5 ms·

> Individuals who are unable to work due to having or being exposed to COVID-19 (certified by a medical professional) can file a Disability Insurance (DI) claim

> Individuals who are unable to work due to having or being exposed to COVID-19 (certified by a medical professional) can file a Disability Insurance (DI) claim. > Disability Insurance provides short-term benefit payments to eligible workers who have full or partial loss of wages due to a non-work-related illness, injury, or pregnancy. Benefit amounts are approximately 60-70 percent of wages (depending on income) and range from $50 - $1,300 a week. This isn't going to be enough to cover a lot of peoples' monthly expenses. After taxes, $1300/week barely covers my rent, much less food and other necessities. Edit: does anyone downvoting care to actually explain why they disagree? Or, are y'all just offended by the statement?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
droithomme 7y ago
I did NOT downvote you, your comments are 100% legitimate and reasonable. But this is HN where there is some politically correct cabal of the "right" answer, which is that enlightened California is perfect and guys like you that question anything about it, even the homeless shitting on the streets, is an Enemy of the People. OBVIOUSLY people with covid-19 infections and who are quarantined should be eligible for disability benefits. This is totally clear and should be rolled out nationally. As you point out, despite this, these trumpeted and celebrated disability "benefits" aren't enough to avoid quick homelessness.
- HenryBemis 7y ago
  Not living in the USA, I see this from another angle. If I am healthy enough (imho) to go to work because a sneeze and a runny nose never killed anyone (until now) is something that people were/are/will do. If someone prohibits me to go to work and it is THEIR choice, then it would be only fair to support me so I can continue living. Not buying Prada shoes, but the "Essentials" (as defined by Dave Ramsey and/or the Minimalists). From my travels in the USA I remember that Silicon Valley and SF are crazy expensive (and people, I live in London). So back to the point. You want me to keep away? Can I WFH? Then thank you I can continue WFH to support my family. If not, don't destroy me and my family financially, help me help the society. I know that USA has a small allergy on social provisions but this is literally "do or die".
  - droithomme 7y ago
    I think you must have misunderstood my comment because you say you see it from another angle, then you explain my position. It is vitally necessary to society that people be quarantined and be able to cope with the quarantine, and this requires they not be put in a position of damned if they do damned if they don't. They need a living income for their area for the time they are in isolation, which allows them to pay basic bills and not lose their house and everything they have worked for, plus obviously someone needs to be delivering meals, and basic needs to prevent insanity whether books or DVDs or paper notebooks to write in or whatnot. Disability insurance might pay $50 a week for many, more for some. It's not enough. So the isolated break quarantine and roam, or go insane. Both are understandable given the horrific mismanagement of the crisis. Based on my analysis of widespread stock market anomalies, the secretive quasi-executive branch's Plummet Protection Team has been spending dozens or even hundreds of billions of federal reserve creation bucks per day for almost two weeks now attempted to counter market slides. This is going to cause massive inflation, possibly hyperinflation if not stopped, and will not stop anything regarding the virus spread because it's not addressing market fundamentals. The same amounts spent on assisting with quarantined people, plus manufacturing masks and Chloroquine for mass distribution would have a chance of stopping this. There is absolutely no interest whatsoever in that approach, I presume because it is not profitable to certain parties or otherwise coalesce with their trajectories.
    - refurb 7y ago
      According to the CA SDI website, you get 60% of your pay (up to a cap) and if low income, 70%. Since it’s not taxed, that’s 90-100% of your salary. Should help most people stay afloat.
      - droithomme 7y ago
        $6000 a month mortgage. $1000 a month property taxes. $2000 a month health insurance premiums. $1000 a month car payments. $1000 a month food bill. That's not uncommon in the bay area for a developer with two or three kids. $132k without even getting started. Suddenly his $150k developer income is cut to 60% of what it was before, $90k. Except wait it's not there's a "cap" so he's pulling in a massive $62k. With $132 in basic expenses. This is no problem and terribly generous as you see it.
hyperdunc 7y ago
A perceived sense of entitlement, perhaps? Do people have the right to maintain their lifestyles during tragedy at the expense of their fellow taxpayers? In some cases, maybe, but it also doesn't hurt to prepare so one can weather a crisis without being too reliant on others.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  A cap of $1,300 a week means more than just a lifestyle cut in some areas of California.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Indeed. $1300/week (gross), annualized, is $67.6k. Try living on that in the Bay Area.
    - gpm 7y ago
      Hmm... during an internship I lived on substantially less than that in the bay area, just because I wanted to save the rest of my income for the school year. Supporting a family on that if you're the single household income might be a bit tight. Paying rent on a nice house could easily swallow it (though a nice house isn't a basic necessity) - but 67.6k really is a fair amount of money. It's more than the median income in Oakland. 2x that (i.e. both parents working) is more than the median income in SF.
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        $67600 is not even enough to qualify for a $1900/month 1 BR apartment in the East Bay. You have to keep in mind, we’re primarily talking about working adults here. Tech interns are not the ones who are going to be affected by this. Edit: also, keep in mind that if there’s a second working adult in the household, both are likely to be impacted.
        gpm 7y ago
        We aren't talking about living on this amount of money long term here, you don't need to be able to qualify for an apartment on it, you just need to be able to continue paying your rent for a few months. If you need to live on this amount of money long term, move. I was keeping in mind that both adults would be effected... that's why I was using the disability pay rates for both adults in the above.
aeternum 7y ago
This is a fair point. If the goal is avoid community spread then we really need 100% wage coverage and quick testing. Otherwise anyone without an emergency fund still has a very difficult choice to make if they come down with symptoms.
zaroth 7y ago
That's simply not the point of the CA SDI fund. If you want better SDI insurance, perhaps you could have bought some for yourself. Does Aflac cover time away for work due to COVID-19?
- pmiller2 7y ago
  I am not arguing the "point" of the CA SDI fund. I am merely stating that it's insufficient for the use case of "pay[ing] people unable to work because of COVID-19." Do you really think every barista and service worker in California should have private SDI insurance, just in case a plague strikes?
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Well, you can pay for the insurance (one way or another) or you can self-insure out of your own savings. It's not magic. Paying the country to take a week off would cost something on the order of $125 billion, to say nothing of the knock-on effects. In any case, there is a minuscule number people who are unable to work because of COVID-19 relative to the total number of people unable to work on a short-term basis for all other reasons.
athriren 7y ago
Well, first of all, SDI is not taxed by the feds or by California except when used as a replacement for unemployment insurance (it is paid for by taxes and you just accrue a benefit when you make a claim—it is not taxed again) so there’s a critical flaw in your reasoning. Secondly, I think the idea that someone could not make do on $5200 a month would strike many people as shocking, especially given that puts you above the median American. Most people are more precarious than that. I understand HN skews more toward extremely expensive CoL areas of California, so I grant that there may be many people here who legitimately could not although I don’t think SDI should be expected to cover 100% of living expenses for extremely highly compensated individuals in the most expensive area to live in the state. That aside, SDI is one of the best public goods California has. I had surgery this past year and was able to take 3 months off work with no impact to my financial situation. The benefit almost replaced my take home pay (since, again, it was not taxed) and then my company topped it off. It was sort of surreal to be paid equivalently for not working. Unaccustomed to that as an American.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

droithomme 7y ago

I did NOT downvote you, your comments are 100% legitimate and reasonable. But this is HN where there is some politically correct cabal of the "right" answer, which is that enlightened California is perfect and guys like you that question anything about it, even the homeless shitting on the streets, is an Enemy of the People. OBVIOUSLY people with covid-19 infections and who are quarantined should be eligible for disability benefits. This is totally clear and should be rolled out nationally. As you point out, despite this, these trumpeted and celebrated disability "benefits" aren't enough to avoid quick homelessness.

HenryBemis 7y ago
Not living in the USA, I see this from another angle. If I am healthy enough (imho) to go to work because a sneeze and a runny nose never killed anyone (until now) is something that people were/are/will do. If someone prohibits me to go to work and it is THEIR choice, then it would be only fair to support me so I can continue living. Not buying Prada shoes, but the "Essentials" (as defined by Dave Ramsey and/or the Minimalists). From my travels in the USA I remember that Silicon Valley and SF are crazy expensive (and people, I live in London). So back to the point. You want me to keep away? Can I WFH? Then thank you I can continue WFH to support my family. If not, don't destroy me and my family financially, help me help the society. I know that USA has a small allergy on social provisions but this is literally "do or die".
- droithomme 7y ago
  I think you must have misunderstood my comment because you say you see it from another angle, then you explain my position. It is vitally necessary to society that people be quarantined and be able to cope with the quarantine, and this requires they not be put in a position of damned if they do damned if they don't. They need a living income for their area for the time they are in isolation, which allows them to pay basic bills and not lose their house and everything they have worked for, plus obviously someone needs to be delivering meals, and basic needs to prevent insanity whether books or DVDs or paper notebooks to write in or whatnot. Disability insurance might pay $50 a week for many, more for some. It's not enough. So the isolated break quarantine and roam, or go insane. Both are understandable given the horrific mismanagement of the crisis. Based on my analysis of widespread stock market anomalies, the secretive quasi-executive branch's Plummet Protection Team has been spending dozens or even hundreds of billions of federal reserve creation bucks per day for almost two weeks now attempted to counter market slides. This is going to cause massive inflation, possibly hyperinflation if not stopped, and will not stop anything regarding the virus spread because it's not addressing market fundamentals. The same amounts spent on assisting with quarantined people, plus manufacturing masks and Chloroquine for mass distribution would have a chance of stopping this. There is absolutely no interest whatsoever in that approach, I presume because it is not profitable to certain parties or otherwise coalesce with their trajectories.
  - refurb 7y ago
    According to the CA SDI website, you get 60% of your pay (up to a cap) and if low income, 70%. Since it’s not taxed, that’s 90-100% of your salary. Should help most people stay afloat.
    - droithomme 7y ago
      $6000 a month mortgage. $1000 a month property taxes. $2000 a month health insurance premiums. $1000 a month car payments. $1000 a month food bill. That's not uncommon in the bay area for a developer with two or three kids. $132k without even getting started. Suddenly his $150k developer income is cut to 60% of what it was before, $90k. Except wait it's not there's a "cap" so he's pulling in a massive $62k. With $132 in basic expenses. This is no problem and terribly generous as you see it.

hyperdunc 7y ago

A perceived sense of entitlement, perhaps? Do people have the right to maintain their lifestyles during tragedy at the expense of their fellow taxpayers? In some cases, maybe, but it also doesn't hurt to prepare so one can weather a crisis without being too reliant on others.

ceejayoz 7y ago
A cap of $1,300 a week means more than just a lifestyle cut in some areas of California.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Indeed. $1300/week (gross), annualized, is $67.6k. Try living on that in the Bay Area.
  - gpm 7y ago
    Hmm... during an internship I lived on substantially less than that in the bay area, just because I wanted to save the rest of my income for the school year. Supporting a family on that if you're the single household income might be a bit tight. Paying rent on a nice house could easily swallow it (though a nice house isn't a basic necessity) - but 67.6k really is a fair amount of money. It's more than the median income in Oakland. 2x that (i.e. both parents working) is more than the median income in SF.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      $67600 is not even enough to qualify for a $1900/month 1 BR apartment in the East Bay. You have to keep in mind, we’re primarily talking about working adults here. Tech interns are not the ones who are going to be affected by this. Edit: also, keep in mind that if there’s a second working adult in the household, both are likely to be impacted.
      - gpm 7y ago
        We aren't talking about living on this amount of money long term here, you don't need to be able to qualify for an apartment on it, you just need to be able to continue paying your rent for a few months. If you need to live on this amount of money long term, move. I was keeping in mind that both adults would be effected... that's why I was using the disability pay rates for both adults in the above.

aeternum 7y ago

This is a fair point. If the goal is avoid community spread then we really need 100% wage coverage and quick testing. Otherwise anyone without an emergency fund still has a very difficult choice to make if they come down with symptoms.

zaroth 7y ago

That's simply not the point of the CA SDI fund. If you want better SDI insurance, perhaps you could have bought some for yourself. Does Aflac cover time away for work due to COVID-19?

pmiller2 7y ago
I am not arguing the "point" of the CA SDI fund. I am merely stating that it's insufficient for the use case of "pay[ing] people unable to work because of COVID-19." Do you really think every barista and service worker in California should have private SDI insurance, just in case a plague strikes?
- zaroth 7y ago
  Well, you can pay for the insurance (one way or another) or you can self-insure out of your own savings. It's not magic. Paying the country to take a week off would cost something on the order of $125 billion, to say nothing of the knock-on effects. In any case, there is a minuscule number people who are unable to work because of COVID-19 relative to the total number of people unable to work on a short-term basis for all other reasons.

athriren 7y ago

Well, first of all, SDI is not taxed by the feds or by California except when used as a replacement for unemployment insurance (it is paid for by taxes and you just accrue a benefit when you make a claim—it is not taxed again) so there’s a critical flaw in your reasoning. Secondly, I think the idea that someone could not make do on $5200 a month would strike many people as shocking, especially given that puts you above the median American. Most people are more precarious than that. I understand HN skews more toward extremely expensive CoL areas of California, so I grant that there may be many people here who legitimately could not although I don’t think SDI should be expected to cover 100% of living expenses for extremely highly compensated individuals in the most expensive area to live in the state. That aside, SDI is one of the best public goods California has. I had surgery this past year and was able to take 3 months off work with no impact to my financial situation. The benefit almost replaced my take home pay (since, again, it was not taxed) and then my company topped it off. It was sort of surreal to be paid equivalently for not working. Unaccustomed to that as an American.