Sometimes in the middle of the night a person can post things that are ill-concieved.
I want every American to have a decent living wage. There are always persons like the OP who are getting shafted. It’s just unfair what’s happening to him.
Then there are the people, like my daughter’s boyfriend who are coming out on top. Not because he worked harder but just by the chance his job was deemed unessential after his students left the country.
It’s a topsy-turvy world we live in.
He has no less money today than he had yesterday. He isn’t getting shafted and nothing unfair is happening to him. This whole OP is bemoaning the fact that absolutely nothing has happened to him. It’s naked jealousy around how the stimulus doesn’t help him the way it helps other people.
And of course those lucky ducks who have been getting $600 on top of unemployment won’t be getting that from now on. How much do you want to bet that they end up losing more money than him?
If you’re not voting for Biden, then you ARE effectively voting for Trump. Trump is not going to be looking out for your best interests, as should be obvious by now.
The breakeven annual wage under this policy can be as high as $60k, more than I made for most of my adult life, and hardly shitty. But then there are also states like FL and AZ, so YMMV.
For the millions of workers who are both essential and paid low wages, the high benefits may feel like an economic injustice. The best policy solution for that is not to withdraw relief from unemployed and quarantined workers, but rather to pay essential workers more. We could start with mandated hazard pay and consider longer-term solutions such as raising the minimum wage or making medical transport a reimbursable expense for Medicaid and Medicare.
HAVING FULL WAGE REPLACEMENT IS A LEGITIMATE POLICY GOAL IN A PANDEMIC
In a pandemic, the primary goal is to save lives by preventing the disease’s spread. Taking bold actions such as social distancing and lockdown orders require equally bold measures to stabilize the economy during that time—such as “unemployment insurance on steroids.” UI recipients are recycling the extra dollars into the economy as grocery and food purchases, rent and mortgage payments, consumer goods, and health care payments. This spending can stem a negative chain reaction throughout the economy, reducing the need for even more government intervention elsewhere. The country must pursue economic and safety goals in tandem to achieve a successful recovery; to frame them in opposition to each other presents a false dichotomy. Thus, the goal of expanded UI should be replacing a worker’s full wages.
On average, UI replaces 41% of previous earnings. The average hourly wage in the U.S. is $25.72. This means the average UI weekly benefit amount plus the additional $600 will get the average worker with a 40-hour work week to full wage replacement.
Additionally, state data systems cannot handle a more nuanced solution than a flat $600 increase. Policymakers were familiar enough with states’ administrative capacity to know that changing the formulas for calculating benefit levels so that every worker reached 100% wage replacement was impractical for states to administer the relief quickly enough. There is a high degree of variation across states in how benefits are calculated, and complex reprogramming would be required for states with antiquated UI data systems.
Moreover, even an additional $600 per week does not achieve full wage replacement in some high-cost cities. In 10 U.S. metropolitan regions, including the viral hotspot of New York City, the disconnect between wages and the cost of living is so extreme that even an extra $600 per week from PUA does not get a median-wage worker to full wage replacement. These 10 regions are home to more than 46 million people, or 14% of the U.S. population.
(Bolding added to paragraph beginning with “Additionally,…”)
I was dispelling the notion that someone who would receive more on unemployment under the current plan must be receiving a shitty wage. This has nothing to do with the capabilities of state UI systems, which have already been addressed.
Oh, sorry, I added that part when I saw it pertained to other points in the thread. You’re right, it had nothing to do with what you said. I should have separated it out. The rest was expanding on what you had written.
Ignoring the possible veracity of the last quote, the first two seem to indicate that for years, prolly decades, you’ve been voting for the party that has gutted union rights and worker protections, redistributed tax money from the middle and lower class to the wealthiest Americans, written laws that favor themselves at the expense of the majority of the population AND has been enabling the current administration.
And now you’re upset because some of the chronically underpaid, who are most likely to have no health insurance, no retirement plans and perhaps no permanent and/or secure housing are NOT being underfunded in a time of global emergency? And the key sticking point is that you aren’t one of the “lucky” ones?
Given that apparently the federal money is about to go poof, I think the OP can return to a halcyon state of knowing that the unemployed will be screwed.
The extra money has meant that landlords, on the whole, have been getting their rent money. Mortgage companies are getting their money. People aren’t being tossed out on the street. Spending has held up, which preserves jobs.
Without the money we could have gone to 20% unemployment. Including maybe the OP. Then he wouldn’t have to worry about gas.
Most of the wealth created recently has gone to the 1%, or 0.1%, not to people like the OP. He has been ripped off, but long before the pandemic started.
Just curious, how much would it cost for Wisconsin to expand its benefits program into a basic income? Such that everyone who makes less than $980 a week is eligible for $980 - $current_income per week?
How much would you have to lower the cap so that expanding benefits is budget neutral compared to what Wisconsin is spending now?
As stated, back in March this (and the $1,200 credit for lower and lower-middle taxpayers) was passed by the elected officials under the well established principle of “OMG DO something, ANYTHING!!!11!” while the people who actually know how things work kept reminding them the state unemployment systems were in no shape to handle a graduated wage-replacement system.
In any case, that benefit is ENDING today and nothing has been passed to replace it. I am rooting for the OP’s employer to continue open and paying them past today, tables having been turned. So they no longer have to work with the worry that there’s an unfairness in compensation between they who have a job and those who don’t know when they’ll get one back…
Fired for cause, mind you, as in the suggestion that was made (become a nuisance). If you’re let go w/o any explanation or because “we’ve made staffing adjustments” under “employment at will” you are eligible. We had a thread about that matter back when the program was still new, where someone wanted to get fired “at will” w/o explanation so they’d be eligible, and the employer was like, um… no, I do have work for you (if you quit of your own initiative you are also ineligible).
Well, no you don’t.
The last time I bothered to vote was over a decade ago when I finally realized they’re all in it for campaigns and reelection. Go ahead and find the last post from me touting anything.
In fact, I’ll say I respect Baldwin more than the -Rs because at least I got a stock response. Saying she’s concerned about me of course.
Whether I vote or not is moot anyway since it affects me either way. You’re missing my point that it doesn’t matter who’s in office. They care about rich donors. Republican or Democrat.
As far as giving up, that was kind of tongue in cheek. I’m voting this year finally, for everyone running against an incumbent. I’m only upset Sensenbrenner (R-WI) is retiring. No, I won’t be voting for Fitzgerald only because he’s supposed to be the replacement.
I swear to you all of Sanders ever gets on a ticket I can elect from he’s got my vote. Wouldn’t be any less insane than we have now, but at least it would be entertaining. Not fucking around. I’m ready to vote for Bernie.
20 years ago I thought George Carlin had just turned into an angry, raving lunatic. I get it now.
