posted by Spock
No you dont. Does it help....sure. But you can get a job without a phone
Not every job requires a phone, no.
However, not everyone can do, or is qualified for, the jobs that don't. Based on my professional experience, (a) there's zero chance of me getting a job in a field I'm qualified for without a phone, and (b) even if I managed to somehow make that work, it would reflect poorly on me as a candidate to not have one.
Also, having a phone greatly increases the expediency by which you can get interviews for a new job. It also increases the geography that you can cover in your job search.
You're cutting off your nose to spite your face by trying to prevent someone from leveraging the little income they get from unemployment to make themselves a better candidate for future employment.
posted by QuakerOats
Better yet, it precludes the notion that those in the middle class understand they have the economic mobility to potentially one day move up to/toward the top ………so long as the Marxists do not get elected.
True, though baked into that is potential flaw as well. A major criticism I've seen of those in the middle class voting with the top 1% is that many Americans see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" -- that they're actually part of the wealthy class, and they're just not there yet [I was accused of that exact thing a few days ago, which is where I grabbed the term from].
Now, if that's true, then it does show a lack of self-awareness. If the voting IS based on who a person thinks they will be, and they're just voting in a sense of fortune-telling self-interest, it's a lack of self-awareness, and in a manner of speaking, it's ethically no better than low-income citizens supporting exorbitant taxes on the wealthy. Each is done in self-interest. The former is just less self-aware.
Instead of voting for/supporting positions based on what will help ourselves the most, it makes sense to vote for what we think is ethically most defensible. As a result, I will sometimes vote for things that are against my own interests. You probably do as well. Not because we see ourselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires," but because we think that it's the most ethical position.
posted by Spock
So you are arguing with me the semantics of getting a job and you are going to bat for people that dont have a car but spend their money on a phone.....you see the irony in that dont you?
You're advocating driving all over God's green creation to "pound the pavement" for a job, which would cost more in a week than a cell phone plan would cost for a month. You also appear to be advocating taking on a car payment (several times larger than a cell service plan). Do you not see THAT irony?
posted by Spock
I have 5 jobs rotating around that I choose to do. I can get a few more at any time. Getting a job isn't hard and surely doesnt require a phone.
Remember the conversation started about holding unemployed welfare takers to a high standard to get free money. Having the priorities of feeding your kids over a cell bill seems like a logical thing to ask for.
A couple more notes:
(a) Aren't you employed by public school system(s)? Do you not see the irony of someone whose permanent salary is paid for by taxation saying that someone whose stop-gap temporary income is covered through unemployment tax (which is paid whether or not it gets used by a given former employee) shouldn't have a phone?
(b) Not everyone who is looking for work can do the same thing as you. I doubt there's a critical shortage of gym teachers.
(c) Who says one necessarily has to choose between feeding their children and a cell phone? Is there some rash of children dying in the streets because their parents opted instead to pay their Cricket Mobile bill that I haven't heard about? And what about the people who don't have kids?
(d) If you're wanting to cut things people are allowed to spend money on while they're collecting unemployment, maybe you'd want to hold off on things that, whether or not they're outrightly necessary, notably expedite the process of getting a new job AND are less expensive (read: less wasteful of that "free money") than the alternative. After all, shoes aren't required for running a marathon either, but they help substantially.
