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

161–170 of 348 posts

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

#161

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

eanzenberg wrote: post #40

[flagged]

This has absolutely nothing to do with communism or socialism. Somehow the US discourse has redefined those terms to encompass any and all charitable policies.

Communism and socialism are systems where the means of production are owned either collectively or by the state.

At the point where US Republicans (as well other proto-fascists like Hungary) enact a policy it should be pretty obvious that it isn’t, like, textbook Stalinism.

If you want to complain about it, „expensive populism“ would seem to be a more fitting and still derogatory term. Or maybe, considering every government with the financial means to do so has enacted such a program, it’s just terribly obvious pragmatism.

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

#162

Post by JSavageOne »

goodside wrote: post #122

In more normal times, it makes sense that unemployment should not be lucrative, and workers should be encouraged to take any job at all rather than be unemployed. But the calculus changes in a pandemic, because you want people to stay home, even if they have nothing productive to do there. Low-wage work is almost never remote, so a person working a non-essential, low-wage job is likely not providing enough value to o…

That's a pretty absurd rationalization for paying people more to not work than to work.

Also, the article specifically talks about "essential workers" who made more money not working.

Wanting people to stay at home is different from paying people to be unemployed.

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

#163

Post by iamstupidsimple »

lucaspm98 wrote: post #58
throwaway_USD wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But, it just highlighted how many people are working and not earning a living wage in the first place. Exactly, we allegedly had the best economy the world has ever seen, record high stock prices/markets, and lowest rate of unemployment. But the reality the economy was revealed to be weak and not even capitalism (capital based ownership) but some form of debtism (some form of financial servitude, in lieu of ownershi…

Honestly, the "debtism" as you describe it is more of a cultural issue of consumerism in America. The amount of people buying new $35,000 cars while they're making $40,000 a year is shocking. It's been hard for me to understand, but from what I've read the Fed isn't buying stocks directly, although that is somewhat pedantic as they are trying to prop up the stock market through other means. I still don't see how that…

People don't understand how to use debt properly. It should be obvious that being able to borrow against your future earnings is an amazing tool, but so many people are just careless about it and go overboard.

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

#164

Post by cperciva »

alexpetralia wrote: post #133
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Can you clarify why it's not a valid comparison? My lay understanding is that if you recycle your debt at 3%, and now you can recycle it at 1%, that is a 2% "bailout". You quite literally have a lower cost of funds (cost of doing business), and it is artificially low due to government intervention.

They're both handouts, yes. But a $100 cash handout is $100, while a $100 loan at 2% below prevailing rates is $2.

It becomes an invalid comparison when you compare nominal values without making the appropriate cost adjustment (multiplying the loan by 2% in this hypothetical).

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

#165

Post by Klinky »

SilasX wrote: post #115
dragonwriter wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The temporary COVID unemployment bill was so rushed that they didn’t index the unemployment to the person’s earnings. No, it was a deliberate choice to make total benefits bump up to approximately full earnings at a low-but-not-quite-bottom-barrel working income with common state formulas while providing (proportionate to income) less benefit to high income workers (presumed to, when working, have greater surplus i…

>It was also controversial from the beginning, with the Right raising moral hazard arguments that it would encourage people to become and remain unemployed, as if that were an option for most recipients. I don't get it -- you're talking like the concern was dubious, even as we see that prediction came exactly true.[2] And yes, not seeking re-employment, or not asking to return to work is an option; see all the storie…

Is there a number for the "real resources" you note? What is the limit and who's keeping track?

Also maybe the issue is the sad state of low-income jobs, and the lack of hazard pay continuing to encourage people to risk their lives. Again, risk their lives, because the pandemic is NOT over. "Come back for low pay, no medical benefits and be at serious risk of dying or being maimed yourself, or infecting a loved one." It's kinda gross that is not considered the real moral hazard here.

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

#166

Post by JSavageOne »

SmokeyHamster wrote: post #112

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"…

> They inherently incentivize not working and punish those who do work.

That's only true if its more financially lucrative to not work than to work. This of course is a real phenomenon at the bottom (Welfare Trap) and needs to be fixed, but the solution isn't to eliminate the safety net.

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

#167

Post by Spooky23 »

To me this issue should be more about the gross nature of US wage policy, that allows systematic abuse of “essential” low skill hourly workers with low wages, unpaid on call, health insurance tied to hours worked, etc.

The resentment these workers feel illustrates why we have a problem — people as a whole are more focused on what the other guy gets than the nature how how they are exploited.

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

#168

Post by banads »

protonimitate wrote: post #37
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. And if COVID has proven anything, its that the most productive workers are the ones who didn't even get a chance to earn the additional $600. The essential employees, the ones that keep the country running, are forced to continue making a less-than-livable wage. It's a very outdated notion that there is a linear corre…

>It's a very outdated notion that there is a linear correlation between "productivity" and pay.

This graph clearly shows how productivity and wages were decoupled in the US in the 1970s, even as productivity skyrocketed:

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

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

#169

Post by iamstupidsimple »

gerbal wrote: post #118
SmokeyHamster wrote: post #112

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"…

> They inherently incentivize not working and punish those who do work. Do you have any evidence of this claim?

It's obvious. I can't speak for America, but in the UK, one of the biggest problems is the financial cliff people face when trying to get off benefits, as being unemployed will pay you more than any entry level job (you can get social housing too). It's kept people trapped within the system for decades and nobody likes to talk about it.

There isn't enough money left to house the current homeless population too, so really, we need to get those people back into working life so that we can deal with the homeless crisis.

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

#170

Post by bendergarcia »

dahfizz wrote: post #25
throwaway_USD wrote: post #12

From the time Congress passed the $6.2T Bill that gave $4T to the FED to prop up the stock market, $700B in PPP loans; and and estimated $300B to the people ($1,200) stimulus checks, it should have put things in perspective. Ideally the stock market wouldn't have been propped up and the PPP loan program would have been more legitimate to save real small businesses (just wait until all the fraud comes out of this thin…

> 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.…

Then you don’t know poor people who don’t have any investment in the stock market. Who absolutely do benefit from the immediate cash. Who drive your Uber, driver your door dash, serve your meal at your restaurant, probably cleaner your house, do you yard work, sell you shoes at the store, check you out at groceries, stock your groceries, serve you drinks at the bar.

Stimulating the stock market was not the right move. You want to talk about putting the money and letting the market do it’s thing, give it to people and let them decide where to put.

Putting the money in the stock market has only benefited those already in the stock market and those with the money to enter it.

Post reply on HN