Slashdot Mirror
OddTod Laid Low by the Law
nickynicky9doors writes "The International Herald Tribune has a NYT article on the recent woes of Tod Rosenberg who started 'Laid Off: A Day in the Life'. Mr. Rosenberg started www.oddtodd.com to tell the tale of a laid off guy who spends days watching TV and eating chips. Oddtod became so successful Mr. Rosenberg reaped cash donations and national TV exposure. Unfortunately it also brought the attention of the Department of Labor who have explained the catch of having to be actively looking for work while collecting unemployment benefits. Another dot com bust."
"Will work for 15 minutes of fame"
Money for nothing, pix for free
I wonder if the same argument would apply to someone collecting donations on the street. While it is likely that these people are not collecting unemployment how do they define "earning money". On the same note would gambling also be considered "earning money", I know in Canada winnings are not taxable yet there are some professional gamblers that Revenue Canada is attempting to tax due to the fact they consider it a job.
I stole this Sig
Nobody is better at doing nothing than me. To prove my point; he's doing a show about him doing nothing while I'm doing nothing about me doing nothing.
There, I beat him fair and square.
As somebody currently collecting unemployment, I can say that it's bullshit. First of all, the "maximum" is ridiculously low. Secondly, unemployment benefits are taxed. Thirdly, you don't get to collect unemployment if you earn a fraction of your measly unemployment check. Meaning, I'm bored to tears. They want me to be employed. But, if I get a MINIMUM WAGE job while I'm waiting for a REAL job, then I'm ineligible for unemployment. In essence, instead of getting some grunt job while I'm waiting for a real job, I'm encouraged to stay COMPLETLELY unemployed. It's complete bullshit.
Myth 1: You make that much on unemployment? You lucky fuck!
Reality: If you filed after Jan 6th, 2002, the California state employment maximum is 330.00 a week, for up to 26 weeks. You can't file again for a year, and you have to have worked a substantial amount during the benefit year to be able to get more. That's 8580.00 to last a year, before taxes. Yes, it's taxable. That's well below the national "poverty line".
Myth 2: Well, still, it's enough to live on, you lucky fuck.
Reality: Maybe where you live, but not everywhere. In most major cities in the US, it's not enough for basic living expenses. Move to the country? Well, there aren't any jobs there, either, and less infrastructure. Oh, and if you have any other expenses, you're pretty much screwed. For example, I pay 100.00 a week in child support (a very modest sum), so I have to live on 230.00 a week. If I had a car payment, student loans, or other debts, I'd be toast. As it is, my lease locks me into over 1500.00 a month in rent. Hey, you do the math -- it's pretty grim.
Myth 3: You're better off getting a job at Wal-mart or something.
Reality: A "good" basic job might pay the same as the unemployment, but it'll also eat 40 hours a week of job-hunting time -- and management at that McJob isn't going to let you go on interviews every other day, either. Even if the McJob might pay a little more, it may hinder your ability to get Work In Your Field, which is a net loss in the long term.
Myth: People on unemployment are lazy anyway.
Reality: A lot of people treat job hunting as a full time job in and of itself, spending hours a day sending out resumes, querying employers, researching, etc. Do they sometimes get depressed and do nothing? Sure -- and that's perfectly normal for such a demoralizing, life-changing event.
Myth: You're supposed to take any job you can get.
Reality: In California, at least, there is no expectation that you will "take any job". The state expects you to look for work in your field, and to accept a reasonable offer of work, or explain to their satisfaction why you didn't. A job offer asking you to move 2000 miles is not reasonable, but one with a 20 percent cut in pay may be.
I could go on and on here, but the bottom line is, it's not a day in the park. I'm one of those people trying to do the best I can to get a job, while working to improve my chances -- which can be tough. For example, I had to get special permission from the State to take college credit classes -- they had to be things that would help me gain job skills, and I couldn't take the classes during any time that would prevent me from working or looking for work. I ended up taking internet-based community college courses that required no deadlines or class meetings.
People have asked me, "So, that Odd Todd thing, is that how it is?" and I've told them that it's a lot like that, yeah. I get up and I feel crappy that I can't find a job. Like many of my unemployed friends, I don't go out the way I used to because it costs money. There's a lot of inertia involved -- but it's not about laziness and it's not about "scamming the system." It's just about unfortunate economic realities, folks.
Myth 6: The benefits system has any kind of internal consistency.
Reality:
I was pretty young and naieve then, you can tell. The trouble was that I didn't understand that the system is set up to support binary states: In work. Out of work. Nothing in the middle, no gray areas. You practically have to lie through your teeth (with the state's tacit collusion) to get enough to live on, and at some point when you get a job that pays a living wage, you're expected to stop lying.
Trouble is, once you get used to the idea that pretty much everybody in the benefits system is involved in a huge scam (and that the benefits office colludes out of compassion), it begs the question: at what point exactly does it become wrong to lie, when at $1 a week less, it was OK?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I have no way of knowing, but I am wondering about the people complaining about their meager benefits, and talking about how they can't afford to pay their bills with their unemployment checks, and how they can't afford living in a $1500 apartment (but would never get a roommate).
I am wondering if they are the same people who, a year and a half ago, were all buying copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and constantly posting to slashdot that government has no business taxing the wealthy (and therefore deserving) to help out the poor (who should just get up and start their own businesses).
The reason I wonder is that there seem to be fewer Randroids, "you don't work... you don't eat" people, people who complain and whine that underemployed people complain and whine. And there are more people talking about inadequate unemployment benefits, and how the government should help people pay their rent and food while they go to school to improve their job skills.
I know that it could be a coincidence, but I keep wondering if they are the same people.
God is real unless declared integer