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

181–190 of 348 posts

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

#181

Post by Mirioron »

mnd999 wrote: post #158
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…

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

I doubt this was even considered by him. 4 years is not enough time to make a meaningful impact on this issue. It matters to the party, but not the candidate.

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

#182

Post by throwanem »

andrewmutz wrote: post #177
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?

That's not a fair comparison. QE are loans that get paid back, and bailouts are equity purchases. The government makes money on these programs. Stimulus payments are gifts, and the government loses money on them. To be clear, the stimulus payments are essential for helping people and are a great thing for the wider economy. But you can't compare them dollar-for-dollar, as they are not like each other.

When was profitability added to governments' remit?

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

#183

Post by jellicle »

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…

> assuming that our government has enough money lying around to pay everyone this much all of the time (we don’t, this is actually very expensive for the taxpayers).

If you want to learn more about why this statement is completely wrong, read Stephanie Kelton's new book.

Even based on your own assumptions about "paying for it", the COVID unemployment increases/extensions have a negative cost, meaning they saved Americans more money than they cost. Thanks, Keynes.

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

#184

Post by awinder »

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…

This money ends in July (or has to be renegotiated), so the moral hazard maybe could apply to a few weeks during re-opening (a rounding error). Or maybe it saves a ton of money for these businesses if re-opening goes south and we have to retreat. If you care about moral hazard you should be frying bigger fish imho.

Also may this finally dispel the myth that servers get made whole with tips. This owner is putting out the numbers, 2400/month is 15/hr, the servers would be making 50%/66% of that so 7.50 to 10 an hour. Minimum wage is $11 in maryland.

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

#185

Post by greedo »

jschwartzi wrote: post #83
tkeAmarktinClss wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bailout have totally changed my mind on why you should work for a fortune 500 company Individuals will never have political power like a billion dollar corporation. If you can rise up the ranks, you get some of this power. Sure it's a moonshot, but how many self made people make billion dollar companies? You could count them. I think I'm going to pick a major fortune 500 and leach off it. Even if I hang around th…

The medical insurance is typically really good too. When my fiancé quit her job due to the hazards of working retail it turned out that for only 200 more a month we could retain her insurance and shave 12000 off the cost of having a baby. They pay for IVF too if we need it which is normally a six figure procedure. Having a baby was otherwise so expensive we weren’t sure we could afford it.

IVF shouldn't cost six figures. When we did it, it was about $12K.

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

#186

Post by bendergarcia »

ceejayoz wrote: post #125
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"…

> As much as I appreciate the government giving me back my tax dollars, why did I receive this and not someone who's recently unemployed? 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.

Donate it to a charity, go buy Stuff from the local economy, not amazon. Support small time business, buy gift cards to use later.

Lots of useful ways they could prop up the economy.

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

#187

Post by andreilys »

andrewmutz wrote: post #177
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?

That's not a fair comparison. QE are loans that get paid back, and bailouts are equity purchases. The government makes money on these programs. Stimulus payments are gifts, and the government loses money on them. To be clear, the stimulus payments are essential for helping people and are a great thing for the wider economy. But you can't compare them dollar-for-dollar, as they are not like each other.

Do you think the government will get paid back for buying junk bonds from companies likely to go bankrupt?

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

#188

Post by throwaway_USD »

mrep wrote: post #134
throwaway_USD wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine if you want to add the amount for subsidizing the Unemployment Insurance from the CARES Act the numbers again: $4T to the FED to prop up the stock market $700B in forgivable loans to small businesses (PPP program) $300B in taxpayer stimulus checks $260B in Unemployment Insurance subsidies >suggesting that we could all have received $18K is disingenuous. Proper response should be targeted where needed It is not d…

The FED has only bought around 3 trillion dollars worth of assets and basically all of that is being used to buy our own governments debt (the same debt used to fund the CARES act) and US mortgage backed securities, not the stock market as you can see from their balance sheet [0]. [0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm

The 2 largest numbers on their balance sheet are:

Reserve Bank credit: 7,009,664

Securities held outright[1]: 6,115,130

[1] Includes securities lent to dealers under the overnight securities lending facility (when people talk about JPow money printer go brrr...this is what they are talking about and nearly every night for 2 months after the FED got the $4T overnight the markets would skyrocket)

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

#189

Post by andreilys »

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.

These companies have no penalty for firing people after receiving bailout money.

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

#190

Post by greedo »

tkeAmarktinClss wrote: post #22
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?

The bailout have totally changed my mind on why you should work for a fortune 500 company Individuals will never have political power like a billion dollar corporation. If you can rise up the ranks, you get some of this power. Sure it's a moonshot, but how many self made people make billion dollar companies? You could count them. I think I'm going to pick a major fortune 500 and leach off it. Even if I hang around th…

My employer isn't public, but is a large insurance company. The issues with working for a large company is bureaucracy and corporate lethargy. Of course this depends on your team, the company, etc.

And while you might have job security, that can be tenuous as well. Really just depends on how savvy you are at promoting yourself and managing up.

Post reply on HN