Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Additional 6.6M File for Initial Unemployment Benefits [pdf]

dol.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 563 posts

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

#361

Post by blaser-waffle »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #181
nck4222 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Would you trade 9 million unemployed for 9 million dead? No, I'm not advocating to abort a quarantine and have people return to work. >It's a fantasy to assume people will just go back to work, the economy will get better, and everything will return to normal Agreed. I'm advocating we stop believing in this fantasy and face reality that this is the start of a long term recession.

Gotcha, sorry, I read your comment as a "we all need to unpause and return to work" message, when it wasn't. This is definitely the start of interesting times - we don't know how things are going to look at the end of all this. The best economics times have come on the tail end of adversity.

> The best economics times have come on the tail end of adversity.

That can be a long, long time too. The black plague was a boon for workers who survived it since the labor pool was small and consequently wages were higher. Plenty of free land, too. The downside was, you know, the black plague...

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

#362

Post by PragmaticPulp »

elliekelly wrote: post #337
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In many places being unemployed pays more than being employed. You're being downvoted because you overgeneralized ("many places"), but this is actually true in some scenarios. See "Unemployed workers could get more than 100% of their paycheck under the coronavirus bill" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could... It's a perverse incentive to getting people back to work, so I expect this loophole…

> It's a perverse incentive to getting people back to work Unemployment isn't forever and the additional $600/week is only for the current pandemic situation and expires as of July 31. This is not a windfall for those who are now suddenly without a job. But more importantly, someone who has just been laid off has close to zero employment options right now. They might be able to find a short-term job at a grocery stor…

> There cannot be a "perverse incentive" (or any incentive at all) to stay home and collect unemployment when that is a person's one and only option.

The economy isn't all-or-nothing. This situation is bad, but it's an exaggeration to suggest that no one is hiring.

The perverse incentive comes into play when people start turning down $20/hr jobs because they're making $23/hr on unemployment insurance. They'll want to go back to work eventually, yes, but they won't rush into it will literally cost them money to do so.

I'm not suggesting that unemployment insurance is comfortable or ideal, but I think it's important that we avoid situations where people must deliberately choose to reduce their income to return to work.

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

#363

Post by jasonv »

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…

So you're saying -- if things now return to conditions that were present during "Two global wars, the use of nuclear weapons" of last century... no cause for alarm?

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

#365

Post by 34679 »

minikites wrote: post #130
34679 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12.5% of the $2T is "helping ordinary people". And some of us have been teargassed protesting wars..

Why is it only 12.5%? Why not 50%? Or 80%?

2,000,000,000,000 / 250,000,000,000 = 12.5%

That's the amount which will be sent out in checks directly to families.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-seeking-85...

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

#366

Post by throwaway55554 »

orangecat wrote: post #313
throwaway55554 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know 100 people? Pick one. Crass, no? So what if it's 1%. It's life. Nothing else matters.

So what if it's 1%. It's life. Nothing else matters. Should we shut down the country and quarantine ourselves during every flu season? In an average year the flu kills about 0.01% of the population, and nothing else matters but trying to save those tens of thousands of people, right?

It would certainly not be a bad idea.

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

#367

Post by ModernMech »

swimfar wrote: post #253
toasterlovin wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is $600/week enough to live comfortably in London? It’s not enough to live comfortably in most large cities in the US. Our mortgage payment is $2200/month. And we live in the most affordable large city on the West Coast (Portland, Oregon). LA, SF, and Seattle would all be much more.

If by we, you mean two people, then it's $1200/week for the both of you. So that leaves you $2600/month after housing (maybe not including taxes, utilities, repairs). That doesn't seem too bad. Also, you're talking about a mortgage for a property worth over $400k. It's unreasonable to expect that unemployment would be enough to pay everyone's mortgage, regardless of how much it is.

Not everyone's spouse would automatically qualify for unemployment. For example, if I make enough to cover the $2600/month rent on my own and my wife is a full-time caregiver for our aging parents, if I lose my job we would only collect one unemployment check.

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

#368

Post by treis »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #345
treis wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>With the exception of health care, aren't they buying that stuff from their own savings?

How much wheat does your savings grow? How many pairs of pants does it make?

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

#369

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

chewz wrote: post #91
buzzkillington wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all this for a virus that kills around 1% of the people who get it, and the majority of them are retired. Future generations will look at us and wonder how we were this stupid.

There are far more deaths in Italy and France then statistics show... > On Tuesday night, the health authority in the Grand Est region said two-thirds of its 620 old people’s homes had been affected by the coronavirus pandemic and 570 residents had died. > Those 570 people are not recorded in France’s official coronavirus death toll, which reached 4,032 on April 1, but so far counts only those who have died in hospit…

I was under the impression that Italy did test for covid also post-mortem? there were claims here couple days back that this was the case (and a claim that apparently Germany didn't). if that's the case then how could the numbers be different?

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

#370

Post by Izkata »

MiroF wrote: post #257
toomuchtodo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food, non-perishables, fuel? Yes. Firearms and ammo? To each their own. We did, but we're more rural. Our concern is a supply chain meltdown when you have millions infected and sick. I would rather be prepared and not need something, then need something and not be prepared.

> Our concern is a supply chain meltdown when you have millions infected and sick. This is an absurdist prediction - we are looking at maximum 2 million 75+ year olds dying with some much smaller number of people of different ages. This is the group least likely to be involved in the day-to-day functioning of our supply chains. Honestly, where are people coming up with these doomsday predictions?

You're not accounting for complications from the 10% or so that require medical intervention, who are largely working age.
Post reply on HN