4 ms·

Also I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with the tactic of immediately pushing employees to unemployment. Unemployment is funded by taxes which are largely paid b

Also I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with the tactic of immediately pushing employees to unemployment. Unemployment is funded by taxes which are largely paid by the same people being laid off. If you're promoting businesses push people to unemployment instead of first trying to cover them during hardship and also taking a loss (as everyone else is), you're pushing for more tax subsidies to businesses indirectly. Unemployment is a safety net that needs to exist but it shouldn't, IMHO, be the first option to jump to. That's irresponsible unless of course you can't cover your employees at the rate unemployment can--then it's reasonable for everyone's sake. You should look at supporting employees part time if possible, especially those who have many years association with your business that are valued players. Your first order should be to take care of yourself and those around you, not immediately jump to social safety nets and pass the hardship. Let's re-establish long term employee and employer relationships and get rid if this "everyone's constantly disposable" economic mindset. If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment. I dont want to utilize that unless I need to and my other options fail. I expect businesses to do the same and be responsible contributors to society. If not, let's take a bit more of their stimulus money back and chuck it to other businesses and people that don't run away at the sight of a loss and try to persevere through difficult situations.

bilbo0s 7y ago
>Also I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with the tactic of immediately pushing employees to unemployment. I think everyone definitely understands academically that the actuarial models underpinning unemployment collapse in that kind of environment. >I dont want to utilize that unless I need to and my other options fail. I expect businesses to do the same and be responsible contributors to society. Here's the issue game theoretically speaking. I'm pretty sure most businesses and people are likely not going to settle on your strategy as being optimal. (Even though, as you've pointed out, it is the communally optimal strategy given the system we have.) I'd imagine most people will opt for the immediate unemployment strategy.
- _curious_ 7y ago
  "I'd imagine most people will opt for the immediate unemployment strategy. " Yes, even if quick and easy way out may not be in their best long term interests.
withinboredom 7y ago
> If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment. This is a great case of “the world doesn’t revolve around you.” 1. Most states only give you a few weeks to apply. 2. You already “pay” for your unemployment several times over during your career through unemployment insurance. Your employer pays this, but they could have paid you more if they didn’t have to. 3. It’s income. You still pay taxes on it. It’s not free money out of nowhere. Use the tiny social net that you have instead of waiting too late and out of money and having to rely on family or friends.
- Frost1x 7y ago
  1. Which is a problem if you're immediately unemployed. If you're instead working part time at a rate greater than unemployment and still retaining healthcare benefits, you don't have to worry about unemployment (depending on what sort of healthcare policies the employer stipulates). This can be a discussion employers have with employers: allowing people to have choices between working part time, taking a temporary pay cut (depending on the situation--aceoss the board including upper management), or being laid off. 2. That's pretty much verifiably false. That's fundamentally trickle down economics which everyone knows simply doesn't work. Employers could take that money and increase your compensation. Historically, that hasn't happened. Any breaks given on those expenses temporarily go to an employee then disappear quickly after because there's nothing the business gains by shifting that to labor expenses. The most recent example to look at is the 2017 'Tax Cuts and Jobs Act' which translated to almost no increase in labor rates aside from initial PR compensation packages that people received, forgot about, and continued on with stagnant compensation rates. 3. I never said it's free money, I pointed out in the first paragraph it's not free money. Employees pay a large portion of unemployment as taxes, as I said. Businesses also contribute to that in taxes but the lionshare comes from labor taxes.
- _curious_ 7y ago
  "2. You already “pay” for your unemployment several times over during your career through unemployment insurance. Your employer pays this, but they could have paid you more if they didn’t have to." Do you have any data on this assertion?
aluminussoma 7y ago
In California, unemployment benefits are a form of insurance that is paid by the employees of your previous employer (caveat at end). If the company went bankrupt, I'd assume that the costs are spread out among all the employees of all companies in that state. If your employer has more claims, it's employees are charged a higher amount per paycheck. In the sense of insurance, not claiming unemployment benefits is like laying for insurance and not using it when you have a claim. A personal choice for you to make. In most cases, you also have to prove you are actively looking for work to get benefits. However, the recent CARES Act does supplement unemployment benefits from federal taxes.
- _curious_ 7y ago
  "you also have to prove you are actively looking for work" This is easy to defraud, unfortunately, seen it firsthand in many instances and it's at national scale.
makomk 7y ago
The longer companies hold out on pushing employees onto unemployment and dig into their reserve funds to pay them, the more risk there is that the companies will no longer exist to employ them whenever the country exits lockdown. Very few businesses are exactly well equipped to handle the entire economy being brought to a halt in the first place.
_curious_ 7y ago
"If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment." Seek and you shall find.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tathougies 7y ago
> Unemployment is funded by taxes which are largely paid by the same people being laid off. No. Unemployment is a mandatory insurance that all employed people must contribute to based on their income level. It's not a tax. It's an insurance. > If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment. That's silly, but okay. Would you not tell your home insurance that your house burnt down? I guess you may worry about a higher premium, but you don't need to worry about that with unemployment.

bilbo0s 7y ago

>Also I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with the tactic of immediately pushing employees to unemployment. I think everyone definitely understands academically that the actuarial models underpinning unemployment collapse in that kind of environment. >I dont want to utilize that unless I need to and my other options fail. I expect businesses to do the same and be responsible contributors to society. Here's the issue game theoretically speaking. I'm pretty sure most businesses and people are likely not going to settle on your strategy as being optimal. (Even though, as you've pointed out, it is the communally optimal strategy given the system we have.) I'd imagine most people will opt for the immediate unemployment strategy.

_curious_ 7y ago
"I'd imagine most people will opt for the immediate unemployment strategy. " Yes, even if quick and easy way out may not be in their best long term interests.

withinboredom 7y ago

> If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment. This is a great case of “the world doesn’t revolve around you.” 1. Most states only give you a few weeks to apply. 2. You already “pay” for your unemployment several times over during your career through unemployment insurance. Your employer pays this, but they could have paid you more if they didn’t have to. 3. It’s income. You still pay taxes on it. It’s not free money out of nowhere. Use the tiny social net that you have instead of waiting too late and out of money and having to rely on family or friends.

Frost1x 7y ago
1. Which is a problem if you're immediately unemployed. If you're instead working part time at a rate greater than unemployment and still retaining healthcare benefits, you don't have to worry about unemployment (depending on what sort of healthcare policies the employer stipulates). This can be a discussion employers have with employers: allowing people to have choices between working part time, taking a temporary pay cut (depending on the situation--aceoss the board including upper management), or being laid off. 2. That's pretty much verifiably false. That's fundamentally trickle down economics which everyone knows simply doesn't work. Employers could take that money and increase your compensation. Historically, that hasn't happened. Any breaks given on those expenses temporarily go to an employee then disappear quickly after because there's nothing the business gains by shifting that to labor expenses. The most recent example to look at is the 2017 'Tax Cuts and Jobs Act' which translated to almost no increase in labor rates aside from initial PR compensation packages that people received, forgot about, and continued on with stagnant compensation rates. 3. I never said it's free money, I pointed out in the first paragraph it's not free money. Employees pay a large portion of unemployment as taxes, as I said. Businesses also contribute to that in taxes but the lionshare comes from labor taxes.
_curious_ 7y ago
"2. You already “pay” for your unemployment several times over during your career through unemployment insurance. Your employer pays this, but they could have paid you more if they didn’t have to." Do you have any data on this assertion?

aluminussoma 7y ago

In California, unemployment benefits are a form of insurance that is paid by the employees of your previous employer (caveat at end). If the company went bankrupt, I'd assume that the costs are spread out among all the employees of all companies in that state. If your employer has more claims, it's employees are charged a higher amount per paycheck. In the sense of insurance, not claiming unemployment benefits is like laying for insurance and not using it when you have a claim. A personal choice for you to make. In most cases, you also have to prove you are actively looking for work to get benefits. However, the recent CARES Act does supplement unemployment benefits from federal taxes.

_curious_ 7y ago
"you also have to prove you are actively looking for work" This is easy to defraud, unfortunately, seen it firsthand in many instances and it's at national scale.

makomk 7y ago

The longer companies hold out on pushing employees onto unemployment and dig into their reserve funds to pay them, the more risk there is that the companies will no longer exist to employ them whenever the country exits lockdown. Very few businesses are exactly well equipped to handle the entire economy being brought to a halt in the first place.

_curious_ 7y ago

"If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment." Seek and you shall find.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tathougies 7y ago

> Unemployment is funded by taxes which are largely paid by the same people being laid off. No. Unemployment is a mandatory insurance that all employed people must contribute to based on their income level. It's not a tax. It's an insurance. > If I'm laid off, I'll first look at my savings and hit the job market before I consider driving right into unemployment. That's silly, but okay. Would you not tell your home insurance that your house burnt down? I guess you may worry about a higher premium, but you don't need to worry about that with unemployment.