Slashdot Mirror
Blogger Loses Unemployment Check Because of Ads
Techdirt is reporting that one unfortunate, unemployed New York lawyer recently had her unemployment benefits greatly reduced because of the incredible $1/day she was earning via ads on her blog. "The whole thing sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare, with NY State asking her to get a form from her new 'employer' who didn't exist. Then NY Department of Labor started giving her all sorts of contradicting information, and eventually an 'investigation' into her 'business' — during which time her unemployment benefits were stopped entirely. She's now pulled the Google AdSense from her blog (total earned over the life of the blog $238.75)."
"It's really stunning how various labor departments are simply ill-equipped to handle a modern labor force."
Hmmm let's see, underfunded government entities are unable to keep up with new technology trends. I would not call that revelation, "Stunning."
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
You're unemployed. A friend gives you $20 to help move some furniture. You've now received money and are no longer unemployed.
Yeah...that makes sense...
now that her story is getting some wide coverage.
If I'm getting a New York lawyer, I'm getting a New York Country Lawyer
Others are getting much more than $238 through web ads. Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?
Don't be such a dumbass. All they had to do was deduct $238 from one of her checks, but there's no option to do that with unemployment. The second you report any income, regardless of the source, you're employed. So if you take a contract job and get let go a month later, not only does unemployment stop paying you but then they'll turn around and claim you haven't been on the new job long enough to collect benefits. Too bad, buddy. You can't even collect the balance of benefits you were due.
So there's is absolutely zero incentive for people on unemployment to take what work they can find. If they would encourage people to take part-time and temporary jobs, deducting what they make from their benefit check so they don't lose money working, but restoring their benefits if those jobs fall through, then more people would be out working.
But the system we have today punishes people trying to do the right thing. Don't defend a broken system. They could use unemployment to encourage people go out and start a business, instead they discriminate against people wanting to work but unable to find a permanent job that lasts longer than 3 months.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
So all we have to do is give everyone in the country $1/day and voila: 100% employment rate!
I'm quite happy to have a world with less lawyers. The profession itself is evidence that the Law is too complex.
If a law is written in such a fashion that the average citizen cannot understand it, let alone defend themselves in a court with it, liberty is damaged.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Right. And they are punishing her because she did what she felt was the right thing to do, which was to declare the extra income!
;)
Note to the unemployed - W2 or it didn't happen
Not exactly what the article says.
They cut her off until she had a hearing. That's the way it is here, too. Any income will trigger the cut off, then you have to fight to get them back. And, just like in her case, they'll do absolutely everything they can to dick people around.
Some of our volunteer firefighters have the same problem. At the end of the year the department gives them a gas money check. If they report that as income, the state cuts off their benefits. If they don't report it, the state accuses them of trying to hide income. For some people those benefits are the only thing keeping them from starving. The entire system is the functional equivalent of the current health care system. So I'm certain if anyone dared stand up to try and get a better safety net for the unemployed, the teabirthers would be out screaming about government take overs.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I'm quite happy to have a world with less lawyers. The profession itself is evidence that the Law is too complex.
If a law is written in such a fashion that the average citizen cannot understand it, let alone defend themselves in a court with it, liberty is damaged.
I would imagine that the reason that laws are so complex is due to the fact that too many people have used loopholes to cover up their wrongdoing, and lawmakers have had to react by making laws longer and more drawn out in order to ensure that any possible loopholes are filled. Don't blame the lawmakers. Blame the criminals who forced the lawmakers to make more and more complex laws.
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
I am quite happy to have a world with fewer programmers. The profession itself is evidence that computers are too complex.
If a program is written in such a fashion that the average citizen cannot understand it, let alone fix its bugs, their freedom to tinker is damaged.
The law is complex, because the world is complex. The alternative to complex law is arbitrary judgements, or the state retreating from adjudicating relationships among citizens and corporations. (OK, some wooly-eyed anarchist is going to salivate at the latter prospect, but personally, I prefer police and judges to arbitration by baseball bats.)
I loved a quip my boss passed on from a talk by Greenspan lamenting the fact that our best and brightest went into investment banking instead of civil engineering. He said that for every investment banker you create one job, for every civil engineer you create 26. I think the quip applies equally to lawyers.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Every lawyer creates two jobs; his own and one to represent the other side.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Do you honestly think an HMO with a profit motive to deny you coverage is any better? I'll take laziness and incompetence over laziness, incompetence and greed any day.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
This is an article about a person getting screwed over by unemployment, and you're evaluating her worthiness for a date? Can you turn that shit off for just a minute please? Because we're left with only one conclusion: that you evaluate all women this way, all the time, regardless of the context. Stop and think about how that makes women feel, and then maybe you'll understand why comments like this drive us away.
Of course he is. It's normal, healthy, and expected (assuming he's not married). Evaluating all women a single man encounters for possible romance is one of the most basic biological and psychological functions of a man, just as the opposite is normally true of a woman. That recognition of the fact that genders EXIST and HAVE A PURPOSE isn't an ethical problem, although it's often claimed to be.
Now, inappropriate actions can certainly be an ethical problem; but so long as the slashdot poster isn't her supervisor or therapist, evaluating her potential as a date isn't inappropriate.