13 ms·

Or maybe the US needs a real social security system.

by sveme 6y ago

mberning 6y ago
We do. In fact some people are getting paid more on unemployment than when they were working. Some employees have been upset that they didn’t lose their job. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/she-got-a-paycheck-protection-loan-her-employees-hate-her-for-it.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/she-got-a-paycheck-protectio...
- jorblumesea 6y ago
  By a European definition, we definitely do not have a "good social safety net". You would be shocked at how inadequate the US system is compared to a "real" social safety net. You can even see this in the COVID crisis where European countries are paying 60-80% of salaries, whereas in the US you get a one time check of $1200. Maybe 1-2 months worth of expenses, and that's being generous. A good example of the different mindsets and standards.
  - robk 6y ago
    You'd be surprised at how poor business operating metrics here vs there
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    There's federal unemployment assistance of $600 a week in the US. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/business/economy/unemployment-benefits-stimulus-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/business/econ... The $1200 is a 'stimulus' payment going to everyone. Paying businesses to keep people on payroll may have been a better policy (as the disruption gets longer that changes).
    - jorblumesea 6y ago
      Good point, thanks for correcting me.
    - Smithalicious 6y ago
      Christ, $600 per week is insane. That's more than twice what I have as a student living in the Netherlands.
    - RhysU 6y ago
      $1200 is not going to everyone. Some get $0.
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        Yes true, I forgot that there's an income taper. Seems the payment starts decreasing for people earning something like the 70th percentile? (It's hard to figure because it differs for filing status)
- jasonv 6y ago
  Guessing the 26 million who filed for unemployment won’t be better off. Average salaries are higher than unemployment. Not sure what the point of this oft-repeated fact is, if not to gas light the trauma out there.
  - mberning 6y ago
    Did you even read the article? After the cares act, in many states the “break even” point where unemployment income is less than your working income is 25-30 dollars an hour. That’s 50k-60k per year. Anybody making less than the median income is going to come out ahead, assuming they were legitimately employed to begin with.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- bdcravens 6y ago
  "Those traditional benefits, which vary widely between states, replaced about 40% of one’s prior wages, according to a national average cited by the House Ways and Means Committee. The measure’s improved $600-a-week payments, which run through July, aim to boost that wage replacement rate to 100% for the average worker." In other words, this is a very temporary measure due to the current crisis, and those on unemployment will be making far less than they would by working in a few months. A short-term duct tape measure to stop the bleeding isn't security.
amscanne 6y ago
That’s not mutually exclusive. I don’t think a “real social security system” automatically fixes all other bad policy.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  We should try it anyway, because it might. If humans don't have to rely on employers, insurers, and creditors for their health, they have a lot more freedom to refuse the evil bargains offered by corporations. Much of the sickness of USA stems from our inability to say "no".
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    I'm not sure why people are blaming the lockdown, when the problem is an economic system with massive private wealth hoarding and minimal public reserves which shows signs of falling apart within weeks when faced with an exogenous threat. The usual advice for people who are not on the breadline is to have at least a few months of reserves to spare. It seems we expect our national economies and business owners to operate less prudently than individual households, because we "can't afford" a more robust system. In fact we're more than capable of creating our own recessions/depressions without a threat. And while there seems to be some legitimate concern for the current victims of this recession/depression, it's interesting how little there was during previous downturns.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      I'm not sure why people are blaming the lockdown... This isn't strictly a logical question. We're told that we shouldn't let a crisis go to waste. Our opponents certainly don't.
  - doyougnu 6y ago
    I completely agree with this. That anyone defends the current employee based health care system in the US is insane to me. The perverse incentives rife in such a system alone should eliminate it in any serious discussion as a viable way to provide healthcare to people.
TomMarius 6y ago
Are you certain that would help? Many countries with strong social systems left their citizens with no money (due to social tax) and no help. Yes, there are many good examples, but are you certain the US under Trump would be one?
hutzlibu 6y ago
And that would help how, in compensating people, who lost years of work of building up, because of an order? It helps people not starving, yes, but this is not really compensating. And ridiculous, when you consider "wrestling" was considered "system-relevant". But all the small buisnesses not.
- tyre 6y ago
  It wouldn't completely fix things obviously, but it would clearly help. If you don't personally collapse then that helps extend the life of a small independently owned business.
grawprog 6y ago
We have one here in my country, yet I see the same thing happening in my town. The first of April saw a handful of businesses permanently close, around the middle of the month a few more did. I expect the first of may to bring more. Jobs here are limited as is. Each of those businesses employed people who relied on those jobs to survive as well as the owners of the businesses themselves. The building owners require those businesses to be running and pay leases and rent so they can pay their employees and so them and their families can have income. Every permanently closed business affects everyone that relies on that business and it's not always obvious how many people rely even on a small mom n pop business existing.
- wpietri 6y ago
  I think rent should be a pretty easy one to sort out. Rent basically goes 3 places: landlord, landlord profit, and paying mortgages. The first is solved through broad income supports, the second can be eliminated for the duration, and the third can be postponed by just extending the mortgage. That requires coordinated government intervention, of course, but it's not impossible. If landlords don't have to pay for themselves, furloughed staff, or rent, keeping a business in suspension seems much more doable.
mindslight 6y ago
The US actually has a social anti-security system of a debt treadmill. People are economically discouraged from owning things outright, and instead are pushed into mortgaging them and paying monthly rents. From first principles, why should the small furniture business be worried about collapse? Little work is getting done, so no employees need to get paid. They don't need to be purchasing more inventory. The remaining true expenses are insurance (catastrophes can still occur), heating, maintenance of the building structure, and the portion of the property tax that goes to infrastructure maintenance. But under our current system, they've been incentivized to rent the business space from either a landlord or a bank for a hefty payment every month. When cash flows are predictable, this is merely extractive. But now that cash flows have slowed down, it's catastrophic. The appropriate short-term policy answer is bail outs for small businesses (as well as individuals, as the employees out of work are in the same boat). But the government is outright corrupt, so big businesses received immediate bailouts while small businesses are left scraping for peanuts from a funding structure that was also designed to benefit banks. The long term policy answer is to raise interest rates to discourage frivolous use of debt. This ranges from merely politically unpalatable (eg when Bush was trying to sell two wars), to downright painful (the payments on existing debt go up). Which then makes for a debt spiral.
- Jommi 6y ago
  You're missing that nearly any purchase of business space will also be funded by debt etc.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    That is what I meant by rent the business space from ... a bank. Real estate prices are high as a direct consequence of financialization. When interest rates go up asset valuations go down, making it more practical to buy outright or at least pay off a mortgage early. High asset prices are exalted by existing owners as if they're indicative of progress, but they actually form a choke hold on the economy.
Noos 6y ago
how do you think people pay into social security and benefits? By being employed, and by employers being in business. If we had a better system, we'd still have serious issues, and probably far less capacity to react due to the economic drag those kind of systems have.

Or maybe the US needs a real social security system.

by sveme 6y ago

Or maybe the US needs a real social security system.

We do. In fact some people are getting paid more on unemployment than when they were working. Some employees have been upset that they didn’t lose their job. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/she-got-a-paycheck-protection-loan-her-employees-hate-her-for-it.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/she-got-a-paycheck-protectio...

jorblumesea 6y ago
By a European definition, we definitely do not have a "good social safety net". You would be shocked at how inadequate the US system is compared to a "real" social safety net. You can even see this in the COVID crisis where European countries are paying 60-80% of salaries, whereas in the US you get a one time check of $1200. Maybe 1-2 months worth of expenses, and that's being generous. A good example of the different mindsets and standards.
- robk 6y ago
  You'd be surprised at how poor business operating metrics here vs there
- maxerickson 6y ago
  There's federal unemployment assistance of $600 a week in the US. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/business/economy/unemployment-benefits-stimulus-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/business/econ... The $1200 is a 'stimulus' payment going to everyone. Paying businesses to keep people on payroll may have been a better policy (as the disruption gets longer that changes).
  - jorblumesea 6y ago
    Good point, thanks for correcting me.
  - Smithalicious 6y ago
    Christ, $600 per week is insane. That's more than twice what I have as a student living in the Netherlands.
  - RhysU 6y ago
    $1200 is not going to everyone. Some get $0.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Yes true, I forgot that there's an income taper. Seems the payment starts decreasing for people earning something like the 70th percentile? (It's hard to figure because it differs for filing status)
jasonv 6y ago
Guessing the 26 million who filed for unemployment won’t be better off. Average salaries are higher than unemployment. Not sure what the point of this oft-repeated fact is, if not to gas light the trauma out there.
- mberning 6y ago
  Did you even read the article? After the cares act, in many states the “break even” point where unemployment income is less than your working income is 25-30 dollars an hour. That’s 50k-60k per year. Anybody making less than the median income is going to come out ahead, assuming they were legitimately employed to begin with.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
bdcravens 6y ago
"Those traditional benefits, which vary widely between states, replaced about 40% of one’s prior wages, according to a national average cited by the House Ways and Means Committee. The measure’s improved $600-a-week payments, which run through July, aim to boost that wage replacement rate to 100% for the average worker." In other words, this is a very temporary measure due to the current crisis, and those on unemployment will be making far less than they would by working in a few months. A short-term duct tape measure to stop the bleeding isn't security.

amscanne 6y ago

That’s not mutually exclusive. I don’t think a “real social security system” automatically fixes all other bad policy.

jessaustin 6y ago
We should try it anyway, because it might. If humans don't have to rely on employers, insurers, and creditors for their health, they have a lot more freedom to refuse the evil bargains offered by corporations. Much of the sickness of USA stems from our inability to say "no".
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  I'm not sure why people are blaming the lockdown, when the problem is an economic system with massive private wealth hoarding and minimal public reserves which shows signs of falling apart within weeks when faced with an exogenous threat. The usual advice for people who are not on the breadline is to have at least a few months of reserves to spare. It seems we expect our national economies and business owners to operate less prudently than individual households, because we "can't afford" a more robust system. In fact we're more than capable of creating our own recessions/depressions without a threat. And while there seems to be some legitimate concern for the current victims of this recession/depression, it's interesting how little there was during previous downturns.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    I'm not sure why people are blaming the lockdown... This isn't strictly a logical question. We're told that we shouldn't let a crisis go to waste. Our opponents certainly don't.
- doyougnu 6y ago
  I completely agree with this. That anyone defends the current employee based health care system in the US is insane to me. The perverse incentives rife in such a system alone should eliminate it in any serious discussion as a viable way to provide healthcare to people.

TomMarius 6y ago

Are you certain that would help? Many countries with strong social systems left their citizens with no money (due to social tax) and no help. Yes, there are many good examples, but are you certain the US under Trump would be one?

hutzlibu 6y ago

And that would help how, in compensating people, who lost years of work of building up, because of an order? It helps people not starving, yes, but this is not really compensating. And ridiculous, when you consider "wrestling" was considered "system-relevant". But all the small buisnesses not.

tyre 6y ago
It wouldn't completely fix things obviously, but it would clearly help. If you don't personally collapse then that helps extend the life of a small independently owned business.

grawprog 6y ago

We have one here in my country, yet I see the same thing happening in my town. The first of April saw a handful of businesses permanently close, around the middle of the month a few more did. I expect the first of may to bring more. Jobs here are limited as is. Each of those businesses employed people who relied on those jobs to survive as well as the owners of the businesses themselves. The building owners require those businesses to be running and pay leases and rent so they can pay their employees and so them and their families can have income. Every permanently closed business affects everyone that relies on that business and it's not always obvious how many people rely even on a small mom n pop business existing.

wpietri 6y ago
I think rent should be a pretty easy one to sort out. Rent basically goes 3 places: landlord, landlord profit, and paying mortgages. The first is solved through broad income supports, the second can be eliminated for the duration, and the third can be postponed by just extending the mortgage. That requires coordinated government intervention, of course, but it's not impossible. If landlords don't have to pay for themselves, furloughed staff, or rent, keeping a business in suspension seems much more doable.

mindslight 6y ago

The US actually has a social anti-security system of a debt treadmill. People are economically discouraged from owning things outright, and instead are pushed into mortgaging them and paying monthly rents. From first principles, why should the small furniture business be worried about collapse? Little work is getting done, so no employees need to get paid. They don't need to be purchasing more inventory. The remaining true expenses are insurance (catastrophes can still occur), heating, maintenance of the building structure, and the portion of the property tax that goes to infrastructure maintenance. But under our current system, they've been incentivized to rent the business space from either a landlord or a bank for a hefty payment every month. When cash flows are predictable, this is merely extractive. But now that cash flows have slowed down, it's catastrophic. The appropriate short-term policy answer is bail outs for small businesses (as well as individuals, as the employees out of work are in the same boat). But the government is outright corrupt, so big businesses received immediate bailouts while small businesses are left scraping for peanuts from a funding structure that was also designed to benefit banks. The long term policy answer is to raise interest rates to discourage frivolous use of debt. This ranges from merely politically unpalatable (eg when Bush was trying to sell two wars), to downright painful (the payments on existing debt go up). Which then makes for a debt spiral.

Jommi 6y ago
You're missing that nearly any purchase of business space will also be funded by debt etc.
- mindslight 6y ago
  That is what I meant by rent the business space from ... a bank. Real estate prices are high as a direct consequence of financialization. When interest rates go up asset valuations go down, making it more practical to buy outright or at least pay off a mortgage early. High asset prices are exalted by existing owners as if they're indicative of progress, but they actually form a choke hold on the economy.

Noos 6y ago

how do you think people pay into social security and benefits? By being employed, and by employers being in business. If we had a better system, we'd still have serious issues, and probably far less capacity to react due to the economic drag those kind of systems have.