Unemployment Benefits Disincentives

> I assume that this refers to unemployment insurance, which is often provided for a limited time, and/or requires you to be actively looking for work.I'm in Germany, unemployment insurance has a time limit, and does require you to look for work, but the benefits are based on your previous salaries, what I was referring to is general welfare. It does have a provision that requires you to look for work as well, but it's rather theoretical, and unless you're basically tak

Surprising that paying people to not work didn't lead to more people working!

Show me one coutry who pays unemployed benefit at the level of the job you need to leave because of that insane hire fast fire fast.

Because the unemployment benefits weren't so tantalizing. [0][0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-americans-are-gett...

Perhaps the full name of the benefit, "Unemployment Insurance", will clear things up for you. It's insurance that everyone pays into, so that those who do happen to lose their jobs have an insurance to fall back on until they find another job.You're extrapolating what's essentially an insurance policy into this image of some luxurious welfare state where no one has any incentive to work. That's not what unemployment benefits are.Your commentary is the equivale

Giving people cash unconditionally would be much better than requiring them to not have any job . The former encourages recipients to retain their jobs or even look for higher paying jobs, and handles corner cases better(single mom working two jobs ineligible for unemployment on losing one).

so your idea is necessarily tied to the existence of unemployment benefit.

People who feel they are better off welfare payments than work.

Only if you live somewhere without unemployment insurance (or you mis-manage your money).

How exactly would it benefit the unemployed? They lose all the benefits the moment they start working!