121–130 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not perfectly elastic, but they're not inelastic either. As an example, NYC was offering $10k/week for travel nurses. It's clear that pay can drive labor supply, even if it's not perfect.
Did that work? Did they get the nurses they were expecting from that program?
Of course, this is not the function that UI was meant to serve. If it were designed to “compete” with the low-wage job market, it would be paid out even to workers who resign voluntarily or refuse to seek any employment while receiving benefits. But given policy can’t turn on a dime, raising UI is a reasonable way to discourage non-essential work specifically — to the extent work is essential, workers are unlikely to be laid off and made eligible for benefits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are they starving when they’re making more sitting home than they made going to work? Are you implying they were starving before? Are there any starving people in the USA?
If you want statistics on who’s starving in the US look up the counts for free and reduced lunch at schools in the area. They’re typically means tested and free lunch in particular is only granted to kids who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford the fifty cents a day for reduced price lunch. The USDA sets Income Eligibility Guidelines at the national level for these programs.
Correction - they are providing it for anybody in the city: https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-life/food/free-meals
If you define it as someone getting something while not working vs others getting nothing while working, yes, thank you NPR. That's how unemployment benefits work. That's why government handouts are damaging, especially in the long term. They inherently incentivize not working and punish those who do work. More importantly, government rarely does anything efficiently. I'm gainfully employed and don't need any "help"…
In part because it's intended in part to stimulate the economy, and in part because it was needed without delay; vetting need would've taken months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always thought the point was to keep people home during the pandemic instead of working odd jobs to compensate. Incentivizing people to not work by paying them more to stay at home was a public health policy choice. Of course, the bills were passed really rapidly and maybe weren’t that thought out.
Incentivizing people to stay home was a bug, not a feature. There is absolutely nothing that suggests the federal government is interested in doing this on purpose (and we might see a lot more people outside if the eviction protection measures aren't revisited by the end of the month). Quite the opposite - the message has constantly been that they want to get people out working as soon as possible in deference to "th…
> There is absolutely nothing that suggests the federal government is interested in doing this on purpose
These are two separate statements, that do not necessarily correlate.
That the government may not have intended the benefit to incentivize people to stay home (thus improving public health) does not mean that people staying home and improving public health is not a feature for the vast majority of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't printing money when you're short risky economically? My high-school history was a long time ago, but this is what Germany did post-WW1 and it ended in people bartering the family silver for the essentials.
Firstly, it's only somewhat true; look at this graph https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0 and note that it's not zero indexed. The raw money supply has doubled .. with surprisingly little effect on prices and wages. Secondly, people get confused between extension of credit and money printing. For that you want the separate measure "M2". Thirdly, the real lesson of the hyperinflation crises of Ge…
No one - who's talking at least - seems to understand what's going on with this. It's uncharted territory in a world economic system way more complex than when text books were written.
I have to think fundamental reality must catch up sooner or later, possibly unravelling in a sudden crash.
Then again, I do not understand this!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It probably would. But solving that problem is significantly harder than putting out loans to large companies that employ thousands of people. If the airline industry collapsed, many other things would've followed. Certain industries are absolutely essential infrastructure to the economy and cataclysmic events can have massive ripple effects.
The loss of jobs and income is going to have cataclysmic cascading effects, worse than if a few large companies had gone under. It hasn't even started yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our Quantitative easing and corporate bailouts are in the trillions, why would we not pay out significantly less for people who are struggling to find jobs? Why does the till start counting when its normal people affected?
Because bailouts (usually) make the government money in the long run. They're in the form of low-interest loans, they aren't just handing out money to corporations.
Let's say the market rate for a loan like this is 4% and the government is loaning at .5%. Sure, the government has "made" .5% (less any defaults), but by any realistic understanding of what's going on, they lost 3.5%.
This is an example of how government trying to "work" the economy can upset the tenets of those who believe in a free market; you may choose to look at it with a different lens. The government does not create wealth, or anything for that matter, and in trying to do the apparent right thing to make things better (at least seek favor with their constituents) they wind up unbalancing the system, and IMHO, creating the o…
Because unemployment doesn't work that way.
When your boss calls and says "hey, we're ready for you to come back to work", you're no longer eligible for unemployment benefits.