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

311–320 of 348 posts

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

#311

Post by mennis16 »

throwaway_USD wrote: post #248
dahfizz wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 grocery baggers and bar tenders benefit from an economic depression? People need groceries even during a depression. Its often said alcohol is recession proof, in fact alcohol sales seem to thrive even during a pandemic. I'll tell you what isn't >Do you think Obama made the right choice to stimulate the economy in 2008? This is exactly the same thing. Actually Bush took out a Stimulus of ~$800-900B before he left…

You just nitpicked his two examples (and for a nitpick back bartender != liquor store clerk). I don't know enough about econ to have a side here but I would be interested in hearing a counterargument that actually addresses the impact of economic downturn on the class of jobs being discussed here (waiters, retail, cleaners, drivers, etc.)

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

#312

Post by centimeter »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #304
centimeter wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

> the living conditions, healthcare, lifespan, and overall societal contributions of people paid less than minimum wage?

You’ve obviously not grasped the point - these people are not paid “less than minimum wage” - they are paid nothing, zero, because well-intentioned but economically clueless people have decided that it’s not morally proper for low-skilled people to make whatever their labor is worth.

> Minimum wage laws put a floor on just how much you can abuse your staff

No, it puts a floor on who is employable, hurting the least capable people the most.

> you take your considerable privilege for granted

Chastising me doesn’t work - try again with a reasonable economic/utilitarian argument. Thus far you haven’t said anything to suggest you’re approaching this from any kind of reasonable framework.

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

#313

Post by mennis16 »

zwkrt wrote: post #308
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.…

I think you're misreading the comment? He isn't judging poor people. He is criticizing a system where you only get UBI if you don't work (i.e. not UBI). Such a system means that lower skilled workers actually gain nothing from working.

That is a shitty situation to be in. Most people want to feel like they are contributing. And they absolutely do contribute through their roles, even if they are also "making someone else money". They should be rewarded on top of the "bare-minimum existence" for doing so.

I don't see at all how you can jump from "I don't support people getting paid more to not work than to work" to "the only path to righteousness is through a lifetime of toil".

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

#314

Post by cwhiz »

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.

Taxpayers should have owned the businesses they bailed out. We gave these banks low interest loans when their only alternative was insolvency. What a crappy bargain! Taxpayers should have owned the banks, helped them recover, and then sold them for huge profits.

What’s JP Morgan worth today? That’s a start in calculating how much was stolen from taxpayers.

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

#315

Post by koheripbal »

jessaustin wrote: post #297
koheripbal wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a very uneducated point of view, that ignores the facts in my prior comment.

In a liquidity crunch, perfectly solvent and functional companies can go bankrupt. ...and indeed those that had balance sheets hopelessly underwater DID go bankrupt (ie Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, as well as dozens of other smaller banks).

The fact that the government was able to extend LOANS to other banks is not a "gift" at all, because those loans were paid back with significant interest.

Do you understand, the taxpayer profited from the Wall Street loans of 2008.

Allowing solvent but illiquid companies to go bankrupt is needless economic destruction that serves zero purpose - and the fact that they survived despite having to pay back the gov't loans with interest is evidence of that.

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

#316

Post by ls612 »

phonon wrote: post #284
godelski wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

That’s just a less direct way of giving the money to individuals, with the benefit that it facilitates preserving pre-pandemic formal economic relations. The money is still ending up in the pockets of the workers.

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

#317

Post by gdubs »

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…

If there were ever a time to spend, this is it. If people didn’t have to worry about being made whole for the duration of the lockdown, we could have locked down sooner, and much harder, and stood a chance at cutting this thing off at the knees.

Instead, we’ve dithered, and the long term economic damage is looking far greater.

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

#318

Post by gen3 »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #287
gen3 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t support bailouts of mismanaged companies, and I do think that sending money directly to the people helps substantially. A company not doing well during COVID-19 isn’t necessarily because they were poorly managed. Giving people money, and also keeping companies afloat helps on two fronts. People can survive now, and people still have a job to walk back to once this is all over.

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

#320

Post by salawat »

dahfizz wrote: post #235
bendergarcia wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you speak to how propping up the stock market has benefits for all?

Well I already talked about how most Americans have money in the stock market, so there is that immediate benefit of seeing your savings increase. But there is also a line of logic that goes like this: An economic depression is bad for everyone. Therefore avoiding an economic depression is good for everyone. Quantitative easing has been shown multiple times to alleviate / avoid massive economic downturns. Therefore Q…

>Well I already talked about how most Americans have money in the stock market, so there is that immediate benefit of seeing your savings increase.

This is inaccurate. Your savings don't increase until your portfolio is liquidated. If it's liquidated at a time there is blood in the streets, you might has well have taken everything out ahead of time, paid your taxes and been done with it.

The only reason it's "good" to avoid Depressive price movements is because every single academic has demonized the creative destruction resulting from pruning overly wasteful business models. It's unthinkable that people should have all their money anywhere else but in the hands of people virtually guaranteed to not be interested in improving your local community.

Post reply on HN