But like you said, it's a worthless anecdote.
So does taking a shit job and that being in your employment history.
From the employee perspective it is a lot easier to monitor the job market and actively seek out employment while not employed.
It’s true unemployment is not enough for most people to pay their bills, but that is also true of a lot of full time employment...employers can blame unemployment for being unable to fill positions but if your full time position can’t compete with unemployment benefits the answer isn’t to take away a minimal safety net so employers can force shit wages and no benefits on workers...at best the employer gets the employee they wanted below a living wage and it’s left society as a whole with a significant number of unemployed works with absolutely nothing and not even enough shit jobs with shit wages to employ them all.
There is a reason your comment was downvoted, hint it’s not because people agree with you, and acknowledging a premises is correct while the conclusion is wrong is not the same as agreeing with you (but you knew that).
Your quantitative claim contradicts that characterization.
> - at an extra $600, about 40% of workers would make more on unemployment than at their job
Since what I reported was the rough policy target was that the average worker would be making the same with the boost, only 40% and not approximately 50% making more with the boost isn’t me overselling, if anything, it is the opposite.