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

#251

Post by throwawaygh » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

throwaway_USD wrote: post #243

throwawaygh wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> again taxpayers basically just paid for 8 weeks of your payroll Sorry, I don't really understand why this is a problem. The alternative would be laying those people off and paying them via unemployment anyways, right? The idea was to keep people tied to their employers and keep otherwise productive businesses in tact in order to enable a quicker recovery. Digging into today's jobs numbers confirms this was largely…

>Sorry, I don't really understand why this is a problem. The alternative would be laying those people off and paying them via unemployment anyways, right? The idea was to keep people tied to their employers If the alternative was laying people off, that is the free market at work. And there is no "keeping employee tied to their employers" as you claim, it is just free money to businesses for 8 weeks of payroll (+25%…

> that is the free market at work

The economic shock was caused in part by a government-imposed shutdown of economic activity in response to a pandemic.

> There is no promise or guarantee business will keep employees or even remain open beyond that 8 week period.

Which is why another aid package will probably be passed in July. The initial aid package was not intended as a one-time fix. Even as the legislation was being drafted, its key sponsors were stating that a follow-up package would be required in the summer.

> At minimum law makers wouldn't have been allowed to pass the bill, create a brand new business, and obtain PPP loans for these new businesses

Again: businesses had to exist prior to February 15, 2020 and the amount received is computed based upon payrolls from Jan 1 to Feb 15 2020. If people are doing this, they are putting a lot of effort into intentional fraud and are 100% going to end up in jail.

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

#252

Post by awinder » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #224

awinder wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so my heart goes out to the 5 possible business owners nationwide who that may have applied to, but that is a completely unserious argument.

Pretty much everyone is capable of working more than one occupational role, and almost always a SIP-compatible one. Where do you get "business owners" as the relevant category? Are you sure you're taking this discussion as seriously as you expect others to?

And in which a SIP-compatible role was open and available, which is probably 5 businesses when unemployment went from 4% to 20%. Moral hazard exists everywhere, especially for people who have known the word longer than 6 months.

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

#253

Post by andrewmutz » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

gregwebs wrote: post #244

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.

QE is much more than loans that get paid back. The fed's balance sheet actually went up by 4 trillion dollars during the 2008 recovery [1], even though the loan program was less than 1 trillion. Much of QE finances government debt. But the fed also still holds more than a trillion dollars of mortgage backed securities. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttren...

Government debt and MBS are loans that are continuously being paid back.

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

#254

Post by eggy » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #130

eggy wrote: 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…

> Why rush to return to work when you can make more staying at home? Because unemployment doesn't work that way. When your boss calls and says "hey, we're ready for you to come back to work", you're no longer eligible for unemployment benefits .

Yes, but until then you're incentivizedized to stay home and collect the larger check.

Not to mention the woman in the lead of the story took an unpaid leave of absence for her illness.

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

#255

Post by LordDragonfang » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 6:07 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #115

dragonwriter wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The temporary COVID unemployment bill was so rushed that they didn’t index the unemployment to the person’s earnings. No, it was a deliberate choice to make total benefits bump up to approximately full earnings at a low-but-not-quite-bottom-barrel working income with common state formulas while providing (proportionate to income) less benefit to high income workers (presumed to, when working, have greater surplus i…

>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…

>[1] https://www.newsweek.com/baltimore-restaurant-owner-cant-get...

"I can't get my employees to come back because that would mean they would be making less money. I can't envision any solution to this problem"

If an employer wants employees to risk their lives as the quarantine lifts and the second wave continues to spread, they need to offer more money.

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

#256

Post by eggy » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 6:07 PM UTC

bendergarcia wrote: post #204

eggy wrote: 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?

No, but I would do something I wanted to do. Not sure I get your drift.

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

#257

Post by greedo » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

jschwartzi wrote: post #211

greedo wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IVF shouldn't cost six figures. When we did it, it was about $12K.

That's about what it cost my friends.

As I commented, we didn't pay that much.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/how-much-does-ivf-cost-196021....

The drugs are separate, but I think we paid around $5K for them.

Now if you're unlucky, you might have to go through multiple cycles, but our specialist only charged us the base cost. We had to pay for the additional drugs however.

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

#258

Post by koheripbal » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 6:11 PM UTC

andrewmutz wrote: post #253

gregwebs wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

QE is much more than loans that get paid back. The fed's balance sheet actually went up by 4 trillion dollars during the 2008 recovery [1], even though the loan program was less than 1 trillion. Much of QE finances government debt. But the fed also still holds more than a trillion dollars of mortgage backed securities. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttren...

Government debt and MBS are loans that are continuously being paid back.

Yep - and the US government actually MADE money on the MBS it bought.

People who are angry seldom take the time to understand how finance works.

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

#259

Post by koheripbal » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

gregwebs wrote: post #246

packetlost wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some of the bailout loans might break even, but this is only some of what is going on. The paycheck protection loans get forgiven and are essentially just handing out money (with the caveat that it goes to labor costs). We also handed out $210 billion in tax cuts which is just a handout. On the whole the fed's balance sheet actually went up by 4 trillion dollars during the 2008 recovery [1] even though the loan progr…

In 2008, the US Gov't made hundreds of billions on the bailout loans they gave.

Let me make that clear. Whenever people say "Wall St was bailed out by the taxpayers", they don't understand finance well enough to know that the taxpayers actually earned a significant PROFIT from that bailout.

...and naturally the media doesn't report on that important detail.

"socialize the losses, privatize the gains" is a slogan based on complete ignorance.

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

#260

Post by SilasX » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 6:19 PM UTC

LordDragonfang wrote: post #255

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…

>[1] https://www.newsweek.com/baltimore-restaurant-owner-cant-get... "I can't get my employees to come back because that would mean they would be making less money. I can't envision any solution to this problem" If an employer wants employees to risk their lives as the quarantine lifts and the second wave continues to spread, they need to offer more money.

You're missing the problem. It's that they lose the unemployment by coming back to work. Even if they were paying (any reasonable definition of living wage plus hazard pay), the unemployment payment structure still disincentivizes them.

It means their pay would have to be some $600 over and above the regular amounted needed to compensate for the inconvenience and utility of work. So they're effectively "taxed" at over 100%. At that point, it's not the employer's fault for not offering enough.

At the very least, they could just make it so that unemployment (i.e. same logic as behind the UBI -- have social benefits, but don't [significantly] contract them as you work more).