
Originally Posted by
Melonie
^^^ and this is precisely what previous posts / discussions have covered under the heading of 'moral hazard'. When an unemployed person is faced with the following choices ...
A. accept a replacement job in the same area that pays 70%-60%-50% of their former job, and pay normal living expenses out of that reduced income, or
B. pack up and move to a different state / country where better employment opportunities DO exist ... taking a loss on owned real estate, saying permanent goodbye to friends and family, etc., or
C. refuse the low paying local replacement job, continue to collect unemployment benefit checks for ~72 weeks, continue to collect former employer's 'cobra' buydown benefits for ~72 weeks, continue to receive subsidized utility benefits / property tax relief benefits / subsidized rent benefits / food stamp benefits etc. while 'hoping' that a replacement job that pays 80%-90%-100% of their former job materializes before the ~72 weeks are up ( or 'hoping' that the ~72 weeks of benefit coverage will be extended yet again ).
In the 1930's, when such comparatively 'generous' unemployment and social welfare benefits did not exist, people were simply not able to continue to 'camp out' for months on end in a location where there simply wasn't any economic opportunity. As a result, in the 1930's, people were 'forced' to relocate ... sometimes across the country ... in order to obtain work where their skills / labor was actually needed. This is certainly not the case today, as exemplified by locations such as Detroit.
Bookmarks