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

281–290 of 348 posts

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

#281

Post by thaumasiotes »

dfxm12 wrote: post #85
packetlost wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably would. But solving that problem is significantly harder than putting out loans to large companies that employ thousands of people. If the airline industry collapsed, many other things would've followed. Certain industries are absolutely essential infrastructure to the economy and cataclysmic events can have massive ripple effects.

Whatever happened to doing worthwhile things because they're hard ? Do you know how hard it is to have to quarantine yourself from your family because you've been deemed an essential worker, while getting seemingly nothing in return? Do you know how hard it is to live with the guilt of even possibly infecting others with COVID? Clearly, the current administration puts corporate profits over the lives of Americans. Cl…

> Whatever happened to doing worthwhile things because they're hard?

People realized that was idiotic? Don't celebrate that someone accidentally did something worthwhile for a terrible reason. Target your efforts at doing things that are worthwhile, not at doing things that are hard.

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

#282

Post by ryanwaggoner »

dlp211 wrote: post #86
dahfizz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over 70% of workers have access to an employee retirement plan, and 56% of all workers participate in one[1]. So I did misremember the stats slightly. Its all workers instead of all Americans, and a generic "employer sponsored retirement plan" vs specifically a 401k, but my point still stands. If we exclude children and people who are already retired, only 26% are without retirement savings[2]. The ability of these p…

Great, now how much does the median retiree have saved? Also, the vast majority of people shouldn't give two licks about keeping the market high today because the vast majority of people are more than a decade out from retirement. What should have been an event that allowed people to build wealth instead became one to preserve the wealth of those who already have it.

“I’m decades away from retiring, so I’m happy to let these businesses fall apart, destroy trillions in value, and layoff millions of people so I can buy some shares at a cheaper price!”

This is like letting your neighbor’s house burn down because you’ve always wanted to buy the land under it.

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

#283

Post by throwaway_USD »

throwawaygh wrote: post #251
throwaway_USD wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 be…

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

No, the economic shock was caused by businesses being over leveraged and not having cash reserves. I keep hearing how this was the greatest economy the World has ever seen, how good could it really be if businesses are existing paycheck to paycheck?

>Which is why another aid package will probably be passed in July.

Exactly why taxpayers and not businesses should have received the lion share of the bailout funds.

>businesses had to exist prior to February 15, 2020

Look up shelf corps or ready corps. There is rampant fraud with respect to the PPP loans, including by law makers, none of them will end up in jail.

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

#284

Post by phonon »

godelski wrote: post #264
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why would we not pay out significantly less for people who are struggling to find jobs? The CARES act allocated most of the money to individuals, state and local governments, public health, and education initiatives. The amount given to large corporations (much in the form of loans that will be paid back) is less than that given to individuals: NPR has a good breakdown. The idea that corporations are receiving “tri…

> Giving someone a cash payment and giving a loan to a business have very different actual costs in the long-run, obviously. I want to stress this because many are missing it. - Money to people = cash gift or grant. - Money to companies = loan. Companies have to pay it back, with interest. This also happened during the recession and the US made a hefty profit from it. I often run into people that think that companies…

Most of the PPP corporate loans will automatically convert to grants, as long as the funds are spent in a qualified manner, like payroll...that is why it was set up. Are you not familiar with this?

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

#285

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #281
dfxm12 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever happened to doing worthwhile things because they're hard ? Do you know how hard it is to have to quarantine yourself from your family because you've been deemed an essential worker, while getting seemingly nothing in return? Do you know how hard it is to live with the guilt of even possibly infecting others with COVID? Clearly, the current administration puts corporate profits over the lives of Americans. Cl…

> Whatever happened to doing worthwhile things because they're hard ? People realized that was idiotic? Don't celebrate that someone accidentally did something worthwhile for a terrible reason. Target your efforts at doing things that are worthwhile, not at doing things that are hard.

>People realized that was idiotic?

This

>Don't celebrate that someone accidentally did something worthwhile for a terrible reason.

Doesn't track with this.

>Target your efforts at doing things that are worthwhile, not at doing things that are hard.

I think you're missing nuance.

I say, condemn those who lazily do the easiest jobs that don't interrupt their sleep at night.

Rather, we should all be trying to make the greatest positive impact within 40 hours of work a week. Those who do more are being taken advantage of one way or a dozen. Those who do less are taking advantage.

By setting a floor and a ceiling we limit abuses on both sides and,hopefully,better distribute labor.

Also,doing things that are hard for the sheer sake of it is not idiotic. It can be a positive characteristic, just like avoiding difficulty is a negative one.

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

#286

Post by gammarator »

koheripbal wrote: post #259
gregwebs wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 base…

Since at least some of those companies were insolvent, the US taxpayer would have been better compensated if the companies had been nationalized instead. Wiping out the existing shareholders avoids moral hazard in the future as well.

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

#287

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

gen3 wrote: post #271
andreilys wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-coronav…

So the government is just punting on problems, again?

Serious question. I fail to see how bailing out mismanaged companies is worth more than an equivalent sum straight to people. Companies can be nationalized if they're essential. Can't raise the dead. Can't squeeze blood from a stone.

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

#288

Post by jimbokun »

dlp211 wrote: post #86
dahfizz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over 70% of workers have access to an employee retirement plan, and 56% of all workers participate in one[1]. So I did misremember the stats slightly. Its all workers instead of all Americans, and a generic "employer sponsored retirement plan" vs specifically a 401k, but my point still stands. If we exclude children and people who are already retired, only 26% are without retirement savings[2]. The ability of these p…

Great, now how much does the median retiree have saved? Also, the vast majority of people shouldn't give two licks about keeping the market high today because the vast majority of people are more than a decade out from retirement. What should have been an event that allowed people to build wealth instead became one to preserve the wealth of those who already have it.

> Great, now how much does the median retiree have saved?

Whatever that number is, it's going to be much smaller after a stock market crash.

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

#289

Post by freehunter »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #281
dfxm12 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever happened to doing worthwhile things because they're hard ? Do you know how hard it is to have to quarantine yourself from your family because you've been deemed an essential worker, while getting seemingly nothing in return? Do you know how hard it is to live with the guilt of even possibly infecting others with COVID? Clearly, the current administration puts corporate profits over the lives of Americans. Cl…

> Whatever happened to doing worthwhile things because they're hard ? People realized that was idiotic? Don't celebrate that someone accidentally did something worthwhile for a terrible reason. Target your efforts at doing things that are worthwhile, not at doing things that are hard.

Like others have said, I think you're missing the point. In the past we've done something specifically because it was hard (going to the moon) but it would be a controversial statement to say it was done accidentally or for a terrible reason. For example, the state of computer science wouldn't be nearly where it is if it wasn't for going to the moon specifically because it was hard.

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

#290

Post by throwawaygh »

throwaway_USD wrote: post #283
throwawaygh wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 be…

>The economic shock was caused in part by a government-imposed shutdown of economic activity in response to a pandemic. No, the economic shock was caused by businesses being over leveraged and not having cash reserves. I keep hearing how this was the greatest economy the World has ever seen, how good could it really be if businesses are existing paycheck to paycheck? >Which is why another aid package will probably be…

> No, the economic shock was caused by businesses being over leveraged and not having cash reserves.

A lot of these businesses didn't have much cash reserve because they were launched by ordinary folks and operate in industries where the profit margins are razor thin. If you're running the local pub, there's simply no opportunity to build up capital reserves that can survive a several-month-long shutdown. Even cutting payroll down to a minimum, rent, utilities and minimal maintenance is expensive.

I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made that wiping out the current owners of bars, coffeeshops, garages, gyms, etc. is going to result in more resilient or more competent locally owned businesses in the long term. I just don't buy that there's a massive amount of well-capitalized individuals ready to run bars/coffeeshops/garages/etc. better than the current owners.

That said, there is a critical mass of super well-capitalized and competent restaurant/bar/coffeeshop management machines, which can take over if all those local businesses fail.

The effect of the policy you're suggesting would be the walmartification of the last remaining outposts of local ownership in most economies.

Post reply on HN