7 ms·

In many places being unemployed pays more than being employed. Not sure why the downvotes. It’s literally true for the first time ever. The way the new benefit

In many places being unemployed pays more than being employed. Not sure why the downvotes. It’s literally true for the first time ever. The way the new benefits work out your unemployment check STARTS at the equivalent of $15/hr x 40hr/week = $600/wk. In California, for example, you can get up to $1,050/wk instead of the old maximum of $450/wk.

arbitrage 7y ago
Go ahead and name them, please?
- themagician 7y ago
  Most places. California, New York, anywhere with a decent unemployment insurance program. If you made $15 an hour in California you were making $600/wk. On unemployment you now make $877/wk. That’s a 46% increase. It’s huge.
PragmaticPulp 7y ago
> In many places being unemployed pays more than being employed. You're being downvoted because you overgeneralized ("many places"), but this is actually true in some scenarios. See "Unemployed workers could get more than 100% of their paycheck under the coronavirus bill" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could-get-more-than-100percent-of-their-paycheck.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could... It's a perverse incentive to getting people back to work, so I expect this loophole will be closed soon.
- themagician 7y ago
  It’s true in a LOT of scenarios. It’s true for anyone making under $15/hr anywhere, and in some states the break even is $20/hr or more.
- _curious_ 7y ago
  "I expect this loophole will be closed soon" What makes you think that?
- elliekelly 7y ago
  > It's a perverse incentive to getting people back to work Unemployment isn't forever and the additional $600/week is only for the current pandemic situation and expires as of July 31. This is not a windfall for those who are now suddenly without a job. But more importantly, someone who has just been laid off has close to zero employment options right now. They might be able to find a short-term job at a grocery store or Amazon but if they're over 50 or have any sort of health issues that's probably unwise. And even if someone is willing to risk it they're unlikely to get the position anyway, no matter how qualified, because those few positions are absolutely flooded with applicants[1]. There cannot be a "perverse incentive" (or any incentive at all) to stay home and collect unemployment when that is a person's one and only option. [1] https://abc13.com/heb-who's-hiring-houston-jobs-covid-19/6060592/ https://abc13.com/heb-who's-hiring-houston-jobs-covid-19/606...
  - PragmaticPulp 7y ago
    > There cannot be a "perverse incentive" (or any incentive at all) to stay home and collect unemployment when that is a person's one and only option. The economy isn't all-or-nothing. This situation is bad, but it's an exaggeration to suggest that no one is hiring. The perverse incentive comes into play when people start turning down $20/hr jobs because they're making $23/hr on unemployment insurance. They'll want to go back to work eventually, yes, but they won't rush into it will literally cost them money to do so. I'm not suggesting that unemployment insurance is comfortable or ideal, but I think it's important that we avoid situations where people must deliberately choose to reduce their income to return to work.
    - cultus 7y ago
      Sure, a few people will be hired. But it is absolutely delusional to think that any significant percentage of people laid off will be able to get a new job anytime soon. There simply aren't enough jobs. Everyone really, really wanting it will just make those jobs harder to get, and will lead to lower pay and reduced safety. This is not a time to be talking about bootstraps.
  - themagician 7y ago
- cultus 7y ago
  We want people to be staying home and not working right now. Other countries are smart enough to encourage this. Only the US seems to be missing the entire point of this whole exercise.
swimfar 7y ago
When I was unemployed after my first job out of college, I was making a little over $420/week on unemployment. I ended up taking a manufacturing job where I made $10/hour for a 40hr/week job. So I made less money by working than if I had stayed on unemployment. And that hourly wage was quite a bit higher than minimum wage.
- _curious_ 7y ago
  So you worked 100% more/harder and still made less...what a perverse system.
  - swimfar 7y ago
    Most people just wouldn't have taken that job. You could argue that would be better because it leaves it open for someone who needs it more.
    - _curious_ 7y ago
      "You could argue that would be better because it leaves it open for someone who needs it more." The generosity! Who could need it more than someone who literally does not have any job?
_curious_ 7y ago
"In many places being unemployed pays more than being employed." Could this be a tipping point?

arbitrage 7y ago

Go ahead and name them, please?

themagician 7y ago
Most places. California, New York, anywhere with a decent unemployment insurance program. If you made $15 an hour in California you were making $600/wk. On unemployment you now make $877/wk. That’s a 46% increase. It’s huge.

PragmaticPulp 7y ago

> In many places being unemployed pays more than being employed. You're being downvoted because you overgeneralized ("many places"), but this is actually true in some scenarios. See "Unemployed workers could get more than 100% of their paycheck under the coronavirus bill" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could-get-more-than-100percent-of-their-paycheck.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could... It's a perverse incentive to getting people back to work, so I expect this loophole will be closed soon.

themagician 7y ago
It’s true in a LOT of scenarios. It’s true for anyone making under $15/hr anywhere, and in some states the break even is $20/hr or more.
_curious_ 7y ago
"I expect this loophole will be closed soon" What makes you think that?
elliekelly 7y ago
> It's a perverse incentive to getting people back to work Unemployment isn't forever and the additional $600/week is only for the current pandemic situation and expires as of July 31. This is not a windfall for those who are now suddenly without a job. But more importantly, someone who has just been laid off has close to zero employment options right now. They might be able to find a short-term job at a grocery store or Amazon but if they're over 50 or have any sort of health issues that's probably unwise. And even if someone is willing to risk it they're unlikely to get the position anyway, no matter how qualified, because those few positions are absolutely flooded with applicants[1]. There cannot be a "perverse incentive" (or any incentive at all) to stay home and collect unemployment when that is a person's one and only option. [1] https://abc13.com/heb-who's-hiring-houston-jobs-covid-19/6060592/ https://abc13.com/heb-who's-hiring-houston-jobs-covid-19/606...
- PragmaticPulp 7y ago
  > There cannot be a "perverse incentive" (or any incentive at all) to stay home and collect unemployment when that is a person's one and only option. The economy isn't all-or-nothing. This situation is bad, but it's an exaggeration to suggest that no one is hiring. The perverse incentive comes into play when people start turning down $20/hr jobs because they're making $23/hr on unemployment insurance. They'll want to go back to work eventually, yes, but they won't rush into it will literally cost them money to do so. I'm not suggesting that unemployment insurance is comfortable or ideal, but I think it's important that we avoid situations where people must deliberately choose to reduce their income to return to work.
  - cultus 7y ago
    Sure, a few people will be hired. But it is absolutely delusional to think that any significant percentage of people laid off will be able to get a new job anytime soon. There simply aren't enough jobs. Everyone really, really wanting it will just make those jobs harder to get, and will lead to lower pay and reduced safety. This is not a time to be talking about bootstraps.
- themagician 7y ago
cultus 7y ago
We want people to be staying home and not working right now. Other countries are smart enough to encourage this. Only the US seems to be missing the entire point of this whole exercise.

swimfar 7y ago

When I was unemployed after my first job out of college, I was making a little over $420/week on unemployment. I ended up taking a manufacturing job where I made $10/hour for a 40hr/week job. So I made less money by working than if I had stayed on unemployment. And that hourly wage was quite a bit higher than minimum wage.

_curious_ 7y ago
So you worked 100% more/harder and still made less...what a perverse system.
- swimfar 7y ago
  Most people just wouldn't have taken that job. You could argue that would be better because it leaves it open for someone who needs it more.
  - _curious_ 7y ago
    "You could argue that would be better because it leaves it open for someone who needs it more." The generosity! Who could need it more than someone who literally does not have any job?

_curious_ 7y ago

"In many places being unemployed pays more than being employed." Could this be a tipping point?