New stimulus proposal

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

When did I say there would be a job market benefit? I said there would be a benefit for people to look for a job if they were not making more on unemployment.

I can't even tell what that is supposed to mean.

"They created a real problem by paying people more than they made while working."

" If you wanna keep wages stagnant and people barely getting by then by all means keep up the $600 per week. But if you wanna see wages rise and people have an opportunity to grow their income, then getting unemployment back as low as possible is how to do that. "

 

[fishwater99]

I think you have a misunderstanding between the relationship of unemployment payments and overall employment (you seem to think adding to the overall pool of workers without adding to the pool of overall jobs will somehow increase the overall number of workers with jobs (outside a marginal effect), such as in your next to last sentence), and are now conflating unemployment payments that pay say 30% of income replacement with payments that replace 100% of income, as well as ignoring that some workers can't work due to family changes etc (daycare, school, etc).

Most people on unemployment that have their payments cut in half of to a third, will in effect be kicked off unemployment.

Thats what I want to. But it doesn't appear to be in the menu. From the choices we appear to have, overpay some or underpay many, which do you choose?

You are currently advocating to slash their payments, are you not?

Anecdotes are not data. Actual surveys show few people have job opportunities and are turning them down, per surveys of small businesses.

My understanding (based on statements of Congressman, so taken with a huge grain of salt), is that the system cannot effectively do that. Most libs are arguing to pay people via the IRS and claw it back based on taxes, because the system can actually efficiently and accurately do it that way. Republicans seem to want to do it via the UI system so that they can generate that lazy welfare feeling.

With the extra $600 we are overpaying more than 60% of people that are currently on unemployment. I think you have that backwards.

 

[ronpolk]

I can't even tell what that is supposed to mean.

"They created a real problem by paying people more than they made while working."

" If you wanna keep wages stagnant and people barely getting by then by all means keep up the $600 per week. But if you wanna see wages rise and people have an opportunity to grow their income, then getting unemployment back as low as possible is how to do that. "

The first quote means that the government created an incentive for people to not come back in the work force by paying them more than they earn at work. That is a fact. Do you think people that are getting paid less on unemployment want to stay on unemployment? Do you think people who are getting paid more on unemployment want to stay on unemployment?

And for the second quote: it’s a fact that is backed up by stats. Look at any period with low unemployment and you’ll see wages rise. By the way, that is not a “job market” benefit. That does not mean there are more jobs available. That means there are less workers available to take what jobs are available. Therefore, the supply is low, which creates a workers market. Keep the incentive to stay on unemployment and watch wages stay stagnant.

I’m tapping out of this discussion. You can have the final word.

 

[goodknight]

So those of us that have been working the whole time have been paying for all those that aren’t along with your kids, grandkids and future generations. It’s not like the Feds aren’t running a massive deficit.

oh and if you aren’t aware they’re going to fix Social Security again before it goes broke. Fixed it before then Bush Sr and Congress decided they could borrow the money in the SS trust fund to offset the deficit one year with a promise, wink wink, to pay it back with interest. If a private company did that with the pension fund they’d be in prison for pension fraud.

And no I don’t think SS is an entitlement. Feds set it up to be a government sponsored pension plan in its original form but it’s been raided and changed to fund a lot more than its intended purpose. Not planning for it to be there when I retire in the not to distant future.

 

[Go Budaw]

I just know I spend 6 weeks per year in Michigan(in normal times), and their minimum wage hike has given a bunch of jobs to computers in their fast food sector anyway. Definitely didn't increase quality of life for the 2-3 people per fast food joint whose jobs were totally replaced by screens. Talking 3 total people working at McDonald's during breakfast type of thing with 4-5 order screens.

I guess ultimately I'm for the technological advancement, though I often feel conflicted about it.

Except those computers aren’t very expensive, comparatively speaking. They each would have probably paid for themselves within a month or two even if you are talking about replacing workers making $7.25 / hr. Companies are always going to pursue automation whenever they can because turning a recurring labor cost into a fixed capital investment is always going to save huge bucks over the long term. And there are lots of hidden costs too that are associated with managing those guys, such as the labor for the supervisors who have to train, manage, approve time, sign checks, etc. You can’t just automatically assume that there would still be workers there if the state minimum wage didn’t change.

Plenty of states that apply only the federal minimum wage are seeing those jobs disappear, too.

 

[engie]

Sure. But it was a glaring difference between there and Mississippi and most of the other places I travel at that snapshot in time(last summer). I agree that it's likely where it's going everywhere -- but they made sure it happened there first. That's in both decently large city Michigan and small town Michigan.

 

[Hail State]

Government has been doing that for years, it’s called The Democrats.

 

[BELdog]

I think it’s technically unemployment benefits up to 70% of what you earned before you were laid off. I get it. They need to keep some money flowing but they need to stop overpaying people who weren’t making **** before they got laid off. Granted some will take the 70% and be happy with it to keep from returning tk work. Which is why I think it makes sense to pay them something as an incentive to get back to work. It’s not for them. It’s for the business owners who can’t operate without them because those same business owners have been competing against the federal government for labor during Covid and they’ve been losing. If I own a restaurant, I need these people at work.

So, cut off the government aid, and there will be plenty of incentive for folks to go back to work. There’s no need for these bonuses. They are only being talked about as part of a re-election strategy. Nobody wants to be seen as the bad guy cutting off the free fun between now and November.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

So, cut off the government aid, and there will be plenty of incentive for folks to go back to work. There’s no need for these bonuses. They are only being talked about as part of a re-election strategy. Nobody wants to be seen as the bad guy cutting off the free fun between now and November.

The party got started a long time ago. Everyone is guilty. Maintaining a long term, responsible budget would allow for us to absorb a black swan event like this and take care of the people affected with minimal consequences. But nobody has been responsible in govt for a long time.

 

[BELdog]

The party got started a long time ago. Everyone is guilty. Maintaining a long term, responsible budget would allow for us to absorb a black swan event like this and take care of the people affected with minimal consequences. But nobody has been responsible in govt for a long time.

I don’t disagree, but the free lunch has to end at some point. My grandkids will be picking up the tab for all these $1200 checks. Meanwhile, my essential *** has been going to work every day.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

We are on the same page. Because....

View attachment 17035

 

[Go Budaw]

Sure. But it was a glaring difference between there and Mississippi and most of the other places I travel at that snapshot in time(last summer). I agree that it's likely where it's going everywhere -- but they made sure it happened there first. That's in both decently large city Michigan and small town Michigan.

Not surprising at all. Sounds like a case of a government regulation or policy nudging a company in a direction that they probably should have already gone in the first place (from a business standpoint). The only thing holding back even more automation in the food / grocery service sectors is the general lack of tech savvy that exists at the supervisor / manager level at fast food restaurants and grocery stores. It’s very low hanging fruit for future profitability in those industries.

 

[Seinfeld]

I’m really hesitant to dive into this, but just to be clear, are you of the belief that reduced unemployment supplements will NOT drive a significant return to work trend in Aug and Sep?

Second, in the state of Arkansas, standard weekly unemployment maxes out at roughly $450/wk. Add $200/wk from the Fed on top of that and a couple is bringing in $67k/yr. Throw $4800 of stimulus on top of that, and it’s over $70k. It’s not high class livin mind you, but no one’s going hungry on that salary.

 

[QuadrupleOption]

There should not be a federal minimum wage for sure. THe minimum wage seems morally suspect regardless, but if it can pass a morality test at all, I can't imagine how it can do so setting the same minimum wage in the Mississippi Delta as it does in Manhattan or Silicon Valley.

That may be true, but it DOES make the MS Delta Valley a much more attractive option from a cost of living perspective. Over time, as people in the Delta make much more money than they've ever made, the economy of the area will grow (providing more jobs), and eventually prosperous towns will be found all over the place. The tax base will also be much better (better schools and roads), and companies will be more likely to re-locate from more expensive areas of operation to the Delta.

At some point I'd think the realities of having a well-paid population would outweigh any moral concerns you have. Providing opportunities for people to earn a better living and support themselves in a legal and moral manner should be an easy decision too.

 

[johnson86-1]

I’m not sure its a moral issue as much as just a classic optimization problem, with vast disagreements about how to solve it. But regardless, some form of federal minimum wage is always going to be in effect in the US from now until the end of time. We’d be better served as a country to try and figure out how to make it more efficient (and how it should work in concert with other federal initiatives like welfare and unemployment) than arguing whether or not it should exist.

It's absolutely a moral issue. Telling somebody that can only produce $8 an hour of value that they just can't work because you don't want them competing with other people is pretty damn harsh. You can mitigate it by offering welfare or other support, but it's still morally questionable at best. You are putting costs on the most vulnerable members of society to benefit people better off than them. You can do a society wide utilitarian analysis and determine that the policy has net benefits, but that doesn't make it moral. That gets it maybe to morally questionable rather than obviously immoral.

 

[JungRebel]

Is subsidizing a company that doesnt pay a wage consistent with the cost of living in an area with welfare morally questionable? Why should our taxes go to Wal-Mart employees when Wal-Mart can afford to pay their employees more? I dont quite understand the argument. I dont see how we are able to really quantify what a person's labor is really worth.