Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#341

Post by Royalaid » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

0xffff2 wrote: post #325

nkozyra wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you really need to distinguish between industries at this point. It's all bad.

Is it really? I only have two direct data points, but I (government contractor) and my brother (large company) are both still fully employed with no immediate risk of unemployment, reduction in salary, etc. Just look at the numbers. 20% unemployment, while horrific in both human and economic terms, also implies 80% employment . When nearly everyone in the hospitality industry is out of a job, I have to think that som…

Just go look on Twitter, in the Clojure hashtag at least, something that rarely sees people needing jobs, there have been a hire me thread, a several individual posts for people asking work, and more and more post about people getting laid off. This will just continue to increase as the virus does it's thing.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#342

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 3:52 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #234

Chathamization wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

55% in the latest Morning Consult poll[1]. And this is after a heavy push from the healthcare industry against it, as well as strong opposition from all of the Republican leadership and most of the Democratic leadership. Before the recent blitz against it, polling was 70%[2]. [1] https://morningconsult.com/2020/04/01/medicare-for-all-coron... [2] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-pe...

80% like their healthcare. I think a significant part of that 55% doesn’t realize that Medicare for all takes away their health insurance. It seems when people get educated on Medicare for all, it declines in popularity. https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcar...

There seems to be a meme that the plan is to ban private insurance entirely? When even the UK system allows you to have it, it's just not grated huge tax breaks and is generally something only higher-paid professionals and those working for US employers have.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#343

Post by crznp » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 3:58 PM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #305

Chathamization wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

55% in the latest Morning Consult poll[1]. And this is after a heavy push from the healthcare industry against it, as well as strong opposition from all of the Republican leadership and most of the Democratic leadership. Before the recent blitz against it, polling was 70%[2]. [1] https://morningconsult.com/2020/04/01/medicare-for-all-coron... [2] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-pe...

Eh, the poll is "net support" of 55%, whatever that means. The Republican share is negative percentage points. It's a real shitty way to force a poll to tell the story you want it to tell.

They linked the results [1] (starts on page 402). 30% "Strongly support" and 25% "Somewhat support" so the net support is 55%. And among Republicans, the net support is 31%, I don't know what you mean by 'negative percentage points'.

[1] https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/200310... (pdf)

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#344

Post by op03 » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 3:58 PM UTC

japhyr wrote: post #272

op03 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a state wise breakdown? I would guess NYC is contributing a big chunk, and if things turn around there in a month or two should be okay.

Do you have any reason to think we're not going to see the situation in NYC play out in numerous other US cities over the coming weeks and months?

Not really. I have been thinking its going to play out like China, Italy, Spain etc where certain regions take disproportionate hits.

Texas and California don't seem to have been hit as hard as NY-NJ. So was just wondering if the unemployment filings have jumped equally in all 3.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#345

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 3:58 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #327

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really freeing anything up, or just accelerating inheritance? It's not as though we'll find ourselves with a magical new land of free cash for all - it'll just get passed down as it was going to anyways. Boomers are already leaving the workforce in droves, I don't expect it'd be any sort of revolution.

It frees up all the homes they live in, cars they drive, etc. We won't have to provide them health care, food, clothing, and luxury items. Once you retire you're a drain on the economy because you are consuming stuff but not producing anything.

> We won't have to provide them health care, food, clothing, and luxury items.

With the exception of health care, aren't they buying that stuff from their own savings? Do we hand out luxury items? Am I saving for my retirement for no reason?

Are the immune compromised also simply drains?

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#346

Post by GuiA » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 4:00 PM UTC

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #111

TeMPOraL wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any speculations on how bad is this going to get? Should I stock up on TP, on food, or on vodka and ammo?

You know those signs we memed the hell out of last decade? They're so cliched that they don't mean anything anymore, but think of those. Keep calm and carry on You should relax. We're not the first humans to see some hardship. Everything isn't going to fall apart because the economy has a downturn. Society isn't going to collapse because of this. It didn't happen in the 1600s, nor the 1700s, nor the 1800s, nor the 19…

I agree with you, but still would like to point out that the same line of argument (we’ve been fine before) would be as valid if society were to actually collapse. No species has ever gone extinct before... until it does!

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#347

Post by grecy » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

treyfitty wrote: post #92

For those living in cities that are locked down, what do yall do about daycare? In NYC, my daycare isn't reimbursing fees, so we're continuing to be charged with a promise of "if insurance pays out, we'll pass it down." With 2 kids, that’s $5,000. Assuming they’re closed for 3 months total, that’s $15,000 down the drain. Now, I get that they're a small business, but their problem is that they can't exactly layoff the…

If you're paying for a service they are not providing, that's extremely clear grounds for a CC charge back, or surely similar in court.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#348

Post by kube-system » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #308

kube-system wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If expanding Medicare benefits and giving cash directly to people doesn't count in your book, I'm not sure what does. Even the small business loans have a provision that they are forgiven only if they keep employees on payroll. That is the difference between keeping insurance and losing it for a lot of people.

I was thinking the government could simply pay the hospital bills for every Covid-19 patient. Maybe the most obvious and direct way to help those affected. If that was the intent. Giving cash directly to everyone, sick or poor, is a very different thing. "Expanding Medicare" might help a few.

The most obvious and direct way to help people is to send them cash payments. The IRS is already set up to be capable of doing this, and to do so at the scale required.

Paying hospital bills would be exponentially more complex of an operation, and there isn't an organization already set up to administer something like that at this scale.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#349

Post by glouwbug » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

7777fps wrote: post #306

meddlepal wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what he means, don't be pedantic.

It's not pedantic, a lot of people will die because people were saying, "It's just a flu" and not properly preparing or isolating.

This is juxtaposition, a form of literary style. He is sarcastically downplaying the _flu_ in comparison to the world wars because the _flu_ is already significantly lesser than the holocaust or an atomic bomb landing in Japan.

Re: Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

#350

Post by PragmaticPulp » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

nck4222 wrote: post #335

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It'll pay my mortgage, utilities, and keep me out of jail for driving without car insurance. That's about it. That's the point. It's not intended to replace your job. It's there to keep you afloat until you find your next job.

Isn't the point to be able to sustain someone until they can get another job? What's the point of giving someone enough money to pay their mortgage but not enough to eat, or enough to feed kids? There's more expenses to living than mortgage and utilities. Food, health care, home repairs, funerals, car repairs, etc.

> Isn't the point to be able to sustain someone until they can get another job?

Yes, that's the point. It's not designed to enable (or even encourage) everyone to live paycheck-to-paycheck during the good times. The value is less than 100% of replacement income for several reasons:

- The system must maintain an incentive to return to work. Paying people 100% of their replacement income to not work will reduce the incentive to return to work. That's the last thing we need when trying to restart the economy as quickly as possible.

- The system should incentivize people to maintain their jobs. If someone can reliably get 100% of their income by being laid off, the incentive to maintain your job is reduced.

- People should share some of the burden for carrying themselves through hard times. This includes maintaining savings to help cover expenses in the event of an emergency and reducing lifestyle spending to reduce expenses. This is a difficult topic to discuss because people reach for strawman arguments about families becoming homeless, but realistically a $60K/year equivalent income is not far from the annual median household income. People can and do find ways to live on that amount all over the country. It's not realistic to expect that we can maintain everyone's previous lifestyle unchanged during unemployment.

- The money must come from somewhere. The more we pay out now, the larger our deficits and the higher our taxes will be in the future. The incentive structures must be aligned to minimize the amount of time people spend on unemployment. It's not designed to be comfortable. It's designed to be a little bit uncomfortable without triggering financial ruin for the majority. I know that sounds harsh, but it's necessary for incentive alignment.