Debate Rages On - Generous UI Benefits Cause People Not To Work, Or Do They? (withholding, interest)

[lieqiang]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

This is the problem. The more free handouts there are, the more everyone wants. We're the Roman Empire before it collapsed.

I see this reference a lot and don't get it.

In what way does USA resemble the Roman Empire before it collapsed? Like what time frame are you looking at here, I'm assuming you mean the western Roman Empire but let's clarify this. There really isn't much of a similarity other than in the most vague terms that could apply to almost any country at any time. The most obvious difference (to me) was that the Roman Empire had been declining in power and size for centuries before what could be labeled a collapse event, whereas USA is still in post Cold War role of the dominant geopolitical entity on the planet and hasn't shrunk in size, political clout, or economic might. Well, some covid pop should be included there but that's not significant in the long-term view of how USA is positioned.

What am I missing? Are we on the brink of a few hundreds years of slow decline, is that what you're implying?

[RJ312]

The $600/week for the unemployed was a good thing. It saved a lot of people.

There have been white collar layoffs in this. Since S flows downhill, it was usually lower level individual contributors (non-managerial) white collar workers and maybe some midlevel managers. Lower level individual contributors are often making like $35,000 - $75,000/year. White collar hiring has not recovered. All the new jobs added to the economy are the low wage service sector workers. The white collar workers who got laid off in March-May are still eating dung.

The $600/week supplemental UI basically covered expenses for the lower level white collar workers who got laid off. By lower level, it is basically anyone who makes less than $75,000 year.

White collar layoff victims were not disincentivized to work. Unlike blue collar and service sector, white collar job searches take longer so white collar workers need it most. Unlike laborers and McDonald's cashier hiring, it essentially takes an Act of Congress to get a white collar individual contributor or midlevel manager hired. There are multiple rounds of interviews and often hundreds of applicants per job. White collar hiring managers are often spineless pansies.

We also need massive UI reform. In most states, unemployment is designed for the blue collar laborer and McDonald's cashier, not the white collar office worker. Lower level white collar workers who get laid off get their state's maximum, which is $300-$600/week. That's pathetic and inhumane.

UI should be 99 weeks at all times. White collar workers need it. 26 weeks is often not enough time to replace a white collar job. 26 weeks is sufficient to replace a McDonald's cashier job or a laborer job, not an office worker. UI should also be 70-80% of one's previous salary.

[ddm2k]

Originally Posted by BugsyPal

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/10/b...ts-hiring.html

My state's governor gave specific instructions that those on UI due to COVID-related reasons (including workplace closing) are EXEMPT from the work search requirement because his goal was to place as many people back in their original jobs as possible. He specified that claimants may still indicate "YES" they searched for employment so they can receive a benefit for that week.

Interpretation and intentions of the program are EVERYTHING.

[artillery77]

Certainly the stimulus affected those on the very low end of the wage pool. Remember, in service hourly positions, a 40 hour work week is far from guaranteed. If a shift opens up, the economic cost for anyone to go back for a day makes it not worth giving up an unemployment check + $600 which could well equal more than they were making previously.



The better question is, does anyone care?

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by lieqiang

I see this reference a lot and don't get it.

Probably because your inner pedant keeps you from seeing it as allegory rather than a thesis statement.

What am I missing?

We're top heavy with all manner of things (and people) we don't need
and are hard to justify supporting the continued existence of in the manner they've become accustomed to --
-- at both ends of the scale leaving the doing & tax paying middle scrambling.

Are we on the brink of a ...decline, is that what you're implying?

Close enough. Some would argue we've already crested (see above).

The other important factor is the RISE of those in other place who used to be below us;
and reconciling that, both in ego and money, and both in specific example and in relative perception.

[ddeemo]

Originally Posted by RJ312

The $600/week for the unemployed was a good thing. It saved a lot of people.

There have been white collar layoffs in this. Since S flows downhill, it was usually lower level individual contributors (non-managerial) white collar workers and maybe some midlevel managers. Lower level individual contributors are often making like $35,000 - $75,000/year. White collar hiring has not recovered. All the new jobs added to the economy are the low wage service sector workers. The white collar workers who got laid off in March-May are still eating dung.

The $600/week supplemental UI basically covered expenses for the lower level white collar workers who got laid off. By lower level, it is basically anyone who makes less than $75,000 year.

White collar layoff victims were not disincentivized to work. Unlike blue collar and service sector, white collar job searches take longer so white collar workers need it most. Unlike laborers and McDonald's cashier hiring, it essentially takes an Act of Congress to get a white collar individual contributor or midlevel manager hired. There are multiple rounds of interviews and often hundreds of applicants per job. White collar hiring managers are often spineless pansies.

We also need massive UI reform. In most states, unemployment is designed for the blue collar laborer and McDonald's cashier, not the white collar office worker. Lower level white collar workers who get laid off get their state's maximum, which is $300-$600/week. That's pathetic and inhumane.

UI should be 99 weeks at all times. White collar workers need it. 26 weeks is often not enough time to replace a white collar job. 26 weeks is sufficient to replace a McDonald's cashier job or a laborer job, not an office worker. UI should also be 70-80% of one's previous salary.

White collar jobs take long to get hired? Where is you data on that. That is not my experience on being hired or when I have hired others - the process was 2 weeks or less, often the reason for 2 weeks was to give notice to previous employer. I guess I must not be a "spineless pansy" - I normally made a decision on hiring someone within a day, only 2 days if needed more time for interviews - but I was a project manager, not a hiring manager. Before even start the hiring process, job is defined and funding source and level is planed for.

UI should last almost 2 years and should be 70-80% of salary - why? That would create a huge disincentive to find work because 70-80% is about the same as take home after account for payroll and income taxes and 6 months should be enough to find a job normally. Lets not give away the major incentives to fine =d work, We don't need more that see UI as a way to live instead of just a help.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by ddeemo

White collar jobs take long to get hired? Where is you data on that.
That is not my experience ...

Your experience is called an anecdote. As to the rest of humanity ... it is a long observed
and generally accurate truism going back since the 80's (when I first became aware of it)
and existed even well before: One Month of Search Process per $10,000 of Salary.

The implication being that any reputable and conscientious employer is NOT in a hurry,
that they're NOT merely filling a slot on a schedule with a warm body (as seems so common today)...
and as a consequence the more qualified you are, the more you're worth, the longer it SHOULD take.

eta: All of this is a large part of the "Six Months Emergency Fund" discussions and advice.

hth

[lieqiang]

Originally Posted by MrRational

We're top heavy with all manner of things (and people) we don't need

Hah, this is the exactly the sort of silly vague statement I was referring to. Hey folks we're like Rome right before it collapsed, because we have things and people we don't need. As opposed to pretty much every other country that has existed in history. Vietnam has things and people they don't need, therefore they are like the Roman Empire right before it collapsed. Same with Hungary, and Samoa.

Originally Posted by MrRational

Some would argue we've already crested (see above)

Well it doesn't get more scientific than "some would argue" does it?

Originally Posted by MrRational

The other important factor is the RISE of those in other place who used to be below us;
and reconciling that, both in ego and money, and both in specific example and in relative perception.

Again, assigning a general characteristic to support a more specific argument. Countries are always rising and falling, entire empires rise and fell around them while Rome was in power. I'm not even sure who "used" to be below us and no longer is.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by lieqiang

Hah, this is the exactly the sort of silly vague statement I was referring to.

And I'd say that's just another example of that pedanticism promoting thread drift.

I did consider adding some specific examples but than I remembered
that you're a smart guy, or at least present yourself as one.
Do you really need to have it spoon fed to you? I don't think so.
I bet you could write up a 3 page thesis statement on the points you belabor me for not describing.

[Nik4me]

Originally Posted by lieqiang

... Countries are always rising and falling, entire empires rise and fell around them while Rome was in power. I'm not even sure who "used" to be below us and no longer is.

China?