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.
Why are they getting an extra 600/week is my question. Just up the UE to 75 or even 100% of what their normal earnings would be. To much work for the government employees I suspect.
Yes, that's what I suggested earlier: The "extra" should have been $200, not $600, per week. That way, the low-income would be back to the income they had previously and would suffer no damage from this situation.
The working poor will suffer the worst health and economic effects of COVID-19! Are you getting a lot of reps for kicking them when they are down?
Trying to resurrect the one size fits all arrogant, cruel and condescending and unfair smear of welfare queen from the Reagan years, are we? Is there any topic or issue you won't seize in an effort to crow about your perceived superiority?
This thread actually made me nauseous.
How am I kicking them when they are down? I have suggested that they be given enough "extra" per week to make them whole - equal to what they were earning.
But somehow pointing out that giving unemployed low-income people an amount DOUBLE to what they were earning will incentivize them to remain unemployed is "kicking them when they are down"? I am accurately pointing out that when you double the income of low-income people to remain unemployed, they will choose to remain unemployed.
And personal attacks are against the RULES. The next one I will report you. (I like to be fair and give a warning first.)
I know how you feel about low income people, but I dont think what you say is true. They (the congress) talked about that before passing the bill, and made sure no one will get more that that what they earned, and even GOP reps agreed that was a good idea.
You don't know how I feel about low-income people. I am pointing out that they will have DOUBLE the income if they remain unemployed, and that the decision of the government to give people more money if they stay home than if they go back to work has some negative repercussions.
What a wonderful opinion you have of those in the service industry. That’s the kindness and empathy I expect from Trump supporters.
Most people would rather work than sit at home.
And yet ANOTHER "tolerant" liberal comes out with the snark. Are we not permitted to point out that the government is incentivizing low-income people to stay home by "paying" them TWICE what they can earn by working?
(And the reason I am centered on the low-income is because it is they who are in the camp of earning more by remaining unemployed. The middle-income earned more and thus the extra $600/week still doesn't mean they're financially better off to remain with a job.)
But your remark is the kindness and tolerance I would expect from leftists.
Well, actually, if they live in an area where minimum wage type of jobs are theirs for the asking, that would be the smart strategy. In my metro Denver suburb, it was common for fast food workers to start at $13,50/hr. even before the virus hit, and many jobs went unfilled. If people know that they can take a paid vacation with a huge "bonus" for four months and then be rehired at their old jobs, why should they pass it up?
However, one thing that has not been brought up is that many, if not most, of these workers only work part time, so does anyone know whether part-time minimum-wage workers get the $600 weekly bonus? (I do not know the answer to this, and don't care enough about the issue to look it up myself.)
To answer your question: YES. Part-time workers will get the $600/week extra.
Thus, let's say as a semi-retired person, I am working three afternoons a week at Barnes & Noble (I use that example because it's prevalent in my area), earning $10/hour for 12 hours of work, or $120 a week. Thanks to this extra pay-off, I will get $600 a week for staying at home. Why would ANYONE go back to work at B&N once their P-T job is available, and kiss $600 a week goodbye as a reward for standing on their feet all day, ringing up the register?
Yeah, but they're getting HALF of what they would otherwise be if they go back to work. And these are LOW-INCOME people I'm talking about! How eager do you think they will be to give up an extra $800 a week (!!) by going back to work standing on their feet all day?
You're not listening. The increased unemployment is for a limited time only. Thread fail.
And the right talks about elitists on the left. Thinking millions of people would rather stay at home on the dole when they could be working is an arrogant myth of the right that shows the disdain they have for the poor.
The theory of incentive is well-documented - and this is providing some.
MANY people will go back to work for the reasons stated - pride and patriotism being among them - but certainly a percent won't. How many?
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.
