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

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

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 348 posts

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

#271

Post by gen3 »

andreilys wrote: post #189
gen3 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government goal isn’t to pursue good investments at a market rate. They are trying to prop up companies that investors don’t want to touch because of their current risk of failure. Spending some money now to keep a company in business can pay off in the long run, for example saving money on unemployment.

These companies have no penalty for firing people after receiving bailout money.

Well, pretty much all the bailout money requires that the business not fire anyone (or re-higher anyone that they did fire). For example, thats how the small business portion of the CARES Act worked.

The recent airline loans/bailouts require maintaining the same staff until September 30th.[1]

I would imagine that there will be layoffs once that requirement expires.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/airlines-coronavirus-bailout...

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

#272

Post by gen3 »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #145
gen3 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government goal isn’t to pursue good investments at a market rate. They are trying to prop up companies that investors don’t want to touch because of their current risk of failure. Spending some money now to keep a company in business can pay off in the long run, for example saving money on unemployment.

I absolutely agree, the government can certainly have other goals other than making good investments. But don't muddy the waters by saying that they are making money on the program if they're giving below market loans. They might have good reasons to do it, but they're not making money on the deal.

The point of my argument is that the government can save money by keeping a company from folding. Having a bad return of a couple hundred million is better than a loss to society of larger proportions. My point is to avoid the whole, a penny wise and a pound foolish, thing.

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

#273

Post by goodside »

JSavageOne wrote: post #162
goodside wrote: post #122

In more normal times, it makes sense that unemployment should not be lucrative, and workers should be encouraged to take any job at all rather than be unemployed. But the calculus changes in a pandemic, because you want people to stay home, even if they have nothing productive to do there. Low-wage work is almost never remote, so a person working a non-essential, low-wage job is likely not providing enough value to o…

That's a pretty absurd rationalization for paying people more to not work than to work. Also, the article specifically talks about "essential workers" who made more money not working. Wanting people to stay at home is different from paying people to be unemployed.

“Essential workers” is a nebulous term - formally there are only “essential businesses” that are allowed to operate, and their employees are informally “essential” too. But only a subset of such workers are necessary. E.g., cleaning staff at hotels might be called “essential workers”, but if the hotels are virtually empty most of those workers aren’t needed. Granting extra UI benefits allows the employer to determine which workers to keep, and compensates those actually laid off to avoid unexpected hardship.

None of the essential workers mentioned in the article lost their jobs that I can see. One was just temporarily overpaid for taking an otherwise unpaid leave. They stayed home, and received more pay for doing so. The fact that the UI bonus encourages this behavior (within the bounds that employers tolerate) is exactly the social benefit I’m pointing out in my original comment — the UI benefit encourages people to stay home if they can.

The workers in the article are complaining about the unfairness of not receiving extra pay, and justifiably so — it is unfair. The UI benefit helps slow the spread of a deadly pandemic (and mitigates foreseeable bankruptcies/evictions) while also making the world less fair for the people who are still employed. The article only discusses the latter, and I was pointing out the former.

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

#274

Post by stallmanite »

PCI-eX16 wrote: post #268
stallmanite wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d love to send that message but the other team seems dedicated to throwing the game. Biden is garbage

There's more than one election. There's also the entire house, a third of the senators and perhaps local elections as well.

You’re right and I absolutely will be voting. I actually regret my earlier comment it didn’t contribute to the discussion.

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

#275

Post by koheripbal »

throwaway_USD wrote: post #12

From the time Congress passed the $6.2T Bill that gave $4T to the FED to prop up the stock market, $700B in PPP loans; and and estimated $300B to the people ($1,200) stimulus checks, it should have put things in perspective. Ideally the stock market wouldn't have been propped up and the PPP loan program would have been more legitimate to save real small businesses (just wait until all the fraud comes out of this thin…

This conflates LOANS with GRANTS. Your comparison lacks even the most basic understanding of finance.

In 2008, when the banks were "bailed out" - the government used loans - which ultimately turned a profit.

So all of the anger about "socializing the losses and privatizing the gains" was all baloney. Because the taxpayers literally made a profit on the loans they gave to Wall Street.

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

#276

Post by dang »

eanzenberg wrote: post #40

[flagged]

Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. That leads to total repetition, because these arguments endlessly and shallowly recycle on the internet, and usually turn nasty—as if the mind needs something to amuse itself in the absence of new information.

Grand philosophical and ideological questions may be interesting topics, but not in internet forums. This is a medium-is-the-message thing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#277

Post by gregwebs »

koheripbal wrote: post #258
andrewmutz wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's 1.9 trillion in MBS on the balance sheet now. It seems like you have counted those eggs before they have hatched! If we could really make money on these we would get them off the balance sheet, but that is proving to be impossible to do.

I guess you could argue that we're making money, but that's only because we get to print money to buy these for free and de-value everyone else's dollars.

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

#279

Post by heavyset_go »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #39
clansimus wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That amount went to everyone, regardless of job loss. No, it didn't.

Okay, to be pedantic because your comment didn’t provide full details: The $1200 went to adults who were not dependents of someone else and who earned less than a certain threshold, with the amount prorated depending on your AGI and your tax filing type (single, married, head of household). My point was that everyone qualified for it. It wasn’t dependent on losing your job first. You could keep your job and still rec…

There are quite literally millions of people who qualified for the stimulus, but didn't receive it. I know several of such people.

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

#280

Post by heavyset_go »

binarymax wrote: post #54
dahfizz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If all that money instead went to the people/taxpayers they would all have received an $18,000 stimulus check instead of $1,200, I think this would have been the best move possible. Everyone I know would choose their entire retirement fund over a one time check of $18,000 . I understand your sentiment, and it does feel like we got less that we deserve, but stimulating the stock market was absolutely the right move.…

> stimulating the stock market was absolutely the right move False. The stock market has zero connection to the health of the actual economy right now, and is only enriching the privileged. Propping up the stock market was a political farce to make it look like the economy is doing fine when it clearly is not.

It's funny because the people who kicked and screamed when China did the same thing are the same people who think it's okay when their country does it.
Post reply on HN