3 ms·

It looks like Montana believes their unemployment benefits are too generous. I suspect the real issue here is that low-end employers should be paying more. Mont

It looks like Montana believes their unemployment benefits are too generous. I suspect the real issue here is that low-end employers should be paying more. Montana intends to get rid of some people’s best option (unemployment benefits) and is hoping it will force those people to go with their next best alternative; a job that pays less than the previous unemployment benefits. I’m not sure the one-time bonus makes up for it. Regardless: “Different papers have established that the extra $600 in benefits distributed earlier in the pandemic had limited labor supply effects and likely didn’t disincentivize work, including one by the National Bureau of Economic Research and another by Yale University. The current supplemental benefit is worth half of what those papers reviewed.”

jl2718 5y ago
> Job that pays less than unemployment benefits.... Yeah that’s pretty much exactly why they reduced unemployment benefits. You seriously think it’s a good idea to pay people more to do nothing than they would get for their best option for doing something useful for somebody else? You know the money comes from other people, right? Other people that work. And if they refuse to pay, they get arrested, and if they refuse arrest, they get shot. So, given that the potential punishment for work includes death, why would anybody do that? I mean, somebody has to, right?
- konaraddi 5y ago
  > You seriously think it’s a good idea to pay people more to do nothing than they would get for their best option for doing something useful for somebody else? Nah, please consider re-reading my comment in its entirety. The comment that I’m replying to is taking a sentence out of context, creating a straw man out of it, and then attacking it. > You know the money comes from other people, right? Yeah, definitely > And if they refuse to pay, they get arrested, and if they refuse arrest, they get shot. So, given that the potential punishment for work includes death, why would anybody do that? Bit of a slippery slope (tax evasion, in the US, usually doesn’t lead to death at the hands of law enforcement) but yea, I agree with the sentiment here. Avoiding arrest is good (barring any justified civil disobedience)

jl2718 5y ago

> Job that pays less than unemployment benefits.... Yeah that’s pretty much exactly why they reduced unemployment benefits. You seriously think it’s a good idea to pay people more to do nothing than they would get for their best option for doing something useful for somebody else? You know the money comes from other people, right? Other people that work. And if they refuse to pay, they get arrested, and if they refuse arrest, they get shot. So, given that the potential punishment for work includes death, why would anybody do that? I mean, somebody has to, right?

konaraddi 5y ago
> You seriously think it’s a good idea to pay people more to do nothing than they would get for their best option for doing something useful for somebody else? Nah, please consider re-reading my comment in its entirety. The comment that I’m replying to is taking a sentence out of context, creating a straw man out of it, and then attacking it. > You know the money comes from other people, right? Yeah, definitely > And if they refuse to pay, they get arrested, and if they refuse arrest, they get shot. So, given that the potential punishment for work includes death, why would anybody do that? Bit of a slippery slope (tax evasion, in the US, usually doesn’t lead to death at the hands of law enforcement) but yea, I agree with the sentiment here. Avoiding arrest is good (barring any justified civil disobedience)