4 ms·

$600/week is $30K/year annualized. Minimum wage ranges as low as $240/week depending on the State, so for many coming from those jobs this has been a bumper cou

by koolba 6y ago

$600/week is $30K/year annualized. Minimum wage ranges as low as $240/week depending on the State, so for many coming from those jobs this has been a bumper couple of months.

throwaway9980 6y ago
Personally know a business owner whose employees refuse to come back full time. They are still (were) getting the $600 booster despite earning 80-90% of their previous take home. And getting a small “normal” unemployment benefit from the state. Business owner reports as required and tells the employees that what they are doing may not be the best idea.
- koolba 6y ago
  The worst situation I’ve seen are workers that work primarily on commissions and were not laid off. They’re stuck at their State minimums without any “Covid bonus” while seeing others get $1000/week sitting at home. It’s very perverse.
  - orangecat 6y ago
    Yeah. This would have been a good time to introduce UBI, but instead we doubled down on the perverse incentives of existing welfare systems.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- Spooky23 6y ago
  UI audit is based on samples, and most labor departments process more claims in March-July than they did in the last 5 years. It’s a smart move for the employee to stay away, especially if the job pays that shitty.
  - throwaway9980 6y ago
    I wasn’t clear. The employees have returned to work. They are working less than full time hours in order to show diminished earnings and receive the $600 unemployment boost. They are receiving 80-90% of their normal wages from their employer and receiving unemployment benefits in addition to that.
    - lupire 6y ago
      That's working as designed. There's less work so people should work fewer hours and share the work.
      - throwaway9980 6y ago
        That’s not the situation I am describing. There is no shortage of work for this particular business. The business owner wants all of the employees to return to full time hours. As a group they are unwilling to work full time hours because they would lose the $600 booster.
jdeibele 6y ago
We had a dispute between employees of a coffee shop and the owners spill over onto our neighborhood mailing list. The owners wanted all employees to be available to work 8-10 hours/week. Employees were understandably not thrilled about a few hours of work (even at $13.25, Portland minimum wage as of 7/1/20) knocking out the $600/week federal plus whatever state unemployment they were getting. Employee who posted said that the owners would report anyone who wouldn't work as having quit. Much discussion followed.
- ideals 6y ago
  Cherry Street Coffee in Seattle (local chain) did the same but a bit more brash. They sent out texts to all employees after having no contact with them saying you must come back to work now or we will report it as refusal and also never allow those people to be eligible for employment again. No concern for people who may have already found new employment since the company abruptly laid them all off, you don't come back and you can never come back. Forced loyalists is a weird strat
- jellicle 6y ago
  For what it's worth, the employer is in the wrong; the employee need not go back to a materially worse job (as a demotion from 40 hours to 8-10 hours would be) and can continue receiving unemployment and looking for a comparable job.
  - coryrc 6y ago
    They can also work less than they used to and still collect unemployment.
dehrmann 6y ago
While I applaud congress for moving fast in March and April to get money out to people, there were bound to be holes in the act, and paying people more while on unemployment than they were previously making is one of them. It's not that I see it as a disincentive to work, but something feels very unfair about it, making for bad optics. I'm surprised the Democrats are pushing so hard for $600 without the caveat that unemployment won't pay more than you were previously making. Seems like a pretty easy compromise.
- bjo590 6y ago
  It's an election year. $600/week is a great motivator to encourage first time voters (and potential life long voters). I'm not surprised they want to be seen as fighting hard for down on their luck workers more than they want to compromise to help down on their luck workers.
- maximente 6y ago
  depends on one's priorities. that "extra" cash likely prevented an even worse pandemic outcome in the US, as paying people to say home (which is what this amounted to, essentially) was among the best public health outcomes that the US could have had engineered. a rare bug-turned-feature outcome.
  - refurb 6y ago
    As far as I understand the $600 was for people who were on unemployment, so they had no job to go to.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Most people I've seen have simply been using that mismatch to push a higher minimum wage (of, say, $15, which a lot of people have been pushing for for a while, and is the same as $600 a week).
- rhizome 6y ago
  Have any PPP recipients profited from the stimulus?
- 6y ago

by koolba 6y ago

$600/week is $30K/year annualized. Minimum wage ranges as low as $240/week depending on the State, so for many coming from those jobs this has been a bumper couple of months.

throwaway9980 6y ago

Personally know a business owner whose employees refuse to come back full time. They are still (were) getting the $600 booster despite earning 80-90% of their previous take home. And getting a small “normal” unemployment benefit from the state. Business owner reports as required and tells the employees that what they are doing may not be the best idea.

koolba 6y ago
The worst situation I’ve seen are workers that work primarily on commissions and were not laid off. They’re stuck at their State minimums without any “Covid bonus” while seeing others get $1000/week sitting at home. It’s very perverse.
- orangecat 6y ago
  Yeah. This would have been a good time to introduce UBI, but instead we doubled down on the perverse incentives of existing welfare systems.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Spooky23 6y ago
UI audit is based on samples, and most labor departments process more claims in March-July than they did in the last 5 years. It’s a smart move for the employee to stay away, especially if the job pays that shitty.
- throwaway9980 6y ago
  I wasn’t clear. The employees have returned to work. They are working less than full time hours in order to show diminished earnings and receive the $600 unemployment boost. They are receiving 80-90% of their normal wages from their employer and receiving unemployment benefits in addition to that.
  - lupire 6y ago
    That's working as designed. There's less work so people should work fewer hours and share the work.
    - throwaway9980 6y ago
      That’s not the situation I am describing. There is no shortage of work for this particular business. The business owner wants all of the employees to return to full time hours. As a group they are unwilling to work full time hours because they would lose the $600 booster.

jdeibele 6y ago

We had a dispute between employees of a coffee shop and the owners spill over onto our neighborhood mailing list. The owners wanted all employees to be available to work 8-10 hours/week. Employees were understandably not thrilled about a few hours of work (even at $13.25, Portland minimum wage as of 7/1/20) knocking out the $600/week federal plus whatever state unemployment they were getting. Employee who posted said that the owners would report anyone who wouldn't work as having quit. Much discussion followed.

ideals 6y ago
Cherry Street Coffee in Seattle (local chain) did the same but a bit more brash. They sent out texts to all employees after having no contact with them saying you must come back to work now or we will report it as refusal and also never allow those people to be eligible for employment again. No concern for people who may have already found new employment since the company abruptly laid them all off, you don't come back and you can never come back. Forced loyalists is a weird strat
jellicle 6y ago
For what it's worth, the employer is in the wrong; the employee need not go back to a materially worse job (as a demotion from 40 hours to 8-10 hours would be) and can continue receiving unemployment and looking for a comparable job.
- coryrc 6y ago
  They can also work less than they used to and still collect unemployment.

dehrmann 6y ago

While I applaud congress for moving fast in March and April to get money out to people, there were bound to be holes in the act, and paying people more while on unemployment than they were previously making is one of them. It's not that I see it as a disincentive to work, but something feels very unfair about it, making for bad optics. I'm surprised the Democrats are pushing so hard for $600 without the caveat that unemployment won't pay more than you were previously making. Seems like a pretty easy compromise.

bjo590 6y ago
It's an election year. $600/week is a great motivator to encourage first time voters (and potential life long voters). I'm not surprised they want to be seen as fighting hard for down on their luck workers more than they want to compromise to help down on their luck workers.
maximente 6y ago
depends on one's priorities. that "extra" cash likely prevented an even worse pandemic outcome in the US, as paying people to say home (which is what this amounted to, essentially) was among the best public health outcomes that the US could have had engineered. a rare bug-turned-feature outcome.
- refurb 6y ago
  As far as I understand the $600 was for people who were on unemployment, so they had no job to go to.
joshuamorton 6y ago
Most people I've seen have simply been using that mismatch to push a higher minimum wage (of, say, $15, which a lot of people have been pushing for for a while, and is the same as $600 a week).
rhizome 6y ago
Have any PPP recipients profited from the stimulus?
6y ago