4 ms·

what would it say about employers? They don't want to jeopardize relations, but they need employees back... I personally know small mom/pop restaurants, a small

what would it say about employers? They don't want to jeopardize relations, but they need employees back... I personally know small mom/pop restaurants, a small private security (rent-a-cop) firm, and a large casino that can't get people to come back because the $600/week bonus. These aren't 6 figure engineering jobs. these are low skill jobs where the most important skill is showing up on time consistently.

adamsea 6y ago
Well, cry me a river for the casino, which could afford to pay a living / more competitive wage, but I see your point about the other ones. Maybe then it says more about our current economic system as a whole. But my point was it seems like if $600 / week is enough for folks to choose not to work, that says more about the work not being meaningful or the employer being unable to (or choosing not to) pay the worker well.
- abfan1127 6y ago
  while I can't speak for other casinos. This particular one paid them full wages for the 6 weeks they were originally shut down. it wasn't $600/wk. It was $600/wk plus UI. If $600/wk is enough not to work, then it can also speak to the quality of the worker and their lack of skills. Spending time complaining about how hard life is, rather than doing something about it. Not everyone is like that, and not no-one is like that either.
  - smileysteve 6y ago
    > it wasn't $600/wk. It was $600/wk plus UI Severance is counted against eligibility for unemployment in most states. Source; had a friend not understand this, to wonder where their unemployment was, to get their first check after their severance ran out.
    - abfan1127 6y ago
      these particular people were furloughed with pay. I won't speak for all people because obviously there are many diverse situations.
paulmd 6y ago
the $600/month is already gone and businesses still can't get employees. It's not the boogeyman you're looking for, you need to take a deeper look at why that might be. two of your three examples are plague-pit jobs that will involve the employee interfacing with the public and getting sick, probably bankrupting themselves with medical bills. that's the real problem. it's a free market, and if you can't retain employees that's because you're not offering enough. Offer someone $1m a year to work in your casino, they'll take it (even during a pandemic) and you know it. Now we're just negotiating over the price. Start offering $60k, maybe $70k, and full health coverage to balance out, you know, risking your life and long term financial health so Karen can get her gyro, and people will take it. The real underlying problem is that a lot of these businesses are essentially bankrupt already, they are the walking dead, their business model will no longer work due to the pandemic (they relied on not paying for their employees' health care and that's no longer a viable scheme with the pandemic on) and they're demanding what amount to subsidies (artificial reductions on the cost of labor, for which the clearing price has risen due to increased personal risk) in order to stay afloat. taking away unemployment benefits isn't going to bring customers back to your subway, it's over for a significant number of businesses and the owners are pleading to delay the inevitable. This is the economic impact that people wanted to pretend didn't exist, there is no reason the stock market should be bouncing against an all-time high when our economy dived 33% annualized rate this quarter and the pandemic is spreading faster than ever.
- abfan1127 6y ago
  the $600/month just ran out, and now they are returning. But its been months. plague pit? risking your life? that's pretty dramatic. They're not mid 90s LA inner city police officers. They're not 1900s sky scraper metal workers. The drive to work is about as risky as the work itself. Many of these businesses will die (if they haven't already), and these people will have no jobs to go back to...
  - paulmd 6y ago
    The unemployment boost isn't going to fix the economy. Unemployment only distorts the economy by competing for labor if we're at full economic output, which we're not. The economy is collapsing at a 33% annualized rate, the fastest in recorded economic history. You're looking at a crashing economy and suggesting that the real problem is the only brace still propping it up, and suggesting that we knock it out. Many of these businesses are going to die regardless, because of the failed pandemic response, the failure to enact a sufficient degree of stimulus, and because these businesses are no longer viable with an ongoing pandemic. And yes, I said plague pit. How in the world do you think it's reasonable for an employee that is not provided with any health insurance (or a bronze plan or whatever) to risk an infection that can stick you with a $1.1m bill, for $7.50 an hour? Employees are, shall we say, not going to respond to that economic incentive, that's not a reasonable trade from any perspective. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/breaking-down-this-miracle-covid-19-survivors-11-million-hospital-bill-2020-06-16 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/breaking-down-this-miracle... Instead, they will stay at home, and 33% of renters are going to miss their payment this month, just as the article says. As they said in 2008: if you don't pay your mortgage this month, you have a problem. If 33% of people don't pay their mortgage this month... the bank has a problem. The reality is that businesses that require interfacing with the public are going to see a downturn in customers no matter what, and are going to have to start paying for their employees' health care, no matter what. You can't expect people to take on a near-certainty of an extraordinarily expensive hospital stay for $7.50 per hour. People won't do that, and customers aren't coming into the business at the same rate they used to anyway. Those businesses are walking dead and forcing employees to accept sub-market wages to get them back to work won't help that.
didibus 6y ago
Serious question, do they even have customers? Everyone is talking about the employees not wanting to go back to work, but as far as I can tell, I don't think the customers want to go to the businesses either.
- abfan1127 6y ago
  of the employers I know - Restaurants - low levels of demand, but not zero. private security - still high demand for services. casino - regular gamblers + all of the people with new money ($600/wk).
  - didibus 6y ago
    Interesting. My feelings are, restaurants just don't have the demand anyways, and if private security and casinos do, why can't they raise their wages? I still personally think the crux is lack of demand. I don't think the customers exist anymore that would be willing to pay enough to account for the extra cost of the business given Covid. And one of those cost include safety precautions to their employees. As an example, Amazon was able to hire 175000 additional workers through the pandemic, even though they were getting unemployment checks. So I think it's naive to think that removing unemployment is what will save those business. But I'm not a zealot on this, that's just my current rationale. I'm welcoming counter points.
    - abfan1127 6y ago
      I don't think removing unemployment will save these particular businesses. I just acknowledge the moral hazard of paying such high unemployment. I also think many (if not most) people would rather work. I also know personally many people (but not most) who would rather sit on the butts than work. I recall (long time ago) that Germany's unemployment included a list that employers could use to find workers. If an unemployed person was offered a job, they were cut from unemployment. Our current system has people claiming unemployment, getting more money that working. This created a situation that employer could complain to the government, but then the employee feels "cheated" and brings those negative feelings back to work... not exactly a good situation. The current system has all sorts of moral hazard and unintended consequences. I could provide a policy recommendation, but that's really out of scope for a small discussion forum. I do appreciate your discussion though!
Nasrudith 6y ago
It says that the jobs and/or payment are bad enough that people would procrastinate actually taking them when unemployment is sky high.

adamsea 6y ago

Well, cry me a river for the casino, which could afford to pay a living / more competitive wage, but I see your point about the other ones. Maybe then it says more about our current economic system as a whole. But my point was it seems like if $600 / week is enough for folks to choose not to work, that says more about the work not being meaningful or the employer being unable to (or choosing not to) pay the worker well.

abfan1127 6y ago
while I can't speak for other casinos. This particular one paid them full wages for the 6 weeks they were originally shut down. it wasn't $600/wk. It was $600/wk plus UI. If $600/wk is enough not to work, then it can also speak to the quality of the worker and their lack of skills. Spending time complaining about how hard life is, rather than doing something about it. Not everyone is like that, and not no-one is like that either.
- smileysteve 6y ago
  > it wasn't $600/wk. It was $600/wk plus UI Severance is counted against eligibility for unemployment in most states. Source; had a friend not understand this, to wonder where their unemployment was, to get their first check after their severance ran out.
  - abfan1127 6y ago
    these particular people were furloughed with pay. I won't speak for all people because obviously there are many diverse situations.

paulmd 6y ago

the $600/month is already gone and businesses still can't get employees. It's not the boogeyman you're looking for, you need to take a deeper look at why that might be. two of your three examples are plague-pit jobs that will involve the employee interfacing with the public and getting sick, probably bankrupting themselves with medical bills. that's the real problem. it's a free market, and if you can't retain employees that's because you're not offering enough. Offer someone $1m a year to work in your casino, they'll take it (even during a pandemic) and you know it. Now we're just negotiating over the price. Start offering $60k, maybe $70k, and full health coverage to balance out, you know, risking your life and long term financial health so Karen can get her gyro, and people will take it. The real underlying problem is that a lot of these businesses are essentially bankrupt already, they are the walking dead, their business model will no longer work due to the pandemic (they relied on not paying for their employees' health care and that's no longer a viable scheme with the pandemic on) and they're demanding what amount to subsidies (artificial reductions on the cost of labor, for which the clearing price has risen due to increased personal risk) in order to stay afloat. taking away unemployment benefits isn't going to bring customers back to your subway, it's over for a significant number of businesses and the owners are pleading to delay the inevitable. This is the economic impact that people wanted to pretend didn't exist, there is no reason the stock market should be bouncing against an all-time high when our economy dived 33% annualized rate this quarter and the pandemic is spreading faster than ever.

abfan1127 6y ago
the $600/month just ran out, and now they are returning. But its been months. plague pit? risking your life? that's pretty dramatic. They're not mid 90s LA inner city police officers. They're not 1900s sky scraper metal workers. The drive to work is about as risky as the work itself. Many of these businesses will die (if they haven't already), and these people will have no jobs to go back to...
- paulmd 6y ago
  The unemployment boost isn't going to fix the economy. Unemployment only distorts the economy by competing for labor if we're at full economic output, which we're not. The economy is collapsing at a 33% annualized rate, the fastest in recorded economic history. You're looking at a crashing economy and suggesting that the real problem is the only brace still propping it up, and suggesting that we knock it out. Many of these businesses are going to die regardless, because of the failed pandemic response, the failure to enact a sufficient degree of stimulus, and because these businesses are no longer viable with an ongoing pandemic. And yes, I said plague pit. How in the world do you think it's reasonable for an employee that is not provided with any health insurance (or a bronze plan or whatever) to risk an infection that can stick you with a $1.1m bill, for $7.50 an hour? Employees are, shall we say, not going to respond to that economic incentive, that's not a reasonable trade from any perspective. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/breaking-down-this-miracle-covid-19-survivors-11-million-hospital-bill-2020-06-16 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/breaking-down-this-miracle... Instead, they will stay at home, and 33% of renters are going to miss their payment this month, just as the article says. As they said in 2008: if you don't pay your mortgage this month, you have a problem. If 33% of people don't pay their mortgage this month... the bank has a problem. The reality is that businesses that require interfacing with the public are going to see a downturn in customers no matter what, and are going to have to start paying for their employees' health care, no matter what. You can't expect people to take on a near-certainty of an extraordinarily expensive hospital stay for $7.50 per hour. People won't do that, and customers aren't coming into the business at the same rate they used to anyway. Those businesses are walking dead and forcing employees to accept sub-market wages to get them back to work won't help that.

didibus 6y ago

Serious question, do they even have customers? Everyone is talking about the employees not wanting to go back to work, but as far as I can tell, I don't think the customers want to go to the businesses either.

abfan1127 6y ago
of the employers I know - Restaurants - low levels of demand, but not zero. private security - still high demand for services. casino - regular gamblers + all of the people with new money ($600/wk).
- didibus 6y ago
  Interesting. My feelings are, restaurants just don't have the demand anyways, and if private security and casinos do, why can't they raise their wages? I still personally think the crux is lack of demand. I don't think the customers exist anymore that would be willing to pay enough to account for the extra cost of the business given Covid. And one of those cost include safety precautions to their employees. As an example, Amazon was able to hire 175000 additional workers through the pandemic, even though they were getting unemployment checks. So I think it's naive to think that removing unemployment is what will save those business. But I'm not a zealot on this, that's just my current rationale. I'm welcoming counter points.
  - abfan1127 6y ago
    I don't think removing unemployment will save these particular businesses. I just acknowledge the moral hazard of paying such high unemployment. I also think many (if not most) people would rather work. I also know personally many people (but not most) who would rather sit on the butts than work. I recall (long time ago) that Germany's unemployment included a list that employers could use to find workers. If an unemployed person was offered a job, they were cut from unemployment. Our current system has people claiming unemployment, getting more money that working. This created a situation that employer could complain to the government, but then the employee feels "cheated" and brings those negative feelings back to work... not exactly a good situation. The current system has all sorts of moral hazard and unintended consequences. I could provide a policy recommendation, but that's really out of scope for a small discussion forum. I do appreciate your discussion though!

Nasrudith 6y ago

It says that the jobs and/or payment are bad enough that people would procrastinate actually taking them when unemployment is sky high.