3 ms·

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

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.