Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

dol.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 563 posts

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#211

Post by 7777fps »

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #111
TeMPOraL wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any speculations on how bad is this going to get? Should I stock up on TP, on food, or on vodka and ammo?

You know those signs we memed the hell out of last decade? They're so cliched that they don't mean anything anymore, but think of those. Keep calm and carry on You should relax. We're not the first humans to see some hardship. Everything isn't going to fall apart because the economy has a downturn. Society isn't going to collapse because of this. It didn't happen in the 1600s, nor the 1700s, nor the 1800s, nor the 19…

This isn't a flu. Stop repeating misinformation.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#212

Post by PragmaticPulp »

take_a_breath wrote: post #122
aluminussoma wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will the employees, in the US at least, do for health insurance? A pandemic is when you need it. These employees will be strained to pay for COBRA. I fear that we will see revolutions in countries where this is not contained, from either a health or economic perspective. An old saying is that you should buy stocks when there is blood in the streets. I hope that doesn't become literal.

In an ideal scenario, we would re-open the ACA enrollment to provide reasonably priced health insurance. Unfortunately, our current administration doesn't want to do that. [1] ==The Trump administration has decided against reopening Obamacare enrollment to uninsured Americans during the coronavirus pandemic, defying calls from health insurers and Democrats to create a special sign-up window amid the health crisis.==…

> In an ideal scenario, we would re-open the ACA enrollment to provide reasonably priced health insurance.

To clarify: ACA enrollment is open for anyone who has been laid off. They don't need to wait until the next enrollment period to get health coverage again.

Making ACA open enrollment for an extended period of time would create a perverse incentive for people to avoid enrolling until they feel like they need it. Counterintuitively, this could decrease ACA enrollment rather than increase it.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#213

Post by ianleeclark »

xwdv wrote: post #179
ianleeclark wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a cruel thing to say.

I think it’s fair, given the way people in NYC have treated the underclass for a long time.

This is such an impressively grotesque admission, but it leads me to one question: why do people willing to throw away retail workers, home health care workers, cashiers, and janitors (you know, the most commonly held jobs in NYC) to the plague, care about 9/11? Shouldn't you and others like yourself have cheered it on? They are "people in NYC," after all.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#214

Post by aazaa »

There's a sense that once "lockdown" ends, thing go back to normal. In other words, the "V" shaped recovery is the dominant mental model.

Should that not materialize, the disappointment and anger will reach level not seen in most people's lifetimes.

One reason the V-scenario might not play out is that the US still doesn't have a handle on the testing problem. Without testing, you have no way to estimate the danger to the public of normalizing economic activity. At the first sign of a new outbreak, the entire lockdown cycle will repeat.

Too few people will have gained immunity, and the disease is far too contagious and deadly to take any chances. We still don't know what "immunity" looks like at any rate.

Alternatively, the lies about testing may have burned people so badly by the time the "all clear" is given (whatever that looks like), that few will believe it. The effect would be a national strike/boycott.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#215

Post by treyfitty »

enraged_camel wrote: post #21
anoonmoose wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard people say that it was an advance but found conflicting info, can you source?

It is misinformation. It becomes an advance if your normal income suddenly skyrockets to a point where you wouldn’t have been eligible for the $1,200. That won’t be the case for almost anybody.

You have it backwards. If and only if your income sky rockets, you don’t get it taken out next year. If your income is high now and you don’t get $1,200, you’ll get it when you pay next year under the condition your income drops. For everyone else, it’s a simple advance.

> For example, a single taxpayer with $100,000 in 2019 income would not receive an advance rebate but would receive the $1,200 credit on their 2020 return if their income for the year fell below the phaseout. On the other hand, a single taxpayer with $35,000 in income receives a $1,200 advance rebate but would not have to pay the rebate back on the 2020 return if they make $100,000 this year.

https://taxfoundation.org/cares-act-senate-coronavirus-bill-...

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#216

Post by dominotw »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #190
dominotw wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden is the candidate even of 'the righteous' . Highly doubt your statement.

Biden is primarily supported by voters over 65, who already qualify for Medicare and have no incentive to support a Medicare For All candidate. Good luck holding onto that voting cohort through an unmitigated pandemic. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-03-06/biden-older... https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/young-democrats-have-re... https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/1/20943879/i... https://w…

What about African american and latino vote

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/04/black-voters-biden-...

"already have medicare" theory isn't the explanation.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#217

Post by 12xo »

swalsh wrote: post #35

I've seen a lot of small businesses do the math, and realize that with the additional $600 provided by the stimulus bill, it actually works out better for some lower paid workers to lay them off (and presumably rehire later). I wonder if this might explain higher than expected numbers.

This was the point of the $600. It keeps people afloat and home.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#218

Post by PragmaticPulp »

themagician wrote: post #124
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #31

Unemployment benefits have been significantly expanded under the Coronavirus aid bill. The benefit amounts will sound small if you're living in an expensive city like SF or Seattle, but $600/week from the federal government and a similar amount from state unemployment insurance means that unemployment benefits can pay up to an equivalent of $50-60K/year right now. That goes a long way in most parts of the country, es…

In many places being unemployed pays more than being employed. Not sure why the downvotes. It’s literally true for the first time ever. The way the new benefits work out your unemployment check STARTS at the equivalent of $15/hr x 40hr/week = $600/wk. In California, for example, you can get up to $1,050/wk instead of the old maximum of $450/wk.

> In many places being unemployed pays more than being employed.

You're being downvoted because you overgeneralized ("many places"), but this is actually true in some scenarios.

See "Unemployed workers could get more than 100% of their paycheck under the coronavirus bill" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could...

It's a perverse incentive to getting people back to work, so I expect this loophole will be closed soon.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#219

Post by toasterlovin »

globular-toast wrote: post #200
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #31

Unemployment benefits have been significantly expanded under the Coronavirus aid bill. The benefit amounts will sound small if you're living in an expensive city like SF or Seattle, but $600/week from the federal government and a similar amount from state unemployment insurance means that unemployment benefits can pay up to an equivalent of $50-60K/year right now. That goes a long way in most parts of the country, es…

$600/week after tax is surely a massive amount and enough to give a family a very comfortable lifestyle. I always thought it was cheaper to live in the US than in the UK. That amount here would give you a luxurious lifestyle. What am I missing?

Is $600/week enough to live comfortably in London? It’s not enough to live comfortably in most large cities in the US. Our mortgage payment is $2200/month. And we live in the most affordable large city on the West Coast (Portland, Oregon). LA, SF, and Seattle would all be much more.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#220

Post by toomuchtodo »

dominotw wrote: post #216
toomuchtodo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden is primarily supported by voters over 65, who already qualify for Medicare and have no incentive to support a Medicare For All candidate. Good luck holding onto that voting cohort through an unmitigated pandemic. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-03-06/biden-older... https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/young-democrats-have-re... https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/1/20943879/i... https://w…

What about African american and latino vote https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/04/black-voters-biden-... "already have medicare" theory isn't the explanation.

Latinx are overwhelming swinging to Sanders (per your link), people of color swing Biden due to his riding on Obama's coat tails [1] (IMHO; he has no policies that benefit them with his "status quo" stance).

If Biden runs, Trump wins reelection. Not enough voter support for Biden besides older voters and people of color, younger voters will sit out before voting for Biden in a general election. That's not my opinion, that's what the polling data shows.

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/23/joe-biden-black-vot... (“In South Carolina we were taught to vote straight party. You see black people [on the ballot], you see Democrat, you vote straight party. You’re not used to seeing 10 damn candidates in the first place,” added Robinson. The menu of choices plays to Biden’s benefit because he’s a known commodity, Robinson said.)

Post reply on HN