Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hazard pay in focus as essential workers earn less than the jobless

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 348 posts

Re: Hazard pay in focus as essential workers earn less than the jobless

#141

Post by votepaunchy »

Zetaphor wrote: post #61
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and estimated $300B to the people ($1,200) stimulus checks It’s not correct to say that people only received $1200. Everyone qualified for that stimulus (depending on income thresholds, it was phased out for higher incomes), regardless of job loss. Unemployed people receive an additional $600/week from the late-March COVID relief bill through July 31. There are additional measures to extend the duration of regular…

> That amount went to everyone, regardless of job loss. This is provably false. It only went to people who filed taxes in 2019 and who met the qualifications. Despite both of those things still being true, and having lost my job as a direct result of COVID-19, I was still told I would not be receiving the benefits. I was not given a reason by the automated system and I have yet to reach a human being to explain my re…

> This is provably false. It only went to people who filed taxes in 2019 and who met the qualifications.

The stimulus check will be part of your 2020 tax return, and you will claim the money as a refund then if you have not already received your money. Any money incorrectly paid out will likewise be reclaimed via that process.

Re: Hazard pay in focus as essential workers earn less than the jobless

#142

Post by gregwebs »

mrep wrote: post #111
gregwebs wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That breakdown is missing the trillion dollars of corporate debt that the fed is now engaging in purchasing. Correction: in terms of direct corporate debt purchase, they have currently committed to less than half a trillion dollars of purchases independent of the CARES act. But the breakdown is also missing $210 billion of reduced corporate taxes! The CARES act is a good attempt at providing fair outcomes for everyon…

They have not bought anywhere close to trillion dollars worth of corporate debt. As you can see in the breakdown [0], most of what they are buying is our own governments debt (the same debt used to fund the CARES act) and US mortgage backed securities. [0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm

Sorry, it is hard for me to untangle all this. Some of this money is authorized by CARES, and some is independent action. We are already at a trillion dollars to the largest companies now when you combine CARES and the fed's commitment to debt purchase.

In June they just committed to deploying an additional $250 billion https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-will-amass-corporate-bond-p...

Add this to the existing billions of debt already purchased and we could easily be at half a trillion dollars of independent fed action to buy corporate debt in a short time frame.

The CARES act also reduced corporate taxes by 210 billion. So There is at least half a trillion dollars not mentioned in articles like the one from NPR.

The CARES act separately authorized 500 billion just to the largest corporations in America. Some of the additional hundreds of billions deployed to "small" businesses is really to large companies as well.

It would be great to get a detailed breakdown of what the fed is doing, I am certainly not doing it justice in my description.

Re: Hazard pay in focus as essential workers earn less than the jobless

#143

Post by dv_dt »

mrep wrote: post #111
gregwebs wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That breakdown is missing the trillion dollars of corporate debt that the fed is now engaging in purchasing. Correction: in terms of direct corporate debt purchase, they have currently committed to less than half a trillion dollars of purchases independent of the CARES act. But the breakdown is also missing $210 billion of reduced corporate taxes! The CARES act is a good attempt at providing fair outcomes for everyon…

They have not bought anywhere close to trillion dollars worth of corporate debt. As you can see in the breakdown [0], most of what they are buying is our own governments debt (the same debt used to fund the CARES act) and US mortgage backed securities. [0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm

Depending on the situation, the Fed could take on government securities from banks so that the banks may extend more credit to private lendees (mostly companies) without running too low on required reserves. This balance sheet may not reflect what other agreements are attached to the treasury assets in holding.

Re: Hazard pay in focus as essential workers earn less than the jobless

#144

Post by HumblyTossed »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #53
hobs wrote: post #10

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?

> why would we not pay out significantly less for people who are struggling to find jobs? The CARES act allocated most of the money to individuals, state and local governments, public health, and education initiatives. The amount given to large corporations (much in the form of loans that will be paid back) is less than that given to individuals: NPR has a good breakdown. The idea that corporations are receiving “tri…

> The idea that corporations are receiving “trillions” in cash payments is a myth.

Some were more clever in how they got the money:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14Ygl2DiUdQ

Re: Hazard pay in focus as essential workers earn less than the jobless

#145

Post by cool_dude85 »

gen3 wrote: post #137
cool_dude85 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bailouts usually make the government money in the long run if you ignore the costs. 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%.

The government goal isn’t to pursue good investments at a market rate. They are trying to prop up companies that investors don’t want to touch because of their current risk of failure. Spending some money now to keep a company in business can pay off in the long run, for example saving money on unemployment.

I absolutely agree, the government can certainly have other goals other than making good investments.

But don't muddy the waters by saying that they are making money on the program if they're giving below market loans. They might have good reasons to do it, but they're not making money on the deal.

Re: Hazard pay in focus as essential workers earn less than the jobless

#146

Post by votepaunchy »

repeek wrote: post #42
dahfizz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If all that money instead went to the people/taxpayers they would all have received an $18,000 stimulus check instead of $1,200, I think this would have been the best move possible. Everyone I know would choose their entire retirement fund over a one time check of $18,000 . I understand your sentiment, and it does feel like we got less that we deserve, but stimulating the stock market was absolutely the right move.…

> and a majority of Americans have a 401k Source? According to the 2017 US Census, only 32% are saving in a 401k. [1] [1] https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-...

What fraction are retirees who have rolled over their 401k into an IRA?

Re: Hazard pay in focus as essential workers earn less than the jobless

#147

Post by ixvvqktiwl »

Nightshaxx wrote: post #49

> "You feel like, you guys [the government] never have money for people that really need it, and all of a sudden you have money for everybody," The government doesn't have this money, they are borrowing it. Debt levels are increasing like we are in wartime [1] but there is a massive negative impact on jobs, not a positive one like in a war. I have seen more than one person echo this sentiment and I wish people acctua…

The cool thing about debt is that you can make it go away by printing more money (which is exactly what the government does).

Ever wonder why homes cost so much? It's inflation caused by cheap debt and money printing.

Re: Hazard pay in focus as essential workers earn less than the jobless

#148

Post by entropea »

eanzenberg wrote: post #68
greesil wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on how keeping people from starving is communism, or any other ideology?

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?

Can you explain to us how that's communism?

Re: Hazard pay in focus as essential workers earn less than the jobless

#149

Post by eli_gottlieb »

save_ferris wrote: post #15
mchusma wrote: post #2

The fact that you could easily earn more on unemployment than not was a bizarre feature of the US COVID response. Most, if not all state unemployment schemes cover part of your wages if unemployed, not more than you made before. It creates a strong incentive to be considered partially or fully laid off. I'm pro basic income, but definitely don't support paying more to be unproductive than productive. This benefit end…

> I’m pro basic income, but definitely don’t support paying more to be unproductive than productive This problem cuts both ways. The government capitulated largely because they knew pegging stimulus to the minimum wage wasn’t going to be enough and they didn’t want to risk the political fallout of that situation. I see this largely as an admission by our leaders that minimum wages aren’t high enough. Wages in the US…

>the conversation is always framed as a shortage of labor as opposed to a market unwilling to raise wages to attract qualified candidates.

I had sorta thought it was Microecon 101 that these two things are mathematically equivalent. If the labor market doesn't clear due to a "shortage", you're either in the immediate aftermath of a war, or you need to raise wages.

Re: Hazard pay in focus as essential workers earn less than the jobless

#150

Post by ceejayoz »

monocasa wrote: post #138
ceejayoz wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Travel nursing (high pay, short-term contract) has been a thing for decades.

Just because it's been a thing for decades doesn't mean it instantly fixes demand in this case. And the fact that a quick google search is showing new travel nurse jobs posted a week ago in new york, despite their curve dropping a couple months ago, is telling. It seems like they were unable to meet demand with that program.

There are always travel nurse jobs open in NYC. The nature of a short-term contract is that there's always churn.

They are not always $10k/week.

Post reply on HN