6 ms·

Montana resident here. I won’t comment in the wisdom of the policy itself, but I will say that people avoiding work due to CoVid benefits is a very real thing.

by orasis 5y ago

Montana resident here. I won’t comment in the wisdom of the policy itself, but I will say that people avoiding work due to CoVid benefits is a very real thing. It’s widely considered wise to go hunting and play video games rather than go to work.

falcolas 5y ago
Montana resident here. That’s anecdotal bullshit.
- listless 5y ago
  TN here with another anecdote that says it isn’t. Spoke to someone just recently who said they’ll stay on unemployment as long as they are allowed because they haven’t had to work in over a year and get to spend their time playing their favorite video games. Which, if you make as much unemployed as you do employed, it makes no sense to return to work. He’s not a bad person. He’s just optimizing.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    So these are all people who make less than $2000 a month. That's $12 an hour.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
      That's above minimum wage, isn't it (I don't know if it's different over there, but I expect it's not >$12)?
      - alienthrowaway 5y ago
        There are two ways to solve this "problem" (if you consider it to be one). Either cut the benefits, or raise the minimum wage (or pay above minimum wage). Personally, I'd rather have people dicking around, hunting and playing video games and having fun, rather than working at a soul-sucking mimimum-wage job and still be on the state's teat (getting food stamps) because the minimim wage is too low.
        damagednoob 5y ago
        I don't think tax payers have the same view as you.
        alienthrowaway 5y ago
        I am a tax payer - tax payers are also on the hook for food stamps and other costs that are a direct result of McJobs not paying enough.
        missedthecue 5y ago
        But in one case, they are being productive, in the other case, they are not. I prefer having people on the dole if they are productive rather than sitting at home entertaining themselves at my expense. There is no societal upside to that.
        Frondo 5y ago
        Taxpayer here, and former low-paid wage slave, I agree with alienthrowaway.
    - listless 5y ago
      Yes. He used to be a zip line guide, so I’m assuming it ain’t much.
greshario 5y ago
Maybe it is. What's minimum wage like there? Are low level employees guaranteed good pay, decent quality of life, sick/parental leave, and so on?
- badwolf 5y ago
  Are minimum wage employees given healthcare they can afford? You know... since there's a pandemic still going on
- orasis 5y ago
  Montana has become absolutely inundated with CoVid refugees fleeing the cities which has massively driven up housing prices and rents to the point where it's completely unaffordable for anyone working class. Businesses first got hit with being shut down by CoVid and now can't fully re-open because no one wants to work. It's a complete shitshow here and I know numerous people that have been here for decades that are being forced out.
mfer 5y ago
I'm in Michigan and I've spoken with people who either can't hire or don't want to work because of the amount they get on unemployment. They would rather stay home and collect than contribute. Even in jobs that are naturally socially distant. It's anecdotal, sure. I would love to see some studies on it or even just data.
- etrabroline 5y ago
  >making mimimum wage >contribute I think you need to consider how screwed by outsourcing and immigration working class Americans have been for the past 30 years.
murph-almighty 5y ago
A simple solution to this problem could be employers paying more than unemployment. But nah, just force people to accept shit wages.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  $300 / week is $7.50 / hour. $7.50 / hour is a pittance. This is what the point of a social safety net is. If you can't work, you get a pittance, but enough to live on. And if nobody around wants to pay you enough to live on, you don't have to take their starvation wages.
  - calvano915 5y ago
    $300/ week is just the federal boost. There is an underlying base payment of UI that you ignored. Thus the "hourly" of UI is much more than $7.50
    - nerdponx 5y ago
      Fair point. If you use https://uid.dli.mt.gov/claimants/benefits-estimator https://uid.dli.mt.gov/claimants/benefits-estimator to estimate your benefit for $40k/yr ($10k/qtr) you get $400/week, so with the extra PUA program it's $700/week. $400/week is $10/hour. $700/week is $17.50/hour. At 40 hours/week, $17.50/hour is $36,400 for 52 weeks. It's arguably more than a pittance, but it's only 1.3x the federal poverty level for a family of 4. It also effectively sets a $17.50 price floor on labor for anyone who is eligible for the PUA program. I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing. Employers would have to raise wages and raise prices a bit to compensate. I have seen a handful of papers with evidence that price increases are generally a lot smaller than minimum wage increases, so I'm not worried about it just turning into inflation. But I am not an economist so I don't want to make claims that I can't back up.
- snicker7 5y ago
  For some people, no amount of money is worth their time. Work only enough to survive. And if the government can take care of that, then it is not worthwhile to seek employment regardless of wages.

by orasis 5y ago

falcolas 5y ago

Montana resident here. That’s anecdotal bullshit.

listless 5y ago
TN here with another anecdote that says it isn’t. Spoke to someone just recently who said they’ll stay on unemployment as long as they are allowed because they haven’t had to work in over a year and get to spend their time playing their favorite video games. Which, if you make as much unemployed as you do employed, it makes no sense to return to work. He’s not a bad person. He’s just optimizing.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  So these are all people who make less than $2000 a month. That's $12 an hour.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    That's above minimum wage, isn't it (I don't know if it's different over there, but I expect it's not >$12)?
    - alienthrowaway 5y ago
      There are two ways to solve this "problem" (if you consider it to be one). Either cut the benefits, or raise the minimum wage (or pay above minimum wage). Personally, I'd rather have people dicking around, hunting and playing video games and having fun, rather than working at a soul-sucking mimimum-wage job and still be on the state's teat (getting food stamps) because the minimim wage is too low.
      - damagednoob 5y ago
        I don't think tax payers have the same view as you.
        alienthrowaway 5y ago
        I am a tax payer - tax payers are also on the hook for food stamps and other costs that are a direct result of McJobs not paying enough.
        missedthecue 5y ago
        But in one case, they are being productive, in the other case, they are not. I prefer having people on the dole if they are productive rather than sitting at home entertaining themselves at my expense. There is no societal upside to that.
        Frondo 5y ago
        Taxpayer here, and former low-paid wage slave, I agree with alienthrowaway.
  - listless 5y ago
    Yes. He used to be a zip line guide, so I’m assuming it ain’t much.

greshario 5y ago

Maybe it is. What's minimum wage like there? Are low level employees guaranteed good pay, decent quality of life, sick/parental leave, and so on?

badwolf 5y ago
Are minimum wage employees given healthcare they can afford? You know... since there's a pandemic still going on
orasis 5y ago
Montana has become absolutely inundated with CoVid refugees fleeing the cities which has massively driven up housing prices and rents to the point where it's completely unaffordable for anyone working class. Businesses first got hit with being shut down by CoVid and now can't fully re-open because no one wants to work. It's a complete shitshow here and I know numerous people that have been here for decades that are being forced out.

mfer 5y ago

I'm in Michigan and I've spoken with people who either can't hire or don't want to work because of the amount they get on unemployment. They would rather stay home and collect than contribute. Even in jobs that are naturally socially distant. It's anecdotal, sure. I would love to see some studies on it or even just data.

etrabroline 5y ago
>making mimimum wage >contribute I think you need to consider how screwed by outsourcing and immigration working class Americans have been for the past 30 years.

murph-almighty 5y ago

A simple solution to this problem could be employers paying more than unemployment. But nah, just force people to accept shit wages.

nerdponx 5y ago
$300 / week is $7.50 / hour. $7.50 / hour is a pittance. This is what the point of a social safety net is. If you can't work, you get a pittance, but enough to live on. And if nobody around wants to pay you enough to live on, you don't have to take their starvation wages.
- calvano915 5y ago
  $300/ week is just the federal boost. There is an underlying base payment of UI that you ignored. Thus the "hourly" of UI is much more than $7.50
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    Fair point. If you use https://uid.dli.mt.gov/claimants/benefits-estimator https://uid.dli.mt.gov/claimants/benefits-estimator to estimate your benefit for $40k/yr ($10k/qtr) you get $400/week, so with the extra PUA program it's $700/week. $400/week is $10/hour. $700/week is $17.50/hour. At 40 hours/week, $17.50/hour is $36,400 for 52 weeks. It's arguably more than a pittance, but it's only 1.3x the federal poverty level for a family of 4. It also effectively sets a $17.50 price floor on labor for anyone who is eligible for the PUA program. I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing. Employers would have to raise wages and raise prices a bit to compensate. I have seen a handful of papers with evidence that price increases are generally a lot smaller than minimum wage increases, so I'm not worried about it just turning into inflation. But I am not an economist so I don't want to make claims that I can't back up.
snicker7 5y ago
For some people, no amount of money is worth their time. Work only enough to survive. And if the government can take care of that, then it is not worthwhile to seek employment regardless of wages.