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

#71

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

onei wrote: post #55

BurningFrog wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is actually very expensive for the taxpayers Uncle Sam has long since stopped paying for things with tax money. Any new expense is handled by borrowing or printing money.

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.

Firstly, it's only somewhat true; look at this graph https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0 and note that it's not zero indexed. The raw money supply has doubled .. with surprisingly little effect on prices and wages.

Secondly, people get confused between extension of credit and money printing. For that you want the separate measure "M2".

Thirdly, the real lesson of the hyperinflation crises of Germany, Zimbabwe, Argentina etc. is that you can't print oil, gold, or the foreign currency needed to buy them. Germany was paying a huge amount of reparations to France (which would be where the family silver ended up - 20 billion goldmarks was paid, which had to come from somewhere).

The United States is in a hugely privileged position. It has enough domestic oil and food production for its needs. The gold standard is no longer relevant. Inflation and interest rates remain low.

If you imagine a dial with a yellow warning at "8" and a warning redline at "9", the US is currently arguing over whether turning it from 1 to 2 is going to be the end of the world. The limit does exist, but it's a long way away.

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

#72

Post by dlp211 » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

onei wrote: post #55

BurningFrog wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is actually very expensive for the taxpayers Uncle Sam has long since stopped paying for things with tax money. Any new expense is handled by borrowing or printing money.

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.

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

#73

Post by dahfizz » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

repeek wrote: post #42

dahfizz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If all that money instead went to the people/taxpayers they would all have received an $18,000 stimulus check instead of $1,200, I think this would have been the best move possible. Everyone I know would choose their entire retirement fund over a one time check of $18,000 . I understand your sentiment, and it does feel like we got less that we deserve, but stimulating the stock market was absolutely the right move.…

> and a majority of Americans have a 401k Source? According to the 2017 US Census, only 32% are saving in a 401k. [1] [1] https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-...

Over 70% of workers have access to an employee retirement plan, and 56% of all workers participate in one[1]. So I did misremember the stats slightly. Its all workers instead of all Americans, and a generic "employer sponsored retirement plan" vs specifically a 401k, but my point still stands.

If we exclude children and people who are already retired, only 26% are without retirement savings[2]. The ability of these people to retire is linked to stock performance.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2019/ownership/civilian...

[2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2019-economic-we...

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

#74

Post by throwaway_USD » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 2:20 PM UTC

packetlost wrote: post #23

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?

Because bailouts (usually) make the government money in the long run. They're in the form of low-interest loans, they aren't just handing out money to corporations.

>They're in the form of low-interest loans, they aren't just handing out money to corporations.

This is false as related to the PPP loans ($700B program, to put that in perspective during the 2008 financial crisis law makers passed an $800B stimulus to prevent total financial collapse). Its argued the banks paid that 2008 money back with interest (I won't touch that claim), but the PPP loans ($700B) are intended to be forgiven.

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

#75

Post by adamsea » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 2:21 PM UTC

bradstewart wrote: post #46

hobs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think subsidizing the poor enough so our economy doesn't have to choose between immediately collapsing and killing the poor wouldn't save us an enormous set of costs?

I absolutely think we should do that. The problem is it's extremely hard to quantify that cost/gain, while its extremely easy to quantity the cost/gain of low-interest loans. Not to say its impossible, or that we shouldn't try--we should. But when you have a bunch of senators arguing, it's easier to point to the easy numbers.

Is it really that difficult to quantify or is it that the government doesnt want to do the work of quantifying it?

I think you said it yourself with your comment about senators arguing. The root cause is an overall lack of political will, not any technical or logistical impediments in modelling impact.

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

#76

Post by mitchdoogle » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 2:21 PM UTC

Nightshaxx wrote: post #38

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…

Republicans acctually did try to anticipate this problem with an amendment but Democrats pushed it through. [1] I don't know how long an amendment would delay the bill, but depending on the time period an argument could be made that this was intentional. Yes, if this was going to delay the bill a few weeks, it probably was just rejected to get it out, but if it would be a few days I think it would be reasonable to co…

If the Republicans had held up the bill, then Democrats would've pushed on less corporate bailouts. It's the same argument they always have.. who matters more, big business or individuals?

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

#77

Post by eggy » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 2:21 PM UTC

This is an example of how government trying to "work" the economy can upset the tenets of those who believe in a free market; you may choose to look at it with a different lens. The government does not create wealth, or anything for that matter, and in trying to do the apparent right thing to make things better (at least seek favor with their constituents) they wind up unbalancing the system, and IMHO, creating the opposite effect from the face value of the act.

Why rush to return to work when you can make more staying at home?

I'd be miffed if I were the person going back to work, while perfectly capable (not sick) coworkers sit at home.

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

#78

Post by colinmhayes » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 2:21 PM UTC

onei wrote: post #55

BurningFrog wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is actually very expensive for the taxpayers Uncle Sam has long since stopped paying for things with tax money. Any new expense is handled by borrowing or printing money.

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.

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.

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

#79

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 2:22 PM UTC

readingnews wrote: post #8

afpx wrote: post #3

If there was an actual shortage of workers, wages would be rising for the essential workers.

I may not be an economist, but I think this does not make sense. If there is a worker shortage, do all of the workers go to work and say "give me more money"? I would also contend there would be no reason for say, walmart to suddenly offer more money just because everyone has been ordered to stay home. If there is an _actual_ shortage, increasing pay does not just fabricate workers. I have relatives who are essential…

> in fact, their actual wages have fallen through the floor as they are working 12-16 hour days instead of 10-12 hour days (when they are supposed to work 8 hours a day), so their hourly wage (they do not get paid for all that time they are charting, after hours, at home) has dropped significantly.

In other words, wage theft has rampantly increased?

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

#80

Post by adamsea » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 2:22 PM UTC

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…

Those are all good points but I want to emphasize that the root issue is that US law basically allows companies to exploit workers and not pay them a living wage, and as we are seeing now this does tangible damage to our society as a whole.

[EDIT: I encourage downvoters to explain why they downvoted and point out what assertion I make about worker exploitation in the U.S. is not empirically verifiable.]