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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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:
- If he did that (reported the employee to unemployment), that worker’s UI would be cut off
- That worker would then have a strong incentive to return to work
- He’d probably be pissed off to now have to work for less money than he’d make sitting at home
- A pissed-off employee could easily be a value-subtract for the business
- 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.
Yeah, where ever did we get that idea?
Oh, that’s where.
CMC fnord!
My point is that you are reading that hyperliterally, instead of figuratively as I’m sure it was intended.
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.”
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.
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 don’t believe your list applies to the $600 Federal money.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You don’t get the $600 in Federal unemployment money if you aren’t eligible for unemployment.
CMC fnord!
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.
Not sure what you mean by that, but it’s already permanently carved on “F is for Fuckup.”
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.
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.
Really? I thought the point was how one can get themselves disqualified from receiving unemployment. Anything else was just added WTFery.
CMC fnord!