Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkxingu
Ok, so today is "senior skip day," and I've had one student all day (I teach all seniors, and they finish next week).
Interestingly, I used this thread when talking to that one student. His claim—accurately, I think—is that the current political polarization in America drives us to seek sides with our tribes rather than shared experiences and nuance.
He added that he'd recently come across an economics study that showed the correlation between unemployment wage percentages and the speed at which people return to jobs as a relationship between the job they are returning to, both in terms of pay AND emotional fulfillment. Specifically, that people who make great wages and enjoy their jobs will return EVEN IF they can "make more" with supplemental unemployment.
We finished the discussion with an appreciation of nuance and lamentation of its loss.
Good times!
Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
That’s fine, as far as it goes. It makes sense that people who are well paid and experience emotional fulfillment will return to their jobs. It is also possible that those who do not experience the same positive feelings toward their jobs might, but should not, opt to collect unemployment benefits for as long as they can. Now here is when the argument loses steam, at least for me: it should not be the taxpayers’ responsibility to supplement the incomes of people who CAN work but who choose not to because they can get paid for sitting on their derrières. Nobody can convince me that doing so is proper.