4 ms·

It’s neither rational nor fact based. The government isn’t “paying people to sit at home” it’s providing the bare semblance of a social safety net (kind of, not

It’s neither rational nor fact based. The government isn’t “paying people to sit at home” it’s providing the bare semblance of a social safety net (kind of, not really) in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic. Hopefully these changes become permanent because automation continues to decrease the need for workers and wealth inequality continues to pressure the working class at historically high levels.

gruez 5y ago
>It’s neither rational nor fact based. The government isn’t “paying people to sit at home” it’s providing the bare semblance of a social safety net (kind of, not really) in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic. That might be the intent, but that's irrelevant to the actual distortionary effects that it causes on the job market that gp is talking about.
- luffapi 5y ago
  If it was fact based they would have provided those facts. They didn’t. It’s also highly irrational to suggest the government is paying people to sit at home, since they are not. The comment was correctly flagged dead for being flamebait.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >If it was fact based they would have provided those facts. What facts do we need here? That the program exists? I doubt that's in dispute. >It’s also highly irrational to suggest the government is paying people to sit at home, since they are not. 1. I think the "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." guideline[1] applies here. The weaker interpretation you seem to be using is "the government's unemployment policy was deliberately designed to get people to stay at home" (as opposed to providing safety net), but the stronger interpretation would be "the government is effectively paying people to stay at home by enacting a policy that gives people money, but will withdraw it should they find work". 2. An argument could be made that the government literally wants people to stay home, as a matter of policy. After all, there would be much less people complying with stay-at-home orders if they ran out of cash, couldn't buy food, and had to find a job. >for being flamebait. I fail to see how that's the case. If the commenter called the people on unemployment "lazy" or whatever, you may have a point, but they didn't. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
k33n 5y ago
It's entirely rational and fact based, but it does threaten the worldview of the people who parrot everything they hear in mainstream media. Americans will never let "the new normal" be permanent, and only the grossly uninformed hope otherwise.

gruez 5y ago

>It’s neither rational nor fact based. The government isn’t “paying people to sit at home” it’s providing the bare semblance of a social safety net (kind of, not really) in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic. That might be the intent, but that's irrelevant to the actual distortionary effects that it causes on the job market that gp is talking about.

luffapi 5y ago
If it was fact based they would have provided those facts. They didn’t. It’s also highly irrational to suggest the government is paying people to sit at home, since they are not. The comment was correctly flagged dead for being flamebait.
- gruez 5y ago
  >If it was fact based they would have provided those facts. What facts do we need here? That the program exists? I doubt that's in dispute. >It’s also highly irrational to suggest the government is paying people to sit at home, since they are not. 1. I think the "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." guideline[1] applies here. The weaker interpretation you seem to be using is "the government's unemployment policy was deliberately designed to get people to stay at home" (as opposed to providing safety net), but the stronger interpretation would be "the government is effectively paying people to stay at home by enacting a policy that gives people money, but will withdraw it should they find work". 2. An argument could be made that the government literally wants people to stay home, as a matter of policy. After all, there would be much less people complying with stay-at-home orders if they ran out of cash, couldn't buy food, and had to find a job. >for being flamebait. I fail to see how that's the case. If the commenter called the people on unemployment "lazy" or whatever, you may have a point, but they didn't. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

k33n 5y ago

It's entirely rational and fact based, but it does threaten the worldview of the people who parrot everything they hear in mainstream media. Americans will never let "the new normal" be permanent, and only the grossly uninformed hope otherwise.