4 ms·

The more interesting question is whether wages were too low to begin with. Plenty of evidence points to wage stagnation in the lower-wage jobs starting in the

The more interesting question is whether wages were too low to begin with. Plenty of evidence points to wage stagnation in the lower-wage jobs starting in the 1980s and continuing to today. A huge number of americans collecting SNAP benefits actually work at companies like Walmart and Amazon. Is it possible the answer to the question is "we should pay workers more"?

glofish 6y ago
consider what you are saying, that the economic policy for raising salaries is to introduce an artificially highly set unemployment benefit
- throwanem 6y ago
  No, the economic policy for keeping our economy from entirely imploding, instead of just partially imploding as it actually has done, has been to introduce an unusually high unemployment benefit. Raising wages has been a beneficial side effect. I say "has been" because, again, the CARES Act supplementary benefit expired today, with no clear replacement plan in sight, and no equivalent replacement plan anywhere on the horizon.
  - glofish 6y ago
    think about what you are saying artificially raising salaries in an imploding economy with high unemployment is beneficial uh, no, it is a recipe for economic disaster.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      I'm not unsympathetic, although I admit I've sounded that way just now. Terror will have that effect on a person, I suppose. Glibness aside, I spent enough years working in a company with three total employees counting myself and the owner to have a sense of what things must be like for someone trying to operate on a shoestring in this kind of environment. In a word: desperate. I'd imagine it's a familiar feeling to people who have been paid so poorly in the recent past that they find $15 an hour a step up. Ideally, you'd see living-wage unemployment in a situation like this one matched by the kind of substantial, ongoing supplemental loans to small business owners that'd enable them to pay a living wage directly, and thus successfully compete in the labor market. But our shitshow excuse for a government - and that's not partisan; I'm indicting all sides equally here - has been no more successful at that than it has at supporting workers. And now it looks very much as if we're going to have an economic disaster no matter what anyone does. Well. Judging by yesterday's GDP figures, I suppose I should say more of an economic disaster.
      - glofish 6y ago
        I will keep this short but I think paying predermined sums like the $600 is a terrible idea. the number of people for whom this is exactly the right amount is tiny, all it generates massive imbalances between those for whom this is too much and those for whom this is too little (or causes all kinds of unintended consequences) I read the a story with the two cashiers, one got laid off, the other not. The one that did not get laid off had to show up to work during the early pandemic when everyone was freaked out, worked eight hours a day then, at the end of day took home less than the second one that got laid off and stayed home all the while.
        throwanem 6y ago
        You're not wrong. It's been a clusterfuck. Where we differ is that you seem to argue what makes sense is to return to status quo ante, and I don't see how that makes any kind of sense when the clusterfuck we're arguing about is a side effect of the order-of-magnitude larger clusterfuck that is the economic effect of the ongoing pandemic, and the US government's ongoing and in my opinion frankly treasonable mishandling of said pandemic. Please excuse my language. At the moment I can find no word in my lexicon which is both less vulgar and still able to capture my depth of feeling.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    The massively high unemployment payment is a large part of why we saw a 33% drop in GDP last quarter. You can argue whether it was good or bad that we [over-]paid people not to work, but the obvious effect is that GDP cratered because working would make most people lose money.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      That's a remarkable claim - namely that the GDP hit was primarily due to supplemental unemployment, rather than to a collapse in consumer demand across many sectors as a result of the pandemic. You'll understand, of course, that I'm going to need something more than your unsupported assertion to be convinced that this is the case.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

glofish 6y ago

consider what you are saying, that the economic policy for raising salaries is to introduce an artificially highly set unemployment benefit

throwanem 6y ago
No, the economic policy for keeping our economy from entirely imploding, instead of just partially imploding as it actually has done, has been to introduce an unusually high unemployment benefit. Raising wages has been a beneficial side effect. I say "has been" because, again, the CARES Act supplementary benefit expired today, with no clear replacement plan in sight, and no equivalent replacement plan anywhere on the horizon.
- glofish 6y ago
  think about what you are saying artificially raising salaries in an imploding economy with high unemployment is beneficial uh, no, it is a recipe for economic disaster.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    I'm not unsympathetic, although I admit I've sounded that way just now. Terror will have that effect on a person, I suppose. Glibness aside, I spent enough years working in a company with three total employees counting myself and the owner to have a sense of what things must be like for someone trying to operate on a shoestring in this kind of environment. In a word: desperate. I'd imagine it's a familiar feeling to people who have been paid so poorly in the recent past that they find $15 an hour a step up. Ideally, you'd see living-wage unemployment in a situation like this one matched by the kind of substantial, ongoing supplemental loans to small business owners that'd enable them to pay a living wage directly, and thus successfully compete in the labor market. But our shitshow excuse for a government - and that's not partisan; I'm indicting all sides equally here - has been no more successful at that than it has at supporting workers. And now it looks very much as if we're going to have an economic disaster no matter what anyone does. Well. Judging by yesterday's GDP figures, I suppose I should say more of an economic disaster.
    - glofish 6y ago
      I will keep this short but I think paying predermined sums like the $600 is a terrible idea. the number of people for whom this is exactly the right amount is tiny, all it generates massive imbalances between those for whom this is too much and those for whom this is too little (or causes all kinds of unintended consequences) I read the a story with the two cashiers, one got laid off, the other not. The one that did not get laid off had to show up to work during the early pandemic when everyone was freaked out, worked eight hours a day then, at the end of day took home less than the second one that got laid off and stayed home all the while.
      - throwanem 6y ago
        You're not wrong. It's been a clusterfuck. Where we differ is that you seem to argue what makes sense is to return to status quo ante, and I don't see how that makes any kind of sense when the clusterfuck we're arguing about is a side effect of the order-of-magnitude larger clusterfuck that is the economic effect of the ongoing pandemic, and the US government's ongoing and in my opinion frankly treasonable mishandling of said pandemic. Please excuse my language. At the moment I can find no word in my lexicon which is both less vulgar and still able to capture my depth of feeling.
- zaroth 6y ago
  The massively high unemployment payment is a large part of why we saw a 33% drop in GDP last quarter. You can argue whether it was good or bad that we [over-]paid people not to work, but the obvious effect is that GDP cratered because working would make most people lose money.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    That's a remarkable claim - namely that the GDP hit was primarily due to supplemental unemployment, rather than to a collapse in consumer demand across many sectors as a result of the pandemic. You'll understand, of course, that I'm going to need something more than your unsupported assertion to be convinced that this is the case.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]