Talk:Unemployment benefits

message: I have moved to Talk:Unemployment benefit/Germany a badly translated (probably mostly machine-translated) bunch of content about Germany. Someone should work out where it came from; if it's from a copyrighted source, please handle it as a copyvio, if it's from (say) the German Wikipedia, please note that here. Assuming it is legal, cleanup or retranslation seem about equally likely. -- Jmabel 19:10, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
:It's a translation of part of this:http://www.sam.uni-trier.de/VWL_Sam/lehre-files/ss2004/SAM-II-Uebung-SS-2004-Definitionen-2.pdf and thus copyvio. Saintswithin 09:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the there were a number of edits made to the article before the section's removal, the history cannot be cleaned in any reasonable manner. I've simply deleted the offending holding page. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany

message: Where did this section come from? It looks suspiciously like original research to me. Could someone cite a source (or sources) for this? Just curious.
:Good point, ref was Labor Economics, Second edition, 2002, McGraw-Hill. I'll add it now. Martin 20:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical analysis of unemployment benefits

message: Why does "Pogy" redirect here? The Pogy is a game fish found in Lake Tahoe, California, and has nothing to do with unemployment benefits. --130.126.68.79 04:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pogy

message: I have added linked pages with more datas about Swedish and Italian unemployment benefits--Dans-eng 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish and Italian unemployment funds 

message: If anyone wants to include that here. Vranak
: If you know anything about it, just do it or leave a link to some data so that somebody else can do it. Thanks.--Dans-eng 00:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bahrain just got UI 

message: I added a reference tag to the top of this article today because it is a huge article and has very few references. There is one citation and I see that the microeconomic analysis section is supported by a source, but I don't think that's enough. There are lots of factual assertions in this article that should be backed up by their own inline citations. Additionally, there microeconomic analysis section should have inline citations given its very specific nature and while it does have a source, there is not currently anything in the article to indicate that it is the source for that section.
As far as the economic section in particular goes, I understand it, but just barely. Having taken a couple semesters of econ in college and actually studying what this section is talking about, I get it. However, I don't get it very well. It could really use some work to be more readily understandable because as it is, it is really tough to follow. -Dekkanar 22:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs work 

message: Der "Spiegel 50/2007" rechnet mit "30.000" Potentiellen "Arbeitslosengeld I" Empfängern die "24 Monate" "Arbeitslosengeld I" erhalten sollen.
2003 – 58 Jahre alt = 1945 (2007 61 Jahre alt; Rente mit 65 Jahren 2009)
 http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/14/088/1408800.pdf  Page 25 (Quelle Wikipedia : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographischer_Wandel)                                            
*Jahrgang 1945 960.000 58 Jahre 480.000 Frauen 480.000 Männer Rente 2009 2003   
*Offiziell erfasst beider "Bundesagentur fuer Arbeit"  580.000 Menschen*
*Jahrgang 1946 940.000 57 Jahre 470.000 Frauen 470.000 Männer Rente 2010 2004
*Jahrgang 1947 730.000 56 Jahre 350.000 Frauen 380.000 Männer Rente 2011 2005
*Jahrgang 1948 700.000 55 Jahre 400.000 Frauen 370.000 Männer Rente 2012 2006
*Jahrgang 1949 860.000 54 Jahre 430.000 Frauen 430.000 Männer Rente 2013 2007
*Jahrgang 1950  53 Jahre Frauen Männer Rente 2014
*Jahrgang 1951  52 Jahre Frauen Männer Rente 2015
* *Diese Menschen sind nicht arbeitsuchend gemeldet auf Druck der Bundesagentur fuer Arbeit, weil sie so aus der offiziellen Statistik des BfA rausfallen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.237.32.178 (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "24 Monate" "Arbeitslosengeld I" "Ruettgers" (CDU)/"Beck" (SPD)

message: I have changed the explanation for the British term "dole" as the previous one didn't make sense. Maikel (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dole

message: The text was not clear on whether unemployment compensation payments are currently taxed by the Internal Revenue Service. Currently they are. I have clarified the text accordingly and added sources. I am removing the  tag now. Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxation in United States

message: We should have something here on how many countries have no form of unemployment benefits whatsoever. Can you imagine what would happen to you without a job, family support, or prospect of work? Well, that's what's happening in most countries. The article should probably say something about this, to internationalise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.11.71.121 (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where there is no unemployment benefits? 

message: Why isn't this page called "Unemployment Payments" or something instead?  The term "benefits" is an insurance term, and focuses on the insurance industry when the insurance industry is only involved in some, but not all, unemployment payment schemes.  The master article should thus be "Unemployment Pay", and "Unemployment Benefits" should redirect to it.  The involvement of insurance companies in this system which is normally and/or mostly dealt with by taxes should be a subsection of the master Unemployment Payments article.  To put it another way, the involvement of the insurance industry is not required for unemployment payments, and thus terms like "benefits" shouldn't be used to describe it. Yfrwlf (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Benefits"? 

message: Work sharing and unemployment benefits is not the same. --Mats33 (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does work sharing redirect here? 

message: Unemployment Insurance Under the Knife by Kate Kahan and George Wentworth December 14, 2011.  This article appeared in the January 2, 2012 edition of The Nation.   99.181.153.29 (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential [[Unemployment insurance#United States]] resource 

message: The search for "work sharing" redirects to this page. However, this page doesn't have any information at all about work sharing programs, as described, for example, here
This needs to be remedied, either by adding a section or by adding information about countries that use this plan (e.g., Canada, Germany) or by creating a new article and eliminating the redirect. Bill Jefferys (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work sharing 

message: Currently it says "Americans", which assumes "citizens" while in fact permanent residents can also apply for unemployment compensation. 
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/unemployment-insurance/ - operates on term "worker" rather than citizen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.7.92 (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility in US needs correction 

message: The first sentence was nonsense and looked like vandalism so I deleted it.  Let me know if there was something that part was trying to say and we can edit it.  Here is what it said, for the record: "Claiming unemployed benefits classes you as a doley, in England there are numerous amounts of dole heads, one commonly known as (...)."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariabl276 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea to remove that, but since that text looked like cyberbullying, I removed the name from your quote. Bever (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Section 

message: From the entry (the US section):  "The average weekly payment is $293.[42]"
This comes from a reference that is four years out-of-date.  I think this whole sentence should be removed and will do so if no one objects Risssa (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average amount paid in the US 

message: The information under "(US)Federal-state joint programs" stops at the end of 2010.  Could someone with the required background please update this section? Thank you. Risssa (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating 

message: Regarding addition of section and copyright infringements 
:I have removed the content, as OTRS has been pending for over a year. — Diannaa (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Benefits 

message: Dr. Valletta has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Valletta has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference 1: Valletta, Robert G., 2014. "Recent extensions of U.S. unemployment benefits: search responses in alternative labor market states," Working Paper Series 2014-13, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
*Reference 2: Henry S. Farber & Robert G. Valletta, 2013. "Do Extended Unemployment Bene ts Lengthen Unemployment Spells? Evidence from Recent Cycles in the U.S. Labor Market," Working Papers 1450, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Valletta's comment on this article 

message: This section, specifically the beginning that elaborates on the way unemployment insurance taxes are paid, contains almost word-for-word plagiarism. It may be difficult to change the wording around too much because the source lays out the requirements for paying taxes for unemployment funds in such a simple, easy to understand way. However, the way the section is written must be reworded to fit with Wikipedia guidelines. Rgillum121 (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Federal-state joint programs 

message: Nobody says “on the dole” here in the U.S. who isn’t over 80 years old. If it’s used at all in the English-speaking world, it’s regional and colloquial. Why is that in the beginning of this article? If it’s mentioned at all, it should be a subtopic. SheldonHelms (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s chiefly British: ding OED. I can’t find no source though corroborating that it’s old. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 08:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  “On the dole” is very old... 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved, WP:SNOW.   (t · c) buidhe 10:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unemployment benefits →  – This article already acknowledges unemployment payments as a synonym for the current title, so I don't see why this should be significant. The current title, unemployment benefits, suggests there is a definitive benefit or something to gain from unemployment, which I fear indirectly contributes to hostility or prejudice against people who need to access unemployment payments. On a more policy-focused note, unemployment benefits is overly broad considering this article is exclusively about payments - these "benefits" (supports) could also be support while job hunting, like government subsidised access to employment agencies, or tax concessions... It's important to be precise, especially considering the overlapping and mess in the broader category of welfare on Wikipedia. ItsPugle (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 7 July 2020