6 ms·

Hiring is very slow at the moment and the beater would likely require a lot of maintenance and have a high price tag although I agree that it’s smart to drive c

Hiring is very slow at the moment and the beater would likely require a lot of maintenance and have a high price tag although I agree that it’s smart to drive cars that are more economical.

Alupis 6y ago
Anecdotal, but I keep hearing about restaurants and other small businesses that can't convince their employees to come back to work. Something about the unemployment benefits + CARES Act bonus being more than they were earning while working...
- Avicebron 6y ago
  Well maybe that should be a red flag for the economic situation of many many people that should cause some inspection on how we structure and think about work.
- korethr 6y ago
  Also anecdotal, but unemployment + CARES Act did in fact result in one of my housemates bringing in more from the two than they did from their employer. But, they went back to work anyway when their employer called them back from furlough, because 1) in my state, IIRC, refusing an offer for work cancels one's unemployment benefits, 2) they knew they the structure of having a regular job again would be much better for their mental health than not working.
- DevKoala 6y ago
  A friend of my girlfriend is on that situation, $1600/wk is more than what she earned previously, and isn’t looking forward for the store where she worked on to re-open or looking for a different job. It gives me a mixed feeling about the policy because it turns out I personally know the one example conservatives would like to point out. However, I’d like to read a deep study about the impact of the measures taken before I form an opinion on them. I want to believe that the policy had a positive effect unless data says otherwise.
  - mydongle 6y ago
    All that proves is how deeply underpaid those jobs were. Say that $1600/wk is perfectly livable for her. That means formerly, she was working at a job that did not pay her enough to live, but she was forced to because the alternative is worse. Arguably, for many people, they could live on even less than that. Countless people who are forced to be in the job market, slaving away at crappy jobs at the threat of poverty and homelessness. They are forced to be at jobs they hate, propping up industries that survive only because of exploitation of human labor, and they don't even get a proper living wage from it. Human life is very limited. Time is the greatest asset we have and it goes away even when we do nothing. Yet we force so many people to trade their time for a pittance. If these people were provided a base amount of money they could live on and do something else, then those jobs would either be unfilled (and the industries die off) or the businesses will be forced to raise the wage, thus providing more money to people who are willing to work for it.
    - Alupis 6y ago
      > All that proves is how deeply underpaid those jobs were. How does it do that? The CARES Act specifically pays money per week in addition to what unemployment pays. So, whatever you made before, even if it was a sustainable wage, you make more by not working right now, even if you could be working.
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        It’s worth keeping in mind that unemployment benefits are around half or less than what one was making. I know someone who’s job was paying him about $600 every two weeks. COVID-19 hit and they furloughed him. His unemployment benefit is about $150/week.
      - mydongle 6y ago
        It's a temporary stimulus payment anyway. We all paid for it. It helps a lot of people who really needed it, especially hourly wage workers in the service industry who instantly took a hit from the shutdowns and these workers tend to not have healthcare insurance to begin with due to the low wages. It would be foolish for someone who had a well paying job with benefits to permanently stop working for "more" money on paper temporarily, especially considering you would also risk being unemployable afterward. Does +$600 to your weekly pay outweigh the health benefits that you got while being employed?
rhexs 6y ago
Sure, it’s a rough situation. He lived beyond his means and sank due to the black swan. Now, if the story was about repossessing the truck he needed to drive to a food pantry, I’d have a bit more sympathy. The loan company should be barred from repossessing for generating subprime auto loans or whatever these are called, but this was still directly caused by lack of financial awareness.

Hiring is very slow at the moment and the beater would likely require a lot of maintenance and have a high price tag although I agree that it’s smart to drive cars that are more economical.

Alupis 6y ago

Anecdotal, but I keep hearing about restaurants and other small businesses that can't convince their employees to come back to work. Something about the unemployment benefits + CARES Act bonus being more than they were earning while working...

Avicebron 6y ago
Well maybe that should be a red flag for the economic situation of many many people that should cause some inspection on how we structure and think about work.
korethr 6y ago
Also anecdotal, but unemployment + CARES Act did in fact result in one of my housemates bringing in more from the two than they did from their employer. But, they went back to work anyway when their employer called them back from furlough, because 1) in my state, IIRC, refusing an offer for work cancels one's unemployment benefits, 2) they knew they the structure of having a regular job again would be much better for their mental health than not working.
DevKoala 6y ago
A friend of my girlfriend is on that situation, $1600/wk is more than what she earned previously, and isn’t looking forward for the store where she worked on to re-open or looking for a different job. It gives me a mixed feeling about the policy because it turns out I personally know the one example conservatives would like to point out. However, I’d like to read a deep study about the impact of the measures taken before I form an opinion on them. I want to believe that the policy had a positive effect unless data says otherwise.
- mydongle 6y ago
  All that proves is how deeply underpaid those jobs were. Say that $1600/wk is perfectly livable for her. That means formerly, she was working at a job that did not pay her enough to live, but she was forced to because the alternative is worse. Arguably, for many people, they could live on even less than that. Countless people who are forced to be in the job market, slaving away at crappy jobs at the threat of poverty and homelessness. They are forced to be at jobs they hate, propping up industries that survive only because of exploitation of human labor, and they don't even get a proper living wage from it. Human life is very limited. Time is the greatest asset we have and it goes away even when we do nothing. Yet we force so many people to trade their time for a pittance. If these people were provided a base amount of money they could live on and do something else, then those jobs would either be unfilled (and the industries die off) or the businesses will be forced to raise the wage, thus providing more money to people who are willing to work for it.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    > All that proves is how deeply underpaid those jobs were. How does it do that? The CARES Act specifically pays money per week in addition to what unemployment pays. So, whatever you made before, even if it was a sustainable wage, you make more by not working right now, even if you could be working.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      It’s worth keeping in mind that unemployment benefits are around half or less than what one was making. I know someone who’s job was paying him about $600 every two weeks. COVID-19 hit and they furloughed him. His unemployment benefit is about $150/week.
    - mydongle 6y ago
      It's a temporary stimulus payment anyway. We all paid for it. It helps a lot of people who really needed it, especially hourly wage workers in the service industry who instantly took a hit from the shutdowns and these workers tend to not have healthcare insurance to begin with due to the low wages. It would be foolish for someone who had a well paying job with benefits to permanently stop working for "more" money on paper temporarily, especially considering you would also risk being unemployable afterward. Does +$600 to your weekly pay outweigh the health benefits that you got while being employed?

rhexs 6y ago

Sure, it’s a rough situation. He lived beyond his means and sank due to the black swan. Now, if the story was about repossessing the truck he needed to drive to a food pantry, I’d have a bit more sympathy. The loan company should be barred from repossessing for generating subprime auto loans or whatever these are called, but this was still directly caused by lack of financial awareness.