Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by scrooched_moose » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:49 PM UTC

bearjaws wrote: post #9

My job has been inundated with applications from people who are not even in tech in any way (think like barbers & home depot workers). I see now why so many companies use automation to filter out resumes.

I used to complain about automated job systems, then I saw a raw stack of applicants. In a good job market, roughly 90% don't get more than a few seconds - people not even remotely in the correct field for what they applied for. I can't imagine what it's going to be like for the next year or so.

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

#262

Post by samfisher83 » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:49 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #234

Chathamization wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

55% in the latest Morning Consult poll[1]. And this is after a heavy push from the healthcare industry against it, as well as strong opposition from all of the Republican leadership and most of the Democratic leadership. Before the recent blitz against it, polling was 70%[2]. [1] https://morningconsult.com/2020/04/01/medicare-for-all-coron... [2] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-pe...

80% like their healthcare. I think a significant part of that 55% doesn’t realize that Medicare for all takes away their health insurance. It seems when people get educated on Medicare for all, it declines in popularity. https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcar...

I am not sure how how people like their health care. It seems like every big company is moving toward High Deductible plan. Even Microsft has a high deductible plan. Even if you think you are covered there will be a doctors who you think is in network because you go to an in network hospital who really is out of network.

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

#263

Post by tbyehl » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:49 PM UTC

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 from the federal government and a similar amount from state unemployment insurance benefits can pay up to an equivalent of $50-60K/year right now

LOL. My state maxes at $330/wk and that's taxable income. IDK if the Fed is taxing their payout, pulling other shenanigans (remember Bush II's stimulus checks were a "tax prebate"), or how long they'll pay.

$3,720/m is about 60% of my net income, after taxes and benefits. It'll pay my mortgage, utilities, and keep me out of jail for driving without car insurance. That's about it. In a "WAY lower COL area than SF/Seattle."

Thankfully not unemployed. Yet.

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

#264

Post by BurningFrog » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:49 PM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #255

BurningFrog wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wow. Fixed.

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

#265

Post by MiroF » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

binaryorganic wrote: post #26

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.

Your math doesn't check out. 5% of people that get it (among a wide range of ages) require serious medical care for weeks. And if we send 5% of any population to the hospital in a given month the death rate for ALL diseases goes way up.

> 5% of people that get it (among a wide range of ages) require serious medical care for weeks

Just based on the experience in other countries, GP seems quite spot on in terms of who is impacted, who dies, and the percentage of the population. Your comment seems speculative and substantial number of non-70+ year olds dying has not been borne out by the data at all.

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

#266

Post by hirsin » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #234

Chathamization wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

55% in the latest Morning Consult poll[1]. And this is after a heavy push from the healthcare industry against it, as well as strong opposition from all of the Republican leadership and most of the Democratic leadership. Before the recent blitz against it, polling was 70%[2]. [1] https://morningconsult.com/2020/04/01/medicare-for-all-coron... [2] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-pe...

80% like their healthcare. I think a significant part of that 55% doesn’t realize that Medicare for all takes away their health insurance. It seems when people get educated on Medicare for all, it declines in popularity. https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcar...

They like the quality of their healthcare - the "seeing a doctor and getting healthy" aspect. If the question was "do you like working with your health insurance" the answers would be different.

I've never met a single person who feels their health insurance is good or useful. R=close to zero if the hypothesis is the super majority like theirs.

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

#267

Post by _curious_ » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

asdfman123 wrote: post #210

boringg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed though I think you hit the nail on the head...how much demand will there be after the pandemic passes(?). We were at the apex of a bull market, now we're heading towards a deep depression. A lot of those jobs won't exist sadly. This goes for current markets impacted but the ripple effects are pretty large.

And lots of people don't realize how long this will last. They say we're going to reopen in a month, but right now the curve doesn't seem to be bending significantly. We're not going to reopen when there's way more cases, and that's where we're heading. Also, when we reopen, it will be short term and still pretty locked down. It's absolutely not the end, but a slight reprieve.

Plan and prepare for a year and if things clear up sooner, great!

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

#268

Post by irq11 » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

hajile wrote: post #63

AlexandrB wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should check the numbers coming out of Italy. It’s not 1% if the medical system is overwhelmed. Moreover, you do realize that’s 3 million dead in the US alone?

Don't forget that Italy and France aren't counting people who die of COVID-19 at home or in nursing facilities. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/italys-coronavirus-deat...

They also aren’t counting the huge number of mild or asymptomatic infections, which is orders of magnitude larger.

There’s error in the numerator of the equation, but it’s swamped by the error in the denominator.

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

#269

Post by MiroF » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:52 PM UTC

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…

Spain and Italy have fatality rates of 10% because the infection exploded far before they could ramp up testing capacity, so they were only testing the people who were in serious medical distress.

This is obvious if you compare the numbers between different countries versus their relative level of hospital capacity.

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

#270

Post by BurningFrog » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 2:52 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #196

BurningFrog wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That isn't true. Large chunks of that money are going directly to public services and healthcare initiatives. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-anatomy-of-the-2-trilli...

I see nothing that pays the hospital bills for those infected.

I do see $100B paid to hospitals.