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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-15-2020, 12:38 AM
 
1,778 posts, read 833,643 times
Reputation: 1956

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by djohnslaw View Post
it depends what they do and how much they make.

a part time worker making 150 bucks a week at some min wage job would be an idiot to go back to work when they can get 650-700 a week from unemployment.

Even a full time minimum wage worker would be a fool. They're getting around 280 a week to work or 750ish to stay home. No brainer. They can even work off the books with their extra time off.
And keep in mind there are almost always expenses to get to work so the difference is even bigger than that.

If you're already at the bottom you won't have that much trouble finding another bottom of the barrel job.

If I could get triple my normal income (or more) by not working I wouldn't want to work either.

Now someone with a decent job who might be making a little more by not working- they should want to get back to work if there is a job available (assuming they aren't high risk for covid) because the risk reward isn't worth it.
This.

The ones benefiting the most is the ones that were making low amounts of income pre-virus. Then they got boosted to making full time $15/hour or more by simply staying at home and riding out the unemployment. A business could technically force them to go back to work (or lose unemployment benefits), but they won't be happy at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-15-2020, 08:32 AM
 
1,956 posts, read 1,070,006 times
Reputation: 2810
Quote:
Originally Posted by rya96797 View Post
I believe the original deadline was 7/31/20. And there's nothing to say they can't furlough the employees with 0 hours...
The 7/31 deadline is when the pandemic unemployment ends (the $ 600/wk). I think under the PP loan program, they only have to keep employees until October. If not, the loan is not forgiven.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 08:39 AM
 
1,956 posts, read 1,070,006 times
Reputation: 2810
Quote:
Originally Posted by djohnslaw View Post
it depends what they do and how much they make.

a part time worker making 150 bucks a week at some min wage job would be an idiot to go back to work when they can get 650-700 a week from unemployment.

Even a full time minimum wage worker would be a fool. They're getting around 280 a week to work or 750ish to stay home. No brainer. They can even work off the books with their extra time off.
And keep in mind there are almost always expenses to get to work so the difference is even bigger than that.

If you're already at the bottom you won't have that much trouble finding another bottom of the barrel job.

If I could get triple my normal income (or more) by not working I wouldn't want to work either.

Now someone with a decent job who might be making a little more by not working- they should want to get back to work if there is a job available (assuming they aren't high risk for covid) because the risk reward isn't worth it.
This ^^^^^^^^^^^

The problem is their wages were too low to begin with. That is the "disincentive" - low wages. Not just minimum wage, either. Even someone making $ 12.00/hr before COVID would be making more on PUI. Combine that with child care and gas, staying home and making more money is the only option that would even make sense.

As far as the battle of returning to work, it will be easier for a secretary or waiter than for someone in upper management to find work (i.e. , another crappy, low wage job).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 09:01 AM
 
5,106 posts, read 3,401,898 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
I am seeing this locally.

I frequent restaurants and bars. Many of these places can't get former staff to come back because they're making more on UI. It's incredibly short-sighted for those folks to not return to work because they have only six more weeks of the enhanced benefit and who knows when or if they'll find work again if they don't take it now. There will be a ton of people in that low end of the labor market after August.

It's going to get really damn ugly and I wouldn't want to be in a major city when this happens.
Is that what the owners are telling you? Because employers are instructed to notify unemployment if laid off employees refuse to come back to work. It's fraud if the people are refusing work and taking UE instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 12:39 PM
 
5,226 posts, read 2,905,753 times
Reputation: 6753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wartrace View Post
Things will get ugly in August unless the extra 600 bucks per week is extended. Having said that the 600 bucks per week should NOT be extended in my opinion. It is a huge disincentive for lower wage workers to seek employment. Yes they have to look for work but it's pretty easy to blow an interview making them eligible for continued payments. The problem is we are making unemployment comfortable.

If they do another federal unemployment check it needs to be much lower and not exceed the wages earned by previous employment. We can't continue paying people more to not work than work. Giving people 60 to 70% of their former wage would go a long way towards reemployment.
The $600/week needs to remain in place through at least the end of 2020, if not the end of Q1/2021.

I think there's nothing wrong with making unemployment comfortable. If we don't make unemployment comfortable, crime goes up. Some of the George Floyd looting was done because people are unemployed and pissed. Look at Scottsdale Fashion Square in Arizona. That area is minimally black, and there was looting. Much of the looting was likely done by unemployed and underemployed non-blacks.

Coronavirus has exposed how hopelessly inadequate unemployment is. Unemployment should not be 26 weeks. It should be 99 weeks at 100% of previous salary, regardless of economic conditions. White collar workers are the true victims, because it takes them longer to find employment.

The Democrats have done some good things, like pushing to extend $600 and provide ACA protections and Medicaid for unemployed. COBRA, signed by Ronald Reagan, is worthless legislation. No one can afford it. However, the Democrats have failed to legislate to adequately protect the worker. Right to Work provisions should be abolished at the state levels. There should be no Right to Work states and layoffs should be made more difficult. The Democratic Party's failure with Right to Work should be considered a major oversight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djohnslaw View Post
If you're already at the bottom you won't have that much trouble finding another bottom of the barrel job.
The out of touch politicians talk about the disincentives to return to work and focus on this populace. So what? The line cooks and servers will have jobs in 5 minutes once the supplemental dollars disappear. The real victims are the middle income white collar workers who were laid off, who face long interview processes and need that money just to break even and replace their previous salary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 12:51 PM
 
1,956 posts, read 1,070,006 times
Reputation: 2810
I live in a Right-to-Work state (or as we like to call it, a Right To Work for Less state). How is RTW on the Dems? It is the GOP who is always wanting to bust up Unions. Most RTW states are low in union activity (or non-union).

Also, while I agree that white collar, upper management jobs are harder to get, there are also fewer applying for them. There are far more unskilled workers out there and everyone has to eat.

Educated, white collar employees also tend to have more financial reserves than low-income people. I'm not saying they can't lose everything - of course, they can - but it is less likely they would become homeless as quickly as a low-income worker.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 01:00 PM
 
5,226 posts, read 2,905,753 times
Reputation: 6753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeko156 View Post
I live in a Right-to-Work state (or as we like to call it, a Right To Work for Less state). How is RTW on the Dems? It is the GOP who is always wanting to bust up Unions. Most RTW states are low in union activity (or non-union).

Also, while I agree that white collar, upper management jobs are harder to get, there are also fewer applying for them. There are far more unskilled workers out there and everyone has to eat.

Educated, white collar employees also tend to have more financial reserves than low-income people. I'm not saying they can't lose everything - of course, they can - but it is less likely they would become homeless as quickly as a low-income worker.
The low to middle level office jobs (think $45,000 - $80,000/annual salaries) are the ones I'm referring to more when I say white collar, though I'm also referring to six figure workers to a lesser extent. Low to middle level white collar jobs have long interview processes. These workers are not rich people. These are not people with tremendous reserves.

In my field, even in non-recessionary times, there are 150-200 applicants for every job that comes open. In recessionary times, it is 300-600.

RTW is a bad idea. It needs to be eliminated. I think 41 of the 50 states are RTW states. RTW is a plague on workers. Right to Work for Less is a good way to put it. I've done my entire 15 year post college career in RTW states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Wartrace,TN
6,200 posts, read 9,702,447 times
Reputation: 12199
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ312 View Post
The $600/week needs to remain in place through at least the end of 2020, if not the end of Q1/2021.

I think there's nothing wrong with making unemployment comfortable. If we don't make unemployment comfortable, crime goes up. Some of the George Floyd looting was done because people are unemployed and pissed. Look at Scottsdale Fashion Square in Arizona. That area is minimally black, and there was looting. Much of the looting was likely done by unemployed and underemployed non-blacks.

Coronavirus has exposed how hopelessly inadequate unemployment is. Unemployment should not be 26 weeks. It should be 99 weeks at 100% of previous salary, regardless of economic conditions. White collar workers are the true victims, because it takes them longer to find employment.

The Democrats have done some good things, like pushing to extend $600 and provide ACA protections and Medicaid for unemployed. COBRA, signed by Ronald Reagan, is worthless legislation. No one can afford it. However, the Democrats have failed to legislate to adequately protect the worker. Right to Work provisions should be abolished at the state levels. There should be no Right to Work states and layoffs should be made more difficult. The Democratic Party's failure with Right to Work should be considered a major oversight.



The out of touch politicians talk about the disincentives to return to work and focus on this populace. So what? The line cooks and servers will have jobs in 5 minutes once the supplemental dollars disappear. The real victims are the middle income white collar workers who were laid off, who face long interview processes and need that money just to break even and replace their previous salary.
I agree to disagree. Can we afford to pay the unemployed an extra 600 dollars per week for the next year? How does that make sense? If there are 20 million unemployed you're talking 12 billion per week, 1.2 trillion dollars every ten weeks. This is unprecedented. We didn't do this during the 2009 crisis.

At most we need to extend state unemployment payments and not supplement them. Can we afford to add 1.2 trillion dollars every ten weeks to the national debt?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 04:44 PM
 
5,226 posts, read 2,905,753 times
Reputation: 6753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wartrace View Post
I agree to disagree. Can we afford to pay the unemployed an extra 600 dollars per week for the next year? How does that make sense? If there are 20 million unemployed you're talking 12 billion per week, 1.2 trillion dollars every ten weeks. This is unprecedented. We didn't do this during the 2009 crisis.

At most we need to extend state unemployment payments and not supplement them. Can we afford to add 1.2 trillion dollars every ten weeks to the national debt?
There is no choice. Debt concern is foolish right now. The economy is based on consumer sentiment and spending. The unemployed are a large block right now. The unemployed need to be bailed out like the banks were bailed out in 2008. When the unemployed consumer loses over 50% of their income and the private sector can't employ them (which it is so unhealthy right now that it can't), consumers will stop spending and there will be more layoffs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Oregon coast
18 posts, read 5,614 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ312 View Post
The $600/week needs to remain in place through at least the end of 2020, if not the end of Q1/2021.

I think there's nothing wrong with making unemployment comfortable. If we don't make unemployment comfortable, crime goes up. Some of the George Floyd looting was done because people are unemployed and pissed. Look at Scottsdale Fashion Square in Arizona. That area is minimally black, and there was looting. Much of the looting was likely done by unemployed and underemployed non-blacks.

Coronavirus has exposed how hopelessly inadequate unemployment is. Unemployment should not be 26 weeks. It should be 99 weeks at 100% of previous salary, regardless of economic conditions. White collar workers are the true victims, because it takes them longer to find employment.

99 weeks of 100% pay would be abused hard, and drain any budget. Honestly, 100% of your salary on UE is not a good idea, since you have 0 incentive to look for a job until it is close to finish (2 years in your proposal).

Also, unemployment is one of the reasons why riots are so massive. People don't work, so they have time and in general bored, so here you go.

> White collar workers are the true victims, because it takes them longer to find employment

It is true, but why do we assume that your salary can never go down and that you'll always have a job? It is _their_ responsibility to calculate for such an event (they are white-collar workers, after all!) and to be prepared. These people have an opportunity to ride it out, while poor people have it much worse.

Again, standard of living going down during a crisis is a norm, not an exception.
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

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