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

551–560 of 563 posts

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

#551

Post by _curious_ »

withinboredom wrote: post #469
_curious_ wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK going with your assumptions, I wonder what % of people collecting unemployment benefits have worked for 40 years at an average of $70k/yr? I am not aware of a single individual, but maybe just don't know the right people.

It should scale out at about 1 week per year of work, no matter how much you make. $70k per year is how much you need to max out unemployment in S.C., where I used to live. If you make less than that, you'll have less per week, if you make more than that, you're pretty royally screwed.

Ok say that is true...do you know:

1. Are unemployment employment benefits only extended to those who have already themselves paid a certain amount in UI taxes AND that amount is the extent of the benefits available to them?

2. If the answer above is no - do you know what % of end up receiving more money in unemployment benefits than they have 'pre-paid' or will 'reimburse' thus a net cost to the system over the course of their living/working lives?

3. What happens to the unemployment taxes paid by people who choose not/never to file for unemployment benefits, even when unemployed? Do those individuals ever get their money back?

4. This line of questioning leads me to wonder why in the US is UI/UB not just directly linked to each individual?

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

#552

Post by _curious_ »

KoftaBob wrote: post #421
_curious_ wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unemployment benefits can pay up to an equivalent of $50-60K/year right now." Wow. It's bizarre one can neither create nor add value yet proceed to receive thousands of dollars for an extended period of time (often multiples more than they will ever "pay in" to the system). I know too many people already milking it before the pandemic (including family & friends). I accept that it is their personal choice and I don'…

Perhaps the full name of the benefit, "Unemployment Insurance", will clear things up for you. It's insurance that everyone pays into, so that those who do happen to lose their jobs have an insurance to fall back on until they find another job. You're extrapolating what's essentially an insurance policy into this image of some luxurious welfare state where no one has any incentive to work. That's not what unemployment…

Thanks for commenting even if you don't agree with me! Allow me to respond:

"It's insurance that everyone pays into, so that those who do happen to lose their jobs have an insurance to fall back on until they find another job."

It's a TAX that everyone pays and not everyone uses - even if and when they could because they elect not to sell out their dignity by accepting money they never earned rather was taken off the backs of others.

"You're extrapolating what's essentially an insurance policy into this image of some luxurious welfare state where no one has any incentive to work. That's not what unemployment benefits are."

I never said it was luxurious, from what I can tell it's a state of living hell...just look at/talk to anyone on welfare they are by-in-large a broken peoples stripped of self-reliance, self-esteem, and self-agency.

"Your commentary is the equivalent of arguing that receiving thousands of dollars to replace your car after it gets totaled is a "hand out", when in reality that's quite literally what insurance is for. "

I don't think it is equivalent...car insurance is optional if you don't want to pay it, don't own a car (many people who opt-out). UI tax is not optional, is it?

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

#553

Post by _curious_ »

elliekelly wrote: post #524
tathougies wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hacker news is a hivemind. I don't agree with everything you say (one can argue there is economic value in staying home during an outbreak of a highly transmissible virus) but I do think you are right in a lot of ways (it's a perverse incentive, and unproductivity should not be subsidized in general).

Staying home is productive though. It slows the spread of the virus and adds value (in terms of capacity) to our hospitals and healthcare system. You can think of unemployment benefits as the government purchasing that time from employees and instructing them to use it in the most valuable way to us as a society: do nothing. The person's time is valuable (and so they should be compensated) but the most valuable use o…

OK thanks for sharing!

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

#554

Post by _curious_ »

tathougies wrote: post #412
_curious_ wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unemployment benefits can pay up to an equivalent of $50-60K/year right now." Wow. It's bizarre one can neither create nor add value yet proceed to receive thousands of dollars for an extended period of time (often multiples more than they will ever "pay in" to the system). I know too many people already milking it before the pandemic (including family & friends). I accept that it is their personal choice and I don'…

hacker news is a hivemind. I don't agree with everything you say (one can argue there is economic value in staying home during an outbreak of a highly transmissible virus) but I do think you are right in a lot of ways (it's a perverse incentive, and unproductivity should not be subsidized in general).

"hacker news is a hivemind." Hm. I've heard this said before but I don't know what it means?

"I don't agree with everything you say (one can argue there is economic value in staying home during an outbreak of a highly transmissible virus) but I do think you are right in a lot of ways (it's a perverse incentive, and unproductivity should not be subsidized in general)."

Cool. I would advise against agreeing with everything I say ha. Look if people want to pay their own way in terms of UI over their working years and save up some sort of 'emergency/flex account' managed by the gov for when the inevitable storms roll through I think that's a fine idea.

The fact that it is forced upon all earners individual and businesses, and ultimately only used by some and then abused by a chunk of those who use is a different story. It's the equivalent of stealing money from your neighbor and their family! Just because the gov sits in between the two parties and forces the transaction somehow socially acceptable, even laudable? WTF.

As I've mentioned above, beyond normalizing this behavior is the sneaky side effects it has on the unemployed recipient...backward incentives, dependencies via erosion of self reliance.

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

#555

Post by generalpass »

redisman wrote: post #439
robszumski wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VCs, possibly. The larger tech companies are selling 1 and 3 year deals for software, which will see some impact, but largely distance them from the deep V because of the length of the terms.

Sure, but what if you sold your 3 year deal to an airline that is now effectively stuck in bankruptcy for the next 10 years. Or any of the 100 other industries/sub-industries that are completely shut down right now. If I can't afford to pay rent on my office I sure as heck am not paying Microsoft either.

> Sure, but what if you sold your 3 year deal to an airline that is now effectively stuck in bankruptcy for the next 10 years. Or any of the 100 other industries/sub-industries that are completely shut down right now. If I can't afford to pay rent on my office I sure as heck am not paying Microsoft either.

I'm not clear such contracts make it through bankruptcy court.

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

#556

Post by newyankee »

generalpass wrote: post #550
TeMPOraL wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners. Of course nations are competitors. International trade is an unregulated market, every nation competes economically with each other and tries to extract maximally favorable deal for themselves; when negotiations get heated, they get backed up by military strength, and the only reason we don't go to war often is a combination of sanity and MADness.

> > Nations are not competitors. They are trade partners. > Of course nations are competitors. International trade is an unregulated market, every nation competes economically with each other and tries to extract maximally favorable deal for themselves; when negotiations get heated, they get backed up by military strength, and the only reason we don't go to war often is a combination of sanity and MADness. What does…

US got favorable deals in many countries using its military might, i guess that is what the comment is implying.

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

#557

Post by MiroF »

Izkata wrote: post #544
MiroF wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm - 10 as of a few weeks or so ago, I doubt we will see any more and certainly not 2-3x more. That 10/800 = 1.2% and the cruise ship skewed older. 100 people entirely unaccounted for would only impact spread rates, not CFR, unless the unaccounted people are more likely to have died than those from the ship writ large. I don't see where people are getting 5% from. 1% is already 10x worse or so than the flu, I don't s…

There was an 11th death Apr 1, and 113 of the 712 are still active, not recovered. Didn't find from a quick search how critical or mild they are, but it is concerning that it's been this long...

That doesn't appear to be entirely correct - from my research, it appears to actually have been about 12 deaths (the last on March 28th from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_10599.html) but there appear to be multiple sources on this.

Regardless, I'll admit that I was wrong - there are still people dying. Regardless, we'd have to get about 3-4x the number of deaths we've had so far to reach 5% - and from the sources I can find most of those remaining cases are non-critical (though there could be even a doubling).

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

#558

Post by ta999999171 »

malandrew wrote: post #422
jiofih wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US economy looks more like a pyramid scheme than ever.

The virtuous cycle provided by a functioning market is not a pyramid scheme. Not even close. Pyramid schemes transfer wealth from the bottom to the top while creating no new additional wealth . America is creating tons of additional wealth and how much each gets from that wealth is proportional to one's leverage and one's leverage is generally proportional to how much one is able to contribute to wealth generation (i…

Not a substantive comment, but: ahahahaha

Are you one of the people who doesn't know what a gallon of milk costs? Trying to figure out how else you could have come to this conclusion.

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

#559

Post by heavenlyblue »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #182
commandlinefan wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically that's not an either/or, you know.

For now, I'm hoping it's an xor.

Right, either shoot people or animals. Shooting both groups may be a recipe for total loneliness.

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

#560

Post by withinboredom »

_curious_ wrote: post #551
withinboredom wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should scale out at about 1 week per year of work, no matter how much you make. $70k per year is how much you need to max out unemployment in S.C., where I used to live. If you make less than that, you'll have less per week, if you make more than that, you're pretty royally screwed.

Ok say that is true...do you know: 1. Are unemployment employment benefits only extended to those who have already themselves paid a certain amount in UI taxes AND that amount is the extent of the benefits available to them? 2. If the answer above is no - do you know what % of end up receiving more money in unemployment benefits than they have 'pre-paid' or will 'reimburse' thus a net cost to the system over the cour…

1. Sort-of-but-not-really. Usually, you have to work a certain number of months or weeks at the place you get laid off, before you are eligible. However, there's not a "lifetime minimum." If you get fired for doing something "bad" (at-fault) then you may not be eligible at all.

2. Usually, there's a cap for how long you can be on unemployment. You can't be on it forever. You also have to provide proof that you're looking for a job. Some states require signatures from those companies, some just require a list of companies you've applied to and they do their own random validation.

3. Companies pay the unemployment insurance tax on your behalf, and if you're unemployed and don't file, you don't get to use your benefits.

4. 100% agree

Post reply on HN