Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The extra $600 a week ended at the end of July, it was a temporary help. For those who were laid off, they could continue to pay their bills and mortgage or rent.
It's become very difficult to find a self-employed person, for example, housekeeper, plumber, yard guy, trash collector, who wants to work, even if their job poses minimal risk for COVID.
They're geared up for a certain volume of business. They look like employees, but they're paid like contractors. It doesn't pay them to get odd jobs. It's not enough to keep them under a roof. A lot of clients have cut back on services. I know someone who has to tried to hire a worker for a hair salon business, and she's getting turned down because the business is slow. Some businesses try to hire workers because they bring in a client list. If their clients are holding off, they can't work.
You’re referring to the stimulus portion that was the $1,200 payouts. The thread is about the UI benefits covered under the stimulus, which was $600 per week of federal support on top of the state unemployment.
So if someone was making $400 a week working, they may have been paid $900 a month from the state and federal UI to not work.
And yes, it incentivized any rational person to not want to work.
see below
Quote:
Originally Posted by turf3
$400 per week = $1600/month = $19,200/yr
$900/mo = $10,800/yr
At those "bare survival" levels of income I fail to see how an income loss of $8400/yr would "incentivize" someone not to work.
If you live in one of the major three metros, that money wont go very far. But I guess if you live out in the country with low population density, and you own a home, and you are already middle aged and have no more ambition, you can possible be happy with that money.
First of all, it was $600 a WEEK (Plus whatever their individuals state was), not per month. Your $900 per month calculation for $10,800 per year doesn’t even make sense. It was in excess of $900 per WEEK in my state for example (fed+state). So that’s $3,600 a month versus their normal $1,600. How would that NOT incentivize someone not to work? Note that I’m also saying that wasn’t wrong in this crisis, because the governments intent was to get people to not work and help shutdown the spread of the virus. Apparently I misspoke in my original post and said per month when I knew it was per week.
Second of all, you would compare the time they would make the unemployment at those heightened levels to what they would have normally made during that time frame.
They should be giving more stimulus or UI benefits to people not only making less than $400/week, but people under, oh I dont know, $800/week perhaps.
How they even come up with the 400 number? I say anyone making less than $70K/yr deserves free money per month and not just a one time check. Heck why not? You want to stimulate economy afterall.
maybe a bigger issue is the fact that they are just rubber stamping the unemployment applications instead of reviewing it to see if people qualify. i have tons of people on unemployment now including people that havent worked for us in more than a year. i do have work available.
I was able to work from home in the beginning of the Pandemic. I didn't need unemployment. However, it would have been nice to be temporarily laid off because here, normal unemployment is capped at $430 month. Add the $600 to that and you get 1,030.00 a week. My salary is $760 a week. Going on unemployment would have been a nice little boost to my income.
Of course, it really was irritating to realize people that were working unskilled, minimum wage jobs prior to Covid, were now making more than me while sitting on their butts.
All I have is anecdotal evidence, my Veterinarian called a while back to tell me I couldn't board my dogs there in the near future, because she can't find any reliable kennel attendants. The $600 per week stimulus is a likely cause, why work when you can make more by not working?
900 per week, and $3,600 per month is what I intended to write all along.
There are people that were literally make more than 2x what they made while working during that time. No matter what any of us think about it or the pandemic, the question was if it provided incentive not to work for some, and the answer is yes.
They should be giving more stimulus or UI benefits to people not only making less than $400/week, but people under, oh I dont know, $800/week perhaps.
How they even come up with the 400 number? I say anyone making less than $70K/yr deserves free money per month and not just a one time check. Heck why not? You want to stimulate economy afterall.
Deserves?
Free money?
Hmmm
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
