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.
Debate rages on from both sides; many employers and others claim generous UI benefits of past few months have acted as a deterrent to people going to work. Meanwhile economists and others support the view no, such benefits have not had any major effect on people wanting full time employment.
This arguing is likely one huge factor in republicans and democrats still miles apart on any new stimulus package.
There was a recent interview with Yide Qiao, the Secretary General of Shanghai Development Research Foundation, and he discussed how China handled the work stoppages and shutdowns during the pandemic. Unlike the U.S., China did not pay people to sit at home or give individuals “stimulus” money. Instead they gave the money to businesses who then found ways to keep healthy people doing useful work even if it was unrelated to their previous jobs.
The $1200 I just received is not quite enough for me to retire just yet. Looks like I still have to work at least another decade or two.
In fact is not enough for me to even change my spending habits all that much. I still will eat the way I do, and for the most part, I eat swell.
Most everything I enjoyed doing I did before the pandemic at my income level. What I want to do though is going to cost much more than $1200.
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.
You’re referring to the stimulus portion that was the $1,200 payouts.
The thread is about the UI benefits covered under the stimulus...
And yes, it incentivized any rational person to not want to work.
This is my experience too. I'll place ads in craigslist looking for casual labor.
Some weeding through the incompetent and drunk/drug sort is expected...
but usually revealed someone worth hiring pretty quickly.
Those people aren't answering the ad's I've posted this year.
I suspect they aren't even reading them.
There was a recent interview with Yide Qiao, the Secretary General of Shanghai Development Research Foundation, and he discussed how China handled the work stoppages and shutdowns during the pandemic. Unlike the U.S., China did not pay people to sit at home or give individuals “stimulus” money. Instead they gave the money to businesses who then found ways to keep healthy people doing useful work even if it was unrelated to their previous jobs.
That's what the PPP was. They need to offer a second round for businesses that aren't back to normal levels yet.
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.
$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.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57820
It was ridiculous to give $2,400 to couple like us who are still making as much as before working from home, and saving several hundred/month by not buying gas or going out.
All we did was put it in savings, if we need to buy anything we have the money. I suppose it was a lot easier than requiring proof of hours cut or being laid off, but if they did that, they could hire people to do the verification.
At those "bare survival" levels of income I fail to see how an income loss of $8400/yr would "incentivize" someone not to work.
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.
Last edited by Thatsright19; 09-16-2020 at 08:24 AM..
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.
