• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you quit your job?

If you were guaranteed a $25,000 income would you quit your job and stay unemployed?

  • Total voters
    103
cpwill said:
Incorrect. As soon as you add any income from work that is reported to the government, the premise of the OP (as I understand it) is not met. We have a large cash economy of part time low-skill work that is not reported, and participating is literally easy enough that children do it regularly. The premise of the OP is that you quit your job and remain in an unemployed status - which does not mean performing no labor for remuneration, but rather that you continue to remain officially unemployed.
Click to expand...

Nope. Employed is employed. You make money from a job and the goalposts are changed.

On the contrary:

1. My post points out how this change could either not alter or even improve people's lifestyles.
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't since it changes the goalposts.

2. Here is the OP: If you were guaranteed a $25,000/year income by the government would you quit your job and stay unemployed? I know I wouldn't, how about you? You will note there is nothing about relative lifestyle in it.
Click to expand...

So, how would someone make that decision? Not in a vacuum. They would assess pluses and minuses for both options. For most, and the poll demonstrates this, a major factor in the decision would be whether or not one's lifestyle would be significantly altered. This is a reasonable variable in making this decision and one that most see could not be attained, hence the "no" vote.
 
cpwill said:
You're going to be hitting some pretty big lawns for $50 per - 33 yards per week comes out to 5-6 lawns a day, but a 50 dollar lawn is going to take you at least two hours to get to, mow, clean up, and leave (minimum) - so that's about 12 hours a day for 6 days a week. Minimum.

Just my own experience. Unless you are selling to real estate agencies - then you can charge more because it's not their money.
Click to expand...

but Johndylan said,

johndylan1 said:
"Go buy yourself a mower and weedeater, live in the south, and work your ass off. You'll make better that 47,000.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that he was exaggerating?
 
cpwill said:
Again, here is the OP: If you were guaranteed a $25,000/year income by the government would you quit your job and stay unemployed? I know I wouldn't, how about you?

You will note that it includes nothing whatsoever about who you are habitating with.
Click to expand...

Changes the goalposts. It is pretty obvious from the spirit of the OP that this is a singular situation. It's either/or. Every time you add a "loophole" you change the goalposts.
 
cpwill said:
Yeah, it's interesting... but so is philosophy. Both are hobbies if you don't want to go for the full-gig.

But I'm surprised - it's not considered a BS?
Click to expand...

Some schools give a BS. Depends on where you go.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
but Johndylan said,

Are you saying that he was exaggerating?
Click to expand...

:shrug: what I described was someone working their butt off, as he said. He forgot to add you need a truck, and plenty of gas and a cooler of water.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Changes the goalposts. It is pretty obvious from the spirit of the OP that this is a singular situation. It's either/or. Every time you add a "loophole" you change the goalposts.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I would argue that the spirit of the OP is pretty clearly describing "unemployment" as it is used to access government benefits. It is no loophole, but sticking to the original language. Unlike your later claim that cohabitation would violate the OP, which was an addition.
 
cpwill said:
It seems to rather implicitly require remaining in a recognized status of unemployment as a requirement for receiving government benefit. In that way, we can assess that it is similar to current "unemployed" individuals who nonetheless do other labor for which they get money. When you help out Bob down the street by getting your cousin to pay him $150 to help him clear out a tree that fell in his yard? That's cash under-the-table employment, and Bob remains unemployed. He has no steady job. He doesn't fall out of an unemployed status for 8 hours and then fall back into it, and his benefits reflect that lack of change in status, as they are not pro-rated.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The OP is an either/or situation. You add loopholes, as money under the table is, then you change the goalposts of the OP.

:shrug: people would. Especially given that, with a very few simple steps (such as cohabitation) you can live very comfortably on such a policy. It would be socially destructive as hell, mind you, as it would likely come with a $25k marriage penalty for our poorest population, but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't take up that offer. As evidence by inverse, consider the effects of adding a job requirement in the welfare reform of the 90s - people went out and got jobs. Presumably, they could have gotten them prior to that date, and did not do so because the effort of working and loss of time at home was not worth the marginal gain in income.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a better and more accurate OP question, based on many of the responses, would have been "Under what conditions would you quit your job and remain unemployed if you were guaranteed a $25,000 income from the government?" This would allow all the loopholes that are being mentioned to be accounted for.
 
cpwill said:
On the contrary, I would argue that the spirit of the OP is pretty clearly describing "unemployment" as it is used to access government benefits. It is no loophole, but sticking to the original language. Unlike your later claim that cohabitation would violate the OP, which was an addition.
Click to expand...

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. ANY loophole violates the either/or description of the OP. This included cohabitation.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Nope. Employed is employed. You make money from a job and the goalposts are changed.
Click to expand...

Unemployment as determined by the government to give out benefits (such as a minimum income of $25,000, annual) remains unemployment as determined by the government as pertains to access to government benefits. The goalpost remains precisely where the OP put it.

Actually it doesn't since it changes the goalposts.
Click to expand...

The only goalpost that the OP outlined is A) you quit your current employment (whatever it is) B) you remain in an unemployed status and C) you get precisely $25,000. Nothing whatsoever was said about your living standards, up, down, or the same. Nothing was said about living in the same place, with the same number of people under your roof, etc. A=B=C, and that was it. No other qualifiers.

So, how would someone make that decision? Not in a vacuum. They would assess pluses and minuses for both options. For most, and the poll demonstrates this, a major factor in the decision would be whether or not one's lifestyle would be significantly altered.
Click to expand...

....Such as, for example, this. Now in reality, certainly people would make decisions.... roughly in this manner (I am not so convinced that people are that rational); however, whether or not people make this switch without effecting (or only through lowering) their standard of living was not a premise or a requirement of the question in the OP. Which makes my point that for some their standard of living would not be significantly altered or even improved both relevant according to your own reasoning and not an instance of moving the goalposts, as no goalposts were moved, but rather the process through which people might arrive at a "yes" decision was described.

This is a reasonable variable in making this decision and one that most see could not be attained, hence the "no" vote.
Click to expand...

Indeed - that and pride. However:

A. Posters on DP are hardly representative.

B. Even if they were, 14.77% of the American populace is a little more than 45 million people. That is about 93% of the current population on food stamps.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: what I described was someone working their butt off, as he said. He forgot to add you need a truck, and plenty of gas and a cooler of water.
Click to expand...

$47,000 might be out of the question. The lawn care industry has brutal competition in my area.

I know a lady with a huge yard. She hires a landscaping company to mow her grass for $30. They never come back again. Then she calls another landscaping to mow her grass for $30. They never come back again. She repeats this process for the whole mowing season. Assuming no expenses, these jerks are only making $15 an hour. That equates to $18,600 for the whole mowing season.

Welcome to reality. Hard work doesn't always pay off. It's a nice bed time story but your kids will catch on when they grow up.




Reality. Hello. Over here. :2wave:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. ANY loophole violates the either/or description of the OP. This included cohabitation.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. The OP makes no requirement for behavior other than A) you quit your current job and B) remain in an unemployed status. Saying "well if you co-habitate, that's a loophole" is as reason-less as claiming "well, if you decide to reduce your expenses, or if you decide to order cheeseburgers instead of chicken sandwhiches, that's not covered under the OP. Of course it's not covered under the OP - the universe of potential human actions is impossible to describe, which is why the OP only limited required actions to qualify to two: quit your current job, and remain in an unemployed status. Anything else you would do is (by the laws imposed by the OP) completely up to you.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And I'd still like to understand the motivation of folks arguing for taking the money. Something feels suspicious about it.
Click to expand...

I thought it was kind of your job to figure that stuff out on your own?
 
vasuderatorrent said:
$47,000 might be out of the question. The lawn care industry has brutal competition in my area.

I know a lady with a huge yard. She hires a landscaping company to mow her grass for $30. They never come back again. Then she calls another landscaping to mow her grass for $30. They never come back again. She repeats this process for the whole mowing season. Assuming no expenses, these jerks are only making $15 an hour. That equates to $18,600 for the whole mowing season.
Click to expand...


:shrug: I was mowing lawns back in 00-03, and a two-hour yard was going to costs you around $50-$60; and I was a kid with a truck. And your lady is hardly the typical consumer of law care services.

Welcome to reality. Hard work doesn't always pay off. It's a nice bed time story but your kids will catch on when they grow up.

Reality. Hello. Over here. :2wave:
Click to expand...

:shrug: sure, hard work doesn't always pay off. If you pour yourself every day into selling really, really, really well-crafted mud-pies with little smiley faces drawn in them, well, you are probably going to fail. However, as far as it is concerned, hard work is the best single cause, and the one everyone can bring to the table, for success.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Irrelevant. The OP is an either/or situation. You add loopholes, as money under the table is, then you change the goalposts of the OP.
Click to expand...

No loopholes have been added. I have simply described how people can make the "yes" decision work for them better than you are describing. The goalposts of A) quit your current job and B) remain in an unemployed status remain as the only necessary qualifiers for C) get $25,000. Since the OP said nothing about a living standards or a household income requirement, cohabitation is not a "loophole" as there is nothing to avoid. Similarly, since a person doing odd jobs remains in an "unemployed" status, he continues to fulfill the requirements of the OP.

You are working really hard here to cover for having overextended.

Perhaps a better and more accurate OP question, based on many of the responses, would have been "Under what conditions would you quit your job and remain unemployed if you were guaranteed a $25,000 income from the government?"
Click to expand...

The entire universe of potential conditions is equally impossible to describe. It would change the assumption of the question from "starting where you are today" to "where could you start from", but it would be another way to describe the same phenomenon - that many people would effectively vote "yes", and take the money.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: I was mowing lawns back in 00-03, and a two-hour yard was going to costs you around $50-$60; and I was a kid with a truck. And your lady is hardly the typical consumer of law care services.



:shrug: sure, hard work doesn't always pay off. If you pour yourself every day into selling really, really, really well-crafted mud-pies with little smiley faces drawn in them, well, you are probably going to fail. However, as far as it is concerned, hard work is the best single cause, and the one everyone can bring to the table, for success.
Click to expand...

I once made $27,000 a year working in an air conditioned office with free donuts every day and BBQ dinners on most Fridays. It was much easier than mowing grass.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
I once made $27,000 a year working in an air conditioned office with free donuts every day and BBQ dinners on most Fridays. It was much easier than mowing grass.
Click to expand...

True Story. When I switched to restaraunts, my life became much easier, and I could pretty much eat a meal and a half for free every day. All hail the power of air conditioning. My workday was cut in half, too. However, I got the posts that I did in that job because I demonstrated a work ethic and capability superior to those of my coworkers.
 
I said no, but I would probably do it right up until my wife found out.
 
cpwill said:
Unemployment as determined by the government to give out benefits (such as a minimum income of $25,000, annual) remains unemployment as determined by the government as pertains to access to government benefits. The goalpost remains precisely where the OP put it.
Click to expand...

Nope. If you earn money, you change the goalposts of the OP.

The only goalpost that the OP outlined is A) you quit your current employment (whatever it is) B) you remain in an unemployed status and C) you get precisely $25,000. Nothing whatsoever was said about your living standards, up, down, or the same. Nothing was said about living in the same place, with the same number of people under your roof, etc. A=B=C, and that was it. No other qualifiers.
Click to expand...

You just changed the goalposts when you said "you remain in an unemployed STATUS".

....Such as, for example, this. Now in reality, certainly people would make decisions.... roughly in this manner (I am not so convinced that people are that rational); however, whether or not people make this switch without effecting (or only through lowering) their standard of living was not a premise or a requirement of the question in the OP. Which makes my point that for some their standard of living would not be significantly altered or even improved both relevant according to your own reasoning and not an instance of moving the goalposts, as no goalposts were moved, but rather the process through which people might arrive at a "yes" decision was described.
Click to expand...

The OP was an either/or scenario. Adding all these loopholes and altering the goalposts makes the point of the OP completely irrelevant. Now, if some folks want to do this, that's fine, but I will not engage in it and call it out.

Indeed - that and pride.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

However:

A. Posters on DP are hardly representative.
Click to expand...

I don't completely agree. I think we have a wide range of folks from very different walks of life.

B. Even if they were, 14.77% of the American populace is a little more than 45 million people. That is about 93% of the current population on food stamps.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are getting at.
 
cpwill said:
No, it doesn't. The OP makes no requirement for behavior other than A) you quit your current job and B) remain in an unemployed status. Saying "well if you co-habitate, that's a loophole" is as reason-less as claiming "well, if you decide to reduce your expenses, or if you decide to order cheeseburgers instead of chicken sandwhiches, that's not covered under the OP. Of course it's not covered under the OP - the universe of potential human actions is impossible to describe, which is why the OP only limited required actions to qualify to two: quit your current job, and remain in an unemployed status. Anything else you would do is (by the laws imposed by the OP) completely up to you.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. You adding "status" alters the OP. The OP is either/or. Any alteration that variates from it changes the premise. If I had a billion dollars in the bank, that would be an entirely different scenario and have a different impact on my decision then if I had zero dollars in the bank. The OP assumes no loopholes and all things being equal. If not, then the OP question is pretty irrelevant.
 
cpwill said:
No loopholes have been added. I have simply described how people can make the "yes" decision work for them better than you are describing.
Click to expand...

That's adding loopholes and changing the goalposts.

The goalposts of A) quit your current job and B) remain in an unemployed status remain as the only necessary qualifiers for C) get $25,000. Since the OP said nothing about a living standards or a household income requirement, cohabitation is not a "loophole" as there is nothing to avoid. Similarly, since a person doing odd jobs remains in an "unemployed" status, he continues to fulfill the requirements of the OP.
Click to expand...

"Status" equals changing the goalposts.

You are working really hard here to cover for having overextended.
Click to expand...

Not at all. You seem to be working really hard to change the parameters of the OP so it fits your answers.

The entire universe of potential conditions is equally impossible to describe. It would change the assumption of the question from "starting where you are today" to "where could you start from", but it would be another way to describe the same phenomenon - that many people would effectively vote "yes", and take the money.
Click to expand...

However, MY OP question would more accurately illustrate the answers given by some here... especially you. And it would delineate what would make someone choose "yes" or choose "no'.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Nope. If you earn money, you change the goalposts of the OP.
Click to expand...

Wrong. If you become employed you violate one of the conditions of the OP's proposition.

You just changed the goalposts when you said "you remain in an unemployed STATUS".
Click to expand...

:shrug: I would argue that the status is fairly implicit. Why don't we ask him.

The OP was an either/or scenario. Adding all these loopholes and altering the goalposts makes the point of the OP completely irrelevant. Now, if some folks want to do this, that's fine, but I will not engage in it and call it out.
Click to expand...

Cohabitation, or the multiple side-benefits of free time are neither loopholes nor goalpost-altering. They are the exact same discussion that you claimed was relevant when you discussed how people would go about making that decision.

I don't completely agree. I think we have a wide range of folks from very different walks of life.
Click to expand...

Who are far more likely to be extroverts with a weird tendency to stay up late at night arguing about nonentities such as the meaning of "unemployment". Wide variety? Check. Different walks of life? You betcha. Representative of the American public......? What percentage of DPer's, do you suppose, could name the Vice President? What percentage of general populace do you think could?

I have no idea what you are getting at.
Click to expand...

You referenced the poll as a demonstration that people broadly were taking a loss of living standards into account when casting their vote. At the time I wrote that, "Yes" had 14.77% of the votes. So, if you are correct and DPers are representative, then that is the rough portion of the populace that would be taking advantage of this deal, placing a massive and unsustainable strain on our budget.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Yes it does. You adding "status" alters the OP. The OP is either/or. Any alteration that variates from it changes the premise. If I had a billion dollars in the bank, that would be an entirely different scenario and have a different impact on my decision then if I had zero dollars in the bank. The OP assumes no loopholes and all things being equal. If not, then the OP question is pretty irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The OP only says "you", indicating that the assumption is, well, you. Not a you in an alternate universe where Uncle Warbucks left you a cool billion. As for adding "status", :shrug: the argument remains the exact same if you remove the word. You can do odd jobs and pick up cash and remain unemployed, as demonstrated by the people who do so.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's adding loopholes and changing the goalposts.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Since household size, habitation, etc. were never a condition in the first place, describing their effects on the decision cannot be a changing of goalposts as those goalposts never existed in the first place to be changed.

Not at all. You seem to be working really hard to change the parameters of the OP so it fits your answers.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary. I have only argued that there are people who would choose "yes" to the original question of the OP, and described some of the reasons they would do so. It is you who are attempting to add in extra restrictions that are not in the OP.

However, MY OP question would more accurately illustrate the answers given by some here... especially you. And it would delineate what would make someone choose "yes" or choose "no'.
Click to expand...

:shrug: It would ask each individual to specifically describe their reasoning - that would be the main qualitative addition.
 
cpwill said:
Wrong. If you become employed you violate one of the conditions of the OP's proposition.
Click to expand...

Nope. You work you violate the conditions of the OP.

:shrug: I would argue that the status is fairly implicit. Why don't we ask him.
Click to expand...

And I would argue that it isn't, but I think we SHOULD ask him and settle this once an for all. It would resolve what he meant by his OP: was it open ended as you seem to believe, or closed as I do?


Cohabitation, or the multiple side-benefits of free time are neither loopholes nor goalpost-altering. They are the exact same discussion that you claimed was relevant when you discussed how people would go about making that decision.
Click to expand...

No. Their difference is that people would make the decision based on their CURRENT or PAST situation, not on what would/could happen in the future. For example, if they ALREADY cohabited, that could play into their decision, as I said. I said nothing of future changes which has nothing to do with the OP.

Who are far more likely to be extroverts with a weird tendency to stay up late at night arguing about nonentities such as the meaning of "unemployment".
Click to expand...

I would submit that these would be introverts.

Wide variety? Check. Different walks of life? You betcha. Representative of the American public......? What percentage of DPer's, do you suppose, could name the Vice President? What percentage of general populace do you think could?
Click to expand...

Political knowledge is really not an issue in this question. It is more philosophical than political.

You referenced the poll as a demonstration that people broadly were taking a loss of living standards into account when casting their vote. At the time I wrote that, "Yes" had 14.77% of the votes. So, if you are correct and DPers are representative, then that is the rough portion of the populace that would be taking advantage of this deal, placing a massive and unsustainable strain on our budget.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with your analysis. Those who voted "yes" were not taking a loss of living standards into consideration or didn't believe it would affect their living standards. So, unless you believe it would, your analysis doesn't apply.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom