4 ms·

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.
josephcsible 5y ago
Employers paying more wouldn't help much. The problem is that we've made it possible to not worry about necessities like food and housing even if you don't work at all, and for a lot of people, they'll choose to forego luxuries if it means they never have to work again.
- cdolan 5y ago
  particularly if their personal luxuries (ie internet and beer) are affordable within this income level
missedthecue 5y ago
Why should the meager cashflows of the small business be forced to compete with the money printer at the federal reserve? I'm all for companies raising wages in competitive environments. The situation at present is not a competitive environment.

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.

josephcsible 5y ago

Employers paying more wouldn't help much. The problem is that we've made it possible to not worry about necessities like food and housing even if you don't work at all, and for a lot of people, they'll choose to forego luxuries if it means they never have to work again.

cdolan 5y ago
particularly if their personal luxuries (ie internet and beer) are affordable within this income level

missedthecue 5y ago

Why should the meager cashflows of the small business be forced to compete with the money printer at the federal reserve? I'm all for companies raising wages in competitive environments. The situation at present is not a competitive environment.