Hazard pay in focus as essential workers earn less than the jobless • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by JSavageOne » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 3:07 PM UTC

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 amount given to large corporations (much in the form of loans that will be paid back) is less than that given to individuals:

Much of the $377b in Small Business PPP money actually went to large corporations like Shake Shack, Ruth's Chris, Kura Sushi. And of the $2.3t, only about 1/4 went to individuals, so it's a bit misleading to paint the picture as if individuals got the lions share here.

Also there are additional benefits to large corporations not reflected in that $500b figure such as $210b in loosened tax deductions for interest and operating losses. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-bi...

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

#152

Post by entropea » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

mitchdoogle wrote: post #76

Nightshaxx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans acctually did try to anticipate this problem with an amendment but Democrats pushed it through. [1] I don't know how long an amendment would delay the bill, but depending on the time period an argument could be made that this was intentional. Yes, if this was going to delay the bill a few weeks, it probably was just rejected to get it out, but if it would be a few days I think it would be reasonable to co…

If the Republicans had held up the bill, then Democrats would've pushed on less corporate bailouts. It's the same argument they always have.. who matters more, big business or individuals?

Who consumes the products?

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

#153

Post by JSavageOne » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

packetlost wrote: post #23

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?

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.

That's a horrible bar to be deciding who gets a bailout. By that logic, perhaps he should eliminate the safety net because handing out money to poor people isn't "profitable".

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

#154

Post by dahfizz » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

throwaway_USD wrote: post #119

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.…

>Everyone I know would choose their entire retirement fund over a one time check of $18,000 I am assuming you don't know a single person in the 40% that don't have $400 saved up for emergencies. >it does feel like we got less that we deserve, but stimulating the stock market was absolutely the right move. It isn't without merit...until you look behind the curtain at OZ. The stock market was already in a bubble and we…

> I am assuming you don't know a single person in the 40% that don't have $400 saved up for emergencies.

This is an oft misunderstood stat[1][2]. The actual stats from the survey show that 61% of Americans would choose to pay a surprise $400 bill in cash. The remaining people would prefer to use a credit card or other ways of paying. Only around 12% of respondents said they would actually have a hard time paying the bill.

> Ok, so they have a conflict of interest in the matter (25% of Americans have no retirement). Of those with a 401K aged 35-44 the median balance is $22k (so its pretty much a wash for them). Then on the very harsh side of things, the free market side, you risked your money by investing, if a portion of your portfolio includes stock in overvalued companies with runaway P/E ratios that didn't have cash reserves to whether the storm, you invested poorly and you should expect taxpayers to bailout your poor investments.

I think you're moving the goalposts a bit. I could just as easily say "Why should tax payers bail out your poorly chosen career? Just work from home." The point my parent was making is that $6T was allocated for relief but too much of it went to the stock market. My point is that stimulating the stock market has benefits for all. The individual checks sent out should have been bigger, but the question is "Money has been allocated for relief, should a significant amount go towards the stock market?" and the answer is definitely "yes".

If you believe the government should not "bail out" citizens when they need it, that's fine, but be consistent.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...

[2 (non-paywall)] https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2019/06/americ...

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

#155

Post by NovemberWhiskey » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

adamsea wrote: post #88

eanzenberg wrote: post #68

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?

Yes. Food insecurity is an issue. https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica.org/understand-food-i... About 1 in 9 people -- in the wealthiest nation that ever existed on earth, which as of 2016 had 540 billionaires living in it with with a combined net worth of about 2.3 trillion (via Forbes from a quick google) -- face food insecurity. Relatedly, access to healthy food (that wont give you diabetes if you eat it all the…

OK, but the definition of "food insecurity" used at that first link includes, at the "low food security level" people whose "quantity of food intake and normal eating patterns were not substantially disturbed".

I don't think you're doing any favors to the cause of food security by suggesting that people starving in America is a big issue, or implying that anything like 1 in 9 people are in that situation.

I think the honest answer to the question "is there anyone starving to death in America?" is "virtually no-one". I'm sure there are cases of parental mistreatment where children have been starved to death but they're not from economic causes.

The broader question of "are there people whose health or development is affected because they cannot afford to eat healthily" is different, and important, but let's not pretend people are dying of starvation because primarily because they can't afford to eat.

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

#156

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 3:14 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #139

infinite8s wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how everyone always misses the point Marx was making, in that he was thinking about post-capitalism, not a replacement for capitalism. There are 3 components to the economy (simplifying a bit) - labor, capital, and resources. What does society look like when the ongoing cost of labor nears 0 and so requires minimal human participation. He was just a century or two before that would be technologically possi…

> What does society look like when the ongoing cost of labor nears 0 and so requires minimal human participation. Honest question: do you believe that we are anywhere close? And does that belief depend on an AI singularity?

That depends...

Arguably, we are long past that point, as seen from Marx’ perspective of the 18th century: the entire economy of his time, i. e. agriculture and industrial manufacturing, covering the essentials of life, is today easily accomplished by about 3% of people working in agriculture, and probably a similar number in manufacturing.

But so far, we have chosen (and also accomplished) to reinvest capacities that were freed by automation into increased consumption instead of less work.

Considering the decreasing marginal utility of increased consumption (your first $1000/mo keep you alive, the tenth $1000 are wasted on a jet ski you will use twice), at some point working less should become the preferred option.

Alternatively, we might run out of the opportunity to choose work. This is what people mean when they mention competition by machines and AI. When driving and accounting and phone centers and retail are all automated, will we, yet again, come up with meaningful roles that are accessible to most everyone, but cannot be performed by such technology?

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

#157

Post by femiagbabiaka » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 3:15 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #5

> When she got her unemployment benefits, she realized something unheard of: She was making more money not working. The temporary COVID unemployment bill was so rushed that they didn’t index the unemployment to the person’s earnings. If you lost your job or had your hours reduced, you get an extra $600/week on top of state unemployment. About half of people receiving this are receiving more from the combined unemploy…

That was an extremely good thing actually, because it incentivized more people to stay home knowing that they could be financially secure. Slowing the spread of COVID is the goal. Prioritizing means testing in this situation out of some sort of sense of pragmatism is deeply twisted.

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

#158

Post by mnd999 » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 3:15 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #114

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…

> These wealth gaps historically lead to populism, which is how we ended up with our current president. Yet our current president is presiding over exactly what you’re describing. Also, as the other commenter explained, there are several problems with your understanding of the Fed’s operations and what they mean in terms of long-term budget. It’s not correct to compare cash payments to individuals with counter-cyclic…

If the wealth gap gets him elected, of course he’s gonna do the best he can to maintain it.

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

#159

Post by entropea » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 3:16 PM UTC

adamsea wrote: post #80

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #5

> When she got her unemployment benefits, she realized something unheard of: She was making more money not working. The temporary COVID unemployment bill was so rushed that they didn’t index the unemployment to the person’s earnings. If you lost your job or had your hours reduced, you get an extra $600/week on top of state unemployment. About half of people receiving this are receiving more from the combined unemploy…

Those are all good points but I want to emphasize that the root issue is that US law basically allows companies to exploit workers and not pay them a living wage, and as we are seeing now this does tangible damage to our society as a whole. [EDIT: I encourage downvoters to explain why they downvoted and point out what assertion I make about worker exploitation in the U.S. is not empirically verifiable.]

The Capitalist will always try to cut costs at the benefit of shareholder pockets, especially at a period when workers have the least or close to the least working rights of any western country. The most expensive costs are typically labor. Why do you think they started manufacturing in China?

Can anyone explain to me how you get around greed like that in Capitalism?

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

#160

Post by CydeWeys » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 3:17 PM UTC

votepaunchy wrote: post #141

Zetaphor wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Paying out next year upon filing taxes doesn't do a lot to keep people afloat who are unemployed now. That's long enough to end up on the street.