12 ms·

Neither. If employers really wanted more workers, they'd up wages. If employees really wanted to work they'd settle for less. If neither is happening then ev

Neither. If employers really wanted more workers, they'd up wages. If employees really wanted to work they'd settle for less. If neither is happening then everyone is happy and anyone complaining is a liar in the economic sense.

mc32 6y ago
Apparently close to 30% of household income right now is from government payments. I think on average people are getting the equiv of $15/hr from gov checks. So for people to want to work it’s going to have to exceed that by some non trivial amount.
- jnwatson 6y ago
  Ultimately, this is a problem with all government benefits with an strict binary income limit. The result is that, in some circumstances, earning 1 more dollar results in losing thousands of dollars. The marginal income tax system was set up this way for a reason. If these unemployment benefits were paid out UBI-style, regardless of current employment, there wouldn't be a disincentive to find work.
  - petre 6y ago
    > earning 1 more dollar results in losing thousands of dollars They might either go out of business or automate those roles if they can't afford to pay blue collar workers a living wage. I'm not a socialist, but some business do rip off low income workers. So they might as well cease to exist if they can't find workers to rip off, instead of claiming that people are lazy.
  - christophilus 6y ago
    > The result is that, in some circumstances, earning 1 more dollar results in losing thousands of dollars. I think your new marginal rate only applies to anything over the limit that bumped you into a new tax bracket, so I don’t think this is right. A raise always gets you more money. The exception being if it bumps you out of the government assisted healthcare bracket. Then, a raise could indeed be a loss. Edit: I thought you were talking about income tax, but you might have been talking about business subsidies, which I know nothing about.
    - somebodythere 6y ago
      They are talking about welfare benefits. Many of these are structured so that the marginal dollar you earn results in $0.75 to $1000+ being taken away from you in benefits.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I'm a brit so I'm far from an expert but I though you kept the US covid payouts whether you worked or not? (unless you earn something like 400k a year)? Sorry if I'm missing your point...
  - jpindar 6y ago
    The three individual "stimulus checks" went to everyone whether they worked or not. But in addition, unemployed people have been getting unprecedented amounts of weekly Unemployment Insurance payments. In normal times, you can only get these for a few months while proving that you are actively looking for work. During the pandemic, these have been extended and greatly increased, and the government has mostly stopped checking whether people were really looking for work. The normal rules are going to go back into effect soon, though.
- intergalplan 6y ago
  > Apparently close to 30% of household income right now is from government payments How much is it normally? Definitely not 0%. Also, what's "government payments"? Does it include wages to government employees, for instance? (I expect the figure is higher than normal, I'm just not sure from this how much higher)
  - mc32 6y ago
    It does not include wages. These are “welfare/unemployment benefits” These are spikes. During the last recession it spiked into the teens. Before that it was lower. So, yeah, it’s a lot of money.
    - intergalplan 6y ago
      Ah, OK—if so then the total share of all household income from all government sources must be well over 50% right now, no? Wages, pensions, (including military, in both cases, and state and local government) Social Security, et c.
- paulpauper 6y ago
  but much of that temporary.
mschuster91 6y ago
> If neither is happening then everyone is happy and anyone complaining is a liar in the economic sense. The complaining is an economic act in itself - employers whining about "unable to find workers" usually get political help as a result, either in the form of tax breaks/other subsidies or in the form of relaxed labor laws/enforcement (e.g. loosening the requirements to fire someone, reducing the amount of inspection for undocumented workers).
xondono 6y ago
This. Everyone is trying to milk the government for “support”, especially if they can get it in cash.
- colpabar 6y ago
  Why shouldn't they? The government taxes everything it possibly can, and for the past year the government has put a ton of restrictions in place that caused a lot of people to lose their jobs. It is now time for the government to start using those taxes to provide the safety net it promises us. If the pentagon can "lose" 125 billion dollars ($125,000,000,000), I really don't care that people with the ability to "milk" the gov for cash are taking advantage of that ability. It's their own money in the first place!
  - intergalplan 6y ago
    Seriously. I'd rather "deadbeat Johnny" down the street milk the government for a few hundred a month than Halliburton milk them for $50,000,000,000. At least he's gonna spend a fair bit of that money locally.
  - xondono 6y ago
    I’m not saying they shouldn’t. I’m just saying you should not be surprised of their complaints.
- Clubber 6y ago
  I mean, every year the government milks me, and it certainly is in cash.
Jiejeing 6y ago
But who even wants to work for a minimum wage job for the pleasure of it? The corporation needs labor, but the employee need money, not labor (but it happens that most common way for normal people to earn money to live is through labor).
throwaway292893 6y ago
The people with jobs paying taxes aren't very happy to support freeloaders simply taking unemployment because they don't want to work.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  I feel happy enough with the situation. No one should be forced to work a shitty job imo.
  - throwaway292893 6y ago
    Well I'm not. Now there's two anecdotes to work with. I worked a shitty job to get through college, it's a stepping stone. These jobs aren't meant to live on. They should be used as part time jobs for people transitioning in their careers, like students. When you give handouts to people who don't want to work you are not doing them any favors. They become reliant and trapped in that loop. That's not to say there shouldn't be a safety net with strict qualifications. You're doing no service to the people who need it by allowing those who don't. We should be spending money creating new, better paying jobs, not new social programs.
    - wildrhythms 6y ago
      We hear this same diatribe every time this topic comes up. "Fast food work is a stepping stone to a better job!" Have you been to a McDonalds or Wendys recently? Most of the workers are in their 30s-40s+. The concept of a low-wage "stepping stone" job is a fallacy that people have subscribed to to justify paying unlivable wages.
      - throwaway292893 6y ago
        That's not my experience, I mostly see teens and sometimes one or two adults. Do you have a source backing up that claim? > We should be spending money creating new, better paying jobs, not new social programs.
- 6y ago
itronitron 6y ago
There is also a nasty waiting game that is playing out right now. Employers don't really want to hire people that need a paycheck as those people, if hired, are more likely to ask for more sooner. So employers have no incentive to advertise higher wages for an open position because they will just get more applicants from people who 'need money', not necessarily better applicants.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  I don't think a lot of people work in fulfillment centers, construction, fast food, or retail because they love the job. Most people are there because they "need money". If employers think otherwise they have been drinking too much of their own coolaid about "passion".

mc32 6y ago

Apparently close to 30% of household income right now is from government payments. I think on average people are getting the equiv of $15/hr from gov checks. So for people to want to work it’s going to have to exceed that by some non trivial amount.

jnwatson 6y ago
Ultimately, this is a problem with all government benefits with an strict binary income limit. The result is that, in some circumstances, earning 1 more dollar results in losing thousands of dollars. The marginal income tax system was set up this way for a reason. If these unemployment benefits were paid out UBI-style, regardless of current employment, there wouldn't be a disincentive to find work.
- petre 6y ago
  > earning 1 more dollar results in losing thousands of dollars They might either go out of business or automate those roles if they can't afford to pay blue collar workers a living wage. I'm not a socialist, but some business do rip off low income workers. So they might as well cease to exist if they can't find workers to rip off, instead of claiming that people are lazy.
- christophilus 6y ago
  > The result is that, in some circumstances, earning 1 more dollar results in losing thousands of dollars. I think your new marginal rate only applies to anything over the limit that bumped you into a new tax bracket, so I don’t think this is right. A raise always gets you more money. The exception being if it bumps you out of the government assisted healthcare bracket. Then, a raise could indeed be a loss. Edit: I thought you were talking about income tax, but you might have been talking about business subsidies, which I know nothing about.
  - somebodythere 6y ago
    They are talking about welfare benefits. Many of these are structured so that the marginal dollar you earn results in $0.75 to $1000+ being taken away from you in benefits.
LatteLazy 6y ago
I'm a brit so I'm far from an expert but I though you kept the US covid payouts whether you worked or not? (unless you earn something like 400k a year)? Sorry if I'm missing your point...
- jpindar 6y ago
  The three individual "stimulus checks" went to everyone whether they worked or not. But in addition, unemployed people have been getting unprecedented amounts of weekly Unemployment Insurance payments. In normal times, you can only get these for a few months while proving that you are actively looking for work. During the pandemic, these have been extended and greatly increased, and the government has mostly stopped checking whether people were really looking for work. The normal rules are going to go back into effect soon, though.
intergalplan 6y ago
> Apparently close to 30% of household income right now is from government payments How much is it normally? Definitely not 0%. Also, what's "government payments"? Does it include wages to government employees, for instance? (I expect the figure is higher than normal, I'm just not sure from this how much higher)
- mc32 6y ago
  It does not include wages. These are “welfare/unemployment benefits” These are spikes. During the last recession it spiked into the teens. Before that it was lower. So, yeah, it’s a lot of money.
  - intergalplan 6y ago
    Ah, OK—if so then the total share of all household income from all government sources must be well over 50% right now, no? Wages, pensions, (including military, in both cases, and state and local government) Social Security, et c.
paulpauper 6y ago
but much of that temporary.

mschuster91 6y ago

> If neither is happening then everyone is happy and anyone complaining is a liar in the economic sense. The complaining is an economic act in itself - employers whining about "unable to find workers" usually get political help as a result, either in the form of tax breaks/other subsidies or in the form of relaxed labor laws/enforcement (e.g. loosening the requirements to fire someone, reducing the amount of inspection for undocumented workers).

xondono 6y ago

This. Everyone is trying to milk the government for “support”, especially if they can get it in cash.

colpabar 6y ago
Why shouldn't they? The government taxes everything it possibly can, and for the past year the government has put a ton of restrictions in place that caused a lot of people to lose their jobs. It is now time for the government to start using those taxes to provide the safety net it promises us. If the pentagon can "lose" 125 billion dollars ($125,000,000,000), I really don't care that people with the ability to "milk" the gov for cash are taking advantage of that ability. It's their own money in the first place!
- intergalplan 6y ago
  Seriously. I'd rather "deadbeat Johnny" down the street milk the government for a few hundred a month than Halliburton milk them for $50,000,000,000. At least he's gonna spend a fair bit of that money locally.
- xondono 6y ago
  I’m not saying they shouldn’t. I’m just saying you should not be surprised of their complaints.
Clubber 6y ago
I mean, every year the government milks me, and it certainly is in cash.

Jiejeing 6y ago

But who even wants to work for a minimum wage job for the pleasure of it? The corporation needs labor, but the employee need money, not labor (but it happens that most common way for normal people to earn money to live is through labor).

throwaway292893 6y ago

The people with jobs paying taxes aren't very happy to support freeloaders simply taking unemployment because they don't want to work.

colinmhayes 6y ago
I feel happy enough with the situation. No one should be forced to work a shitty job imo.
- throwaway292893 6y ago
  Well I'm not. Now there's two anecdotes to work with. I worked a shitty job to get through college, it's a stepping stone. These jobs aren't meant to live on. They should be used as part time jobs for people transitioning in their careers, like students. When you give handouts to people who don't want to work you are not doing them any favors. They become reliant and trapped in that loop. That's not to say there shouldn't be a safety net with strict qualifications. You're doing no service to the people who need it by allowing those who don't. We should be spending money creating new, better paying jobs, not new social programs.
  - wildrhythms 6y ago
    We hear this same diatribe every time this topic comes up. "Fast food work is a stepping stone to a better job!" Have you been to a McDonalds or Wendys recently? Most of the workers are in their 30s-40s+. The concept of a low-wage "stepping stone" job is a fallacy that people have subscribed to to justify paying unlivable wages.
    - throwaway292893 6y ago
      That's not my experience, I mostly see teens and sometimes one or two adults. Do you have a source backing up that claim? > We should be spending money creating new, better paying jobs, not new social programs.
6y ago

itronitron 6y ago

There is also a nasty waiting game that is playing out right now. Employers don't really want to hire people that need a paycheck as those people, if hired, are more likely to ask for more sooner. So employers have no incentive to advertise higher wages for an open position because they will just get more applicants from people who 'need money', not necessarily better applicants.

AlexandrB 6y ago
I don't think a lot of people work in fulfillment centers, construction, fast food, or retail because they love the job. Most people are there because they "need money". If employers think otherwise they have been drinking too much of their own coolaid about "passion".