Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-12-2020, 04:50 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,563

House Democrats push for $3 trillion HEROES Act (additional stimulus/relief bill)


House Democrats are pushing for an even larger coronavirus relief bill than the initial CARES Act, totaling roughly $3 trillion. This would include additional stimulus checks ($1,200 again, like last time,) extend the unemployment+$600/week through January 2021 (it is slated to end in July as of now,) and also sends a lot more money to the states.

As of now, however, it is not likely to pass the Republican-controlled Senate, however, even though President Trump has indicated his support for additional stimulus checks.
  #2  
Old 05-12-2020, 05:48 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,767
A big issue seems to be support for the states, which have gone from surpluses to deficits because of the virus - both the additional spending and reduced revenue in sales taxes. It seems Republicans think only blue states have problems, but I have a hard time believing red states are in that much better shape, let alone purple states.
In 2009 states had to cut their budgets and lay off a lot of people, and that hurt the recovery. We might be making the same mistake again.
  #3  
Old 05-12-2020, 08:33 PM
Caldazar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 899
Here in Ohio, we're definitely having state budget issues. Governor DeWine announced in one of the daily press conferences that he intended to cut budgets to deal with the shortfalls. This is so that he can hold the rainy day fund in reserve to deal with any emergency issues that may arise in future months.
  #4  
Old 05-12-2020, 08:38 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,453
$2 trillion here, $3 trillion there. Pretty soon we'll be talking some real money.
  #5  
Old 05-12-2020, 08:45 PM
Alpha Twit's Avatar
Alpha Twit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Somewhere south of normal
Posts: 2,719
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about stimulus checks issued directly to citizens. Other forms of assistance like housing, medical and nutrition aid, support for small businesses, extensions on unemployment payment all make fine sense to me. Just giving every Jane and John Q Citizen, including the gainfully employed, a lump sum payment and saying "Spend wisely." just seems wrong. I'm not sure how or even if any kind of means testing should be applied to this stimulus money and I'm not trying to defend a position here. I'm just wondering if this is our best move.

If all else fails, if they give me another check, I can always donate it to the local food bank.
__________________
There's plenty few problems in this life that can't be helped by a good day's work, a good night's sleep and a few swift kicks in the right asses.
  #6  
Old 05-12-2020, 08:54 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,879
I know we're supposed to make this forum politics free, but I think this is political posturing by the democrats.

They know the bill won't pass and will be blocked by republicans, so they can go out campaigning and say 'The GOP has money for wars and tax cuts for the rich, but not money to help you or your local government weather a viral pandemic'.

Its no different than in 2006 when the democrats in the California state house and state senate passed 'single payer healthcare' just to have it vetoed by Gov Schwarzenegger. They knew it would never pass, they just wanted to run on it as a political attack ad (FWIW, once the democrats in the CA legislature had a democratic governor in California, they stopped passing single payer bills).

Having said that, I'm not sure what investments have the best bang for their buck. Seems like restructuring mortgages to provide delays on payments, but adding a year on the end of mortgages would be a good idea.

Another round of $1200 checks, I mean would that help or will people more save that money rather than spend it? Seems like investing in infrastructure, food stamps, etc would create more jobs than a $1200 stimulus.

Also when will we be paying all this money back? It took 50 years to pay back the money we borrowed for WW2.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-12-2020 at 08:59 PM.
  #7  
Old 05-12-2020, 09:10 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha Twit View Post
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about stimulus checks issued directly to citizens. Other forms of assistance like housing, medical and nutrition aid, support for small businesses, extensions on unemployment payment all make fine sense to me. Just giving every Jane and John Q Citizen, including the gainfully employed, a lump sum payment and saying "Spend wisely." just seems wrong. I'm not sure how or even if any kind of means testing should be applied to this stimulus money and I'm not trying to defend a position here. I'm just wondering if this is our best move.

If all else fails, if they give me another check, I can always donate it to the local food bank.
Especially now that things are starting to open back up, I think we need to take a wait and see approach. Will the virus come back with a vengeance? Will the economy start to come back? How quickly?

A big problem is that we have that $600 per week unemployment until July 31 which will make people who have been laid off not want to come back to work. Not that I blame them. I would certainly rather make more for staying home than take a pay cut by going back to work; this seems like something that was very shortsighted by our lawmakers in their haste to pass the first stimulus. This proposal adds to the problem.
  #8  
Old 05-12-2020, 10:38 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
A big problem is that we have that $600 per week unemployment
I believe it was even more lavish than that - it's normal (pre-pandemic) unemployment plus an additional $600 per week. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
  #9  
Old 05-12-2020, 10:53 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I believe it was even more lavish than that - it's normal (pre-pandemic) unemployment plus an additional $600 per week. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Not that I'm complaining, but you'd have to earn $25-30/hr full time to make what you are making with UI now.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #10  
Old 05-12-2020, 11:14 PM
Caldazar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 899
That's correct, CARES is $600 on top of your normal unemployment benefits from your state.

Something that needs to be kept in mind here; the relief needs to be implemented quickly. "Just give everyone a check" is simple. Implementing more complex supports cost time, which is not necessarily a luxury available. People need to buy food and pay their now-overdue rents today, not in a month. A consequence of speed and crude plans is that dollars wind up going to folks who probably shouldn't get dollars.

I'm personally fine with it, although it probably won't pass. I'm not comfortable with the level of testing currently. So if this can buy four more weeks of restrictions for the powers-that-be to get testing to the 3-4 million tests/week that Fauci claims is achievable, then good enough. Three million tests/week seems achievable in the next few weeks if the improvements in trend continue. Admittedly a big 'if'; my confidence in the current administration is not particularly high.

But sure, sign me up for increased taxes for the next decade.
  #11  
Old 05-13-2020, 12:42 AM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Not that I'm complaining, but you'd have to earn $25-30/hr full time to make what you are making with UI now.
Right, and that will kill any recovery. When the restaurants, the bars, the mom and pops, and the gyms finally open back up, who will work for them? This plan is insanity in that it pays people $50k-$60k/yr to do nothing. No place will be able to hire anyone for less than that.
  #12  
Old 05-13-2020, 06:42 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
{...} A big problem is that we have that $600 per week unemployment until July 31 which will make people who have been laid off not want to come back to work. Not that I blame them. I would certainly rather make more for staying home than take a pay cut by going back to work; this seems like something that was very shortsighted by our lawmakers in their haste to pass the first stimulus. This proposal adds to the problem.
If that was how unemployment worked, but it doesn't work that way so your concern is based on something that CAN NOT HAPPEN.

CMC fnord!
  #13  
Old 05-13-2020, 07:26 AM
What the .... ?!?! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 4,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
If that was how unemployment worked, but it doesn't work that way so your concern is based on something that CAN NOT HAPPEN.

CMC fnord!
Do educate us.
  #14  
Old 05-13-2020, 07:54 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?! View Post
Do educate us.
https://www.nj.gov/labor/forms_pdfs/ui/PR-94.pdf To remain eligible page 14
Quote:
3) Be available for work
You must be ready to start a job immediately, have transportation, and not have to stay home to care for children or other dependents.

4) Actively seek work
You must make an effort to secure employment for each week of benefits that you claim. Contacting at least 3 employers each week by phone, mail, Internet or in person is considered a reasonable effort.
You must be able to show proof that you are actively searching for work

5) Not refuse an offer of suitable work
What is an offer of suitable work?
People who receive UI benefits must accept any offer of suitable work. An offer of work is suitable if it is reasonably similar to your previous work experience in location, type of work, and pay, including benefits.
The longer you remain unemployed, the more willing you must be to expand your work search. You may need to consider offers outside of your normal trade or occupation and to accept work at a lower pay rate in order to remain eligible for benefits.
CMC fnord!
  #15  
Old 05-13-2020, 08:05 AM
Caldazar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 899
You only get unemployment if you:

1. Are terminated from your job through no fault of your own
2. Make yourself available to work
3. Actually attempt to look for work, but fail to secure work

#2 and #3, you can B.S. your way through to varying degrees. #1, you cannot easily fake; if you are furloughed and your employer opens back up, then if you choose not to return you haven't been laid off; you have quit. Now, if you've actually been laid off and you genuinely have no expectation that your previous employer will start asking you to come into work and paying you again, then that's a different situation. Still, before choosing to ride out the enhanced UI benefits for as long as they last, you have to consider that when things open up, lots of people will be scrambling for a job again. If you pass up the opportunity to secure work while you have the safety net in place, you run the risk that when the enhanced UI runs out, you may be totally screwed.

Last edited by Caldazar; 05-13-2020 at 08:08 AM.
  #16  
Old 05-13-2020, 08:49 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I know we're supposed to make this forum politics free, but I think this is political posturing by the democrats.

They know the bill won't pass and will be blocked by republicans, so they can go out campaigning and say 'The GOP has money for wars and tax cuts for the rich, but not money to help you or your local government weather a viral pandemic'.

Its no different than in 2006 when the democrats in the California state house and state senate passed 'single payer healthcare' just to have it vetoed by Gov Schwarzenegger. They knew it would never pass, they just wanted to run on it as a political attack ad (FWIW, once the democrats in the CA legislature had a democratic governor in California, they stopped passing single payer bills).

Having said that, I'm not sure what investments have the best bang for their buck. Seems like restructuring mortgages to provide delays on payments, but adding a year on the end of mortgages would be a good idea.

Another round of $1200 checks, I mean would that help or will people more save that money rather than spend it? Seems like investing in infrastructure, food stamps, etc would create more jobs than a $1200 stimulus.

Also when will we be paying all this money back? It took 50 years to pay back the money we borrowed for WW2.
I have to disagree with this as being political and solely done because they know the GOP will not vote for it, and thus it will get dropped. I think that what a lot of people are missing is the very real chance we are teetering on a vicious cycle of deflation. People haven't been spending money during this crisis in the same ways they were before. The reality is, they can't. Even after things start opening back up (assuming we don't get a bounce back as is happening in other countries), people aren't going to start spending the same way at the same rates they were. And that's going to create a vicious cycle, where demand for many things is too low to support the ability of many businesses to continue to produce the goods or services in question.

A direct stimulus actually makes a lot of sense at this point, as did the previous stimulus aimed mainly at US businesses. This is when we probably need to do massive stimulus packages (while, in the good times is when we need to increase taxes, increase interest rates and prepare for stuff like what's happening now). I'm not sure if this particular stimulus offered by the Democrats is the right thing (there are a lot of strings attached that I don't agree with, as there were on the first one of these things), but SOME sort of stimulus is certainly going to be needed in the next month or so to keep the economy from cratering further and also to keep the people going. Right now, our system is really showing how much of a house of cards everything is, and we are one more blow away from free fall.

Anyway, JMHO and all that.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #17  
Old 05-13-2020, 10:15 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
House Democrats are pushing for an even larger coronavirus relief bill than the initial CARES Act, totaling roughly $3 trillion. This would include additional stimulus checks ($1,200 again, like last time,) extend the unemployment+$600/week through January 2021 (it is slated to end in July as of now,) and also sends a lot more money to the states.

As of now, however, it is not likely to pass the Republican-controlled Senate, however, even though President Trump has indicated his support for additional stimulus checks.
I'd amend that to " it is not likely to pass be ignored by the Republican-controlled Senate."

McConnell got everything he wanted in the earlier bills; Pelosi had leverage then but has none now. Why should Mitch give this bill the time of day?

(In response to XT's post, which I largely agree with, I don't think the Dems are doing this for show. I think they mean well, and they certainly put the time and effort into this bill that suggests that they mean this as a serious piece of legislation, rather than a bill for PR's sake.

But all too often, when I see what the Dems are or aren't doing, Casey Stengel's "Can't anybody here play this game?" plaint comes to mind.)
  #18  
Old 05-13-2020, 10:24 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I'd amend that to " it is not likely to pass be ignored by the Republican-controlled Senate."

McConnell got everything he wanted in the earlier bills; Pelosi had leverage then but has none now. Why should Mitch give this bill the time of day?

(In response to XT's post, which I largely agree with, I don't think the Dems are doing this for show. I think they mean well, and they certainly put the time and effort into this bill that suggests that they mean this as a serious piece of legislation, rather than a bill for PR's sake.

But all too often, when I see what the Dems are or aren't doing, Casey Stengel's "Can't anybody here play this game?" plaint comes to mind.)
In a presidential election year the head of the senate is not going to ignore the will of his incumbent presidential candidate. Trump wants his name on another letter. This will pass but certainly not in its current form.
  #19  
Old 05-13-2020, 10:25 AM
Eva Luna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 11,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Not that I'm complaining, but you'd have to earn $25-30/hr full time to make what you are making with UI now.
There's another big difference between getting $25- 30 an hour from UI vs. from working. If you normally go health insurance through your job, but now you have to pay for it out of pocket, that's going to take a giant chunk out of your budget. I am not working right now (not because of COVID reasons), and it cost almost $700/month to add me as a spouse to Tom Scud's employer-based health insurance (they don't subsidize dependents). It would have cost more than double that if, say, we had kids and he were laid off and we had to cover everyone via COBRA.
  #20  
Old 05-13-2020, 10:39 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 45,610
Since this involves politics, let's move it to Politics and Elections.

Colibri
Quarantine Zone Moderator
  #21  
Old 05-13-2020, 10:46 AM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Right, and that will kill any recovery. When the restaurants, the bars, the mom and pops, and the gyms finally open back up, who will work for them? This plan is insanity in that it pays people $50k-$60k/yr to do nothing. No place will be able to hire anyone for less than that.
I disagree, the extra $600 is only until the end of July. After that people go back to getting $200 a week.

Also the money will likely be spent which will increase the velocity of money and help the recovery.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #22  
Old 05-13-2020, 11:50 AM
JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Distanced
Posts: 16,476
And the base unemployment amount, and the "breakeven" point for UI vs. salaries, varies from state to state. But yeah, there seems to be this persistent notion that people can just choose to refuse to return to work from furlough and keep collecting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caldazar View Post
Something that needs to be kept in mind here; the relief needs to be implemented quickly. "Just give everyone a check" is simple. Implementing more complex supports cost time, which is not necessarily a luxury available. People need to buy food and pay their now-overdue rents today, not in a month. A consequence of speed and crude plans is that dollars wind up going to folks who probably shouldn't get dollars.
And it's even that way, and a month and a half later a whole bunch of states are still struggling with unemployment claims systems that were not designed to ramp up this fast. The flat 1,200 wasn't completely smooth sailing either, especially for those not filing federal taxes.
  #23  
Old 05-13-2020, 12:10 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
If that was how unemployment worked, but it doesn't work that way so your concern is based on something that CAN NOT HAPPEN.

CMC fnord!
Sure, it never happens that way. So a guy that I'm paying $33k/yr who wants to turn me down, I get to report him to unemployment and force him to come back and work for me. He'll be a wonderful employee.

Or do I just decide to let it go because I don't want someone sabotaging my business?
  #24  
Old 05-13-2020, 12:19 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Sure, it never happens that way. So a guy that I'm paying $33k/yr who wants to turn me down, I get to report him to unemployment and force him to come back and work for me. He'll be a wonderful employee.

Or do I just decide to let it go because I don't want someone sabotaging my business?
I'd like to see some citation that after reporting him to unemployment you actually get to force him to come back and work for you.

BTW Nice deflection to new subject!

CMC fnord!
  #25  
Old 05-13-2020, 12:19 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,932
If we don't stop the virus, people will stay at home for months and months, regardless of state and local government instructions. That will kill the economy for a year or more. Seems like some deficit spending to help motivate people to stay at home rather than go out and work might help save money and lives in the long run.
  #26  
Old 05-13-2020, 12:20 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 29,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Sure, it never happens that way. So a guy that I'm paying $33k/yr who wants to turn me down, I get to report him to unemployment and force him to come back and work for me. He'll be a wonderful employee.

Or do I just decide to let it go because I don't want someone sabotaging my business?
Regarding the part I bolded: you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. At all. Where do you live, that you think that's even something that could happen?
  #27  
Old 05-13-2020, 01:42 PM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Regarding the part I bolded: you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. At all. Where do you live, that you think that's even something that could happen?
I'm not sure why everyone is beating up on UltraVires here. I don't think he's saying that after reporting an employee as having quit (and no longer on furlough) that anyone is going to literally force that employee to return to work. I think what he is saying is:

1) If he did that (reported the employee to unemployment), that worker's UI would be cut off
2) That worker would then have a strong incentive to return to work
3) He'd probably be pissed off to now have to work for less money than he'd make sitting at home
4) A pissed-off employee could easily be a value-subtract for the business
5) Given that, it's probably easiest to just not report the employee in the first place

The chain of logic makes sense, and I've seen some anecdotal reports that's happening. The only part that I'm not buying, and I'm not even sure if he's saying this, but some are, is that this is terrible for the economy, and therefore the whole supplemental UI portion of the CARES act is ill-conceived.
  #28  
Old 05-13-2020, 03:31 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
I'm not sure why everyone is beating up on UltraVires here. I don't think he's saying that after reporting an employee as having quit (and no longer on furlough) that anyone is going to literally force that employee to return to work. {...}.
Yeah, where ever did we get that idea?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
{...} So a guy that I'm paying $33k/yr who wants to turn me down, I get to report him to unemployment and force him to come back and work for me. {...}
Oh, that's where.

CMC fnord!
  #29  
Old 05-13-2020, 03:54 PM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,440
My point is that you are reading that hyperliterally, instead of figuratively as I'm sure it was intended.
  #30  
Old 05-13-2020, 04:07 PM
Caldazar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
I think what he is saying is:

1) If he did that (reported the employee to unemployment), that worker's UI would be cut off
2) That worker would then have a strong incentive to return to work
3) He'd probably be pissed off to now have to work for less money than he'd make sitting at home
4) A pissed-off employee could easily be a value-subtract for the business
5) Given that, it's probably easiest to just not report the employee in the first place
I'm not going to try to guess at the core intentions of someone else; I'd rather just wait for said person to respond directly. But #5 is not really a good option because a business' UI tax rate is tied to the number of employees that business has laid off recently. You don't want your former employees collecting unemployment when they aren't entitled to it.

Assuming this is what is meant, though, how is this fundamentally different than dealing with an employee who is upset because he thinks he deserves to be paid more? If the issue is along the lines of "Hey, why am I accepting $16 / hr when I could be getting $23 / hr (effective) instead? I want $23 /hr!", isn't that every boss' headache to some degree at various points?

If the issue is "Hey, why am I working for my money, when I could temporarily freeload and get more to boot", then is that a worker you actually want at your place of business to begin with? Do you really think such a worker is outputting satisfactory performance if the worker's attitude is so short-term/transactional, i.e. "I want to get as much as possible tomorrow while doing as little as I can possibly get away with, to hell with what happens in August"? There's a decent chance such a worker is already a value-loss, pandemic or no pandemic.

Such workers exist; I've seen some posted stories on here highlighting such workers. But my contention is that such persons make up a small minority of the workforce, that they'd have to be a small minority or else there's be no business stability as workers were constantly hired and fired for poor performance. So to the degree "I'd rather freeload off of UI than work" exists as a problem, in my view it's a rather minor problem. And less of a problem than masses of people saying "I can't afford to eat today."
  #31  
Old 05-13-2020, 04:15 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,302
We can't just focus on what we're going to do in the interim to deal with COVID-19; there is now a 50-50 chance of a depression. Yes, I said that. Not a recession (we're already there), not just a u-shaped recession, not just a deep recession, but a depression. The jobs data is already there. The economic damage to local and municipal governments is probably going to end up being unprecedented (they can't just print their own money). We're borrowing big, big, bigly against the future, which imperils the long-term viability of medicare and social security (Medicaid will probably go first).

Now is the time to think of fundamentally shifting the economic and political paradigm. The solution isn't really 'sexy' or extraordinary, but the most effective step one is taxing the shit out of the rich. That will require an election, but more importantly it'll require a campaign on that issue. Joe Biden needs to plan to run a soak the rich campaign. I somehow doubt he will, but he needs to and I won't mind it a bit if Bernie Bros, Justice Democrats, and the hard left really start needling him on this.
  #32  
Old 05-13-2020, 04:27 PM
Bill Door is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,309
So like when I go to Delta Airlines and offer them $400 for a cross country flight, and they say no, because they've already got their end of the $25 billion bailout, I can go to Congress and report them? Or is it just busboys and waitresses that lose their subsidy for not performing? At a certain point shouldn't you realize that if people can make more money not working than by working for you that you're just a shitty employer? Talk about your lack of self-awareness.
  #33  
Old 05-13-2020, 04:32 PM
What the .... ?!?! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 4,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
https://www.nj.gov/labor/forms_pdfs/ui/PR-94.pdf To remain eligible page 14CMC fnord!
I don't believe your list applies to the $600 Federal money.
  #34  
Old 05-13-2020, 04:47 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,774
How much money can the government give away? At some point, eventually, there has to come a limit. How close are we to that limit? Does anyone even know?

We should definitely make sure we're still able to send out checks after things start opening back up again, when it'll be possible for the money to act as a stimulus. Right now, I know that it's being called a "stimulus", but there's nothing to stimulate.
  #35  
Old 05-13-2020, 04:53 PM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caldazar View Post
I'm not going to try to guess at the core intentions of someone else; I'd rather just wait for said person to respond directly.
That's reasonable. I think I only made a couple of minor inferences in addition to his actual words in this thread, but debating what an actual 3rd-party, active poster meant isn't a good use of anyone's time.

Quote:
But #5 is not really a good option because a business' UI tax rate is tied to the number of employees that business has laid off recently. You don't want your former employees collecting unemployment when they aren't entitled to it.
That's a good point, and I don't have a great sense of how this works at a quantitative level. How much more does it cost me, and when?

Quote:
Assuming this is what is meant, though, how is this fundamentally different than dealing with an employee who is upset because he thinks he deserves to be paid more? If the issue is along the lines of "Hey, why am I accepting $16 / hr when I could be getting $23 / hr (effective) instead? I want $23 /hr!", isn't that every boss' headache to some degree at various points?
Sure. But people are irrational, and taking away something they already have (more money for no work) is going to play less well than simply not giving them something they never had but might believe they deserve.

Quote:
If the issue is "Hey, why am I working for my money, when I could temporarily freeload and get more to boot", then is that a worker you actually want at your place of business to begin with? Do you really think such a worker is outputting satisfactory performance if the worker's attitude is so short-term/transactional, i.e. "I want to get as much as possible tomorrow while doing as little as I can possibly get away with, to hell with what happens in August"? There's a decent chance such a worker is already a value-loss, pandemic or no pandemic.
Well, if you need employees that you're paying somewhere in the $15-$25 / hr range, I think you're in that boat whether you know it or not. The vast majority of your employees are going to prefer to make more and have all their time free than make less and have no time free. That's not a knock on those people - I'd feel the same.
  #36  
Old 05-13-2020, 04:57 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?! View Post
I don't believe your list applies to the $600 Federal money.
You don't get the $600 in Federal unemployment money if you aren't eligible for unemployment.

CMC fnord!
  #37  
Old 05-13-2020, 08:29 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
In a presidential election year the head of the senate is not going to ignore the will of his incumbent presidential candidate.
If Trump's will was the sort of thing you could depend on from minute to minute, you might have a point. It's not.

For instance, it took Trump about two weeks to go from "lockdowns are unnecessary because the coronavirus will go away on its own" to "I'm a war President and lockdowns are essential" to "Lockdowns are bad, we need to open up the country."

Mitch will do what he wants to do, unless something else is not just a priority for Trump, but is clearly going to remain so on a continuing basis. Otherwise, Mitch will just wait for...SQUIRREL!...and Trump will have forgotten all about it.
Quote:
Trump wants his name on another letter.
Not sure what you mean by that, but it's already permanently carved on "F is for Fuckup."

Last edited by RTFirefly; 05-13-2020 at 08:30 PM.
  #38  
Old 05-13-2020, 08:30 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
My point is that you are reading that hyperliterally, instead of figuratively as I'm sure it was intended.
Yes, thank you. I'm not sure why anyone would think that I believe that the government can use force of arms to work for me. It's a cheap argument to try to win a point. Your statement is absolutely correct.
  #39  
Old 05-13-2020, 08:46 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door View Post
So like when I go to Delta Airlines and offer them $400 for a cross country flight, and they say no, because they've already got their end of the $25 billion bailout, I can go to Congress and report them? Or is it just busboys and waitresses that lose their subsidy for not performing? At a certain point shouldn't you realize that if people can make more money not working than by working for you that you're just a shitty employer? Talk about your lack of self-awareness.
I'm a shitty employer because I cannot afford an effective minimum wage of $50k-$60k per year? And when that is required, you don't understand why Delta charges you $400 for a cross country flight?

Again, I'm not blaming the employee, I'm blaming the government for creating a situation where it is financially the better choice to remain unemployed. It's a recipe for disaster for the economy and the Dems want to extend that to January.
  #40  
Old 05-13-2020, 08:48 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
{...} It's a cheap argument to try to win a point. {...}
Really? I thought the point was how one can get themselves disqualified from receiving unemployment. Anything else was just added WTFery.

CMC fnord!
  #41  
Old 05-13-2020, 09:05 PM
Alley Dweller's Avatar
Alley Dweller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Quote:
Trump wants his name on another letter.
Not sure what you mean by that, but it's already permanently carved on "F is for Fuckup."
This refers to the letter that the law required to be sent to each recipient of a payment. Trump put his name on the letter, making it sound like he was responsible for the payment.
  #42  
Old 05-13-2020, 09:06 PM
Bill Door is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm a shitty employer because I cannot afford an effective minimum wage of $50k-$60k per year? And when that is required, you don't understand why Delta charges you $400 for a cross country flight?

Again, I'm not blaming the employee, I'm blaming the government for creating a situation where it is financially the better choice to remain unemployed. It's a recipe for disaster for the economy and the Dems want to extend that to January.
Yet you don't seem worried that the billions we gave the airlines will somehow induce those layabouts in the corporate offices to quit flying and remain on the dole. It sure sounds like you're blaming the employee. And yes, if you're dependent on a never ending supply of poverty stricken applicants who have little choice other than working for your crappy wages or dying of starvation to induce people to work for you I feel like I'm not going out on a limb to call you a shitty employer.
  #43  
Old 05-13-2020, 09:30 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 708
Stimulus money needs to be tied to allowing "nonessential" businesses to reopen with some controls. Where will the money be spent?
If too many businesses fail, those jobs will be gone.
  #44  
Old 05-13-2020, 09:49 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door View Post
Yet you don't seem worried that the billions we gave the airlines will somehow induce those layabouts in the corporate offices to quit flying and remain on the dole. It sure sounds like you're blaming the employee. And yes, if you're dependent on a never ending supply of poverty stricken applicants who have little choice other than working for your crappy wages or dying of starvation to induce people to work for you I feel like I'm not going out on a limb to call you a shitty employer.
Unless you support a minimum wage of $50k to $60k per year, you might as well make that claim about every employer.

The first part is respectfully so off the wall that I don't even know where to start. Delta is a company that needs to remain an ongoing concern. An employee can bail when the going gets rough and work for someone else.

If my business goes bankrupt, I go bankrupt. My employees can give me a handshake or a hug (well, they used to be able to do that) but their credit or their reputation is not on the line.

Contrast that with the airlines. Would you as a consumer like to have zero options for air travel until the creditors pick up the pieces and a new airline starts up? It is essential for the national economy that they stay in business, yet on one hand you want the janitor who cleans the TV screen at check-in to make $50k to $60k year and still complain that you have to pay more than $400 for that same company to get you across the entire country and back in the middle of a pandemic.

The hatred of capitalism and free markets is just astonishing. Bernie "only" wanted a $15/hr minimum wage. This stimulus has almost doubled that yet businesses are "shitty," particularly mine, because that is not a wage we can pay without massively raising prices?

Further, it would be bad enough if that was the minimum wage, but it is more. If you are making $50k to $60k to sit at home, taking care of the kids, doing projects around the house, reading, etc., how much extra money do you need to start putting on work clothes, putting gas in your vehicle, listening to me bitch, etc. I would guess that it would probably take around $70k to $80k to get an employee back to work. That's simply unsustainable without massive price increases.

If we were talking these numbers six months ago, I would bet that even on this leftist board, there would be unanimous agreement that this type of thinking has lost the plot. But not now.
  #45  
Old 05-14-2020, 12:19 AM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
We can't just focus on what we're going to do in the interim to deal with COVID-19; there is now a 50-50 chance of a depression. Yes, I said that. Not a recession (we're already there), not just a u-shaped recession, not just a deep recession, but a depression. The jobs data is already there. The economic damage to local and municipal governments is probably going to end up being unprecedented (they can't just print their own money). We're borrowing big, big, bigly against the future, which imperils the long-term viability of medicare and social security (Medicaid will probably go first).
Curious here. A depression doesn't have a generally accepted, rigorous definition. It's usually just thought of as an unusually deep and long recession. So what metric would you predict we'd see that is more than a recession, but that you actually believe will happen? 18% unemployment on 7/1/21? Full-year GDP reduction of 15% Something else?

My prediction, FWIW, is that we'll see a recession that is shaped roughly like an reversed radical symbol (√). This is not the 'Nike Swoosh' shape everyone talks about, which would imply roughly linear growth from the bottom, but with a shallower slope than the decline. What I think we'll see is a fairly rapid bounce back, probably in the latter half of this year, but only to a point. We won't get back to where we were in January. We'll bounce back, both in terms of GDP and employment somewhere between 40-60% of the way, and then very shallow, possibly intermittent growth, unless we see significant fiscal stimulus. I'd say 12% unemployment in December 2020, and then it doesn't get much worse again from there.
  #46  
Old 05-14-2020, 02:03 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Delaware, USA
Posts: 2,982
I am horde-buying all the Monopoly games in the area, in anticipation that the government will make monopoly money legal tender. Their printing presses just can't keep up.
  #47  
Old 05-14-2020, 05:12 AM
pullin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: N Texas
Posts: 3,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
How much money can the government give away? At some point, eventually, there has to come a limit. How close are we to that limit? Does anyone even know?
After the CARES act, then the HEROES act, I'm guessing we'll stop when we run out of clever acronyms.
  #48  
Old 05-14-2020, 06:18 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
In a presidential election year the head of the senate is not going to ignore the will of his incumbent presidential candidate. Trump
...calls this bill "dead on arrival."

Now there's the strong signal from Trump that'll get Mitch to take this bill up right away!
  #49  
Old 05-14-2020, 06:22 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Contrast that with the airlines. Would you as a consumer like to have zero options for air travel until the creditors pick up the pieces and a new airline starts up? It is essential for the national economy that they stay in business
The answer to that one is easy. If we're gonna pay about as much money as the airlines are worth to keep them going, then the answer is, just nationalize them until the crisis is over, then sell them back to the private sector.
  #50  
Old 05-14-2020, 07:17 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
Curious here. A depression doesn't have a generally accepted, rigorous definition. It's usually just thought of as an unusually deep and long recession. So what metric would you predict we'd see that is more than a recession, but that you actually believe will happen? 18% unemployment on 7/1/21? Full-year GDP reduction of 15% Something else?
You're correct - there's no standard definition. More like "We know it when we see it." I don't have a specific set of metrics in mind, except to say that we're getting closer to a point where a recovery would be much longer and more complicated than that of even a severe recession such as what we dealt with in 2007-9.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
My prediction, FWIW, is that we'll see a recession that is shaped roughly like an reversed radical symbol (√). This is not the 'Nike Swoosh' shape everyone talks about, which would imply roughly linear growth from the bottom, but with a shallower slope than the decline. What I think we'll see is a fairly rapid bounce back, probably in the latter half of this year, but only to a point. We won't get back to where we were in January. We'll bounce back, both in terms of GDP and employment somewhere between 40-60% of the way, and then very shallow, possibly intermittent growth, unless we see significant fiscal stimulus. I'd say 12% unemployment in December 2020, and then it doesn't get much worse again from there.
As was the case in 2008-9, the recovery will depend on the breadth and range of tools that we have in our toolkit, but more so on the competence and skill of people using them. It's the latter that I'm concerned about here.

Keep in mind, were we already at the economic nadir now (and I absolutely reject that idea), some small percentage of small businesses would be lost. State and municipal governments would be faced with massive cuts in revenue and jobs (governments are a major employer everywhere). As of now, 2/3 of consumers aren't itching to be near one another. So even if today, Paul Krugman, Larry Kudlow, and Jay Powell all somehow got in the same room and proclaimed the worst is now behind us, we'd still be dealing with a curve that looks a little more like a U than a V - at least for the next 3 to 6 months.

Unfortunately, I don't think we're anywhere near close to being done with the health crisis, and I don't think the first wave of economic shock is nearly done. I remember that with the stock selloffs and investment banking crashes, it took several months before the job losses started gaining momentum - and IIRC the trend didn't begin to reverse itself until early spring of 2009. And that was thanks to a government response that, actually beginning with Bush and Hank Pauslon and continuing with Obama and Geithner, did its job effectively by remaining focused on getting cash into the economy.

So far, say what one will about the state of partisanship and Trump, the response to date has followed a similar blueprint and arguably succeeded in the short-term, but the magnitude of this problem is far greater and much more complex. We will need more focus, and we will need focus not only on putting cash into people's hands but also focus on the original problem itself, which is the public health response to the pandemic. We will also need the federal government to support states and local governments so that they can retain staff and rehire the ones who lost jobs. I question how long the bipartisanship will hold up and whether it will remain in place long enough to deal with this massive public health and economic problem we have. And I worry more and more about the competence of the administration and the desire of the Republican party to ignore their failures. It's not an encouraging sign.

If things go better than expected, I agree that we're looking at a check mark recovery. But if Trump and the GOP continue to cover their eyes and ears, this can easily deteriorate from being a short-term recession that lasts until late fall or early winter and become a 2 to 5-year (or longer) depression. By that, I mean persistent double digit unemployment nationwide, with some states and metro areas facing persistent unemployment between 15 and 25 percent. This current situation is almost certainly going to wipe out the marginal gains that were made at the bottom half of the socioeconomic spectrum since 2009, and it will exacerbate inequality - that's even if the economy trends up beginning today. That seems highly unlikely, which is why I think we're a lot closer to a tipping point than people realize. It'll be damn ugly if that happens, too.

Last edited by asahi; 05-14-2020 at 07:22 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017