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

251–260 of 563 posts

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

#251

Post by _curious_ »

aluminussoma wrote: post #204
Frost1x wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with the tactic of immediately pushing employees to unemployment. Unemployment is funded by taxes which are largely paid by the same people being laid off. If you're promoting businesses push people to unemployment instead of first trying to cover them during hardship and also taking a loss (as everyone else is), you're pushing for more tax subsidies to businesses indirectly. Une…

In California, unemployment benefits are a form of insurance that is paid by the employees of your previous employer (caveat at end). If the company went bankrupt, I'd assume that the costs are spread out among all the employees of all companies in that state. If your employer has more claims, it's employees are charged a higher amount per paycheck. In the sense of insurance, not claiming unemployment benefits is lik…

"you also have to prove you are actively looking for work"

This is easy to defraud, unfortunately, seen it firsthand in many instances and it's at national scale.

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

#252

Post by stefano »

adrianN wrote: post #30
buzzkillington wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all this for a virus that kills around 1% of the people who get it, and the majority of them are retired. Future generations will look at us and wonder how we were this stupid.

It kills 1% if ICU care is available. It kills a lot more if the healthcare system is overwhelmed. Look at Spain or Italy. Case fatality rate is around 10%. Letting it run its course it needs to infect 60-70% of the population before herd immunity kicks in. 1% of 60% of the population of the US is 2 million people. World-wide you're looking at 45 million people for a very optimistic scenario. The numbers could easily…

No one in Italy has ever been denied an ICU bed yet.

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

#253

Post by swimfar »

toasterlovin wrote: post #219
globular-toast wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$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.

If by we, you mean two people, then it's $1200/week for the both of you. So that leaves you $2600/month after housing (maybe not including taxes, utilities, repairs). That doesn't seem too bad.

Also, you're talking about a mortgage for a property worth over $400k. It's unreasonable to expect that unemployment would be enough to pay everyone's mortgage, regardless of how much it is.

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

#254

Post by irq11 »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #127
nostrebored wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also not the reported number in Italy. The sources of error in the data are enough to make the data fairly meaningless. 1. We have no idea how many people were infected 2. We have no idea how many people who have died died from Covid 19 3. The population pyramid in Italy is extremely disparate from the rest of the world. The medical system being overwhelmed is a portion of the contribution, and what it means to…

The financial probelms are a given. Joining some political death cult to sacrifice the weak and elderly portion of our population to feed the COVID-19 Volcano isn't going to make the virus end any sooner, and you'll have even fewer consumers left after it's all over if governments choose to go that route. The virus doesn't care, and as far as I'm concerned any economic system that isn't capable of protecting the vuln…

”Joining some political death cult to sacrifice the weak and elderly portion of our population...isn't going to make the virus end any sooner”

Barring the development of a vaccine (which is far from guaranteed, and a year or more away, in the best case), letting the virus sweep through the population is pretty much the only thing that would bring this to an end quickly. We could achieve herd immunity in a few months and have it behind us.

This situation is a direct tradeoff of time (and money) for lives.

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

#255

Post by malandrew »

BurningFrog wrote: post #151
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.

It's rather fantastic that congress spends $2,000,000,000,000 to handle a virus, where $0 of that goes to paying for treatment of those infected by that virus...

You're missed three zeros.

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

#256

Post by lotsofpulp »

ihm wrote: post #101
skellera wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t wish a bad outcome but if it happens, hopefully people realize we need a different system for healthcare.

Already most Americans support Medicare for all – it’s our bought elected officials who don’t.

It doesn't matter what most Americans support, nor what "bought elected officials" support. It matters what most voters in swing states support.

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

#257

Post by MiroF »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #46
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?

Food, non-perishables, fuel? Yes. Firearms and ammo? To each their own. We did, but we're more rural. Our concern is a supply chain meltdown when you have millions infected and sick. I would rather be prepared and not need something, then need something and not be prepared.

> Our concern is a supply chain meltdown when you have millions infected and sick.

This is an absurdist prediction - we are looking at maximum 2 million 75+ year olds dying with some much smaller number of people of different ages. This is the group least likely to be involved in the day-to-day functioning of our supply chains.

Honestly, where are people coming up with these doomsday predictions?

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

#258

Post by [deleted] »

Frost1x wrote: post #107
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.

Also I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with the tactic of immediately pushing employees to unemployment. Unemployment is funded by taxes which are largely paid by the same people being laid off. If you're promoting businesses push people to unemployment instead of first trying to cover them during hardship and also taking a loss (as everyone else is), you're pushing for more tax subsidies to businesses indirectly. Une…

[deleted]

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

#259

Post by swimfar »

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.

When I was unemployed after my first job out of college, I was making a little over $420/week on unemployment. I ended up taking a manufacturing job where I made $10/hour for a 40hr/week job. So I made less money by working than if I had stayed on unemployment. And that hourly wage was quite a bit higher than minimum wage.

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

#260

Post by _curious_ »

bilbo0s wrote: post #139
Frost1x wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with the tactic of immediately pushing employees to unemployment. Unemployment is funded by taxes which are largely paid by the same people being laid off. If you're promoting businesses push people to unemployment instead of first trying to cover them during hardship and also taking a loss (as everyone else is), you're pushing for more tax subsidies to businesses indirectly. Une…

> Also I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with the tactic of immediately pushing employees to unemployment. I think everyone definitely understands academically that the actuarial models underpinning unemployment collapse in that kind of environment. > I dont want to utilize that unless I need to and my other options fail. I expect businesses to do the same and be responsible contributors to society. Here's the issue g…

"I'd imagine most people will opt for the immediate unemployment strategy. "

Yes, even if quick and easy way out may not be in their best long term interests.

Post reply on HN