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

301–310 of 348 posts

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

#301

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

dlp211 wrote: post #72
onei wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't printing money when you're short risky economically? My high-school history was a long time ago, but this is what Germany did post-WW1 and it ended in people bartering the family silver for the essentials.

The US does not generally print money the way Germany did in the early 20th century. While we do perform some small amount of monetary expansion through printing money in the colloquial sense, the vast majority is done by the Fed paying dollars for assets. The Fed will at a later point destroy said dollars when it sells back the assets.

Selling the ~4 trillion created is going to take a while. Though I have reservations about that happening at all. Iirc the last time the Fed tried to unwind their balance sheet the market panicked.

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

#302

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

colinmhayes wrote: post #78
onei wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't printing money when you're short risky economically? My high-school history was a long time ago, but this is what Germany did post-WW1 and it ended in people bartering the family silver for the essentials.

Sort of, but it's complicated. The us had printed enough money to quadruple the USD money supply since 2008 and there has been no change in inflation.

The measure of inflation is problematic.

We have seen large inflation in stock prices, houses, etc.

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

#303

Post by thaumasiotes »

freehunter wrote: post #300
thaumasiotes wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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

Neither of those was a reason for the project.

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

#304

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

centimeter wrote: post #207
adamsea wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to nitpick a bit with language I dont think "problem" is the right word. The real problem is that the law lets companies pay so many people so little to begin with. Not saying you necessarily disagree. I think language has a tangible and often unconscious impact on our thought porcess so wanted to point it out. In America, large companies should be required by law to pay their employees a living wage. Its not OK…

> The real problem is that the law lets companies pay so many people so little to begin with. Economists pretty much across the board disagree with you. If you don’t allow companies to pay market rate for low-value labor, they’re simply not going to hire those people at all. They’re not going to lose money paying $15/hr (or whatever) for a job that only nets them half that. All a “minimum wage” law actually does is e…

What do economists have to say say about the living conditions, healthcare, lifespan, and overall societal contributions of people paid less than minimum wage? From what you said it seems they're fine with lawless favelas as long as the strawberries get to the markets the economists shop at.

Your position that people are hurt by not having access to what is essentially slavery, because that is precisely what you're advocating for here, hurts people is absurd. Minimum wage laws put a floor on just how much you can abuse your staff. The fact that you don't understand this shows that you take your considerable privilege for granted without even appreciating it.

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

#305

Post by freehunter »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #303
freehunter wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> What is "terrible" about advancing science and putting humans in space? Neither of those was a reason for the project.

The real reason were not terrible either, neither were they accidental.

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

#306

Post by jsmith99 »

gregwebs wrote: post #93
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…

That breakdown is missing the trillion dollars of corporate debt that the fed is now engaging in purchasing. Correction: in terms of direct corporate debt purchase, they have currently committed to less than half a trillion dollars of purchases independent of the CARES act. But the breakdown is also missing $210 billion of reduced corporate taxes! The CARES act is a good attempt at providing fair outcomes for everyon…

Eliezer Yudkowsky explained it nicely[0]:

This just in! The Fed will allow schools and hospitals to use its $1.5T repo line, letting any school with $1B in Treasuries temporarily exchange them for $1B cash for 3 months. "We have no idea why you wanted this," said a confused Fed. "Are you sure you know what we do?"

[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/12388153445353...

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

#308

Post by zwkrt »

mchusma wrote: post #2

The fact that you could easily earn more on unemployment than not was a bizarre feature of the US COVID response. Most, if not all state unemployment schemes cover part of your wages if unemployed, not more than you made before. It creates a strong incentive to be considered partially or fully laid off. I'm pro basic income, but definitely don't support paying more to be unproductive than productive. This benefit end…

> I'm pro basic income, but definitely don't support paying more to be unproductive than productive.

I never understand this perspective. Supporting UBI is a statement that all people deserve a bare-minimum existence, even if they don't or can't work. I would expect that UBI would create a less productive workforce in the same way that 40 hour work weeks and environmental protections make a less productive workforce.

If you think the only path to righteousness is through a lifetime of toil, then it /might/ make sense to judge poor people's merit as a function of their 'productivity' (i.e., ability to make someone else money), but that is a pretty old-school stance in my opinion.

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

#309

Post by thaumasiotes »

freehunter wrote: post #305
thaumasiotes wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is "terrible" about advancing science and putting humans in space? Neither of those was a reason for the project.

The real reason were not terrible either, neither were they accidental.

Yes, the real reason was in fact terrible. Doing something because you feel pressured to win a race against another country is a really bad reason to do that thing.

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

#310

Post by [deleted] »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #267
adamsea wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'"The word "hunger," the panel stated in its final report, "...should refer to a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation."' "One in seven households with children were affected by food insecurity in 2018." "Food insecurity rates are highest for single mother households a…

Are you agreeing with me? Disagreeing with me? When all you do is quote from a report which has no findings w.r.t starvation it's hard to know. Starvation doesn't mean hunger, it means the process of dying of hunger.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN