4 ms·

For the short to medium term, a high % of their wage is replaced with unemployment benefits. This was also extended a bit by federal money, right? So it’s not l

For the short to medium term, a high % of their wage is replaced with unemployment benefits. This was also extended a bit by federal money, right? So it’s not like 25% of the population drops to 0 income. Edit - your math is also counting babies and kids. Not many babies or kids lost jobs in the past month.

dylan604 7y ago
Population of working age (15-64)[0]: ~206M 206M * 25% = 51.5M That's still a whole lot of people left with their hands out that you seem to be dismissing quite easily. To me, this is the danger of statistics. The numbers loose all meaning. These are fellow human beings. This isn't war where the generals accept a certain percentage of losses of volunteering soldiers. These are normal people that through no fault of their own now have not job and source of income. What because 90% of GDP isn't that dire? [0]https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S
wool_gather 7y ago
The babies and kids are relying on working adults to feed them. They may not count in the jobless statistic, but they certainly are affected by the unemployment situation. (And hopefully this is an over-reaction: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/04/coronavirus-stimulus-outdated-technology-could-delay-checks-experts-say/5112012002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/04/coro... but if it takes months for that federal money to be disbursed, then in a lot of cases is may as well not come at all.)
raydev 7y ago
> a high % of their wage is replaced with unemployment benefits A "high percentage" seems like a comical overstatement.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  The $600 boost was calculated because it takes the average recipient to full pay, so, yeah it's a high percentage. For high wage workers it's a smaller percentage, both because before the boost there is a benefit cap in most state formulas and because the $600 boost represents a smaller additional percentage, but most workers aren't high-wage workers.

dylan604 7y ago

Population of working age (15-64)[0]: ~206M 206M * 25% = 51.5M That's still a whole lot of people left with their hands out that you seem to be dismissing quite easily. To me, this is the danger of statistics. The numbers loose all meaning. These are fellow human beings. This isn't war where the generals accept a certain percentage of losses of volunteering soldiers. These are normal people that through no fault of their own now have not job and source of income. What because 90% of GDP isn't that dire? [0]https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S

wool_gather 7y ago

The babies and kids are relying on working adults to feed them. They may not count in the jobless statistic, but they certainly are affected by the unemployment situation. (And hopefully this is an over-reaction: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/04/coronavirus-stimulus-outdated-technology-could-delay-checks-experts-say/5112012002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/04/coro... but if it takes months for that federal money to be disbursed, then in a lot of cases is may as well not come at all.)

raydev 7y ago

> a high % of their wage is replaced with unemployment benefits A "high percentage" seems like a comical overstatement.

dragonwriter 7y ago
The $600 boost was calculated because it takes the average recipient to full pay, so, yeah it's a high percentage. For high wage workers it's a smaller percentage, both because before the boost there is a benefit cap in most state formulas and because the $600 boost represents a smaller additional percentage, but most workers aren't high-wage workers.