5 ms·

I might be missing some obvious point, but I think that your premise assumes (all/majority) of people are lazy. From the greatest utility viewpoint, if being un

I might be missing some obvious point, but I think that your premise assumes (all/majority) of people are lazy. From the greatest utility viewpoint, if being unemployed (vs "lazy") gives liveable monetary benefits vs the employment's barely-scraping-the-barrel-and-dieing-at-it unliveable one, it is only logical for one not to work, and "laziness" shouldn't really even be considered a factor. Unemployment benefits should (at least?) provide for/cover the living essentials. Therefore, the question should be "what if the (minimum) wage/pay provided (at least the same) liveable value"? [Or, rather, that is the problem.] Coupled with the potential ability to advance above the minimum wage and earn more, majority of people would choose to work. I believe that well-known USA minimum wage stagnation graph says enough. (Disclaimer: I am not a citizen of USA, but I believe I am, frankly, more familiar with its policies vs my own (EU) country's... and that has only taught me that I shouldn't even contemplate living in the USA. [Personal opinion based on an informal cost/benefit/risks analysis.])

Izkata 5y ago
I don't think laziness is their premise, but rather the result - I think GP is referring to: > Therefore, the question should be "what if the (minimum) wage/pay provided (at least the same) liveable value"? [Or, rather, that is the problem.] Unemployment was boosted during the pandemic to where a large percentage of low-skilled workers had exactly that cost/benefit to consider: Unemployment paid more than the job they lost, and now employers are looking to get them back without a raise.
- wernercd 5y ago
  It's not the premise - although there are a lot of lazy people in the world (I'm one of them without hesitation or denials). This is the brunt of it: It's not worth it to work when the benefits of being unemployed is more than a "low paying" job. Those low paying jobs aren't worth more (Flipping burgers can only generate so much money - same for stocking shelves and other low experience jobs). Raises or not the fact remains its better to be unemployed than having a number of jobs. The fact that people choose to remain on benefits instead of working is only tangentially related to "laziness". If I can be unemployed and get 50k/year in unemployment, health care, free phones, living assistance, food stamps, etc... or I can do a minimum wage job and make 30k and lose all the benefits? The math is simple... it's more "profitable" to be unemployed for most people. My original post may be phrased wrongly - people seem to be hung up on the world "lazy". It could be phrased differently but the fact remains that the US "benefits" system is broken and is a large part of the problem. We need help but we shouldn't have such large portions of the population enslaved to "handouts" with a massive benefits wall in the way of personal freedom. https://www.budget.senate.gov/newsroom/budget-background/the-welfare-cliff-how-the-benefit-scale-discourages-work https://www.budget.senate.gov/newsroom/budget-background/the... > The ‘Welfare Cliff’: How The Benefit Scale Discourages Work > ... > The dramatic rise in welfare spending has created a “welfare cliff.” As more people have become eligible for increasingly larger benefits, the “penalty” for working—lost benefits due to increased income—has steepened and been described by analysts as the “welfare cliff.” This has been especially true for workers near the poverty line who are eligible for multiple programs (e.g., food stamps, Medicaid, the EITC, TANF, and subsidized public housing), as workers reach a point where every additional dollar earned can result in a more than 50 percent reduction in benefits. > ... > For example, the CBO study found that households with incomes just above the poverty line—or between $23,000 and $29,000 for a family of four in 2012—stand to lose 60 cents of every additional dollar to either taxes or lost federal benefits. In the face of such a high penalty, many low-income people choose either not to work or, as CBO finds, “put in fewer hours or be less productive.”
  - Izkata 5y ago
    I have no idea why I got upvoted and you got downvoted, these are the exact same phenomena (a local maxima that's hard to get out of), just at different income levels due to different sources of unemployment benefits.
    - wernercd 5y ago
      I think it's the wording from my first post (all the focus on "lazy" - bad choice of word I know. Completely sidetracks my real point and can't edit the post at this point to word it better.) and sometimes that's just the way these things ebb and flow. I grew up with help (food stamps, dried milk and government cheese and all that) and think it is needed... to an extent... but I also think that the incentives create a "wall" that's hard to get over where as you make more money, you make little more and lose a LOT of "benefits". You have to go from, say, $20k/year to 50k/year go not "lose" by working more - and that's a HUGE hump that a large number of people look at and say "Why?". But I digress. I'll make similar statements in different threads and get up voted or downvoted at seemingly random. The internet gods just aren't happy with me today.
wernercd 5y ago
Most seem hung up on the word lazy and I guess it should be changed as that's not the brunt of my post. My point is that benefits give you, say, 65k a year in benefits... when you start working at a 20k a year job, you lose 40k in benefits. https://www.budget.senate.gov/newsroom/budget-background/the-welfare-cliff-how-the-benefit-scale-discourages-work https://www.budget.senate.gov/newsroom/budget-background/the... > The dramatic rise in welfare spending has created a “welfare cliff.” As more people have become eligible for increasingly larger benefits, the “penalty” for working—lost benefits due to increased income—has steepened and been described by analysts as the “welfare cliff.” This has been especially true for workers near the poverty line who are eligible for multiple programs (e.g., food stamps, Medicaid, the EITC, TANF, and subsidized public housing), as workers reach a point where every additional dollar earned can result in a more than 50 percent reduction in benefits. If you scratch out the word "lazy" and instead have me say that the government is handing out benefits that create a perverse incentive to stay unemployed/underemployed because it's literally a cut in pay to get a job for a large number of people. > For example, the CBO study found that households with incomes just above the poverty line—or between $23,000 and $29,000 for a family of four in 2012—stand to lose 60 cents of every additional dollar to either taxes or lost federal benefits. In the face of such a high penalty, many low-income people choose either not to work or, as CBO finds, “put in fewer hours or be less productive.” These people are trapped in a place where working for $20k a year isn't worth losing $40k a year in benefits (or more)

Izkata 5y ago

I don't think laziness is their premise, but rather the result - I think GP is referring to: > Therefore, the question should be "what if the (minimum) wage/pay provided (at least the same) liveable value"? [Or, rather, that is the problem.] Unemployment was boosted during the pandemic to where a large percentage of low-skilled workers had exactly that cost/benefit to consider: Unemployment paid more than the job they lost, and now employers are looking to get them back without a raise.

wernercd 5y ago
It's not the premise - although there are a lot of lazy people in the world (I'm one of them without hesitation or denials). This is the brunt of it: It's not worth it to work when the benefits of being unemployed is more than a "low paying" job. Those low paying jobs aren't worth more (Flipping burgers can only generate so much money - same for stocking shelves and other low experience jobs). Raises or not the fact remains its better to be unemployed than having a number of jobs. The fact that people choose to remain on benefits instead of working is only tangentially related to "laziness". If I can be unemployed and get 50k/year in unemployment, health care, free phones, living assistance, food stamps, etc... or I can do a minimum wage job and make 30k and lose all the benefits? The math is simple... it's more "profitable" to be unemployed for most people. My original post may be phrased wrongly - people seem to be hung up on the world "lazy". It could be phrased differently but the fact remains that the US "benefits" system is broken and is a large part of the problem. We need help but we shouldn't have such large portions of the population enslaved to "handouts" with a massive benefits wall in the way of personal freedom. https://www.budget.senate.gov/newsroom/budget-background/the-welfare-cliff-how-the-benefit-scale-discourages-work https://www.budget.senate.gov/newsroom/budget-background/the... > The ‘Welfare Cliff’: How The Benefit Scale Discourages Work > ... > The dramatic rise in welfare spending has created a “welfare cliff.” As more people have become eligible for increasingly larger benefits, the “penalty” for working—lost benefits due to increased income—has steepened and been described by analysts as the “welfare cliff.” This has been especially true for workers near the poverty line who are eligible for multiple programs (e.g., food stamps, Medicaid, the EITC, TANF, and subsidized public housing), as workers reach a point where every additional dollar earned can result in a more than 50 percent reduction in benefits. > ... > For example, the CBO study found that households with incomes just above the poverty line—or between $23,000 and $29,000 for a family of four in 2012—stand to lose 60 cents of every additional dollar to either taxes or lost federal benefits. In the face of such a high penalty, many low-income people choose either not to work or, as CBO finds, “put in fewer hours or be less productive.”
- Izkata 5y ago
  I have no idea why I got upvoted and you got downvoted, these are the exact same phenomena (a local maxima that's hard to get out of), just at different income levels due to different sources of unemployment benefits.
  - wernercd 5y ago
    I think it's the wording from my first post (all the focus on "lazy" - bad choice of word I know. Completely sidetracks my real point and can't edit the post at this point to word it better.) and sometimes that's just the way these things ebb and flow. I grew up with help (food stamps, dried milk and government cheese and all that) and think it is needed... to an extent... but I also think that the incentives create a "wall" that's hard to get over where as you make more money, you make little more and lose a LOT of "benefits". You have to go from, say, $20k/year to 50k/year go not "lose" by working more - and that's a HUGE hump that a large number of people look at and say "Why?". But I digress. I'll make similar statements in different threads and get up voted or downvoted at seemingly random. The internet gods just aren't happy with me today.

wernercd 5y ago

Most seem hung up on the word lazy and I guess it should be changed as that's not the brunt of my post. My point is that benefits give you, say, 65k a year in benefits... when you start working at a 20k a year job, you lose 40k in benefits. https://www.budget.senate.gov/newsroom/budget-background/the-welfare-cliff-how-the-benefit-scale-discourages-work https://www.budget.senate.gov/newsroom/budget-background/the... > The dramatic rise in welfare spending has created a “welfare cliff.” As more people have become eligible for increasingly larger benefits, the “penalty” for working—lost benefits due to increased income—has steepened and been described by analysts as the “welfare cliff.” This has been especially true for workers near the poverty line who are eligible for multiple programs (e.g., food stamps, Medicaid, the EITC, TANF, and subsidized public housing), as workers reach a point where every additional dollar earned can result in a more than 50 percent reduction in benefits. If you scratch out the word "lazy" and instead have me say that the government is handing out benefits that create a perverse incentive to stay unemployed/underemployed because it's literally a cut in pay to get a job for a large number of people. > For example, the CBO study found that households with incomes just above the poverty line—or between $23,000 and $29,000 for a family of four in 2012—stand to lose 60 cents of every additional dollar to either taxes or lost federal benefits. In the face of such a high penalty, many low-income people choose either not to work or, as CBO finds, “put in fewer hours or be less productive.” These people are trapped in a place where working for $20k a year isn't worth losing $40k a year in benefits (or more)