3 ms·

This is great news for a bunch of reasons. In the immediate term, it's great that people and families saw extra income in a trying time. In the longer term, h

This is great news for a bunch of reasons. In the immediate term, it's great that people and families saw extra income in a trying time. In the longer term, hopefully this informs a larger discussion on the minimum wage and effectiveness of various social programs.

justinzollars 6y ago
No one's pay went up. 40 million people lost their jobs, the majority of who made very little money. The average went up because low wage jobs were vaporized
- TAForObvReasons 6y ago
  pay != income, which is the key point here. The fact that millions of families are seeing more money now in the current unemployment benefit scheme raises the question about whether the pre-corona minimum wage was too low and whether we need to invest more in social programs. And this honestly couldn't have happened at a more interesting time, since this is a presidential election year. Millions of voters who might have voted on social or cultural issues may be more inclined now to vote for politicians interested in bolstering social programs.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    > in the current unemployment benefit scheme Congress (a nationally centralized organization) was doling out the money and used a simple formula (+$600 for every unemployed person, no matter what their job was). > whether we need to invest more in social programs I think "invest more" is maybe the wrong way to think about it and would just throw more money at the problem the wrong way. I think we need to change how legislatures and federal departments dictate how social programs be administered. Code For America (and 18F and USDS, etc) has great programs where they go in and assist government departments to improve the experience for the end user. They generally try to change the project management to think about MVPs and use Agile methodology and most importantly build small increments quickly and iterate. Traditional US social programs were mega projects defined at legislation/RFP time (both highly corrupt because lobbyists and contractors would steer requirements). We need to empower departments that administer social programs to run them for the people who actually use them and allow them the flexibility to change the requirements of the program.
- mrep 6y ago
  Source, because this exact article is about the total nominal amount, not per capita so average has nothing to do with it. In fact many of the people in those low wage jobs which were vaporized are now making more money with unemployment due to the CARES act. The federal government is giving unemployed people 600 per week (31,200 a year) on top of state benefits regardless of their income so anyone making less than that is making more on the federal government alone.

justinzollars 6y ago

No one's pay went up. 40 million people lost their jobs, the majority of who made very little money. The average went up because low wage jobs were vaporized

TAForObvReasons 6y ago
pay != income, which is the key point here. The fact that millions of families are seeing more money now in the current unemployment benefit scheme raises the question about whether the pre-corona minimum wage was too low and whether we need to invest more in social programs. And this honestly couldn't have happened at a more interesting time, since this is a presidential election year. Millions of voters who might have voted on social or cultural issues may be more inclined now to vote for politicians interested in bolstering social programs.
- thephyber 6y ago
  > in the current unemployment benefit scheme Congress (a nationally centralized organization) was doling out the money and used a simple formula (+$600 for every unemployed person, no matter what their job was). > whether we need to invest more in social programs I think "invest more" is maybe the wrong way to think about it and would just throw more money at the problem the wrong way. I think we need to change how legislatures and federal departments dictate how social programs be administered. Code For America (and 18F and USDS, etc) has great programs where they go in and assist government departments to improve the experience for the end user. They generally try to change the project management to think about MVPs and use Agile methodology and most importantly build small increments quickly and iterate. Traditional US social programs were mega projects defined at legislation/RFP time (both highly corrupt because lobbyists and contractors would steer requirements). We need to empower departments that administer social programs to run them for the people who actually use them and allow them the flexibility to change the requirements of the program.
mrep 6y ago
Source, because this exact article is about the total nominal amount, not per capita so average has nothing to do with it. In fact many of the people in those low wage jobs which were vaporized are now making more money with unemployment due to the CARES act. The federal government is giving unemployed people 600 per week (31,200 a year) on top of state benefits regardless of their income so anyone making less than that is making more on the federal government alone.