Talk:Unemployment benefits

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Germany

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)

Moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems

Talk:Unemployment benefit/Germany. This is text that I pulled out of Unemployment benefit because it was obvious machine translation. User:Saintswithin reports 09:00, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) that it is a translation of part [1] and thus copyvio. This has polluted the history of Unemployment benefit, I have no idea what to do about that. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:52, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

End moved 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)

[edit] Technical analysis of unemployment benefits

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)

Interesting section, buy I am worried that it could be misleading. I'm not an econimist, but the budget line seems too simplified. For example, there is no allowance for overtime pay. Also, I realise that wages earned will have a lower net value as unemployment benefits are reduced with income, but I still would have expected the slope to shift to GF and not GH. Then again, more unemployment benefits equals higher social taxes. Finally, I find it subjective that the first paragraph comes to the conclusion that a 40 hour week is optimal. Ga2re2t 23:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pogy

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)

[edit] Wrong year for the Great Depression?

The History section under United Kingdom says: Over 2 million people were relying on the payments by 1921, as Britain was experiencing the Great Depression.

Isn't this 10 years too early? Or was there a different time period for the UK? The Great Depression article says the period started in 1929. --Fandyllic 9:55 PM PDT 25 Oct 2006

[edit] Swedish and Italian unemployment funds

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

[edit] Bahrain just got UI

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)

[edit] Article needs work

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)

[edit] "24 Monate" "Arbeitslosengeld I" "Ruettgers" (CDU)/"Beck" (SPD)

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)

[edit] Dole

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)