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

#291

Post by freehunter » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

pphysch wrote: post #128

mitchdoogle wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The loss of jobs and income is going to have cataclysmic cascading effects, worse than if a few large companies had gone under. It hasn't even started yet.

Can you elaborate/link?

What's there to link or elaborate? Look at the number of people applying for unemployment (I looked it up for you [1]). With a record number of people on unemployment and no real end in sight to the pandemic, something has to break.

Basically, it doesn't matter how quickly we re-open if people don't have any money to spend, don't feel comfortable spending, and aren't leaving their homes.

[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

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

#292

Post by dlp211 » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 10:38 PM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #288

dlp211 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It also wipes out the opportunity for future retirees to benefit from market corrections which are historically how most wealth for middle class retirees is built. So you've now sacrificed far more future retirees accounts for those who shouldn't have such high market exposure that they are hurt by a correction.

If this isn't a wake up call that individuals have no business managing their own retirement, I don't know what is.

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

#293

Post by Melting_Harps » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 10:39 PM UTC

hobs wrote: post #10

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #5

> When she got her unemployment benefits, she realized something unheard of: She was making more money not working. The temporary COVID unemployment bill was so rushed that they didn’t index the unemployment to the person’s earnings. If you lost your job or had your hours reduced, you get an extra $600/week on top of state unemployment. About half of people receiving this are receiving more from the combined unemploy…

Our Quantitative easing and corporate bailouts are in the trillions, why would we not pay out significantly less for people who are struggling to find jobs? Why does the till start counting when its normal people affected?

> Our Quantitative easing and corporate bailouts are in the trillions, why would we not pay out significantly less for people who are struggling to find jobs? Why does the till start counting when its normal people affected?

Seriously, this is just bleating, tired banker/cronyist narrative we've always seen when the Economy blows up like in 2008; there are billions/trillions for Bankers destroying the economy but if that is re-directed to the People who have lost their jobs because of State incompetence hell breaks loose--I worked in Culinary so I'm one of those, but I have a diverse skill-set so I can pivot unlike mnay of my co-workers. Also, I've been immersed in the Hong Kong struggle since 2014, and when this mystery pandemic kicked off in mid-January and the CCP was forcing borders open there and dissappearing journalists, citizens and punishing physicians I knew the spread was going to happen if all nations didn't contain it as China was not going to. Flash forward to February and the CCD did this despite what was coming out in PUBLIC MEDIA:

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2020/03/02/cor...

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/wuhan-evacuee-released-fro...

Hong Kong was already quarantining by mid Janurary and their economy and the protests started to decrease due to the influx of Mainlanders invading HK and overwhelming the Medical Industry.

The fact that this spread throughout the rest of the World was an inevitability as travel remained, I was personally in San Antonio when they released those people from Wuhan on my way back from Boca Chica headed back to Colorado.

This is State incompetence at its most extreme sense and should be just as a stark wake up call as Police Brutality was for Society; the fact is this is a scale issue, not an individual party one should not be ignored. There was no way anyone would accept a shutdown of the Economy of any significant size,or even on a logistical level even when they were gawking at Wuhan leaked videos in early January and commenting on Social Media about it.

The only ones that did were small city-states like Hong Kong, Taiwan and larger island nations like New Zealand and South Korea who are on constant alarm due to N. Korean and CCP interference and constant missile alarms so knew how to mobolize when needed--a very undesirable.miserable thing when you realize the SK population is 41 million, or roughly that of California.

In summary: some would have you believe that the People, especially those who have had their Industry and entire Life's work destroyed, don't deserve to have financial support but are often those who pay the most in real terms for the ever increase in taxes/cost of living.

But God-forbid the Jamie Dimon's or Lloyd Blankfein's of the World go without their corporate welfare. F-them, seriously: even when Dimon/JP Morgan came out in support of Bitcoin I only hoped he gets his much deserved comeuppance soon.

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

#294

Post by dlp211 » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 10:41 PM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #282

dlp211 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't an either let all businesses fail or prop up the entire stock market with cheap cash choice and your framing of it as such is intellectually dishonest.

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

#295

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 10:48 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #65

BurningFrog wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is actually very expensive for the taxpayers Uncle Sam has long since stopped paying for things with tax money. Any new expense is handled by borrowing or printing money.

> Uncle Sam has long since stopped paying for things with tax money. That’s very disingenuous. Obviously we all know that spending is financed by debt. But where do you think we get the money to service that debt? We can’t borrow infinitely.

Where do you think money originates? Before dollars are paid to the government in the form of taxes, they are printed by the government.

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

#296

Post by thaumasiotes » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 10:51 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #289

thaumasiotes wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

I don't think it would be especially controversial to say it was done for a terrible reason. We didn't do that specifically because it was hard; those are just words from JFK's speech. We did that because the Soviet Union had beaten us to putting a man (and a satellite) in orbit, and we thought it was crucially important to beat them to something related.

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

#297

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #275

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.

The firms should have gone bankrupt. In that case, the government or any solvent entity could have benefited by purchasing the assets at market prices. That the firms did not go bankrupt, was a gift to shareholders from taxpayers.

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

#298

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #237

bendergarcia wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you don’t know poor people who don’t have any investment in the stock market. Who absolutely do benefit from the immediate cash. Who drive your Uber, driver your door dash, serve your meal at your restaurant, probably cleaner your house, do you yard work, sell you shoes at the store, check you out at groceries, stock your groceries, serve you drinks at the bar. Stimulating the stock market was not the right move…

> Putting the money in the stock market has only benefited those already in the stock market and those with the money to enter it. Quantitative easing has been shown time and time again to alleviate and avoid economic downturn. Do grocery baggers and bar tenders benefit from an economic depression? Do you think Obama made the right choice to stimulate the economy in 2008? This is exactly the same thing.

Do you think Obama made the right choice to stimulate the economy in 2008?

Does anyone think that? Bailing out mismanaged financial dinosaurs was a monumentally poor decision. He didn't even have W's excuse: high suggestibility due to low intelligence.

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

#299

Post by ryanwaggoner » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 11:00 PM UTC

dlp211 wrote: post #294

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

This isn't an either let all businesses fail or prop up the entire stock market with cheap cash choice and your framing of it as such is intellectually dishonest.

I didn’t frame it as an either/or. I literally just reframed what you said: that people far away from retirement shouldn’t care if the stock market crashes, because they’ll benefit if it does.

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

#300

Post by freehunter » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 11:06 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #296

freehunter wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. I don't think it would be especially controversial to say it was done for a terrible reason. We didn't do that specifically because it was hard; those are just words from JFK's speech. We did that because the Soviet Union had beaten…

And in the resulting flurry of science that came from JFK's speech, we got many amazing and good things. The easy thing to do is say "space doesn't matter" like many countries have chosen to do. We did it even knowing it was hard, because the benefits outweighed the difficulty.

What is "terrible" about advancing science and putting humans in space?