U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-25-2020, 07:10 AM
 
975 posts, read 509,657 times
Reputation: 1353

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by djohnslaw View Post
more handouts for those with kids they can't afford.
it doesnt cost twice as much for 2 people do live together as it does for someone to live by themselves and it doesn't cost 5 times as much for 2 adults and 3 kids as it does for one adult. kids aren't even doing normal outside activities that might cost parents money. 6,000 dollars for a family of 5 on top of all the unemployment is utterly insane.
Agreed! Totally not right. Getting rewarded for contributing to over population too but that’s a whole other topic.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-26-2020, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
32,610 posts, read 18,110,000 times
Reputation: 11783
Quote:
Originally Posted by djohnslaw View Post
so as usual punish those who are working and take their money to give to people who sit on their ass all day.
This time is different. We are not sure if we should have people return to the labor force since we need to continue to social distance. This is what's new and what's normal until we have a reliable vaccine with the scaled up production.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2020, 02:54 PM
 
2,599 posts, read 1,243,530 times
Reputation: 3401
Yes, because it is cheaper than extending the federal unemployment (which is not going to happen). A stimulus check will be CRUMBS compared to the breaks for the wealthy that you are going to see come out of the next bill.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2020, 08:11 PM
 
Location: On a Long Island in NY
7,801 posts, read 8,970,083 times
Reputation: 7313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeko156 View Post
Yes, because it is cheaper than extending the federal unemployment (which is not going to happen).
^ this ... Dems should accept that the additional unemployment benefit is ending in July and instead focus on obtaining a recurring monthly stimulus check in exchange for liability protections for businesses.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2020, 11:32 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
32,610 posts, read 18,110,000 times
Reputation: 11783
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006 View Post
^ this ... Dems should accept that the additional unemployment benefit is ending in July and instead focus on obtaining a recurring monthly stimulus check in exchange for liability protections for businesses.
I don't like liability protection because it absolves them of total negligence. I mean you assume some risk but you can easily have a company not do their part and they cute "Well you assume risk." Yes we assume some risk but we also assume that you take proper precautions including social distancing, people in the store, shields, employees wearing masks, etc.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2020, 03:32 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas & San Diego
1,919 posts, read 426,397 times
Reputation: 2163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeko156 View Post
Yes, because it is cheaper than extending the federal unemployment (which is not going to happen). A stimulus check will be CRUMBS compared to the breaks for the wealthy that you are going to see come out of the next bill.
Based on what? Who do you think is going to get stuck paying for these stimulus checks?

So far I haven't received anything but the expectation to pay higher taxes.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2020, 05:01 AM
 
Location: Boston
13,462 posts, read 3,987,490 times
Reputation: 9843
sounds as though McConnell wants to take a different approach than the first time. He wants to give people a check when they start/return to work. He wants to provide an incentive to work, not sit at home.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2020, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
32,610 posts, read 18,110,000 times
Reputation: 11783
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeddy View Post
sounds as though McConnell wants to take a different approach than the first time. He wants to give people a check when they start/return to work. He wants to provide an incentive to work, not sit at home.
Here's the problem. Firstly, not everyone is able to return to work. Businesses are reducing staff based on need when they reopen. Second, it don't do anything for those that need to stay at home to prevent exposure to the virus.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2020, 10:09 AM
 
4,618 posts, read 3,454,623 times
Reputation: 4481
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Here's the problem. Firstly, not everyone is able to return to work. Businesses are reducing staff based on need when they reopen. Second, it don't do anything for those that need to stay at home to prevent exposure to the virus.
People continue to fail to realize that employee numbers are going to decrease across the nation. Companies have short memories. Give them the opportunity to operate with less staff and efficiency not be too impacted, and you just reduced your staff. You may really like working with Tommy and Jenny, but numbers don't lie. Same thing happened during the financial crisis. Staff was reduced until the economy improved. It will be no different this time. The difference this time around could be the lasting effects of unemployment run much longer.

I just don't see the same bounce back this time around, as before, since the current environment has impacted how we interact with each other. This is new and unprecedented territory.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2020, 10:39 AM
 
2,599 posts, read 1,243,530 times
Reputation: 3401
Exactly, weezerfan84. Companies are not going to go back to 200 employees if they realize they are doing just as well with 150.

In addition, many businesses will never recover and/or have already closed or filed bankruptcy.

The high unemployment numbers are not because minimum wage workers are sitting around high on the hog because of a few extra weeks of higher pay.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top