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

191–200 of 348 posts

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

#191

Post by bendergarcia »

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?

If someone is not working for McDonald’s but is a productive member of society, does it matter that they are incentivized to not work?

This idea that people who aren’t incentivized to work are lazy and don’t add any value to society highlights how you view people and humanity.

What would you do if you were paid to not work?

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

#192

Post by Mirioron »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #145
gen3 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are making money though. The government doesn't make money for the government. It's not like a corporation. The government makes money for the country. Saving existing institutions from collapse during a disaster tends to be a very good investment for that.

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

#193

Post by andrewmutz »

throwanem wrote: post #182
andrewmutz wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The government is not chartered to make money, but that's frequently a side effect of lending and equity. You can see the numbers here from the last bailout:

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

The government handed out $634B.

The government recouped $390B + $364B = $754B.

So, $120B profit. Again, I'm not saying we should bailout corporations and ignore the little guy. The stimulus checks are critical. But you can't compare them dollar for dollar.

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

#194

Post by centimeter »

BurningFrog wrote: post #44
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…

> this is actually very expensive for the taxpayers Uncle Sam has long since stopped paying for things with tax money. Any new expense is handled by borrowing or printing money.

That reduces the purchasing power of dollar holders, who are mostly Americans. It’s another kind of tax that doesn’t offend the proles as much.

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

#195

Post by SilasX »

awinder wrote: post #184
SilasX wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>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).

It applies to the entire time someone could be doing other SIP-compatible work.

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

#196

Post by bendergarcia »

afpx wrote: post #3

If there was an actual shortage of workers, wages would be rising for the essential workers.

If people weren’t living paycheck to paycheck I guarantee you there would be a shortage of work.

People work the essential jobs out of necessity. So ask, how is it that people end up living paycheck to paycheck?

What system is in place that makes it such that you can’t dig yourself out of a hole?

What system basically requires you to win the genetic lottery, and the family lottery, to be able to get out from the bottom?

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

#197

Post by makomk »

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…

Yup. Even, for example, the UK furlough scheme only paid something like 80% of people's normal wages. The American media kept very quiet about that detail when going on about how much better it is than the American approach and about how the government there had failed people by not implementing something like that.

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

#199

Post by [deleted] »

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.…

[deleted]

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

#200

Post by gregwebs »

cperciva wrote: post #164
alexpetralia wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

This is a good point. It's interesting to note, though, that the fed's balance sheet never really goes down and that today mortgage backed securities are still a huge part of the balance sheet and that the fed is still active in this area even though the MBS purchase program was ended.

We should also note that some of the companies will go bankrupt and the fed is doing little to qualify its loans. So it is not really a loan in the traditional sense (it is a low interest rate loaned handout).

Combining these two together, we have the potential to create a situation like Japan where the government is constantly managing the debt of some of the private sector. The cost on society for this can be much higher than the difference on interest rates shows.

Post reply on HN