> If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment.

This is a great case of “the world doesn’t revolve around you.”

1. Most states only give you a few weeks to apply.

2. You already “pay” for your unemployment several times over during your career through unemployment insurance. Your employer pays this, but they could have paid you more if they didn’t have to.

3. It’s income. You still pay taxes on it. It’s not free money out of nowhere.

Use the tiny social net that you have instead of waiting too late and out of money and having to rely on family or friends.

1. Which is a problem if you're immediately unemployed. If you're instead working part time at a rate greater than unemployment and still retaining healthcare benefits, you don't have to worry about unemployment (depending on what sort of healthcare policies the employer stipulates). This can be a discussion employers have with employers: allowing people to have choices between working part time, taking a temporary pay cut (depending on the situation--aceoss the board including upper management), or being laid off.

2. That's pretty much verifiably false. That's fundamentally trickle down economics which everyone knows simply doesn't work. Employers could take that money and increase your compensation. Historically, that hasn't happened. Any breaks given on those expenses temporarily go to an employee then disappear quickly after because there's nothing the business gains by shifting that to labor expenses. The most recent example to look at is the 2017 'Tax Cuts and Jobs Act' which translated to almost no increase in labor rates aside from initial PR compensation packages that people received, forgot about, and continued on with stagnant compensation rates.

3. I never said it's free money, I pointed out in the first paragraph it's not free money. Employees pay a large portion of unemployment as taxes, as I said. Businesses also contribute to that in taxes but the lionshare comes from labor taxes.

"2. You already “pay” for your unemployment several times over during your career through unemployment insurance. Your employer pays this, but they could have paid you more if they didn’t have to."

Do you have any data on this assertion?

If you assume a 1.55% tax rate for UI, you will contribute about a week of unemployment per year of work (at least in S.C.) at 70k taxable income after a modest administrative overhead of 60%.

If you manage to work from 25 to 65 at an average of $70k per year, that’s almost a year worth of unemployment.

OK going with your assumptions, I wonder what % of people collecting unemployment benefits have worked for 40 years at an average of $70k/yr? I am not aware of a single individual, but maybe just don't know the right people.

It should scale out at about 1 week per year of work, no matter how much you make. $70k per year is how much you need to max out unemployment in S.C., where I used to live. If you make less than that, you'll have less per week, if you make more than that, you're pretty royally screwed.

Ok say that is true...do you know:

1. Are unemployment employment benefits only extended to those who have already themselves paid a certain amount in UI taxes AND that amount is the extent of the benefits available to them?

2. If the answer above is no - do you know what % of end up receiving more money in unemployment benefits than they have 'pre-paid' or will 'reimburse' thus a net cost to the system over the course of their living/working lives?

3. What happens to the unemployment taxes paid by people who choose not/never to file for unemployment benefits, even when unemployed? Do those individuals ever get their money back?

4. This line of questioning leads me to wonder why in the US is UI/UB not just directly linked to each individual?

1. Sort-of-but-not-really. Usually, you have to work a certain number of months or weeks at the place you get laid off, before you are eligible. However, there's not a "lifetime minimum." If you get fired for doing something "bad" (at-fault) then you may not be eligible at all.

2. Usually, there's a cap for how long you can be on unemployment. You can't be on it forever. You also have to provide proof that you're looking for a job. Some states require signatures from those companies, some just require a list of companies you've applied to and they do their own random validation.

3. Companies pay the unemployment insurance tax on your behalf, and if you're unemployed and don't file, you don't get to use your benefits.

4. 100% agree

>Also I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with the tactic of immediately pushing employees to unemployment.

I think everyone definitely understands academically that the actuarial models underpinning unemployment collapse in that kind of environment.

>I dont want to utilize that unless I need to and my other options fail. I expect businesses to do the same and be responsible contributors to society.

Here's the issue game theoretically speaking. I'm pretty sure most businesses and people are likely not going to settle on your strategy as being optimal. (Even though, as you've pointed out, it is the communally optimal strategy given the system we have.) I'd imagine most people will opt for the immediate unemployment strategy.

"I'd imagine most people will opt for the immediate unemployment strategy. "

Yes, even if quick and easy way out may not be in their best long term interests.

In California, unemployment benefits are a form of insurance that is paid by the employees of your previous employer (caveat at end). If the company went bankrupt, I'd assume that the costs are spread out among all the employees of all companies in that state. If your employer has more claims, it's employees are charged a higher amount per paycheck.

In the sense of insurance, not claiming unemployment benefits is like laying for insurance and not using it when you have a claim. A personal choice for you to make.

In most cases, you also have to prove you are actively looking for work to get benefits.

However, the recent CARES Act does supplement unemployment benefits from federal taxes.

"you also have to prove you are actively looking for work"

This is easy to defraud, unfortunately, seen it firsthand in many instances and it's at national scale.

> Unemployment is funded by taxes which are largely paid by the same people being laid off.

No. Unemployment is a mandatory insurance that all employed people must contribute to based on their income level. It's not a tax. It's an insurance.

> If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment.

That's silly, but okay. Would you not tell your home insurance that your house burnt down? I guess you may worry about a higher premium, but you don't need to worry about that with unemployment.

The longer companies hold out on pushing employees onto unemployment and dig into their reserve funds to pay them, the more risk there is that the companies will no longer exist to employ them whenever the country exits lockdown. Very few businesses are exactly well equipped to handle the entire economy being brought to a halt in the first place.

"If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment."

Seek and you shall find.