The policy of forcing a decision for laid off people between 1) sitting around doing nothing (i.e. "looking for a job") and being eligible for free money vs. 2) trying to start something which could have an an impact in not only getting that person back into a paying position but also on the economy as a whole (and thereby being ineligible for money) needed to end
> The policy of forcing a decision for laid off people between 1) sitting around doing nothing (i.e. "looking for a job") and being eligible for free money vs. 2) trying to start something
There was no such policy - there was no such "decision".
The standards for "looking for a job" are/were low enough that one could be trying to start something at the same time. (I know - that's what I did.)
While we like to talk about starting companies, ie we like startup porn, the vast majority of the long term unemployed won't start anything. More to the point, the folks who would are unaffected by this proposal, so there won't be any benefits received for the costs incurred.
How do I know this? The folks who would start do start and are doing so already. (Yes, I read the SEA stats.)
There is such a policy, at least in New York State. Any time spent on "self-employment" activities reduces the amount of unemployment insurance money you receive.
There are precedents for it being all activities. Particularly anything you're doing that would be in line with your usual profession, whether you're getting paid for it or not.
So a laid off programmer could be penalized for working on an open source project to keep their skills current? Incredibly idiotic if true, but it wouldn't be the first time we've created screwed up incentives for the lower end of the income scale. I'm becoming more and more convinced that we should replace most of the welfare bureaucracy with a negative income tax.
Potentially, yes. In the case law I remember, exceptions were explicitly carved out for "hobbies", so if you can show that it's something you usually do as a hobby and that it's not interfering with your job search, you can probably avoid penalties, but I could see it being a major pain in the ass.
In reality, enforcement of UI regulations is somewhat spotty, and at least in California, a tech worker who's only on it for 2-3 months is unlikely to have any trouble. The risk isn't nonexistent, though.
The policy of forcing a decision for laid off people between 1) sitting around doing nothing (i.e. "looking for a job") and being eligible for free money vs. 2) trying to start something which could have an an impact in not only getting that person back into a paying position but also on the economy as a whole (and thereby being ineligible for money) needed to end