6 ms·

Some politicians have pointed out that some lower income people are getting paid more to _not_ work now, due to unemployment benefits and the CARES Act. I'm no

• SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Well, there's a very real systems level concern there. There are anecdotes - just anecdotes, but it'll already be a disaster if we start getting data - of workers yelling at business owners for securing the PPP funds to save their jobs.
• rayiner 6y ago
  Why would you not agree? It’s simple math. In most states, your weekly unemployment is half your salary, up to a cap. Under the CARES Act, you then add $600/week. So if that extra $600 is more than half your weekly paycheck, you earn more on unemployment. It works out to everyone earning less than about $62,000, which is more than half of people in most of the country. Pointing out that this creates a disincentive to return to work isn’t accusing anyone of “living high in the benefits hog.” It’s not that we’re talking about a ton of money. It’s that we do need most of the country to return to work eventually. And if even white collar workers making $60,000 a year are getting paid more in unemployment, that is a pickle we’re going to have to resolve at some point.
  • lalaithion 6y ago
    But is anyone seriously advocating keeping a $600/week around after the quarantine? If we can get out the other side without millions of bankruptcies, foreclosures, and evictions, certainly that will contribute to a faster economic recovery. Sure, some white collar workers will be disincentivized from working... as long as the CARES act stays in effect. And you don't get unemployment if you quit, so no one will actively leave their jobs under this scheme.
    • adventured 6y ago
      > But is anyone seriously advocating keeping a $600/week around after the quarantine? Yes. Or something close to it: https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-would-receive-2000-a-month-under-house-democrats-plan-2020-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-would-receive-2000... "The Emergency Money for the People Act, introduced by Reps. Tim Ryan and Ro Khanna, would give $2,000 a month to Americans over the age of 16 who make less than $130,000 a year." "The payments would continue for at least six months and would last until unemployment falls to pre-coronavirus levels." That would probably only cost a few trillion dollars. It'll take a decade to get back to pre-virus unemployment levels, and they know that. It took nearly a decade to get to those super low unemployment levels after the great recession, which was not nearly so bad as this situation.
      • dragonwriter 6y ago
        Actually, the payments (because they would encourage marginally employable people to stay out of the labor force and thus out of the divisor for unemployment) would radically accelerate the (brief) return to pre-crisis unemployment. Of course, once they were withdrawn, the unemployment number would shoot back up, but that has no effect on the duration of the payments.
      • rayhendricks 6y ago
        It’s either they pay for everyone’s lost salary or people will just disregard the stay home orders and go back to work.
      • Melting_Harps 6y ago
        > That would probably only cost a few trillion dollars. It'll take a decade to get back to pre-virus unemployment levels, and they know that. It took nearly a decade to get to those super low unemployment levels after the great recession, which was not nearly so bad as this situation. Well, it was a horrible way for the US to get to experiment with a wide-scale UBI system and create a viable model. One that was previously thought to be unfathomable, but honestly I'll take it. And maybe because of my age, but 2008 was way worse than this. This doesn't seem like it will create waves of lost generations, for startes no one is being evicted from their Homes (yet) and no eviction systems are in place in many parts of the US. > The bill comes as the IRS is about to begin mailing out checks approved by the recent COVID-19 relief package. Those will come printed with President Donald Trump's name on them, it was revealed this week. Lets see what we learn from this, I'm personally cautiously optimistic on a Human level if this is the step being proposed. I'm just having a hard time internalizing how this is all being done while a clown like Trump is in office... I mean if this Andrew Yang, of course, maybe even Sanders, but Trump?!
  • sanderjd 6y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't unemployment benefits temporary? Are these any different? I was reading through the tangled web of information at the DOL[0] and did not come away feeling certain one way or another. Do you really think not enough people working belongs near the top of our list of concerns at the moment? I have heard this line from every conservative I've talked to about this, and it just seems like missing the forest for the trees. On the long list of systemic problems this period and our response to it is in danger of creating, this seems like it belongs on the list, but not close enough to the top to be worth the time discussing it. I'm a lot more worried about the incentives we're manipulating for businesses and investors than for unemployed people. [0]: https://www.dol.gov/coronavirus/unemployment-insurance https://www.dol.gov/coronavirus/unemployment-insurance
    • PureParadigm 6y ago
      Yes, they're temporary. The concern is that if the shut down ends soon (seems unlikely but who knows) then it will delay an economic recovery until the temporary benefits expire. For a faster economic recovery we would want as many people getting back to work as possible. If you make more money not working, the rational choice is to wait for the temporary benefits to expire and then go back to work.
      • dragonwriter 6y ago
        Again, unemployment requires you to actively search for work and accept offered employment or you lose benefits. Higher benefits don't create an incentive to voluntarily stay out of work since you can't have them if you do that.
        • seekup 6y ago
          The requirement to be actively searching for work has actually been temporarily paused in many states, including eg/ CA https://www.edd.ca.gov/unemployment/eligibility.htm https://www.edd.ca.gov/unemployment/eligibility.htm. Presumably that provision will be removed along with the SIPs, but just figured it was worth being precise here.
  • dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Pointing out that this creates a disincentive to return to work isn’t accusing anyone of “living high in the benefits hog.” Sure it is, plus it's a lie since unemployment requires active job search and taking offered employment, except for temporary layoff where you position is retained, where it still requires return to work when the employer ends the temporary layoff. You cannot choose to stay out of work and draw unemployment, so it cannot create incentives to do so.
    • twoodfin 6y ago
      Is there a single state in the US that has not waived the “active job search” requirement for unemployment benefits at this point?
      • ojbyrne 6y ago
        https://www.natlawreview.com/article/employers-and-workers-impacted-covid-19-expanded-unemployment-programs-have-arrived https://www.natlawreview.com/article/employers-and-workers-i... Says most states. Without much searching I found at least 3 (AK,WA and CA).
        • twoodfin 6y ago
          CA is currently requiring the unemployed to be actively seeking work to receive benefits? That can’t be right.
          • californical 6y ago
            Yeah, it's not right. As a CA resident who has looked into it, their unemployment website specifically says that requirement is waved
        • mikestew 6y ago
          Not Washington: https://esd.wa.gov/newsroom/job-search-requirement-now-optional https://esd.wa.gov/newsroom/job-search-requirement-now-optio...
  • m0llusk 6y ago
    That seems incorrect based on a couple of important points. A job is an ongoing relationship that can yield years of income and marketable experience. A fraction of a year of unemployment is not really comparable. Jobs and careers are anything but simple math. Furthermore the recent Pew study indicates that only 29% of unemployed in March collected benefits, largely because systems for distributing benefits are slow and typically service numbers several orders of magnitude smaller. Even in the best of times unemployment insurance has a failure rate of around 15% give or take depending on the state. If a system for distributing benefits is slow, significantly dysfunctional, and prone to cutting people off for a range of reasons then it is unlikely to compete with employment as a source of money, satisfaction, or resume enhancement.
  • greedo 6y ago
    In my state, unemployment maxes out at $400/week, not half my salary. So with CARES, I would get an additional $600 for a total of $1k/week. This doesn't last indefinitely, only 26 weeks. Also, unemployment isn't immediate; in my state (prior to the huge backlog) it could take up to 21 days to get paid. Now I assume it's longer. So someone on unemployment is only "making" up to $26K, then they're SOL.
  • dehrmann 6y ago
    > disincentive to return to work Arguably, this is a positive unintended consequence of the act in this situation.
    • rayiner 6y ago
      It’s not a positive consequence. Contrary to popular notions of “bullshit jobs” our economy actually needs all these people to work to maintain our standard of living.
• sanderjd 6y ago
  Those increased unemployment benefits are very unlikely to last as long as widespread unemployment.
• paxys 6y ago
  Yes, and that's a GOOD thing. If their job really is that essential then it's on the employer to pay them enough to make it worth it. No one should have to risk their lives (and that of their loved ones, and really everyone's) to put food on the table.
• elliekelly 6y ago
  Most states are still dreadfully far behind processing unemployment insurance claims. A lot of people who should be getting slightly bigger checks haven’t yet seen a dime of their unemployment insurance.
• jackinloadup 6y ago
  Yup, my sister said she is making two times as much here in MO. She was blown away. Honestly I thought it was a mistake in her favor until I read this.