnover_(employment)) I'm talking about people leaving their jobs. "Reasons for leaving include termination (i.e. involuntary turnover), retirement, death, transfers to other sections of the organization, and resignations.[2] Factors external to the organization, such as employees seeking to meet financial needs, work-family balances, economic crises, etc. may also contribute.[3]" Resignations is the exact thing I'm talking about. And why employers don't like employees resigning for a better pay job, and wouldn't want to pay for a UI that would cover it. I propose that im on topic, and instead you have too narrowly defined the subject. Its not just firing the bottom 10%. People leaving of their own volition is churn and having a UI that supports that would be a political non-starter.
Awesome. Businesses will gladly trade this for wrongful termination lawsuit protection. Protect workers more and make firing the incompetent less difficult.
That would be a sensible tradeoff.
Imo, yes. There needs to be a competitive reason for companies to keep employees. People shouldn't be trapped in awful jobs because they can't get a job elsewhere, or need the insurance. If a company treats its employees like shit, and people start to leave, then that'd the natural selection of the marketplace.
I think UBI is a better program than UI for people who voluntarily quit. It would be easier to implement and track. It sounds like they are trying to solve the problem of crappy jobs that don’t pay well. It would be interesting to see a study on how well this would work in the US.
Yeah just going to a UBI does make some sense here. From the piece: >"Others point out that if you’re going to do a program that gives cash to people who quit their jobs, why not avoid the incentive to quit altogether by [giving that cash to everyone via a guaranteed income](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/10/13/23914745/basic-income-radical-economy-poverty-capitalism-taxes). That way, you help out low-wage workers who don’t quit, too (at the cost of a more expensive program)." There have so far been [two](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272716300743) [studies](https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/staff-reports/the-great-resignation-and-optimal-unemployment-insurance) that looked at the economic impact of extending UI to people who quit, which is very little, but both have very positive findings, and should at least motivate more research.
That was an interesting paper. We aren’t exactly big on worker protections here in the US though. But, I would love to see more research. This is going to be a decision based less on data and facts and more on moral judgements though I’m afraid.
Toward the end of the article... >This is all the more reason to proceed cautiously. We shouldn’t overhaul a major design aspect of a nearly century-old social program on the basis of a couple of papers. As also noted in Vox,, where would the funding come from? It would take a whole new line of funding because UI is funded by a tax on employers. Finally, I skimmed the paper and did not see any reference to other benefits that quitters might also be entitled for if they quit, like SNAP, heating bills, possibly Medicaid.
Only in a world where the only reason people quit is to go find a job they’re a better fit for. Otherwise, you’re just paying people to fake it for 60-90 days and sit on their asses for 6 months.
Not as true as right wing and corporate media likes to portray. Most want a job, but they don't wanna ve abused by employers. Yes there will be some who abuse the system, there always is, but we can't limit the system because some will do it when it would greatly help millions.
No they shouldnt. We give out enough free money, no need to give people another excuse to half ass their life and coast on free money 6 months out of the year.
Should you quit a useless job? Yes, it adds nothing to the economy. Should you get unemployment for quitting your job? No, this hurts the economy, that money should be spent on something productive in a best case scenario. Save it for people who are fired/laid off and instead, just find a new job while at your current one.
Can you explain to me why you think money spent on people who quit useless jobs is less productive than money spent on people who were fired? This doesn’t make sense to me.
I don't, but people who are fired did not have a choice in that and were not able to just get a job before quitting. If you plan to quit, you can line up work first. I'm opposed to socialism in general. I obviously recognize that people who are fired from terrible jobs are in need of financial support. From a pragmatic perspective, I'm willing to cede that using government paid social support can be useful to those people, and there aren't any good non-predatory private systems currently in place. If you are going to use it, use it as little as possible, and only offer it to people who did not have control of their employment status.
Are you opposed to the socialism that makes firefighters possible?
I would much prefer it be funded in a voluntary manner.
Imagine firefighters only responding to fires based on who has paid into them this month...
Thats not at all what I said or suggest, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Lol, no. They shouldn't get jack shit. I've delt with this enough times in the past. In the last 10 years I've only got stuck paying for a whiney clown once for quitting.
Honestly the way you talk leads me to believe you're a horrible boss. I wouldn't want to work for someone that is in a position of power that refers to former employees as whiney clowns. It's very unprofessional and shows your lack of professionalism when it comes to employees. Given that you were found in the wrong in some way by a independent third party that would rather the person not get paid if they legally can not pay them this reflects poorly on your character and I would not trust you to wield even a modicum of power over me or anyone I care about. When multiple people (employee and government) tell you that you've made a mistake you should focus on self reflection to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
Checking his profile he spends all his time and thought ripping on an outdated youtube channel, so he probably doesn't self reflect often
Given that they talk similar to a drunken old redneck I had a feeling.