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.
What puzzles me with the $600 a week bonus is that some are getting it and they unemployed over year before the virus hit. It's one thing to extend their unemployment because finding work in a lockdown/virus is tough. But why are they entitled to a bonus when they couldn't or wouldn't find work in thriving economy prior to the virus. The $600 a week is nothing but a bribe for many a constituent and politician.
What puzzles me with the $600 a week bonus is that some are getting it and they unemployed over year before the virus hit. It's one thing to extend their unemployment because finding work in a lockdown/virus is tough. But why are they entitled to a bonus when they couldn't or wouldn't find work in thriving economy prior to the virus. The $600 a week is nothing but a bribe for many a constituent and politician.
the 600 only went in to effect in march. so while it's true they may have been unemployed prior the argument is well now it is impossible to find work , come march
Everything you need to know about mindset of certain employers is right here:
"But some say the surging unemployment rate could help drive down the cost of labor, a struggle that assisted living and skilled nursing operators have long contended with.
Before jobless claims skyrocketed in March and April, the labor market was tight and some operators had a difficult time finding qualified staffers for their buildings. Now, that problem could be alleviated by the growing number of potential candidates.
“Every black cloud has a silver lining,” said Charles Bissell, a JLL managing director who specializes in the sector. “Senior housing wage rates may stabilize or even decline.”
Places that rely in whole or part low wage employees are not happy about that $600/wk extra, or even entire extended UI benefit package.
It just isn't they cannot get laid off employees to return, but hiring new also poses a problem when they can do better staying home. Long as states have suspended work search requirements there is little incentive, not that many of those rules had much teeth in them from start.
France and other European countries with generous UI benefit packages long have had similar problems; once people get on, many aren't in any huge rush to get off.
It would be one thing if there was much work to go back to. For many, there isn't any.
I work in an IT department for a large company. We were informed today that the company-wide furloughs that occurred at the first of April will be in place through at least mid-August, and may be extended further. The CEO basically said we'll be operating on current staffing levels for the foreseeable future. My manager told me during our 1-1 today that she doesn't think we'll get any of the furloughed staff back in our department.
Locally, that's a loss of about 1,300 jobs, just at my employer. Other large employers are putting up big numbers like that too.
A friend of mine is a taproom manager at a brewery I frequent. They are running the entire operation on the three taproom managers. None of the other bartenders were brought back. Some restaurants still aren't doing dine-in, most are distancing - so fewer patrons means fewer staff needed, some outright failed, etc., so that labor market is a mess.
I think it will be many years before big businesses especially get back to 2019 staffing levels.
It would be one thing if there was much work to go back to. For many, there isn't any.
I work in an IT department for a large company. We were informed today that the company-wide furloughs that occurred at the first of April will be in place through at least mid-August, and may be extended further. The CEO basically said we'll be operating on current staffing levels for the foreseeable future. My manager told me during our 1-1 today that she doesn't think we'll get any of the furloughed staff back in our department.
Locally, that's a loss of about 1,300 jobs, just at my employer. Other large employers are putting up big numbers like that too.
A friend of mine is a taproom manager at a brewery I frequent. They are running the entire operation on the three taproom managers. None of the other bartenders were brought back. Some restaurants still aren't doing dine-in, most are distancing - so fewer patrons means fewer staff needed, some outright failed, etc., so that labor market is a mess.
I think it will be many years before big businesses especially get back to 2019 staffing levels.
This is something alot of people don't seem to grasp. The reality is that a significant amount of jobs are gone for good.
Now I do understand the argument many on the right are making regarding the extra $600 a week in expanded unemployment benefits. This is why I believe either A) the benefit should kept but be scaled back gradually as employment returns to normal or B) more frequent/larger stimulus checks should be given out. Say something like $1,000 a month for 6 months. One of the things I've learned from this crisis is that I think we should gradually move towards some sort of Universal Basic Income or a Guaranteed Minimum Income.
As a side note, Trump said yesterday that he wants another stimulus check "larger than the first". This is a positive sign, although they will likely condition it on the Democrats agreeing to drop the $600 expanded unemployment benefit in return.
As a side note, Trump said yesterday that he wants another stimulus check "larger than the first". This is a positive sign, although they will likely condition it on the Democrats agreeing to drop the $600 expanded unemployment benefit in return.
That's bass ackwards. Helping those who are unemployed and without income is a lot more justifiable than sending money to people who have seen no loss of income. But liability protection from covid claims is what the GOP really wants.
Everything you need to know about mindset of certain employers is right here:
"But some say the surging unemployment rate could help drive down the cost of labor, a struggle that assisted living and skilled nursing operators have long contended with.
Before jobless claims skyrocketed in March and April, the labor market was tight and some operators had a difficult time finding qualified staffers for their buildings. Now, that problem could be alleviated by the growing number of potential candidates.
“Every black cloud has a silver lining,” said Charles Bissell, a JLL managing director who specializes in the sector. “Senior housing wage rates may stabilize or even decline.”
Places that rely in whole or part low wage employees are not happy about that $600/wk extra, or even entire extended UI benefit package.
It just isn't they cannot get laid off employees to return, but hiring new also poses a problem when they can do better staying home. Long as states have suspended work search requirements there is little incentive, not that many of those rules had much teeth in them from start.
France and other European countries with generous UI benefit packages long have had similar problems; once people get on, many aren't in any huge rush to get off.
This is something alot of people don't seem to grasp. The reality is that a significant amount of jobs are gone for good.
Now I do understand the argument many on the right are making regarding the extra $600 a week in expanded unemployment benefits. This is why I believe either A) the benefit should kept but be scaled back gradually as employment returns to normal or B) more frequent/larger stimulus checks should be given out. Say something like $1,000 a month for 6 months. One of the things I've learned from this crisis is that I think we should gradually move towards some sort of Universal Basic Income or a Guaranteed Minimum Income.
As a side note, Trump said yesterday that he wants another stimulus check "larger than the first". This is a positive sign, although they will likely condition it on the Democrats agreeing to drop the $600 expanded unemployment benefit in return.
I saw only one analyst report an increase in permanent job loss. Is this a deliberate omission? "The number of permanent job losers continued to rise, increasing by 588,000 to 2.9 million in June." https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Now talk of back to work bonus - what about just stop paying people more to not work? Giving more to not work than work is what created this issue.
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.
