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

#321

Post by toiletfuneral » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 2:40 AM UTC

iamstupidsimple wrote: post #163

lucaspm98 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, the "debtism" as you describe it is more of a cultural issue of consumerism in America. The amount of people buying new $35,000 cars while they're making $40,000 a year is shocking. It's been hard for me to understand, but from what I've read the Fed isn't buying stocks directly, although that is somewhat pedantic as they are trying to prop up the stock market through other means. I still don't see how that…

People don't understand how to use debt properly. It should be obvious that being able to borrow against your future earnings is an amazing tool, but so many people are just careless about it and go overboard.

so you both think the problem with our economy is that poor people are just dumb? thats a pretty cool way to think about the world, must be nice to be so smart

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

#322

Post by ouid » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 2:42 AM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #53

hobs wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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…

>loans that will be paid back.

hoo boy.

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

#323

Post by Consultant32452 » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 2:46 AM UTC

mediaman wrote: post #230

mrep wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have not bought anywhere close to trillion dollars worth of corporate debt. As you can see in the breakdown [0], most of what they are buying is our own governments debt (the same debt used to fund the CARES act) and US mortgage backed securities. [0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm

Additionally, purchases of corporate debt are not the same thing as issuance of grants to individuals or companies, examples of which are unemployment benefits or a portion of the PPP small business program. Historically, looking back at 2008-2009, purchases of corporate debt by the government either turned a profit or lost very little money. The 'bailouts' had aggressive terms and were repaid. If it does turn into a…

Buying corporate debt at above market prices is a grant. Stopping your massive business from going under and being replaced by a more agile competitor is oligarchy.

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

#324

Post by Armisael16 » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 3:08 AM UTC

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #263

throwanem wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was profitability added to governments' remit?

It's not profitability for profitability's sake. It's a positive number on a budget balance sheet. At the end of the day, they have some kind of budget to spend on stuff. The sum of the expenses has to fit the budget. If this comes out as a net positive, they can spend more elsewhere, like on unemployment benefits or schools or whatever else they're planning to need money for in the future.

> The sum of the expenses has to fit the budget.

Is this actually the case? They have a money printer. What’s the problem with using it, as long as inflation stays low?

I mean, I suppose technically seigniorage is part of the budget but then your statement is just a statement of definitions, not an insight.

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

#325

Post by mixmastamyk » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 3:35 AM UTC

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.

Note the graph of the money supply in the pjc50 sibling post.

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

#326

Post by mixmastamyk » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 3:38 AM UTC

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #302

colinmhayes wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

^huge ...medicine, college education...

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

#327

Post by dlp211 » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 3:53 AM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #299

dlp211 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The market making a correction != businesses failing. The market is severely overpriced as-is, it didn't need to be propped up. Companies don't fail because their share price has dropped.

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

#328

Post by phonon » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 8:08 AM UTC

ls612 wrote: post #316

phonon wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you think businesses' number one cost is?

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

#329

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 1:05 PM UTC

centimeter wrote: post #312

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wag…

>they are paid nothing, zero,

Incorrect. Disability, social security, etc are payments. Payments that we all bear when people, rightfully, opt out of this oppressive, toxic, dog eat dog workforce. Or worse, when someone's body is sacrificed for the sake of profits. If you're getting rid of minimum wage you should probably get rid of all social safety nets to deal with perverse incentives.

>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.

eesh. Let's play out what happens when you treat human beings like livestock, from living memory: We get the company town(1). We get China's foxconn suicides(2). We get slave labor camps (active in China and the United states, like today, right now(3,4)). Then, or concurrently we get death camps for the infirm(5); if we can't hope to pay even a subsistence wage for all labor then how can we possibly allow these parasites to live on, homeless and impoverished, with the ills those kind bring to a civilized land.

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

That's merely a point of debate, not a fact, as you suggest(6). In light of the cited history I've outlined, I would argue that such an argument is debunked and does not merit further discussion without extraordinary evidence.

In regards to your last statement. What you've arguing for has been tried before, and is explained, with citations, for you to read at your leisure, on the Wikipedia page for minimum wage. I beg that you take a cursory examination of the available history and literature. I would rather like to avoid repeating the bloody mistakes of history.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

3. prisoners, many due to racist laws under the guise of paternalism(see paternalism from (1)).

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps

5. https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocid...

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

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

#330

Post by throwaway373438 » Fri, Jul 03, 2020, 1:18 PM UTC

gregwebs wrote: post #142

mrep wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have not bought anywhere close to trillion dollars worth of corporate debt. As you can see in the breakdown [0], most of what they are buying is our own governments debt (the same debt used to fund the CARES act) and US mortgage backed securities. [0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm

Sorry, it is hard for me to untangle all this. Some of this money is authorized by CARES, and some is independent action. We are already at a trillion dollars to the largest companies now when you combine CARES and the fed's commitment to debt purchase. In June they just committed to deploying an additional $250 billion https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-will-amass-corporate-bond-p... Add this to the existing billions…

A debt purchase and unemployment are very different things.

Unemployment is money given away to another. It's a permanent giveaway.

A debt purchase is either money that was given to you, that you're now returning (Treasury securities) or money that you're giving to others which will be returned (corporate bonds). It's not a giveaway at all - the net exchange is $0.

These cannot be compared as equivalent.

The tax reduction changes the way loss is calculated to better capture the reality of the economy falling apart in one year, letting losses be deducted from income generated in past years. There's a tax savings, but it's reflective of real loss incurred by business.