Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

201–210 of 348 posts

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

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Except that the loans they are making are not $2 below prevailing rates. Many of these businesses are near insolvency and are unable to get loans in the open market. These loans are huge gifts; if they were given by private equity, they would additionally come with a large equity position. When they don't, they are gifts, equivalent to the equity position that isn't taken and the high interest rate avoided.

Right, I suspect that the interest rate differential is higher than 2%. In some cases the businesses receiving loans are insolvent and the loans are effectively non-repayable, i.e. gifts -- but not all.

The true cost is almost certainly somewhere between 2% and 100%.

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

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not even capitalism (capital based ownership) but some form of debtism (some form of financial servitude, in lieu of ownership). Eh, I'd argue it's still capitalism. Nothing about capitalism says how concentrated capital can't be.

With that allowance, feudalism would be considered capitalism though. The problem isn't just a skewed concentration of capital. It's that most people do not have any capital and their situation is denominated by debt.

Was not the abolition of private property possible at an earlier time? No. Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations.

Private property has not always existed.

When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property. And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order.

So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and extending the forces of production – so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society’s productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development.

The agrarian Middle Ages give us the baron and the serf; the cities of the later Middle Ages show us the guildmaster and the journeyman and the day laborer; the 17th century has its manufacturing workers; the 19th has big factory owners and proletarians.

It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production.

Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.

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

#203
post #143
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have not bought anywhere close to trillion dollars worth of corporate debt. As you can see in the breakdown [0], most of what they are buying is our own governments debt (the same debt used to fund the CARES act) and US mortgage backed securities. [0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm

Depending on the situation, the Fed could take on government securities from banks so that the banks may extend more credit to private lendees (mostly companies) without running too low on required reserves. This balance sheet may not reflect what other agreements are attached to the treasury assets in holding.

In case you missed it, the Fed has removed almost all reserve requirements.

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

#204
post #77

This is an example of how government trying to "work" the economy can upset the tenets of those who believe in a free market; you may choose to look at it with a different lens. The government does not create wealth, or anything for that matter, and in trying to do the apparent right thing to make things better (at least seek favor with their constituents) they wind up unbalancing the system, and IMHO, creating the o…

If you were paid to not work, would you do nothing?

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

#205
post #180
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Is there a number for the "real resources" you note? What is the limit and who's keeping track? Why do you ask? I was just making (what should be) an uncontroversial point that there's a bound at all, because someone was dismissing all concerns of affordability of any program on the grounds that: >>>Federal spending doesn't come from money laying around, in the first place, it comes from money the government decides…

I am asking about your note on "real resources" because you seemed to indicate this is a limiting factor, but if you can't quantify or know where the "real resources" limit is, then it's not a very good argument. Like how do we calculate the relationship between the funny money we print and the real resources it's tied to? I don't think they're coupled at all.

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

#206
This story strikes home. I worked during the shutdown, my job in reality isn't that important compared to an EMS Tech, ER Nurse or someone along those lines. None the less I did work directly with the public... I never got a thank you from my company, never got paid a penny extra nothing. While my boss received an extra week of paid vacation. Four weeks ago people laid off started coming back to work. Two weeks ago my pay and hours both got cut, I will now get paid 25% less than I did last year. Now a person who choose to go on leave, so they could make more money from unemployment, got promoted... with a 10% pay increase. Oh, best of all the company will be charge more in a few weeks.

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

#207

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…

Just to nitpick a bit with language I dont think "problem" is the right word. The real problem is that the law lets companies pay so many people so little to begin with. Not saying you necessarily disagree. I think language has a tangible and often unconscious impact on our thought porcess so wanted to point it out. In America, large companies should be required by law to pay their employees a living wage. Its not OK…

> The real problem is that the law lets companies pay so many people so little to begin with.

Economists pretty much across the board disagree with you.

If you don’t allow companies to pay market rate for low-value labor, they’re simply not going to hire those people at all. They’re not going to lose money paying $15/hr (or whatever) for a job that only nets them half that.

All a “minimum wage” law actually does is eliminate categories of employment available to people with low skills or ability. You’re not helping those people by unemploying them.

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

#208
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Strong unions, and strong contract law, without the current union call for elimination of issues addressed by said unions (minimum wage, health benefits) Problem will be taken care of by individual union contracts locally

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

#209
Wages are too low across the board. Why are wages so low? Past administrations have been incentivizing businesses to move production capacity overseas. Combine this with large amounts of immigration, and our most vulnerable populations are underpaid or unemployed with no chance of moving up the economic ladder.

A technical degree is the only remaining ticket to the middle class, and we've got over 600k H1B's and their dependents displacing domestic labor that could easily be trained to do the same jobs.

So when I hear that "Essential Workers" are making less than the unemployed, I want to resolve the core issue: low wages.

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

#210

> 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…

It wasn't that complicated to index it to salary, there was an amendment proposed but Bernie threw a tantrum and it got rejected.

Meanwhile European nations have suffered much lower unemployment because governments decided to subsidize salaries instead of paying people to stay off payroll, the former being a non-starter in the US given the current House composition.

Post reply on HN