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

#21

Post by PragmaticPulp » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

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…

> 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 state unemployment. The combined benefits given to unemployed people are over $10K/person additional, on top of regular state unemployment.

Furthermore, many of the numbers you’re citing are in the form of loans or other non-spending activity. It’s not correct to suggest that we could have simply given that money to the people and arrived at the same budgetary outcome.

I don’t agree with the way all of the funds have been allocated, but suggesting that we could all have received $18K is disingenuous. Proper response should be targeted where needed, such as the unemployment measures and loans for businesses that were forced to close, not just distributed to everyone who kept their jobs and businesses.

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

#22

Post by tkeAmarktinClss » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

hobs wrote: post #10

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…

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 there for 30 years, I get profits and tax payers will subsidize the losses.

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

#23

Post by packetlost » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 1:44 PM UTC

hobs wrote: post #10

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…

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.

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

#24

Post by minikites » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 1:47 PM UTC

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.

Why does this imply that unproductive people should receive fewer benefits? Why shouldn't productive people be paid more? Wages have stagnated for 50 years and the meager COVID bailout meaningfully improved the lives of millions. Shouldn't that be a sign that we need an overhaul of wage laws?

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

#25

Post by dahfizz » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 1:48 PM UTC

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.

Another depression wouldn't help anyone, and a majority of Americans have a 401k. The idea that only the super rich benefit from a good stock market is plain wrong - most people depend on it.

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

#26

Post by clansimus » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 1:49 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #21

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…

> 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.

No, it didn't.

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

#27

Post by eli_gottlieb » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 1:50 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.

Nonetheless, bailouts come with the social cost of increasing market concentration and moral hazard.

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

#28

Post by protonimitate » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 1:50 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #11

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…

Isn't the point to get people to stay home? "I'm making more doing what I'm supposed to be doing" seems like a good approach, not a side effect of rushed legislation. Aren't you also not eligible for this unemployment if your work has reopened? You only get unemployment if you're willing to work.

I think the point of the $600 was to keep the economy from seizing up, and keeping people at home was a side effect.

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

#29

Post by sidewndr46 » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 1:50 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #21

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…

> 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.

I did not get any notice as such, but my understanding as to why I got $0 was I made too much money to qualify. So I don't think your statement is in any way accurate. It did not go to "everyone"

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

#30

Post by hobs » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 1:50 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.

Do you think subsidizing the poor enough so our economy doesn't have to choose between immediately collapsing and killing the poor wouldn't save us an enormous set of costs?